Newspaper Page Text
Hon of the Nootka Sound Convention, it has
m the opinion of the undersigned long since
•eased to exist.
The general rule of national law fa, that
war terminates all subsisting treaties be
tween the belligerent power. Great Britain
baa maintained this rule to its utmost ex
tent, Lord Bathurst, in negotiating with
Mr. Adams in 1815* says, “that Great
Britain knows of no exception to the rule,
•hat all treaties are put an end to by a sub
aequeut war between the same parties.”
Perhaps the only exception to this rule—if
•acb it may be styled is that of a treaty
recognizing certain sovereign rights as be
longing to a nation, which had previously
existed independently of any treaty engage
ment. These rights which the treaty did
not create, but merely acknowledged, cannot
be destroyed by war between the pa: lies.
Such was the acknowledgement of the fact
by Great Britain, under the definitive
treaty ot 1783, that the United States were ;
“fiee, sovereign and independent.” It will j
•eatcely be contended, that the Nootka
Sound convention belongs to this class ol
treaties. It fa difficult to imagine any case
in which a treaty containing mutual en
gagements, st.ll remaining unexecuted,
would not be abrogated by war. The
Nootka Sound Convention is stiictly of this
character. The declaration of war, there
fore, by Spain against Great Britain, in
October, 1797, annulled its provisions and
freed the parties from its obligations. This
whole treaty consisted of mutual express
engagements to be pet formed by the con
tracting parties. Its most important ariicle
(the third) m reference to the present dis
cussion., does not even grant in affimiativc
terms, the right to the contracting parties to
trade with the Indians and to make settle
ments. It merely engages, in negative
terms that the subjects of the contraction i
parties “■•hall not be disiiubed or molested’ j
in the exercise of these treaty privileges.
Surely this is not such an engagement as
will continue to exist in despite of war be-J
tween the parties. It is gone forever, un
less it has been revived in express terms by
the treaty of peace, or some other treaty
between the parties. Such is the principle j
of public law, and the practice of civilized
nations.
Has the Novtka Sound Convention been
thus revived 1 Tuts depends entirely upon
the true construction of the additional arti
cles to the treaty of Madtid, which were
signed on the SBt!i o! August, ISI4 and con
tain the only agreement between the par
ties biuce the war ol 1790, for ti e renewal ol
engagements existing previously to the lat
ter date. The first of the additional articles
to this treaty provides as follows ; “It is
agreed lhat, pending the negotiation of a
tiew treaty of commerce. Great Britain shall
be admitted to trade with Spain upon the
same conditions as those which existed pre
vious!/to 179 C; all the treaties of com
merce which at lhat period subsisted be
tween the two natiuus being hereby ratified
and confirmed.
The first observation to be made upon I
this article is. that it is confined in terms to j
tbe trade with Spain, and does not embrace j
her co'nnies or remote territories. These
bad always been closed against foreign j
powers. Spain had never conceded the
privilege of trading w.lh Iter colonies to any
nation except in die single instance of the
Astento, which was abrogated in 1740 ; nor j
did any of the treaties of commerce which
were in force between the two nations pre
viously to 1795, make such a concession to
Great Btitain. That this is the true con
struction of the first additional article of tire ‘
treaty of Madrid, appears conclusively ftotn :
another part of the instrument. Great;
Britain, by an irresistible inference admitted :
that she bad acquired no right under it to!
trad; with the colonies or remote territories
of Spain, when she obtained a stipulation in!
the same treaty, that “in the event of the j
commerce of the Spanish American posses-,
•inns being opened to foreign nations, his |
Catholic Majesty promises taat Great j
Britain shall be admitted to trade with those
possessions as the most favored naiion.”
But even if the first aJdiiional article of
th? treaty of 1814 were nut thus expressly
Ironed to the revival of the trade ot Great
Britain with the kingdom of Spain :n Europe
without reference to any oilier portion ol tier
dominions, the Nootka Sound Cmiventim
can never be embraced under the denomina
tion of a treaty of commerce between the
two powers. It contains no provision what
ever to grant or to regulate trade between
British and Spanish subjects. Its essential
part, so far as concerns the present question,
relates no: to any trade or commerce between
the subjects of the respective powers. It
metely prohibits the subjects of cither from
disturbing or molesting those of the oiher in
trading with third parties —the natives of the
country. The “grant of making settlements,”
whether understood .n its broadest or most
restricted sense, relates to territorial acquisi
tion, not to trade or commerce in any imag
inable form. The Nootka Sound Convention
then, cannot, in any sense, be considered a
treaty of commerce ; ar.d was not therefore
revived by the treaty of Madrid, of 1814
When the war commerced between Great
Britain and Spain in 1796, several treaties
subsisted between them, which were both in
title and in substance, treaties of commerce;
These, and these alone, were revived by ti.e
treaty 0f1914.
That the British government itself had no
idea In 1818, that the Nootka Sound conven
tion was then in force, must be fairly inferred
from their silence upon the subject during
the whole negotiation of that year on the
Oregon question. This, convention was not
once referred to by the British plenipoten
tiar cs. They then rested iheir claims upon
oi&er foundations. Surely that which is now
their maiu reliance would not have escaped
the observation of sot it statesmen, had they
then supposed it was in existence.
In view of all these consideration?, the
undersigned respectfully submits, that if
Great Britain has valid claims to any portion
of the Oregon territory, they must rest upon
a better foundation than that of the Nootka
Sound Convcmion.
