the preparations that cannot longer be postponed with safety for eventual, and not very distant, war-to hold on yet a little while longer to a system which, with all its alleged injustice to consumers, fills the national coffers, while stimulating all branches of home industry.

Who, indeed, but a forty-bale theorist, can look around the country and fail to see, that all is well-that labor meets with ready employment and remunerating wages that agriculture, pursued with the skill and the diligence which alone command success in other pursuits, is flourishing-that the mechanical arts and manufacturing industry are prosperous-and that commerce, the nursery of the navy-the improver, the civilizer and refiner of nations-is abroad on every sea, and only asks at the hands of government, permanency in all legislation which is to affect it? To the eye of common sense, and of comprehensive patriotism, all is well in these various pursuits-yet the abstractions of theorists, always the most obstinate and impracticable of men, and the ignorant clamors of ward-meetings appealing to a fancied shibboleth of party, are aiming to disturb this general prosperity, and to substitute therefor a system, which, abandoning the care of our own labor, and preferring, by deliberate avowal, the workshops of Manchester to those of Lowell, would open our ports to the unchecked competition of a world which shuts its ports against competition from the products of our skill and industry.

There can be no error in assuming, that the Whigs in united phalanx from north to south will be found in opposition to experimental philosophy such as this, and will resist to the utmost every effort to break down the legislation which scatters blessings and abundance through the land.

The subject of Oregon, though here introduced after others, is in truth likely to be that one which will take precedence of all others, if treated as now there seems reason to suppose it will be, by the Administration.

Into the history of this question, and of our claim to the territory known by the name of Oregon-extending westward from the Rocky Mountains to the Pacific, and from the 42d degree of north latitude to 54° 40'; comprehending an area of nearly 400,000 square miles--it is not now our design, nor within the limits prescribed in this paper would it be possible, to It is sufficient for our present pur

enter.

pose to say that, although our title to the whole of that region is certainly as good as that of any other nation, and probably better, we have ourselves, on repeated occasions, virtually admitted that it was not so complete and unquestionable, as to preclude all other claims to any portion of it.

In 1818, in 1824, and in 1826, we fo fered to settle the disputed title to this region between us and Great Britain, by prolonging beyond the Rocky Mountains and to the Pacific Ocean, the line which divides our possessions on the hither side of those mountains, the 49th parallel of north latitude. For reasons of her own, Great Britain on each of these occasions declined the proposed arrangement, and for thirty years the territory has been open to settlement and joint occupation by the citizens of both nations, without prejudice to, or preference of, the rights of either. These reminiscences seem abundantly to prove that we ourselves have heretofore been willing to negotiate for the quiet and undisturbed possession of that to which, nevertheless, the President in his inaugural message, declares we have a full and undoubted title.

What, then, has occurred to change the relation of the country to this question, or to render it a duty of patriotism to insist upon immediate and entire occupation of the whole territory? We are at a loss to answer this interrogatory satisfactorily.

It is, indeed, sometimes assumed that among the issues determined by the Pres idential election was that of Oregon; and that it is only in conformity with the popular behest, that the President has adopted such a positive tone.

In confirmation of this view, we are referred to the resolutions adopted at Baltimore by the Convention which nominated Mr. Polk, and which, it is contended, were received and acted upon, as the articles of the Democratic creed. But this argument, if it proves anything, proves too much; for if the resolution put forth by that Convention respecting Oregon, is to be considered as having, by the result of the Presidential election, been adopted and ratified by the people, then is negotiation of any sort in relation to this subject for bidden and foreclosed.

That resolution is in these words:

"Resolved, That our title to the whole of the territory of Oregon is clear and unquestionable-that no portion of the same ought to be ceded to England, or any other power, and that the re-occupa

tion of Oregon and the re-annexation of Texas, at the earliest practicable period, are great American measures, which the Convention recommend to the cordial support of the democracy of the Union."

In his first message, President Polk adopted verbatim and repeated the first paragraph of this resolution, and for so doing he is vindicated, on the ground that the fact of his election upon the doctrines put forth at Baltimore, is to be taken as conclusive evidence that they expressed the popular will. But if so, why did the message stop short with the first paragraph, and why is not the second as obligatory, according to this logic, as the first? If the people of the United States meant to be understood, in electing Mr. Polk, as declaring that "our title to the whole of the territory of Oregon is clear and unquestionable," they must be considered as in like manner declaring "that no portion of the same ought to be ceded to England." But the message made no such declaration. So far, indeed, is Mr. Polk from entertaining any such view, that he has actually entered into negotia tion with Great Britain concerning the very territory, which he could not have done if he considered himself bound in no event "to cede any portion of it to Great Britain."

It is therefore illogical, upon the premises relied on, to contend that the President is only carrying out the popular will as indicated by this resolution.

