Copyright 2000 - 2003 - Janine M. Bork
This page is part of the
Union County, OR AGHP
CHAPTER XVIII.
(1820 - 1829.)
Proceedings in Congress Relative to Sole Occupancy of Oregon and Extension Over It of Federal Jurisdiction - Efforts to Establish a Territorial Government.
IN THE winter of 1820-1, Ramsey Crooks of New York and Russell Farnham of Massachusetts, two of the party sent by John Jacob Astor to establish Astoria, visited Washington city. Dr. John Floyd, a Representative in Congress, of Virginia, and Thomas H. Benton, a Senator-elect for the State of Missouri (then applying for admission into the Union), occupied rooms at the same hotel. From Messrs. Crooks and Farnham, Messrs. Floyd and Benton became advised of the value of Oregon, the statistics of its fur trade, its features of general interest, its importance to the nation in a commercial and military view; as also the thorough manner in which the great British fur companies had secured occupancy of the territory, and were controlling its native population, and enjoying the exclusive profits of the fur trade and Indian trade west of the Rocky Mountains. On the 19th of December, 1820, Mr. Floyd, in the House of Representatives of the United States, moved the appointment of a committee "to inquire into the situation of the settlement upon the Pacific Ocean, and the expediency of occupying the Columbia river;" which, having been adopted, Messrs. Floyd, Metcalf of Kentucky, and Swearingen of Virginia were appointed. On the 25th of January, 1821, the committee reported a bill "to authorize the occupation of the Columbia river, and to regulate trade and intercourse with the Indian tribes therein." A lengthy report accompanied, vindicating the United States' title, and urging the acquisition of possession, in order to secure the advantages of the fur and East Indian trades. The bill was placed upon the calendar, but failed to be reached during that session.
Early next session (December 17, 1822), the House resolved itself into Committee of the Whole upon said bill. Mr. Floyd opened the discussion in a speech supported by statistics, showing the value of the fur trade west of the Rocky Mountains, as also the East Indian trade, which he maintained should be diverted to the United States. Said he: "This is the trade I would turn to ORegon, and from the mouth of that river make the shipments, and return with the rich exchange to our Atlantic cities, and save much of the silver and gold which is now sinking in Asia." Said he: "Now, Mr. Chairman, we cannot be mistaken when we apply the same calculation to the route to the mouth of the Oregon, as steamboat navigation we all know to be safe and sure; wherefore, it will take a steamboat twenty-four days to arrive at the falls of the Missouri; thence I allow a wagon fourteen days to travel two hundred miles to the mouth of Clark's river; thence seven days to the mouth of the Oregon, - making the time necessary for that trip forty-four days." On the next day, Mr. Wright, of Maryland, advocated the bill. Having defended the United States' title, he adverted to the value of the fur trade, and portrayed the advantages to the American whale fisheries, by the establishment of an American
(134)
Mr. Tucker, of South Carolina, opposed the bill, "because it was calculated to draw off the population and capital to a point where they will be less efficient and useful than at present, where they must be eventually lost to the States." While he considered that the progress of population to the west was inevitable, he had no wish to accelerate it, because, in the nature of things, the people of the east and west sides of the Rocky Mountains must have a permanent separation of interests.
On the 27th of January, 1823,
Mr. Floyd moved to take up the bill, on which Mr. Chambers, of Ohio, called
the yeas and nays; and, by a vote of sixty-one ayes, one hundred noes,
the bill received its quietus for that session. In the Senate, February,
1823, Mr. Benton introduced a resolution "instructing the committee on
military affairs to inquire into the expediency of making an appropriation
to enable the President of the United States to take and retain possession
of the territories of the United States on the northwest coast of America."
On the 17th, the resolution was modified with Mr. Benton's consent, substituting
a reference to the Committee on Foreign Relations, on which occasion Mr.
