PC? pi PRINTED AND PUBLISHED WEEKLY BY JONATHAN ROW, SOMERSET, SOMERSET COUNTY, PA. New Series. TUESDAY, DECEIfiBER 30, 2845, Vol. 4,-No. 7. Oil if rsv on If? fi T 5 Jo) Q JJ 31 o r Poetry. The following is from ihe Vicksburg Sentinel. The Editor wanted a certain paper, arid it was missing. Oh for a tor.gne to speak ihe doom The wretch deserves, so beastly vile, As to sneak into a printer's room, "When the editors out, and steal the very best exchange paper ofT the file ! Cuss him ! THE OREGON QUESTION. We are indebted to the New York Tribune for the subjoined digest of the of ficial correspondence, between our own and ihe British Government, in relation to llils vexed question. It presents the points of importance, necessary to be re membered, and will afford to the general reader, the information most to be de tired; , . , The first is a letter from Mr. Fox, the British Minister, to Mr. Webster, United States Secretary of State,' dated Wash ington, Nov. 15, 1812, covering a 'copy of a letter from Lord Aberdeen to Mr. Fox, requesting that the United States Minister st London might be furnished with in stuctions to treat with such persons as might be appointed by England, on the North-Western Boundary." Assuring Mr. Webster that England Was ready to enter into a fair and equitable compromise of the difficulty. - Mr. Webster replies to Mr Fox Nov, 25, lS42,infonninghim that such instruc tions would be given to the United States Minister at Lonion. Mr. Packenham writes to Mr. Upsher United States Secretary of State, dated Washington, Feb. 24, 1844, intimating the anxious desire of the British Govern ment to come to a speedy settlement, sad proposing a conference. Mr. Upsher to Mr. Packenham, Feb. 2G, 1844, names 11 o'clock A. M; next day for said conference. Mr. Packenham writes to Mr. Calhoun, July 22, 184 4, announcing that the death of Mr. Upsher (on Feb. 23th) fcc. had prevented prompt attention to the Oregon Boundary aed that now 22 Congress had J Gcjqurned it would be proper time to pro ceed with it. Mr. Calhoun to Mr. Packenham, Aug, 22, 1S44, appointed 1 o'clock P, M. next day for conference, concurring with the English sentiment in' desiring a speedy settlement of the question. Mr. P.Yo"Mr. C. Aug, 22, '44 agreeing (o the hour. '. jThe conference was accordingly held on the 23d of August, 1844 and the Plen ipotentiaries proceeded to examine the state of the question. Mr. Calhoun de fired a proposal from Mr. Packenham, who said he would be able to make a defi nite one at the next conference and desired Mr. C. to be also ready .with his propo- sal. AdTourned to the 2 6th August, when it aain assembled. Mr. Packenham made a proposal to Mr. Calhoun, which Mr. Calhoun declined. They then a grecd that a more full understanding of their respective views,' was necessrry to facilitate future proceedings. It was a greed that written statements of the views of both parties should be given before pro reeding farther. It was also rgreed that -the American Plenipotentiary should make his statement at the next conference and, when ready, give The necessary no tice. , Attached to this Protocol is the offer of Mr, Packerham to take the 49th parallel of latitude to the Columbia River and tha River to the sua; and also to make free to the United States any port or ports which tney might desire on the mainland or on Vancouver's Island South of 49'. .Sept. 2d 184, the third conference was held at the office of the United States Secretary of state. The American nego tiator gave his views of the claims of the Upited States to the portion of the Ter ritory drained by the Columbio as his lVp'-nds for declining the British Minis ter's preposal. . ' - . . . . Sept. 12, IS 14, the fourth conference was held at the same place, and the Brit ish Minister cave his views. Sept. 20th," fifth conference, Mr. Cal houn delivered a rejoinder. Sept, 2 1th, sixth conference. The British Minister stated he had read with due attention the rejoinder of the U. S. Plenipotentiary; that he did not feel authorized to enter into any discussion relative to the Territory North cf lat. 49 which was understood by the British Government to form the basis of negotia tion on the part of the United States as the line of ih? Columbia formed that of England. That his former proposal was ofiered by Great Britain as an honorable compromise anil that it was