IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-S) /. 4iJ Tip M^^ Qi fe x ^ 1.0 I.I 1^128 12.5 •IT 1^ ||||: 12.2 14 6" 2.0 1.8 11-25 11.4 ill 1.6 V] ^ n ^. c'l % > sy '^'^ItJ^' V /A PhotograpMic Sciences Corporaiion 7?: WEST MAIN STREET WKBSTER.N.Y. MSSO (716) 872-4503 v*=» lO' ;v \\ % V ^.. '•«>> 6^ ^ ^ CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliographically unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. D D D Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur □ Covers damaged/ Couverture endommag^e I I Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaur6e et/ou pelllcul6e Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque Coloured maps/ Cartes g^ographiques en couleur Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material/ Relii avec d'autres documents D Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La reliure serr^e peut causer de I'ombre ou de ta distortion le long de la marge intdrieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajouties lors dune restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque cela dtait possible, ces pages n'ont pas 6t4 filmies. Additional comments:/ Commentaires supplimentaires; L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a 6t6 possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la mdthode normale de filmage sont indiqu6s ci-dessous. I~~| Coloured pages/ D Pages de couleur Pages damaged/ Pages endommag^es Pages restored and/oi Pages restaurdes et/ou pelliculdes Pages discoloured, stained or foxe< Pages d6color6es, tachetdes ou piqu^es Pages detached/ Pages ddtach6es Showthrough/ Transparence Quality of prir Quality in^gale de I'impression Includes supplementary materit Comprend du materiel supplimentaire Only edition available/ Seule Edition disponible I I Pages damaged/ I I Pages restored and/or laminated/ I I Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ I I Pages detached/ I I Showthrough/ I I Quality of print varies/ I I Includes supplementary material/ I I Only edition available/ Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont 6t^ filmies A nouveau de fagon d obtenir la meilleure image possible. This Item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est film6 au taux de reduction indiquA ci-dessous. 10X 14X 18X 22X 26X 30X ^ - 12X 18X 20X 24X 28X 32X The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks to the generosity of: Library Division Provincial Archives of British Columbia The images appearing here are the best quality possible considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and in keeping with the filming contract specifications. Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All other original copies atre filmed beginning on the first page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impression. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol — ^ (meaning "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever applies. Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: L'exemplaire film* fut reproduit grice A la ginirositA de: Library Division Provincial Archives of British Columbia Las images suivantes ont it6 raproduites avec le plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et de la nettetA de l'exemplaire i\\m6, et en conformity avec las conditions du contrat de filmage. Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprimAe sont film6s en commengant par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la derni^rs page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second plat, salon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires originaux sont filmis en commenpant par la premiere page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par la derniire page qui comporte une telle empreinte. Un des symboles suivants apparaitra aur la dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbole —•■ signifie "A SUIVRE ", le symbole V signifie "FIN". Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre film^s d des taux de reduction diffirents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtrn reproduit en un seul cliche, il est film4 d partir de Tangle supdrieur gauche, de gauche d droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images n^cessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la m^thode. 1 2 3 4 5 e REPLY I'NITEI) STATES TO TIM-: CASK OF TIIK (i()VEKN3)E>.T OF llKll HRITANXLC MAJESTV, ri{KsKN'ii:ii -I'o HIS iMAJESTY THE EMPEROR OE (iERMANY AS AKIllTKATOR INDKI.' Tin: I'l.'OVlSloNS OF THE TREA'I'V OF WASlIINCTOX, .11 -NF, i-j, isy_'. .^' REPLY. 1 he Unit<>d States on the twelfth of December hist presented their Memorial on the Canal de Ilaro as the boundary line of the United States of America to the In)]^erial Arbitrator, and to t}ie Representative of Her Britannic 3Iajesty"s govern- ment at Berlin. To the Case of the government of Her Bri- t;innie 3Iajesty, likewise submitted at that time, they now ofler their reply. A formal answer to every statement in the Brit- ish Case to which they take exception, would require a weari.some analysis of almost every one of its pages. They hold it suilicient, to point out a few of the allegations which they regard a.s erroneous: to throw light upon the argument on which the Britisii principally rest their Case; to establish the consistency of tlie American go\ernmcnt by tracing the controversy through all its changes to its present form; and, lastly, to ap[)ly to the interpretation of the treaty some of tlie principles which Her Britannic; Majesty's government itself has invoked. I. The argii.nent of Her Britannic Majestys government has kept in t'le background the clear words of the treaty de- scribing the l)oundary. and has made no attempt to bring — 4 ISlilisli CilM- Ilu'iu into harmony with the Britisli daim. On the contrary, ill tlio statoment of the question .sulmiitted for arbitration, it assunies tliat the treaty of 1871 si)eak.s »as if there were more than one channel lietween tlie continent and VancoTiver ishind tin-ont-'h wliich the hoinidary may be rim«. Tiie United States an> of tho opinion tliat tlie treaty of 184() desi^niates the Ilaro cliannel ])rccisely as tlie oidy channel of the boundary. The words are: — <>The channel that separates the continent from Vancouver island" ; and there is Imt one stich channel. 'I'lie so-called straits of Kosario touch neither the continent, nor Vancouver island. The name of the continent of South America, as used by geographers, includes the group of islands south of the straits of Magellan. The continent of Asia inchides Ceylon, and Su- matra: the continent of Europe includes Great Hritain and Ireland, and the Helirides. Asia 3Iinor includes Lesbos, and Scio. and Samos. and Rhodes, and Tenedos: and so the con- tiiu'ut of North America includes all adjacent islands, to tlie great Pacific. Were the (juestion to l)e asked. ..what channel separates the continent of Kurojie iVom Candia'?« the answer would not draw the line north of the greater ])art of the Aegean arclii- ])elago, but. like all Eurojiean diplomacy, would point to the channel .south ol" Santorin. In like manner, when the treaty speaks of ..that channel whieli .separates the continent from Vancouver island-, nothing is excepted Imt Vancouver island itself. The United States as.sented, in 1871, to no jnore tJian that Great Britain might lay her pretensions before an impar- tial tribunal, all the while believing and avowing, that the sinii)le statement which has j'ust been made is absolutely con- clusive on the point submitted for arbitration. The British Case seeks to draw an inference unfavorable to the American demand from the proviso in the treaty of 184(1 which secures to either party the free navigation of tlie whole of Fuca's straits. It is quite true that tlie riglit was safe, and s.n.iic n,., n- was known to be safe »under the puljhc law« ; yet it ai)p('ars ,!"'""' '"'' ^^; ^ ' ' ' Dim'. -ISll. |i. -4-1. Ironi (Icjcunients printed at the time, tliat. as the recent assertion Ai-in-miis. i,. .\i,- l)y tlie Russian government of a elaini to tlie exchisive navi- '""""' '' ^ " gation of a part of tlie northern Paeifie ocean was recollected, it was thought best to in.sert the sujierlhiotis clause, recogni- sing the straits of Fuca as an arm of the sea. The British argument seems suited to mislead h\ its man- \:mhu (as.-. ner of using the name -straits of Rosiirio«. — 'I'he first chnn- '''' '" '"' nel from the straits of Fuca to the north, that was discovered and partly examined in 1790. was the Canal de Ilaro. The expediticm under Lieutenant Kliza explored that chnnnel In June, 17i)l, with the greatest industry and care, and discov- ered the broad water wliich is its continuation to the north. That Avater. lying altogether to the north of the northern ter- Ai.