ican citizen upon the premises of the British company; expressed pleasure at learning that Williamson had finally desisted;[1] and thanked McLoughlin for his "kind and candid manner" of treating a "breach of the laws of the United States, by setting at naught her most solemn treaties with Great Britain." They promised to use every exertion to put down causes of disturbance, and reciprocated the desire for a continuance of the amicable intercourse which had heretofore existed, which they would endeavor to promote "until the United States shall extend its jurisdiction over us, and our authority ceases to exist."
The admissions made in the answer of the executive committee were not pleasing to the majority of the Americans in the country, who contended, as did Williamson, that the treaty gave no vested rights, as neither the sovereignty of the soil nor the boundary line was determined, and joint occupancy left all free to go wherever they desired. Some of the more careful and conservative argued that joint occupancy did not mean the occupancy of the same place by both nations, but only the equal privilege of settling where they would not interfere with each other, the first party in possession being entitled to hold until the question of sovereignty was settled. The affair gave rise to much discussion, not only among Americans themselves, but between Americans and the gentlemen of the British company; and while the arguments were conducted with courtesy, and each side was able to learn something from the other, which softened the arrogance of national pride and pretensions, the main question of difference—the propriety of making the Columbia River practically a boundary so long as the sovereignty of the country remained undecided—continued to agitate the new-comers, and to interest every inhabitant of Oregon.
Mr Applegate, commenting on the relative positions of the American and British debaters, has said
- ↑ A second letter informed them that Williamson had withdrawn.