It is fir from the intention of the under
signed to repeat the argument by which his
predecessor (Mr. Calhoun) has demonstrated
the American title “to the entire region
drained by the Columbia river and its
branches.” He has shown that to the Uni
ted States belongs the discovery of the Col
umbia river, and that Captain Gray was the
first civilised man who ever entered its
mouth and sailed up its channel, baptising
the river itself with the name of his vessel ;
that Messrs. Lewis ar.d Clarke, under a com
mission from their Government, first explor
ed tbc waters of this river almost from its
bead springs to the Pacific, passmgthe Win
ter of 1805 and 1908 on its Northern shore,
near the ocean ; that the first settlement
soon this river was made by a citizen of ihe
U. Slates at Astoria; and that the Bwtish
Government had solemnly recnguiz&d our
right to the possession ol this settufment,
which bad been captured during tne war,
by surrendering it up to the United States on
tbe 6th day cf October, 1318, in obedience
to tbe Treaty of Ghent. If the discovery
of the mouth of a liver, followed up within
■ reasonable time by the fii'st exploration,
both of its main channel and its branches,
and appropriated by the first settlements.on
its banks, does not constitute a title tothe-tet
ritorv drained by its w aters in the nation
performing these acts, then the principles
eoosectated by the practice of civil zed na
tions, ever since the discovery of the New
World, must have lost their foice. These
principles were necessary tu preserve tbe
peace of the world. Had they not been en
forced in practice, clashing claims to newly,
discovered territory, and perpetual strife
among the nations, would have bee*the in
evitable result.
The title of the United States to the en
tire region drained by the Columbia river and
its branches, was perfect and complete before
the date of the treaties of joint occupation of
October, 1818, and August, 1527 ; and un
der the express provisions of these treaties,
this title, whilst they endure, can never be
impaired by any act of the British govern
ment. In the strong language of tbe treaty
of 1827, “nothing contained in this conven
tion, or in the third article of the convention
of 1818, hereby continued in force* shall be
construed to impair, or in any manner affect,
the claims which either of the contracting
parties may have to any part of the country
westward of the Stony or Rocky Mountains.’
Had not the convention contained this plain
provision, which has prevented the respective
parties from looking with jealousy on the
( ecupation of portions of the territory by the
citizens and subjects of each other, its chief
object—which was to preserve peace and
prevent collisions in those distant reg'ons —
would have been entirely defeated. It is
then manifest, that neither the grant of this
territory for a term of years, made bv Great
Britain to the Hudson Bay Company in De
cember, 1821, nor the extension of this grant
to 1848, nor the settlements, trading posts,
and forts, which have been established by
that company under it, can, in the slightest
degree, strengthen the British or impair the
Ann rican title to any portion of the Oregon
Territory. The British claim is neither
better nor worse than it was oil the 29th
Oetoher, lb'B, the date of the first conven
tion.
The title of the United States to the val
ley ol the Columbia is older than the Florida
treaty or February, Ul9, under which the
United States acquired ail the rights ofSp- in
to the Northwest America, and exists
independently of its provisions. Even sup
posing llien that the British construction of
the Nootka Sound Convention were correct
it could not apply to this portion of the ter
ritory in dispute. A convention between
Groat Biitain and Spain originating from a
dispute concerning a petty trading establish
ment at Nootka .Sound, could not abridge
the rights of other nations. Both in public
and in private law, an agrement between two
parties can never bind a lliifd, without its
consent, express or implied.
The extraordinary proposition? will not be
again erred, that our acquisition of the rights
ol Spt.in under the Florida treaty can in any
manner weaken or impair our pre-existing
title. It may often become expedient for na
tions, as it is for individuals, to purchase an
outstanding title merely for the Bake of peace;
and it has never heretofore been imagined
that the acquisition of such anew title ren
dered the old one less valid. Under this
principle, a party having two titles would he
confined to his worst, and would forfeit his
best. Our acquisition of the rights of Spain,
then, under the Florida treaty, whilst k can
not affect the prior title of the United States
to the valley of die Columbia, has rendered
it more clear and unquestionable before the
world. We have a perfect right to claim
under both these titles ; and the Spanish ti
tle alone, even if it were necessary to confine
ourselves to it, would, in the opinion of the
President, be good as against Great Britain,
not merely to the valley of the Columbia, but
the whole territory of Oregon.
Our own American title, to tlie extent of
the valley of the Columbia, resting as it does
on discovery, exploration, and possession—a
possession acknowledged by a most solemn
act ot the Brit'sh Government itself—is a
sufficient assurance against all mankind ;
whilst oursuperadded tide derived from Spain
extends our exclusive rights over the whole
territory in dispute as rgainst Great Britain.
Such being the opinion of tho President.itr|
regard to the title of the United States,jjfl
would not have consented to yield any
lion of the Oregon territory, had he no?
lound himself embarrassed, it not commited,
by the acts of ins predecessors. They had
uniformly proceeded upon the principle of
compromise inall their negotiations, indeed,
the first question presented to him after en
tering upon the duties of Ins office, was,
whether he should abruptly terminate the
negotiatiation whi oil had been commenced
and conducted- between Mr. Calhoun and
Mr. Parkenham on the principle avowed in
the first protocol, not of contending for the
whole territory ,in dispute, but of treating
of the respective claims of the parties, “with
a view to establish a permanent boundary
between the two countris westward of the
Rocky mountains.”
In view of these facts, the President has
determined to pursue the present negotiation,
to its conclusion, upon the principle of com
promise in which it commenced, and to make
one more effort to adjust this long pending
controversy. In this deteimiuation lie trusts
that the British government will recognise
I: anxious and sincere desire to cultivate the
most friendly relations between the o coun
tries, and to mamlest to the world that he is
actuated by a spirit of moderation* He has,
therefore,instructed the undersigned again to
proposes to tne government of Great Britain,
that the Oregon territory shall be divided be
tweei the two countries ty the forty-ninth
parallel of north latitude, from the Rocky
mountains to Pacific ocean ; offering at the
same time to make free to Great Britain, any
port or pons on Vancouver’s island, south of
this paialiel, which the British government
may desire* He trusts that Great Britain
may receive this proposition in ti e friendly
spit it by which it was dictated, and that it
may prove the stable foundation of lasting
peace and harmony between ins two coun
tries. Tbe line proposed will carry out the
principle ot continuity equally for both par
ties, by extending the limits both of ancient
Louisiana and Canada to tiie Pacific along
the same parallel of latitude which divides
, them east of the Rocky Mountains; and it
will secure to each a sufficiet number of
commodious harbors on the northwest coast
of America.
