My own dispatch of that period contains no observation whatever of a tendency contrary to what I thus state from memory, and they, there fore, so far, plead in favor of the accuracy of my recollection. Mr Cass on the No. 74. Mr. Cass to Mr. Dallas. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, SIR: The words of the treaty are "through the middle of said channel and of Fuca's Straits to the Pacific Ocean." Ordinarily, and in channel of the treaty. the absence of any other controlling circumstances, the way which would be selected from one given point to another would be the shortest and the best way. In the present case this is the Canal de Haro, which is, undoubtedly, the broadest, the deepest, and the shortest route by which the Straits of Fuca can be reached from the point of deflection. This pre-eminence was given to it by De Mofras as long ago as 1841, and it has been fully confirmed by subsequent surveys. The Canal de Haro may, therefore, be fairly regarded, from its own intrinsic merits merely, as the main channel down the middle of which the treaty boundary is to pass to the Straits of Fuca. It is the only channel, moreover, which is consistent with the purpose of those who negotiated the treaty, for it is the only channel which separates Vancouver's Island from the continent without leaving some thing more to Great Britain south of the forty-ninth parallel than the southern cape of that island. The Rosario Channel, claimed by Captain Prevost, would surrender to Great Britain not only Vancouver's Island, but the whole archipelago between that island and itself; while [115] the middle channel, which is proposed as a compromise by Lord John Russell, would, in like manner, concede the important island of San Juan. These considerations seem to be almost conclusive in favor of the Haro Channel. But they are abundantly confirmed by evidence contemporaneous with the negotiation of the treaty. The description given by Mr. MacLane, immediately after he had an interview on the subject with Lord Aberdeen, of what the British proposal would be, has already been mentioned, and carries the line in so many words down the Canal de Haro. Equally clear is the statement of Senator Benton as to what the proposition was. Colonel Benton was one of the most earnest members of the Senate in his support of the treaty; and he was better acquainted, perhaps, than any other member with the geography of the region in dispute. His construction, therefore, of the treaty, at the very time it was before the Senate for ratification, is entitled to no inconsiderable weight. On that occasion he said: "The first article is in the very words which I myself would have used, and that article constitutes The great When the treaty. With me it is the treaty. question was that of boundary. 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 through the channel de Haro (wrongly written Arro in the maps) to the Straits of Fuca." Mr. Buchanan, who signed the treaty, was equally explicit in his understanding of this part of it. On the 28th December, 1846, Mr. Bancroft having written to him on the subject from London, he inclosed to him a traced copy of Wilkes's Chart of the Straits of Arro, and added in his letter: "It is not probable, however, that any claim of this character will be seriously preferred by Her Britannic Majesty's government to any island lying to the eastward of the Canal de Arro, as marked in Captain Wilkes's map of the Oregon Territory." Mr. