{"@context":{"@language":"en","AIPUUID":"https:\/\/open.library.ubc.ca\/terms#identifierAIP","AggregatedSourceRepository":"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/dataProvider","CatalogueRecord":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/isReferencedBy","Collection":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/isPartOf","Creator":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/creator","DateAvailable":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/issued","DateIssued":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/issued","Description":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/description","DigitalResourceOriginalRecord":"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/aggregatedCHO","Extent":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/extent","FileFormat":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/elements\/1.1\/format","FullText":"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2009\/08\/skos-reference\/skos.html#note","Genre":"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/hasType","Identifier":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/identifier","IsShownAt":"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/isShownAt","Language":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/language","Notes":"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2009\/08\/skos-reference\/skos.html#note","Provider":"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/provider","Publisher":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/publisher","Rights":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/rights","SortDate":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/date","Source":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/source","Subject":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/subject","Title":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/title","Type":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/type","Translation":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/description"},"AIPUUID":[{"@value":"5807d250-9d74-4dc3-b1a5-4c8a1c134594","@language":"en"}],"AggregatedSourceRepository":[{"@value":"CONTENTdm","@language":"en"}],"CatalogueRecord":[{"@value":"http:\/\/resolve.library.ubc.ca\/cgi-bin\/catsearch?bid=1587216","@language":"en"}],"Collection":[{"@value":"British Columbia Historical Books Collection","@language":"en"}],"Creator":[{"@value":"Evans, Elwood, 1828-1898","@language":"en"}],"DateAvailable":[{"@value":"2015-07-03","@language":"en"}],"DateIssued":[{"@value":"1870","@language":"en"}],"Description":[{"@value":"\"Published by request.\" -- Title page.","@language":"en"}],"DigitalResourceOriginalRecord":[{"@value":"https:\/\/open.library.ubc.ca\/collections\/bcbooks\/items\/1.0221724\/source.json","@language":"en"}],"Extent":[{"@value":"61 pages ; 22 cm","@language":"en"}],"FileFormat":[{"@value":"application\/pdf","@language":"en"}],"FullText":[{"@value":" To The United States\nRIGHT, PROPER AKD DESIRABLE.\nXX ADDRESS\nDelivered by\nE02J. ELWOOD EVAUS\nBefore the Tacoxna Library Association.\n01ympia,W.T.f January J<&C1l,1370.\n\u00bb. \u2022 \u2022 \u2022\nPublished by Request. CCRRESPOinDEHCE*\nOlympia,W.T.,Jan.l8,1870,\nHOK.EL^OOD EVAES:\nDear Sir:\nThe undersigned* knowing the\nlong and careful study you have given to the subject of\nthe claims of sovereignty by various nations to the\nEorthwest Coast, and in view of the fact that a\npetition has been presented to President Grant by the\ncitizens of British Columbia in favor of annexation to\nthe United States, and that such subject may enter into\nthe negotiations between Great Britain and the United\nStates, deem this a fitting occasion, and therefore\nrequest you to deliver an address on the propriety and\nright, and the advantages growing out of, the annexation\nto the Union of British Columbia, thereby securing a\ncontinuity of Pacific boundary. While this\nrequested\nby us as your friends and fellow-citizens, on a national\nquestion, yet would we suggest that you name such time\nas will enable you to deliver the address as one of the\ncourse of lectures for the benefit of the Tacoma Lodge\nLibrary and Reading Room.\nVery respectfully yours, &c,\nH.G.TEimr,\nJAS.S.LAWSOU,\nC.B. BAG-LET,\nE.L.SMITH,\nI\u00abM.A\u00a3iJCiiJ,\n3.P.EERKT,\nR.A.ABBOTT,\nCHAS.PROSCH.\nMESSRS. R.A.ABBOTT.\nOlympia,\nw.t. , Jan*.\n20,1870,\n, P. JERKY\ntotiWQnw\nAND\nGentlemen:--It would be most ungracious in me\ndecline the very complimentary request I have just\nreceived, to deliver an address on the question of the\nsity and propriety of an exclusively American\nCoast, and a continuity of Pacific boundary\nHorthwest to the Polar Seas\u2014Pacific, because the Great\nOcean is our ultimate western limit--Eacific,\nbecause it must divest the Territory of adverse\nclaims of sovereignty, and remove forever any\noccasion for strife with a foreign power. Such\na continuity brings power and grandeur to the\nnation, and guarantees continuity of peace*\nDoubly grateful am I that you have\nsuggested that my efforts may be rendered beneficial to the Tacoma Library and Reading Room--\nI am always ready to do my little to contribute\nto such worthy objects* Fix any evening next\nweek, and if health and life are spared me, I\nam cheerfully at your service*\nI am,very respectfully,\nYour obedient servant,\nELWOOD EVAHS. ADDRESS.\nMr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen:\nI appear before\nyou in response to a very complimentary invitation to\noccupy your attention on a subject of deep interest\nto citizens of the Pacific States and Territories, now\nbeginning to attract that attention elsewhere its\nvast importance merits* It involves the policy and\nright of an expansion of our national, area, the propriety and desirability of a re-annexation of British\nColumbia to the United States* At first blush the\nquery arises whether the integrity of our Pacific\nboundary, an uninterrupted and continuous coast line\nto our Northern territorial possessions, may not be\nregarded as an essential element in the successful\nmission and the destiny of the United States of America.\nThat genial\nwriter, Frederick Whymper, an Englishman of observation\nand talent, in his Texy readable and entertaining\nnarrative of \"Travel and Adventure in the Territory of\nAlaska,\" struck the key note of the spirit of the times\nwhen he wrote so truthfully in regard to the motive or -2-\n1\nresult of the acquisition by the\nUnited States of\nAlaska Territo:\nry*\n\"There are, how<\n3ver, many, both\nin England and\nAmerica, who look\non this purchase as\nthe first move\ntoward an American occupation of the\nwhole continen\nt, and who foresee\nthat Canada, and\nBritish America generally, will sooner or later be\ncome part of the United States.\nLooking at the\nmatter without\nprejudice, I believe that it will be\nbetter for those countries and ourselves when such\nshall be the case. We shall be\nreleased from an\nincumbrance, a\nsource of expense\nand possible weakness;\nthey, freed fr<\n3m the trammels of\nperiodical alarms of\ninvasion, and,\nfeeling the stren*\n;th of independence\nwill develop and grow; and, speaking very plainly and\nto the point, our commercial relations with them will\ndouble and quadruple themselves in value. No one new\nsupposes that, had the United States remained naught\nbut *our American Colonies,' they would have progressed\nas they have done; and it is equally obvious that our\ncommerce with them must have been restricted in equal\nratio. That it is the destiny of the United States to -3-\npossess the whole Northern Continent, I fully believe.\"\nIn this quotation is furnished my text.\nOur destiny, which must not, cannot be altered\u2014a fiat\nwhich has the potency of irrevocable law--the forward\nmarch of Americanization until the whole Continent shall\nbe but one nation, with one sovereign government, one\nflag, one people* The name united States of America\nwill then have a consistency of nationality* History\nwill be rendered consistent with itself* We will have\nno such contradiction of terms as British America. We\nwill indeed be E Pluribus Unum*\nThis is no new theory, no vain-glorious\nhope. It is the lesson of the future, taught by our\nhallowed past, by our living present. It is the realization of the great work of the Pathers; it is the fulfilment of the promise of the charter of our liberties,\n\"that in due time the weight would be lifted from the\nshoulders of all men.\" It was enunciated in London,\nin 1787, by the orator of American Independence, the\nelder Adams, is his defence of American Constitutions:\n\"Thirteen Governments founded on the National authority\nof the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or -4*\nmystery, and which are destined to spread over\nthe northern part of that whole quarter of the\nglobe, are a great point gained in favor of the\nrights of mankind**\nThose thirteen governments have\nalmost trebled in number in little over three-\nquarters of a century since that prediction was\nmade, that destiny foretold. The \"spreading* has\nextended westward across the Alleghanies and Blue\nRidge, occupied the valley of the Mississippi,\ncrossed the Rocky Mountains and Sierras, and is\nnow limited by the broad Pacific. The task has\nbeen accomplished in a Western direction, but progress never halts while work remains to be done.\nSo, taking another departure, we have inaugurated\nthe movement at the extreme North. Prom thence we\nnow propose to spread this magical government,\n\"Pounded on the natural authority of the people alone\nover the northern part of the whole continent*\" And\nbetween Alaska on the north, and Washington Territory\non the south, as the two spreading influences of -5-\nAmericanization approach each other, when they\nmeet, will it not be like two great clouds on a\nsummer day? Whilst they must neutralize and\ncrush the intervening negative element, still will\nthey\n\"Consign their treasure to the fields,\nAnd let all their moisture flow\nIn large effusion o'er the\nfreshened world.\"\nBut there will not then remain a British possession\nor power sandwiched between our territories on the\nPacific. Then will we have secured a continuous\nPacific boundary from the Gulf of California to the\nArctic Sea.