it would still be better that the region embraced byit should be peopled from the United States than from other nations, with whom we might—nay, must — have to go to war; and peopled by other nations it would be, unless the American people took measures to prevent it.
In none of the arguments was the question of title touched upon, except to suggest caution in coming in conflict with the terms of the existing treaty. No doubt was ever expressed of the validity of the claim of the United States. When Buchanan of Pennsylvania objected that the establishment of a port of entry would interfere with the treaty, Floyd explained that the section objected to directed the president to open a port of entry only whenever he should "deem the public good may require it;" and that it was intended to put the citizens of the United States as early as possible on an advantageous footing for prosecuting commercial enterprises. When it was feared that Great Britain might look upon the founding of a military establishment as an act of bad faith, Smyth replied that Great Britain at that moment had a military post on the Columbia, and that the rights of the two governments under the treaty were at least equal.
At length, after four years of constant effort, on the 23d of December, 1824, Mr Floyd had the satisfaction of seeing his bill for the occupation of the Columbia River and the establishment of the territory of Oregon passed in the house by a vote of one hundred and thirteen to fifty-seven, and sent to the senate.[1]
So far discussion had been confined to the house, except in February 1823, when Benton introduced a resolution in the senate that the committee on military affairs be instructed to inquire into the expediency of
- ↑ Congressional Debates, 1824-5, i. 13-26, 28, 36, 38, 39-42, 44, 59.
