{"newspaper_name": "The New York herald.", "edition": "01", "page": "p4", "byline": ""}
{"character_count": 9010, "word_count": 1510, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9491999745368958], "ccnet_perplexity": [1480.0999755859375], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}



then the only power having claims which could come In
collision with Spain and that too under sovereign Pc
This will appear from the letter OF Count de Fernsn Nu
nez, the Spanish ambassador at Paris to NJ de Montmo
rim the Secretary of the Foreign Department OF France
dated Paris June l6h 1899 From this letter It seems
that complaints had been made by Spain to the court Of
Russia against Russian subjects for violating the Spanish
territory the thwest coast OF America south OF the
6lst degree of north latitude in consequence OF which,
that court without delay, assured the King OF Spain
that it extremely sorry that the repeated orders
issued prevent the subjects of Russia from violating
in the smallest degree the territory belonging to
ther power should have been disobeyed


This invention OF 1890 recognises right in Great
Britain either present or prospective, to plant perma
nent colonies on the northwest coast OF Amerco to
exercise such exclusive ursd sdicon any portion of
essential to sovereignty. Great Britain obtained
from Spain all she then desireda engagement that
her subjects should not be disturbed molested" in
landing the coasts Of those places already
occupied for the purpose OF Garry their
thsre" What kind of settements?" This is not spe-
oiied but surely their character and duration are limit
ed BY the object which the contracting parties had in
view. They must have been such only
sary and proper for the purpose of carry ing
merce with the natives OF the country" Were these
settle emens intended to expand into colonies expel
the natives, to de rive Spain of her sovereign rights
and to confer the exclusive jurisdiction over the whole
territory Great Brainl Surely Spain never desi rned
any such results and if Great Britain has obtained these
concessions by the Nooka Sound convention it hos been
by the most extraordinary construction imposed
upon human language. But this convention also
stpuiutes that to these settlements which might
be made by the one party, the subjects of the





trade without any disturbance molestation." What
trade Certainly that with the natives Of the country
prescribed in the third articles and this the very
nature OF things, could continue only whilst the coun.
try should remain in the possession of the Indians. On
no other construction can this convention escape from
the sDsufdities attributed to II by British statesmen
when under discussion before the House of Commons
IN every place in which we might settle, (said Mr.
afterwards Earl-0rny access was left for the Span
ards. Where we might form a settlement one HILL
they might erect fort another and merchant must
run all tha risks Of discovery, and all the expenses
Tn ha
the subject OF continual dispute, and could be
placed upon permanent footing"


Most certainly this treaty in its very nature
porary and the rights OF Great Britain under it
never intend ed to placed upon permanent footing"
peculiar causes which called into being Such
ty, creating British and Spanish settlements intermin
OF the territory wherever British Spanish merchant
could find spot favorable for trade with the Indians
could have been intended for permanent arrange
ment between civilized nations


But whatever may be the true construction of the
Nootka Sound convention, it has in the opinion of the
Undersigned, long since ceased to exist.


The general rule OF national law is, that termn
aes all subsstng treaties between the belligelent pow
ers. Great Britain has maintained this rule utmost
extent. Lord Bathurst in negotiating with Mr.. Adams
IN lS5 says that Great Britain knows of exception
the rule that all treaties are put an end to by subse
quen war between the parties" Perhaps the only
exception to this rule-if such it may be styled
y mat OF a treaty recognizing certain sovereign
rights as belonging to nation, which had pre-
vlous!y existed independently of any treaty engage
ment These rights which the treaty did not Create





tween the parties Such the wledgment of the
fact by Great Britain under the denitive treaty of l
that the United ates free reign and ndepen
dent" 1t will scarcely be contended that the Nootka
Sound hton belongs to this class of treaties
dcuit to Imagine any case in which treaty containing
mutual engagements, still remaining unexecuted would
not be ahrogsted by The Nootka Sound canven.
ton strictly this character The declaration war;
therefore, BY Spain against Great Britain in October
1880 anuuiied Its provisions and freed the parties from
its obligations. This whole treaty consisted of mu.
tual express engagements be performed by the ecu
ina
thrc IN reference to the present discussion
in ,Tss ms the s to the
settlements 1t merely engages, in negative terms,
that the subjects Of the parties shall be
privileges. Surely this is such an engagement as
w continue to exist in despite of war between the par
between the parties. Such is the principle of public law
and the practice of civilized nations.