made with the roviso that in no case in any further negotiations should it compromise or weaken the claims of Great Britain unless accepted by the United States. : Sept. 3d, '44 Mr. Calhoun to Mr. Packenham dairies Mr. Ps prsposal, as it would limit our possessions to nar rower bounds than what we had a clear nzhx u.. Mr. Calhoun then enters - into aa sible argument on our claims to the wrriiory drained by ihe Columbia, arising from our proper right, and those derived from Fraace and Spain. The former he ground as against Great Britain, on pri ority of discovery, exploration and setde ment. The prior discovery, is claimed for Captain Gray, a citizen of the United Slates, May 11, 1792, who gave the river its name. Thi3 discovery is opposed by thoso of Meares and Voncouver. The former sailed along the coast through which the Columbia flows in 1788, in order to ascertain whether the river laid down in Spanish charts as 4'St. Roc" re ally existed, and he declares "we can now safely assert that there is no such river." Vancouver, in April, 1792, ex plored the same coast. His own journal proves that he failed to discover the river. He even disbelieved Capt. Gray's discov ery. Gray gave a copy of his chart to Madia at Nootka Sound, and on Vancou ver's arrival Madia gave him a copy. Van couver, guided by the chart, entered the Columbia Oct. 20, 1792. The attempt to prove that CapL Gray sailed in a pri vate, not a United States vessel, shows the strength of our claims Mr. Calhoun then proceeds to consider the discoveries of the Columbia's bran ches by Lewis and Clark, long before any British subject vistited these parts, and asserts our clear right by the discovery of the mouth and head waters of the Colum bia river. He next describes the question of set tlement by our citizens in 1S09, 10 and 11. The taking possession by the Brit ish during the war, and restoration after peace. - He then prooeeds, "We have added to our claims those of France and Spain by the Treaty of Louisiana and the Treaty of Florida. The cession of Louisiana gave an undisputed title to the summit of the Rocky Mountains and by Continuity to the Pacific, founded on the Treaty of 1763." He then dwells on the argument of Continuity, instancing the contest be tween Great Britain and France which was terminated by the Treaty of 1763. The fact that. Great Britain claimed this continuity for her colonies (now the U nitcd States) forecloses her contesting this principle against us. He then examines the treaty of 1763, which fixes the Mississippi as. thehounr. dary between Great Britain and Trance extinguishing the claims of Great Britain west of that boundary. The right of coutinuity was transferred to us by France in the Treaty of Louisiana. France held this right by the extingfsh ment of Great Britain's claim by Treaty of 1763. He then proceeds to defend our claims on the discoveries of Spain which we have acquired. In place of conflicting with each other, they naturally blend to gether, forming a strong chain of title a gainst all opposing claims. He then takes up the restoration of Astoria, and quotes the admission of Lord Castlereagh to Mr. Ru3h, admitting our ample right to be reinstated, and our right to possession while treating of title. Our claims have since been strengthened, by increase of our population by emigra tion. He concludes by stating that the same cause which peopled the Valley of the Mississippi will yet cause emigration across the Rocky Mountains, and that the whole region drained by the Colum bia is destined to be peopled by us. Mr. Calhoun closes his able paper by staling that he refrains -from presenting the claims which the United States may have to other portions of the territory" than those drained by the Columbia river, and by renewing assurances of high consid eration, 5lc, &c. ... Sept. 12, 18 14, Mr Packenham writes to Mr. Colhoun in reply to the above. That he has no evidence that Louisiana extended west to the Pacific, but that the Rocky Mountains was the western boun dary, for which opinion he quotes Mr. Jefferson. Even if the boundary did extend westward of the Rocky Mountains that Franco transferred to Spain in 17G2, and Spain to England, by Treaty be tween Great Britain and Spain in 1792, which abrogated the claims of Spain. He dt-nies that the claim of continuity can effect the claim of right. He ac knowledges