of a settlement on the Columbia being chiefly of a commercial nature.
Tucker of Virginia expressed surprise that "three long and eloquent speeches" should have been made in support of a measure to which he had intended to give a silent negative. He did not object to the occupation of the Columbia River because it was visionary, but because he thought it too practicable, and likely to draw off population and capital to a point where they would be less useful than where they then were; and because the people of the Pacific coast would, by their local position, carry on their trade with China and the Orient rather than with the Atlantic states. He could not see what interest the Pacific and Atlantic states would have in common, and mentioned the appalling fact that the mouths of the Mississippi and the Columbia, by any route then known, were four thousand miles asunder!. Colonies he declared were of no advantage to the parent country, unless that country enjoyed a monopoly of the colonial trade, which in this instance the United States could not hope to do.
The 13th of January, 1823, Golden of New York spoke, giving facts concerning seal-fishing designed to favor the bill; and also an interesting history of the trade with China, showing that although that country was said to be the sink of coin, the cargoes brought from there were sold in Europe at a profit of more than twice the cost in China, and for coin. He cited also the treasury report for 1821, which gave information of seventeen vessels from the United States sailing for the Northwest Coast, which he took to mean° the vicinity of the Columbia River, carrying goods to the value of $400,000; and although he was not informed who were the purchasers, he thought under such circumstances the mouth of the Columbia must be a point of importance to commerce. Unlike his predecessors in the debate, Colden referred to the subject of title, and gave his views of the security of
