1819.] THE N00TKA CONVENTION EXPIRED IN 1796. 321 



mation and completion of the first, which would otherwise have want- 

 ed the requisite degree of precision ; and it certainly could not have 

 embraced the convention of 1790, except so far as related to the 

 commerce of each of the parties on the unoccupied coasts of Amer- 

 ica, and the settlements made by each for that special purpose. 



Had the convention of 1790 been expressly renewed and con- 

 firmed in 1814, it would still have been inoperative, except with 

 regard to subjects and establishments of the contracting parties. 

 The governments of Great Britain and Spain might have again 

 agreed that their subjects should reciprocally enjoy liberty of access 

 and trade, in all establishments which either might form on the 

 north-west coasts of America ; but neither power could have claimed 

 such rights in places on those coasts then occupied by a third nation. 



It has been already shown that, after the abandonment of Nootka 

 Sound by the Spaniards, in March, 1795, no settlement was made, 

 or attempted, by them in any of the countries on the western side 

 of America north of the Bay of San Francisco ; and that, during 

 the period between that year and 1814, many establishments were 

 formed in those countries by Russians, British, and citizens of the 

 United States. The Russians extended their posts from Aliaska 

 eastward to Sitka, and even fixed themselves within a few miles of 

 the Bay of San Francisco. The British founded their first establish- 

 ment west of the Rocky Mountains, in 1806, on the upper waters 

 of Fraser's River, near the 54th degree of latitude. The Columbia 

 was surveyed by order of the government of the United States, with 

 a view to its occupation, in 1805 ; and their citizens made estab- 

 lishments on that river successively in 1808, 1810, and 1811, of 

 which the principal were, in 1813, taken by the British, and in 

 1818, restored to the Americans, agreeably to the treaty of Ghent. 

 Under such circumstances, the title of Spain to the countries north 

 of the Bay of San Francisco, however strong it may have been in 

 1790 or 1796, in virtue of discoveries and settlements, must be 

 allowed to have become considerably weaker in 1819, from disuse, 

 and from submission to the acts of occupation by other powers. 

 Thus, whilst it may be doubted that either of those powers could 

 in justice claim the sovereignty of the country occupied by its sub- 

 jects without the consent of Spain, the latter could not have claimed 

 the exclusive possession of such country, or have entered into com- 

 pacts with a third power, respecting trade, navigation, or settlement, 

 in it, agreeably to any recognized principle of national law. Still 

 less could Great Britain have claimed the right to exclude other 

 41 



