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