Open Collections

BC Historical Books

BC Historical Books

BC Historical Books

Papers relating to the Treaty of Washington. Volume V.--Berlin arbitration. Containing the memorial of… United States. Department of State 1872

Item Metadata

Download

Media
bcbooks-1.0221812.pdf
Metadata
JSON: bcbooks-1.0221812.json
JSON-LD: bcbooks-1.0221812-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): bcbooks-1.0221812-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: bcbooks-1.0221812-rdf.json
Turtle: bcbooks-1.0221812-turtle.txt
N-Triples: bcbooks-1.0221812-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: bcbooks-1.0221812-source.json
Full Text
bcbooks-1.0221812-fulltext.txt
Citation
bcbooks-1.0221812.ris

Full Text

Array       PAPERS 
RELATING TO
THE TREATY OF WASHINGTON.
 VOLUME V. - BERLIN ARBITRATION. 
CONTAINING THE MEMORIAL OF THE UNITED STATES ON THE CANAL DE
 HARO AS ITS BOUNDARY-LINE; CASE OF THE GOVERNMENT OF HER 
BRITANNIC MAJESTY; REPLY OF THE UNITED STATES 
THERETO; SECOND AND DEFINITIVE STATEMENT OF THE GOVERNMENT OF HER 
BRITANNIC MAJESTY; AND 
CORRESPONDENCE. 
WASHINGTON:
 GOVERNMENT PRINTING +OFFICE,
18 7 2. ^OTE.
The figures in
brackets denote the pages of the editions presented at
Berlin, and the references occurring are to those pages.
in
fsoso -/
r. 5~
	 CON
TENTS
^
MEMORIAL ON THE CANAL DE HARO AS THE BOUNDARY-LINE OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AS PRESENTED BY THE AMERICAN PLENIPOTENTIARY, GEORGE BANCROFT.
m       ■ t Pase-
Memorial  3
The point for arbitration  3
How the discussion will be conducted   4
Parallels of latitude the customary boundaries of the English colonies in
North America ,.  4
The same rule continued in the treaty of peace of 1872 ».  5
The same rule applied to the boundary of Louisiana  5
The United States acquire the claims of Spain north of 42°  6
Mr. HusMsson objects to the division of Vancouver Island  6
Lord Aberdeen and Mr. Everett discuss the northwestern boundary  7
The pamphlet of Mr. Sturgis , ,  8
Mr. Buchanan negotiates with.-Mr. Pakenham  „.. 9
Final proposal of tbe Earl of Aberdeen        10
Mr. Buchanan and Sir Robert Peel believed they had closed every cause
of dissension        12
The ministry of Lord John Russell renews dissension        12
Plea for the integrity of Sir Robert Peel's ministry        13
The words of the treaty        14
The words of the treaty taken together        14
The channel        14
The channel which separates the continent from Vancouver Island   ...        15
And thence southerly -        16
Through the middle of tbe said channel and of Fuca's Straits to the Pacific
Ocean        16
The straits of Rosario        16
Conclusion        17
Appendix :
No. 1. Extract from the treaty of Washington of June 15, 1846. Boundary established in 1846        19
No. 2. Extract from the treaty of Washington of May 8,1871.   The northern
boundary.   Matter and form of arbitration        19
No. 3.. Extract from the patent granted by James I of England, November
3, in the eighteenth year of his reign, to tbe council of Plymouth        21
(English colonial charters bounded English colonies by parallels of latitude.)
Extract from the charter of Massachusetts Bay granted by Charles I of
England March 4, 1628        21
Extract from the old patent for Connecticut -.         21
Extract from the charter granted by Charles II of England to the lords
proprietors of Carolina, March 24,1663 -        22
Extract from the commission of Governor Wright, of Georgia, of the 20th
of January, 1764        22
No. 4. Articles between the United States of America and his Britannic
Majesty, November 30, 1782.   First treaty between the United States
and Great Britain adopts for boundary a due-west course        22
No. 5. Extract from the treaty between the United States of America and
the French republic, April 30, 1803. The United States acquire Louisiana  ' - -        22
No. 6. Additional and explanatory articles, signed the day of , 1807,
to be added to  tbe treaty  of amity,   commerce,   and  navigation
between His BrJgpJanic Majesty and the United States of America,
signed at London the 31st day of December, 1806.   The United States
and Great Bifiiain agree on the forty-ninth parallel as a division-line.       23
No. 7. Mr. Madison to Mr. Monroe and Mr. Pinckney, (extract,) July 30,
1807.   The United States respect the claims of Spain on the Pacific.       23 
IV
CONTENTS.
Page.
MEMORIAL ON THE CANAL DE HARO, &c.—Continued.
Nota Mr. Canning to Mr. King, April 20, 1826.   The British Government
invite negotiations on the northwestern boundary.. - - - 1 - - - - - -
No. 9. Mr. Clay to Mr. Gallatin, (extract,) June 19, 1826.   The parallel of
49° the ultimatum of tbe United States	
Mr. Clay to Mr. Gallatin, (extract,) August 9,1826.... ------- • - - • - -
No. 10. Mr. Gallatin to Mr. Clay, November 25,1826.   Mr. Huskisson objects
to dividing Vancouver Island v - - - -; - W ;-T V-	
No. 11. Mr. Gallatin to Mr. Clay, December 2,1826.   Mr. Gallatin proposes
to exchange Vancouver south of 49° for an equivalent on the mam-
No. 12. Extract "from "Vancouver's Voyage," Vol. I, page 312.   Spanish
explorers preceded Vancouver kSmBBHshI
,^-No. 13. Mr. Everett to Mr. Webster, October 19, 1842.   Lord Aberdeen
wishes to settle the Oregon boundary	
No. 14. Mr. Everett to Mr. Webster, November 18,1842. Lord Aberdeen
wishes to negotiate on the boundary without delay 	
No. 15. Mr. Everett to Mr. Upshur, (confidential,) August 17, 1843. Mr.
Everett thinks the negotiation can be best carried on at Washington.
No. 16. Mr. Upshur to Mr. Everett, October 9, 1843. Full powers are sent
to Mr. Everett to negotiate on the Oregon boundary	
No. 17. Mr. Everett to Mr. Upshur, November 2,1843, (confidential.) The
negotiation transferred to Washington	
No. 18. Mr. Everett to Mr. Upshur, November 14,1843. Mr. Everett argues
for the parallel of 49°. He suggests a deflection from 49° would leave
to Great Britain the whole of Vancouver Island	
No. 19. Mr. Everett to Mr. Upshur, (confidential,) December 2, 1843. Mr.
Everett and Lord Aberdeen discuss the boundary. Mr. Everett points
out on a map the deflection from 49° that would leave Vancouver to
Great Britain --.
Mr. Everett to Lord Aberdeen, November 30,1843. Mr. Everett presents
his proposition to Lord Aberdeen in writing .., 	
No. 20. Mr. Everett to Mr. Nelson, April 1, 1844. Mr. Everett and Lord
Aberdeen continue the discussion. Mr. Everett thinks that Great
Britain will accept the line of 49° with the proposed deflection	
No. 21. Extract of a lecture delivered by Mr. William Sturgis before the
Mercantile Library Association of Boston, January 22, 1845. Views
of Mr. Sturgis , -	
No. 22. Mr. Everett to Mr. Calhoun, February 28, 1845. Mr. Everett
thinks that the line of 49° deflected, so as to give the whole of Vancouver to Great Britain, is all that either party will concede -
No. 23. Mr. Everett to Mr. Calhoun, March 7, 1845. Lord Ashburton
thinks there will be nJfmuch difficulty in coming to an adjustment.
No. 24. Mr. Everett to Mr. Calhoun, April 2, 1845, (confidential.) Mr.
Sturgis's pamphlet regarded by a friend of the British ministry as
fair and candid.	
No. 25. Lord Ashburton to Mr. Sturgis, April 2, 1845. Lord Ashburton
regards Mr. Sturgis's pamphlet as distinct and impartial ,	
No. 26. Mr. Bates to Mr. Sturgis, May 1,1845, (confidential.) Lord Aberdeen pronounces Mr. Sturgis's pamphlet clear and sensible	
Extract from an article by Mr. , senior, in the [London] Examiner,
No. 1943, Saturday, April 26, 1845.   The only real claim of the British rests on contiguity _»	
No. 27. Narrative of the United States Exploring Expedition during the
years 1838,1839, 1840, 1841, 1842, by Charles Wilkes, United States
Navy, coifiiliander of the expedition, in five volumes, and an atlas:
Philadelphia, 1845, vol. iv, chapter xiv, 1841, page 484. Wilkes surveys Canal de Haro in July, 1841	
No. 28. Mr. Buchanan to Mr. Pakenham, (extract,) July 12, j.845. Mr.
Buchanan offers the line of 49° with free ports on Vancouver ."
No. 29. Mr. Pakenham to Mr. Buchanan, (extract,) July 29, 1845. Mr.
Pakenham rejects Mr. Buchanan's offer. ..;S: \
No. 30. Mr. Buchanan to Mr. Pakenham, (extract,) August 30" 1845."" Mr.
Buchanan withdraws his offer	
No. 31. Mr. MacLane to Mp Buchanan, October 3, 1845. Lord Aberdeen
censures the rejection of the American proposition by Mr. Pakenham 	
No. 32. Mr. MacLane to Mr||pg|inan, December i, 18451 Lord Aberdeen
would have taken Mr. Buchanan's offer as the basis of negotiations..
24
24
26
26
26
27
28
28
28
29
30
32
33
34
35
36
36
37
37
38
38
39
39
40
41
41 CONTENTS.
MEMORIAL ON THE CANAL DE HARO, &c—Continued.
No. 33. Mr. Bates to Mr. Sturgis, (private,) December 2,1845.   Hudson
-  Bay Company prevent settlement.   No American will concede moro
than the line of 49° and Fuca's Straits	
No. 34. Mr. MacLane to Mr. Buchanan, February 3,1846. Mr. Pakenham's
conduct strongly disapproved in England. Lord John Russell calls Mr.
Pakenham's rejection of the American offer a hasty proceeding. Sir
Robert Peel says that Mr. Pakenham ought to have referred the
American offer to his Government. Sir Robert Peel for a peaceable settlement of the Oregon question. Mr. MacLane reports that the British
Government will accept tbe line of 49° and the straits of Fuca	
No. 35. Extract from the speech of Mr. Calhoun, of South Carolina, in the
Senate, March 16,1846.   The line of 49° the only line admissible	
Extract from the speech of Mr. Webster, of Massachusetts, in the Senate,
March 30,1846.   Great Britain cannot expect anything south of 49°...
Extract from the debate on the Oregon question in the House of Representatives, February 9,1846.   John Quincy Adams regards American
title as clear to all territory on the Pacific, south of 54° 40'	
Extract from the speech of Mr. J. Q. Adams, in the House of Representatives, April 13,1846	
Extract from the speech of Mr. Cass, of Michigan, in the Senate, June, 1846.
To accept the line of 49° regarded as a sacrifice	
Extract from the speech of Mr. Sevier, of Arkansas, chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, in the Senate, March 25,1846. Many
Americans claimed 54° 40' as the boundary, and would fight for 49°
No. 36. Extract from the [London] Quarterly Review for March, 1846, vol.
lxxvii, page 603. Tbe Quarterly in favor of the line of 49° and Fuca's
Straits	
No. 37. Mr. Buchanan to Mr. MacLane, February 26,1846. The President
may consent to consult the Senate on any British proposition. The
President wishes not to leave open any source of new difficulties. The
President would submit to the Senate the line of 49° and the straits of
Fuca	
2$o. 38. Mr. MacLane to Mr. Buchanan, March 3, 1846. Mr. MacLane reports that Great Britain will assent to no better partition than the line
of 49° and Fuca's Straits : -
No. 39. Mr. Bates to Mr. Sturgis, April 3,1846. The Oregon question sure
to be settled on the American basis	
No. 40. Mr. MacLane to Mr. Buchanan, April 17,1846. The British Government wait for Congress to give notice of the abolition of-the treaty
for the non-occupation of Oregon	
No. 41. Extract from the speech of Mr. Dix, of New York, in the Senate,
February 19, 1846. Wilkes's map of Oregon the map used by the
American Senate .. - -	
No. 42. Mr. MacLane to Mr. Buchanan, May 18, 1846. Mr. MacLane and
Lord Aberdeen discuss the Oregon question. The British Government
will offer to divide the territory by the parallel of 49°, Birch's Bay,
Canal de Haro, and Fuca's Straits. The above proposed boundary-
line is that suggested by Mr. Everett -	
No. 43. The Earl of Aberdeen to Mr. Pakenham, (extract,) May 18,1846.
Lord Aberdeen offers the forty-ninth parallel, retaining the whole of
Vancouver Island for England -> --•
~NojA4l. Extract from the speech of Mr. Benton, of Missouri, in the Senate,
June 18,1846 ; debate on the ratification of the Oregon treaty. Mr.