\nOur object now is to contribute something in spreading those Constitutions, those benign\ninfluences whieh result, as Whymper says, from\nindependence. Because it will prove \"a great point\ngained in favor of the right of mankind\"--because it\nwill enhance the grandeur and glory of our country--\nbecause it will diffuse innumerable blessings both to V\nourselves and to those whom we bring within the aegis\nand protection of our free Institutions* Because it\nwill reduce to compact form the territory of the\nnation, without a severance by the presence of a\nEuropean monarchial power. Because it will wipe out\nand efface the humiliation of the treaty of 1846, by\nwhich we are reminded that our nation was worried out\nof British Columbia by mere British persistency of\nclaim, without basis of right* It is needless to regret\nthat in 1846, our nation yielded its best opportunity\nto realize the prophetic vision and vindicate the\npatriotic sagacity of the elder Adams* It is true that\nthe so-called Treaty of Limits brought with it the\nquasi assurance that as cause of rupture was for the\ntime allayed, so friendly relations were once more re\nnewed between two great nations, whose best interests\nwere promoted by amity. Por the time being it smoothed\nour past differences. As it averted war, it may be\n\u2022\nelaimed that it afforded time and opportunity for cool\nreflection, which has enabled both nations thus long to\npreserve peace. At best it temporized matters of\ncontroversy. But it cost the United States five de-\ngrees and forty minutes of British foothold on the Pacific, -7-\nwith territory of that breadth eastward to the Rocky\nMountains. In the Oregon as reserved to the United\nStates it permitted the most eligible portions of\nthe Territory to be retained by a British company, and\nthe present Congress will be called upon to appropriate\n$650,000 as a bonus to the Hudson Bay Company to withdraw\nfrom American territory after twenty odd years' enjoyment\nof the same, since it became relieved of the joint\noccupancy incumbrance. That treaty yielded all of Vancouver Island, a part of which, lying south of 49 north\nlatitude, would have remained in the United States, had\nsuch parallel been carried as the boundary westward to\nthe ocean. But solely with the view of avoiding a\npartnership or joint-tenancy in that Island by the two\nnations, the boundary line upon leaving the continent deflected southward through the main channel of the Gulf of\nGeorgia to the Straits of Puca* And the United States\nceded so much of said Island of Vancouver as was south\nof said parallel* That and that alone was all the land\nor territory, south of said 49th degree, surrendered or\nintended to be relinquished by the United States, bu that -8-\nConvention. And yet before the ink had scarcely\nhad time to dry with which that ignominious treaty\nwas ratified, England asserted claims to the\nArchipelago de Haro, including San Juan and other\nislands* Por twenty-four years has she defiantly\nmaintained this position, and upon the flimsy basis,\nwould you believe it? Lest you would suspect me\nof making ridicule of serious things, I111 quote\nfrom the dispatch of her Commissioner I\n\"In support of my proposition that the Rosario\nStrait should be the channel of the treaty, I advance\nthat it is the only channel that will admit of being\nconsidered the channel, according to the treaty, which\n'separates the continent from Vancouver's Island**\nYou state that 'while the other channels only separate\nthe islands in the group from each other, the Canal\nde Haro for a considerable distance north of the\n\"-'\u2014\n\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0*\u2022\u00bb <\u25a0>\u25a0? Jguna^__and where their waters unite, washes\nmore adJ.o.nS to the continent \u00b0\"? \"Vi\"\"* ehluuwl\u00ab ^\"t\nwhich \"separatee the oontinent'froH* *\u00b0 tile,channel\nc <-untinenx irom Vancouver's Island \u2022 \u20228-\nConvention. And yet before the ink had scarcely\nhad time to dry with which that ignominious treaty\nwas ratified, England asserted claims to the\nArchipelago de Haro, including San Juan and other\nislands. Por twenty-four years has she defiantly\nmaintained this position, and upon the flimsy basis,\nwould you believe it? Lest you would suspect me\nof making ridicule of serious things, I'll quote\nfrom the dispatch of her Commissioner I\n\u2022In support of my proposition that the Rosario\nStrait should be the channel of the treaty, I advance\ntbat it is the only channel that will admit of being\nconsidered the channel, according to the treaty, which\n\u2022separates the continent from Vancouver's Island**\nYou 3tate that 'while the other channels only separate\nthe islands in the group from each other, the Canal\nde Haro for a considerable distance north of the\nStraits of Puca, and where their waters unite, washes\nthe shores of Vancouver's Island, and is, therefore,\nthe only one which, according to the language of the\ntreaty, separates the continent from Vancouver's Island]\nI would ask your best attention to this most peculiar\nlanguage of the treaty, in which the usual terms of -9\u2014\nexpression appear to be designedly reversed, for the\nlesser is not separated from the greater, but the\ngreater from the lesser--not the island from the\ncontinent, but the continent from the island; and,\ntherefore, it would seem indisputable that where\nseveral channels exist between the two, that channel\nwhich is the most adjacent to the continent must be\nthe channel which separates the continent from any\nislands lying off its shores, however remote those\nislands may be,\"\nHudibras aptly said of such captious\nsubterfugesi\n\u2022He'd undertake to prove, by force\nOf argument, a man's no horse*\nHe'd prove a.buzzard is no fowl,\nAnd that a Lord may be an owl \u2014\nA calf an Alderman, a goose a Justice\nAnd rooks Committee men and Trustees.-\nBut seriously, Great Britain ha3 ignored\nthe treaty of 1846. She has violated its plain letter\nby an utter disregard of the boundary line therein\ndefined and established. She violated its spirit in 1863,\n(at a time our nation was struggling with a gigantic\nrebellion, when so many feared Great Britain was about to -Id-\nrecognize the independence of the so-called Southern\nConfederacy) to secure for her subjects a recognition\nof and compensation for claims under that treaty,\nwhich identical claims in her portion of this same\nterritory, arising under this same grant, she had\nherself most solemnly ignored and disavowed in 1858*\nIf a contract intended as a settlement\nbetween individuals, of all past differences, may\nbecome a nullity because of violation by either of any\nof its material features, why may not a treaty be set\naside for non-performance of its stipulations by either\nof the contracting parties? A boundary or a party\nline is essentially an entirety. If 24 years have\nelapsed and the boundary prescribed by a treaty remain\nundetermined, is not that boundary an open question?\nAnd as the area of territory is contingent upon the\nboundary, it follows, as a sequence, that the territory\nalso is a legitimate matter for negotiation. True,\nthere is no court in which to try these issues\u2014no\ninternational statute of limitation. But if ever a\ntreaty was made which might be avoided for non-performance of its stipulations within a reasonable period, -11-\nsurely, in this instance, Great Britain has furnished\nthe amplest justification for the United States to\ndisavow that Convention. Again, that treaty, as its\npreamble recites, was intended to remove \"the state\nof doubt and uncertainty which has hitherto prevailed\nrespecting the sovereignty and government of the\nterritory on the northwest coast of America*\" It was\nintended to be a final settlement. As Great Britain\nhas persistently refused to recognize such settlement\nas final, the sole moving consideration of the cession\nof Territory by us is defeated.\nI use the word cession advisedly. The\nUnited States acquired the whole region watered by the\nColumbia River and its tributaries, bu right of discovery\nof the mouth of that mighty river by Gray, the\nexploration of its sources \"by Lewis and Clarke, and\nsettlement upon its banks by Astor and other Americans,\nsubsequently fortified by the adverse claim of Spain by\nher right of discovery of the coasts, which the United\nStates by the Plorida treaty secured in 1819.\" Up to\n54 40', it was truly maintained our title was \"clear\nand unquestionable,\" and through Spain we might have\nclaimed still farther north. It may be added here that -12-\nGreat Britain, in restoring Astoria, conquered by a\nBritish frigate during the war and named Port George,\nwas formally surrendered by Great Britain under the\nTreaty of Ghent, as an American territory. Thus was\nour sovereignty fully recognized. In 1818, and prior\nto the Plorida treaty, the United States and Great\nBritain, who made pretensions adversely to Spain's\nexclU3iveness of Claim, entered into a Convention to\ncontinue ten years, whereby it was agreed that the\nterritory should be free and open to citizens and subjects of both nations, the object as expressed between\nthe two parties \"being to prevent disputes and differences\nbetween themselves.\" There was a saving clause, that\nno acts under and in regard to such treaty should\nprejudice the claims of Spain, or any other power.\nIn 1826, the Convention of 1818 approaching\nits termination, negotiations were renewed between Great\nBritain and the United States* It must be borne in mind\nthat in 1819, by the Plorida treaty, the Spanish title\nhad been merged into that of the United States* At\nthat date (1826) Great Britain maintained no title, no\nright of sovereignty to the territory on the northwest\ncoast. She wanted it, and that was all sufficient to -13-\njustify the effort to secure it. Hear her claims\nas defined by her most eminent publicists of that\nday:\n\"Great Britain claims no exclusive sovereignty\nover any portion of that Territory. Her p: esent\nclaim, not in respect to any part, but to the whole,\nis limited to a right of joint occupancy, in common\nwith other States, leaving the right of exclusive\ndominion in abeyance* In other words, the pretensions\nof the United States tend to the ejection of all other\nnations, and, among the rest, of Great Britain, from\nall right of settlement in the district eal claimed\nby the United States* The pretensions of Great Britain,\non the contrary, tend to the mere maintenance of her\nown rights, in resistance to the exclusive character of\nthe pretensions of the United States*\"\nStrip this of its diplomatic cloak and it may be\nfairly stated that Great Britain had no title and\nasserted none, but she prepared to secure and rely jrpon\npossession* Being in possession, she could hold till a\nbetter affirmative right or greater force appeared* But\nshe herself would be the judge of that superiority of\nright, and she could elect whether or not she would be -14-\n0U3ted without resort to the last argument of the\npowerful over the weak--paramount force. Just su:ch\na title, in all ages of the world, might alone has\nmade right*\nThe negotiation in which the above British\nclaim was avowed, terminated in the Convention of 1327,\nwhich continued the occupance permitted by the treaty\nof 1818, to citizens and subjects of both nations,\nuntil twelve months* notice of its abrogation should be\ngiven by either. Observe this difference in the two\ntreaties. By the latter it is provided \"that nothing\nin either of said Conventions should impair or affect\nthe claims which the two contracting parties may have\nto 3aid territory*\" It was non-occupancy by the two\nnations as such, a covenant that no claim or right should\naccrue to either government through citizens or subjects\nof either embracing the privileges conferred by such\ntreaties*\nIt therefore follows that Great Britain\nbound herself, by the Convention of 1827, not to avail\nherself of any claim which might accrue from s ettlement--\nthat such settlements by her subjects should not secure to her any territorial right, nor such possession be\nset up by her as evidence of claim or title. By it\nshe convenanted that any act of her subjects under\nthat treaty should not impair or affect the claim of the\nunited States, nor increase or vest in her any right,\nother than such as she possessed prior to 1818. If, as\n3aid by her negotiators in 1826, she had no title, all\nshe could possibly acquire subsequently thereto had\nbeen obtained through the concession or permission of the\nUnited States. The occupancy by her subjects jointly\nwith Americans, an occupancy from which the government as\nsuch was especially enjoined, is the only possessory\nright Great Britain ever enjoyed* She never did jointly\nor severally occupy the Oregon Territory or any portion\nof it, save alone through the presence therein of her\nsubjects under those non-occupancy conventions, so often\nglaringly miscalled Joint-Occupancy Treaties.