|,.i,.lix. No.c-.'. minationofllaro channel, was namcil by the expedition: EKirnn ''' '"" '' ''■ ■'''^• (.'anal de Nuestra Seuora del Rosario la Marinera. 'I'lius the Canal de Ilaro and the true Sjianisli chamiel of Rosario form at once the oldest historical continuous channel, as it is the one continuous boundary channel of the treaty of US4(). The passage Avhich the British authorities now <'all tiie straits of Rosario, appears as early as 17!)1 on the mnj) of .Mii|, k. Kliza as the channel of Fidalgo. Vancouver, conung after Map ( . Eliza , transferred the name of Rosario to the strait east of the island of Texada. The British Admiralty, soon nl'ter A.lmiraii.v Map of receiving the surveys made under its orders in 1847 by Caji- ^'ril,','' (;ui'i''''I.'i tain Kellett, suddenly removed the name of the straits ofRo- Ij;;";!^'"' lit'''" ',',',- sario I'rom the narrow water between the (;ontinent and the ',''''v-',-,"'.'"'""- ''• . , 1 , , , K. N. I lilt. ( ap- island ol Texada, where it had remained on British mans for '"''"' "• 'ii'ii'i"" ,,^^ , , ' aml(\Valdrsl7!r2. hlty years, to the passnge Avhich the Sjianiards caUed the » apiain ll.Kcllcii. channel ofFididgo. And yet the government of Her Britannic iWi.MjWii.-JS.is'^i'i.i 3Iajesty advances the assertion, that -how the name Jias come ii,i,isi, cis,. to be« so "applied in modern days, does not appear." For I' ^"• this act of the British Admiralty in February, 1,S4!I. there exists no historical justification whatever. (j — M,i|. K. Till" United States 1imv<' obtained from the llydro- f^nipliical Bureau in Madrid a certified coju of two reports, made in 171)1 , of the explorations of de Eliza, and a fac-simile of a map which accompanied tliem. On this authentic map, of which a lithographic co]»y is laid before the Imperial Arbi- trator, the position of the canal dc llaro, of the Spanish canal de Rosario, and of the channel of Fidalgo may he seen at a glance, as they were determined by the expedition of Eliza in the year 17i)l. The British Case exaggerates the importance of the A'oyage of C'aptain ^'ancouver. So far were American fur-traders from following his guidance, they were his forerunners and teachers. Their early voyages are among the most marvellous events in the history of commerce. So soon as the independence of the United States was acknowledged by Great Britain, the strict enforcement of the old, unrej)ealed navigation laws cut them off from their former haunts of connnerce, and it became a (juestion from what ports American ships could bring home coffee, and sugar, and spices, and tea. All British colonies were barred against them as nmch as were those of Spain. So American ships sailed into ea.stern oceans, Avhere trade with the natives was free. The great Asiatic commerce poured wealth into the lap of the new republic, and Americans, ob- serving the fondness of the Chinese for fui-s, sailed fearlessly from the (Miinese seas or round cape Horn to the northwest coast of America in quest of peltry to exchange for the costly fabrics and products of China. They were in the waters of northwest America long before the Ifudsons Bay Company. We know, alike from Briti.sli and from Spanish authorities, that an American sloop, fitted out at Boston in New-England, and commanded by Captain Kcndrick , passed through the straits l)i>v. Ms. .iduiiml. ofFucajust at the time when the American constitution went Docmiiciilo oxis- ' . ,, i , . tiMiiociielairliivi) iuto Operation, — two years before \ ancouver, and oven before do Imlins oil ,So- guimpor and de Ilaro. Americans did not confine them.selves villa. AppoiiJix. Nil (a p 101 tx) tliPrc was a chaiicf of trarfickiiig with a rod Indian for skins: and tliey lianded down from ono to another tlio results of their diseoveries. Tlie instruction from the British Admiralty to Captain Appendix No. U3. Vancouver was prompted hy an account, which they had seen, ■''" "" '^-• of the voyage of Kendrick. and the I)elief. derived from that account, tliat the waters of the Pacific might reach far into the American continent. Vancouver was therefore instructed to search for channels and rivers leading into tlie interior of the continent, the farther to the south tlie hotter, in" tlie hope tliat water communication miglit be found oven with the lake of the Woods. In conformity to these instructions, founded on the voyage of Americans, he entered the straits of Fuca. and keeping always as near as he could to the eastern .shore, he vainly searched the coast to the .southern limit of Puget .sound. Turning tvor ])ubli.shod apart from a work, too voluminous. oxpensiv(>. and rare to find a place on board the .small vessels of fur-traders. The line on his map is nothing more nor less than the track of his own cour.se while ('ngngeli (:!> .\li|Miidi\ Nil. >> \,\:. PM. |l>.'>. The Briti.sli iir,(>\ini(Mit lVct risps lai -; . 1"^ ■* /jViryiriiirJ^-. o >c>r7 V -v^ <:?^-Y <^--> Xf., }^ J? ._ / J'ui-iAni/fli.\ _.k\fH'/)tin iriiinl ., A/c? C7 lui-lAniivlix Xi'M-Zhinofiir 1 \ _ri__ { xjL.JLXjzl't"""'"' ^,\\ "^v-A ) 0, JM — 9 arrival of tlie Ainericau Ex))lorin^ Expodilion under Wilkes in 1841. A moiioi)oly of the trade was maintained l)y the Hudson's Bay Company, not against Americans only, but agamst all shi])s hut their own. What then becomes of the British argument, that trading vessels of other nations wei-e in all that time not known to pass rhrough the canal de Haro? The Hudson's Bay ('ompany was once a company ol' com- mercial importance, as well as of political influence. But the hunting gi-ound over which it ranged was enonnously wide, stretching from Labrador to California and to the Russian settlements in northwestern America. They could spare vei-\ little of their limited resources for tlie waters around San Juan i.sland. Their leading .settlement in the west, until 184H. wa.s at Fort Vancouver on C()luml)ia river. Of .shipping in their employ, notliing is heard for many years, except of one small steamer, the Beaver, and of one small schooner, the (^adhoro. A,.,..nclix. No..% Wilkes in 1841 met only tlie Beaver. These ves.sels were l' '>''■ '■ !•'•• accustomed twice a year t« make the trip from Fort Vancou- Ai,,„.>dix p. the reason of tlie choice. In the '' '*'' .semi-annual trip from Fort Vancouver to the trading posts, B,iii,h (a,.o. the first one that was vi.sited was Ni.s(|ually, at the head of !'• ■'^- P- ^'^ Puget Sotmd. A vessel sailing from that part of the United States to Eraser's river wouhl naturally pa.ss through the Fi- dalgo-Ro.sario channel. To have taken any other wo!dd ]iav<> been cii-cuitous. A geographical sketch is annexed, from which M,,p n. the rea.son will appear, why the ve.s,sels on the.se trips passed throtigli the .so-called Ro.sario straits; not becau.se it was the great channel I'rom the straits of .luan de Ftuvi to (he north, but because it was the shortest passage between Ni.squally in Puget Sound and Fort Langley on Erasers river. The re- turn voyage, when there was no need of touching at Ni.s- (pially. was sometimes made by the ciiannel of Haro. I) — 10 Appendix No. 5.') ]>. r,(!. Untish {'iiM'. p. 19. British Case, p. 2(1. »'l'liere were no vessels engaged in tliose waters*, writes Rear-Admiral Wilkes of his visit to them in 1841, »except the small and very inefficient steamer, called the Bea\'er, commanded by Captain Mc. Neill, who spoke of it [the strait ofHarol tome as tlie best passage, althougli he was obli- ged fo pass tlirougli the Rosario ])assage«. Again, in narrating tlie survey of tlie Haro channel by the I'liited States' exploring expedition, in 1841, the British Case shapes the narrari\(' so as to give the impression that tlie American expedition regarded the so-called straits oC Rosario as suj)erior to the Haro. while the opposite is the trnth. Commodore Wilkes, who commanded the expedition, detachefl a subordinate officer in the \'incennes to survey the (thannels among the islands of the archipelago; he reserved for himself the more important but less diffiodf office of sur- veying the channel of Haro. On the 26"' page of the British tlase it is asserted that the late Ml-. Dfiniel Webster stated in the Senate of tlie United States. that the great aim of the United States in 1846 was to establish the 49"" parallel of north latitude as the line of boundary on the western side of the Rocky Mountains. ..not to be departed from for any line further south on the Continent." The inference drawn from this is. that Mr. Webster demanded the line of the parallel of 4i»" for »tlie continent* only, and was indifTerent as to »the islands-. !VIr. Webster was not