Benton finds that the boundary-line passes through the Canal de
Haro H	
No. 45. Extract from the speech of the Earl of Aberdeen, in the House of
Lords, Monday, June 29,1846. Lord Aberdeen and Parliament are
aware of the interpretation given to the treaty by the United States
Senate.   Lord Aberdeen's regard for Mr. MacLane	
No. 46. Extract from the speech of Sir Robert Peel in the House of Commons, Mondajpune 29,1846. The words of the treaty were chosen by
the British ministry. Sir Robert Peel's interpretation of the treaty.
Sir Robert Peel declares every cause of dissension between Britain
and America at an end -	
No. 47. Mr. MacLane to Lord Palmerston, July 13,1846. The American
President regards the treaty of June, 1846, as establishing amity	
No. 48. Extract from "Exploration duTerritoire de rOre"gon, etc., ex6cutee
pendant les ann€es 1840, 1841, et 1842, par M. Duffot de Mofras, at-
Page.
42
43
44
45
45
45
45
46
46
46
48
48
49
49
49
51
53
55 VI
CONTENTS
MEMORIAL ON THE CANAL DE HARO, &c.-Continued.
tache- a la Legation de France a Mexico."   Mofras describes the channel of Haro as the best - - - - - • - - --.-• - - •
No. 49. Paley's Works, edition of 1825, vol. iv, p. 80. Ambiguity no escape
from the proper sense of a promise -: --- ------------
No 50 Secretary Monroe to the American commissioners for treating tor
peace with Great Britain, March 22,1814. American commissioners
instructed, in 1814, to yield nothing south of 49°	
Page.
56
56
56
II.
CASE OF THE GOVERNMENT OF HER BRITANNIC MAJESTY SUBMITTED
TO THEI ARBITRATION AWARD OF HIS MAJESTY THE EMPEROR OF
GERMANY, ETC.
Case of the Government of Her Britannic Majesty  ...»  61
The question for decision  61
Treaty of June 15,1846, (Article I)  "1
Treaty of May 8,1871, (Article XXXIV)  61
The strait of Georgia  62
The Rosario Strait  62
The Canal de Haro, -.-- 64
Origin of the names of the two channels  65
Extent of Fuca's Strait -  67
Navigation of Fuca's Straits — 67
Rules for the interpretation of t^aties  68
The first rule of interpretation in its application to the treaty of 1846  70
The second and third rules of interpretation. The context of the treaty
considered.   The consonance of the second and third paragraphs of
the treaty.   Reason of the third paragraph  71
The fourth rule of interpretation.   The motive of the treaty  75
The object of the treaty.   No name is given to the channel  76
The fifth rule of interpretation.  A favorable interpretation to be preferred
to an odious interpretation.   The charts in use in 1846  77
The sixth rule of interpretation. The presumption is in favor of the possessor of a thing  78
Recapitulation of facts  79
Appendix:
No. I. Articles XXXIV to XLII of the treaty between Great Britain and
the United States of America, signed at Washington on the 8th May,
1871        <81
No. II. Copy of treaty between Great Britain and the United States of
America, signed at Washington on the 15th June, 1846         83
No. III. A narrative of the passage of His Britannic Majesty's ships Dis- .
covery and Chatham, under the command, of Captain Vancouver,
through the Straits of Juan de Fuca, and through the channel known
at the present day as the Rosario Strait, to Birch Bay, situated in the
ancient gulf of Georgia, S. 23 W. and N. 72 W., (extracted from vol.
I of Captain Vancouver's Voyages, published in 1798)         85.
No. IV. A narrative of the voyages made by the Spanish vessels Sutil
and Mexicana, in the year 1792, to explore the split of Fuca         88
(A reference to the voyage of sub-lieutenant Don Manuel Quimper, in
1790, to the strait of Fuca, extracted from chapter I of the Narrative
~*)f the Voyage of theJSutil and Mexicajia^in 1792.)         88
No. V. Declarations "of W. H. MgNeill,.-W, Mitchell, Captain "s'wanson",
Messrs. Anderson, H. G. Lewis, and Finlayson, master-mariners, &c,
who have commanded or are in command of vessels navigating the
straits between Vaucouver's Island and the continent of America         98
No. VI. Attested copy of the log of Her Majesty's steamship Cormorant, in
the months of September and October, 1846       117
fcf^0-5V"^-"'   :VV in.  ^Sp|S;I^^Jf.\^
REPLY OF THE UNITED STATES TO THE CASE OF THE GOVERNMENT OF
HER BRITANNIC MAJESTY.
I. The British Case	
II. Reply to the arguments of the British Case
123
129*
'nmUf MJtLWIHiHl CONTENTS.
VII
REPLY OF THE UNITED STATES, &c—Continued. Pag6'
HI. Proceedings under the treaty of 1846       135
IV. Interpretation of the treaty of 1846       142
Appendix to the reply :
No. 51. Correspondence between Mr. Bancroft, Mr. Buchanan, and Lord
Palmerston      147.
Mr. Bancroft to Mr. Buchanan, November 3, 1846.   The straits of" Haro
the treaty'boundary       147
Mr. Buchanan to Mr. Bancroft, December 28, 1846.   Instructs Mr. Bancroft that Haro is the boundary-channel..,.       147
Mr. Bancroft to Mr. Buchanan, March 29, 1847.   Warns Mr. Buchanan
of the designs of the Hudson'sBay Company      148
Mr. Bancroft to Mr. Buchanan, August 4, 1848.   Mr. Bancroft's interview with Lord Palmerston       148
Mr. Bancroft to Lord Palmerston, July 31,1848.   Mr. Bancroft writes to
Lord Palmerston that Haro is the boundary       149
Mr. Bancroft to Mr. Buchanan, October 19,1848.   Mr. Bancroft continues
the suggestion that unjust claims may be made       149
Mr. Bancroft to Lord Palmerston, November 3, 1848.   Mr. Bancroft officials informs-Lord Palmerston that the boundary runs through the
middle of the channel of Haro       150
Lord Palmerston to Mr. Bancroft, November 7, 1848.   Lord Palmerston
gives, the acquiescence of silence to the Haro Channel as the boundary     150
No. 52. Mr. Bancroft to Mr. Campbell, June 15, 1858.   Mr. Bancroft refers
Splr. Campbell to his correspondence with Lord Palmerston      150
No. 53. Declaration of Rear-Admiral Wilkes, February 16, 1872.   Rear-
Admiral Wilkes on the channel of Haro      151
No. 54. Commodore Case to the Secretary of the Navy, February 13, 1872.
Statement of Commodore Case on the Canal de Haro ,       152
No. 55. Mr. Gibbs to the Secretary of State, February 20,1872.   Statement
of Mr. George Gibbs on the Canal de Haro      153
No. 56. ExtrSJjBt from letter of Messrs. Campbell and Parke to the Secretary of State, February 3,1872.   Why the vessels of the Hudson Bay
Company used the so-called Rosario Straits      154
No. 57. Mr. Campbell to the Secretary of State, January 19, 1872.   The
" Haro Channel the usual channel       155
No. 58. The Attorney-General to the Secretary of State, April 6, 1872       155
Mr. Crosby to the Attorney-General, April 2, 1872.   Why the so-called
Rosario Strait was used.   The Canal de Haro used by the vessels of
the Hudson's Bay Company before 1846      156
Canal de Haro tbe passage to the north -      157
Worthlessness of the middle channel       158
Difference between Haro and Rosario Straits       158
No. 59. Brigadier-General Canby to the assistant adj utant-general at San
Francisco, April 2, 1872 '.       159
Why the so-called Rosario Strait was used       159
No. 60. Report of Captain G. H. Richards, October 23, 1858, in papers relating to British Columbia, presented to both houses of Parliament,
by command of Her Majesty, August 12,1859       159
Description of Haro Channel by Captain Richards, British boundary
commissioner      159
No. 61. Affidavits concerning the navigation of the Canal de Haro       159
Remington F. Pickett       159
George Thomas Seymour ,      160
Albert Henry Guild       161
William J. Waitt: Haro Channel used exclusively for northern trade
since establishment of Fort Victoria, 1842 ,       162
Francis Tarbell: Haro Channel used by Hudson's Bay Company since
establishment of Fort Victoria -       163
Hudson's Bay Company used Haro Channel before 1846       164
Charles Willoughby      164.
James S. Lawson       165
Thomas McManus •       166
Wilkes surveys Canal de Haro in 1841      166
Adam Benson - •      167
The steamer Beaver towed tbe ship Columbia through Haro Channel in
1845       167
William N. Horton    ' 167
JehnMcLeod      169 VIII
CONTENTS.
Page.
REPLY OF THE UNITED STATES, &c.-Continued.
Canal de Haro regularly navigated by vessels of Hudson's Bay Company
since lo42  ifio
W.H.Gray       "%
J. A. Gardiner      1_n
William H. Oliver BSHV" Vi"'W	
Canal de Haro regularly n avigated by vessels of Hudson's Bay Company
since 1842      ]ll
Charles M. Bradshaw       \'i
Uriah Nelson ■■■■-- gmi	
No. 62. Extract of the report of the voyage of de Eliza, forwarded December 29,1791, from San Bias, by Juan Pantoj a y Arriaga       174
Survey of the Canal de Haro by the Spaniards in 1791       174
Discovery of the broad upper channel of Rosario       176
No. 63. Extract from the instructions to Commander George Vancouver,
by the commissioners, for executing the office of Lord High Admiral
of Great Britain and Ireland, &c       177
Vancouver followed the lead of Americans.   His instructions       177
No. 64. Extract of voyage of Captain Vancouver.   No soundings appear
on Vancouver's map where the water is of great depth       177
No. 65. Extracts from the remarks of Mr. Daniel Webster in the Senate of
the United States, March 30, 1846       178
No. 66. Four years in British Columbia and Vancouver Island, by Commander R. C. Mayne       178
Where Fuca's Strait ends       178
Facts and figures relating to Vancouver Island and British Columbia, by
J. Despard Pemberton       178
Limited extent of Fuca's Straits -       178
No. 67. Extract from a letter of Sir J. Pelly, governor of the Hudson's Bay
Company, to the Lords of the Committee of Privy Council for Trade,
February 7,1838       179
The Hudson's Bay Company expel Ameri cans from the fur-trade       179
Affidavit of W. H. Gray       179
' Extract from a Tetter of Sir J. Pelly, governor of the Hudson's Bay Company, to the Earl of Aberdeen       180
The Hudson's Bay Company suggest to Lord Aberdeen to draw the
boundary-line through the channel used by Vancouver        180
No. 68. Mr. Crampton to Mr. Buchanan, January 13,1848..v.       181
The British Government wishes the American to agree on the channel
used by Vancouver as the boundary        181
No. 69. Extract from additional instructions to Captain Prevost, December 20,1856        181
The British Government in 1856 does not claim the so-called Rosario as
the boundary       181
No. 70. Captain Prevost to Mr. Campbell, (extract,) October 28, 1857       182
Admiral Prevost on the channel of the treaty       182
No. 71. Mr. Edward Everett to Mr. Campbell, (extract,) May 29, 1858       182
Mr. Everett' on the channel of the treaty       182
No. 72. Mr. Campbell to Mr. Cass, (extract,) February 10,1858       183
Lucid statement of Mr. Campbell on the channel of the treaty       183
No. 73. Lord John Russell to Lord Lyons, (extracts,) August 24,1859       184
The British Government announces its intention of obtaining the Island
of San Juan       184
Sir Richard Pakenham on the water-boundary under the Oregon treaty
of 1846 I     185
Sir R. Pakenham, in 1859, denies the Rosario to be the channel of the
treaty  185
Sir R. Pakenham misstates Lord Aberdeen's instruction by suppressing
his description of the channel of the treaty  185
No. 74. Mr. Cass to Mr. Dallas, October 20, 1859 , ['." 186
Mr. Cass on the channel of the treaty  186
No-75. Lord John Russell to Lord Lyons, (extracts,) December 16,1859." 188
The British government in 1859 does not claim the so-called Rosario as
the boundary             __ jgg
Lord John Russell does injustice to the moderation of his own. adminis-
■$cati<!? in 1848'   Lord Palmeston gave the acquiescence of silence  188
No. 76. Abstract of the returns of the ninth census from the " disputed"
islands in the county of Whatcom, Territory of Washington  189
The population of the Haro Archipelago more than tworthirds American 189
Charts and maps to memorial and reply  189 ^
CONTENTS.
IV.
IX
SECOND AND DEFINITIVE STATEMpTT ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENT
OF HER BRITANNIC MAJESTY.
Page.
Part I ..
Part It .
Part III.
Part IV.
mmY	
Historical notes, 1818 to 1846:
1818	
1824	
1826,1827
1827-1842
1843	
1844	
1845	
No. 1.
No. 2.
No. 3.
No. 4.