\nSuch was the status of the parties in the early\nstages of the Oregon controversy, and that such were the\nmeasures of respective title or claim cannot be successfully denied. Yet, in 1844, British claim on the\nnorthwest coast of America had grown into territorial\nas\nIS -16-\nright. Sir R. Pakenham-sas then the accomplished British\nMinister to Washington. How boldly he aets forth possession\nas evidence of title, of right to the territory of some\nportion thereof, and with what overweaning confidence, not\nto say effrontery, he urges a division of the territory as\na convenient mode to compensate Great Britain for that\npossessory right, she asserted in violation of treaty, which\nshe solely acquired through an occupancy graciously permitted\nby the United States not to her, but to her subjects. Grant,\nfor the sake of the illustration, that the presence of\nBritish subjects in the territory put that Government in\npossession, and it is very like A consenting that B may enter\nupon his lands during A's pleasure. And then A, having\ngraciously favored B, finds himself compelled to surrender\na portion of his property to B, in order to secure a peaceable\nenjoyment of the remainder. But let us read Sir R.\nPakenham's statement of British claims in 1844:\n\u2022The present state of the question between the two\ngovernments appears to be this. Great Britain possesses and\nexercises, in common with the United States, a right of joint\noccupancy in the uregon Territory, of which right she can\nbe divested with respect to any part of the territory only\nby an equitable partition of the whole between the two powers. -1 7-\n\u2014x i \u2014\nIt is for obvious reasons desirable that such a partition\nshould take place as soon as possible, and the difficulty\nappears to be in a line of demarcation which shall leave\nto each party that precise portion of the Territory best\nsuited to its convenience.\"\nMr. Pakenham then defends the British offer of\nthe Columbia river as a boundary:\u2014 \u00a7As regards extent of\nTerritory, they would obtain acre for acre nearly half\nof the entire territory divided. As relates to the\nnavigation of the principal river, they would enjoy a\nperfect equality of right with Great Britain, and with\nrespect to harbors, it will be seen that Great Britain\nshows every disposition to consult their convenience in\nevery particular, un-the other hand, were Great Britain\nto abandon the line of the Columbia as a frontier, and\nsurrender her right to the navigation of that river, the\nprejudice occasioned to her by such arrangement would\nbeyond all proportions exceed the advantage accruing to\nthe United States from the possession of a few more square\nmile3 of Territory. It must be obvious to every impartial\ninvestigator of the subject that, in adhering to the line\nof the Columbia, Great Britain is not influenced by\nmotives: of ambition with reference to extent of Territory, -13-\nbut by considerations of utility, not to say necessity,\nwhich cannot be lost sight of, and for which allowance\nought to be made in an arrangement proposing to be based\non considerations of mutual convenience and advantage.\"\nThus it will be seen that Great Britain pressed\nclaim on the ground that what she asked seemed to her\nto be a matter of \"utility,\" not to say necessity,\" which\ncould well be surrendered by the United States, as it\nsacrificed but little territory, and left to the latter\nthe same convenience and advantage that Great Britain\ndesired to enjoy. Let us apply that doctrine now. British\nI Columbia has ceased to be an advantage or source of\nprofit or benefit to the British Empire. Indeed it will\nhardly be denied that such colony has really become a\nburden to the home government. As a colony of England,\nit is a source of expense to the inhabitants--a mill-stone\nabout their necks, retarding their advancement. They pay\nlargely for the honor of being an appendage to Britain,\nwithout any corresponding benefit. To them the privilege\nof being British subjects is ornamental rather than useful.\nThe completion of the Suez Canal, the condition of\naffairs in the British provinces east of the Rocky Mountains have forever dispelled the Idea that a Pacific\nport and highway across the Continent will be a necessity\nor even a benefit to British commerce. Indeed, nothing\nnow remains to justify Great Britain retaining her\nPacific American possessions but a love of territory and\nan unwillingness to yield an inch to another nation, which\nis one, or has been one of the most darling English\ntraditions. On the other hand, the time has arrived when\nthis territory is a matter of \"utility, not to say\nnecessity,\" to the United States, which considerations,as\nSir R. Pakenham so aptly remarks, \"cannot be lost sight of,\nand for which allowances ought to be made in arrangements\nto be based on considerations of mutual convenience and\nadvantage.\" In other words, the preservation of good\nneighborhood, the securing of \"mutual convenience and\nadvantage\" by powers owning contiguous territory, are\nengrafted into international law as elements to be considered in the adjustment of territorial claims. And why\nshould not such relations as subsist between neighbors\nholding contiguous estates apply equally between contiguous\nnations? Por the latter are but grand aggregates of\nindividuals, and the best international law is that which\ncompels nations in their dealings with each other strictly and equitably to adhere to the relation of meum and tuum.\nI am not permitted to pursue in detail that\nnever-to-be-forgotten Oregon controversy and adjustment.\nIn 1844 the people of the United States elected a\nPresident, and one of the planks in the platform of the\nsuccessful party was the following graphic and mo3t truthful\nversion of American claim to the whole of Oregon Territory.\nThe Democratic platform declared: \"Our title to the whole\nof Oregon is clear and unquestionable; that no portion of\nthe same ought to be ceded to England or any other power;\nand that the re-occupation of Oregon at the earliest\npracticable period is a great American measure.\" Henry Clay\nwas the candidate of the Whig party for the office of\nPresident. His views on the question of American title had\nbeen history, since May, 1826, when, as Secretary of State,\nhe had uttered the memorable sentiment in his instructions\nto the Panama Commissioners: \"Prom the north-eastern limits\nof the United States, in North America, to Cape Horn, in\nSouth America, on the Atlantic Ocean, with one or two\ninconsiderable exceptions; and from the same Cape to the\nfifty-first degree of north latitude, in North America, on\nthe Pacific Ocean, without any exception, the whole coasts\n1 -21-\ny\nand countries belong to sovereign resident American\npowers.\" During the same year, and when instructing\nour Minister, Albert Gallatin, who doaducted the\nAmerican side of the negotiation which led to the\nconvention of 1827, in referring to the measure of\nclaim acquired by the United States from Spain, Mr. Clay\nasserted \"our right extended to the 60th degree of north\nlatitude*\" Through this broad land the Shibboleth of\npolitical parties was the \"whole of Oregon,\" \"54-40 or\nfight,\" and the people of the United States unmistakably\nand with hearty enthusiasm declared that war with England\nwas preferable to the surrender of any portion of Oregon.\nAnd yet, inside of two short years, this great uprising\nwas followed by the treaty of 1846, \"Oh, lame and most\nimpotent conclusion!\"\nIt must therefore be apparent that Great Britain\nacquired the territory now known as British Columbia\nsolely as a compensation for the with drawal by the British\nGovernment of all claim to the territory south of 49 ,\nbased upon the presence of British subjects by permission\nof the United States in the two Conventions of 1818 and 1827.\nEngland embraced the opportunity presented by our war with\nMexico to renew negotiations. She presented the drafted -22-\ntreaty of 1846. We accepted it without so much as dotting an\nI or crossing a T, in the belief that the territory was too\nworthless to justify further contention. Worried out by a\nforty years' controversy, with a foreign war upon our hands,\npopular but not enthusiastically endorsed by the people, we\naccepted it as the end of a protracted \"c\u00aentest, a seemingly\ninterminable diplomatic war* We surrendered all north of\n49 \u2022 We agreed that British subjects should be recognized\nto claim from the United States Government the same rights\nthey could successfully and lawfully assert against the\nBritish Crown\u2014but no more* We ceded certain territory upon\ncertain expressed considerations* Those considerations were:\n1. A certainty of boundary, to remove cause of\ncontention. This has utterly failed, for still\nthe boundary is unsettled*\n11. Exclusive sovereignty of the territory south of\n49\u00b0\u2022 This was gross fraud, and has been entirely\nignored. The government is about to pay $650,000\nfor a release of British claims to land, but a very\nsmall portion of which had been reduced to\npossession before the treaty of 1846, and for\nrights under a license revoked by the British\nGovernment in 1858.\nJ 111. Our Government was beguiled into surrendering the\nterritory by representations derived through\nEnglish channels of its utter worthlessness, the\nEnglish Government well knowing its value and\nresources, and a party to our deception* -23-\nIf the above deductions be just, it is not coveting our\nneighbor's property, to wish to segain that territory; it is\nmerely the seeking of a restoration of that we formerly\nparted with, the consideration upon which we disposed of our\ninterest or claim having entirely failed. Por it is not\nclaimed that a nation more than an individual should violate\nthe Divine injunction, \"Thou shalt not covet.