Benton made the first speech in the Senate in advocacy of the United States
immediately asserting its claim to Oregon. He affirmed the following propositions:
"1. That our claim of sovereignty is disputed by England; 2. That England
is now the party in possession; 3. That she resists the possession of the
United States; 4. That the party in possession in 1828 will have the right
of possession, under the law of nations, until the question of sovereignty
shall be settled by war or negotiation." He thus concluded: "That it was
now apparent that the Republic, partly through its remissness, partly from
the concessions of our Ministers in London, but chiefly from the bold pretensions
of England, is in imminent danger of losing all its territory beyond the
Rocky Mountains. The evils of such a loss to us, and the advantages of
such an acquisition to her, are too obvious to be here insisted upon. Every
one can see that the mouth of the Columbia in the hands of England would
immediately be converted into a grand naval station for the protection
of her trade and navigation in the Pacific Ocean, and for the destruction
of the commerce of all other powers. Not an American ship will be able
to show herself beyond Cape Horn, but with the permission of the English.
The direct
intercourse between the valley of the Mississippi and Asia would be intercepted. The fur trade of the Rocky Mountains would fall into the hands of British subjects, and with it the entire command of all the Indians west and north, to be turned loose upon the frontiers of Missouri and Arkansas and Illinois and Michigan, upon the first renewal of hostilities between the United States and Great Britain."
The resolution was adopted, but no report emanated from the committee. At the first session of the eighteenth Congress (December 29, 1823), a committee was appointed by the House of Representatives (Mr. Floyd, chairman), to inquire into the expediency of occupying the mouth of the Columbia river. The committee's report, April 15, 1824, embodied a letter of General Thomas S. Jesup, Quartermaster-General, United States Army, on the difficulties of establishing a military post at the mouth of the Columbia river. That experienced veteran asserted, that the possession and military command of the territory and Columbia river were necessary, not only for the protection of trade, but to the security of our western frontier. He recommended "the immediate dispatch of a force of two hundred men across the continent, to establish a fort at the mouth of the Columbia river; that, at the same time, two vessels, with arms, ordnance and supplies, be sent thither by sea. He further proposed the establishment of a line of posts across the continent to afford protection to our traders; and, on the expiration of the privilege granted to British subjects to trade on the waters of the Columbia, to enable us to remove them from our territory, and secure the whole to our citizens. Those posts would also assure the preservation of peace among the Indians in the event of a foreign war, and command their neutrality or assistance as we might think most advisable."
Suggestions from such a source invoking immediate congressional action in regard to Oregon would seem to have merited attention. Congress was, however, unwilling to assert exclusive right to the territory; and it is very questionable whether it was sound policy to herald views, demonstrating the importance to the United States of extending their possessions westward to the Pacific Ocean; the military necessity of the exclusive control of the mouth of the Columbia, as the key to the vast region, and the varied advantages to accrue from the sole occupancy of the country. It was alleged that the publication of this able document furnished a strong incentive to Great Britain to labor more assiduously to retain the advantages of that occupancy which had accrued to her subjects by the treaty of 1818.
Following the appearance of those
views, there was a growing interest in the territory west of the Rocky
Mountains; there was an increased appreciation of the value of Oregon to
the United States; the national duty of asserting exclusive right to the
territory was commending itself to popular favor. The letter of General
Jesup exposed the motives of Great Britain for delay. It openly advocated
the adoption of such an American policy as would serve as a counterpoise
to the accretion of title and benefits to great Britain from her more extensive
and methodic occupancy of the country. In short, its theory was that the
United States government should embrace the opportunity to secure advantage
under the treaty of 1818, and "mature acts" preserving and perfecting its
own title. The avowed sentiment of the Monroe Administration justified
the belief, that, upon the termination of the convention of 1818, measures
would be resorted to, tending to exclusive American occupancy. Hence this
indication that Oregon was growing into American notice, coupled with the
recommendation by an officer of high rank and acknowledged experience,
that the territory should be occupied for military purposes, did stimulate
British covetousness, did tend to magnify pretension into claim, did prove
an obstacle to adjustment, did prolong the controversy.
At this late day it seems proper to commend such views, and their proclamation, inviting governmental attention. It is now clear that the only practical method to have checked British pretensions, fast being transformed from mere denial of exclusive right in the United States into avowal of exclusive British title, was the action and voice of Congress strengthening the hands of the Executive, which, as boldly as General Jesup and the Select Committee, had asserted its readiness to maintain American supremacy in Oregon. History will be generously award credit to the sagacious Jesup for indicating, in 1823, the unerring way to preserve the American title to Oregon Territory. Nor will it fail to commend the earnest devotion of that little Oregon party in Congress for placing on record why the government should immediately assert exclusive jurisdiction within its own territory.