Has the Nootka Sound convention been thus revived
This depends entirely upon the true construction OF the
additional articles to the treaty OF Madrid, which
signed on the 2Sth August 1914, and contain the only
agreement between the parties since the OF 1885,
ior the renewal OF engagements existing previously to
the latter date The first of the additional articles to this
treaty provides follows 1t is agreed thar pending the
negotiation of new treaty of commerce. Great Britain
shah be admitted trade with Spain upon the same con.
dons as those which existed previously 10 1896 all the
treaties OF commerce which at that period subsised
frmed"


The first observation be made upon this article is
that 1t is confined in terms to the trade with SPAIN aud





Ihese had always been closed against foreign powers
spain had conceded the privilege oftrading with
her Colonies TO any nation except in the single instance
OF the Asiento which abrogated in 740 did any
OF the treaties OF commerce which force between
the Two nations previously TO 1896, make such
sion to Great Britain That this the true construction
OF the first additional article of the treaty of Madrid
iron another part OF the instrument
Great Britain by an Irresistible inference, admitted that
sne had acquired right under it trade the
onies or remote territories of Spain when she obtained
stipulation IN the same treaty that Sin the event OF the
commerce OF the Spanish American possessions being
openei to foreign nations his Catholic Majesty promises
that Great Britain shall be admitted trade with those
possessions as the most favored nationn


But even the first additional article of the treaty OF
1914 not thus expressly limited to the revival of
the trade OF Great Britain with the kingdom of Spain in
Europe without reference any other portion her
ininions the Nootka Sound convention never be EN-
Draced under the denomination of treaty of commerce
between the two powers. 1t contains provision
whatever TO grant or to regulate trade between British
ana Spanish subjects Its essential part, far
Germs the present question: relates any trade or
commercs between the subjects of the respective pow.
ers nmereiy prohibits the subjects OF either from dis
tutolng or moesng those OF the other trading with
tnru parties the natives OF the country The gran of
making settlements whether understood in broadest
or most restricted sense relates to territorial ncqulsi
,ion, and not to trade in any Imaginable
ierm The Nootia Sound convention, then, cannot in
any sense be considered treaty of commerce; and was
not therefore revived by the treaty of Madrid of Is4
Nhen the war commenced between Great Britain and
Spain in 1886 several treaties spbsjs.od between them
which were, both IN title and in substance treaties of
treaty OF 1914





that the Ncotka Sound convention was then IN force NAV
oe iaty inferred from their silence upon the subject
turing me whole negotaon Of that year the Oregon
question: This convention once referred to by
Me British penpotentiaries They then rested their
claims upon other foundations Surely that winch is
now their main reliance would not have escaped the oh.
sevaton Of such statesmen, had they then supposed
was IN existence


IN view OF all these considerations, the undersigned
respectfully submits that Great Britain has valid claims
70 any portion OF the Oregon territory, they
upo better foundation than that Of the Nootka Sound
convention


IL ~ far from the intention OF the undersigned 10 re
eat me argument by which his predecessor (Sir Cal.
noun mas demonstrated the American title 10 the en-.
,ite region drained by the Columbia river and its
tanches He has shown that TO the United States be-
longs the discovery Of the Columbia river and that Cap
thih Gray was the first civilized who ever entered
~ outg and sailed up its channel bspzug the river
i'ss wi,n the name OF his vessel that Messrs Lewis
enl Clarke under a commission from their government
ifse explored the wsera of this river almos! from It's