\" Neither is it\nright that a nation should forfeit its contract, or falter\nin a treatZy stipulation, when once faith is plighted. But\nwhat is true as applicable to individuals, is equally true as\nto nations. Will it be denied that if A deceive B in\nacquiring a piece of property from the latter through false\nrepresentation, he being we^l advised in the premises, and\nimposing on B's ignorance, that it is covetous or dishonest\nin B to avoid the bargain? Suppose the property thus\nacquired while In A's possession is enhanced in value and\nrendered more desirable to B than formerly; indeed, it has\nbecome a matter of importance to B to regain it, in order to\ngive additional value to his estate in proximity; would it be\nwrong for B to seek its recovery? Equity, common sense, and\nwholesome law all say B has a right thereto, if he can\nestablish fraud in A. True, the law strictly construed may say, -24-\n\"ignorance was no excuse,\" \"Caveat emptor.\" But equity says\nif A has committed fraud, B must be relieved. The\nobligation may be imposed upon B, in regaining the possession\nof hiw own, to pay to A any increased value which the\nproperty may have attained while held by him, but deducting\na proper allowance to B for his damages of privation, and\nA's profit by enjoyment.\nIs not this the condition of affairs between the\nUnited States and Great Britain, in regard to the territory\nof British Columbia? If it be, then the United States owes\nit to itself to recover what wlgas lost. It is commendable\npatriotic pride--not covetousness, nor ambition of territorial\nexpansion, nor lust for power, which justifies\u2014commands the\neffort. The treaty of 1846, and the events which have\nand\nfollowed In the r egion divided between England the United\nStates by that treaty, establish the fact that such was the\ncharacter of the dealings between the two nations* Let one\nplain example illustrate* It must have been known to the\nEnglish Government and its accredited diplomatic agent that\nthere was no such association as the Puget Sound Agricultural\nCompany. This suggestion acquires more force when we call\nto mind the fact that the draft of the treaty was handed to\nLouis McLane, the American Minister at London, by the British\nSecretary of State for Poreign Affairs, and by Mr. McLane 'CB\"\nwas submitted to our Secretary of State as acceptable\nto the British Government. Our Government was bound to\nbelieve such a Company existed, and that they had acquired\nlanded possessions in the Oregon territory, or why would\nthe British Minister have named them? And yet that myth\ntill then was breathed into corporate life by treaty\nrecognition to enable the Hudson's Bay Company under such\nan alias to acquire lands which, by its License of Trade,\nwas expressly prohibited. This is one only of the frauds\nin that negotiation, but it aptly exemplifies British claim\nto Oregon.\nHow usefully may the American student of the\ncurrent history of his beloved country pause and dwell upon\nthe lesson taught by this event and its surroundings. The\nconsent to the establishment of British power on the northwest coast of America by that convention by illustrious\nAmerican publicists receives no commendation now from any\nquarter. Its only explanation may be found in a sublimity\nof ignorance alike of the vast future importance of the\nPacific, as of the wealth and resources of British Columbia\nand Vancouver Island. The \"derelict of nations,\" that which\nwas repudiated because of alleged worthlessness, \"the 3tone\nwhich the builders rejected, is become the head\" of this\nnorthwest corner. Its acquisition by Great Britain exemplified\nthe prescience and statesmanship of that wary government* \u201e2\u00a3-.\nThat England knew what she was securing, that she had\na motive from 1818 down to 1846, in inducing the United\nStates to consent to a \"Joint occupancy,\" while she\nripened naked possession into title, cotemporaneous history\nfully establishes*\nThrough vigilant sentinels upon those then\nremote outposts, Douglas, Simpson, McLaughlin, Ogden,\nmen\nTolmie, et id omne genus, the efficient managingtof the\nHudson's Bay Company, the British government were\nthoroughly advised of the value and importance of the region.\nIndeed, as early as the close of the last century that\nrenowned voyageur Sir Alex* Mackenzie, had foreshadowed\nthe importance of Pacific commerce, and invoked the\nBritish government to take the necessary steps to establish\nhere its prestige and power. How full of significance is\nthe opinion expressed by a distinguished memberof the\nBritish Parliament, Hon. E. Ellice, one of the largest\nshareholders in the Hudson's Bay Company I Of Vancouver\nj\nIsland he thus remarks: \"It is a kind of England,\nattached to the continent of America. I think it should\nnot only be on the ordinary system of English colonies,\nbut that it should be the principal station of your naval force in the Pacific* It is the only good harbor to the\nnorthward of San Prancisco, as far north as Sitka. You\nhave in Vancouver Island the best harbor, fine timber\nin every situation, and coal enough for your navy; the\nclimate is wholesome, very like that of England; the\ncoast abounds with fish of svery description; in short,\nthere is every advantage in the Island of Vancouver to\nmake it one of the first colonies and best settlements of\nEngland* Political questions are connected with making\na settlement in that quarter, which I will not enter into*\"\nBut those Anglicising missionaries, who occupied\nthe region to perfect the title, or secure the possession\nfor England, did not stop with instructing the British\ngovernment as to the value, to that power, of a foothold\nin northwest America. Prom them emanated another\ncharacter of representations as to its inadaptability to\nwhite settlement. Remoteness, inaccessibility, except by\nthe transit of a broad continent, high northern latitude,\n!with a supposed corresponding rigorous climate, and hordes\nof barbarous natives, all furnished the data by which to\ndamnify the country for colonial or political purposes*\nThis course had its twofold effect: it tended to delay settlement till the fur-producing animals were exhausted,\nwhich must have disappeared with the advent of settlers*\nIt thus assured to the Hudson's Bay Company a profitable\nremuneration for exclusively enjoying the country and serving\nthe British government in the maturing of title by actual\noccupancy.\nThrough such means, non-adaptability to settlement\nwas assiduously and indelibly stamped upon Northern Oregon,\nnow British Columbia. The ^Laborious Eenton, proverbial for\nhis critical correctness, was entirely wrong for once. He had\ndrank too deeply that information as to the country Injected\nby Hudson's Bay Company officers into official reports of\nAmericans sent to explore the country. How naturally the\nexplorers thought old residents could give reliable information,\nhow all impossible that such hospitable men, who so freely\nvolunteered details, could garble, deceive or supress truth*\nYet, where did the studiously careful Benton acquire that data,\nwhich even palliates that remarkable speech which brought about\nthe advice and consent of the United States Senate to the\ntreaty of 1846, before the signing of the same by the ministers\nof the respective governments? Two-thirds of an American\nSenate would never have advised that humiliation, but they\nplaced reliance in Mr. Benton*s industry in acquiring information, and his usual and thorough correctness. They believed \u25a029\u00ab\nthat speech, and its cost to the nation was British\nColumbia and Vancouver Island* That Mr. Benton believed\nit then, as the world has since too long continued to\nbelieve it, is the best evidence of how greatly we were\ndeceived, how grossly that country was misrepresented,\nhow well that part of the programme was performed, how\nthoroughly through English channels and by English\nrepresentations the territory was damnified, until it\ncame to be regarded as^ utterly worthless. That Mr. Benton\nwould make such statements, is the best commentary; hear\nhim:\n\u2022I knew the Straits of Puca, and that these Straits\nformed a natural boundary for us, and also divided the\ncontinent from the islands, and the fertile from the\ndesolate regions. I knew that the continental coast and\nthe inhabitable country terminated on the south shore of\nthose Straits, and that the northwest archipelago--the\nthousand desolate and volcanic islands, derelict of all\nnations\u2014commenced on their shore: and I wanted to go no\nfarther than the good land and continentaX coast went. I\nhad expected the deflection to have commenced further\nback, on the continent, so as to have kept our line a\nlittle further off from Port Langley, at the mouth of -30-\nPrazerfs river, almost in sight of which it now passes.\nIf this had been asked, I, for one, would have been\nwilling to grant it; but the British did not ask it,\nprobably for the same reason that I would have granted it,\nnamely, the entire worthlessness of the desolate region\nabout the mouth of Praser's river. The deflection leaves\nout Vancouver Island, and I am glad of it. It is one of\nthejkmost worthless of the thousand worthless islands which\nthe northwest archipelago presents, and is the derelict\nof all nations, it is now vacant and desert, and I want\nnone of itl I would not accept it as a present, nor would\nthe poorest Lord of the Isles that ever lived upon the\nwestern coast of Scotland.