this question has been considered and treated as one not of title, but of boundary. To run a boundary line between Great Britain and the United States from the Rocky Mountains to the Pacific Ocean, this has been the avowed object of each successive negotiation. It has been so treated by Mr. Monroe, and Mr. Adams, and Mr. Gallatin, and Mr. Rush, and by all the other American statesmen who have treated of it at all. Offers of compromise and arrangement have been repeatedly made on both sides on this basis. Three times we have offered to Great Britain to divide with her on the 49th parallel of latitude, and to give her the navigation of the Columbia into the bargain. Mr. Polk and Mr. Buchanan themselves have acted upon the same principle up to the moment of the final abrupt termination of the negotiations. They have offered again to make the 49th parallel the boundary line between the possessions of Great Britain and the United States in the Northwestern Territory. With what face, then, can we now turn round and declare that there is no boundary line to be run, nothing to negotiate about, and that any such course would involve a cession and surrender of American soil! Such a course would be an impeachment of the conduct of the distinguished statesmen whose names I have mentioned. It implies an imputation upon the present President of the United States and his Secretary of State. And, explain it as we may, it would be regarded as an unwarrantable and offensive assumption by the whole civilized world.

Sir, I am glad to perceive that the language of the President's message is in some degree conformable to this view. He tells us that the history of the negotiation thus far "affords satisfactory evidence," not that no compromise ought to be made, but that "no compromise which the United States ought to accept can be effected.”

And this brings me to another of my propositions. I take issue with the message on this point. I deny that the rejection of the precise offer which was made to Great Britain last summer, has furnished satisfactory evidence that no compromise which the United States ought to accept can be effected. Certainly, I regret that Great Britain did not accept that offer. Certainly, I think that this question might fairly be settled on

the basis of the 49th parallel; and I believe sincerely that, if precipitate and offensive steps be not taken on our part, the question will ultimately be settled on that basis. But there may be little deviations from that line required, to make it acceptable to Great Britain; and, if so, we ought not to hesitate in making them. I deny that the precise offer of Mr. Buchanan is the only one which the United States ought to accept for the sake of peace. Such a suggestion is an impeachment of the wisdom and patriotism of men by no means his inferiors, who have made other and more liberal offers. I think that we ought to accept a compromise at least as favorable to Great Britain as the one which we have three times proposed to her. If we are unwilling to give her the navigation of the Columbia, we should provide some equivalent for it. If the question is to be amicably settled, it must be settled on terms consistent with the honor of both parties. And nobody can imagine that Great Britain will regard it as consistent with her honor, to take a line less favorable to her interests, than, that which she has three times declined within the last thirty years. Let me say, however, in regard to the navigation of the Columbia, that, if I understand it aright, it is of very little importance whether we give it or withhold it, as the river is believed not to be navigable at all, where it is struck by the forty-ninth parallel of latitude. I trust that we shall not add folly to crime, by going to war rather than yield the navigation of an unnavigable river.

And here, Sir, I have a word to say in reference to a remark made by the honorable member from New York who has just taken his seat, (Mr. Preston King.) I understood him to say that the Administration, in making the offer of the forty-ninth parallel to Great Britain during the last summer, did it with the perfect understanding that it would be rejected. I appeal to the honorable member to say whether I have quoted him correctly.

Mr. P. KING. I said I,had heard it, and believed it to be so. Mr. WINTHROP. There is an admission to which I wish to call the solemn attention of the House and of the country. I trust in Heaven that the honorable member is mistaken. I trust, for the honor of the country, that the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs will obtain official authority to contradict this statement.

Mr. C. J. INGERSOLL. I will not wait for any authority. I deny it most unqualifiedly.

Mr. P. KING. I have no other authority on this subject than public rumor, and this I believe to be correct.

Mr. WINTHROP. It cannot be correct. What sort of an administration are you supporting, if you can believe them to have been guilty of an act of such gross duplicity in the face of the world, in order to furnish themselves with a pretext for war? I would not have heard their enemy suggest such an idea.

Mr. P. KING. Any man of common sense might have known that such a proposition to the British Government would be rejected, as it has been, without even being remitted across the water.

Mr. WINTHROP. Better and better. I thank the honorable member even more for the admission he has now made.

Mr. P. KING. You are welcome to it.