The undersigned avail? himself of this oc
casion to renew to Mr. Pakenham the assu
rauce of his distinguished consideration.
JAMES b UGH AN AN.
Rt. Hon. R. Par bn bam, &c. &c. &c.
Ftona the Albany Pat/iot.
TIIE SOUTH ON THE OREGON QUES
TION.
It is frequently predicted by many of the
Wbig Journals at the North, that several
members of Congress from the South, both
in the Senateand House of Representative?,
would not sustain the adminstraiion on the
Oregon question. We know not’ how far
these predictions may prove true in relation
to members of Congress, but we tee! confi
dent tbe people of the South will fully sus
tain the administration on that question.—
The Democracy ot the North and West
stood by the Sooth in the Texas controver
sy, and the Southerners are not tbe people
to desert iheir friends in the hour of danger.
They will despise alike the appeals made to
their pecuniary interest, or the threats of in
vasion and servile war, when they are to
choose between them and the honor and in
terest ot their country. They have already
tell in former ware, all that England could
do, when the country was much more open
to invasion than at present, and when Brit
ain was aided by hordes of savages on our
frontier. If they did not faltet for a moment
then, how can it be expected that they can
be operated upon by iheir cupidity or their
fears now? We predict if any Democratic
member of Congress from Georgia shall
prove reTcant tu this subject, that the pco
pie will take the argument into iheir own
hands and instruct him respecting their
wishes, and his duty. For ourselves, we
cannot see the wisdom of “the masterly
inactivity” policy recommended by a South
ern Statesman.
We believe it is that policy which has al
ready given to Great Britain her only claim
to Oregon, and if persisted in she will short
ly appropriate to herself all of Oregon lhat
is worth having. We believe a large por
tion ot the people of the United States have
got heartily sick es lhat policy, and will sus
tain the government in bringing it to a close.
Mr. Rhett asserted in his speech in Con
gress that the British fbg now waved from
thirty forts in Oregon—others assert that
her subjects have already occupied eveiy
good site for towns, mills and factories, every
important ferry and strong position. These
she has acquired by her ‘‘masterly activity,”
and we have lost them by our “masterly in
activity.”
From the Wasliirigton Union.
OBJECTIONS TO THE NOTICE-
One of lire most potent objections to the
continuance ol the “joint occupation” of Ore
gon, under the convention, and, of course, one
of the strongest reasons forgiving the notice
required to terminate it, is to be found in the
tact that the true effect of that convention has
been from the firet, in this country, so much
misapprehended. To the United States and
to England it has been by no means the same
instrument. It granted common settlement
to the two nations in 1813, and forthwith, in
1321, as we said in our last article, England
extended her laws over the whole territory,
built forts in all parts of it, and monopolized
its only lucrative business. If this, in her
view, be.“joint,occupancy,” well may she say
that “she claims nothing more.” Meanwhile
we have remained inactive in respect to legis
lation, up io the present time. For near a quar
ter of a century we made no considerable ef
fort to legislate. In 1829, the Houseofllep.
resentativeedid attempt to pass a bill provid
ing for the exploration of the country, and
affording some legal protec'ion, at least re
cognition, to our own citizens there. The bill,
though strictly confining our jurisdiction to
American citizens, was instantly opposed and
voted down, as infringing /lie convention of
joint occupancy —when, at that very time, the
j whole land, and every dweller in it, were , and
had been for eight years, entirely under the
jurisdiction of British law.
In 1842,a similarb 11 was broughtjbefore the
Senate. It sought to-protect our citizens in
Oregon, end to g.ve tlierrqunclereertain con
ditions, bounties of land. It also faded in the
Seriate, mainly for the same Feason— that it.
infringed the convention. Meantime the
Biy company was governing the country,
hunting it all over for furs, and holding its
own so well, as to keep its shares only 140
per cent, above par on ’change- Everyone
knows how all attempts to extend our laws
over American citizens in that region failed
in the last Congress. The “joint occupa
tion” was as a lion in the path of every such
effort. Under it we could do nothing and we
did it, exactly. England co'ild do, an and was
doing*everything she thought fit.
In this state of things an effort was made
to give “notice” of the termination of a con
vention of common occupancy so w holly one
sided. That effort v'as successfully opposed,
mainly on three grounds; First, it was said
‘negotiations are pending—nay, have just
been renewed. The notice now is unreason
able and ungracious.” In the second place,
it was urged, “This British occupation of
Oregon is the hunter’s occupation, and will
wear itself out when the region shall he no
longer valuable hunting ground. England
will let ire of herself, if we only wait till the
game disappears. This was the argument
of grave whig senators. Mr. Choate, in par
ticular, labored through seven or eight col
gttpns of the Congressional Globe to prove
jdmuneither the Hudson Fay Company nor
Sljfcriiisli government had the slightest in-
to colonize the region—thru the com
could not sustain itself in or near an
agricultural population—and, in his own
Words, that the “company must retire belore
agricultural life, for they could not enjoy it.”
From all this, notice, he inferred, was alike
unwise and unnecessary.
