Wheeling Times And Advertiser

The Oregon Question is likely for some time to form an exciting topic of public interest and discussion. The newspapers teem with versions of the rights and claims of the parties in dispute, together with speculations as to the probable results. The Boston Post, noticing a recent debate in the British House of Commons, handles Lord John Russell without gloves. The leader of the Whig party on the other side of the water, made light of the rights derived by treaty from Spain, because a claim founded on discoveries at the end of the 16th century, and not perfected by occupation or settlement, amounts to very little, and could not be maintained. Lord John also alluded to the voyage of Capt. Gray, in 1792, and said: "It appears that a merchant vessel called the Columbia, under a Captain Gray, discovered an inlet, which was supposed to be an inlet of a river. It appears that after some days, in the month of May 1792, passed partly at anchor, and partly in endeavoring to ascertain the limits of that bay, this vessel sailed out again into the Pacific ocean. There is a very clear statement given by Captain Gray, the commander of that vessel, that 'after some days,' he says, 'we thought we had found a channel; we found we were mistaken. There is no channel in the part which we endeavored to penetrate into the river, and therefore we must return.' Shortly after this, Capt. Vancouver arrived on the coast. He not only went into the same inlet, but he sent his lieutenant, a Lieut. Broughton, to discover the river, and to go in a boat to a distance up the river. Lieut. Broughton was more successful than Capt. Gray. He actually discovered the entrance of the Columbia river. He went up in his boat for several days, to the distance, I think, of some 90 or 100 miles. I discovered the territory surrounding it. It was agreed that the river should be called by the name of Columbia, and Lieut. Broughton returned to his ship. But Capt. Vancouver took possession of that river and the coast adjacent, and Nootka Sound, in the name of his majesty the king of England. (Hear, hear.) Then, sir, there was something of a valid title. (Hear, hear.) Here was a taking possession not by the captain of a merchant vessel, but by an officer in the uniform of his majesty the King of England—taking possession for the purpose of occupation and settlement."

The Post analyzes the above statement thus:

In October, 1792, two vessels sailed from Boston, on a voyage of trade and discovery on the northwest coast, viz: the ship Columbia, Capt. Kendrick, and sloop Washington, Capt. Gray. They arrived in Nootka Sound in September, 1788. After spending some time in collecting furs, Capt. Gray, in the Washington, sailed up the strait Juan de Fuca. After this he was transferred to the Columbia. He then sailed for Canton and took a cargo of teas for Boston, Capt. Kendrick remaining on the coast, and, May 7, anchored in Gray's harbor, Oregon. On the 11th he entered a large river. There is, it is true, a very clear statement given of the proceedings of the few succeeding days by Capt. Gray, though widely differing from what it is said a British Lord read to a British House of Commons. "When we were over the bar," (at 8 A. M.) says Capt. Gray's log book, "we found this to be a large river of fresh water, up which we steered. Many canoes came alongside. At 1 P. M. came to with the small bower, in ten fathoms, black and white sand. The entrance between the bars bore west-southwest, distant ten miles: the north side of the river, a half a mile distant from the ship: the south side of the same two and a half miles distant: a village on the north side of the river west by north, distant three quarters of a mile. Vast numbers of the natives came alongside." So the journal goes on daily. For instance: May 14. Fresh gales and cloudy; many natives came alongside: at noon weighed and came to sail, standing up the river northeast by east: we found the channel very narrow. At 4 P. M. we had sailed upwards of twelve or fifteen miles, when the channel was so very narrow that it was about impossible to keep in it." &c. Capt. Gray remained in this river from May 11 to May 21. He left his ship and went ashore to explore the country: he gave it the name of his ship—Columbia. He also named the north side of the entrance Cape Hancock—the south side, Adams point.

Such is an authentic account of Captain Gray's discovery and exploration of the Columbia river. The bay opening to it had been visited by Spanish voyagers, and named by them Entrada de Heceta. With this exception, this is the first entrance and exploration, by a European, of Columbia river. And as to any rights the Spaniards may have derived from an earlier discovery of the bay, these rights are now, by treaty with Spain, vested in the United States. Now Lord Russell pretends to have his views of the American claims from reports submitted to the House of Representatives. If so, he must have had an authentic extract from Captain Gray's log book before him. If so, the audacity manifested in making the above statement in Parliament is only equalled by the outrageous presumption of the British claim to the mouth of Columbia river.

But it may be well to look a moment at Captain Vancouver's discovery, so pompously announced by this British lord. Capt. Vancouver's lieutenant, Broughton, he says, was more successful than Captain Gray! "He actually discovered the entrance to Columbia river!" Lord Russell finds it not convenient to give dates, nor to quote Vancouver himself, as he quoted Gray. This would not have suited him. The facts about Vancouver's visit are these: In 1792, after Captain Gray left Columbia river, he met Vancouver, and supplied him with information of the existence of this river, and charts in relation to it. Upon that information Vancouver entered the river, and made a further exploration of it. What must be thought of the impudence of this British lord, who, if he had ever read Vancouver's voyage, he must have known, further, more, that this navigator does not pretend either that he or his lieutenant (Broughton) discovered the Columbia, but was only a follower of the intrepid Gray? Vancouver frankly says of his subordinate, in giving an account of the latter's expedition up the Columbia river. "Broughton had for his guidance thus far up the inlet a chart by Mr. Gray, who had commanded the American ship Columbia." And Vancouver, in his chart, even puts down the names that Gray had given both to the river and Adams's Point.

The Post says that Lord John Russell overlooks another important matter, namely, the Indian expedition of Lewis and Clark, of which our Boston contemporary gives this account:

There was an early dispute between France and Great Britain, respecting the boundaries of Louisiana. Both, at the treaty of Utrecht (1713), agreed to appoint commissioners to settle the boundary line. This resulted in the establishment of latitude 49 as the northern limit of Louisiana. By the treaty of 1763, Great Britain ceded to France all claim to land west of Mississippi. By the purchase of 1803 these lands became vested in the United States. In 1804, Jefferson, who considered our title as covering the land to the Pacific ocean, and whose far-seeing mind appreciated the value this country would one day become to our nation, dispatched Lewis and Clark upon their celebrated expedition. They crossed the Rocky Mountains, sailed from the sources of the Columbia River to its mouth, explored the country, established Fort Clatsop, afterwards Astoria, and now Fort George, and took formal possession, in the name of the United States, of the whole of it. At this time there was no settlement on the Columbia River.