THE DAILY UNION.
{"newspaper_name": "The daily union.", "edition": "01", "page": "p2", "byline": ""}
{"character_count": 7874, "word_count": 1411, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9358999729156494], "ccnet_perplexity": [1261.0], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
company whose existence s TO terminate IN 1868. %
My copy Of that instrument contains no such snp-
ulation, and therefore shall not argue the point


But, sir, let US look at this subject little more
narrowly. The charter of the Hudson Bay Com
pany, as we have seen, is perpetual. More than
half century since, another association, known ar
the Northwest Company, was Instituted, which
m the process Of time, extended It's trade into re-
mote regions and came into contact with IT'S rival
ana predecessor. Differences arose, which ult-
mstely produced hostIlilies and open war war
Tor some lime waged almost under the arcuc circle ~
which the Indians we're arrpyed on both sides, and
much blood was shed. Peace was at length re.
stored, and the two companies, tired OF their an
IagoDlst position, united together, and the North.
west Company, which was All unincoTporated assocI-
alton, was merged in the Hudson Bay Company
This was Ia 1873, and IN 1921 all act passed tht
the British Parliament, suthOrElng the crown to
grant licenses TO trade with the Indians west OF the
Rocky mountains, which region not being included
within the original territorial limits Of the Hudson
Bay Company would have been otherwise open
Tor period Of twenty-one years. The first license
was surrendered IN 1888, and another granted,
which will expire IN 1859. At that time, # no
renewedi the trade will be open to all British sub
leCIs.


These are the facts, and all the material ones an
no" Tor their application Ia the first place, th'
dreaty contains no ausion to the licenses. nor
the state OF thIrgs they have introduced. The e.
navigation ~ granted 10 the "HudsOn Bay Com
Pahy, and 10 all Brush subjects trading with th,
same" whether To be used IN free or exclusiy,
uade, for what posts or purposes, the treaty doe
not decide, ~ ilher can we. these are question,
Tor The grantees, and not Tor the grantor


But "a the second place, n the license is renewed
this trts matt aiiOH wrll then be wGned, il Is nov
and II not ren wed, aud The trade be thrown open
lie Hudson BAY Company may carry "n their 0p
efaIons Ike Other BRUSH subjects, or other BrIush
su IecIs there may trade with them Ia either event
these parues may the navigation Of the riyer,
restrained by no vii but their own.


But again, what right have we TO say that ths
comp ny shall not transport their goods To and lrou
their factories, within their original territories
by the way Of the Columbia riyeTi II may be- thu
some OF the most western Of these factories ua,
communicate with the ocean more speed y an,
economically by that route. than by Hudson's bay
Can we say, thus shall not be donti And # nol
the answer settles the controversy. Indeed no one
can pretend to ioretell what may be the slate o.
trade IN the extensive regions north Of 49o som,
twenty years hence, nor what interests Of the Hud.
son Bay Company may require them TO penetran
there through Of rive g. free and unobstTuct
ed What purposes OF traffic may be promoted BY
the tenacious retention OF this privilege, nor whal
"BrItlsh subjects" may choose 10 trade with the
company, that Is, buy goods Of them, in order
Joy this privilege Of Jtts naVigah with the ad.
UaRiagts, legitimate Mtgitinas II may bring witt
H. In acI II Is difficult to argue such question q,
thls. 1t cannot be rendered clearer by illustration
nor stronger by analysis The matter lies within
the narrowes compass. The treaty grants To tht
Hudson Bay Company the right freely to navigat,
the Columbia river, for period co-extending viii
lis own duration. Its duration Is perpetual anc
ther fore this grant Is rpetual. And any inquiry
out Of the words of this instrument, to the pu
poses, to which the grantees may apply the priv.
ege, with a view 10 limit 1t, is to adopt a mode Ol
rOnstTung, rather of controlling the grant incon
sistent with it's language, and Incompatible with tn,
condition OF the parties BY what process OF Law
or Of logic shall we say to the British government


The Hudson Bay Company is indeed a perpetua
corporation, and we have granted to il, withou
limitation Uftlme, the free navigation Of the Colum
ba river but YOU have granted to it another fran
chiSs for twenty-une yoaTs, totally independent o
this, which you may renew or not at your pleasure
and therefore our grant of free navigation IL mteC
to the same period, and Obligation shall explr,
with yours This would be cool, and If submitted
10, decisive If the treaty is ratified without altera
ton, "time, ~ says the senator from Missouri "wrl
bring argument which no can misunder
stand" Time, indeed cures the existence of many
errors, as well corrects them, and falsfes many
predictions. But il is wiser to avert difficulties, thai
to meet them Let US not depend upon time bu
upon ourselves. Let us make this instrument wha
we all say it ought to be, and thus leave TO tn,
domain Of the future one cause the less of contro
versy.@


do not at all agree with the senator from Mis-
sour, in his estimate of the value of this right o
free navigation nor of the limitation of its use
abuse which circumstances will necessarily impost
upon it. Certainly, a general grant to British sub
iects ndiscriminalely, would be worse than this
though for many years, and while the Hudson Bay
Company retain the exclusive trade in the northern
regions of Oregon, the effect will be the same, Al
that great corporation and its dependents must b.
the only traders. This right, freely to navigate th
waters of one country, secured by treaty stpula
tons 10 another, is liable TO grave objections. Care
fully guarded and used, it is still encroachmen
upsn municipal jurisdiction. If abused, it easily
may be- it exposes the public revenue and the fsca
system Of country to losses and injury. And ques
tions must perpetualy arise in its exercise, deca
and difficult in themselves, and giving to foregI
government the right TO interfere in concerns, which
are local in their nature, and ought to depend on 10
| cal law


"lf the free navigation of the Columbia river wer
granted to Great Britain, this would be "a
| perpetual strife and collision between the citizen
and subjects of the two hatons in these remote re
gions. 1t would be almost impossible by any vigil
| ance, which could be exerted, TO execute the law
| Of the respective countries, and prevent smuggling
| on either side of the river


Besides, there are several portages around tn
falls and rapids Of this river and ts branches tn
of which is necessary TO the enjoyment of its fre
| navigation.


This would introduce the subjects Of Great Bril-
| ain with their merchandise into the heart of tn
country, and thus greatly increase the evil beyon'
what it would be, if they were confined to the chan
| mel of the river."t


The British government felt the force Of these
| pie,ps when its own interests were in question.
was only when ours were involved, that the aspec
of the Subject changed. At the very time
while demanding the free navigation of the Colum
bia river, we are told by Mr. McLane that "Lor'
Aberdeen had very positively and explicitly de
clned treat of the navigation of the S.. Lawrence
| in connexion with that Of the Columbia and tha
if it desirable Tor us TO offer for the other
he would on no account enter into negotiation il
regard to the St. Lawr, nee"


Besides the usual objection to grants Off navi
CATION, there are peculiar circumstances which IN
crease the dangers of this privilege. IL s not aIon


The right of free lgaion which is granted by thi
treaty, but it grants the hight also 10 use the port


The senator from Missouri in a note appended to hi
printed speech states that "snce this spoken the lei
of Mr. Buchanan Mr. McLane before the rathcato
the treaty has been published, in which secTeta


informs Mr. McLane that he had given notice TO MIR Paker
that the Senate had advised the epance o the
m tie