Inthe third place, it was urged against the
notice, that emigration in the natural course
of events would fill Oregon with our people,
and 60 give us the territory peacefully; while
active measures, by precipitating a conflict
would force us to cope under immense disad
vantages with the great military & naval force
of England in the East, and so oeprive us of
the country.
These three objections to the notice—its
unseasonableness pending renewed n ego ra
tions—the temporary character of the British
occupancy—and the safety of inactivity,
cou;;led with live peril to our rights of deci
sive measures—-these were the main grounds
on which the notice was opposed.
The first of the objections is now aban
doned. No man stands up now to say that
the notice is unseasonable. So far as the
present posiure of our negotiation is concern
ed, the notice, whatever else may be said o*
it or against it, is certainly not ill-timed. At
the last advices, negotiation had come to a
dead stand. The notice can never interrupt
negotiations less than now.
The other two objections, though certain
ly entitled to very different degress of con
sideration, are both to some extent relied on.
The one—the alleged temporary character
of the British occupancy—has hardly come
up directly in debate this session. But hav
ing been much insisted on before, it yet lin
gers, or seems to linger in a portion of the
public mind. It is, indeed, a most gratifying
view of the question—if one could only per
suade ouc’s-telf to take it. The idea that
England does not wish to hold and colonize
Oregon, and will ot herself recede from Ore
gon, if we only let the Oregon question alone
would Ire quite delightful, if it only ,!jad a
little spice of plausibility. The ingenuity of
ihe thought brings to mind Sir Ab&l. Handy
in the play. He, too, was ingenious—full ol
inventions—and of all his inventions, the'very
best were those designed tupul out fires. —
His own house took fire—none of his various
apparatus was quite ready to work—like the
notice, not quite “in season,” as lie might
think. But something must be done or at
least said. He was desperate—at last a
happy thought struck him. “We’ll let it
alone,” said he: “it may go out of itself !' T—
ANARUS! i'be man who invented the idea of “letting
England alone till she should go out of Ore
gon of herself,” was the very Sir Abel Handy
of politics. In the‘parly of expedients,”if there
be such a parly ou this question, he must win
great eminence.
But unfortunately England, now in Ore
gon, leaves no pleasing doubt on the mind
that 6he thinks very seriously ofstaying there.
If her laws ail over the country, and her forts
all through the country, and her avowed claim
of a right to colonize any unoccupied part of
America, urged so strongly against Mr.
Monroe’s just and statesman like position on
that subject, and Mr. Adam’s powerful argu
ment in support of that position in 18*24—if
all these things do not speak the intention of
England loudly enough, other proofs of her
purpose and policy are at band. They are
to be found in official documents of the high
est character and authenticity. ,
On the 10th of February, 1837, the Hud
son Bay Company applied to the British gov-|
ernment, for a new lease of their charter
for tw’enty-one years. The application was
made in a letter of that date, from J. Pelly,
esq., governor of the company, to Lord Glen
eleg, then secretary of state for the colonies.
This letter sets forth the grounds ’of the ap
plication. It states all that the company have
dope to carry out the purposes of the British
government. It tells how they have driven
tbe Americans out of tha far trade, and got
it all for themselves—how they occupy the
whole country by twenty-two permanent es
tablishments, (this was in 1837.) and many
distinct hunting parlies—how they keep six
armed vessels, one of them a steamer, otfthe
coast—how they have in one place com
menced farming and mean to export agricul
tural products—how the country is as fine
farming ground as any in America —and, fi
nally, how they confidently hope that, “w lith
care and protection, the. British dominion may
not only be preserved in this country, which
it has been so much the wish of Russia and
America to occupy, to the exclusion of British
subjects, but British interest and British influ
ence may be maintained as paramount on this
interesting part of the coast of the Pacific.’' —
Thus far— and it is very far — Governor Pelly,
speaking to the government of the company’s
purpose and policy-
But this is not all. On the Ist of Februa
ry, 1837, George Simpson, esq , agent of the
company in America, writes to Governor
Peily on tlre same subject. ‘He says, ‘She
possession of that country (Oregon) to Great
Britain may become an object of venj great
importance , and we are strengthening their
claim to it by forming tlie nucleus of a colo
ny, through the establishment of farms and
the settlement of our retiring officers and
servants as agriculturalists.” These two
went to the government with the application
for anew lease. To the British government
such arguments were altogether irresistible.
But, be it observed, into the new lease thus
granted in JS33, the government introduced
a wholly new condition. Lord Glenelg tells
them in his reply, that they may have their
trade monopoly as before, “hut,” he adds, “it
will be indispensable to introduce into tlie
new charter such conditions as may enable
her Majesty to grant jfior the purpose of set
tlement and colonizat ion any of the lands com
prised in it .” And accordingly in the charier
was inserted a proviso reserving to the crown
in the largest terms, a full right to “establish
colonies,” and “govern” them “and annex
them to other colonies belonging to the
crown”—and tins in any of life “ilands grant
ed.” What, were these lands so granted 1 —
The northwest of America not “under any
civil government of the United States.”—
That is every inch of Oregon, down to lati
tude 42;’.
j Summing all this up, we may see what
kind of a “temporary occupancy” is in the
purpose of England, and how she means to
recede of herself, if we let her alone, The
governor, Pellv, Bays to the secretary, “lake
care of us and protect us,and we will.secure
the country for you, and a very fine country
it is L More ihau this, you may control the
commerce of the Pacific from it.” ‘-Vos.”
adds the superintendant, Simpson, “and we
are making a title for you every day; we have
got the nucleus of a regular colony there al
ready,' 1 (in 1837.) “True,” replies the gov
ernment, “and you shall have your charter;
but mark, vve must reserve the full right to
colonize throughout the whole laud granted
you ’’ —down even to 42 degrees.