No. 5.
1846	
Chronological list showing the names and dates of appointment  of the
various Principal Secretaries of State for Foreign Affairs in Great Brit-
IjpKi and British Ministers at Washington, and of the various Presidents
and Secretaries of State of the United States, and United States Ministers at London, from 1818 to 1872	
Memorandum relative to the origin and privileges of the Hudson's Bay
Company	
Appendix: :
No. 1. Extract showing the views of Earl of Aberdeen and Sir Richard
Pakenham 	
Lord John Russell to Lord Lyons, August 24,1859	
Inclosure in above memorandum by Sir R. Pakenham on the water-
boundary under the Oregon treaty of 1846	
No. 2. Correspondence between Mr. Bancroft and Mr. Buchanan	
Mr. Bancroft to Mr. Buchanan, November 3,1846	
Mr. Buchanan to Mr. Bancroft, December 28, 1846	
No. 3. Letters of Mr. Crampton showing Mr. Buchanan's opinions	
Mr. Crampton to Viscount Palmerston, January 13,1848	
Mr. Crampton to Mr. Marcy, February. 9,1856	
No. 4. Conversation and correspondence between Mr. Bancroft and Viscount Palmerston	
Mr. Bancroft to Mr. Buchanan, August 4,1848	
Mr. Bancroft to Viscount Palmerston, July 31, 1848	
Viscount Palmerston to Mr. Bancroft, August 24,1848	
Mr. Bancroft to Viscount Palmerston, November 3,1848	
(fpSscount Palmerston to Mr. Bancroft, November 7,1848	
No. 5. Proposed amendment to Article II of treaty	
Mr. Buchanan to Mr. MacLane, June 13,1846  -   -  	
V.
CORRESPONDENCE.
Mr. Fish to Mr. Bancroft  Incloses draught of a note to be pre-
July 18,1871. sented to the Emperor of Germany,
inviting him to act as arbitrator between the United States and Great
Britain in the northwest water-boundary controversy	
Incloses copy of joint note presented,
inviting the Emperor to act as arbitrator  -	
Mr. Bancroft to Mr. Fish  The Emperor accepts office of arbitra-
195
197
199
207
209
217
218
218
219
220
223
226
241
244
244
244
245
245
245
246
246
247
249
249
250
250
250
251
251
251
Mr. Bancroft to Mr. Fish	
July 29,1871.
August 21,1871.
Same to same •
September 1,1871.
Mr. Davis to Mr. Bancroft	
September 28,1871.
II D
tor
Formal acceptance by the Emperor of
the office of arbitrator	
The President expresses his grateful acknowledgments for tbe action of the
Emperor	 CONTENTS.
Page.
CORRESPONDENCE—Continued.
No.    6. Mr. Bancroft to Mr. Fish  Memorial of the United States on the
December 12,1871.       Canal de Haro as their   northwest
boundary presented  259
No.    7. Same to same  British Case and Evidence presented-- 260
December 15,1871.
No.    8. Same to same  Receipt of the memorial acknowledged. 260
December 28,1871.
No.    9. Same to same .--- Replies of the United States and Great
June 11,1872.       Britain delivered to the German government   260
No. 10. Same to same  Transmits copies of the replies and of
June 17,1872.       the correspondence attending their
delivery  261
No. 11. Same to same  Receipt of definfjiive statements by the
June 24,1872.       German government acknowledged.. 263
No. 12. Same to same  Appointment of gentlemen to examine
June 28,1872.       the Haro boundary question  263
No. 13. Same to same  Decision    respecting    the    northwest
September 30,1872.       boundary approaches its solution .264
No. 14. Same to same  Announcement of award delayed   by
October 4,1872.       death of Prince Albrecht   264
No. 15. Same to same... -  The imperial arbitrator decrees that the
October 23,1872. claim of the United States is most in
accordance with the true interpretation of the treaty of June 15,1846 ..  265
No. 16. Mr. Bancroft to Mr. Fish  Congratulations on award 265
October 24,1872.
No. 17. Mr. Bancroft to Mr. Fish  Award received and forwarded.   Con-
October 24,1872.    '  gr&tulatiiqps on result.     Thanks of
the President expressed to the Emperor   265
No. 18.-Same to same   Importance   of the   award.   Friendly
October 24,1872.       conduct of- the British  embassador
throughout the discussion   268
No. 19. Mr. Nicholas Fish to Mr. Fish  Re-imbursement of costs and expenses
November 2,1872.       of the arbitration declined by the
German government  268
No. 20. Mr. Fish to Mr. Bancroft  Frigidly act of the German government
November 27,1872.       highly appreciated  269
No. 21. Sir E. Thornton to Mr. Fish  Effect to be given to the award with-
November 21,1872.       out delay  270
No. 22. Same to same The detachment of royal marines has
November 23,1872.       evacuated San Juan  270
No. 23. Mr. Fish to SirE.Thornton...... Acknowledges note.    Spontaneous ac-
November 25,1872. tion of the British government in
accepting the award is highly appreciated 271 I.
MEMOEIAL
ox
THE  CANAL  DE  HARO
AS
THE BOUNDARY LINE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
PRESENTED in the name op
THE  AMERICAN  GOVERNMENT
TO
HIS MAJESTY WILLIAM I,
GERMAN EMPEROR AND KING OF PRUSSIA,
AS ARBITRATOR,
BY THE AMERICAN PLENIPOTENTIARY,
GEORGE BANCROFT.
Id  MEMORIAL.
The treaty of which the interpretation is referred to Tour Majesty's
arbitrament was ratified more than a quarter of a century ago. Of the
sixteen members of the British cabinet which framed and presented it
for the acceptance of the United States, Sir Robert Peel, Lord Aberdeen, and all the rest but one, are no more. The British minister at
Washington who signed it is dead. Of American statesmen concerned
in it, the minister at London, the President and Yice-President, the
Secretary of State, and every one of the President's constitutional advisers, except one, have passed away. I alone remain, and after finishing the three-score years and ten that are the days of our years, am
selected by my country to uphold its rights.
Six times the United States had received the offer of arbitration on
their Northwestern boundary, and six times had refused to refer a point
where the importance was so great and the right so clear. But when
consent was obtained to bring the question before Your Majesty, my
country resolved to change its policy, and in the heart of Europe,
(4J before a tribunal from which no judgment but a just one can *em-
anate, to explain the solid foundation of our demand, and the
principles of moderation and justice by which we have been governed.
The case involves questions of geography, of history, and of international law ; and we are glad that the discussion should be held in the
midst of a nation whose sons have been trained in those sciences by a
Carl Ritter, a Ranke, and a Heffter.
The long-contiuued controversy has tended to estrange from each
other two of the greatest powers in the world, and even menaced,
though remotely, a conflict in arms. A want of confidence in the disposition of the British government has been sinking into the mind of the
States of the Union now rising on the Pacific, aud might grow into a
popular conviction, not easy to be eradicated. After having secured
union and tranquillity to the people of Germany, and attained a happiness never before allotted by Providence to German warrior or statesman, will it not be to Your Majesty a crowning glory now, in the fullness of 3rears and in the quiet which follows the mighty struggles of a
most eventful life, to reconcile the two younger branches of the great
Germanic family ?
THE POINT FOR ARBITRATION.
The point submitted for arbitration is limited with exactness. By
Article I of the Treaty concluded at Washington on the 15th of June,
1846, between the United States and Her Britannic Majesty, it was
stipulated that the line of boundary between the territories of the
United States and those of Her Britannic Majesty, from the ■
- MP?   V    , •        i Appendix No. 1, p. 3.
point on the forty-ninth parallel of north latitude up to
which it had already been ascertained, should be continued westward
along the   said .parallel of  north  latitude " to   the   middle   of  the
channel which separates the continent from Yancouver's Island, and 4 NORTHWEST  WATER  BOUNDARY  ARBITRATION.
[51 thence *southerly, through the middle of the said channel and of
Fuca's Straits to the Pacific Ocean." The British Government
claim that the water-line here referred to should run through a passage
which they have thought proper to name the straits of Rosario, and
which the United States, for the purpose of this reference, permit to go
by that name. The United States claim that the water-line runs
through the canal de Haro.   The arbitrator is to say finally
Amwmlix, p. 4.1. 20,
and without appeal which of those claims is most in accordance with the true interpretation of the treaty of June 15, 1846. That
is the point submitted, and that alone: nothing more and nothing less.
If the United States can but prove their claim to be most in accordance with the true interpretation of the treaty, it is agreed that the
award shall be in their favor; how much more, then, if they prove that
their interpretation is the only one which the treaty admits!
HOW THIS DISCUSSION WILL BE CONDUCTED.
In conducting this discussion 1 shall keep in mind that the restoration
of friendship between the two powers which are at variance is the object
of the arbitration. Nothing that has been written since the ratifications
of the treaty were exchanged can alter its words or affect its interpretation. I shall, therefore, for the present at least, decline to examine all
communications that may have taken place since that epoch, except so
far as is necessary to explain why there is an arbitration, and shall thus
gain the advantage of treating the subject as simply an investigation
for the ascertainment of truth.
Since the intention of the negotiators must rest on the knowledge in
their possession at the time when the treaty was made, I shall use the
charts and explorations which have advanced, or profess to have
[6] advanced, our knowledge of the *country in question, and which
are anterior to that date. Of such charts I have found six, and six
only; and though they are of very unequal value, yet for the sake of impartiality and completeness I present photographic copies or extracts of
every one of them. Of charts of explorations of a later date, it was my
desire to make no use whatever; but then, as will appear in the sequel,
there would be not one map on which the channel claimed by the British
government could be found with the name of "the straits of Rosario f
I am therefore compelled to add a later chart, on which that name is
placed, as required for the arbitration. This chart also shows the length
and breadth and depth of the respective channels.
My task is an easy one; for I have only to deduce the intentions of
the negotiators of the treaty from its history, and to interpret its words
according to the acknowledged principles of international law.
PARALLELS OP LATITUDE THE CUSTOMARY BOUNDARIES OF
COLONIES IN NORTH AMERICA.
ENGLISH'
A parallel of latitude extending from the Atlantic to the Pacific was
a usual boundary established by England for its colonies in North
Appendix,p.e,Hi America.   The charter granted in 1620 by James I, to the
company of Plymouth for New England, bounded its territory by the parallels of 48° and of 40° north latitude | in length and
breadth throughout the mainland from sea to sea."   The charter granted
r. 6,1.24-27.        k;y Charles I to Massachusetts in 1628 had in like manner
for its northern and southern boundaries parallels of latitude running from sea to sea.   So, too, had the old patent of Connecti-
■ i 'JMiiNJSPi^'fcjuaf EBTFgya-ff Mae* MEMORIAL   OF   THE   UNITED   STATES.
O
P. 7,1 7-10.
p. r, l. ifl-qe.
cut;   so  too had  the  charter  to  Connecticut,  granted by  Charles
II, in  1662.   The   charter   granted  in   1663   by Charles
II, to the Lords Proprietors of Carolina, adopted as their
northern boundary the parallel of six and thirty degrees, and
as their southern boundary the parallel of I one and thirty de-
[7]      grees of *northern latitude, and so west in a direct line as far as
the South seas."   The precedent was followed by George II, in
the charter granted  in 1732 for Georgia;   and in 1761   Appemlix,p.tLSS
George III officially described that colony as extending by -21-
parallels "westward in direct lines" to the Pacific.
THE SAME RULE CONTINUED IN THE TREATY OF PEACE OF 1872.
In the first convention between the United States of America and
Great Britain, signed at Paris on the 30th of November,
1782, the northern boundary line of the United States was
carried by the two powers through the great upper lakes to the most
northwesters point of the Lake of the Woods. If from that point the
line was to be continued, the treaty, adopting the precedent of the past
century of colonization, and foreshadowing the rule of the future, prescribed i a due west course."
Appendix No. \. p.
THE SAME RULE APPLIED TO THE BOUNDARY OF LOUISIANA.
By the treaty of April 30,1803, between the United States of America
and the French Republic, the United States came into pos-
Appendix No 5 ft 8.
session "forever and m full sovereignty " of the colony and
Territory of Louisiana.
No sooner had the United States made this acquiiffcion than they
sent out an exploring expedition, which made known to the world the
Rocky Mountains and the branches of the river of Oregon, the mouth
of which an American navigator had been the first to enter.
By the acquisition of Louisiana the Republic of America and Great
Britain, as sovereign over the territory of Hudson Bay, became neighbors still further to the west; and the two powers took an early opportunity to consider their dividlbg line west of the Lake of the Woods.
