on the northwest coast of America. That the United States should form establishments there, with views of absolute territorial right and inland communication, is not only to be expected, but is pointed out by the finger of nature, and has been for many years a subject of serious deliberation in Congress. A plan has, for several sessions, been before them for establishing a territorial government on the borders of the Columbia River. It will undoubtedly be resumed at their next session, and even if then again postponed there can not be a doubt that, in the course of a very few years, it must be carried into effect. "As yet, however, the only useful purpose to which the northwest coast of America has been or can be made subservient to the settlements of civilized men are the fisheries on its adjoining seas and trade with the aboriginal inhabitants of the country. These have, hitherto, been enjoyed in common by the people of the United States, and by the British and Russian nations. The Spanish, Portuguese and French nations have also participated in them hitherto, without other annoyance than that which resulted from the exclusive territorial claims of Spain, so long as they were insisted on by her. . . "The discussion of the Russian pretentions in the negotiation now proposed necessarily involves the interests of the three powers, and renders it manifestly proper that the United States and Great Britain should come to a mutual understanding with respect to their respective pretentions, as well as upon their joint views with reference to those of Russia. Copies of the instructions to Mr. Middleton are, therefore, herewith transmitted to you, and the President wishes you to confer freely with the British Government on the subject. "The principles settled by the Nootka Sound convention of October 28, 1790, were— "1st. That the rights of fishery in the south seas, of trading with the natives of the northwest coast of America, and of making settlements on the coast itself for the purposes of that trade, north of the actual settlements of Spain, were common to all the European nations, and of course to the United States. "2d. That so far as the actual settlements of Spain had extended, she possessed the exclusive rights, territorial, and of navigation and fishery, extending to the distance of ten miles from the coasts so actually occupied. "3d. That on the coasts of South America, and the adjacent islands south of the parts already occupied by Spain, no settlements should thereafter be made either by British or Spanish subjects, but on both sides should be retained the liberty of landing, and of erecting temporary buildings for the purposes of the fishery. These rights were, also, of course, enjoyed by the people of the United States. "The exclusive rights of Spain to any part of the American continents have ceased. That portion of the convention, therefore, which recognizes the exclusive colonial rights of Spain on these continents, though confirmed as between Great Britain and Spain, by the first additional article to the treaty of the 5th of July, 1814, has been extinguished by the fact of the independence of the South American nations and of Mexico. Those independent nations will possess the rights incident to that condition, and their territories, will, of course, be subject to no exclusive right of navigation in their vicinity, or of access to them by any foreign nation. "A necessary consequence of this state of things will be, that the American continents, henceforth, will no longer be subjects of colonization. Occupied by civilized independent nations, they will be accessible to Europeans and to each other on that footing alone, and the Pacific Ocean in every part of it will remain open to the navigation of all nations, in like manner with the Atlantic. "Incidental to the condition of national independence and sovereignty, the rights of anterior navigation of their rivers will belong to each of the American nations within its own territories. "The application of colonial principles of exclusion, therefore, can not be admitted by the United States as lawful upon any part of the northwest coast of America, or as belonging to any European nation. Their own settlements there, when organized as territorial governments, will be adapted to the freedom of their own institutions, and, as constituent parts of the Union, be subject to the principles and provisions of their constitution." Mr. Adams, Sec. of State, to Mr. Rush, min. to England, July 22, 1823, For the instruction to Mr. Middleton, above referred to, see id. 436. "There can, perhaps, be no better time for saying, frankly and explicitly, to the Russian Government, that the future peace of the world, and the interest of Russia herself, can not be promoted by Russian settlements upon any part of the American continent. With the exception of the British establishments north of the United States, the remainder of both the American continents must henceforth be left to the management of American hands. "It can not possibly be the purpose of Russia to form extensive colonial establishments in America. The new American republics will be as impatient of a Russian neighbor as the United States; and the claim of Russia to territorial possessions extending to the fiftyfirst degree of north latitude is equally compatible with the British pretensions." Observations of Mr. .Adams, Sec. of State, accompanying instruction of "January 6. [1824.] In a dispatch to the Secretary of State of this date, I mention Mr. Canning's desire that the negotiation at St. Petersburg, on the Russian ukase of September, 1821, respecting the northwest coast, to which the United States and England had equally objected, should proceed separately, and not conjointly, by the three nations, as proposed by the United States, and my acquiescence in this course. It being a departure from the course my Government had contemplated, I give the following reasons for it: "1. That whatever force of argument I might be able to give to the principle of non-colonization as laid down in the President's message, which had arrived in England since my instructions for the negotiation, my opinion was, that