But were it otherwise, and that it could be made out satisfactorily that in all points the resolutions of a party meeting were suffered by the President of the United States to control his official views and conduct, in respect of great national interests-interests involving the honor, happiness and peace of the whole country, possibly those of the civilized world -would the case be in any wise better for him?

The President, when he takes his seat, makes solemn appeal to Heaven, that he "will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of his ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

It is nowhere said that he shall be the President of a party, and it is nowhere written in the Constitution, which is to be the guide, the measure, and the rule of his conduct, that the President must, or should, or honestly can, shape his course by the lights of conventions unknown to that Constitution. It is therefore a wrong

alike to the theory of our institutions, to the sworn fidelity of the President, and to the high and solemn responsibilities of his office, to assume, or to assert, that in shaping the foreign policy of the nation, or in any other great national manifestation, the Executive head of this Republic acknowledges any other obligation, any other allegiance, than to the whole people of the United States, and to the Constitution, which is their common defence and law.

For this government is one of compact and mutual agreement, where all, numerically, at least, have equal rights and an equal interest; and it is not a device whereby a party majority shall have the right to dispose at pleasure of the interest and happiness of others.

Party, indeed, under institutions like ours, will ever mingle, and, within reasonable limits, may without danger mingle, in the contests for the possession of power, and of the fruits of power after it is acquired; but beyond that, it can never rightfully go. More especially in our relations with foreign nations and in the suggestion or adoption of our foreign policy, is it plainly manifest that Party should always be contemned as an unwise and unworthy counselor.

It is the great blot in the career of Mr. Van Buren, that when Secretary of State of the United States, he degraded the country in whose name he spoke, by disavowing the acts of the Administration to which that whereof he formed part succeeded-and sought favor from a foreign government by representing as unfounded pretensions which the then President hastened to recall the honest assertion by his predecessors, of claims, which were only distasteful to that foreign government, because they were as clear as they were honest.

The overwhelming and disastrous popularity of General Jackson covered up and glossed over this enormity, as it did so many others; but in the future annals of the country, it will be recorded to the lasting discredit of Mr. Van Buren, that he, for the first time in our diplomatic intercourse with another nation, introduced and sought to make party capital out of our domestic differences.

In the actual posture of the Oregon question, therefore, it is, above all things, desirable that party should not be permitted to determine the issue, and that all mere appeals to partisans as such should be discouraged.

There is need of the considerate wis

dom and patriotism of all to give to this question a proper direction, and to insure to it a satisfactory solution.

It cannot, we would fain hope, be wrong to assume that the nation does not seek to do injustice-nor prefer the ways of violence, to those of moderation-nor wish for war, while war can be honor ably avoided.

Upon this hypothesis the anxiety which undeniably now agitates the public mind respecting Oregon, can only arise from distrust of the administration. We confess ourselves to share in this distrust, and yet the course for us is so plain and smooth for escaping all difficulties on the subject, by persevering in what Mr. Calhoun so justly characterized as "a wise and masterly inactivity," that we cannot comprehend, on any sound principles of reasoning, why the country should be urged to deviate from it.

We do not want the territory merely as territory; and if we did, it would be no more accessible to us, nor as far as can be discerned, any more tempting for settlers, than now it is. For many years after the renewal in 1828 of the convention for the joint occupation of that territory by the citizens of both countries without prejudice to the rights of either, there was no attempt at, or tendency to, emigration and permanent settlement there from the United States. The first colony for settlement that went forth was in 1834. It consisted of a band of Methodists, under their ministers, and they established themselves in the valley of the Willamette river, where a few retired servants of the Hudson Bay Company, (British) were previously residing. Next in order, according to Greenough, colonies of Presbyterians or Congregationalists were planted in the Walla Walla and Spokan countries. In 1839, a printing press was set up in Walla Walla, on which were struck off the first sheets ever printed on the Pacific side of America north of Mexico. The Jesuits from St. Louis soon after sent out missionaries to that region to convert and instruct the Indians; but, according to the usage of that order, they male no settlement.

Since that period, emigration to Oregon has received a great impulse, and now there are some thousand American settlers in its different valleys, outnumbering, in the proportion probably of six to one, the English and all other European colonists.

In this one fact, if duly weighed, is to be found an argument conclusive, it would

seem, against any change in a policy respecting that region, which is working so well, and by natural causes is tending to bring about, without shock or violence, but peacefully and surely, that result, which some among us seem so intensely to covet, as to be willing to rush into war for its attainment.

A new element, moreover, has recently entered into the speculations and calculations concerning Oregon-the possibility that, while the United States and Great Britain are debating to whom it shall belong, the actual occupants of the country may claim it for themselves, and seek to establish there a great Pacific Republicbone of our bone and flesh of our flesh, and yet not identified with us. In such a contingency, who is there prepared to say that it would not be for the best that the controversy should be thus resolved?