The United States might have demanded, perhaps should have
[8] demanded, under *the treaty of 1782, thatF&e line " due west |
should proceed from " the most northwest point of the Lake of the
Woods." That point is near the parallel of 50°; the United
States consented to the parallel of 49°. But with regard to
the confcpuation of the line, while Mr. Madison, the American Secretary of State, was desirous not to advance claims that could AvKndix M11
be H offefj&ive to Spain," both parties, adopting the words of 9-10-
the treaty of 1782, agreed as between themselves that the line should
proceed on that parallel | in a due west course" to the
Rocky Mountains. In 1807 this agreement would have
been ratified; ti|t the maritime decrees of the Emperor Napoleon, dated
at Berlin|^nd at Milan, disturbed the peace of the oceans, and orders in
council in Great Britain, which finally provoked war with the United
States, interposed delay.
When, in 1815, the t&is of peace were to be adjusted, the American
plenipotentiaries were instructed by their Government as s^^m^'^i
to the northwestern boundary, to consent to no claim on S6-
the part of Great Britain to territory in that quarter south of the forty-
ninth parallel of l4ip$|e; and they implicitly adhered to their instructions.
Appet
Appe
, 1. 1, 6
NORTHWEST  WATER  BOUNDARY  ARBITRATION.
In due time the negotiations, which had effected an agreement in
1807, were renewed; and, on the 20th of October, 1818, the
Convention \
G. Britain Oct.
1816. Art. 1, 2, 8
parallel of 49° was adopted as the boundary line between
the two countries isHj|b as the Stony, or, as we now more
commonly call them, the Rocky Mountains. Prom that range of mountains to the Pacific, America, partly from respect to the claims of Spain,
was willing to delay for ten years the continuance of the boundary
line.
THE UNITED STATES ACQUIRE THE CLAIMS OF SPAIN NORTH OF 42=.
The ocean chivalry of Spain were the first to explore the northern
coast of the Pacific. Hernando Cortes began the work. The
[9] straits of Pifc take their name from a Greek *navigator who was
in the Spanish service in 1592. Perez, a Spaniard, whose explorations extended as far to the north as 54°, discovered Nootka Sound
in 1774. In the next year Bodega y Quadm reached the fifty-eighth
degree, and Heceta, on the 15th of AugusJi 1775, returning from Nootka,
noticed, though he did not enter, the mouth of the river Oregon. In
1789,1790,1791, before a British keel had entered the straits of Fuca,
a succession of Spanish navigators, Martinez and de Haro, Eliza,
Fidalgo, Quimper, and others, had explored and draughted charts of
the island which is now called Yancouver, and the waters which lie to
the east of it. When Yancouver, on the 29th of April, 1792, passed
Appendix no. i2, through the straits of Fuca and entered those waters, he
p13- encountered, to his mortification, Spanish navigators who
had already explored them and who prodtjged before him a chart of
that region made by Spanish officers the year before.
By the treaty of Spain with the United States, of the22d of February,
Tratadodeumites 1819, "*His Catholic Majesty ceded to the United States all
iMtardoS8^n?oio8yrde his rights, claims, and pretensions to any territories north
America.   Art. 3.
of the parallel of latitude 42°, from the
Arkansas River to
the Pacific."
Thus did the custom of boundaries by a parallel of latitude receive a
new confirmation; and thus did the United States become sole heir to
all the pretensions and rights which Spain had acquired in North America, north of the parallel of 42°, and beyond that of 49°.
MR. HUSKISSON OBJECTS TO THE DIVISION OF VANCOUVER ISLAND.
When the ten years' limitation of the treaty of 1818 drew near, Mr.
Appendix no. s, P. Canning, secretary of state for foreign aifails in Great Britain, on the 20th of April, 1826, invited the American Government to resume negotiations (attempted in vain in 1824) for settling
the boundary upon the northwest coast of America.
[10] *At that time John Quincy Adams was President of the United
States, with Henry Clay for Secretary of State; and the nego tia-
tion on the American side was conducted in London by Albert Gallatin.
Re-enforced as were the United States of America by the titles of both
France and Spain, in addition to their own claims from contiguity and
discovery, they remained true to their principle of moderation, and again
it was resolved not to insist on the territory to the north of 49° which
Appendix no. 9,P. Spain had ceded; and on the 19th of June, 1826, "in the spirit
11 of concession and compromise, which he hoped Great Britain
would recognise and reciprocate," Mr. Clay authorized Mr. Gallatin
to propose " the extension of the line on the parallel of 49° from the
Stony Mountains to the Pacific Ocean." " This" he wrote, " is our ultima-
![!,jiii;mrr»»mj;«fflai-UUi»is&MiJgaB MEMORIAL   OF  THE  UNITED   STATES
Appendix No. 11,
13.
turn, and you may so announce it.   We can consent to no line more
favorable to Great Britain."   In the following August Mr. Clay repeated
to Mr. Gallatin : "The President cannot consent that the   Appe„dixNo9P
boundary on the northwest coast shall be south of forty- 12,PI
nine."
On the 22d of November, 1826, Mr. Huskisson, one of the British
plenipotentiaries, remarked on the straight line proposed Appendix No. 10
by the United States, that its cutting off the lower part of p-12'
Yancouver Island was quite inadmissible. Here is the first intimation
of the boundary line of 49° to the Pacific, with just so much deflection
as to leave the southern extremity of Yancouver Island to Great Britain.
To this Mr. Gallatin, nine days later, replied, that | to the forty-ninth
parallel the United States would adhere as a basis." | Yet
as it seemed to cut Yancouver Island in an inconvenient
manner, he had in view the exchange of that southern extremity for an
equivalent north of 49° on the mainland.   Here is the first intimation
of the possibility, on the part of the United States, to vary from the
line of 49°, but only so far as to yield to Great Britain the southern extremity of Yancouver Island, in return for a full equivalent.
[11]       *But the interest of the Hudson Bay Company was better subserved by leaving the whole region open to the fur trade, and the
United States on their part had no motive for hastening an adjustment.
The American envoy, therefore, in 1827 consented to prolong
the treaty of 1818, yet with the proviso that either party ^f^^ Auh-
inight abrogate it, on giving notice of twelve months tothe f
other contracting party.   Under this convention the question of jurisdiction and boundary remained in abeyance for nearly sixteen years.
LORD   ABERDEEN  AND   MR.   EVERETT   DISCUSS  THE   NORTHWESTERN
BOUNDARY.
In October 1822, the British foreign secretary, the Earl of Aberdeen,
who through the agency of Lord Ashburton had just settled
our northeastern boundary from the LaKe of the Woods to ra||||| °15 |
the Atlantic, expressed to Mr. Everett, then American minister at London, a strong wish that he might receive instructions to
settle the boundary between the two countries on the Pacific Ocean.
American emigrants had already begun to find their way on foot
across the continent. In 1843 a thousand emigrants, armed men,
women, and children, with wagons and cattle, having assembled on the
western frontier of Missouri, marched across the plains and through the
mountain passes to the fertile valley of the Willamette in Oregon. The
ability of America to enforce its rights by occupation grew with every
year. But its increasing power did not change its policy of moderation,
and to meet the wish of Lord Aberdeen, on the 9th of October, 1843,
iihe Government of the United States sent to Mr. Eyeretfc Appendlx No. 16i
the necessary powers, with this instruction: " The offer of p-16-
the forty-ninth parallel may be again tendered, with the right of navigating the Columbia on equal terms."
On the 29th of November, 1843, soon after Mr. Everett's full powers
[12] had arrived, he and Lord Aberdeen had a very *long and
important conversation on the Oregon question; and the Appendix no. »,
concession of Lord Aberdeen appearing to invite an ex- p>- m 1.25-27.
pression of the extremest modification which the United States could
admit to their former proposal, Mr. Everett reports that he p 2o L |||
said:
I thought the President might be induced so far to depart from tbe forty-nintb 8
NORTHWEST   WATER  BOUNDARY   ARBITRATION.
P. 18, 1. 32, 33
parallel as to leave tbe whole of Quadra and Vancouver's Island to England, whereas
that line of latitude would give us tbe southern extremity of tbat island, and consequently the command of the straits of Fuca on both sides.    I then
p. 21, 1. 1-3. pointed out on a map the extent of this concession; and Lord Aberdeen
said he would take it into consideration.
The next clay Mr. Everett more formally referred to the subject in a
Append.,, 2i. 22.   uote to the British secretary:
46 Grosvenor Place, 30th November, 1843.
My Dear Lord Aberdeen.    *   *   *   It appears from Mr. Gallatin's correspondence
that   *   *   *   Mr. Huskisson had especially objected to the extension of the 49° to
the Pacific, on the ground that it would cut off tbe southern extremity of Quadra and ■
Vaucouver's Island.   My suggestion yesterday would obviate this objection.   *
A glance at the-map shows its importance as a modification of tbe forty-ninth degree.
*    *   *   Edward Everett.
On the 2d of February, and on the 1st of April, 1844, Mr. Everett
Appendix >-o 20 reports that he continuously insisted with Lord Aberdeen
|||§§11 that the only modification which the United States could,
in his opinion, be brought to agree to, was that they should waive their
claim to the southern extremity of Yancouver Island, and
that Lord Aberdeen uniformly answered: | he did not think
r. 23, i. so, 40.       there would be much difficulty in settling the question."
During the following months Mr. Everett and Lord Aberdeen, both
wishing sincerely to settle the controversy, had further frequent conversations, and, as the result of them all, Mr. Everett reported that
[13]     England would not accept the *naked parallel of 49° to the ocean,
but would consent to the line of the forty-ninth degree, provided
it could be so modified as to leave to Great Britain the southern ex-
Append.v xo. 22, tremity of Yancouver Island.    "I have spared no pains,"
II&23-27.       wrote Mr. Everett on the 28th of February, 1845, u to impress
upon Lord Aberdeen's mind the persuasion that the utmost which the
United States can concede is the 49th parallel with the modification
suggested, taking always care to add that I had no authority for saying
that even that modification would be agreed to."
To one fact I particularly invoke the attention of the Imperial arbitrator : not the least room for doubt was left by Mr. Everett with regard
to the extent of the modification proposed. He had pointed it out to
Lord Aberdeen on the map, and had so often and so carefully directed
his attention to it, that there could be no misapprehension on the limit
of the proposed concession. Mr. Everett retired from office in the full
persuasion that the northwestern boundary would be settled, whenever
the United States would consent so far to depart from the parallel of
49° as to leave the whole of Yancouver Island to Great Britain.
THE PAMPHLET OP MR. STURGIS.
The subject attracted public attention.    On the 22d of January, 1845,
Appendix no. 2i, Mr. William Sturgis, a distinguished citizen of the United
ft?25- States who had passed several years on the northwest coast
of America, delivered in Boston a lecture on what was now generally
called the Oregon question, in which, hitting exactly the idea of Mr.
Everett, he proposed as the boundary: "a continuation of the parallel
of 49o across the Bocky Mountains to tide-water, say to the middle ot
the Gulf of Georgia; thence by the northernmost navigable passage (not
north of 49°) to the straits of Juan de Fuca, and down the middle of
these straits to the Pacific Ocean; the navigation of the Gulf of
[ 14]     Georgia and the Straits of Fuca to be forever *free to both parties •
all the islands and other territory lying south and east of this
line to belong to the United States, and all north aud west to Great
PIS   MEMORIAL   OF   THE   UNITED   STATES.
9
Britain. By this arrangement we should yield to Great Britain the
portion of Quadra and Vancouver's Island that lies south of latitude
49o   *   #   *   wm G.reafc Britain accede to this |   I think she will."
The pamphlet of-Mr. Sturgis, accompanied by a map on which the
proposed boundary is marked, was read by Lord Ashburton and by
Lord Aberdeen. To one who eminently enjoyed the confidence of both
governments Lord Aberdeen pronounced it ff a clear and Appendix M 2G
sensible view of the matter." Lord Ashburton, whose opinion p- ^ L3-
on the subject carried the greatest weight, wrote to Mr.
Sturgis:
Appendix  No
p. 28,1. 7-11.
Your treatise enables me every day to answer satisfactorily tbe questions put to me
so oftm, where is tbe Oregon, and what is this dispute about ? You have stated tbe
case distinctly in a few pages, aud, what is indeed uncommon, with great impartiality
MR. BUCHANAN NEGOTIATES WITH MR. PAKENHAM.
Meantime the negotiation on the Oregon question had been transferred to the new British minister at Washington. Offers of arbitration
had been rejected; emigration across the plains gave promise of founding States on the Pacific ; and the Congress of the United States teemed
with j>ropositions to prepare for establishing a territorial government
in Oregon. When the administration of Mr. Polk entered upon office,
all parties in America were unanimous in insisting on a boundary at
the least as favorable as the parallel of 49°; while a very large number,
and seemingly the largest number, thought the time had come for
America, as the heir of Spain, to carry its claims beyond the parallel of
49°. But the new administration would not swerve from the moderation which had marked the policy of the country.