\"\nIn this anathema against Vancouver Island and the\nbasin of Praser's river is found one of the leading\nexcuses for the relinquishment by the United States of\nBritish Columbia, as at present defined. When the Praser's\nriver excitement led to the establishment of Victoria and\npartial development of British Columbia, how truly we learned\nwe had been cruelly deceived. It is not with any\ndisposition to indulge in vain regret that Britain then\nover~rcached us in diplomacy, or pang of humiliation that\nthe United States sacrificed her prestige, power or\nV -^1 \u2014\nterritory, that these facts are recounted* History\nhas been truthfully defined as \"philosophy teaching\nby example,\" and in this connection between links in\nthe past, what duty to the future enjoins is made\napparent. England still intervenes to keep dissevered\nour continuity of Pacific possessions and boundary,\nand that great fact is full of interest to every\nAmerican, e specially to such as dwell upon the Pacific\nslope\u2022\nNor should we be unmindful that but too lately\nthere were some, claiming to be ranked as American\nstatesmen, who, disregarding those lessons of the past,\nwould have re-enacted the error of 1846; who did\nendeavor to defeat the acquisition of Alaska, upon the\nold and fallacious plea of worthlessness of territory,\nthe only excuse for the surrender of the present British\nColumbia. Let us recur for a moment to the stirring times\non this magnificent inland sea in the years 1858,'59, and\n'60. You, that were here, will heartily concur that,\nhad the then bustling city of Victoria been on American\nsoil, here, to-day, on Puget Sound, would be an emporium\nof population and commerce second only to San Prancisco,\nif not its successful rival. State it otherwise: had not\nthe southern portion of Vancouver Island belonged to -32-\nBritain, Victoria might not have been the site of such\nemporium, but Whatcom, Seattle, Port Townsend, or some\nother of the numerous eligible harbors on Puget Sound,\nwould, to-day, have been the head-center of Pacific\ncommerce. Ho one will dare to assert that, had the United\nStates in 1846 owned Alaska, any American statesman would\nfor a moment have thought of allowing the Pacific continuity\nof northwest America to be destroyed, however worthless the\nterritory. The homogeneity of that coast line would have\nbeen preserved inviolate at any cost. History and posterity\nwould have approved any expenditure of blood and treasure\nin its maintenance. Nor will any one urge that, had the\nexistence of the wealth and importance of British Columbia\nor Vancouver Island been as well understood by the United\nStates as by the British government, any part of such\nterritory or ISaae island would have been relinquished. Had\nwe then possessed our present knowledge, there would not,\nto-day, be stretched along the whole extent of our northern\nfrontier, from ocean to ocean, with a highway of travel across\nthe continent, an European power w hich may only cea.se when\nsucceeded by a rival American nationality. Those soi^ disant\nstatesmen forget that what charity may condone as a blunder\nin 1846, on the plea of ignorance or misapprehension, is\ncrime at this later day of our progress and destiny. -33-\nConcede that regions are valueless, and the reason\nbecomes more cogent why European powers should relinquish\nthem, for the motive of retention is reduced to the mere\ndesire to exercise jurisdictional rights upon the American\ncontinent. Maintaining upon it a foothold with such\nmotive, but likens such power to the famous \"dog in the\nmanger,\" and a nation, actuated by such policy, is, at best,\na bad neighbor, and should be excluded on general principles.\nThe exorcism of any European sovereignty from the American\ncontinent is a valuable consideration to the United States,\nand no territory upon the continent is so worthless but it\npossesses political value to the national Union. It is freely\nadmitted that the character of land, climate, accessibility\nand adaptability to settlement should eadh have due weight\nin regulating the price.\nThe history of British Columbia has exploded forever\nthe theory of yielding any portion of this continent to an\nEuropean sovereignty because of worthlessness. It is lasting\ntestimony against the resort to such an argument to delay\nthe forward march of the nation to its future destiny. That\nplea has always proven error. When Jefferson led the way\nfor American empire to cross the Mississippi river, by the\npurchase of Louisiana, though that secured the inestimable\nboon of the exclusive navigation of seveial of the great rivers of the world, an internal navigation unequalled in any\nportion of the earth, yet how unsparingly was \"he derided.\nBut posterity has accorded to him undying gratitude, and\nstamped the Louisiana purchase as the crowning act of his\nglorious career. California was equally damnified as\nworthless, and yet she has a future of wealth and grandeur\nsecond to no State in the American Union. Vancouver Island,\nso scoffed at by the illustrious Benton, exhibits her\nVictoria, her Esquimalt, her Nanaimo, as evidence of the\nabsurdity of such policy.\nunsatisfactory, not to say humilating, as is\nthis recurrence to the treaty of 1846, yet, even in that\ndark picture of our past, there is occasionally relief from\ngloom. There were those in the councils of the nation, who\nunderstood the real situation, who, even then, appeared\ndissatisfied with the damnifying process by which the people\nof the United States were to be stimulated to and reconciled\nwith the surrender to Great Britain of a part of Oregon.\nJohn Q,uincy Adams, in the American House of Representatives,\nin that eventful year (1846) which marks the eagerness of\nthe general government to go to war to acquire territory on\nthe southern border of the Union, and an equal willingness to\nrelinquish territory on its northern frontier, urged the\npassage of a bill directing the President to abroggate the\nConvention of 1827, by giving to Great Britain the requisite -35\ntwelve months' notice. He spoke of British pretension, claim\nand motive as to Oregon. With him, Oregon was the Oregon\nof history, before it was shorn of its fair proportions, and\nhalf of it ceded to Great Britain. These were his sentiments:\n\"But at this day she claims no exclusive jurisdiction\nover the whole country. She claims to have the country free\nand open, that is, to keep it in a savage and barbarous state\nfor her hunters, for the benefit' of the Hudson's Bay Company,\nfor hunting. Now, she knows that it would have no value to\nher at all from the day that it is settled by tillers of the\nground. We claim that country\u2014for what?' To make the\nwilderness blossom as the rose, to establish laws, to increase,\nmultiply and subdue the earth, which we are commanded to do\nby the first behest of God Almighty.\"\nThe \"old man eloquent\" foresaw it all. His mind had\nreceived the impressions from the reports representing the\nsavage and barbarous state of the country,i.e., its unfitness\nfor settlement, but, notwithstanding such representations,\nyet would it be ultimately Americanized by the class he so\neloquently alluded to in that same memorable speech*\n\u2022I want the country for our Western pioneers, to\nafford scope for the exercise of that quality of man which\nis most signally exemplified in the population of our western\nterritory, for them to go out to make a great nation that is\nto arise there, and which must come from us, as a fountain -36-\neomes from its source, of free, independent, sovereign\nrepublics.\" That is what we want with British Columbia,\nand it is not claiming too much to assert that that gifted\nand prescient statesman well appreciated, that however\nimportant Pacific commerce might become to England, still,\nwith an ocean and continent between it and Great Britain,\nBritish influence and power would not be in the way of our\nnation's dedication of \"the northern part of that whole\nquarter of the globe\" to free, independent, sovereign\nrepublics.\"\nHow dompletely is his prophetic judgement\nvindicated in 1869 by the petition of the citizens of British\nColumbia to the President of the United States, imploring\nthat they may be brought within those influences which are\ncontributing so steadily to making that great nation which is\nto arise there, the wilderness to blossom as the rose, the\nestablishment of laws, obedience to the first behest of God\nAlmighty.\nMay I r ead to you that petition the earnest yearning for republican life and vigor alike of British subjects\nand American residents now domiciled in British Columbia: -37-\nTo His Excellency, the President of the United\nCJ+a + oo *\nO Let bCOi\nYour memorialists beg leave most respectfully\nto represent that we are residents of the Colony of\nBritish Columbia, many of us British subjects, and all\nof us deeply Interested in the welfare and progress of\nour adopted country; that those who are British\nsubjects are penetrated with the most profound\nfeelings of loyalty and devotion to Her Majesty and\nher government, and all entertain for her feelings of\nthe greatest attachment, and to the country; that while\nwe thus indulge such feelings we are constrained by\nthe duty we owe to ourselves and families, in view\nof the contemplated severance of the political ties\nwhich unite this colony to the mother country, to\nseek for such political and commercial affinity and\nconnection as will insure the immediate and continued\nprosperity and well-being of this our adopted home;\nthat this colony is now suffering great depression,\nowing to its isolation, scarcity of population, and\nother causes too numerous to mention; that we view\nwith feelings of alarm the avowed intention of her\nMajesty's Government to confederate this colony with\nthe Dominion of Canada, as we believe such a measure\ncan only tend to still further depression and ultimate\ninjury, for the following reasons,viz: That confeder\nation cannot give us protection against internal\nenemies or foreign foes, owing to the distance of\nthis colony from Ottawa; that it cannot open to us a\nmarket for the produce of our land, our forests, our\nmines, our water; that it cannot bring us population,\nour greatest need, as the Dominion itself is suffering\nfrom a lack of it; that our connection with the\nDominion can satisfy no sentiment of loyalty or\ndevotion; that her commercial and industrial interests\nare opposed to ours; that the tariff of the Dominion\nwill be the ruin of our farmers and the commerce of\nour chief cities; that we are instigated by every\nsentiment of loyalty to Her Majesty, by our attachment\nto the laws and institutions of Great Britain, and our\ndeep interest in the prosperity of our adopted country,\nto express our opposition to a severance from England\nand a Confederation with Canada. We admit that the Dominion may be aggrandized by Confederation, but we can\nsee no benefit, either present or future, which can accrue\nto us therefrom. That we desire a market for our coal\nand lumber, and our fish, and this the Dominion seeks for\nthe same produce of her own soil* She can take nothing\nfrom us and supply us with nothing in return. That\nconfederating this colony with Canada may relive the mother\ncountry from the trouble and expense of fostering and\nprotecting this isolated distant colony. But it cannot\nfree us from our long enduring depression owing to the lack\nof population as aforesaid, and the continued want of a\nhome market for our produce. The only remedy for the evils\nwhich beset us, we believe to be in a close union with the\nadjoining States and Territories* We are already joined by\na unity of objects and interests* Nearly all our commercial\nrelations are with them. They furnish the chief markets\nwe have for the products of our mines, land and waters.\nsupply the colony with most\nof\nthe necessaries\nThey\nlife,\nThey furnish us the only means of communication with the\nouter world, and we are even dependent upon them for the\nmeans of learning the events in the mother country or the\ndominion of Canada. Por these reasons we earnestly desire\nthe acquisition of this colony by the United States. It\nwould result at once in opening to the United States an\nunrestricted market for our products, bring an influx of\npopulation, and with it induce investment of capital in our\ncoal and quartz mines, and in our forests. It would insure\nus regular mails and communication with the adjoining States\nand Territories, and through them with the world at large.