At the opening of the next session of Congress (December, 1824), President Monroe, in his annual message, thus invited the attention of Congress to Oregon: "In looking to the interests which the United States have on the Pacific Ocean, and on the western coast of this continent, the propriety of establishing a military post at the mouth of the Columbia river, or at some other point in that quarter within our acknowledged limits, is submitted to Congress. Our commerce and fisheries on that sea and along the coast have much increased, and are increasing. It is thought that a military post, to which our ships-of-war might resort, would afford protection to every interest, and have a tendency to conciliate the tribes of the Northwest, with whom our trade is extensive. It is thought that, by the establishment of such a post, the intercourse between our western states and territories and the Pacific, and our trade with the tries in the interior on each side of the Rocky Mountains, would be essentially promoted. To carry this object into effect, the appropriation of an adequate sum to authorize the employment of a frigate, with an officer of the corps of engineers, to explore the mouth of the Columbia river and the coast contiguous thereto, to be enabled to make such an establishment at the most suitable point, is recommended to Congress."
December 20, 1824, on motion
of Mr. Floyd, the House resolved itself into Committee of the Whole, to
consider the bill "for the occupation of the Columbia river." The speech
of Mr. Floyd was a masterly vindication of American title to Oregon, -
an able exhibit of its political, commercial and military importance to
the United States. Mr. Poinsett, of South Carolina, thought the point for
location should be left to the President, and submitted an amendment to
that effect. Mr. Cook, of Illinois, moved the recommitment of the bill
to the committee to whom the above portion of the President's message had
been referred. This motion was opposed by Mr. Trimble of Kentucky, and
lost by a decisive vote. Mr. Buchanan moved to strike out the section providing
for the establishment of a port of entry, and extending the revenue laws
over the territory, on the ground that it was an infringement of the convention
of 1818. Mr. Gazlay, of Ohio, contended that the location of a port of
entry could only involve the collection of duties from other foreign powers;
that the treaty of 1818 would secure the admission of goods of British
subjects free of duty. To all objections, Mr. Floyd, in explanation, referred
to the provisions of the bill, which proposed to confer such powers only
upon the President, when he might deem that the public good should require
it. Mr. Taylor, of New York, desired the bill so amended as to conform
to the President's plan of establishing a military post, but opposed any
act looking to the formation of a territorial government. This could be
accomplished by striking out all that authorized the appointment of governor,
judges and other officers; and he made a motion to that effect. Mr. Smythe,
of Virginia,
moved a further amendment by striking out the proposed name of the territory, and describe it as "the territory of the United States on the northwest coast of America." Mr. Taylor's amendment having been adopted, Mr. Floyd replied to his colleague (Mr. Smythe), when the latter modified his motion so as to strike out the section making grants of land to actual settlers. On the 23rd of December, the consideration of the bill was resumed; and on that day it passed by a triumphant vote of one hundred and thirteen to fifty-seven. The title of the bill was amended to read "to provide for occupying the Oregon river."
On the 25th of February, 1825, the Senate took up the bill "to provide for occupying the Columbia river." Mr. Benton moved an amendment, providing for an additional paymaster. The bill was then laid on the table. The next day the Senate resumed its consideration; and Mr. Barbour, of Virginia, ably urged its passage. Mr. Dicerson of New Jersey, contended that it was a violation of the treaty of joint occupancy, which would not expire until 1828, until which time it would be highly improper to take possession of the territory by military force or establish therein a port of entry, or, indeed, to exercise any act of possession or occupation which we did not exercise in 1818, at the period of making the treaty. Mr. Dickerson moved to lay the bill upon the table, which prevailed by a vote of nineteen to seventeen. On the 1st of March, Mr. Hayne, of South Carolina, moved to take up the bill to afford Mr. Benton the opportunity to reply to Mr. Dickerson, agreeing that the bill should be postponed after Mr. Benton should conclude. Mr. Chandler, of Maine, opposed taking the time to discuss a bill that there was no intention to pass. Mr. Hayne's motion, however, prevailed, and Mr. Benton made an exhaustive speech. In his "thirty-years' view," he thus sums up that unanswerable plea in behalf of the American Oregon.:
"I do not argue the question of title on behalf of the United States but only state it as founded upon: 1st. Discover of the Columbia river by Captain Gray in 1792; 2nd. Purchase of Louisiana in 1803; 3rd. Discovery of the Columbia river, from its head to its mouth, by Lewis and Clark in 1805; 4th. Settlement of Astoria; 5th. Treaty with Spain in 1819; 6th. Contiguity and continuity of settlement and possession. Nor do I argue the question of the advantage of retaining the Columbia, and refusing to divide or alienate our territory upon it. I merely state them and leave their value to result from their enumeration: 1st. To keep out a foreign power; 2nd. To gain a seaport with a military and naval station on the coast of the Pacific; 3rd. To save the fur trade in that region, and prevent our Indians from being tampered with by British traders; 4th. To open a communication for commercial purposes between the Mississippi and the Pacific; 5th. To send the lights of science and religion into Eastern Asia."