Jn view <>f all this, to trust to “temporary
occupation” gees a lit lie beyond any man’s
fancy—except the renowned Sir Abel’s
But again: Low does all this bear on tlie
question of terminating the joint occupation
tiy “notice.” See how the case stands.—
Negotiation at a stop —“no compromise, which
we ought to accept” (so says the message)
now expected by the President—our title ue
monstrated—our government and country re
solved as one man not to abandon it—our
citizens in Oregon wholly unprotected and
unrecognised by our law, and stretching out
their hands for our protection—the “joint oc
cupation” placing the whole country under
Britishjurisdiction, monopolizing its trade,
and planting the flag of England on its best,
strongholds-—-the interests of England in the
land daily augmenting—her own, too, daily
increasing in magnitude, and at the same time
the mind of our people daily becoming more
fervid on the subject—tlie two antagonist
populations in Oregon constantly approaching
each other as tenants in common—the right
of a joint occupant, all that is now claimed by
England, but a further claim alleged as grow
ing up by “use and occitpaitcy ” around the
“nucleus of a colony"- toe policy of British
colonization avowed and provided for by law
—and now in view of all this imagine an ob
jector to tlie “notice” standing up to say “let
us hold on to this ‘joint occupation’ a while
longer—our rights must he sustained indeed
but let us wait a little—to be sure we have
not got much by waiting since 1818; hut then
the ‘notice’ is dangerous.” Dangerous ! \V hy
if we mean to assert our claim, what can be
so dangerous to it as this state of things, which
it seems btter irony and mockery to call ‘joint
occupation’—when, in view of the Jaw as it
stands on the British statute book, there is
only ono occupant; and our statute book is
only a blank on the subject; and tnat, 100,
mainly by reason of this same “joint occupa
tion I” Why. in the name of ail lhat is rea
sonable, if this be not acase for terminating
the convention without the loss of an hour,
when or how or where is such a case ever to
arise?
But. it is urged, the notice will force us to cope
with England in tlie East &, vve siiall thus lose
the country. This position assumes that the
notice w ill bring war, when that is the very
point in.question. We eav war will come
sooner withouttlw notice than with it. But
there are other, and, in our judgment, more
conclusive answers to this objection. We
shall endeavor to give them to-morrow, and at
the same tune vve may say a word or two of
the proposition just submitted by Mr. J. R,
Ingersoll, to authorize tlie President to open
negotiations to terminate the convention by
mutual consent.
NAVAL POWER—AMERICAN AND ENG
LISH.
The available land forees of England are
comparatively unimportant when contrast
ed with the defensive power of the United
States. England’s Navy is the bulwark of
her greatness, and yet it appears to be, like
our own, less effective in numerical strength
and power than in the war of 1812—T4,
as will be seen by the following statement
from ihe N. York Sun :
English vessels of war carrying over six
guns, in commission in 1814, 688
Building in 1814, 79
In ordinary in 1814, 215
Total in 1814, 982
English vessels of war carrying over
six guns in and out ol sen ice in 1845, 214
Building in 1845, 60
Convict ships, &c. in service in 1845, 162
War steamers, building in 1845, 26
Steam tugs, &?. forborne service, 1845, 21
American and other merchant steam
ers, available in war, afloat in 1845
(estimated) 95
Total in 1945, 623
In the war of 1812-T4, the United States
Navy was almost the same in power and
resources that it is at present. England
has steamers now, and we have none, or
almost none, and in that only has she ihe
advantage of us. But in that war we cap
tured—62 British national vessels, 910
1610 British merchant vessels satisfac
torily accounted for, and safe in
port or destroyed, 5,500
31 British national vessels lost at
sea in consequence of the war, 800
750 British merchant vessels cap
tured by Americans and recap
tured, 2,500
2453 vessels. Grand total of guns 8719
In that war our merchant tonnage was
little more than half its present size, yet
we sent out. 228 privateers which with 42
national vessels of war, captured 2453 ol
the enemy’s vessels.
Should another war with England come
upon us immediately, it wbuld be impossi
ble to prepare a suitable Navy to meet the
force which our antagonist (not now engag
ed in a war io Europe, as site was in 1812-
’l4) could direct against our coast. Ihe
commercial marine—our fine packet ships
and fast sailing clippers, converted into pro
pellers—would be our main source of pow
er in offensive operations against the com
merce of the enemy. We could, send out
probably one thousand of these last sailing
vessels, and with the aid ot small engines
and propelleis, two of them would pichably
be superior to any of the English war steam
ers that are now in constant communication
with onr shotesas merchant packets.
TSI E_T IME S.
COLUMBUS, GA.
Wednesday, Jaiawury 28) 1816.
Xf* Our usual Washington letter has
failed to arrive this week,.
We were in hopes of being able to
lay before our readers to-day, the advices
by the British Steamer of the 4th iast. But
the Mail came through yesterday without
them. They will be expected daily until
they come. Should the news be of the im
portance anticipated, we shall send it to our
country friends in an extra.
The Supreme Court of Georgia, held its
first session at Talhotton on Monday last.
Their Moo’s. Judge Warner and Nisbelt,
vvete present and presiding. The Court or
ganized, adopted rules for the admission of
Attorneys, swore in J. M. Kelley Esq. of
Houston, as Reporter and Robert E. Mar
tin, Esq. of Greensboro as Clerk, and ad
journed.
The following gentlemen were admitted
to the bar of the Court—A. Iverson, II-
Holt, B. Hill, Jas. Johnson, A. G. Foster,
M. Johnston, E. Worrell, A. G. Perryman,
A. F. Owen. L. B. Smith, Win. F, Brooks,
S. D Heard,and A. W. Hammond, Esq'rs.
ALABAMA KAIL-ROAI).