\n14 would lessen the expense of our Government by giving us\nrepresentative institutions and immediate control of our\ndomestic concerns, besides giving us protection from foreign\nenemies, and with all these we should still be united to a\npeople of our own kindred, religion and tongue, and a people\nwho for all time must intimately affeet us in all our\nrelations.for weal or woe. That in view of these facts we\nrespectfully request that your Excellency will cause this\nmemorial to be laid before the Government of the United\nStates, and that in any negotiations that may be pending or\nundertaken between your Government and that of her most\ngracious Majesty for the settlement of territorial or other\nquestions, that you will endeavor to induce Her Majesty to\nconsent to the transfer of this colony to the United States.\nWe believe Her Majesty earnestly desires the welfare and\nhappiness of all her people in view of the circumstances that\nfor years she has consented to the annual exodus of tens of thousands of her subjects to the United States, and\nthat she will not let political traditions and\nsentiments influence her against a measure so earnestly\ndesired by the people of this poor, isolated colony.\nDated British Columbia,Nov ember, 1869.\nThis petition demonstrates two propositions: L* That\nthe spirit of free institutions, like the gospel, conquers\npeoples, and forces them to covet the \"spreading\" of its\ninfluences, that they, too, may enjoy its vitalizing power.\n11. That deeply imbued as is.the feeling of a Briton in favor\nof hi3 native land and its institutions, in favor of its\npeculiar national tradition against the diminution of\nterritory, yet the contrast between the success of the American Pacific States and Territories, side by side with\nBritish Columbia, gifted with as great resources and\nadvantages, showing that the former depends alone upon\nAmericanization, forces the conviction in the mind of the\nBritish Columbian, \"not that I love England less, but my\nadopted country more.\" To advance her best interests, to\navoid her future insignificance,\"the only remedy for the\nevils which beset us we believe .to be in a close union with\nthe adjoining States and Territories*\"\nIt doe3 seem that there can be no doubt as to the right\nand propriety of the United States Government at once taking\nsteps to secure the reannexation of British Columbia to the Union. Right, because it was once ours, and the consideration\nupon which it was relinquished has entirely failed. Right,\nbecause fraud and misrepresentation were used in extorting\nits cession to Great Britain. Right, because it ha3 become\na necessity to our country, its commerce, its future, its\ndestiny. Right, because it restores self-respect, wipes out\nthe wounds of humiliation, and effaces inglorious memories*\nRight, because it will benefit humanity and spread the\nblessings of free institutions. Proper, because it is right,\nand because the people of that colony have asked the measure;\nand every principle of our institutions recognizes that they\nare the only competent judges of whom they will have to rule\nover their destinies.\nLet us now advert to the desirability of re-annexation.\nThis seems so palpable as hardly to justify extended notice.\nTo the United States it is desirable in every point of view.\nTo the people of British Columbia so desirable that it is\nurged by themselves as a sine qua non for future well-being.\nTo Great Britain, as affairs are now being developed, it would\nseem desirable, at least beneficial, to part with this colony.\nBriefly only am I permitted to make a passing notice\nof each of these three elements of desirability, invoking\nimmediate action in the necessary measures to bring about this\nre-annexation, this restoration of the integrity of our\nformer Pacific territory* -41-\nThe leading reason for the United States to respond\nat once to the petition of the citizens of British Columbia,\nis that the granting of the prayer will contribute to the\nsuccess of the true mission of the United States of America*\nAmerican destiny means the entire, exclusive, homogeneous\nAmericanization of North America, with but one nationality\nexercising sovereign powers, without the intervention, or\nright, or necessity, to intervene by any foreign power in\naffairs upon this continent* Such a condition of things\nwould seem to have been in the mind of Washington when he\nso aptly depicted the necessities for the oneness and ex-\nclusiveness of the United States of America*\n\u2022Our detached and distant situation invites and enables\nus tq pursue a different course* If we remain one people,\nunder an efficient government, the period is not far off\nwhen we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when\nwe may take 3uch an attitude as will cause the neutrality\nwe may at any time resolve upon to be scuptulously respected;\nwhen belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making\naggressions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us\nprovocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest,\nguided by justice, shall counsel.\"\nThe exclusive Americanization of the North American\ncontinent is desirable because it is the harbinger of peace,\nm because it removes from the list of causes of international\njealousy or strife one great element of contentionbetween\npowers struggling for supremacy. It is one great step\ntowards that universal peace the world is destined to enjoy\nwhen it 3hall have attained that highest civilization to which\nit is steadily advancing.\nForemost among the agencies to effect this \"consummation so devoutly to be wished,\" is the exclusive mastery\nof the commerce of the Pacific, constituting the United\nStates as the great western power without a contestant. This\nwould of necessity interpose a continent as the barrier between\nthe eastern or European seas and the riches of India and\nthe south Pacific, except by the transit of eastern continents\nand the seas. That great triumph of the age, the Suez Canal,\nwill soon afford a channel of communication between Euuopean\nStates and the East Indies, and relieve all European commercial\nor maritime powers from the excuse of a necessity to retain a\nfoothold on the Pacific coast, for facilities of communication\nwith Asiatic countries. All temptation to acquire or\ndisposition to hold territory in this region, as a measure of\ncommercial advantage, is now removed. No reasonable excuse\nremains for European intervention in American affairs. The\nexclusion of England as a sovereign power from the American continent accomplished, and we will have attained that true\ncondition of national independence, \"when,\" as the good\nWashington has expressed it,\"we may choose peace or war, as\nour interests, guided by justice, shall counsel.\"\nThe Monroe doctrine, enunciated in regard to, and\nstamped upon the great Northwest, will not be theory, but\npractice. That doctrine is near its realization. \"The\nAmerican continents, by the free and independent condition\nwhich they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to\nbe considered as subjects for future colonization by any\nEuropean powers.\"\nWe lost sight of this principle, this animus of our\nAmericanization, in the abortive treaty of 1846, but British\nsubjects, in 1869, invite us back to our principles, to\npractice that theory; they implore us to shed abroad, to\nspread again, and still further, the healthy influences of\nAmerican institutions, and revivify a colony which was attempted\ntib be built up and breathed into being as an appanage of\nEuropean power and policy on this American soil: but it proved\na paradox, and has already dwindled to decay, while yet in its\no\nminority. In 1846 we could not quite reach up to 54 40', but\na year or two ago we made that historic landmark our boundary, -44-\nand already is British Columbia becoming reconstructed by\ngravitating to the American Oregon, of which it was\nformerly a constituent portion. That good old line our\npeople were willing to fight for in 1844 now bounds American\nterritory. With Alaska as a top weight, it will be pressed\ndownward, meeting the upward expansion of Puget Sound\ndevelopment. Between these two strata of Americanization,\nBritish supremacy will be squelched out, and the continuity\nof American Pacific boundary be attained, bringing with it\nthe exclusive control of the empire of the Pacific, and the\ncommerce of eastern Asia and the southern oceans.\nAn inspection of the map of the world affords the\nmost ample proof of this desirability of exclusiveness of\nPacific poast line. By the acquisition of Alaska and the\nAleutian Islands, our possessions have been pushed, as it\nwere, across the Pacific, and we are at the very doors of\nJapan and China. Take the coast line from Panama to our\nnorthwesternmost limit, representing almost the two sides of\na spherical triangle, and, subtended within the area of the\ncompleted triangle, are the Sandwich Islands, which must\nnaturally come to us, England andPrance withdrawn from these\nseas. Then bear in mind the great fact that a voyage is\nshorter from San Francisco to Japan and China, via our\nnorthwest possessions, than by way of the Sandwich Islands;\nshorter still from Puca Straits or Puget Sound; shorter still -45-\nfrom Sitka;--in fine, shorter from any intermediate point\non the Pacific coast of the American continent. So it must\nbe plain as the sun at noon-day how great a figure the\ncontrol of that whole coast and its innumerable harbors\nmust cut in this problem of absorbing the vast and wealthy\ncommerce of thi3 ocean.\nThis proposition is not new; its solution led\nto the exploration and settlement of the great Northwest*\nEngland and the United States, during the last century,\nin these seas, contended for that commerce; and centuries\nbefore they had been preceded by Spain and Russia. To\nattract the wealth of eastern Asia to the Pacific coast of\nthis continent and carry it to the Atlantic, and from\nthence distribute it to other parts of the world, stimulated,\nhastened and insured the construction of the great\ncontinental railroad, which of necessity makes the Pacific\nport of that road the magnet for and absorbent of the\ncharacter of commerce which will be found profitable by\nspeedy land transportation to eastern marts, such as\nvaluable fabrics and wares, when rapidity of transmission\nand light weights neutralize freight charges. Furs, teas,\nsilks, jewelry, and such articles, are the illustration.\nIn the present condition of things, it is improbable that\nan interoceanic road will cross the American continent in British territory. The necessity for a British Pacific\nport is therefore dissipated and removed. Besides that\ngreat triumph of engineering, the Suez Canal, has brought\nIndia, the richest jewel of the British Crown, much nearer\nEngland. How vastly has its completion enhanced the value\nand importance of her East India possessions, and her\nattention will be exclusively needed in securing it, for\nboth France and Russia seem to believe that \"balance of\npower\" in international matters is essential to the peace\nof the world, and current events would indicate that, if\nan opportunity occurs, an attempt will be made to weaken\nthe British empire by a division of her Indian possessions.