Is there not much to excite and soothe the patriotic mind, in the idea of a new Republic-planted by our hands on the opposite side of the continent, bound to us by descent, by language, by similarity of institutions, by multiplying interests of mutual intercourse-growing up to greatness under the shadow of our Eagle's wings--and ready, when need shall come, to unite its arms with ours, in defence of the institutions, the principles and liberties, alike dear, and alike common to both; and especially for the assertion of that great American principle which shall forbid the intervention of European nations in American affairs?

We do not say that the people of Oregon would be more likely to prefer being a Republic by themselves to becoming a part of this Union. But we do say, it would be altogether wiser and more liberal, to let that people determine this matter for themselves. It is more honorable for all concerned—but especially for ourselves. There would be, in such a solution of the question-and this is a point of view which we gladly entertain—a triumphant refutation of the charge which, not England only, but France, and, indeed, Europe, seem disposed to bring against us, of seeking unlimited territorial aggrandizement. If it shall appear that, with claims so strong to Oregon as we think those of this country, it shall yet acquiesce in, and not only acquiesce in, but encourage, promote and protect, the formation there of an independent nation, bound to ns by none other than moral and natural ties, there can be none to gainsay the disinterestedness of the act.

Whether during the sitting of Con

gress this inchoate project of the inhabitants of the valleys of the Columbia river to assert their right to self-government and independence, will be sufficiently matured to be made a matter of serious deliberation, it is impossible now to conjecture. Meantime, the appearances are, that the party which professes the greatest respect for the doctrine of the right of self-government, will be found discouraging, if not resisting, the exercise of that right, in its full extent, by the ultra-montane Americans, and that it will be desired rather to hold them as colonists, whose fate must ultimately be united with ours under one and the same gov. ernment, than to assist or encourage them in asserting their own separate nationality and entire independence.

In every aspect, therefore, which this subject may assume, it will appeal strongly to the feelings, the principles, the sound judgment, the wise forecast, and the unshrinking firmness of the Whig party.

In throwing out the reflections we here present, we design them as suggestions merely-not counsels-for the occurrences of the next hour may overthrow, in an instant, all present combinations in calculation.

One point only may, we think, be stated as incontrovertible, and upon that point we trust the Whigs will be found united to a man--and that is, that war for Oregon, unless an attempt be made to wrest it forcibly from our possession, is an absurdity at once and a crime.

There still remains one great question for examination which has not fallen within the domain of ordinary politics or of merely local or domestic interests, and presents many new and complicated features. It is that of the independence of the American Continent from the control, political or physical, of European nations.

It is now almost a quarter of a century since this idea was first formally enunciated on this side of the Atlantic, and then it seemed to speak the general sentiment of the country. Circumstances connected with the emancipation of the Spanish American colonies from the dominion of the mother country, and with the long, and for a time uncertain, struggle which some of them were called upon to maintain, led to an apprehension in this country that, under the plea of putting a stop to the waste of human life, and to the bloody and remorseless warfare which characterizes in a special manner civil contests among the Spanish race, some of

the leading European governments might offer their aid to Spain for the purpose of pacifying or reducing her revolted colonies. Such an interposition in the affairs of this hemisphere, could not be regarded with indifference by the government of the United States-the great power of this Continent, with all its sympathies naturally enlisted in behalf of a neighboring people struggling for their freedom-this government had nevertheless studiously maintained its neutrality between Spain and her revolted colonies. Having thus evinced its own self-denial and its scrupulous respect for the principle, that to each people it belongs to decide upon and adopt the form of government best suited to it, and that no foreign nation can rightfully control by arms such free choice and decision, the American government was manifestly in a position to say authoritatively to Europe, that the principle of non-intervention, so faithfully, and under such trying circumstances, observed by it, must not be departed from nor violated by other governments, especially by those removed by position out of the American system. Utterance was accordingly given to this sentiment by the then President, Mr. Monroe, in his seventh annual message to Congress, in this passage:

"Of events in that quarter of the globe with which we have had so much intercourse, and from which we derive our ori

gin, we have always been anxious and interested spectators. The citizens of the United States cherish sentiments in favor of the liberty and happiness of their fellow men on that side of the Atlantic. In the wars of the European powers, in matters relating to themselves, we have never taken any part, nor does it comport with our policy so to do. It is only when our rights

are invaded or seriously menaced, that we defence. With the movements in this hemiresist injuries or make preparations for our sphere, we are of necessity more immediately connected, and by causes which must be obvious to all enlightened and impartial observers. The political system of the allied powers is essentially different in this respect from that of America This difference proceeds from that which exists in their respective governments. And to the defence of our own, which has been achieved by the loss of so much blood and treasure, and matured by the wisdom of their most enlightened citizens, and under which we have enjoyed unexampled felicity, this whole nation is devoted.

"We owe it therefore to candor, and to the amicable relations existing between the