The Oregon Question. Gallatin Albert
on what foundation did the claim of Spain rest? If she had indeed an absolute right to the whole country bordering on the Pacific, derived either from natural or international law, or from usages generally recognized, it matters but little, as respects right, whether other nations had acquiesced in, or opposed her claim. If there was no foundation for that absolute and exclusive right of sovereignty, Spain could transfer nothing more to the United States than the legitimate claims derived from her discoveries.
The discovery gives an incipient claim not only to the identical spot thus discovered, but to a certain distance beyond it. It has been admitted that the claim extends generally, though not universally, as far inland as the sources of rivers emptying into the sea where the discovery has been made. The distance to which the right or claim extends along the sea shore may not be precisely defined, and may vary according to circumstances. But it never can be unlimited; it has never been recognized beyond a reasonable extent. Spain was the first European nation which discovered and occupied Florida. A claim on that account to the absolute sovereignty over the whole of the Atlantic shores as far as Hudson's Bay, or the 60th degree of latitude, would strike every one as utterly absurd. A claim on the part of Spain to the sovereignty of all the shores of the Pacific, derived from her having established missions in California, would be similar in its nature and extent, and equally inadmissible. It cannot be sustained as a natural right, nor by the principles of international law, nor by any general usage or precedent. The claim of Spain rested on no such grounds.
It was derived from the bull of Pope Alexander VI., which the Spanish monarchs obtained in the year 1493, immediately after the discovery of America by Columbus. By virtue of that bull, combined with another previously granted to Portugal, and with modifications respecting the division line between the two Powers, the Pope granted to them the exclusive sovereignty over all the discoveries made or to be made in all the heathen portions of the globe, including, it must be recollected, all the countries in America bordering on the Atlantic, as well as those on the Pacific ocean. Yet, even at that time, the Catholic Kings of England, and France did not recognize the authority of the Pope on such subjects; as evidently appears by the voyages of Cabot under the orders of Henry VII. of England, and of Cartier under those of the King of France, Francis I. Subsequently, the colonies planted by both countries, from Florida to Hudson's Bay, were a practical and continued protest and denial of the Spanish claim of absolute sovereignty over the whole of America: whilst the acquiescence of Spain was tantamount to an abandonment of that claim where it was resisted. Ridiculous as a right derived from such a source may appear at this time, it was not then thus considered by Spain; and the western boundary of Brazil is to this day regulated by the division line prescribed by the Pope.
I am not aware of any other principle by which the claim ever was or can be sustained, unless it be the idle ceremony of taking possession, as it is called. The celebrated Spaniard who first discovered the Pacific ocean, "Balboa, advancing up to the middle in the waves, with his buckler and sword, took possession of that ocean in the name of the King his master, and vowed to defend it, with his arms, against all his enemies." – (Robertson.)
I have dwelt longer on this subject than it may seem to deserve. The assertion of the solidity of this ancient exclusive Spanish claim has had an apparent effect on public opinion fatal to the prospect of an amicable arrangement. I am also fully satisfied that the resort to vulnerable arguments, instead of strengthening, has a tendency to lessen the weight of the multiplied proofs, by which the superiority of the American over the British claim has been so fully established.
NUMBER II
It has, it is believed, been conclusively proved that the claim of the United States to absolute sovereignty over the whole Oregon territory, in virtue of the ancient exclusive Spanish claim, is wholly unfounded. The next question is, whether the other facts and arguments adduced by either party establish a complete and absolute title of either to the whole; for the United States claim it explicitly; and, although the British proposal of compromise did yield a part, yet her qualified claim extends to the whole. It has been stated by herself in the following words: "Great Britain claims no exclusive sovereignty over any portion of that territory. Her present claim, not in respect to any part, but to the whole, is limited to a right of joint occupancy, in common with other States, leaving the right of exclusive dominion in abeyance." And, again: "The qualified rights which Great Britain now possesses over the whole of the territory in question, embrace the right to navigate the waters of those countries, the right to settle in and over any part of them, and the right freely to trade with the inhabitants and occupiers of the same. * * * * * * It is fully admitted that the United States possess the same rights; but beyond they possess none."
In the nature of things, it seems almost impossible that a complete and absolute right to any portion of America can exist, unless it be by prescriptive and undisputed actual possession and settlements, or by virtue of a treaty.
At the time when America was discovered, the law of nations was altogether unsettled. More than a century elapsed before Grotius attempted to lay its foundation on Natural Law and the moral precepts of Christianity; and, when sustaining it by precedents, he was compelled to recur to Rome and Greece. It was in reality a new case, to which no ancient precedents could apply,2 for which some new rules must be adopted. Gradually, some general principles were admitted, never universally, in their nature vague and often conflicting. For instance, discovery varies, from the simple ascertaining of the continuity of land, to a minute exploration of its various harbors, rivers, &c.; and the rights derived from it may vary accordingly, and may occasionally be claimed to the same district by different nations. There is no precise rule for regulating the time after which the neglect to occupy would nullify the right of prior discovery; nor for defining the extent of coast beyond the spot discovered to which the discoverer may be entitled, or how far inland his claim extends. The principle most generally admitted was, that, in case of a river, the right extended to the whole country drained by that river and its tributaries. Even this was not universally conceded. This right might be affected by a simultaneous or prior discovery and occupancy of some of the sources of such river by another party; or it might conflict with a general claim of contiguity. This last claim, when extending beyond the sources of rivers discovered and occupied, is vague and undefined: though it would seem that it cannot exceed in breadth that of the territory on the coast originally discovered and occupied. A few examples will show the uncertainty resulting from those various claims, when they conflicted with each other.
The old British charters extending from sea to sea have already been mentioned. They were founded, beyond the sources of the rivers emptying into the Atlantic, on no other principle than that of contiguity or continuity. The grant in 1621 of Nova Scotia, by James the First, is bounded on the north by the river St. Lawrence, though Cartier had more than eighty-five years before discovered the mouth of that river and ascended it as high up as the present site of Montreal, and the French under Champlain had several years before 1621 been settled at Quebec. But there is another case more important, and still more in point.
The few survivors of the disastrous expedition of Narvaez, who, coming from Florida, did in a most extraordinary way reach Culiacan on the Pacific, were the first Europeans who crossed the Mississippi. Some years later, Ferdinand de Soto, coming also from Florida, did in the year 1541 reach and cross the Mississippi, at some place between the mouth of the Ohio and that of the Arkansas. He explored a portion of the river and of the adjacent country; and, after his death, Moscoso, who succeeded him in command, did, in the year 1543, build seven brigantines or barques, in which, with the residue of his followers, he descended the Mississippi, the mouth of which he reached in seventeen days. Thence putting to sea with his frail vessels, he was fortunate enough to reach the Spanish port of Panuco, on the Mexican coast. The right of discovery clearly belonged to Spain; but she had neglected for near one hundred and fifty years to make any settlement on the great river or any of its tributaries. The French, coming from Canada, reached the Mississippi in the year 1680, and ascended it as high up as St. Anthony's Falls; and La Salle descended it in 1682 to its mouth. The French Government did, in virtue of that second discovery, claim the country, subsequently founded New Orleans, and formed several other settlements in the interior, on the Mississippi or its waters. Spain almost immediately occupied Pensacola and Nacogdoches, in order to check the progress of the
Grotius, however, sustains the right of occupation by a maxim of the Civil Roman Code.