[ 15] Meantime both parties had received more accurate information
on the geography of that district. In July, 1841, Append* ko.;»
Captain Wilkes had made a survey of the waters south of p-31-
49°, especially of the channel of Haro ; and in the early part of 1845 his
narrative and accompanying map had been published both in Ameii®
and England. Believing now that Great Britain womld accept the line of
49°, with the small modification for the southern end of Vancouver Island,
the American administration, on the 12th of July, 1845, made to the
British minister at Washington the proposal, " that the Ore- Appe„dix no. &,
gon territory shall be divided between the two countries by p-31-
the forty-ninth parallel of north latitude from the Bocky Mountains to
the Pacific Ocean; offering at the same time to make free to Great Britain
a»y port or ports on Vancouver's Island south of this parallel, which
the British government may desire." A friendly spirit dictated the proposition, which it was sincerely hoped and expected might " prove the
foundation of lasting peace and harmony between the two countries."
The proposition, which excited surprise by its moderation, was rejected by the British plenipotentiary at Washington, who, Append* no. m
without even waiting to refer the subject to the ministry in "■32-
'England, suffered the negotiation on his part to drop, expressing his
trust that the United States would offer " some further pro- Aj?m& Ko. |g
posal for the settlement of the Oregon question." "*■'■ •
In consequence of receiving such an answer, the American Secretary
of State withdrew the offer that he had made.
On hearing of this abrupt rejection of the American proposal, Lord
Aberdeen invited Mr. MacLane, the new American minister   AppemUx So. 31.
at London, to an interview, of which Mr. MacLane made p-"*■
report:   '
Lord Aberdeen not only lamented but censured the rejection of our proposition by 10
NORTHWEST  WATER  BOUNDARY  ARBITRATION.
[16]
Appen
. 37-39.
dix No. 34.
Mr. Pakenham without referring it to his government. He stated that if Mr. Pakenham
had communicated the American proposition to tbe government here, as he was expected to have done, he, Lord Aberdeen, would have taken it up as a basis of his
action, and entertained little doubt that he would have been enabled * to propose modifications which might have resulted in an adjustment mutually satisfactory to both governments.
The conduct of Mr. Pakenham was not censured in private only. Lord
Aberdeen censured it in the House of Lords. In the House
of Commons, on the night of Friday, the 23d of January,
1846, Lord John Bussell condemned it as "a hasty proceeding." Sir
Bobert Peel was cheered, when on the same evening he observed:
It would have been better had he transmitted that proposal to the home government for their consideration; and, if found in itself unsatisfactory, it might pnssibly
have formed the foundation for a further proposal.
And now that the re-opening of the negotiation was thrown upon his
ministry, he was loudly applauded by the House, as he gave a pledge for
his own future conduct in these words:
I think it would be the greatest misfortune, if a contest" about the Oregon between-
two such powers as England and the United States, could not, by tbe exercise of moderation and good sense, be brought to a perfectly honorable and satisfactory conclusion.
FINAL PROPOSAL OF THE EARL OF ABERDEEN.
Lord Aberdeen confessed that it now fell to him to propose a peaceful
solution of the long controversy. Mr. Everett had left him no doubt
as to the utmost departure from the parallel of forty-nine degrees, which
the United States, under the late administration, could have conceded.
The only doubt was now, if the United States would still be willing to
yield so much. The rude rejection of Mr. Buchanan's proposal had
roused and united their people. Mr. Calhoun, the late Secretary of State, and the ablest Senator from one section of
the country, declared himself in the Senate for the forty-ninth degree as
the boundary line. Mr. Webster, the former Secretary of State, who,
had settled with Lord Ashburton the northeastern boundary, re-
[17] peatedly "said as plainly as he could speak, or put down * words
in writing, that England must not expect anything south of forty-
nine degrees." All those members of Congress who were of a different
p 4o 18-2i mind, Mr. John Quincy Adams, a late President of the United
p. 4o; 1.22-26, p. 4i. gtateSj Mr. Cass, afterward Secretary of State, Mr. Sevier,
then the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, contended, not
for less than the line of forty-nine degrees, but;, under the heirship from
Appendu no. 36, Spain, for very much more. The voice of England became
loud for the line of the forty-ninth parallel. Mr. Bates, an
American naturalized in Great Britain by act of Parliament,
and much trusted by both governments, wrote from London:
The forty-ninth degree, to the strait, giving Vancouver's Island to Great Britain, is
as much as any American, he be Bostonian or Carolinian, will, I think, consent to «ive
up.   If Great Britain is not satisfied with that, let them have war if they want it.°
The British government sought anxiously to know what proposition
p. 35, i. ii, i2.      tne Aperican Government would consent to receive, and the
American Government proved its firmness by its moderation.
To protect the rights of the country, Congress voted to give to Great
Britain the twelve months' notice required by treaty, for terminating the
convention of 1827, and thus open the region of the Northwest to the
progress of American colonization.   Meanwhile, on the 26th of Febru-
Append.* no. 37, aiT? 1846, Mr. Buchanan answered, that the President would
consent to consult the Senate on the proposition, to divide
Appendix No. 35,
I 39-41.
p. 41
Appendix No.  33,
p. 36.   MEMORIAL   OF   THE  UNITED   STATES.
11
the territory between the two countries 1 by the forty-ninth parallel and
the straits of Fuca," so that "the cape of Vancouver's Island would be
surrendered to Great Britain." This was exactly the proposition of Mr.
Everett.
On the 15th of May, 1846, information of the notice for terminating
the convention of 1827 was received by the British ministry in
London. For four years Lord Aberdeen had been striv- Appendix M m
ing to close this question of boundary.   He had privately and p- 46> '■15-18,i
publicly censured his subordinate, Mr;"Pakenham, at Washington,
[18]     for rejecting the parallel of forty-nine.   * He had taken pains to
learn what deviation from that parallel the United States might
accept. The Secretary of State for the United States, after minute
inquiry concerning the probable vote of the Senate, had promised not
at once to reject the offer of the line proposed by Mr. Everett, and not
to listen to any demand for a larger concession. This had been formally
communicated to the British Government by Mr. MacLane, the American
minister at London.   And now, within two days after receiv-
P. 46,1. 23-27,
MapF.
ing news of the termination of the convention of 1827, Lord
Aberdeen held a lengthened conference with Mr. MacLane, in which the
nature of the proposition he contemplated submitting for an amicable
settlement of the Oregon question 1 formed the subject of a
full and free conversation."   Mr. MacLane was a calm and
experienced statesman, trained in business, exact in his use of words,
careful especially in reporting what was said by others.   Lord Aberdeen
in the House of Lords publicly expressed his esteem for him,   Appendix n0. 45,
founded on an acquaintance which dated from fifteen or six- p-1| 13ft~33-
teen years before.
With this knowledge of Mr. MacLane's character, and of the confidence reposed in him by Lord Aberdeen, I request the imperial arbitrator to take in hand the map of the Oregon territory by
Wilkes, which had been published in England as well as in
America in 1845, and which was the latest, most authentic, and best map
of the Territory, as well as the only one recognized by the AppeDdix m u,
American Senate; and with this map in hand to read the p*6.1-6.7-
following extract from Mr. MacLane's official report of the interview,
made on the 18th of May, 1846:
I have now to state that instructions will be transmitted to Mr. Pakenham by the
steamer of to-morrow to submit a new and further proposition on the Appendix No,s 42,
part of this Government for a partition of the territory in dispute. i>- i7< '• 3~n-
The proposition, most probably, will offer substantially:
First. To divide the territory by the extension of the line on the parallel of
[19]   forty-nine to the sea; that is to say, *to the arm of the sea called Birch's Bay,
thence by the canal de Arro and straits of Fuca to the ocean.
# * * * * * *
Here follow other clauses conceding to the Hudson Bay Company a
temporary use of the Oregon Biver for navigation, with 1 i?
other advantages, and protection to British subjects who
would suddenly come under the jurisdiction of the United States.. To
these clauses the phrase " most probably " applies, for they were not
precisely ascertained; but not to the boundary; on that point the further statement of Mr. MacLane in the same dispatch leaves no room for
a doubt.   His words are:
During the preceding administration of our Government, the extension of the line
on the forty-ninth parallel to the straits of Fuca, as now proposed by        p ^, 25^29
Lord Aberdeen, was actually suggested by my immediate predecessor,
(Mr. Everett,) as one he thought his Government might accept.
Xow what the proposal of Mr. Everett had been, we know from the 12
NORTHWEST  WATER  BOUNDARY  ARBITRATION.
Appendix No. 43,
■ 49.
No. 45, p. 61, 1. 4-6.
, 43, p. 50, 1.
[20]
citations which I have made from his dispatches; and I have already
referred to the fact that he had draAvn the line of demarkation upon the
map, and specially directed the attention of Lord Aberdeen to it.
On the same day Lord Aberdeen sent the treaty which Mr. Pakenham
was to invite Mr. Buchanan to sign. In the accompanying
instruction to Mr. Pakenham he accepted the parallel of
49° as the radical principle of the boundary, and described
the line as aline of demarkation "leaving the whole of
Yancouver Island with its ports and harbors in the possession of Great Britain."
A suspicion of ambiguity could not lurk in the mind of any one. Mr.
Benton found the language so clear that he adopted it as his own.
In his speech in the Senate on the day of the ratification of the treaty,
he said:
The first article of the treaty is in the very words which I myself would have
used, if the two governments  had *left it to me to draw the
boundary line between them.   *   *   *   The line established by PA;$'em,ix No- 4*
the first article follows the parallel of 49° to the sea, with a slight deflection, through the Straits of Fuca, to avoid cutting off the south end of Vancouver's
Island.    *     *    *     When the line reaches the channel which separates Vancouver's
Island from the continent, it proceeds to the middle of the channel, and thence, turning south, though the channel de Haro, (wrongly written Arro on the maps,) to the
Straits of Fuca, and then west, through the middle of that strait, to the sea.    This
gives us    *   *   *   the cluster of islands between de Haro's Channel and the continent.
The language of the treaty seemed perfectly clear to the Senate, to
the President, to his Secretary of State, and to every one of his constitutional advisers, as departing from the line of the parallel of 49° only
so far as to yield the southern extremity of Vancouver's Island, and no
more. And so it was signed on the 15th of June, 1846, and returned to
England for the exchange of ratifications.
In the House of Commons Lord Palmerston welcomed it as honorable
to both countries; Sir Bobert Peel quoted from a dispatch
which proved that he was aware of the three days' debate in
the American Senate on the treaty before its approval. He cited every
word of the article on the boundary; and interpreted it thus:
Those who remember the local conformation of that country will understand that
p 53 i. 31-38 *^a* wbich we proposed is the continuation of the forty-ninth parallel
of latitude till it strikes the Straits of Fuca; that that'parallel should
not be continued as a boundary across Vancouver's Island, thus depriving us of a part
of Vancouver's Island, but that the middle of the channel shall be the future boundary,
thus leaving us in possession of the whole of Vancouver's Island, with equal right to
the navigation of the straits.
.  Appendix No.
54. 1. 13, 14.
[21]    *MR.  BUCHANAN AND   SIR  ROBERT   PEEL   BELIEVED   THET   HAD
CLOSED EVERY CAUSE OF DISSENSION.
It had been the special object of Mr. Buchanan to leave nothing in
AppendixiNo. 46, the treaty which could give occasion to future controversy.
4,1.25-28.        And ou tlie njgtlt before gjr Robert Peel retired from office,
never again to resume it, he spoke of the treaty as having averted the
dreadful calamity of a war between two nations of kindred origin and
common language, and having at length | closed every cause of dissen-
p. 54, i. 34, as.       sion between the two countries."   All Great Britain, all the
United States, were gladdened by the belief that at last'
every controversy between the two nations had come to a happy end.
THE MINISTRY OF LORD JOHN RUSSELL RENEWS DISSENSION.
I And yet it was not so.   My country has had no serious difficulties on
its limits with any power but Great Britain.   When its boundary on the MEMORIAL   OF  THE   UNITED   STATES.
south with Spain was adjusted by treaty, hot a difference arose, though
the line extended from sea to sea. When, afterward, the southern
boundary was regulated with Mexico under a treaty most imperipjt in
its descriptions, commissioners unrestrained by instructions promptly
settled the line. It is with Great Britain alone that obstinate dissensions on boundaries, extending from the Gulf of Saint Lawrence to the
Pacific, have exercised disturbing influences for sixty four years. At
last we thought ourselves assured of quiet on that side also by the treaty
of 1846; and though its terms were not altogether satisfactory, tbe
country, in the expectation of rest, accepted cheerfully and unanimously
the action of its Government. Yet, after a pause of hardly two years, the
strife was re-opened by the ministry which succeeded that of Sir Bobert
Peel. Under instructions from Lord Palmerston, the British min-
[22] ister at Washington on the *13th of January, 1848, in a proposed
draught of instructions to commissioners for settling the boundary,
indirectly insinuated a claim that the line of boundary should be drawn
on the channel through which Vancouver in 1792 had sailed from Admiralty Inlet to Birch's Bay.