We are pleased to learn that the Legist*
lature of Alabama has passed an act to in
corporate a company with power to con
struct a RaiUroa i from Columbus to the
waters of Mobile Bay.
Our opinion of the public utility and pro
fit of such an improvement is known foour
readers.
The road once completed must he the
permanent thorough-fare of travel and a
large part of the light carrying trade be
tween tire N. E. and South West. Ex'end
ed and diversified interests would he promo
ted by it—commercial improvement be
tween the North and South, rapid travel,
the mail service, great facilities to the Gov
ernment in the transportation of troops and
inuniiions in time of war, are the great con
siderations urging to the commencement
and completion of this enterprise. The
three cities of Savannah, Macon and Co
lumbus are deeply interested in it, and
should make an early demonstiatiou of their
hearty co operation in giving practical ef
fect to an enterpri/.e whiehihe enlightened
Legislation of Alabama lias chalked out.
We in-vite our contemporaries of the Press
in the three cities above mentioned and in
Mobile and New Orleans to bring to the no
tice of their respective communities 1 , vvlial
we consider the most important Rail-Road
projei t ever contemplated in the South-
West.
NEW ORLEANS—GREAT DEMOCRATIC
VICTORY.
The Democrats of New Orleans have
achieved a signal triumph in the city, here
tofore Whig, through all the turns of the
political wheel. The city has given to the
Democrats, majorities for Governor, Lt.
Governor, Senators, and for 12 out of the 19
representatives, to which it is entitled.—
The majority for tire Senators was 800 in
the city, and that of Johnson and Landry
in the State is computed at 3,000. Well
done Oi leans ! Well done Louisiana!
It has been noted by some of the Wash
ington letter-writers, that not a single Di
plomatic representative o’ any Foreign Na
tion, at Washington, attended the grand
Bali given in that city on t lie Blit of Janua
ry. in commemoration of the anniversary
of (ion. Jackson’s glorious victory at New
Oik-nos- The reason appears to have been
that Sir K. Packenham, the British Minis
ter at Washington, is a near relative of the
gallant officer of his name, who fell in that
battle.
Perhaps it was a delicate question for the
Diplomatic corps at Washington todecide;
but it admits at least of a question, wheth- 1
cr their decision would not have been to
honor the National occasion with their pre
sence, had Mr. Packenham been the repre
sentative of a less formidable power that
Great Britain.
No straws show so peculiarly how the
wind blows, as Diplomatic straws— for punc
tilio, etiquette and form are a part of tlieir
education and business. The resident Min
is'ers at Washington chose rather to slight
a public American occasion, than to appear
‘o be uncivil to the British Minister.
MEXICO ANU MONARCHY.
The following bit of rumor or new3 or
w hatevet it may be called, is going the rounds
of the Press. It is from the Baltimore A
rnerican.
Washing ro?*, Jan. 16, 1546.
It is said thwrp is important new? m the citv from
Mexico, to the effect that negotiations aie going on
between the Mexican and French Governments, for
placing a Constitutional King upon tiie throne of
Mexico, and changing the Mexican Republic into a
Constitutional Monarchy for that purpose—the King
to ue a French Prince.
The News. — The N. Y- Express of
Thursday evening says—
“lt is doubted by many in Wall-street, whether
the news of the repeal of the Corn Laws can lie de
pended upon. In the monied circles, among those
who corre>pond with the Barings, and ether distin
guished hankers in London, (lie advices are disbe
lieved. These persons believe that if the announce
ment in the London Times was true, the correspon
dents of these houses would have been it vised of the
fact. In consequence of the doubts thrown over the
whole intelligence, the next steamer will he looked
for with more than ordinary interest. The news,
however, has caused a great sensation in Wall st,
The effect has been favorable on slocks and business.
The market continues to improve, though very slow
ly United States 6’s rose | ; Ohio 6’s Reading
Bonds 1; Farmers’ Loan 1; Morris 5 ; Reading 1J;
Canton j{, Harlem J; Norwich and Worcester 2, and
Long Island $. w
FOREIGN NEWS.
Wkhirrthe past week, we have received 1
advices by several sailing vessels from Eu
rope. The ship- Virginia at Mobile made
a very short passage, and brought Liverpool
dates to the 12th uk. On the same day by
the Northern mail, we were put in posses
sion of accounts one day later by a packet
at N. York. The intelligence is of a high
ly interesting nature.
The Peel Ministry has been dissolved,
and Lord John Russell goes into office as
Premier of a Whig Cabinet. The cause of
the dissolution is found in the great Free
Trade struggle, and a split between the
Duke of Wellington (the incarnation of To
ryism) and Sir Robert Peel, growing out of
differences upon the subject of the Coru
Laws. This political revolution seals the
fate of the monopoly party, and is a tri
umphant vindication of the light, in tire
people (contended for by the Free Trade
party) to buy their bread stuffs in the cheap
est markets in the world, unrestricted by
the tariff of duties demanded by rapacious
monopoly at home. While we rejoice in
the success of principles so viral to human
liberty, so essential to justice and of such
wide spreading beneficence upon the desti
nies of all men and nations, among whom
they prevail; we have especial reasons to
be gratified at the result so important in its
effects upon the prosperity of the agricultu
ral interests of the U. States. The British
ports opened to American grain, will tell
powerfully upon the Western States, the
Egyptofthe Union, where grain is grown in
such rich abundance. It will stimulate the
commerce and carrying trade between the
| two countries. In making bread cheaper,
■it will leave more money to be invested in
cotton, fabrics, and augment the price of cot
ton. And if our own Government pursues
the wise example of abolishing its protec
tive system, and xeeiprocates tfiis grand
movement towards a universal unshackling
of the pinions of commerce, no human mind
Jean, see what blessings it will bear upon its
wings from every clime, to every interest of
our country. Jt is to be hoped too that tfiis
political change in England, will have a
pacific beating upon the Oregon dispute be
tween England and the U. Stales.
