H.] PROOFS AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 447 



The claims of the United States are urged upon three grounds : 



1st. As resulting from their own proper right. 



2dly. As resulting from a right derived to them from Spain ; that 

 power having, by the treaty of Florida, concluded with the United States 

 in 1819, ceded to the latter all their rights and claims on the western 

 coast of America north of the 42d degree. 



3dly. As resulting from a right derived to them from France, to 

 whom the United States succeeded, by treaty, in possession of the 

 province of Louisiana. 



The first right, or right proper, of the United States, is founded on 

 the alleged discovery of the Columbia River by Mr. Gray, of Boston, 

 who, in 1792, entered that river, and explored it to some distance from 

 its mouth. 



To this are added the first exploration, by Lewis and Clarke, of a 

 main branch of the same river, from its source downwards, and also the 

 alleged priority of settlement, by citizens of the United States, of the 

 country in the vicinity of the same river. 



The second right, or right derived from Spain, is founded on the alleged 

 prior discovery of the region in dispute by Spanish navigators, of whom 

 the chief were, 1st, Cabrillo, who, in 1543, visited that coast as far as 44 

 degrees north latitude; 2d, De Fuca, who, as it is affirmed, in 1598, 

 entered the straits known by his name, in latitude 49 degrees; 3d, 

 Gualle, who, in 1582, is said to have pushed his researches as high as 

 57 degrees north latitude; 4th, Perez, and others, who, between the years 

 1774 and 1792, visited Nootka Sound and the adjacent coasts. 



The third right, derived from the cession of Louisiana to the United 

 States, is founded on the assumption that that province, its boundaries 

 never having been exactly defined longitudinally, may fairly be as- 

 serted to extend westward across the Rocky Mountains, to the shore 

 of the Pacific. 



Before the merits of these respective claims are considered, it is 

 necessary to observe that one only out of the three can be valid. 



They are, in fact, claims obviously incompatible the one with the 

 other. If, for example, the title of Spain by first discovery, or the title 

 of France as the original possessor of Louisiana, be valid, then must one 

 or the other of those kingdoms have been the lawful possessor of that 

 territory, at the moment when the United States claim to have discovered 

 it. If, on the other hand, the Americans were the first discoverers, there 

 is necessarily an end of the Spanish claim; and if priority of discovery 

 constitutes the title, that of France falls equally to the ground. 



Upon the question, how far prior discovery constitutes a legal claim to 

 sovereignty, the law of nations is somewhat vague and undefined. It is, 

 however, admitted by the most approved writers that mere accidental 

 discovery, unattended by exploration — by formally taking possession in 

 the name of the discoverer's sovereign — by occupation and settlement, 

 more or less permanent — by purchase of the territory — or receiving the 

 sovereignty from the natives — constitutes the lowest degree of title, and 

 that it is only in proportion as first discovery is followed by any or all of 

 these acts, that such title is strengthened and confirmed. 



The rights conferred by discovery, therefore, must be discussed on 

 their own merits. 



But before the British plenipotentiaries proceed to compare the relative 