This insinuation took the American Government by surprise.   The
history of the negotiation shows that no such line was suggested by
either side to the other.   Vancouver was an explorer, who examined
every inlet and bay and passage, not a merchant seeking the shortest,
most natural, and best passage.   Nothing justifies a reference to his
course of sailing from one interior bay to another, as the line of the
treaty.   The suggestion is in open conflict with the law of   Appendix, I si, i.
nations.    The draught of the treaty was made entirely, p^juft',!-.
even to the minutest word, by the British ministry, and was p-54,1-19;2°-
signed by both parties without change.   The British government cannot, therefore, take advantage of an ambiguity of their* own, otherwise
the draught of the treaty would have been a snare.   Such
is the principle of natural right, such the established law of beme™pads,mJo:
nations.   Hugo Grotius lays down the rule that the interpretation must be made against the party which draughted the conditions : *' Ut contra eum fiat interpretatio, qui conditiones    VaMel. i$f n. 1
elocutus est."   But no one has expressed this more clearly 26i-
than Vattel, who writes:,
Voici une regie qui coupe court a toute chicane : Si celui qui pouvoit et devoit s'ex-
pliquer nettement et pleinement, ne l'a pas fait, taut pis pour lui: il ne peut etre recu
a apporter subse"quemment des restrictions qu'il n'a pas exprim6es. C'est la maxiine
du droit romain: pactionem obscuram lis nocere, in quorum fuit potestate legem aper-
tius conscribere. L'6quit6 de cette regie saute aux yeux; sa necessity n'est pas moins
eVidente. Nulle convention assured, nulle concession ferme et solide, si on peut
[23] les rendre *vaines par des limitations subse"quentes, qui devoient fetre 6nonce"es
dans l'acte, si elles e"toient dans la volonte" des contractans.
I Here is a rule which cuts short all chicanery: If he who could and should express himself plainly and fully, has not done so, so much the worse for him; he cannot be permitted subsequently to introduce restrictions which he has not expressed.
It is the maxim of Roman law: An obscure contract harms those in whose power it
was to lay down the law more clearly. The equity of this rule is self-evident; its
necessity is'not less obvious. There can be no assured convention, no firm and solid"
concession, if-they.can be rendered vain by subsequent limitations, which ought to
have been announced in the act, if they existed in the intention of the contracting
parties."
PLEA FOR THE INTEGRITY OF SIR ROBERT PEEL'S MINISTRY.
And can it be true, that Sir Bobert Peel and Lord Aberdeen were
insincere in their professions of an earnest desire to settle the boundary
question in Northwest America % Did they put into the core of the
treaty which they themselves framed, words interpreted in one way by 14
NORTHWEST  WATER  BOUNDARY  ARBITRATION.
all Americans and by themselves in public, and secretly interpreted by
themselves in another % When Sir Bobert Peel, on the last night of his
official life, in the face of political enemies and friends, cast up the account of his ministry for the judgment of posterity, and declared, in the
most public and solemn manner, that he I had closed every
p.lp,T3t*35No' 52, cause of dissension between Great Britain and the United
p. 55,11-3. states," had he indeed planted the seed of embittered dis
cord in the instrument that he and his associate minister claimed as
their own work, and extolled as a convention of peace ?
My respect for Sir Bobert Peel and his administration forbids
[24] the thought that they put any ambiguity into the treaty * which
they themselves draughted. There attaches to human language
such imperfection that an acute caviller may dispute about the meaning
of any proposition. But the words of the present treaty are so singularly clear that they may claim protection under the first general maxim
vattei I ii 17 of international law on the subject of interpretation :
%263.        '   ' u Qu'ii n'est pas permis d'interpr6ter ce qui n'a pas besoin
d'interpr6tation."
THE WORDS OF THE TREATY.
The words of the treaty are as follows:
From the point on the forty-ninth parallel of north latitude, where the boundary
laid down in existing treaties and conventions between the United
Appendix no. i,p. states and Great Britain terminates, the line of boundary between the
territories'of the United States and those of Her Britannic Majesty
shall be continued westward along the said forty-ninth parallel of north latitude, to
the middle of the channel which separates the continent from Vancouver Island, and
thence southerly through the middle of the said channel, and of Fuca's Straits, to the
Pacific Ocean : Provided, lioivever, That the navigation of the whole of the said channel
and straits south of the forty-ninth parallel of north latitude remain free and open to
both parties.
THE WORDS OF THE TREATY, TAKEN TOGETHER.
The language of the treaty, taken as a whole, admits no interpretation
but the American. The radical principle of the boundary is the forty-
ninth parallel of north latitude, and the only reason for departing from
that parallel was to yield the whole of Vancouver Island, and no more,
to the power which would already possess the greater part of that island.
To express this line concisely, in both countries it was described as the
line of the "forty-ninth parallel and Fuca's Straits." This short
[25]    form of expression occurs many times in the dispatches *of Mr.
MacLane; in the instructions of Mr. Buchanan; in the letters of
Mr. Bates from London; in an article in the London Quarterly Beview,
written in February, 1846, and published in March; and, finally, in the
speech of Sir Bobert Peel, on the 29th of June, 1846, which I have
already quoted. The description of the line as that "of the forty-ninth
parallel and Fuca's Straits" was not only the usage of the day; it was
also well chosen for all time. The forty-ninth parallel can be found as
long as the sun shall continue in the heavens; Fuca's Straits end at the
southeast cape of Vancouver Island, and will end there till nature shall
heave with a convulsion. If the name of Haro does not specially appear
in the treaty, let it be borne in mind that neither does the name of the
Gulf of Georgia.
THE CHANNEL. \
The words of the description, considered collectively, establish the
American interpretation of the treaty and exclude every other. The
same result follows from the consideration of each separate word.   When   MEMORIAL   OF   THE   UNITED   STATES.
15
Map E.
Map H.
the treaty speaks of the " channel," for that part south and west of
Birch's Bay, it must mean the channel of Haro, for no other "channel"
was known to the negotiators. The channel of Haro was on the map
of Vancouver, the highest English authority, and on the MapC.
map of Wilkes, the highest American authority at the time Map f:
when the treaty was signed; and no other channel is named on either
of these maps, or on any map used by the negotiators. On
the chart of those waters by Duflot de Mofras, published in
1844, under the auspices of Louis Philippe and the French ministry, the
channel of Haro is named, and no other. In the collection of maps in
the Boyal Library at Berlin, not a single German or other map, anterior
to June, 1846, names any other channel than that of Haro. How is it possible, then, that any other channel could have been intended, when
[26] no other was named on any map which it can be pretended *was
known to Lord Aberdeen or Mr. MacLane, to Mr. Buchanan or
Mr. Pakenham %
Again, the word "channel," when employed in treaties, means a
deep and navigable channel; and where there are two navigable channels, by the rule of international law, preference is to be given to the
largest column of water. Now, compared with any other channel
through which a ship could pass from the sea at the forty-ninth parallel to the Straits of Fuca, the channel of Haro is the broadest and the
deepest, the shortest and the best. Its maximum width is six and a
.half English miles, and there is no other channel of which
the maximum width exceeds four miles. The narrowest
part of the channel of Haro is about two and a quarter English miles,
and there is no other channel of which the minimum width exceeds
about one and a quarter English miles. With regard to depth, the contrast is still more striking. A cross-section on the parallel of 48° 45'
shows the Canal de Haro to be there about a hundred and twenty fathoms deep, about twice as deep as any other; on the parallel of 48° 35'
the Canal de Haro is nearly a hundred and fifty fathoms deep, against
thirty fathoms for any competitor; on the parallel of 48° 25' the Canal
de Haro has nearly a hundred and ten fathoms, while no other passage
has more than forty.
Not only is the volume of water in the Canal de Haro vastly greater
than that in any other passage—a single glance at any map shows that
it is the shortest and most direct way between the parallel Ap
of 49° and Fuca's Straits. Duflot de Mofras describes it as p-65'
notoriously the best.
If the channel of Haro excelled all others only on one point—if it
were the widest though not the deepest, or the reverse, or, if being the
widest and deepest, it were not the shortest and best, there might be
some degree of color for cavil; but since the channel of Haro is the
broadest and the deepest, and the shortest and the best, how can any
one venture to pretend that any other is " the channel" of the treaty ?
[27]    *"THE   CHANNEL WHICH  SEPARATES THE CONTINENT FROM VANCOUVER ISLAND."
The next words of the treaty are: " The channel which separates the
continent from Vancouver Island," and this, from latitude about 48°
46', can be no other than the Canal de Haro. It is the only one which
from that latitude to "Fuca's Straits" separates the continent from
Vancouver Island. There are other passages which divide islands from
islands, but none other separates the continent from Vancouver Island.
dix No.  43,
17-19. 16
NORTHWEST  WATER  BOUNDARY   ARBITRATION.
In the statement the continent is properly named first, because it is far
away in the interior of the continent that the line begins, and it is the
continent that the line leaves in going toward Vancouver. But when
a great continent like North America is spoken of as distinguished
from a large island lying near it, the intervening cluster of smaller
islands would, according to all geographical usage, be taken as included
with the continent, and thus the channel of Haro divides the continent
from Vancouver. But we will not waste words. Nobody can dispute
that the Canal de Haro washes the eastern shore of Vancouver Island,
and separates that island from the continent.
"AND THENCE SOUTHERLY."
The next words in the treaty are: "And thence southerly." The
southerly deflection from the forty-ninth parallel is made to avdid cutting Vancouver Island, and must be limited to that object. The movement of the boundary line is steadily west to the Pacific. The treaty
knows only two points of compass: " westward" and this "southerly"
deviation "from the due west course. The southern deflection, therefore, must always be accompanied with the idea of a western direction;
and of two channels going in a " southerly" direction, that which least
interrupts the general " westward " direction of the line must be chosen
as the channel of the treaty.
[28]   *" THROUGH THE MIDDLE OF THE SAID  CHANNEL
STRAITS TO THE PACIFIC OCEAN."
AND OF FUCA'S
The next words of the treaty are: "Through the middle of the said
channel and of Fuca's Straits to the Pacific Ocean." The treaty contemplates a continuous channel to the Pacific; the channel of Haro and
Fuca's Straits form such a continuous channel, and a glance at the map
will show that no other channel can pretend to do so.
So, then, the description of the treaty as a whole applies to no channel
but that of Haro; and every single phrase, taken separately, points also
to that channel, and to that channel alone.
I THE STRAITS OF ROSARIO."
And yet the British government ask the Imperial arbitrator to find the
channel of the treaty in a passage for which, in January, 1848, they had
no name and no other description than " the wide channel to the east
of numerous islands, which is laid down by Vancouver," and which now,
in 1871, they call by the name of " the Bosario Straits."
My first request is that the Imperial arbitrator will ascertain where
on the 15th of June, 1846, the day when the treaty was signed, the negotiators supposed Bosario Straits to lie. On that day the name 1 Straits
of Bosario" was, on every map used by the negotiators, placed upon the
waters which divide the island of Texada from the continent, far north
m»pc of tlie Parallel of 49°.   There it lies fast anchored on the
map of Vancouver, published in 1798; it holds the same
place in the atlas of the French translation of Vancouver. There, too,
m.pe. it is found on the French map of Duflot de Mofras, pub-
MapF. lished in 1844; and also on the map of Wilkes, published
m 1845; and there, too, on the British map of Vancouver Island, published by the geographer to the Queen, so late as 1848. Then,
129] since all British and American maps, which in 1846 *had on
them the name " Straits of Bosario," located those straits far to the
I' i* i wiKJiaumiKHi.'gT   MEMORIAL   OF   THE   UNITED   STATES.
17
north of 49°, how can the British government invite Tour Majesty to say
that the straits of Bosario form the line of boundary established by
British and American negotiators in that year between the United
States and the British territory1?
How and why the British unmoored the name from the waters to which
they themselves had consigned it, and where it remained for just half a
century, I leave them to exppin and to j$|pLfy. I remark only that
they cannot produce a map, English, French, Spanish, or German,
older than 1848, on which the passage which they now call the Straits
of Bosario bears that name.   On Spanish maps the name is Map B.
applied only to the very broad channel lying north of the Map D-
Canal de Haro and of the forty-ninth parallel of latitude.
Further: the so-called Straits of Bosario are not straits at all. It is
the track of v ancouver on his way from Admiralty Inlet to the north,
as his map shows; but it received from him no name whatever. On
British maps it never bore a name till after the.British government introduced a new interpretation of the treaty of June, 1846.
Again—and this remark is of conclusive importance, by itself alone
sufficient to decide the question—the line of the treaty must run from
the middle of " the channel which separates the continent from Vancouver Island." Now, the so-called Straits of Bosario neither touch the
continent nor Vancouver Island. They divide small islands from small
islands, and nothing else; they have no pretension to divide Vancouver
from the continent, or the continent from Vancouver.