\nEvery indication justifies the assertion that England will\nfind it to her interest to withdraw entirely from this field*\nBritish. Columbia is inhabited by a people, as the petition\nasserts,\" of our own kindred, religion and tongue; a people\nwho for all time must intimately affect us in all our\nrelations for weal or woe.\" Besides a large number are our\nown people, and by all theties of blood and consanguinity,\nby the sacredness of our mission to Americanize the continent,\nit is duty to them, and desirable to us, to mankind and\nI posterity, that British Columbia be re-annexed to the United\n'States \u2022 But desirable as it may be to the United States, to\nthe people of British Columbia this desirability intensifies\ninto a question of actual necessity. We here might content\nourselves by re-reading the petition of the citizens of\nthat interesting colony; but the history of Victoria, its\nrise, its early brilliant career, its premature subsidence,\nnot to say decay, is the speaking illustration of every\nfeature of the subject*\nIts establishment vindicates the judgment which\nprompted the location of a commercial emporium on the Pacific\ncoast* Its rapid growth shows how spontaneously, as it were:\ncities may be built by American population and energy.\nThe early years of Victoria illustrate the vastness\nand value of Pacific commerce, and the inherent strength\nand advantage of the situation. Its subsidence is the best\nevidence that on these continents, settlements to continue\nsuccessful, to grow, to prosper, need more than natural\nadvantages, more than capital, more than population. All\nthese are essentials; but there mu3t be present also the\nleaven of American institutions, the energy, the reliance,\nthe dependence on future which grows out of what Whymper\ncall3 \"independence -48-\nThe whole argument i3 embraced in this single\nproposition, plainly stated, and which will not be denied:\nHad British Columbia, including Vancouver Island, been an\nAmerican territory, Victoria, if such port had been\nselected as the port for British Columbia, with the impetus\nit received in 1858, '59 and '60, would, to-day, have been\na flourishing city, instead of a \"deserted village.\"\nThe most insidious and potential essay to acquire a\nBritish foothold in the Northwest, and to control Pacific\ncommerce and power, was set' on foot in 1857-58 by Governor\n(now Sir) James Douglas, in a series of measures, chief among\nwhich, for its boldness of conception, successful initiation,\nwide spread attractiveness, universality of response and\nimportant subsequent results, wasthe Praser's river excitement.\nA careful examination of the events of which it is the\nhistorical aggregate, will satisfy the most skeptical that\nthat vigorous-minded Briton, that able far-seeing statesman,\na\nhad determined to make Victoria^British rival of San Francisco,\nand to establish as its base or feeder a province or colony\nin British Oregon, as then known, but now the continental\nportion of British Columbia* it will likewise appear that\nPraser's river gold did not \"pan,\" that the country was\nproclaimed as a gold region, and license fees established\nfor working it, on statements of native Indians, and because\nS 35\nK\u00a3\u00abf \u202249\nthe Governor knew no good reasons why gold should not be\ndiffused throughout British Oregon as well as elsewhere\non the Pacific slope. True the color did appear in all the\ntributaries of Fraser's river. Here and there were rich,\ndiggings; but the wealth of Cariboo and other even richer\ngold fields were unknown, unanticipated. Their existence\nbecame ascertained after the Fraser's river bubble had bursted.\nWhen British Columbia and Vancouver Island, with its numerous\nand suddenly accumulated population, had settled down to quiet\nand regular routine of life, the Cariboo mines became known\nandproved rich indeed. They were a godsend to the authors of\nthe \"Fraser's river excitement.\" But for them that memorable\ngold stampede would have found its place in history, side by\nside with the great \"South Sea bubble.\" The \"Douglas scheme\"\nwas not intended for the benefit that might accrue from gold\nseeking. Had it been really known that gold was there in such\nquantities as it afterward proved, the Hudson's Bay Company,\nwho knew its value as well as the honest miner, would have been\ncontent to have appropriated it. That memorable excitement\nwas but the allurement to draw population, erect a British\ncolony, and oerpetuate British celeny lodgement and empire on\nthe Pacific.\nHad his very able and ingeniously devised efforts\nbeen seconded by the British government, as zealously as their -50-\nintention would seem to have warranted, England,to-day,\nmight have better justification for a desire to continue to\ndivide. American territories on the Pacific. She might\nyet have some reason to desire to retain a seat of empire\nin these seas for the purpose of commerce and power. But\nthe sceptre has departed from Judah. That ever-watchful\ngovernment was once found napping. She was guilty of as\nfatal an omission to improve her opportunity as was the\nUnited States in 1846. The wise and sagacious founder of\nBritish Columbia, and projector of Victoria commerce and\nBritish supremacy in these regions, received the compliment\nof being commissioned as First Governor, and also the honors\nof Knighthood. The British government had notified Governor\nDouglas \"that the government were not prepared to increase\nany expense on account of a revenue derivable from such a\nsource (gold license) from that distant quarter of the kingdom.\"\nSir E. Bulwer Lytton, then colonial Secretary, restricted\nGovernor Douglas's movements by instructing him that British\nColumbia was expected to be \"self-sustaining.\" Douglas was left\nwithout encouragement, and, finally, supplanted. He had lived\nlong upon the frontier; he had breathed that vital air of the Pacific slope which seems to impart energy and snap; he\nhad been invigorated by seeing a wide expanse of territory\ndevelop into States; to see cities in a day spring into\nprominence. He rose to his full stature of native\ncharacter when he felt: \"If this can be done in America,\nwhy cannot it succeed in British Columbia?\" For more than\na quarter of a century he had been autocrat of these\nregions, and overlooked one idea. He had no knowledge or\nappreciation of the strength of a government dependent\nupon the will and consent of the governed. Here was his\nmistake: he wanted English institutions, English discipline\nand English circumlocution. He eschewed the American\nelement present in the country, by his invitation. Jealousy\nof American ideas, the real secret of American progress,\nmarked his administration. As the English government refused\nto be at the expense of supporting English institutions, and\nas the American system was repudiated, the consequence is\nnatural. As a governmental scheme, as a colony, British\nColumbia is a failure; Victoria, its city, is but a reflex\nof the colony.\nA parallel between Victoria dnd San Francisco,\ntruthfully drawn, making due allowance for the more favorable\nagricultural resources of California over British Columbiam -52-\nand the only feature in which there is an advantage, in\nfavor of the former,(And it may be claimed that the gold,\ncoal, timber, lime and fisheries of the latter ought to\ncompensate for the better cultivable character of the\nlands of California) demonstrate the reason of the premature decay of Victoria, and points to the remedy by which\nshe may be re-invigorated with healthy strength, experience,\na hopeful future, and yet attain the place in the roll\nof Pacific cities to which, she is entitled by her many\nnatural advantages.\nIn 1848 San Francisco made her debut as the\nAmerican city of the Pacific. Her pretensions were quite\nas humble, her then as insignificant as the beautiful\nlittle Hudson's Bay Company town of Fort Victoria in 1858.\nIn 1849 the discovery of gold attracted a large advent of\npopulation to California. At the beginning of 1849 the\npopulation of San Francisco had attained to the number of\n2,000; by midsummer it had probably increased to 5,000.\nDuring the year 1850,36,000 persons arrived by sea at San\nFrancisco; in 1851,27,000 arrived by sea. 1 am not taking\ninto consideration the overland immigration into California,\nbut it is fair to state that in neither of the above years\ndid it exceed the similar immigration to the gold-fields\nof British Columbia in 1858 and 1859. -53-\nn Office, July 1st, 1858, he 3tates\nWith the foregoing exhibit of the start of San\nFrancisco, let us now compare that of Victoria in 1858\nand 1859. In the official despatch of Governo )ouglas\nto the British Colon:\nthat from May 19th to date \"the custom house books show a\nreturn of 19 steamships, 9 sailing ships and 14 decked\nboats, entered with 6,133 passengers. The ascertained\nnumbers sailing from San Francisco alone for Victoria,\nbetween the early days in May, 1858, to June 15th, 1858,\nwere 10,573. That this unparalleled state of things\ncontinued for several years is evidenced by the following\nstatistics: In Victoria, the customs received in 1859\namounted to \u00a318,164\u2014over $90,000. In 1860 it rose to\n\u00a358,980--nearly $300,000.\nIn 1861 the imports to Victoria from San Francisco,\nOregon and Washington Territory, amounted to $1,733,212;\nfrom other places $601,877. Total import 1861,#2,$35,089.\nIn 1862 the imports from San Francisco, Oregon and\nWashington Territory had increased to $2,645,229; from\nother places, $910,248* Total,$3,555,577*\nIn 1863 the imports from San Francisco, Oregon and\nWashington Territory were $2,230,501; from other places\n$1*657,311, Total,#3,887,812. -54-\nf\u00bb\nThe exports during the same period make an excellent\nshowing. These figures demonstrate two things: American\ntrade, or trade from American states and territories,\nwas greatest, and exhibits the presence of American merchants. The foreign trade increasing marks the advent of\nthe growing excess of British traders and merchants, and\nleaves the inference, which is borne out by the facts, of\nthe withdrawal of Americans, American capital and American\nI merchants. Victoria, in .other words, started with American\nimpetus, but has now become a British port, with British\nthe\ntrade and British .ideas. In 1866 Governorof British\n\/\nColumbia thus speaks of the condition of the colony: \"The\nyield of gold this year is estimated at \u00a3600,000, and as\nthere were certainly not more than three thousand miners\nengaged, the average product reached \u00a3200 per man, far\nexceeding any average ever reached in California or\nAustralia.\" Whi \\t it cannot be pretended that British\nColumbia can compete with California, in agricultural\nproducts, as an item of exportation, still it may be claimed\nthat she is not dependent on the outside world, but has\nfacilities within herself to be \"self-sustaining.