. Mr. WINTHROP. I am under no particular obligation to vindicate the course of the present Administration. But, as an American citizen, without regard to party, and with a single eye to the honor of my country, I would indignantly repel the idea that our Government, in whosesoever hands it might be, could be guilty of so scandalous and abominable an act as that which has now been imputed to it by one of its peculiar defenders. But the honorable member admits that any man of common sense must have understood, that the minister of Great Britain would refuse the offer which was thus made, (hypocritically made, as he believes,) and would refuse it precisely as it has been refused, without even transmitting it across the water. What, then, becomes of all the indignation which has been expressed and implied by the Administration and its friends, from the Secretary of State downwards, at the rejection, and more particularly at the manner of the rejection, of that offer? Why, it seems, after all, that the honorable member and myself are not so very far apart. This admission of his is entirely in accordance with the view which I have already expressed, that if any compromise whatever was to be made, (and I rejoice to find that even the chairman of the Committee of Foreign Affairs has this morning emphatically denominated himself a compromiser,) the

rejection of this precise offer does not authorize us to leap at once to the conclusion, that "no compromise which the United States ought to accept can be effected." If our Government has thus far made no offer, except one which " any man of common sense might have known would be rejected precisely as it has been," I trust it will bethink itself of making another offer hereafter, which will afford to Great Britain a less reasonable pretext for so summary a proceeding.

But, Mr. Speaker, it is certainly possible that, with the best intentions on both sides of the water, all efforts at negotiating a compromise may fail. It may turn out hereafter, though I deny that it is yet proved, that no compromise which the United States ought to accept can be effected. What then? Is there no resort but war? Yes, yes; there is still another easy and obvious mode of averting that fearful alternative. I mean arbi. tration; a resort so reasonable, so just, so conformable to the principles which govern us in our daily domestic affairs, so con formable to the spirit of civilization and Christianity, that no man will venture to say one word against it in the abstract. But then we can find no impartial arbiter, say gentlemen; and, therefore, we will have no arbitration. Our title is so clear and so indisputable, that we can find nobody in the wide world impartial enough to give it a fair consideration!

Sir, this is a most unworthy pretence; unworthy of us, and offensive to all mankind. It is doing injustice to our own case and to our own character, to assume that all the world are prejudiced against us. Nothing but a consciousness of having giving cause for such a state of feeling, could have suggested its existence. The day has been when we could hold up our heads and appeal confidently, not merely for justice, but for sympathy and succor, if they were needed, to more than one gallant and generous nation. We We may do so again, if we will not wantonly outrage the feelings of the civilized world. For myself, there is no monarch in Europe to whom I should fear to submit this question. The King of France, the King of Prussia, the Emperor of Russia, either of them would bring to it intelligence, impartiality, and ability. But, if there be a jealousy of crowned heads, why not propose a commission of civilians? If you will

put no trust in princes, there are profound jurists, accomplished historians, men of learning, philosophy, and science, on both sides of the water, from whom a tribunal might be constituted, whose decision upon any question would command universal confidence and respect. The venerable Gallatin, (to name no other American name,) to whose original exposition of this question we owe almost all that is valuable in the papers by which our title has since been enforced, would add the crowning grace to his long life of patriotic service, by representing his country once more in a tribunal to which her honor, her interests, and her peace might safely be intrusted. At any rate, let us not reject the idea of arbitration in the abstract; and, if the terms cannot be agreed upon afterwards, we shall have some sort of apology for not submitting to it. General Jackson, sir, did not regard arbitration as a measure unfit either for him or his country to adopt. Indeed, it is well understood that he was so indignant at the King of Holland's line not being accepted by us, that he declined to take any further steps on the subject of the northeastern boundary.

I cannot but regret, Mr. Speaker, that the President, in making up an issue before the civilized world, upon which he claims to be relieved from all responsibility which may follow the failure to settle this question, has omitted all allusion to the fact that arbitration on this subject of Oregon has been once solemnly tendered to us by Great Britain. I am willing, however, to put the very best construction on this omission of which it is susceptible, and to believe that the President desired to leave himself uncommitted upon the point. Without some such explanation, it certainly has a most unfortunate and disingenuous look. This omitted fact is, indeed, enough to turn the scale of the public judgment upon the whole issue. Arbitration offered by Great Britain, and perseveringly rejected by us, leaves the responsibility for the preservation of peace upon our own shoulders. The Administration cannot escape from the burden of that responsibility. And a fearful responsibility it is, both to man and to God!

Before concluding my remarks, as the clock admonishes me I soon must, I desire to revert to one or two points to which I