Moreover, the water-line of the treaty must be a channel which makes
a continuous line with Fuca's Straits; for the words of the treaty are,
" through the middle of the said channel and of Fuca's Straits." Now,
the so-called Straits of Bosario lead only to a sound, which
Spanish voyagers called the Bay of Santa Bosa; they
[30J do not connect with Fuca's Straits, * which cease at the southeastern promontory of Vancouver Island. Beversing the track of
Vancouver, and following the so-called straits of Bosario southerly,
the mariner would enter Admiralty Inlet; he never would reach the
Straits of Fuca.
Then, too, compared with the Canal de Haro, the so-called Strait
of Bosario is, as we have seen, a narrower passage, a shallower passage,
and a roundabout passage.
Map A.
CONCLUSION.
But enough: the rights of America cannot be darkened except by an
excess of words. The intention of the parties to the treaty is made
plain by its history, and the boundary which we claim is clearly set forth
in its words, taken collectively and taken separately. I will close by
citing general principles of interpretation established by international
law.
A party offering the draught of a treaty is bound by the interpretation which it knew at the time that the other party gave to it. Lord
Aberdeen cannot have doubted how the treaty was understood by Mr.
MacLane, by Mr. Buchanan, aud by the Senate of the United AmmiSix No. 49,
States. " Where the terms of promise," writes Paley, whose p-58-
work was long a text-book at Oxford, "admit of more senses than one,
"the promise is to be performed in the sense 'in which the promiser apprehended at the time that the promisee received it.' This will not
differ from the actual intention of the promiser, where the promise is
given without collusion or reserve; but we put the rule in the above
2 D 18
NORTHWEST  WATER  BOUNDARY  ARBITRATION.
form to exclude evasion, wherever the promiser attempts to make his
escape through some ambiguity in the expressions which he used."
Again:  "Where a right admits of different degrees, it is only the
Heffter-3 vo,ker- smallest degree which may be taken for granted."   "1st ein
reehtt.; ft p. 176. j^qq]^ verschiedener Abstufungen fahig, so darf zunachst
Ed. 1867.
51]
nur die  geringste  Stufe als   zugestanden
angenommen
*werden."   This rule of Heffter fits the present case so aptly that
it seems made for it.   There being degrees in the departure from
the parallel of 49°, it must be taken that only the smallest degree was
conceded.
Finally and above all: there is a principle which not only controls
the interpretation of treaties, but the results of investigation in every
branch of human knowledge.   A theory which implies confusion and
contradiction is at once to be rejected; of two rival theories, that which
most nearly reconciles all phenomena is to be preferred; the theory
that reconciles all appearances and all circumstances is to be received
as true.   The British interpretation of the treaty implies that the British, who exclusively draughted it, sowed the seeds of future dissensions
in the very instrument by which they proposed to settle every boundary
question forever; that among the negotiators of the treaty there were
those who duped, and those who were dupes.   Lord Aberdeen ceases to
be the " straightforward" man of Mr. MacLane's report.   On the American side the statesmen appear void of spirit and of common sense, and
easily circumvented.   The historical process by which the treaty was
arrived at becomes incomprehensible.   The names on maps must be
changed; the conformation of islands and continents and the highways
of the great deep are made to expand and contract so as to suit the
cavils of a government which does not profess exactly to understand
the true meaning of the treaty, for every word of which it is itself responsible.   Take the other theory; interpret the treaty as the Americans
accepted it, and there are no statesmen on the British side who attempted
to dupe, and no dupes on the American side.   The history of the negotiation becomes clear, and is consistent with its result.   Mr. MacLane
retains the reputation for prudence and clear perception and careful
statement which has always been attributed to him.   All words that fell
from the pen or lips of every one concerned in framing, accepting,
or approving the treaty, agree together and *bear the stamp of
good intention and uprightness.   Everything that was uttered by
Everett, Mr. MacLane, and Mr. Buchanan, by Lord Aberdeen,
Benton, or Sir Bobert Peel, is perfectly reconciled, without even
the semblance of contradiction.   The straits and channels may rest
where nature has set them, and old names may be restored to their
rightful places.   The completion of the treaty, does honor to the labors
of honest and able statesmen, bent on establishing friendship and peace
between " kindred nations."   Persons and history, and reports of conversations and the words of the treaty, all chime together in the most
perfect harmony, inviting an award which will command ready aquies-
cence, and leave nothing to rankle in the Wound which it heals.
[32]
Mr.
Mr. APPENDIX
No. 1.
Extract from the treaty of Washington, of June 15, 1846.
Article 1. From the point on the forty-ninth parallel of north latitude, where the boundary laid down in existing treaties and Bo„ndary estab.
conventions between the United States and Great Britain lished in 1846-
terminates, the line of boundary between the territories of the United
States and those of Her Britannic Majesty shall be continued westward
along the said forty-ninth parallel of north latitude to the middle of the
channel which separates the continent from Vancouver Island, and
thence southerly through the middle of the said channel, and of Fuca's
Straits, to the Pacific Ocean: Provided, however, That the navigation
of the whole of the said channel and the straits south of the forty-ninth
parallel of north latitude remain free and open to both parties.
No. 2.
' Extract from the treaty of Washington, of May 8, 1871.
THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY.
Article 34. Whereas it was stipulated by Article 1 of the treaty concluded at Washington on the 15th of June, 1846, between Matterandform0f
the United States of America and Her Britannic Majesty, arbitration-
[4] that the *line of boundary between the territory of the United
States and those of Her Britannic Majesty, from the point on the
forty-ninth parallel of north latitude, up to which it had already been
ascertained, should be continued westward along the said parallel of
north latitude " to the middle of the channel which separates the continent from Vancouver Island, and thence southerly through the middle
of the said channel, and of Fuca Straits, to the Pacific Ocean ;" and
whereas the commissioners appointed by the two high contracting parties to determine that portion of the boundary which runs southerly
through the middle of the channel aforesaid were unable to agree upon
the same; and whereas the government of Her Britannic Majesty
claims that such boundary-line should, under the terms of the treaty
above recited, be run through the Bosario Straits, and the Government
of the United States claims that it should be run through the Canal de
Haro, it is agreed that the respective claims of the government of Her
Britannic Majesty and of the Government of the United States shall
be submitted to the arbitration and award of His Majesty the Emperor
of Germany, who, having regard to the above-mentioned article of the
said treaty, shall decide thereupon finally and without appeal which of
•these claims is most in accordance with the true interpretation of the
treaty of June 15,1846. 20
NORTHWEST  WATER  BOUNDARY   ARBITRATION.
Article 35. The award of His Majesty the Emperor of Germany
shall be considered as absolutely final and conclusive, and full effect
shall be given to such award without any objection, evasion, or delay
whatsoever. Such decision shall be given in writing and dated. It
shall be in whatsoever form His Majesty may choose to adopt. It shall
be delivered to the representatives or other public agents of the United
States and Great Britain respectively, who may be actually at Berlin,
and shall be considered as operative from the day of the date of the
delivery thereof.
Article 36. The written or printed case of each of the two parties,
accompanied by the evidence offered in support of the same, shall be
laid before His Majesty the Emperor of Germany within six months
from the date of the exchange of the ratification of this treaty, and a
copy of such case and evidence shall be communicated by each party
to the other through their respective representatives at Berlin. The
high contracting parties may include in the evidence to be considered
by the arbitrator such documents, official correspondence, and other
official or public statements bearing on the subject of the refer-
[5] ence as they may consider necessary *to the support of their
respective cases. After the written or printed case shall have
been communicated by each party to the other, each party shall have
the power of drawing up and laying before the arbitrator a second and
definitive statement, if it think fit,to do so, in reply to the case of the
other party so communicated, which definitive statement shall be so
laid before the arbitrator, and also be mutually communicated in the
Same manner as aforesaid, by each party to the other, within six months
from the date of laying the first statement of the case before the arbitrator.
Article 37. If in the case submitted to the arbitrator either party
shall specify or allude to any report or document in its own exclusive
possession, without annexing a copy, such party shall be bound, if the
other party thinks proper to apply for it, to furnish that party with a
copy thereof, and either party may call upon the other through the
arbitrator to produce the originals or certified copies of any papers adduced as evidence, giving in each instance such reasonable notice as
the arbitrator may require; and if the arbitrator should desire further
elucidation or evidence with regard to any point contained in the statements laid before him, he shall be at liberty to hear one counsel or agent
for each party in relation to any matter, and at such time and in such
manner as he may think fit.
Article 38. The representatives or public agents of the United
States and Great Britain at Berlin respectively shall be considered as
the agents of their respective Governments to conduct their cases before
the arbitrator, who shall be requested to address all his communications
and give all his notices to such representatives, or other public agents,
who shall represent their respective governments generally in all matters connected with the arbitration.
Article 39. It shall be competent to the arbitrator to proceed in
the said arbitration, and all matters relating thereto, as and when he
shall see fit, either in person, or by a person or persons named by him
for ||p,t purpose, either in the presence or absence of either or both
agents, and either orally or by written discussion, or otherwise. The
arbitrator inayyp he think fit, appoint a secretary or clerk for the purposes of the proposed arbitration, at such rate of remuneration as he
shall think proper. This, and all other expenses of and connected with
said arbitration, shall be provided for as hereinafter stipulated. MEMORIAL   OF   THE   UNITED   STATES APPENDIX.
21
[6] * Article 41. The arbitrator shall be requested to deliver,
together with his award, an account of all the costs and expenses
which he may have been put to in relation to this matter, which shall
forthwith be paid by the two governments in equal moieties.
Article 42. The arbitrator shall be requested to deliver Ms award
in writing as early as convenient after the whole case on each side shall
be laid before him, and to deliver one copy thereof to each of the said
agents.
No. 3.
Extract from the patent granted by James I of England, November
the eighteenth year of his reign, to the council of Plymouth.
%n
#
" Wee, therefore, of our especiall Grace, mere
Motion, and certaine Knowledge, by the Aduice of the Lords
English      colonial
t —  o    7      v         p —    —-	
and others of our Priuy Oouncell, have for Us, our Heyrs and S,™™?onie8d 1$
parallels of latitude.
Successors, graunted, ordained, and established, and in and -
by. these Presents, Do for Us, our Heirs and Successors, grant, ordaine,
rly sgmg#m
throughout the Maine Land, from Sea to Sea."
Extract from the charter of Massachusetts Bay, granted by  Charles 1
of England, March 4,1628.
* * * * * " We do give and grant all the Landes and
Hereditaments within the Space of Three English Miles to the southward of Massachusetts Bay: and all those Landes and Hereditaments
within the Space of Three English Miles to the Northward of the Biver
called Merrimack, all Landes and Hereditaments whatsoever, lying
within the Lymitts aforesaide, North and South in Latitude and Bredth,
and in Length and Longitude, of and within all the Bredth aforesaide,
throughout the mayne Landes there, from the Atlantick and Westerne
Sea and Ocean on the East Parte, to the South Sea on the West Parte."
m.
^Extract from the old patent for Connecticut.
* * * "Bobert, Earl of Warwick," * * "doth
give" * * "the Space of forty Leagues upon a straight line
near the Sea-Shore, toward the South-West, West-and-by-South or West,
as the Coast lieth towards Virginia, accounting three English Miles to
the League, and also all and singular the Lands and Hereditaments whatsoever, lying and being within the Lands aforesaid, North and South in
Latitude and Breadth, and in Length and Longitude, of and within all
the Breadth aforesaid, throughout the Main Lands there, from the
Western Ocean to the South Sea;" * * * * 22
NORTHWEST   WATER   BOUNDARY  ARBITRATION.
Extract from the charter granted by Charles II of England to the lords
. proprietors of Carolina, March 24,1663.
# * * * "all that territory or tract of ground"
# * # "extending from the North end of the Island
called Lucke-Island, which lieth in the Southern Virginia Seas and
within six and thirty degrees of the Northern Latitude, and. to the West
as far as the South Seas, and so southerly as far as the river St. Matthias, which bordereth upon the coast of Florida, and within one and
thirty degrees of Northern Latitude, and so West in a direct line as far
as the South Seas aforesaid;" *
Extract from the commission of Governor Wright, of Georgia, of the 20th
of January, 1764.
I George III, by the grace of God of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, and so forth, to our trusty and well-
beloved James Wright, esquire, greeting:
* * " We did, by our letters-patent, under our great seal of
Great Britain, bearing date at Westminster, the 4th day of May, in the
first year of our reign, constitute and appoint you, James Wright,
esquire, to be our captain-general and governor-in-chief in and over our
colony of Georgia, in America, lying from the most northern stream of
a river there most commonly called Savannah, all along the sea-coast to
the southward, unto the most southern stream of a certain other great
water or river called Altamaha, and westward from the heads of the
said rivers, respectively, in direct lines to the South Seas." * *
[3]
*No. 4.
Articles between the United States of America and His Britannic Majesty,'
November 30, 1782.