it would still remain a subject of contest between the United States and England; and that, as by all I could learn since the message arrived, Russia also dissented from the principle, a negotiation at St. Petersburg relative to the northwest coast, to which the three nations were parties, might place Russia on the side of England and against the United States. This I thought had better be avoided. “2. That a preliminary and detached discussion of so great a principle, against which England protested in limine, brought on by me when her foreign secretary was content to waive the discussion at present, and preferred doing so, might have an unpropitious influence on other parts of the negotiation of more immediate and practical interest. "3. That by abstaining from discussing it at present, nothing was given up. The principle as promulgated in the President's message, would remain undiminished, as notice to other nations, and a guide to me in the general negotiation with England when that came on." Rush, Memoranda of a Residence at the Court of London, II. 88; quoted in 82 N. Am. Rev. (April, 1856), 508. "You will bring to the notice of the Mexican Government, the message of the late President of the United States to their Congress, on the 2nd December, 1823, asserting certain important principles of inter-continental law, in the relations of Europe and America. The first principle asserted in that message is, that the American continents are not henceforth to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any. European powers. In the maintenance of that principle, all the independent governments of America have an interest, but that of the United States has, probably, the least. Whatever foundation may have existed three centuries ago, or even at a later period, when all this continent was under European subjection, for the establishment of a rule, founded on priority of discovery and occupation, for apportioning among the powers of Europe parts of this continent, none can be now admitted as applicable to its present condition. There is no disposition to disturb the colonial possessions, as they may now exist, of any of the European powers; but it is against the establishment of new European colonies, upon this continent, that the principle is directed. The countries in which any such new establishments might be attempted, are now open to the enterprize and commerce of all Americans; and the justice or propriety can not be recognized, of arbitrarily limiting and circumscribing that enterprize and commerce, by the act of voluntarily planting a new colony without the consent of America, under the auspices of foreign powers belonging to another and a distant continent. Europe would be indignant at any American attempt to plant a colony on any part of her shores, and her justice must perceive, in the rule contended for, only perfect reciprocity." Mr. Clay, Sec. of State, to Mr. Poinsett, min. to Mexico, March 25, 1825, 13 Br. & For. State Papers, 485. 2. THE PANAMA CONGRESS. § 940. In his special message to Congress of Dec. 26, 1825, touching the Panama Congress, President Adams suggested, as one of the subjects that might be discussed, "an agreement between all the parties represented at the meeting that each will guard by its own means against the establishment of any future European colony within its borders." The noncolonization principle was, added President Adams, “more than two years since announced by my predecessor to the world as a principle resulting from the emancipation of both the American continents. It may be so developed to the new southern nations that they will all feel it as an essential appendage to their independence." Proceedings of the Int. Am. Conference, IV. 22; Am. State Papers, For. Mr. Clay, in his instructions to the American plenipotentiaries to Panama, tion, "to the support of the particular boundaries which may be See Cong. Debates, 1825-26, II., part 2, for debates on the Panama "The late President of the United States, in his message to Congress of the 2d of December, 1823, while announcing the negotiation then pending with Russia, relating to the northwest coast of this continent, observes that the occasion of the discussions to which that incident had given rise, had been taken for asserting, as a principle in which the rights and interests of the United States were involved, that the American continents, by the free and independent condition which they had assumed and maintained, were thenceforward not to be considered subjects for colonization by any European power. The principle had first been assumed in that negotiation with Russia. It rested upon a course of reasoning, equally simple and conclusive. With the exception of the existing European colonies, which it was in nowise intended to disturb, the two continents consisted of several sovereign and independent nations, whose territories covered their whole surface. By this, their independent condition, the United States enjoyed the right of commercial intercourse with every part of their possessions. To attempt the establishment of a colony in those possessions, would be to usurp to the exclusion of others a commercial intercourse which was the common possession of all. It could not be done without encroaching upon existing rights of the United States. The Government of Russia has never disputed these positions, nor manifested the slightest dissatisfaction at their having been taken. Most of the new American republics have declared their entire assent to them; and they now propose, among the subjects of consultation at Panama, to take into consideration the means of making effectual the assertion of that principle, as well as the means of resisting interference from abroad with the domestic concerns of the American governments." President John Q. Adams, special message, March 15, 1826, Richardson's In this message President Adams stated that "should it be deemed advis- As to the Congress of Panama, see Am. State Papers, For. Rel. VI. 356 et seq. The report of Mr. Clay, Sec. of State, of Jan. 31, 1827, as to the salaries See, also, as to the Panama mission and the Monroe doctrine, Benton's H. Doc. 551-vol 6-27 |