legislation Congress may adopt, without infringement of the treaty relations of the two powers:

"The establishment of a distinct territorial government on the west side of the Stony Mountains would also be objected to as an attempt to exercise exclusive sovereignty. I observed that, although the Northwest company might, from its being incorporated, from the habits of the men they employed, and from having a monopoly with respect to trade, so far as British subjects were concerned, carry on a species of government without the assistance of that of Great Britain, it was otherwise with us. Our population there would consist of several independent companies and individuals. We had always been in the habit, in our most remote settlements, of carrying laws, courts, and justices of the peace with us. There was an absolute necessity, on our part; to have some species of government. Without it, the kind of sovereignty, or rather jurisdiction, which it was intended to admit, could not be exercised on our part.""

Now what follows, the gentleman from Massachusetts did

not read.

"It was suggested, and seemed to be acquiesced in, that the difficulty might be obviated, provided that the erection of a new territory was not confined exclusively to the territory west of the mountains; that it should be defined as embracing all the possessions of the United States west of a line that should be at some distance from, and east of the Stony Mountains."

After commenting on these extracts, the honorable gentleman proceeded. The bill at the last session was drawn in conformity with these suggestions, and the jurisdiction of Iowa was proposed to be extended over the Territory of Oregon; but at the present session Iowa was to be admitted into the Union, and to take her laws would be inconvenient, if not inconsistent. What then, was the committee to do, with the prospect of Iowa coming into the Union? Why, they went on to establish a distinct Territory, beginning at the summit of the Rocky Mountains. In this they had departed from the letter of the admissions made by the British minister; but had they departed from them in substance? What had they done? He put the law of 1803-and it was that law which had deceived so many gentleman on this floor-it was in that law that they pretended to find an exemption of American citizens from the operation of British laws. But in 1803 they knew that American citizens were not there in any considerable numbers; there were Europeans there, and it was in their favor that the exemptions were made. But in 1821 our claims

had ripened up, our citizens had gone there, and it became necessary to make a new provision. What, then, did the British Parliament do? Extended the jurisdiction of the laws in force in Canada to the Oregon, appointed justices of the peace, who, being sent there, had jurisdiction in certain cases; and every man, whether an American citizen or a British subject, was subject to the laws passed by the British Parliament. For the higher offences, the party committing them was arrested and taken to Canada for trial. He invited the attention of gentlemen to an examination of the law of 1821, which extended the laws of Great Britain over that country, to see if they could find one solitary exception in favor of American citizens. He hoped they would be able to do it; he should rejoice at the discovery if such a provision could be found; but he could not find it himself, and he questioned if anybody else could.

He now came to the question of what they proposed to do by this bill. Was it anything which the British Parliament had not done by its legislation? He maintained that they proposed to do no more than the British Parliament had done -not one solitary thing. Was it said that the British Parliament had not sent governors to Oregon? Be it so but the British governor was in Canada, and, by virtue of his office, he was governor of Oregon, though not actually being in the territory; and when we appoint a governor and send him to the place where his duties are to be performed, there was no difference in point of principle. The English Judges, too, reside in Canada, and ours would reside in Oregon. Was there any actual difference in principle in that? Were we carrying out rights beyond what Great Britain had done? Where and in what respect, were we going one inch beyond the example which England had set us? And if we do not go beyond that example, where is the cause for war? What provication do we give for war? Not the slightest; and Great Britain could not declare war against us for anything contained in this bill, unless she sought a war for another purpose, and if that was her desire, he would say, let her have it—in the first day and hour that she desired it, let her have it. Since he had had a seat on this floor, he had seen more than one day when he could have said, let her have it. Who did not remember the case of

the "Caroline," when British soldiers were rowed with muffled oars to our shores, and cut loose an American steamer which they sent blazing down the stream and over the cataract of the Niagara, with all her unfortunate inmates? The waters of the Niagara have been long since closed over that ill-fated vessel, but a cry for vengeance came up from the deep and troubled waters in which the Caroline was engulfed. For the present, however, he would let that pass. Why should England talk of war? Was it because we take possession of the disputed Territory just as she has done? He could not believe that such a result would ensue.