at that time a member of tlie government of the United States, but the leader of the poht- ical minority in the Senate, which op])osed the administration of that day. The United States, therefon-. may. without (piestioning the great authority of his name, deny that he is to be received as an interpreter of the views of the cabinet wliich negotiated the treaty of 1846. It may, however, sur- prise the Imperial Arbitrator to leain that Mr. Webster not only did not entertain the opinions attrihuted to him. but ex- pressed himself in a sense exactly tlie reverse. — 11 I Hritisli Vrnto, I\Ia|) Nn. ."i. .Some members ol" the Senate insisted on tlie parallel of 54 40' as tlie American boundary; Mr. Webster declared himself content with the parallel of 49 . But his words were absolute. The British Case puts words into his moutli whidi he never uttered. What Mr. Webster .said was, that the lini^ of 49° was »not to be departed from for any line further south". The words )>on the Gontinent« are an interpolation made by the Britisli Case. In the same debate and on the same day Mr. Webster, to guard against misrepresentation. obser\'ed with great solemnity: "The Senate will do me the justice to allow, that I said Appendix. Sn.m. as plainly as I couhi .sj)eak. or put down words in writing, '''' "^"' "^''' that England must not expect anything south of forty-nine degrees. « The government of Her Britannic Majesty includes in the charts annexed to its Case a maj) of Oregon and Upper Califomia drawn by one Preuss, and yet in its printed (Jase there is not one single word explaining why the map has been prodTiced. The United States know only that on a former occasion Captain, now Admiral Provost, the British Boundai-y Commi,ssioner , wrote of it, in his official character, to the American Boundary Commissioner: »I beg yoti to under- stand that I do not bring this map forward as any authority for the line of boundary." Forty years ago the mountain i-anges and upland plains from which the water flows to the gulf of California, or is lest in inlrmd .seas, still remained as little known as the head springs of the Congo and of the Nile. Fremont had thrice penetrated tl»os(> regions, once or more with Preuss in his .service as draughtsman. On the return of Fremont from his third expedition, the Senate of the United States, although he was not then in the public service, instead of leaving him to seek a publisher, on the ")"■ and 15''' of June, IS IS, at the in.stance of 3ir. Benton, voted to print his geographical memoir on Upper California, and the map of Oi-egon and Appendix. No. 70. p. lOi). I. 1-4. 12 Ciiiijjress. Isl ses simi. ('alitoniia. "jiccordiiitr to tlio prqjoctioii to Ite I'uniisliod by the said J. ('. Fi'ciiioiit.a In repi'csontative governm(»nts. oadi branch of the legis- lature may order ])rinted what it will: but the order gives no sanction to what is printed. Last winter, for example, the (German Diet printed at the public cost, that the German constitution is not worth the j)aper it is written on. Neither Fremont nor Prcnss bad e%er been within many hundred miles .Soiiaii' .Mihcila- of the straits oC Fnca. and Fremont himself says: »The part K'.ms Dmuninits. ^f ^^^^, j^jj^p ^yiiid, exhibits Oregon is chiefly copied fi'om the -•■ U8. ;«)tii . ' '^ • ' works of oliiers." The Senate never .saw the map as deliv- ered to the lithographer. The work was printed, not under the re\ision of officers of the Senate, but .solely ".subject to the revision f)f its autlior« . Except for the regions which he had himself explored. Fremont abandoned the drawing of the map Appendix. No. .')!. to Preuss. who followed "Other authorities". While 3Ir. Preuss !'• *''^- '• •■' ''• was conipilini>- his man. .Mr. Bancroft, the representative of p. (in. I. !). 10. If? I 1 his country in I^ondon. with full authority ti-om the President and Secretary of State of the United States, delivered to the British government in the clearest words the declaration of his own government that the liomidary line pa,s.ses through the middle of the Ilaro channel. Any error of Mr. Preu.ss was therefore perfectly harmless. And under any circumstances what authority coidd at- tach to a reten.sions. Not Mr. Benton; his opinion wa.. well known. Not the Senate, which is the only permanent liody under our constitution . and which in the twenty-five years since the treaty was made, ha.s iiillexiblv maintained the right of the United States to the 13 Huro boundaiy. Not Mr. Buchanan, tlie Secretary of State, wliose instructions on tlie Haro as the boundary, sanctioned l»y tlie President and his cabinet, date from the year in which the treaty was made. Neither could Preuss have copied the line from pi-inted materials. No such printed materials existed at that time. A wish expressed by the British minister at Wash- ington , slumbered in the Department of State, and was known only to the President and his cabinet. Mr. Preu.ss is no longer living to explain by whom he w!ts misled. Mr. Fremont remembers that Mr. Preuss had among his materials a copy of a manuscript map of the north- west territory by tlie Hudson's Bay Company, received from one of its otficers. Be this as it may, it is enough for the United States to have shown, that the map never had the sanction of any branch of their government. Analagous mistakes have been made in Great Britain, and under weightier authority. Pending the discussion be- tween the two counti-ies, Messrs. .-Malby & Co. of London, manufactm-ers and publishers to the society for the diffusion of useftil knowledge*, sent out a large and splendid globe, on which they assigned to the United States by line and color the whole northwc^stern ten-itory up to the latitude of 54^ 40'. To treat mistakes like these as important is unsuited to negotiations between great powers. The United States do not complain that the map of Preuss is produced by Her Majestys government; for the production of it is a confession of the feeble- ness of the British Case. They might complain, that Her Britan- nic Majesty's go\ernment did not state what it hoped to prove by the map. They might complain, that it produced the map without an acknowleilgement of its well known worthlessness a.s an exposition of Ameriwm opinion. And above all they might complain of the British government for submitting the map to the Imperial Arbitrator without avowing that its own archives ctHitnin a contemj)oraneous. explicit, and autlioritative - 14 — declaration tro,i. the American government, that the straits of Haro are the boundary channel of the treaty of 1846. II. Having thus drawn attention to the (;haracter of the paper which the government of Her Britannic Majesty has presented as its Case, its allegations in support of its pretensions are next to be examined. The government of Her Britannic Ma- jesty presents Imt one argument, and that argument has two branches. Tlie British govermnent admits, and even insists that the channel of the treaty must l)e a continuoiis channel from the 49th parallel to the straits of Fuca; and it argu&s. first: that the strait which it now calls Rosario, but which at the time of makhig the treaty of 1846, had »no distin- guishing nameu , must have been the channel contemplated by the treaty, becau.se the British, at that time, .had no a.s.su- rance« that the canal de Haro .-was even navigable..; .Jiad a firm belief that it was a dangerous strait" : and .secondly: that Fuca straits extend from Cape Flattery to Whidbey i-sland. In discu.s.sing the.se two ])oints their order will be reversed. First, then: do the straits of Fuca. as now pretended by Great Britain, reach to Whidbey island? The answer depends in part on the definition of the word »strait«. Her Majesty's government forget, that the word applies only to a narrow •passage connecting one part of a sea with another" . Such is the lesson taught by all geographers, whether British, or French, or American, or German. As .soon as tlie .southeast cape of Vancouver island is pa.ssed, the volume of water spreads into a broad expanse, filled with numerous islan.is, and Ijecomes a gulf or bay. but is no longer a strait. Neither can it l)e ,,reten(led that any exception takes place in tlie geograj)hical u.sage of the name -straits of Fuca-. as employed in all the scientific explorations and mai)s, pre- - 15 ~ vious to Jmie, 184(). On the contrary, the pretension is hazarded in tlie lace oC tliem all. The first map of the strait is by the pilot Lopez de Haro; Map J. ou that the mouth of the so-called strait of'Rosario is named Boca de Fidalgo, and tlu! water to the south of it bears the name of the gulf of Santa Rosa. The map of Eliza, in 1791, confines the name of