382 DEBATES IN THE SENATE OF THE U. S. ON OREGON. [1843. 



to the territory will have been determined, and if those who have 

 acted on the faith of the invitation do not then receive the advan- 

 tages promised, their government will, of course, be bound to 

 indemnify them. 



Mr. McRoberts dwelt particularly on the importance of the con- 

 vention of 1790, between Great Britain and Spain ; the fifth 

 article of which, according to his construction, assured to Spain 

 the sovereignty of all the coasts south of Nootka Sound. 



Mr. Henderson considered the bill of no value, without the 

 clause for the appropriation of lands. He regarded the act of the 

 British Parliament, extending the jurisdiction of the courts of 

 Canada over Oregon, as taking possession of the country. The 

 United States must do the same-; on their taking the measure now 

 proposed, a conflict of jurisdictions would ensue, which must at once 

 compel the adjustment of the question of right. 



Mr. Huntingdon, though firmly convinced of the rights of the 

 United States to the territory in question, and of the propriety of 

 making them good so soon as possible, could not but consider the 

 bill as an infringement of the existing convention with Great 

 Britain. The present state of things should undoubtedly be 

 ended, but in the manner provided ; namely, by giving immediate 

 notice to Great Britain of the intention of the United States to 

 abrogate that convention at the expiration of a year. 



Mr. Sevier considered that, the justice of the claims of the 

 United States being admitted, there should be no delay in taking 

 possession of the country claimed, for which the only means 

 were, to provide an adequate amount of population within the 

 shortest time. Not only should the lands be granted to them, and 

 forts be built and garrisoned for their protection, but, if necessary, 

 a railroad should be made from the Missouri to the Columbia, over 

 which emigrants might be conveyed in two or three days. 



Mr. McDuffie opposed the bill in toto. He insisted that its 

 adoption would be a violation of the convention with Great 

 Britain ; as its tendency was, and could be, no other than to take 

 possession of the country, and to make ready, by all means and 

 appliances, to maintain that possession. It was an invitation to 

 the citizens of the Union — not to carry on the fur trade, nor to 

 do that which the convention permits — but to settle permanently. 

 For such a measure he denied that any emergency then called. 

 The question had slept for many years, whilst the United States 

 were at the height of their prosperity ; and it was most imprudent 



