In 1826 Mr. Canning suggested to Rufus Gallatin's Negotia- King, who was then minister of the United tions: Joint Occu- States at London, that the negotiations be pation. tween Great Britain and the United States should be resumed. Mr. King, who was on the point of leav ing England, transmitted Mr. Canning's note to Washington. Mr. Clay was then Secretary of State. He substantially reaffirmed, for the guidance of Mr. Gallatin, who had succeeded Mr. King in the mission to England, the instructions of Mr. Adams to Mr. Rush; but, while authorizing Mr. Gallatin to announce the line of 49° as an ultimatum, said he might agree that British subjects should have the right to navigate the Columbia if that line should cross any of the branches of the river which were navigable from the point of intersection to the ocean.3 The British plenipotentiaries, Messrs. Huskisson and Addington, rejected this proposal on the ground, among others, that the straight line had no regard to convenience, and mentioned particularly that its cutting off the southern portion of Quadra and Vancouver's Island was quite inadmissible. Mr. Gallatin, while not announcing 49 as an "ultimatum," said that the United States would adhere to that line as a basis. In em. ploying this form of expression he had in view the possible "exchange of the southern extremity of Nootka's Island (Quadra and Vancouver's), for the whole or part of the upper branches of the Columbia River north of that parallel." The British plenipotentiaries adhered substantially to the line of the Columbia River, offering the United States above that line merely a detached portion of territory bounded on the west by the ocean, on the north by Fuca's Straits, on the east by the entrance of Admiralty Inlet and the peninsula between that and Hoods Inlet, and on the south by a line drawn thence to Gray's Harbor on the ocean. The British plenipotentiaries dwelt on the excellence of the harbor of Port Discovery, defended by Protection Island, which would thus be secured to the United States. Mr. Gallatin rejected this proposal at once, saying that it did not admit even of discussion as to its details, as its principle was inadmissible. As the nego 1 Am. State Papers, For. Rel. VI. 645-646. Treaties and Conventions of the United States, 1776-1887, p. 1331, notes. 3 Am. State Papers, For. Rel. VI, 644–645. Am. State Papers, For. Rel. VI. 654. tiators were unable to reach a settlement, they concluded on August 6, 1827, a convention indefinitely extending the joint occupation, subject to its termination by either party on twelve months' notice. The conclusion of this convention "was rather hastened than retarded by the death of Mr. Canning in August, and the elevation of Lord Goderich to the post of Prime Minister."1 Calhoun-Pakenham The continuance of the joint occupation proved to be inconvenient and dangerous. Negotiations. Settlers were beginning to occupy the territory in large numbers, and they naturally looked to their respective governments for protection. The Webster Ashburton Treaty, which was concluded on the 9th of August 1842, did not provide for the adjustment of the dispute, and a proposal made by the British minister at Washington later in the year for the renewal of negotiations remained without result, though President Tyler at one time contemplated sending a special mission to England for the purpose of effecting a settlement.3 In 1844 Mr. Richard Pakenham arrived in the United States as minister of Great Britain, and renewed in behalf of his government the proposition to resume negotiations. Action on this proposal was delayed by the killing of Mr. Upshur, who was then Secretary of State, by the explosion of a gun on board the United States man-of-war Princeton.* After the lapse of several months the negotiations were resumed by Mr. Calhoun, who had succeeded Mr. Upshur as Secretary of State. The propositions respectively advanced by the negotiators were substantially the same as those discussed in London in 1827, Mr. Calhoun offering the line of 49°, however, as an ultimatum. In January 1845, no agreement seeming to be possible, Mr. Pakenham proposed to submit the dispute to arbitration. This proposition Mr. Calhoun declined, saying that it was the opinion of the President that it would be inadvisable to consider any other mode than negotiation, so long Adams's Life of Albert Gallatin, 626. 2 A select committee of the United States Senate on June 6, 1838, reported a bill to authorize the President to employ such parts of the Army and Navy as he might deem necessary for the protection of the persons and property of those who might reside in the territory. (S. Rep. 470, 25 Cong. 2 sess.) 3 Curtis's Life of Daniel Webster, II. 172. Benton's Thirty Years' View, II. 567. 5627-14 as there was a hope of arriving at a satisfactory settlement in that way.' "Fifty-four Forty or Fight." Meanwhile the controversy was daily growing more acute. A movement was made in Congress to erect a Territorial government without defining the domain over which its jurisdiction should be exercised. The Democratic convention that assembled at Baltimore in May 1844 adopted a declaration popularly interpreted as meaning "fifty-four forty or fight," to the effect that the title of the United States "to the whole of the territory of Oregon" was "clear and unquestionable," and that "no part of the same ought to be ceded to England, or any other power." President Polk in his inaugural address made "the same declaration in the very same words, with marks of quotation." The declaration was answered in England in indignant tones. The cry became general that war was "inevitable." 