There must be some sympathy in the
Whig party of England—the liberals of that
country, for the glorious freedom of our in
stitutions. The men who have just triumph •
ed in a struggle for great principles of uni.
versal import and. interest, must feel kindly
towards a country, whose people have but
just won a similar victory over a gigantic
and odious monopoly and stand in the very
act, through the forms and sanctions of le
gislation, of plucking Free Trade as its
ripe frnit.
The year 1846, will be a epoch, indeed,
in the annals of the Anglo Saxon race, if
England the venerable mother, and Ameri
ca, the vigorous and blooming daughter of
the same blood, signalize it by a contempo
raneous enunciation of the great princi
ple that Trade is free , as man is free. And
if the kindjy sympathy, which emulation
in good and glorious actions is known to pro
di.ee, should have the effect of softening the
aspeiitiesof feeling and smoothing the dim
cullies betweeen the two nations into a per
manent. and honorable peace, the year 1846
would be imperishable.
FROM MEXICO.
Our extracts ftom the Mobile Herald &
Tribune, contain important intelligence.—
The revolution which has placed General
Paredes at the top of the political wheel,
has turned, it would seem, upon a sentiment
of Mexican hostility to the United States.
Indeed, the idea most prominently held forth
by the insurgents, was that Herrera had
forfeited the confidence and injured the hon
or of the Nation, by his invitation to the
American Government to open negotiations
upon the subject of the Texan boundary,
which resulted in the mission of Mr. Slidell.
Parades will bo forced to make a demon
tration of hostilities, at least, even if be do
not eomc up to the full performance of bis
vain glorious threats against the “perfidi
ous North Americans.” Mr. Slidell’s mis
si in, is of course at an end, and the rela
tions between the countries extremely equiv
ocal. It will be for this government tode
cide, how long a quasi war, without com
ing to real blows, can be kept up ; and how
long it will be its duty to keep up a consid.
erable military force on the Texan frontier,
in anticipation of a blow from that quarter.
It would seem, that Mexico should be com
pelled to make her mark and take her stand,
either as a peaceable and quiet neighbor, or
as one bent upon war, aVonlrance. This
government can have no motive to measure
strength with Mexico. There are neither
laurels nor profit to be made by it. But it
may be necessary to teach the Mexican
Government, by a little wholesome chas
tisement, that she is expected to keep the
peace with her neighbors, and that it is ne
cessary to us, that she shall cease her ever,
lasting menaces of “war, which while they
are not very alarming, give us the trouble
and expense of holding an army in readi
ness to meet what may event uate from them
We do not exchange with- the New York
Euening Post —but the following closing re
marksof a spirited article, precisely express
what we have been laboring to stale as out
view of the Oregon conlrovetsy. It is a
great truth, that it becomes this Republic,
its Government and its People, to keep
steadily in view, that “no nation can deal
with England if it falters, ot trifl es, or hesi
tates.” Delay is more dangerous than the
immediate “ notice”—and those who argue
against the “notice” and urge procrastina
tion as the means of peace, run the greatest
hazard of the peril which they seek to avoid.
We have a tight provided by the Conven
tions of 1818 and 1827, to give the notice.
Where then, is the danger of war, to grow
out of exercising that right ? No one can
apprehend that Great Britain will dare to
send her fleets and armies to chastise us for
performing an act, which by her own agree_
ment, we have had a right to perform fo r
the last 28 years? The danger of war from
the notice, is then, but contingent after the
notice. There was the same danger when
Texas was annexed, because England was
I known to be opposed to annexation—yet did
any Texas-mar) hold back from exercisi
the right to asnex Texas to the Union, wi,
the free comst&t of her people, because Eng
land might be displeased, and might choose to
make war upon us, in her displeasure. On
the other hand, there is positive danger of a
war, if this question is not soon settled.
Affairs in Oregon are assuming such a
complication of form, as to render delay dan
gerous, and to make it certain that a crisis
is at hand. Two People and. two Govern
ments in the same territory are an anomaly
that cannot long and peaceably co-exist.
A lively picture of this peril is given by
the “Union,” in an article which we have
copied to-day. We think our readers will be
startled at the facts to which we were stran
gers, and which show to what extent the U.
States and her citizens, have eiijOycd the
“yoint-occupation” as it is mis-ca Led, of
Oregon.
“ We are well satisfied that this Oregon matter
cannot be safely carried through except by an ad.
ministration sustained by prudent b t decisive sup
port in each house. No nation can deal with Eng.
land if it palters, or trifles oi hesitates..
“ It is no such course that, in our judgment, will
secure peace. It was no such course that se< urcii
us from war with France in 1836.—Great Britain
cannot but see that we me entitled to ports on tho
Pacific. She cannot but see that the forty-ninth par
allel leaves her a liberal shate of the teriltory. Sho
wilt see all this plain enough, if our govert mtnt ran
command support at home and respect abroad.—bet
she will neither see nor hear, if she finds that the ad
ministration cannot rat y its own fuet.ds in such an
emergency as this.
“No .ne can outdo us in devotion to peace. Wo
despise in om souls. Ihe braggart blustering to which,
day after day, the House of Representatives re
echoes; we abhor the insane policy of a Giddings.