thaiSpainin 1819, transfer red her rights north of 42, buf that did not invalidate her former concessions in 1700. x . In regard to.fhe discoveries of Heceta and Gray they; conflict, and if Heceta's claim be good- it favors Great Britain owing to the Treaty of 1790. The United States had no claims when they became a nation. Those of France were worth nothing. He urges the com mercial intercourse of Great Britain with the northwest coast, the voyages of Cook and Meares, the survey of the coast by Vancouver, which make Great Britain s claims to discovery and exploration very strong-. He set3 the accuracy and authen ticity of Cook and Yascouverv's survey against the discovery of the north of the Columbia by CapU Gray. Of the explo ration af Lewis and Clarke, he says thai McKenzie a British subject, crossed the Rocky Mountains to the Pecific in 1793 and discovered the upper waters of Fra 7cr's river, near latitude 49 and 'puts ibis saiasl Lewi and Clarke'. - --- He meets the authority of Lord Castle reagh by the despatch of Lord Castle reagh himself to the British Minister at Washington, when giving up Astoria, claiming the whole territory. Great Britain and the United States are in joint occupancy; one cannot divest the other but by eqitable division of what is iointly occupied. In claiming the Columbia as the boun dary, Great Britain is not influenced by ambition of possessing large territory, but by considerations of utility if not of necessity, which cannot be lost sight of. Mr. P. coucludes by requesting a propo sal from the United" States and statement of farther claims alluded to by Mr. Cal houn. Sept. 20, 1844, Mr. Calhoun rejoins to this rebutting the claims on the discover ies of Cook, Meares and others, on the Nootka Sound convention, and on McKenzie's explorations. The Frazer river is an inferior stream and cannot af fect the discovery of the Columbia. The United Slates had the first settle ment, had that right restored, were ac knowledged to be ihp6ssession while treating of title, fcc. Mr. C. also replies to the argument drawn from Jefferson, and reinforce the argument of continuity and states that the United States must be considered as in possession of the whole territory drained by the Columbia while treating tide,in which character he insists on being considered, and not in the charac ter of a joint occupancy merely. He can make no proposal based on the supposi tion of a joint occupancy There must be a full discussion of the title before propo sals can be made. With the opinion that the United States have a clear tide, the British proposal in the second conference falls far short of what they can accept. As to our claims to other parts of the Territory than those drained by the Col umbia, they extend as far as the Treaty of Florida, which Spain can warrant. Jan, 15, 1845, Mr, Packenham to Mr. Calhoun states that he has sent the dis cussions already had to his Government, but that, in the mean time, he is author ized to offer arbitration, leaving the choice of arb iters for after consideration. Jan, 21, 1845, Mr, Calhoun S3ys he has laid the offer of Mr. P. lefore the President, and he cannot accede to the proposal. He hopes the question may be settled by negotiation. Arbitration might rather retard than expedite the' settlement, ; - ' j July 12, 1845, Mr. Buchanan having; been appointed Secretary of State, and seeming to overlook the latter proceed- ings and replies to Mr.P's, letter of Sept. 12, 1844. rests our title on that of Spaain, contending that at the jlate of Spain's transfer of her rights to us she had a good ! title'to the whole of Oregon against Great Britain. The Nootka Sound Treaty! conferred no right on Great Britain but to trade with the Indians, was transient in its nature, and did not touch the overign- j ty of Spain over the territory. That was annulled dy the war between Great Britain and Spain in 179G, and has never i since been renewed, and consequendy j Great Britain is destitute of any claim to the Oregon Territory. Having defended these views at length, and enforced our tide to the whole of Oregon, he says the joint occupancy treaty excepts our tide from being impaired. In this view of the subject the Presi dent, considering the action of his pre decessors and embsrrassed by their ofTer, to show also the world that he is actuated by a spirit of moderation, has authorized