the Map K. straits of Juan de Fuca to the straits that separate Vancouver island, on the .soutli. from tlie continent; and that officer in his report repeats the name of the gulf of Santa Rosa, as the name of the interior waters. The explorers in the Sutil and Mexicana, alike in the Map. I.. Spanish chart of 1795. and in the map annexed to the publication of their voyage in 1802, call the straits »En- trada«, a Spanish word that can extend to no more than an entrance. Next came Vancouver, and the great authority of the ^Map. C. British overthrows the British argumeat beyond room for cavil: for he not only, like all his predecessors, confines the name of Straits of Juan de Fuca to the passage between Van- couver island on the south and the continent, but, alike in liis narrative and on his map, expressly distinguishes those straits from »tlie interior sea«. which he. with gi-eat solem- nity, named the gulf of Georgia. The map of Dutlot de Mofras. of 1844, and that of Map. E. Wilkes, in 1845, confine the name of the straits of Fuca '^*'P- *' strictly to the waters that really form a strait between the continent and the southern line of Vancouver island. The government of Her Britannic Majesty cannot produce one single map older than 1846 in defence ol' its ^^ews. The conunon use of language among the British in Van- couver still corresponds with the undivided testimony of the maps. Pemberton, surveyor-general of Vancouver island, in a .\ppciiaix. No.tJC. work {)iiblished in 1860. writes thus of a »stranger steaming I'' "^''^' '^■ for the first time eastward into the strait* of Juan de Fuca" : IH p, HW. "On his right liaiid is Washington Territory , on his left is Viineouver island; straight before him is the gulf of Georgia*. The statement of Conunandor Mayne is. if possible, still more precise. Of the strait ;)f Juan de Fuea. he writes in these words: "At the Race Islands, the strait may be said to terminate, as it there opens out into a large ex])anse of water*. Now the Race Islands, or Race Rocks, alike on the British and American maps, lie to the southwest of the channel of Ilaro. On the jioint in question there could be no better authority tlian Commander Mayne, as he is a man of science, and was employed on the surveys during the period in which Captain, now Admiral, Prevost and Captain Richards acted as the British Boundary Commissioners. But to refute the British a.ssumption. we need not go outside of the British Case itself. On page 27 it claims the chart of Vanitouver as the chart according to wl.-ich Her Ma- jesty's gcjvernment framed the first article of the treaty, and then most correctly says: "The name of the gulf of Georgia is assigned on that chart to tin' whole of tlie interior sea". Thus tiiis branch of the argument ofleriMl by the British government is in tlat contradiction to the proper use of language, to nature, to the concurrent testimony of every com])etent witness. and is given up before the end of the very paper in whicrh it is presented. We now come to the other Ijranch of the British argu- ment: that prior to 1846 there was no a.ssurance that the Appendix. Ni)..'i:i. canal de Haro was even navigable. That channel is now ,')4. Tif). ,')7. .=)8. til. universally acknowledged to be the best and most convenient for the Briti-sh. It forms the only lin(^ of communication reg- ularly u.sed l)y them. The mail steamers take only that route. It is the broadest, it is the deepest, it is the shortest passage: and .so it is the only one used by tho. government, tiie traders, the innnigrants. and inliabitants of Briti.sh Colum- l)ia. It became the exclusive channel as soon its gold-htmting Britisli t'asi- p. -JT. m" I I > .\ .\ <• si:(Tio\ o.\ Tin: v liillm I'. \ .V.Vt'OIVK It iSI,.\.\I) ,S.\.\ .11 A.N I.S1..\.M) /J. /ir,. /I .Vi,//iil .i;ri- /..v.; \ ' V V / ^ .<'\ N II .\ W S US » ';,'./.«""" r. I. V.I/. /^A- //.(KM ^A^ / V ■' J|r-«KVM»..vT,v/.vj^. va_^^ - cijoss m:<'tio\ on tin: iv A N.V.N .ir.\.N I.SI..\.N'll V.Vl. c.lii.- 1" \'.\ .V cor V i; It i s i, a .\ i) Ui«ix»vrrx'l'' :i M A I \ I. .\.\ I) WiIImi.m.s [" — v' •f«ck»l'' »3f?'' V OS Tin: i»aralm:i. or i.«":?.v NA\ ,ll\.\ LSI. .1X11 .If. IIIi II. i 1(0 S.il Il,.„l. i.oi'K-/. i.si,.v.\n ■ U;,ms 1" :^-u<^ «t U'huliiiiiiiijli I'l •M \ I .\ I. .\ .\ I) F ID. \ !,(;() I,SI,.\.\I) KDSiiiiu frriiMT «i/X. ,1, I'.ltlllMll I X ox Tin: iuhalli:i. ov i« 20 Stjilf ol' Sliilulr }Ai\vH \ o » 1 H 1 iiOi^ !-:'.,-„r) ['(!i ,rii,.t V- Til Mrttl*- U.llx^ IIHHI ■M riii'lis IkIiukI (iili It<*iil InIjuuI VAXCOIVKH I" ^ 3 ^ .S4l' T S r RkN O I S I. A S D VV A X D M fatiioms fathmiiJi ..w**' .M. biting in several cross sections the relative dejiths of its channel. The plea of ignorance on the part of the British up to 1846, is irrelevant. The treaty does not designate the chan- nel which was or was not most in u.se, but the channel which separates the continent from Vancouver. Li negotiating the treaty neither side had in view the tracks of the few former fur-traders whose course was run; but the great channels provided by nature for future commerce. American statesmen officially foretold at the time to the Brit ish negotiators , that, undei- American auspices, flourishing com- monwealths, such as we now see in California and <3i'egon, would rise up on the Pacific. The plea of Lord Aberdeen's ignorance of the Haro waters rests not on any thing real and tangible which can be investi- gated, btit on something purely ideal; on an unspoken, unwritten opinion attributed to him. It was not .set up till after the death of Sir Robert Peel, who professed to understand • the local conformation of that country, and explained it to th'> House of Commons; nor till after Lord Aberdeen in 1855 had finally retired into private life. It is not pretended l)y any one tliat the opinion was well-founded ; and as it is erroiu'ous in itself and never oldained the sanction eitlier ofSirRo])er( Peel. or of Lord Aberdeen, it nnist lie cla.s.sed among the dreams thai come from the realm of shadesthrough the ivory gate. Moreover, the attention of Lord Aberdeen, two days l)el'ore he .sent out the tr(>aty to Mr. Pakenham, was specially called to the islands of the Haro Archipelago. On the I5th of May, 184(i, he definitively assented, as Mr. MacLane un- derstood him, to the Haro cliannel as the Itoundary. On the Ifith, Sir .lohn Pelly , then gov<'raor of the HiulsonsBay Com- 18 !'• mi Appendix. No.C7. p.any, the samo wlio boasted that tliat company had »compellod« tho Americans to withdraw I'rom tlie Cur trade, waited upon Lord Aberdeen with map in hand, pointed out to liim the group of ishmds. wholly on the south of the parallel of 49", and described in distinct and unequivocal language, as well »as colored red«. "the water demarkation line« which would secure every one of the Haro islands. Lord Aberdeen, after having his mind thus clo.sely and exactly drawn to the position of those islands, like »tlie straightforward man'< of honor the United States took him for. rejected the »explicit« advice which would, indeed, have prevented the consummation of the treaty: and. in his instructions and in his draught of the treaty, stipulated only for the channel, "leaving the whole of Vanconvers i.sland in the pos.se.ssion of (Jreat Britain«. Further: this plea of ignorance in 184(5 that the channel of Haro was navigable, is in itself absurd. Ft>r what is a channel? canal? Fahrwasser? Seegat? A channel means the deej)est part of a river, or bay, where the main current flows. The vvoril is never u.sed except of water that is navi- gable. Geograi)hies are full of the names of channels, and the maps of Europe and Asia are studded with them; i: d who ever before thought of denying any one of them to be navigable? The present British suggestion is without precedent. To say (hat the canal de Haro was not known to be navigable is to say that the canal de Haro was not known to be the »canal dv IIaro«. It is very unlucky for the government of Her Bi'itannic Majesty that its plea of ignorance relates to the waters inside ofFuca straits. The emoluments of the fiir trade; (he vSpanish jealousy of Russian encroachments down the Pacific coast; the lingering hope of discovering a northwest pR.ssage; the British desire of finding water communication from the Pacific to the great lakes: the French passion for knowledge; the {)olicy of Americans to investigate their outlying po.sse.ssions : all con- .spired to cau.se more freqiu'nt and more thorough examina- — 19 — tions of these waters, even before 1H46, than of any siiuilarly situated waters in any part of the globe. Before that epoch, the waters east and south of Van- couver island had been visited by at least six scientiHc