But, in our judgement, a firm policy is the only wav
to _
*■ The rlhmlt will is right. In thaUMflH
lie the hvespfho ‘he
and >ve the tievouUM^fl
•h debates iiiTj*: j. ■';>.! iiiicxurfM
n i-\ in !\ be •(, :
n
— a save the
s ORE
YVe are gratified to find -hat the Columbus T.me*
coincides, with our viewsaa expressed on the loth
inst., in favor of giving the notice. We then ex
pressed an opinion that Congress should direct it to
tie given, although we have perfect confidence in the
patriotism and moderation of the Pret-j'leiit. The
Washington Union ol the 16:h inst., in a lengthy
editorial, advocating tin; notice as a peace measure,
remarks—“We should prefer Congress to take th
responsibilify to abrogate (lie Convention, instead of
throwing it on the Piesident, unless some circum
stances should turn up to recommend such a discre
tion to be given to him.
While the fi.tg ot England waves over Fort Um
qua, two hundred miles f-outh of the Columbia liver
in the vei v heart of lire region which our people are
; fast filling up—while Britain has exercised jurisdic
tion for ytnrs over ihe land we cla.'in anil have a clear
title to Congress is debating il.e propriety of termin
ating the Convention. They must see what the British-
Press say—wha> the Ministry or the Parliament in
tend. We caunot see how-our citizens can be pro
moted by legislation whtn we alh w an intruder to
exercise jurisdiction.
We think with ihe Union that if we act at a'l—tee
must give the notice. Further, that action be speedy.
If war comes from such a iiieaaure, Britain w ill he
the aggressor, and our countrymen will tie tii'edin
vindteanng the National honor —| Sav Georgian..
The objection to throwing upon the Pre
side til the duty and responsibility of giving
the ‘‘notice,” is, that the moral effect of the
act will be weakened by an apparent dispo
sition of the Legislative Branch of the Gov
ernment to shirk the responsibility of the
measure. We repeat, that, in this case,
prudence.” Negotiation can
he successfully conducted with no power in
a faltering spirit-—much less with England-
The Executive has clearly and manfully
taken its stand and thrown the whole moral
force of tltal Branch of the Government, in
favor of terminating the Convention—let the
Legislature doits duty with equal boldness
and decision ; present an unbtuken lion’ to
Great Britain, and show her that the whole
American Government and people ate in
earnest in their purpose to bring the ques
tion to a speedy issue. Such a course will
smooth the way to a pacific termination of
the dispute, while division and distraction,
doubt and hesitation wall agg/t,vale the pre
tensions of England, and render a peaceablo
airangement impossible. We hold it to bo
a “fixed fact” that the People of the United
States will never consent to yield a fool be
low the 49th parallel—if that. If the peo
ple’s Representatives flinch from their
duty i” this matter, nothing can save
them f/om the popular bowstring—political
death is their certain doom. If the present
Congress will not sustain the honor and ter
ritorial rights of the country, as certain as
fate, the people will send men to the next
Congress who wilt,.
WASHINGTON GOSSIP.
The able Washington correspondent of
the Richmond Enquirer, who uses the sig
nature of “Macon,” and whose information
appears to be more reliable than that of any
of his letter.writing class, makes the follow
ing corrections of some ol the idle gossip
put forth by ihe scribblers for some of the
Northern papers :
In the Et.qmier of yesterday, (flie 17th.) 1 find
a quotation from a W aslungton loiter to the Wma
dt-lphia North American, in which queer mistakes
ure made, as to the Democariie tenutors upon the
sullied of die notice, Messrs. Colquitt, Haywood,
Speight and Westcott are set down as against [ho
notice, and Messrs. Cameron and Bagby as being
doub'tul. All these gentlemen will doubtless vote
in favor of it——at least such an impression I
derive from sources in w hich I have implicit confi
dence. ‘1 hey ttre however, each anxious to delay
final aeiion upon the subject as long as pos-tble, no
that whatever is done may be marked with due
caution, deliberation and wisdom. J have no means
of obtaining information as to the sentiments °| Whig
-senators upon the question, and therefore will not
venture 10 amuse your leaders with ba-elesa surmi
ses thereon. While “my hand is in” I might as
well set to right other mistakes upon the subject of
Senatorial miners, wh'eh have of late gone the
rounds of tiie Northern press. It has been publish
ed, that Senators Calhoun, Benton Cass, Alien and
Hannegan have had a most bitter personal alterca
tion in Executive session. This is without the mer
est shadow oi foundation. Not one word of dispute
or bad feeling h.-.s ever passed the lips of either of
these gentlemen at any such time. It is, as 1 have her
fore said impossible to leatn what has passed in
Executive session, but not so difficult to learn what
has taken p'ace on such occasions. Again—it is
said, that the det.ute on the nomination of Judge
Woodward of Pennsylvania gave rise to this report
ed flare-up. The truth is, Judge W.’s nomination
has not yet been taken up in the Senate. His own
friends have request*d the delay, ard they who ate
of course informed when it copies up for considera
tion. say ‘hat as yet it has not been acted on in any
manner. ‘ It is also said that the nomination ‘f Mr.
Slidell as Minister toMexico.is opposed by many
I>emorratic Senators, Whereas, 1 know that every
one approves of the appointment. There are cer
tain Whig Senators who, otU of doors, allege that
his temper is toefiasty for our position at this pecul
iar tune, and I take it for granted, urge ihe same ob
jection against him on the consideration of the nom
ination. “This is ail folderol, as every one initiuiate
ly aeqainted with Mr. S, knows. He is famed
among his friends tor coolness, caution and delibera
tion in all things, and for the usual accompaniments
of ouch a tone of mind, decision of character and
firmness, which these Whigs n istake for rashness.
It has also been said, that our Mexicnn ralations
have been before the Senate for some days paef,
which is not true. I feel confident that nothing re
ferring to Mexico, has been sent in as yet.
MISSISSIPPI SENATOR.
Gen. 11. 8. Foote has been elected to the
U. S. Senate for six years, frocp the -Ith of
March 1847, and the Hon. J. W? Chalmers
for the unexpired term of Mr. Walken
the Secretary of the Treasury.