him, (Mr. Secretary B.) to offer the 49A parallel to the tea as a boundary, tciih any port in Vancouver's Island South of that latitude. July 29th, 1845, Mr. Packenham re plies to Mr. Buchanan; combats strongly Mr. B.'s position, particularly the claim of the United Stales to the Valley of the Colurabia.tiTe older than the treaty of ' 1 9. He examines the Spanish tide the Amer ican offer to divide the territory the U nited States can found no claim, or dis cover, cr exploration or setdemcnt prior to the Treaty of Florida, without admit ting die principles of the Nootka Sound Convention, and the parallel claims of Great Britain. He contends that the Nootka Sound Convention continues in force, and even if that Convention had never existed, the claims of Great Britain are as good as those of the United States. He then goes into a history of the dis coveries, from which it might appear that American citizens discovered the Columbia river, while British navigators discovered Frazer,s river and Vancou ver's Island. He repeats the British claims to the territory, and declines ihe offer made by Jlfr Buchanan, August 30, 1845, is the date of the late despatch. It is from M. Buchanan in reply to Mr. P. He quotes the decla ration of Messrs. Huskisson and Addi son ton that Great Britain claims no ex clusive sovereignty over any part of that fOregon J Territory. Mr. 13. makes a very long argument in reply to Mr. P. maintaining the rights of the United States to the whole of the Territory, and concludes br withdrawing his offer. . Thus ends the correspondence, and the next step to be taken depends on the future r The above is but very limited; you may get it as soon as any other. The correspondence is able and volumious. Mr. Calhoun's views rre expressed in his usual strong and condensed language, and show that the interests of the country might safely be trusted to him in the pre sent crisis. I doubt whether some of the leaders of the party want his des patches published just at present, for fear they might make it appear that he is the fittest man ta take- the head of the Com mittee on Foreign Relations. Annual Report of the . SECRETARY of the TREASURY. We have before us the Annual Report of the Secretary of the Treasury, but from its great length we are unwilling to give it entire. The following condensed view of it, however, we feel confident will be equally, if not more, acceptable to our readers. The Receipts and Expenditures for the fiscal year, ending the 30. of June, 1845, were as follows : From customs' ' $27,528,112 70 From sales of public lands 2,077,022 30 From miscellaneous sour '.ces 163,998 56 ' Total Receipts 30,769,133 56. Add balance in Treasury : July 1, 1844 7,857,379 64 Total means 37,626,543 20 The expenditures during the same fiscal year a mounted to Leaving a balance in the Treasury, July 1st, 1845, of 29,968,205 08 7,659,337 12 The estimated Receipts and Expenditures for the fiscal year, ending 30th June, 1846, are: RECEIPTS. From customs first quarter bv actual re turns $8,861,922 14 For 2d, 3d, and 4th quar - ters, as estimated . 15,638,06796 Total from customs 24,500,000 00 From sales of public lands :".-". 2,200,000 00 From miscellaneous and incidental sources 120,000 00 Total receipts 26,820,000 00 Add balance in the Trea sury, 1st July, 1845 7,658,337 12 Total means as estimated 34,478,337 12 EXPENDITURES. The actual e x p e ndi turesforl. quarter en ding 30. of September 1845 $8,463,092 4i The estimated expen ditures forthe other three quarters, from the 1st of October, 1845. to the 30. of June, 1816, are: Forcivil list foreign in course and m i s c ella ncous pur poses 6,799,211 06 Army pro per 2,584,735 06 Fortifications ordnance, armingmi- litia,&c. 2,316,778 82 Indian de partment 1,647,791 94 Pensions 1,356,556 02 Interest on public debt and Treas ury notes 850,976 49 Redemption of residue of loan of 1841 29,300 00 Treasury note3 out standing 687,764 18 Naval estab lishment, 4,902,845 93 29,027,051 90 Which deducted from to tal means above stated will leave in the Trea sury on 1 st July, 1 84 6, an estimated balance of 4,361,254 32 The estimated Receipts, Means, and Ex penditures for the fiscal year commen cing 1st July, 1846, and ending June 30, 1847, are as follows : RECEIPTS. From customs for the four quarters , $22,200,000 00 From public lands 2,400,000 00 iwtx miscellaneous ana 