Article II.
| From the northwest angle of Nova Scotia*"
"through Lake Superior"
* #
#
"to
First treaty be
statesnanhdeGrne»d the Long Lake; thence through the middle of said Long
bouada^/du^vSt Lake, and the water-communication between it and the
Lake of the Woods, to the said Lake of the Woods; thence
through the said lake to the most northwestern point thereof, and from
thence on a due west course." .* * * * *
No. 5.
Extract from the treaty between the United States of America and the
French Republic, April 30,1803. '
Article I. Whereas, by the article the third of the treaty concluded
The umted states at St. Udelfonso, the 9th Vendemiaire, an 9 (1st October,
1800,) between  the First Consul of the French and His
'acquire Louisiana MEMORIAL   OF   THE  UNITED   STATES APPENDIX.
23
Catholic Majesty, it was agreed as follows: " His Catholic Majesty
promises and engages on his part to cede to the French Bepublic, six
months after the full and entire execution of the conditions and stipulations herein relative to his royal highness the Duke of Parma, the
colony or province of Louisiana, with the same extent that it now has
in the hands of Spain, and that it had when France possessed it; and
such as it should be after the treaties subsequently entered into between
Spain and other States."
And whereas, in pursuance of the treaty, and particularly of the third
article, the French Bepublic has an incontestable title to the domain
and to the possession of the said territory: The First Consul of the
French Bepublic, desiring to give to the United States a strong proof
of his friendship, doth hereby cede to the said United States, in the
name of the French Bepublic, forever and in full sovereignty, the said
territory, with all its rights and appurtenances, as fully and in the
same manner as they have been acquired by the French Bepublic, in
virtue of the above-mentioned treaty concluded with His Catholic
Majesty.
[9]
*No. 6.
-, 1807, to
Additional and explanatory artieWs, signed the — day of —
be added to the treaty of amity, commerce, and navigation, between His
Britannic Majesty andthe United States of America, signed at London,
the 31st day of December, 1806.
[Inclosed in Messrs. Monroe and Pinckney's letter of. the 25th April, 1807.
don.}
From Lon-
Article 5. It is agreed that a line drawn due west from the Lake
of the Woods along the forty-ninth parallel of north latitude shall be the line of demarcation [division line] between a«d ee^BrL-m
His Maiesty's territories and those of the United States to S "ZAm Sty&
division line.
the westward of the said lake as far as the territories of the
United States extend in that quarter; and that the said line shall to
that extent form the southern boundary of His Majesty's said territories, and the northern boundary of the said territories of the United
States; provided that nothing in the present article shall be construed
to extend to the northwest coast of America, or to the territories belonging to or claimed by either party on the continent of America to
the westward of the Stony Mountains.
No. 7.
Mr. Madison to 31 r. Monroe and Mr. Pinckney.
[Extract.]
Department op State, July 30,1807.
Gentlemen: ******
1st. The modification of the  fifth  article (noted as one which the
British commissioners would have agreed to) may be admitted in case that proposed by you to them be not attainable, r
But it is much to be wished and pressed, though not made
an ultimatum, that the proviso to both should be omitted
ted State
l claims c
Spain on the l'aciiic.
This 24
NORTHWEST  WATER  BOUNDARY  ARBITRATION.
[10] is in no view * whatever necessary, and can have little other
effect than as an offensive intimation to Spain that our claims
extend to the Pacific Ocean. However reasonable such claims may be
compared with those of others, it is impolitic, especially at the present
moment, to strengthen Spanish jealousies.of the United States, which
it is probably an object with Great Britain to excite by the clause in
question.
No. 8.
Tbe British govern
irieiVt invite negotiations on the N. W.
boundary.
Mr. Canning to Mr. King.
Foreign Office, April 20,1826.
The undersigned, His Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for
Foreign Affairs, has the honor to request Mr. Bufus King,
Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of the
United States, to have the goodness to inform the undersigned whether Mr. King is provided with instructions for the resumption of the negotiations of last year, with respect to a settlement of
boundaries upon the northwest coast of America.
The undersigned is particularly induced to make this inquiry by having
received from Mr. Vaughan a copy of the communication, lately addressed by the President of the United States to the House of Bepre-
sentatives, of that part of Mr. Bush's correspondence of last year which
relates to this important subject.
The undersigned has to add that the British plenipotentiaries, Mr.
Huskisson and Mr. Addington, are perfectly prepared to enter into conferences with Mr. King thereupon; and either to renew the proposal
brought forward by Mr. Husk|sson and Mr. Stratford Canning in their
conference of the 13th of July, 1824, and unanswered, or to bring forward another; to discuss any new proposal on the same subject, or
which may be suggested on the part of the plenipotentiary of the United
States. The undersigned has the honor to renew to Mr. Bufus King
the assurance of his high consideration.
GEOBGE CANNING.
Bufus King, Esq., &c, &c, d-c.
[11]
No. 9.
j% Clay to Mr. Gallatin.
[Extract.]
June 19, 1826.
As by the convention of 1818 the forty-ninth parallel of north latitude
The parallel or 49° has been a8'reed to be the line of boundary between the terrain s^e"10'1116 *ories of tne United States and Great Britain, east of the
I . Stony Mountains, there would seem to arise, from that stip
ulation, a strong consideration for the extension of the line along the
same parallel, west of them to the Pacific Ocean. In bringing themselves to consent to this boundary the Government of the United States
feel that they are animated by a spirit of concession and compromise
mm
amnRi MEMORIAL   OF   THE   UNITED   STATES-^APPENDIX.
25
which, they persuade themselves, that of Great Britain cannot but recognize, and ought not to hesitate in reciprocating. You are then authorized to propose the annulment of the third article of the convention of
1818, and the extension of the line on the parallel of 49 from the eastern side of the Stony Mountains, where it now terminates, to the Pacific
Ocean, as the permanent boundary between the territories of the two
powers in that quarter. This is our ultimatum, and you may so announce it. We can consent to no other line more favorable to Great
Britain.
Mr. Clay to Mr. Gallatin.
[Extract,]
Lexington, August 9, 18^6.
* * * * * * *
"He [the President] is. very desirous of an amicable settlement of all
the points of difference between Great Britain and the United States on
just principles. Such a settlement alone would be satisfactory to the
people of the United States or would command the concurrence of
their Senate. In stating in your instructions the terms on which the
President was willing that the several questions pending between the
two governments might be arranged, heyielded as much to a spirit of concession as he thought he could consistently with the interests of this
[12] country. He is especially not *now prepared to authorize any stipulations involving a session of territory belonging to any State in
the Union, or the abandonment, express or implied, of the right to navigate the St. Lawrence, or the surrender of anv territory south of latitude
forty-nine on the northwest coast." * * * * "II. The
President cannot consent that the boundary between the territories of
the two powers on the Northwest Coast should be south of forty-nine.
The British Government has not been committed by a positive rejection
of a line on the parallel of forty-nine; but if it had been, its pride may
take refuge in the offer which, for the first time, you are to propose, of
a right in common with us to the navigation of the Columbia Biver.
There is no objection to an extension of the time to be allowed to British
settlers to remove from south of forty-nine to a period of fifteen years if
you should find that it would facilitate an arrangement."
No. 10.
Mr. Gallatin to Mr. Clay.
London, November 25,1826.
Sir:
*
The latter part of our conversation was of a more conciliatory nature.
Mr. Hu^psson said that it would be lamentable that, in this age, two
such nations as the United States and Great Britain should be drawn
-to a rupture on such a subject as the uncultivated wilds of
the Northwest Coast. But the honor and dignity of both
countries must be respected, and the mutual convenience of
Mr. Hupkisson objects to dividing Van,
;ouve' Island. 26
NORTHWEST  WATER  BOUNDARY  ARBITRATION.
both parties should also be consulted. He then objected to the straight
line which we proposed, as having no regard to such convenience, and
observed particularly that its cutting off the southern portion of Quadra
and Vancouver's Island, (that on which Nootka Sound is situated,) was
quite inadmissible. I told him that, taking only convenience into consideration, their proposal was far more objectionable. * * '
5          I                                               ALBERT GALLATIN.
Hon. Henry Clay,
Secretary of State.
[13]
*No. 11.
Mr. Gallatin to Mr. Clay.
London, December 2, 1826.
Sir
Mr.
Mr. Gallatin proposes to exchange
Vancouver south of
49° for an equivalent
on the mainland.
Huskisson then asked me whether I was authorized to deviate
from the forty-ninth parallel of latitude as a boundary. I
did not think that he had any right to ask the question;
but, as it was only from courtesy, and to avoid, at the opening of the negotiation, expressions at all savoring of harshness, that I had used the words " whilst insisting on the forty-ninth
degree," instead of the word "ultimatum;" and as, in fact, the United
States had nothing to conceal, I answered the question: To the forty-
ninth parallel of latitude the United States would adhere as a basis.
If, on account of the geographical features of the country, a deviation
founded on mutual convenience was found expedient, a proposal to that
effect might be entertained, provided it was consistent with that basis;
that is to say, that any deviation in one place to the south of the forty-
ninth parallel should be compensated by an equivalent in another place
to the north of that parallel. I must observe that what I had in view
was the exchange of the southern extremity of Nootka's Island,
(Quadra and Vancouver's,) which the forty-ninth parallel" cuts in an inconvenient manner, for the whole or part of the upper branches of the
Columbia Biver north of that parallel.
ALBERT GALLATIN.
Hon. Henry Clay,
Secretary of State.
No. 12.
Extract from Vancouver's "Voyage," vol.1,page 312.
fi-rpv        *
Spanish  explorers   ^-^    yjJ J
r- under the land.
"As we were rowing, on Friday morning, [June 22,1792,] for Point
*   we discovered two vessels at anchor
*   These vessels proved to be a
|»chment from the commission of Senor Melaspina, who was himself
employed in the Philippine Islands; that Senor Melaspina had, the preceding year, visited the coast; and that these vessels, His Cath-
[14]    *olic Majesty's brig the Sutil, under the command of Senor Don
D. Galiano, with the schooner Mexicana, commanded by Senor Don MEMORIAL   OF   THE   UNITED   STATES APPENDIX.
27
C. Valdes, both captains of frigates in the Spanish navy, had sailed
from Acapulco on the 8th of March, in order to prosecute discoveries on
this coast. Senor Galiano, who spoke a little English, informed me
that they had arrived at Nootka on the 11th of April, from whence they
had sailed on the 5th of this month, in order to complete the examination of this inlet, which had, in the preceding year, been partly surveyed by some Spanish officers whose chart they produced.
11 cannot avoid acknowledging that, on this occasion, I experienced no
small degree of mortification in finding the external shores of the gulph
had been visited and already examined a few miles beyond where my
researches during the excursion had extended."        *        *        *        *
No. 13.
Mr. Everett to Mr. Webster
Sir
London, October 19,1842.
Ab e r d e e n
to settle the
boundary.
Lord Aberdeen, in the conference which ensued after the exchange of
the ratifications, observed that his only subject of regret in
connection with the treaty was, that the boundary between wishes
the two countries on the Pacific Ocean had not been provided for; and expressed a strong wish that I might receive instructions
on that subject. ******
EDWABD EVEBETT.
Daniel Webster, Esq.,
Secretary of,State.
[15]
*No. 14.
Mr. Everett to Mr. Webster,
London, November 18, 1842.
Sir:* * * * * **
On arriving at the Foreign Office I was told that Lord Aberdeen wished
to see me, and was conducted to his room. He informed Lord Aberdeen
me that he wished to read me a copy of a despatch which rfthelZdS
he had addressed to Mr. Fox, directing him to make known ***>.* .tour.
to the President the strong desire of Her Majesty's government to engage, without delay, in a negotiation for the settlement of the boundary
between the two countries on the Pacific Ocean, and his wish that instructions should be sent to me for that purpose. * In
the conversation which ensued, he dwelt with great earnestness on the
danger to the good understanding between the two countries so happily
established by the treaty of Washington, to be apprehended from leaving this question in its present unsettled state.       *         * *
EDWABD EVEBETT.
Daniel Webster, Esq.,
Secretary of State. BOUNDARY  ARBITRATION.
No. 15.
Mr. Everett to Mr. Upshur.
[Confidential.]
London, August 17, 1843.
Dear Sir : * * * * *
WhenLord Aberdeen spoke of instructing Mr. Fox on the Oregon ques-
Mr Everett thinks tion, he added an expression of his regret that the negotiate negotiation can 4-jon should fall into his hands.   He has on many occasions
be best carried on at -r    •* "i-»t ^ ~i        *ji    jsiSr 4- *
Washington. expressed a wish that I should be charged with the negotiation. Could I hope to bring it to a successful issue, it would of course
be very agreeable; but it seems to me out of the question to carry on
such a negotiation anywhere but at Washington.
*****
EDWABD EVEBETT.
16.
Mr. Upshur to Mr. Everett.
Department op State,
Washington, October 9,1843.
The President directs that you take an early occasion to bring
3rs are' again to the attention of Her Majesty's government the
Cr