{"newspaper_name": "The Evansville journal.", "edition": "01", "page": "p3", "byline": ""}
{"character_count": 1173, "word_count": 199, "ccnet_language_score": [0.964900016784668], "ccnet_perplexity": [869.2000122070312], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
the company's operations. 1t is very Ger
tain that this was Mr.. McLane's view in The
negotiation of the treaty, and ii is equally
certain that he regarded the second article
of the treaty as conlerrng upon the Hudson
Bay company and upon British subjects trad
ing with them the privilege of the free nav
igation of the Columbia an pcrpetHity. His
letter accompanying the British proposition,
which, afterwards, without the alteration of
a word, became the treaty, places beyond all
doubt his own construction of the article re-
ferred to.


We are told that Mr.. Pakenham was ques-
toned as TO the meaning of this doubtful
clanse, and that he accepted the interpreta-
iion put upon it by Mr.. Benton and others.
The Secretary of State directs Mr.. McLane
to inform Lord Aberdeen of MIR. Paken-
hams acquiescence in the restrictive mean
ing of the clause; and thus the matter now
stands. 1t is possible that there may be
some mistake about Mr.. Pakenham's con-
firmation of the restrictive meaning, since it
was not officially given. AT all events, we
must hear from the British Government Off
calIy before the question can be relieved
from uncertainty. Baltimore American.