3 Proposals. Under the circumstances President Polk, Mr. Buchanan's "in deference to what had been done by his predecessors, and especially in consideration that propositions of compromise had thrice been made, by two preceding administrations, to adjust the question on the parallel of forty-nine degrees," deemed it to be his duty to make another effort to settle. Accordingly Mr. Buchanan on the 12th of July 1845 proposed to divide the territory "by the forty-ninth parallel of north latitude, ** offering at the same time to make free to Great Britain any port or ports on Vancouver's island, south of this parallel, which the British Government may desire." This proposition, which did not include the free navigation of the Columbia, Mr. Pakenham, without referring the matter to his government, on the 29th of July rejected, saying that he hoped the American plenipotentiary would "be prepared to offer some further proposals more consistent with fairness and equity, and with the reasonable expectations of the British Government."6 * IS. Ex. Doc. 1, 29 Cong. 1 sess. 161, 162. 2 Webster's Works, II. 321. See Blaine, Twenty Years of Congress, I. 51-56. 3 Will there be War? Analysis of the Elements which constitute, respectively, the Power of England and the United States. By an Adopted Citizen (L. Bonnefoux), New York, February, 1846. 4S. Ex. Doc. 1, 29 Cong. 1 sess. 10. Id. 169. 6 Id. 176. the 30th of August Mr. Buchanan, after reviewing the controversy at length and citing the language just quoted from Mr. Pakenham's note, withdrew the proposition which the latter had repulsed. Mr. Polk in his annual message to Congress on the 2d of the following December recommended that the notice required by the treaty of 1827 for the termination of the joint occupation be given, after which it would be necessary to determine whether "the national rights in Oregon must either be abandoned or firmly maintained. That they cannot be abandoned," he said, "without a sacrifice of both national honor and interest, is too clear to admit of doubt."1 Britain. The course of Mr. Pakenham in rejecting, Attitude of Great without reference, the proposal of Mr. Buchanan was not approved by the British Government. Mr. Pakenham endeavored to have the proposal restored, but without success. The President refused to renew the offer, determining after two Cabinet councils that it was for the British Government to decide what further steps, if any, they would take in the negotiation. In an interview on the 27th of December 1845 Mr. Pakenham, after urging again a renewal of the offer of the forty-ninth parallel, handed Mr. Buchanan a note in which it was stated that his government had instructed him "again to represent in pressing terms, to the Government of the United States, the expediency of referring the whole question of an equitable division of the territory to the arbitration of some friendly sovereign or state." In conversation Mr. Pakenham suggested as arbitrator the Republic of Switzerland or the Government of Hamburg or Bremen. "I told him," said Mr. Buchanan, "that whilst my own inclinations were strongly against arbitration, if I were compelled to select an arbitrator it would be the Pope. That both nations were heretics, and the Pope would be impartial. He (Mr. Pakenham) perceived, however, that I was not in earnest, and suggested that the reference might be made to commissioners. from both countries. I told him I thought it was vain to think of arbitration; because, even if the President were agreed to it, which I felt pretty certain he was not, no such treaty could pass the Senate."3 On the 3d of January 1846 Mr. Buchanan formally declined the British proposal on the ground that it IS. Ex. Doc. 1, 29 Cong. 1 sess. 13. assumed that the title of Great Britain to a portion of the territory was valid, and thus took for granted "the very question in dispute." Mr. Pakenham then proposed to refer the question of title in either of the two powers to the whole of the territory; but this proposition also Mr. Buchanan declined.' On the 26th of February 1846 Mr. Buch Mr. McLane's Nego- anan wrote to Mr. McLane, who was specially tiations. * charged with the discussion of the question in London, that the fact was not "to be disguised that, from the speeches and proceedings in the Senate, it is probable that a proposition to adjust the Oregon question on the parallel of 49° would receive their favorable consideration."2 On the 18th of May Mr. McLane reported that he had had with the Earl of Aberdeen "a full and free conversation," and that instructions would be sent out to Mr. Pakenham by the steamer of the following day to submit "a new and further proposition for a partition of the territory in dispute." "The proposition," said Mr. McLane, most probably will offer substantially-First. To divide the territory by the extension of the line on the parallel of forty-nine to the sea-that is to say, to the arm of the sea called Birch's Bay; thence by the Canal de Haro and Straits of Fuca to the ocean, and confirming to the United States-what indeed they would possess without any special confirmation-the right freely to use and navigate the strait throughout its extent. Second. To secure to the British subjects in the region north of the Columbia and south of the forty-ninth parallel, a perpetual title to all their lands and stations of which they may be in actual occupation; * * Lastly. The proposition will demand for the Hudson's Bay Company the right of freely navigating the Columbia River."3 Termination of Joint * On the 27th of April the President approved a joint resolution by which he was authorized "at his discretion" to give the requisite notice of an intention to terminate the joint occupation under the treaty of 1827. The resolution was first adopted in the House by a vote of 154 to 54. In the Senate it was amended, on motion of Mr. Reverdy Johnson, by the insertion of a preamble, in which it was recited that the authority to give notice was conferred 1 Webster's Works, II. 324. 2 Papers relating to the Treaty of Washington, V. 47. |