100,000 00 25,000,000 00 Add estimated balance to be in the Treasury 1st July, 184G 4,851,254 32 Total estimated sum for fiscal vear ending 30th June,'l847 29,851,251 32 EXPENDITURES. The estimated expendi ture during the same pe riod, viz : The balance of former will be re quired to be expend ed in this year $1,141,157 10 Permanent and indefi nite appro priations 2,937,915 72 Specific ap propriations asked this year 21,079,440 43 Total esti mated ex penditures 25,519,813 25 Which is composed of the following particulars: Civil listo- reigninter- coursend m i s c ella- neous t5,025,292 83 Army pro per' 3,364,153 92 Fortifications ordnance, arming mi litia, c. 4,331309 93 Pensions 2;507,100 00 Indian de partment 2,214,916 13 Naval estab lishment 5,339,390 89 Interest on public debt 633,914 72 323,518,813 25 Which, deduciea rrom the total of means before stated, gives an estimated balance on 1st July, 1847, of - " 4,332,441 07 The sum of 1,518,997 for supplying deficiency of revenue for postage, 2nd al so $300,000 for postages of Congress and the executive offices, are included in the above sum of $29,627,051 90. The sum of $121,000 for debt assum ed for the cities in die District of Colum bia, the stfm of 1,000,000 for supplying deficiency in the revenue from postage, and 350,000 for postages for Congress and executive departments, are included in the foregoing sum of 5,925,292 C2. The receipts (savs the report) for the first quarter of this year are less, bv 82,- 01 1,865 90, than the receipts of the same quarter last year. Among the causes of decrease is the progressive diminution of the importation of many highly-protected articles, and the substitution of rival do mestic products. For the nine months ending June 30, 1843, since the present tariff, the average duties upon dutiable im ports was equal to 37,81 1-10 per cent.; forme year ending June 30, 1844, 33,85 9-10 per cent; and for the year ending June 30, 1815, 29,90 per cent showing a great diminution in the average per cen tage, owing in part to the increased im portation xf some articles bearing the ligh ter, and decreased importation of oihers bearing the higher duty. The revenue from ad-valorcm duties was only 23-57 per cent, and the average of the specific duties 41-30 presenting another strong proof thst lower duties increase the reve nue. Among the causes tending to aug ment the revenue, are increased emigra tion, and the annexation of Texas. The estimates for the expenditures of 1S46 are based chiefly upon appropriations made by Congress. The estimated expendi tures of 1847 are founded upon data fur nished by the several departments, and are less by $4,103,339 65 than those of the preceding year. These estimates are submitted in the full conviction that, whenever Congress, guided by an enligh tened economy, can diminish the expen ditures without injury to the public inter est, such retrenchment will be made, so as to lighten the burden of taxation, and and hasten the extinguishment of the pub lic debt, reduced on the 1st October last to 817,075,345 52. In suggesting improvements in the rev enue laws, the following principles have been adopted : 1st. That no more money should be collected than is necessary for the wants of the government economically adminis tered. 2d. That no duty be imposed on any article above the lowest rate which will yield the largest amount of revenue. 3d. That below such rate, discrimina tion may be made, descending in the scale of duties; cr, for imperative reasons, the incidental sources articles may be placed in the list of thess free from all duty. 4th. That the maximum revenr.e dntv should be imposed on luxuries. 5th. That all minimums, and all spe cific duties, should be abolished, ad-vslo-rem duties substituted in their place carj being taken to guard against fraudulent invoices andundcr-valuation, and to aess the duty upon the actual market value. Cih. That the duties should be so im posed as to operate a3 equally as possible throughout the Union, discriminating nei ther for nor against any tias3 of section. No horizontal scale of duties is recom mended because such a 6cale would hi a refusal to discriminate for revenue, an ! might sink that revenue below the wants of the government. Some articles will yield the largest revenue at duties that would be wholly or partially prohibitory in other crises. Luxuries, as