Mr. Benton having concluded, the bill went to the table by the decisive vote of twenty-five ayes, fourteen noes.
President John Quincy Adams, in his first annual message to Congress (December, 1825), thus adverts to the northwest coast:
"Our coasts along many degrees
of latitude upon the shores of the Pacific ocean, though much frequented
by our spirited commercial navigators, have rarely been visited by our
public ships. The river of the West, first fully discovered and navigated
by a countryman of our own, still bears the name of the ship in which he
ascended its waters, and claims the protection of our national flag at
its mouth. With the establishment of a military post there, or at some
other point of that coast, recommended by my predecessor,
and already matured in the deliberation of the last Congress, I would suggest the expediency of a public ship for the exploration of the whole of the northwest continent."
On the 16th of December, 1825, the House passed a resolution introduced by Mr. Baylies, requesting the Secretary of the Navy to inform the House whether the sloop-of-war Boston might not be employed in exploring the northwest coast of America, its rivers and inlets, between the parallels of forty-two and forty-nine degrees north, without detriment to the naval service." On January 16, 1826, Mr. Baylies, chairman of the Select Committee, to whom had been referred the subject of establishing a military post at the mouth of the Columbia river, submitted an elaborate report in advocacy of immediate measures to secure the occupation of Oregon. On the 15th of May, he made a supplemental report form the same committee. No further action was taken by Congress during the session.
President John Quincy Adams, in his annual message, December 4, 1827, referring to the treaty of 1818, which had effected a temporary compromise of the respective claims to the territory westward of the Rocky Mountains, and which would expire by its own limitation October 20, 1828, advised Congress that, by the treaty of August, 1827, the joint-occupancy arrangement had been continued for an indefinite period, leaving each party the right to abrogate the same upon twelve months' notice.
During that session, Hall J. Kelly, of Massachusetts, representing an association of citizens who proposed emigration to Oregon, presented a petition to the House of Representatives, praying for a grant of lands and other protective legislation. John M. Bradford, of New Orleans, was the head of a similar association, composed of citizens of Louisiana. Albert Town and his associates, citizens of Ohio, constituted a similar organization. The people of the United States were beginning to agitate the occupancy of Oregon; and ably their representatives invoked the attention of Congress to those petitions. Those memorials and their subject-matters were referred to the Select Committee on Oregon Territory, of which Mr. Floyd was chairman. He reported a bill providing for military occupation of the territory, the extinguishment of the Indian title to the lands, the granting lands to actual settlers, and providing an appropriation for the exploration of the territory.
The bill was reached December 13, 1828, and occupied the House until the 9th of January, 1829. In that able debate, among the most zealous advocates of its passage, the record bears the names of Floyd of Virginia, Edward Everett of Massachusetts, Cambreleng of New York, Drayton of South Carolina, Richardson and Gurley of Louisiana. Of its equally zealous opponents, the chronicle is not less brilliant, embracing the names of Edward Bates of Missouri, Gorham of Massachusetts, Taylor of New York, Polk (afterwards President) and Mitchell of Tennessee. All concurred in the justice and validity of the claims of the United States; but the contention of the opponents of the bill was that its passage would be an infringement of the recently renewed Joint-Occupancy Treaty, and would endanger the peaceable relations of the two nations. Others suggested that reports regarding the territory were conflicting, and definite action should not be taken until explorations had furnished necessary reliable information. On the 9th of January, the Committee of the Whole were discharged from further consideration of the bill, and the House refused to order it to a third reading by a vote of ninety-nine to seventy-five. For a number of years, efforts in Congress to assert sole jurisdiction over Oregon Territory were not resumed.