He then proceeded to say that he had never seen an American Congress take hold of an American question with a better spirit than on this occasion, and therefore he had heard, with pleasure, the suggestions which had been made, come from what quarter they might. One suggestion offered and reasoned upon by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, had convinced him, and he adopted the suggestion, and had prepared an amendment precisely in accordance therewith. It had been said, you are breaking the third article of the convention by passing this bill; but this he denied. But again, it was urged, suppose it should be so understood, and Great Britain should believe that they intended to do so. Well, to negative this, he had prepared a provision reciting that third article, and then guarding against such a conclusion. Now he supposed that would obviate all objections, but another gentleman rose and said, oh! you are taking a step that Great Britain never intended nor contemplated. What was that? Oh! you are dividing out and partitioning the land, regardless of the rights of Great Britain. To this he replied, that they knew very well that any grant of land must be subject to the future adjustment of the two countries; but if they would rather have it so expressed in the bill, be it so; and to meet that he had prepared a provision. But how would that operate? Were the people who were settling south of the Columbia river ever to be disturbed under any circumstances? Were we ever to lose a foot of land there? There was not an American citizen whose heart would not leap in his breast at the bare idea of making any concessions south of the Columbia river. But

suppose our citizens should settle north of the Columbia river beyond forty-nine degrees of north latitude, or fifty, fifty-one, fifty-two, fifty-three, fifty-four, and beyond the line that might be drawn whenever this question shall be settled by negotiation, or by war if they pleased: the moment our title failed to the part on which those citizens resided, they would drop down to our undisputed territory and say they had lost their pre-emption right; and who would say that this government could not at once give them another pre-emption right as good? Did that embarrass the case? Not at all. Who was there, then, that was not willing to give a pledge to every man that should go to that country and cultivate it, of a liberal renewal of preemption right elsewhere, if he should be dispossessed by the establishment of the British title to the land he might occupy? Would that injure the British government? Could she take offence at such a provision in our law?

From these remarks the committee would perceive that he had availed himself of every suggestion which had been made, so as to make the bill acceptable to the House, as he thought it would be acceptable to the British government. He came next to speak of the suggestions made by the gentleman from Massachusetts, which coming from him, were of great weight and importance. The objection was, that they had started at the wrong end, and that they should give the notice first. Now he (Mr. B.) did not so understand it. If that were the correct course, he would, with pleasure, follow in the wake of the gentleman from Massachusetts; but he did not so understand it. Why did they propose to pass this measure? Simply because our people have gone to that country, and are there without government, and we want to give them the benefit of our laws. They had not fled from their country, nor from our laws and institutions; they have carried all with them, and what was now proposed, was, to give them the benefits of our laws in their urgent necessities. Some gentlemen said they had got judges there already; but they were laws for organized British society, and they were British judges. They preferred our laws to British laws. But it was said they had organized their own society, and had framed their own laws. True, they had for some government was necessary; but nothing could induce

them to adhere to their own organization, but our refusals to meet their wants and necessities. But if they should first give the notice of twelve months, they would be met with the plea that the British settlers could not abandon the territory, because they had contracts made and business unsettled. And if they gave notice to quit, and the British did not then quit, what would be the next step? Would they drive away the foreign settlers? In such a case would they not resist on the ground of the necesssity to stand in self-defence. This bill, however, avoided the evils of a different course, and gave to American citizens a government and the protection of laws which the British settlers enjoyed.

The honorable gentleman recapitulated some of the provisions of this bill for the trial of persons guilty of crimes, to show their liberality; and that they must prove unexceptionable to Great Britain. He said he was careful that they should do nothing wrong; and then he could bid any power defiance. He confessed that he was afraid of an unjust war with England or any other nation; but when we had justice on our side, he would quail before no power on this globe; and this would account for the zeal which he felt on this and on the Texas question too. He wanted Texas because England wanted it. Great Britain did not desire any increase of our power which would make us more formidable to the nations of the earth. The stars of our republic shone so bright that they have attracted the envy of foreign nations: the crowned heads of Europe looked upon our prosperity with amazement; for they knew the impression which our example produced on their own population, and hence they were desirous to destroy the influence of our example.

He wanted Oregon for the same purpose; he wanted our population to spread from ocean to ocean-from the Aroostook on the north to the Rio Del Norte on the South-a magnificent empire which should strike terror and dismay to the enemies of our institutions, and of republican forms of government. Give us this bill, (said Mr. B.,) guarded cautiously benevolently guarded, as it was; give us Texas, and we will have an empire before us which will fill every American heart with pride and with joy.