a general rule, will bbar the highest revenue duties:, but even some very costly luxuries, easi ly smuggled, will bear but a light duty for revenue; while other article?, of grcit bulk and weight, will bear a higher duty for revenue. There is no instance with in the knowledge of this department of any horizontal tariff ever having lcen en acted by any one of the nations of the world. There must be discriinini tion for revenue, or the burden of taxa tion must be augmented, in order to bring the same amount of money into the trea sury. In is difficult, also; to adopt any arbitrary maximum, to which an inflexi ble adherence must be demanded in all cases. Thus, upon brandy and spirits, a soecific duty, varying a an enuiraknt ad-valorem from 180 to 261 per cent. yieios a large revenue; yet no one wouli propose either of these rates as a maxi mum. These duties are too high for rev enue, from the encouragement they pre sent for smuggling these baneful" luxu ries; yet a duty of 20 per cent, upon brandy and spirits would be far below lb revenue standard, would gTcady diminish ihe income on these imports, require in creased burdens upon the necessaries of life, and would revolt the mornl sense cf the whole community. There arc rmnv other luxuries which will bear a much higher duty for revenue than 20 p?r cvp.t; and the only maximum is that Lich ex perience demonstrates will brinr, in each ts the Tarcf rcrcnuo -a f iha ri of dttty. Nor should maximum rrvp-je duties be imposed upon all articles; for this would yield too large an income, ard would prevent all discrimination wi:hin the revenue standard, and require necessa ries to be taxed as high us luxuries. But, whilst it is impossible to adopt any hori zontal scale of duties, or even arbitrary maximum, experience proves that, zs "a general rule, a duty of 20 per cent, ad valorem will yield the largest revenue. There are, howeve , a few exceptions a bove, as well as many below, this stanJ ard. Thus, whiht the lowest revenue duty on most luxuries exceeds 20 per cent., there are many costly article, of small bulk and easily smuggled, which would bring, perhap, no revenue at a du ty so high as 20 per cent, and, even at the present rate of 7j per cent, they will yield, in most cases, a small revennrr whilst coal, iron, sugar and molasses, ar ticles of great bulk and weight, yielded lasi year six miliioas of revenue, at an a verage rate of duty exceeding CO per cent, ad-valorem. These duties are fir too high for revenue upon all these arti cles, and ought to be reduced to revenue standard; but if Congress desire to obtcii the largest revenue from duties on thr?e articles, those duties, at the lowest rate for revenue, would exceed 20 per cent., ad valorcm. The Secretary is of the opinion that sufficient means can be obtained, at the lowest revenue duties, on the articles now subjected to duty; but if Congress desire a large revenue, it should be procured by taxing the free articles, rather than trans cend, in any case, the lowest revenue du ties. It is thought, however, that, with out exceeding the limit in any case, an adequate revenue will sull be produced, and permit the addition to the free Hit cf salt and guano. The duty on cotton baggirg is equiva lent to 55,20 per cent, ad-valorem on the Scotch bagging, and to 122,11 pr cent, on the gunny-bag; and yet the whole rev enue from these duties has fallen ta $6o, 066,50. Nearly the entire amount, there fore, of this enormous tax makes no od-!i-tion to the revenue, but enures to die ben efit cf about thirty manufacturers. As five-sixths of the cotton crop is exported abroad, the same proportion of the bag ging around the bale is exported, and sold abroad at a heavy loss, growing out of the deduction for tare. Now, as duties are designed to operate only cn the do mestic consumption, there ought to be a drawba-k of the whole duty on cotton- bagging re-exported around the bale, en the same principles on which drawbacks are allowed m other cases. The cotton. planting is the great exporting interest zz-l suffers from the tariff in the double ce city of the consumer and exporter. C"cn ton is the great bisis of our foreign ex change, furnishing most of the means to purchase imports and supply the reven.v. It is thu3 the source of two-thirds of h? reieaue, and cf our foreign freig-ht tI
Significant historical Pennsylvania newspapers