456 PROOFS AND ILLUSTRATIONS. [H. 



party, should thenceforward be equally open to the subjects of both, for 

 all purposes of commerce and settlement, the sovereignty remaining in 

 abeyance. 



It is then declared, that, in reference either to the rights derived to the 

 United States from Spain, by virtue of the treaty of 1819, or to that supposed 

 to be derived from the acquisition of Louisiana, which province did, in the 

 year 1790, belong to Spain, the United States have, with these rights, 

 necessarily succeeded to the limitations by which they were defined, and 

 the obligations under which they were to be exercised, in conformity to 

 the stipulations of the Nootka convention; whence it is .generally in- 

 ferred, that, whilst it is fully admitted that the United States possess the 

 same rights as Great Britain over the country in question, namely, to 

 navigate its waters, to settle in any part of it, and freely to trade with the 

 inhabitants and occupiers of the same, beyond these rights, the United 

 States possessed none, and that they cannot, therefore, claim exclusive 

 sovereignty over any part of the said territory. 



It will, in the first place, be observed, that, admitting that convention 

 to be still in force, and of whatever construction it may be susceptible, 

 this compact between Spain and Great Britain could only bind the parties 

 to it, and can affect the claim of the United States so far only as it is de- 

 rived from Spain. If, therefore, they have a claim in right of their own 

 discoveries, explorations, and settlements, as this cannot be impaired by 

 the Nootka convention, it becomes indispensably necessary, in order to 

 defeat such claim, to show a better prior title on the part of Great Britain, 

 derived from some other consideration than the stipulations of that con- 

 vention. But, on examining that instrument, it will be found to be ap- 

 parently merely of a commercial nature, and in no shape to affect the 

 question of distinct jurisdiction and exclusive sovereignty. 



It was agreed, by that convention, " that the respective subjects of the 

 two parties should not be disturbed or molested, either in navigating or 

 carrying on their fisheries in the Pacific Ocean or in the South Seas, or 

 in landing on the coast of those seas, in places not already occupied, for 

 the purpose of carrying on their commerce with the natives of the coun- 

 try, or of making settlements there." And further, " that in all places 



, wherever the subjects of either shall have made settlements since 



the month of April, 1789, or shall hereafter make any, the subjects of 

 the other shall have free access, and shall carry on their trade without any 

 •disturbance or molestation." 



It is difficult to believe, on reading those provisions, and recollecting 

 in what cause the convention originated, that any other settlements could 

 have been contemplated than such as were connected with the commerce 

 to be carried on with the natives. Indeed, it is as being only of a com- 

 mercial nature, that the Nootka convention may be positively asserted to 

 be now in force ; the commercial treaties between Great Britain and 

 Spain having, subsequent to the war which had intervened, been alone 

 renewed by the treaty of July, 1814. 



Admitting, however, that the word "settlement" was meant in its most 

 unlimited sense, it is evident that the stipulations had not for object to 

 settle the territorial claims of the parties, and had no connection with an 

 ultimate partition of the country, for the purpose of permanent coloni- 

 zation. 



Those stipulations permitted promiscuous and intermixed settlements 