\" In\nthe last report referred to, the Governor says: \"The most\nimportant advance made by British Columbia in 1866 was the\nI -55-\nrapid development of agriculture, occasioned by the\nincreasing number of wagon roads and other communications.\nHome manufactured flour is already taking the place of\nthe imported article. Use is being made of the magnificent\ntimber covering the sides of the harbors and inlets.\"\nLet us add to this that during the year 1863 there was\nexported to San Francisco alone Uanaimo coal to the amount\nof 22,000 tons, paid for at the mines at $6 per ton.\nFrom this showing, is it saying too much that,\nin the early part of the decade just closed, Victoria had\na fair start; that she possessed great advantages; that\nher early stimulus was full as great as that of San Francisco,\nthat her future was full of hope? Yet how changed the\npicture ! In 1869 San Francisco has become the third city\nof the United States, as the representative of American\nprogress, advancement and commerce, though not in wealth\nand population. Connected now with the Atlantic by a\ncontinental railroad, her future progress must be as steady\nand glorious as her past career has been wonderful and\nspeedy. In 1869, with all the natural advantages of\nVictoria, the vast mineral wealth of British Columbia, the\ncoal and lumber of Vancouver Island, the stimulus of British\ncapital and prestige, she has tottered to her fall, and\nher citizens, together with those of the whole colony, -56-\nforget their traditional love of English empire, their\njealousy of her successful rival; in language of deep\nseated feeling they recount the causes of their adversity\nand implore aid from the President of the United States,\n\"for the people of this poor, isolated colony.\" Save them\nfrom \"isolation I\" It is desirable for them to be relieved.\nThose two systems stand side by side--Old England\nand Young America. While the one is fast verging into\nsenility, the other's \"youthful veins are full of enterprise,\ncourage and honorable love of glory and renown.\" One cannot\nhold the even tenor of its way, nor even stimulate a hope\nfor the future; the other has insured progress, advancement\nand power. Let us not deny to our English brethren across\nthe border the encouragement, the hope they seek. Re-\nannexation to the United States is the panacea for their\nills. They now pine away for mere want of the pure invigorating influences of healthy Americanization*\nAlready has much been anticipated in support of\nour last proposition, that it is desirable to England to\nrelinquish British Columbia. I have already wearied you, and\nI shall but hastily refer to passing events to show that the\ntime has passed when to England it is a matter of political -57\nor commercial moment to retain her territorial possessions\nin America, and e specially on the Pacific side of the\ncontinent.\n\"The spider's most attenuated thread\nIs cord, is cable\u2014\"\ncompared to the tie or bond really holding British Columbia\nor any of the British American provinces to the British\nCrown. That government would hardly put forth the effort\nto save them, if either of them asserted independence.\nEver since that model government, oblivious of\nall her past history, sacrificed her prestige and integrity\nof empire by giving countenance and sympathy to rebellion\nagainst a friendly rival, Ireland and her American Colonies\nand Provinces have been a fruitful cause of anxiety,\ndistrust and alarm. Ever since she failed in expelling\nAmerican commerce from the seas by the assistance of anglo-\nrexel pirates, for whose acts she is morally accountable\nand legally liable, she knows the day of retribution ought\nto be at hand, and she dare not enter into conflict with\nany maritime power. The law she established will be meted\nto her, and as she sanctified piracy and recognized it as\nlegitimate belligerency, so has she indicated the method\nby which war can lawfully be made upon her* She will find\nthat now, as of old, nations, like individuals, shape their own destiny, invite their own doom. From the date of the\ntriumph of the Union and freedom over slavery and\nsecession, with British sympathy thrown into the scale,\nshe has seen the handwriting on the wall, that she is\npowerless to throw any serious obstacle in the onward\ncareer of the American Republic. Her Provinces everywhere\nwere sanctuary, asylum and rendezvous for rebels in their\noperatinns against the Government* British Provinces on\nthe North. American Continent will never again be used for\nsuch a purpose, and to-day, so soon after this bad faith\nto be a friendly nation, this dishonor to her whole past\nhistory, this glaring anomaly, a monarchy forgetful of\nevery element in the piicy of empire, she appears stripped of\nher morale, and it is apparent she could not for a moment\nretain a single one of those Provinces, were they to throw\noff the yoke, or rebel against her authority. Knowing all\nthis, she has abandoned the idea of expending either men\nor money in their retention or defence. She is resolved on\nsaving her East India possessions, of defeating Irish\nindependence. With these two projects, she has all-sufficient\nto engage her whole and undivided attention. The\nannouncement or indication that the American Colonies must\ntake care of themselves, finds a fitting, prompt response\nin the petition of the citizens of British Columbia, the Red River rebellion, the preference, so marked, of the people\nof Few Brunswick and Nova Scotia for annexation to the\nUnited States, rather than confederation with Canada*\nThese are the out-croppings of that change so early to be\nrealized. All show that it is desirable for England to\nbe ridden of these sources of expense and division of her\npower which the maintenance of British rule in these\nProvinces of necessity involves. They show more\u2014they\ndemonstrate that it is essential for her to make up her\nmind to let them go and \"stand not upon the order of their\ngoing.\"\nTwo great nations, with a common ancestry, speaking\na common language, professing the same religion, are now\nthe leading powers of the world. In manyrespects they have\na similar mission, the redemption of the world from\nbarbarism, its enlightenment by Christianization and free\ninstitutions. In each hemisphere abundance of room is found\nfor each to work out its separate and successful destiny\nor mission. Confined to such sphere, each would of necessity\nco-operate with the other in giving to the world better\ninstitutions, more freedom, more light, more liberty.\nBetween them now is deep seated feeling, liable at any\nmoment to rankle into hate, to burst into hostility, to\nbring a clash of arms. The causes of that feeling have -60-\nalready been recounted. That peace-loving, philosophic,\nEngland-admiring, but unswerving American patriot and\nSenator, Charles Sumner, thus eloquently sums up our real\nheart-burnings, our grievances, our occasions, of offence:\n\"They stand before us mountain high, with\na base broad as the nation and a mass stupendous as the\nrebellion itself. It will be for a wise statesmanship to\ndetermine how this fearful accumulation, like Pelion upon\nOssa, shall be removed out of sight, so that it shall no\nlonger overshadow the two countries.\"\nThe times are fitting, and circumstances\nfavor the peaceful and amicable solution of the difficulty.\nIt was England's interference in American affairs, her\ndisposition to neutralize the influence of the United States\nand retard her onward destiny, that caused this fearful\naccount against her. Let hernow gracefully withdraw from\nthe American Continent her territorial claims. She can do\nit without sacrifice\u2014indeed it is reasonable to believe that\nby such an act she would be greatly benefitted and relieved\nfrom a weight of expense and responsibility. Let the United\nStates assume the Alabama claims and accept the withdrawal\nof England as \"indemnity for the past,security for the\nfuture.\" In due time, if the people of those Provinces\ndesire admission into the Federal Union, they will be free to i^SSE\n-' iiTT\n-61-\nexpress their opinions, or, if they prefer, let them\nremain independent American Republics. The end will be\nthe same. Ho european monarchial power will encroach upon\nthese Continents. In no distant future these people will\nfind it to their advantage and best interest to seek and\nreceive the blessings of our free institutions. The\nprophecy of the elder Adams will have been fulfilled.\nThis free and glorious Republic will, be co-extensive with\nthe Continent. We will have fully attained to the\nboundaries ascribed by the master-hand of the immortal\nWebster:\n\"The ti\nro great seas of the world wash the one and\nthe other shore. We realize on a mighty scale the\nbeautiful description of the ornamental edging of the\nbuckler of Achilles: THE GOVERNMENT OF\nTHE PROVINCE OF BRITISH C0UM8IA\nPROVINCIAL LIBRARY\nVICTORIA, B.C.\nJuly 6, 1932,\nR. L. Reid, Esq. ,K..C,\nYorkshire Building,\n525 Seymour Street,\nVancouver, B.\nDear Mr. Reid:\nAgreeable to promise I am\nsending you herewith certified typewritten\ncopy of the Elwood Evans pamphlet on the\nRE-ANNEXATION OP BRITISH COLUMBIA, 1870.\nI had a visit yesterday from\nMr. Puller, Librarian of the Spokane Public\nLibrary, who tells me that the pamphlet is\nexcessively rare, and that there was no copy in\nhis expensive historical collection.\nWith compliments,\nTours sincerely,\nJH:GH\n&&L~Mfr\nUL.\nProvincial Librarian\nand Archivist. ","@language":"en"}],"Genre":[{"@value":"Addresses","@language":"en"}],"Identifier":[{"@value":"F5824.2 .E8","@language":"en"},{"@value":"I-0357","@language":"en"}],"IsShownAt":[{"@value":"10.14288\/1.0221724","@language":"en"}],"Language":[{"@value":"English","@language":"en"}],"Notes":[{"@value":"Typescript of original.
Other Copies: http:\/\/www.worldcat.org\/oclc\/9959823","@language":"en"}],"Provider":[{"@value":"Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library","@language":"en"}],"Publisher":[{"@value":"[place of publication unknown] : [publisher not identified]","@language":"en"}],"Rights":[{"@value":"Images provided for research and reference use only. For permission to publish, copy, or otherwise distribute these images please contact digital.initiatives@ubc.ca.","@language":"en"}],"SortDate":[{"@value":"1870-12-31 AD","@language":"en"},{"@value":"1870-12-31 AD","@language":"en"}],"Source":[{"@value":"Original Format: University of British Columbia. Library. Rare Books and Special Collections. F5824.2 .E8","@language":"en"}],"Subject":[{"@value":"British Columbia--History","@language":"en"},{"@value":"United States--Claims vs. Great Britain","@language":"en"}],"Title":[{"@value":"The re-annexation of British Columbia to the United States : right, proper and desirable. An address delivered before the Tacoma Library Association. Olympia, W.T., January 18th, 1870","@language":"en"}],"Type":[{"@value":"Text","@language":"en"}],"Translation":[{"@value":"","@language":"en"}],"@id":"doi:10.14288\/1.0221724"}