Speech of Senator J. Semple. 393 joint occupation, and a plain and easy mode was pointed out in the treaty itself. This was for either party to give notice of a desire to abrogate that part of the treaty. This, sir, is the object of the resolution which I have had the honor to introduce. This thing of a joint occupation of a country; and of a joint jurisdiction by two independent Governments, is an anomaly in the history of the world. I do not now remember anything like it, either among ancient or modern Governments. I have no doubt that it has often happened that two nations may have been at the same time in possession of the same country; but I think that in all such cases they have both contended for exclusive jurisdiction, and the joint possession has generally been hostile, and one or the other has been compelled by force to yield. I remember that there was once a joint and concurrent jurisdiction over a strip of country between Kentucky and Tennessee; I am not sure that there ever was in that case an agreement for the joint occupation; I am inclined to think there never was an agreement, but that both States claimed and exercised jurisdiction over the country until the question was settled about the year 1819. The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Crittenden] will no doubt remember this dispute. I think he was probably one of the negotiators of the ultimate set- tlement of the line between the two States. The joint occupation which I have just mentioned was on several occasions near producing great difficulties, even when both States belonged to one General Government, and when the people of both States were friends and neighbors, and possessed of the highest degree of prudence and forbearance. The difficulties between the States of Ohio and Michigan, and that still more recent between the State of Missouri and Territory of Iowa, will show how tenaci- ous Governments always are in relation to boundaries. These diffi- culties happened between States, when it would seem really to be a matter of no great consequence whether the disputed territory be- longed to the one or the other, as both belonged to one common country. It is a matter of more serious consequence when the disputed territory lies between two rival powers, having no common umpire to determine the dispute. Nations generally adhere with greater pertinacity to a claim of territory than to any other species of right, and yield it with greater reluctance; scarcely ever without appealing to the only umpire between nations — the trial by battle. I believe sir, that the recent surrender of a part of the State of Maine to the British Government is probably the only instance recorded in history where a great and powerful nation, with a full and complete conviction of its right to the soil, has tamely