expe- ditions, from four several nations; three from Spain, one from Great Britain, one from France, and one from the United States; and tlie discoveries of all the four nations had been laid before the world. De Haro, of the Spanish exploring party of 1789, disco- vered, and partly sounded and surveyed, the one broad and in- viting channel which then .seemed, not merely thebe.st, bui the only avenue by water to the north ; and he left upon it his n;ane The oiricial reports of the expedition of Lieutenant de Mua. m 1791, and the large and excellent map which accom- panied his narrative, prove that on the 31st day of 3Iay 1791 an armed boat was ordered to enter and survey the Ivinal of Appendix. No.62 Lopez deHaro; l)ut the survey was interrupted by the hostile appearance of six Indian canoes, filled by more than a hundred warriors. On the 14tli day of June, the exploration of the canal de Haro wa,s resumed, and was continued till the whole hue of the canal de Haro wiLs traced from Fuca's straits to Its continuation ui the great upper channel. But the Imperial Arbitrator may ask if these discoveries wer<' published to the world; and the United States answer that they were published belbre the end of the century both in Spain an.s. The results of the tJirec Spanish expeditions were published offi- .•lally by Spain in 1795, in an ela))oratelv prepa.-ed rhart for marinens, of wliich a lithographed copy acco,npani.-s this M„p , reply. ' The mai) of Eliza was also communicated to Vancouver in 1792, at the time when he met Galiano and Vahles , in the — 20 — Appendix tt) Mp- niorial No. 12. pp. i;t. 14. A|)|)i'inlix Id Mp iimnal No. -IK. waters cast of Vancouvor island. Tims Captain Vanconver be- came e(inally well aware of the superiority of the channel of Ilaro. That he put trust in the communieations made to him by the Span- iards, is proved beyond a doubt, for he incorporated tliem into his map. The discoveries of the Spaniards, enriched by additional surveys of Vancouver himself, were publi.slied in Great Britain in 1798, in connection with his voyage. Before the end of the 18th century therefore, the relative importance of the channels in the waters east of Vancouver island wa.s known to every one who cared to inquire about it, and who could gain access either to the chart publishesolutely certain that they were presented by the American minister at London to Lord Palmerston, British Secretary of State for Fore^ Affiurs and by him thankfully acknowledged, Ap,,,„,. ,„, in the year 1848; so that the government of Her Britamiic Majesty happily possesses the means of coirecting the rash declarations of the las^named witness. The American government cannot offer the rebutting testi- raony of American mariners, for their fur-trade on the north- west coast had been broken up by the British before 1810. and when at a later day they attempted to renew it. they Britisli Case, p. .")4. iiiiliiHI 24 Biilisli Ciisc. p. 11. Brilisli Casi'. 1)1.. r.2. 48. liiul l)oeii forcibly coinpclled by thf oflicer.s and servant.s of the Hudson'.s Bay Company to give up tlie field. Tlie Amer- ican .sailors, tlierefore, who were familiar with those regions have long since gone to slumber with their fathei-s. But the British Case enables the American government to cite the loglwoks of the Hudson's Bay Company. It nowhere ventures to say that the log-books of the vessels of the IIud.son"s Bay Company jirove that they never went through the Haro channel, but only that they used the so-called Rosario straits as the »leading channel*. This is a con- fession, that the log-books of those vessels show that some- times one channel was used by them, sometimes the other. It is admitted l)y the Briti.sh Ca.se that in 184B the Cadboro sailed through Haro straits, and that once, at least, the Hud- son's Bay (Company's steamer Beaver chose the same route. Mayn'sFouryeaLs ("ommander Maync admits that when the Hudson's Bay (^om- "' ^S^) 30.'"'"" P'^"y established their head - (quarters at Victoria, the canal de Haro became used. In corroboration of this tise of the channel of Haro, especially from the year 1842 to 1846, some affi- davits and statements are oflered, correcting the testimony con- tained in the Briti.sh Ca.se, and confirming facts which tJie Brit- ish Ca.se it.self admits. From the want of time, no notice could be given to tlie other party; but among tlie witne.s.ses will be I'ouiid some of the highest ofKcers in the anny and navy oi" the United States, as well as men known by their works to the scientific world. It is a remarkable characteristic ol" the Briti.sh ('ase, thai while it seems to make assertions in language of the most fMiergetic affirmation, it (Qualifies them so as to make them really insignificant. It might almost be .said that the British Case gives up its own theory of the ignorance of Lord Aber- deen as to the character of the Haro channel; for it affirms not that he was ignorant about its navigal)ility, but that he "had no a.ssurance that it was even navigable in its upper waters". »No assurance" is a very vague expression; .so is Appoiidix. Nos. .>!. 54. 55. 57. 58. 59.60.61. B[ili.sli Ciisc. p. ;io. — 25 _ tlie phrase .-upper waters.. ; and with them both nothing is asserted, while the form of the statement is an ample con- fession that Lord Aberdeen was at least perfectly well ac(|uamted with the existence of the strait. When, using the same words with which they introduced their total misapprehension of ail'. Webster's opinion, they ^v1•itc of the Haro channel: ..It is not too much to say that Her Majesty's government had a firm belief that it was a dangerous strait«, it is enough to reply that not one word has been in-esented to show that Lord Aberdeen believed it a dangerous strait, and without his positive testimony, which has not l)een produced, this is an idle and groundless assertion. Strange as it is for a great nation to come before a tiibunal like that of the German Emperor, and complain that the treaty which they themselves draughted contains an am- biguity due, not to bad faith, but to ignorance, the United i>,.u,.,™i« :«i and States have avowed themselves readv to abrogate that part '"• "'' <^'-""^re>>cc of the treaty on the ground alleged by the British govern- a ™ • l;:."^ ment, that it might have been made under a mutual mis- Washington. understanding; and to re-arrange the boundary which was in dispute before the treaty was concluded. Wlien put to the test, the British are compelled practically to acknowledge the candor and forbearance of the Americans in the formation of the treaty, and that, if the work were to be done over again, they have no hope of a settlement so much to their advantage. The treaty, as it is understood by the United States, made very large concessions to Great Britain; and the British govern- ment insists upon preserving it. Then, since Her Majesty's government will not consent to cancel the treaty, it must be accepted according to its plain meaning; and if its meaning is not plain, the party which draughted it must suller the consecjuences of the ambiguity. 2G m. Driiisi- (iisc Ap|icii(lix. No.CiH, p. 107. The United States have always lield the treaty to be free from ambiguity , and have maintained tlieir understanding of it with unvarying consistency. If between a cliannel that liad a name, and one that had none, the British government in- tended to take the channel without a name, it should have described it with distinctness and care; instead of which, the words of their description exclude the cliannel without a name, and apply exactly and alone to the Haro charmil. In January, 1848, the British minister at Washington, treating the "islets" of the San Juan archipelago Jis of »little or no value*, expressed a owish" to the United States that the passage used by Vancouver in passing from Admiralty inlet to the north, might be mutually considered as the channel of the treaty. No claim whatever was preferred, and the wish was excused, "because otherwise much time might be wasted in surveying the various intricate channels formed by the numerous islets which lie between Vancouver's Island and the mainland , and some difficulty miglit arise in deciding which of those chaimcls ought to be adopted for the dividing lioundary.o The letter of Lord Palmerston, under which the British minister at Wasiiington expressed this wish of Her Majesty's govi'rnment, has never been communicated to the government of the United States. To Mr. Bancroft, who immediately after the ratification of the treaty, was selected as the United States minister at London, and Avho on all occasions spoke and wrote of the canal de ILaro as the boundary channel, Lord