{"newspaper_name": "The Southern journal.", "edition": "01", "page": "p2", "byline": ""}
{"character_count": 3035, "word_count": 531, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9230999946594238], "ccnet_perplexity": [1514.0999755859375], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
r "a Q
ings Of their constituents 0. JEFF.
fersoniGn.


-~~--------->~-----


Ongon- Arbitration


Those who have been inclined to
think unfavorably Of the recent action
Of the Executive in rejecting arbitra-
ton as proposed by Mr.. Pakenham,
are earnestly desired to read the sub.
Joined remarks of the Nep York Eren.
ing Post. lfthe statements made by
the Pos! are correct-and of their ac.
curacy there can, we think, be no
doubt-who will say that the adjust
ment Of this question ought to De with
drawn from the control of the powers
most interested in the territory in dis
ute.-Jebersonian.


owe have repeatedly proposed TO
divide the country by the 49th paraI
lel-this offer, Eng gland, FOR thirty years
has steadily refused. Anything short
Of this line deprives US of every port
on the Paciic-gives US a territory
without d single harbor, port, or road.
stead, and yet il is this absolute relu-
sal ofports that England calls an offer
when she suggeststo US the Columbia
river as the dividing line. Equally
unfair is her last proposed division by
the Columbia, with the addition Of
headland completely cut off from the
rest of our possessions and of certain
free ports. What avals headland
separated from our own territory by ID
hundred miles Of British Oregon? OF
what use are ports ':free" only at the
pleasure Of Great Britain.


In word. we have proposed to d.
vide the country by line, giving to
each power moieties of its surface
nearly equal, and giving to Great Bri.
tain almost all the ports. Great Bris
tain has never made any proposition
which would give us single availa.
bic port.


Is this reasonable? Is it just? Is
it friendly? The Oregon question to-,
day is of little moment-halfa IA centu.
ry hence, the enterpris:ng population
employed in the commerce Of the Pa>
cifc will look back with amazemcnt
al The men who in 1915, pronounced
the controversy one of no consequence,
and in its discussion utterly overlook
ed the question Of the harbors Of the
country.


What now is the question to arbi-
trate? What is TO be left 10 arbitra-
ton? The matter, and the only mat
ter, to be left to the proposed board
is, zyhether the United States shall hare
any ports on the Pacific Ocean NOT hoap
many, bau zuhether any. Draw the line
where you will, Great Britain must
be left with beautiful and abundant
harbors. Draw it half a degree be.
low forty-nine, and the United States
are left without one.


Is this question TO be left to arbi-
tration? An arbitration which, 60 as
it may, will go in favor Of England,
and which may result most adversely
to the United States? To offer such
an arbitration, after whole genera.
tion expended in steady refusal of
our reasonable offers, is surely little
in accordance with what Mr.. Packen.
ham calls a "friendly intention" or"a
holy purpose" a A'l &


The result Of this negotiation makes
US look with greatly increased anxiety
to the passage of the notice bill thro'
the Senate, and the adoption Of prop
er measures of national defence.


1t is evident that delay only tends