Palmerston, then Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, never piesented any counter claim; and the American minister was persuaded that Appnidiv,. No.ii. danger to the immediate peaceful execution of the treaty arose, not from within the ministry, but from the parlia- pp. (1(1. (ii. — 27 — raentary influence of the Hudson's Bay Company, wliose desires the ministry seemed reluctant to adopt. Mr. Bancroft did not sufier tlie authoritative interpretation of tlie treaty on the part of his government to rest on the uncertainty of conversations wliicli time miglit obliterate, or memory pervert. On the last day of July, 1848, Lord Palmerston ob- served that he had no good chart of the Oregon waters; and having asked to see a traced copy of Wilkes' chart,' Mr. Bancroft immediately sent it to him with this remark: X X .Unluckily this copy does not extend quite so far north as the parallel of 49°, though it contains the wide entrance into the straits of Ilaro, the channel through the middle of which the boundary is to be continued. The upper part of the straits of Haro is laid down, though not on a large scale, in Wilkes' map of the Oregon Territory.. Obtaining from Washington an early copy of Wilkes" surveys, Mr. Bancroft delivered it to Lord Palmerston with the following official note: "Nov. 3, 1848. My Lord: I did not forget your lordship's desire to see the United States surveys of the waters of Puget's Sound, and those dividing Vancouver's Island from our territory. These surveys liave been reduced, and have just been published in three parts, and I transmit for your lordship's acceptance the first copy which I have received. The surveys extend to the luie of 49°, and by combining two of the charts your lordship will readily trace the whole course of the channel of Haro, through tlie middle of which our boundary line passes. I think you will esteem — 28 — tlie work done in a manner very creditahle to tlio young navy officers concerned in it. I have the honor, &c. George Bancroft." Viscount Palmerston. Sic. Sic. To this formal and autliorized announcement of tlie Haro as the boundary, the answer of Lord Palmerston, written after four days, was in like manner official, and ran as follows: •Foreign Office, Nov. 7, 1848. Sir: I beg leave to return you my best thanks for the surveys of Puget's Sound and of the Gulf of Georgia, which accompanied your letter of the 3"' instant. The information as to soundings contained in these charts will no doubt be of great service to the commissioners who are to be appointed under the treaty of Uic 15'" of June, 1846, by assisting them in determining where the line of boundary described in the first article of the treaty ought to run. 1 have the honor, etc. ^ ^ Palmerston." ueorge Bancroft, Esq. etc. etc. Here is no pretence of an ignr vnace of the channel of Haro as affecting the interpretation of the treaty; — that theory was not started until after tlie (l,ach of Sir Robert Peel; but a calm, wise assent to the use of tlie large charts of Wilkes in running the boundary. And this assent was vir- tualiy a concession that the American interpretation was just and true. Lord Palmerston declined all controversy about the channel. He received a formal, authoritative statement of the line as understood by the United States, and in his — 2!) reply rrade no comi^Iaint and proposed no other interpretation. This note is the first and the last and the only word tliat tl»e United States possess from Lord Palmerston under his own hand on the suhject of the boundary. The correspondence a,, relatmg to it is inserted in full hi the appendix. The American minister of that day had .ery good opportunity to know what was gouig forward, and every motive to give the most correct information to his government. In December, 1852, Lord Aberdeen came to the head of affairs. The last official word of the Americans to Great Bntam on the boundary l.ad been, that it passes through the centre of the channel of Haro. At the beginning of his mmistry, i. the winter of 1852-53, the territorial legis- lature of Oregon included the whole of the arcliipdago of Haro in one of its counties. Had Lord Aberdeen been dissatis- rted with the state of the question, he, who made the treaty and now had returned to power, was bound to have taken this subject earnestly in hand. B.it he remained silent, made no excuses that he had draughted the treaty in ignorance, and entered no counter pretension to the American view. The administration which in February, 1855, succeeded that of Lord Aberdeen, was one over which the Hudson's Bay Company exercised great inllucnce. The progress of colonization demanded a settlement of the question of jurisdiction, the more so as the British government had made a grant of the island of Vancouver to that Company. Accordingly, in 1856 tlie two governments agreed to send out commissioners to mark the line of boundary. The United States, in perfect good faith, gave their commissioner fidl powers, and communicated his instructions unreservedly to the British government. The British govern- ment gave its commissioner ostensible instructions, wliich were readily communicated to the United States, but fet- tered him by additional ones, which were kept secret, and of which the United States repeatedly but vainly solicited 'a copy ifiuiix. Nd.M. :{0 Appt'iidix. Nii.ll'.l. 11. 1U8. until some years later Lord Malmesbury, in the ministry of Lord Derby, Ijccame once more Secretary of State for Foreign Aflairs. Could tlie Hudson's Bay Company obtain possession of the island of San Juan, they would have exclusive possession of the best channel, and of the only safe one in time of war. No British authority in Great Britain or in Vancouver expres- sed any desire for the so-called Rosario channel, on which the British Case now affects to lay so much stress. The members of Ilcr Britannic Majesty's government did not pre- tend among themselves to a right to it »as the channel indicated by the words of the treaty;* but yielding to the importunity of the iniluential government of Vancouver, they were willing to hazard an experimental attempt to gain the island of San Juan. To accomplish this end, the British commissioner re- ceived the following secret instruction; »If the commissioner of the United States will not adopt the line along Rosario Strait, and if, on a detailed and accurate survey, and on weighing the evidence on both jides of the question, you should be of opinion that the claims (jf Her Majestys government to consider Rosario Strait as the channel indicated by the words of the treaty cannot be subtanstiated, you woidd be at liberty to adopt any othcu- intermediate channel which you may dis- cover, on which the United States commissioner and your- self may agree as substantially in accordance with the de- scription of the treaty.* According to his commission, and according to Lis ()stcnsii)le in.'itructions, Captain Prevost was a conuuissionor, and no more than a conimissioiu>r to mark the boundary line according to tlio treaty of lb<4(!: but by his secret in- structions, which he resolutely refused to couiniuni('at<', he was in fact a plenipotentiary appointed to negotiate for a channel which should take the island of San Juan from the U'.iitcd States. :n It must be borne in mind that Caiitain Prevost had anthority to ofler a compromise only on tlie condition that, after personal examination and the weighing of evidence on botli sides of the question, he -slioidd be of opinion that the claims of Her Majesty's government to consider Rosario Strait as the channel indicated by the wor^^.s of tlie treaty cannot be substantiated". After having been five months within tlie straits of Fuca and after having verified and approved the accuracy of the United States Coast Survey Chart of the channels and islands between Vancouver island and the con- tinent, and after consenting to adopt it for the purpose of determining the boundary line, he proposed such a com- promise, as would have left to the United States the so-called Rosario Straits and every island in the archipelago except San Juan. The commissioner of the United States, Mr. Archibald Campbell, divined the character of the secret instructions under which Captain Prevo,t was acting, adhered with in- telligence and uprightness to his duty as commissioner, and "declined to accede to any compromise... Captain Prevost, the British commissioner, who by his oiler of compromise, had conceded that the British claim to the so-called Rosario .straits .cnnnot be substantiated-, struggled hanl to recover the position of a zealous diampion ot the right of Great Britain to that channel. But ibr th's he had drifted too far, and he was too honest to succeed. As an interpreter of the treaty Captain Prevost writes xery cor- rectly: ..The ciuumel mentioned should possess three character- istics: 1) It shoidd separate the continent from Vancouver's island. 2) It should admit of the boundary line being carried through the middle of it in a southerly direction. ?>) It should be a navigable channel... lie adds: »It is readily adniitt<>.l that the Canal de Arro is a navigable channel, 'and there- lore answers to one ci.aracteristic of the channel of the treaty.* .Vppoiulix. p. in:). I. \<..7 already spreading 'eir baleful inllucnces, Lord John Ri'ssell, then British Secretary of State for Foreign AlTairs, first ventured upon a distinct avowal of the purpose of Her Britannic Majesty's government to ol)tain tlie island of San Juan. In pursuing this object, he sought, in an intervicM- witb tbe Karl of Aberdeen, to obtain tjie .support of that minister. The diief intcu-est in this narrative, v.3 far as persons are coneerned, centres in Lord Alierdeen. So far as the United States know, he never consented to set his liand to any paper which they would liave a right to regard as disingenuous. The United States have shown ,ii their Mem i- — 33 — rial that Mr. MacLane, after an interview with Lord Aberdeen Aiiiicndix m Mc- on the 15'" of May, 1846, reported to his government that '""'J', ^''if the treaty line would pass through the canal de Haro. The present agent of the United States in this arbi- tration resided as minister in England during the three years following t)ie treaty, became well acquainted with Lord Aber- deen, conversed with him on its interjiretation , and never heard from him one word that contlicted with the report of Mr. MacLane. Nor did he ever liear a different inter- pretation of the treaty from Sir Robert Peel. Nor during his whole residenc*. hi England, did he ever hear such differ- ence of interpretation attributed by any one to either of tlie two. And in 1859 Lord Aberdeen is appealed to by Lord John Russell for the aid of his testimony. Unhappily there exists no written answer of his own to the questions put to him; but only a very short report of the interview V)y Lord ilohn Russell. According to that report, Lord Aberdeen did not deny that he used the name of the canal de Haro with Appendix. No.?.!. Mr. MacLane, though he had no recollection if having done I'l' '"• "'-'■ so. Now nothing is more likely rlwan that the words uttered in conversation thirteen years before, might have dropped from his memory; and against this failure of memory is to be weighed the despatch of Mr. MacLane , written at the moment of the conversation. But as to the channel which Lord AVier- deen had in view, he is represented as declaring, that he knew none other than that "described in the treaty itself." Now the channel described in the treaty, and in Lord Aber- deen's instructions to Mr. Pakenham, is, as we have seen, no other than the canal de Haro. Left without MiriJort by Lord Aberdeen, the British Foreign Office brought forward is its witness Sir Richard Pakenham, who, with Mr, iJuchanan, signed the boundary treaty of June, 1846. In that same year, while everything was still fresh in e — 34 lOil. memory, Mr. Buclianan liad recorded his interpretation of the treaty in an instruction to Mr. Bancroft, the American minister at London, who, as his colleague in Washington, liad taken part in it.-, negotiation, and knew every step of its jjrogress. An instruction written under such circumstances is the por- .\piun(lix. N.h:>l. traiture of the inmo.st mind of its author. .It is not probable-, '' ' ' wrote Mr. Buchanan, -that any claim will be seriously preferred on the part of Her Britannic Majesty's government to any island lyuig to the eastward of the Canal of Arro, as marked in Captain WiU.' ''.■. 'mai) of the Oregon Territory'." App.iulix. N,..7.{, Of the t-.,i given more than twelve years later ''' " tiy Sir Richard Pake.i u, every word, as far as communicated to the United States, is presented in the appendix. It has no date, but was communicated to the United States in the year 1859. Captain Prevost in his final letter to Mr. Campbell, the American commissioner, of November 24, 1857, had A|i|ir,i,iiv. No 70. written: »I will at once frankly state, how far I am wiUing to concede, but l)eyond what 1 now offer I can no further go. X X X I am willing to regard the space above described |thrtt is, the space between the continent and Van- couver island, south of 49°| as one channel, having so many different passages through it, and I will agree to a boundary line being run through the 'middle' of it, in so far as islands will permit." This is the lead which Sir Richard Pakenliam followed. He who signed the treaty on the British side declared positively as his inter- pretation of it, that tlic so-called straits of Rosario are not the channel intended by the treaty; and we must hold the British government to this confession, as it received its official approbation. It is true he also denied the straits of Haro to be the channel of the treaty, using these words: .The Karl of Aberdeen in his final instructions dated 18"' May, I84B, says nothing whatever about the Canal de Haro, but, on the contrary . desires that the line might be drawn 'in a south?rly 35 direction through the centre of King George's Sound and the Straits of Fuca to the Pacific Ocean.'« Now why was Sir Richard Pakcnham introduced to give testimony as to the imtruction which he received from Lord Aberdeen? The instruction itself was in the Foreign Office, and was the best authority on the subject, and woukl have given the whole truth. Sir Richard Pakenham in his testimony leaves out the most important words of his final instructions. Lord Aberdeen, it is true, did not name in them the channel of Haro by name, but so far from writing anything to »the contrary- , he defined it exactly, when, in those same .final instructions- , he describes the channel of the treaty Appendix to Me- as the channel .leaving the whole of Vancouver Island, with "'(";'»' No. «. its ports and harbors, in the possession of Great Britain.- '' ' ' The final interpretation of the treaty by Sir Richard Pakenham runs as follows: » The conditions of the treaty , according to their liberal tenor, would require the line to be traced along the middle of the channel, meaning, I presume, the whole inter- vening space, which separates the continent from Vancouver Island.* Thus Mr. Pakenham, the British signer of the treaty, adopting the theory first communicated to the United States by Captain Prevost eleven years after the treaty was ratified, rejects entirely the channel of the so-called Rosario as the channel of the treaty. The question now is not between the so-called Rosario and some channel intermediate between it and that of Haro. It is whether the claims of the United States to the Haro, or those of Great Britain to the so-called Rosario, are more hi accordance with the true interpretation of the treaty. The instructions to Captain Prevost show that the British government had no confidence in the so-called Rosario as being tlie treaty channel; the testimony of Sir Richard Pakenham is that the British government a t tJie time of negotiating the treaty did not intend the so-called Rosario — 30 A|)|ieinlix. p. 11 No.7:i. A|i|)i'ii(lix. 1>. 117. I. N...7,\ 17-22, as the channel, while the words which he suppressed from Lord Aberdeen's final instructions prove the channel of the treaty to be the canal de Haro. Adopting the theory of ('aptain Prevost and Sir Richard Pakenham, Lord John Russell somewhat peremptorily demanded of the United States the acceptance of that theory, and in an instruction which the British minister at Washington was directed to communicate to the United States, he wrote: •The adoption of the central channel would give to Great Britain the island of San Jiian, which is beUeved to be of little or no value to the United States, while much importance is attached by British colonial authorities, and by Her Majesty's government, to its retention as a de- pendency of the colony of Vancouver's Island. "Her Majesty's government must, therefore, under any circumstances, maintain the right of the British Crown to the island of San Juan. The interests at stake in connec- tion with the retention of that island are too important to admit of compromise, and your lordship will consequently bear in mind that whatever arrangement as to the boundary line is finally arrived at, no settlement of the question will be accepted by Her Majesty's Government which does not provide for the island of San Juan being reserved for the British Crown." To this naked and even menacing demand the Ameri- can government made the only fitting reply; and certainlv the Imperial Arbitrator will not give an award to Great Brit ain, because the Vancouver colonial authorities and Her Majesty's government covet the possession of San Juan. When the attention of the British Secretary of State was called to the absoluteness and to the motives of this communication, he answered: »Her Majesty's government were by implication, abandoning a large part ot the territory they had claimed, and were merely insisting on the retention of an island, which from the peculiarity of — 37 — its situation, it was impossible for Her Majesty's governnu'iit to cede, without compromising interests of the gravest im- portance.* Lord John Russell acknowledged the necessity of su[)- porting his pretensions by bringing them into agreement with the words of the treaty, and therefore, 2f''vi"g up the channel of the so-called Rosario, he entered into an argument in favor Appendix No.?;') of the channel called on the United States Coast Survey "the '' '"^' '• ^'''^-' San Juan Channel" , on the British Admiralty chart nDouglns Channel*, as the channel of the treaty. In other words, he interpreted the treaty simply as giving the island of San Juan to the British, by which they would gain the exclusive possession of the Haro channel. A conclusion is thus made very easy. Captain Prevost, Sir Richard Pakenham, and Lord John Russell unite in renoun- cing any treaty right to the so-called Rosario channel, and unite in the opinion that the Douglas Channel has a Vietter right to be regarded as the channel of the treaty than the so-called Rosario. There is no escape from this cumulated evidence thus furnished by the British government; first, in the instructions of Lord Aberdeen to Mr. Pakenham; second, in Mr. Pakenham's declaration of the meaning of the British government at the time the treaty was negotiated; third, in the instructions to Captain Prevost; and fourth, in the state- ments of Lord John Russell, that the so-called Rosario strait was not the channel through which, in the interpretation of the British government, the boundary line was to be run. It further shows that up to the date of the instructions to Cap- tain Prevost in 1856, the British government had never sug- gested any other than the Haro and the so-called Rosario channel. Their own evidence, excluding the Rosario straits from tlieir contemjilation at the date of the treaty, leaves the Haro as the only possible channel within the contemplation of either party, and the only one in accordance with the true interpretation of the treaty. — 38 — *'^/'^,^V" '"""",'"' ^"^ '"°''^ ^^^"^^ ^^^ ™a. m — 39 They further agree, that .treaties are to he inter- HiitishCase. ,..29. preded in a favorable rather than an odious sense«: but they did not in their Memorial invoke this rule, though it so decisively confirms their rights, because they had no fear that the German Emperor could give to the convention an odious interpretation. Since, however thi.s nde of interpreta- tion has been brought forward by the government of Her Britannic Majesty, the United States must explain the im- measurably odious nature of the interpretation which tlie Brit- ish government desires Your Majesty to adopt. The United States, in signing the treaty of 1846. had in view permanent relations of amity with Great Britain, and therefore dealt with it generously in the treaty, that there might remain to that powei- no motive for discontent or cupidity. When they consented that Great Britain should hold the southern ca[)e of Vancouver island, they knew that the har- bor of that cape was the very best on the Pacific, from San Francisco to the far north. The United States took also into consideration that Great Britain needed to share, and had a right to expect to share in the best line of communication with its possessions to the north. A ship using the so-called Rosario strait may l)e exposed to cannon-shot, not only as it enters that, strait, but nearly all the way as it sails through it. One British Ministry after another has shown, that it set no value upon it whatever, and has represented that it was not contemplated by treaty as a boundary, and has used the claim to it only as a means of driving the United States into a surrender of the island of San Juan. A ship, as both parties agree, can enter the chan- nel of Haro and not be under any necessity of pass- ing within territorial waters on either side of the cen- tral line. This passage by the Haro chaimel to the British pos- .se.ssions north of 49°, is the .shortest, the most convenient. .■^■v,JV».^M..a,l■ — 40 .Mill. (I. the best, und the only perfectly safe one, alike m peace and in war. Of this channel, the United States by the treaty of 1846 concede the joint possession to the British, but they concede it with circumstances of pecuhar generosity, or rather magnanimity. In passing from the lower part of the Haro channel to the upper interior waters, they allow to Great Britam eijual right with themselves to pass through the Haro channel to the true Kosario of the Spaniards, the British gulf of Georgia. Thus far the United States reserve to themselves no advantage over the English. Tbjy go farther. There are two other channels connecting the straits of Haro with the upper waters; one of them a little above 41) , at the Portier pass; the other below 49°, through Swanson channel and Active pass. As to both of these, the United States leave to the British the exclusive possession of the islands on each side. This is a great concession, far outweighing in value any advantage the Americans may gain in the so-called Ro- sario straits. The regular track of the British steamers between south Vancouver and Eraser's river is through the channel of Swanson and Active pass, a wide sheltered channel, to them the shortest and most convenient, never freezing in winter, with water nowhere less than ninety feet deep, as easy of navigation as any part of the broadest and most magnificent river in Europe. To keep all these advantages and to acquire exclusive possession of the channel of Haro became the uncontrollable desire, first of the Hudson's Bay Company, then of the poli- ticians, of Vancouver island. The conduct of the United States merited a better requital. The demand of the government of Her Britannic Majesty is as contrary to every principle of convenience, equity, and comity, as it is to the intention and the language of the treaty of 184G. To ask the United States to give up their equal right in the canal de Haro is to ask them to shut tiiemselves out of their own house. They own the continent — 41 oast of these waters to the lake of the Woods, a distance of twenty-eiglit degrees of longitude. Is it within the bounds of belief that they should have given up to Great Britain the exclusive possession of the best channel, and the only safe channel, by which they could approach their own vast dominions on the north? Grant the English demand, draw the line of boundary through the so-called Rosario channel, and the Americans would have access to their own immense territory from the Pacific, only by the good will of thi' English. Such an interpretation of the treaty is so unequal, so partial to Great Britain, so opposite to the natural rights of the United States, so inconsistent with the words of the treaty, that the American Government holds itself deeply aggrieved by the British persistence in demanding an inter- ])retation in so »odious a sensc« . The United States, it may once more be said, had not the intention to present the subject in this light to the Im- perial Arbitrator, for they confide entirely in his justice. But since Her Majesty's government apparently assumes that an award in favor of the American Government would be »odious« , the United States must not neglect to invite atten- tion to the true aspect of the case. The American government is the more surprised at this manner of presenting the subject by the government of Her Britannic Majesty, inasmuch as Captain Prevost, after mor iis employed in exploring the v/aters, conceded that the British claim to the so-called llosario strait >'COuld not be substantiated" , and this opinion was formally adopted by Sir Richard Pakenham and by Lord John Russell; the latter of whom himself declares, that he abandoned by it i motion all but the island of San Juan. Another reason why an award in favor of the so-called Rosario as the channel would be odious, is, that it would transfer to the foreign allegiance of Great Britain islands east of San Juan, which have long been and are now in the undisputed posses- f — 42 Appendix. N'l Ap|jrmlix iiKiriiil. iiml No. 1 1.2 lo .Mc- N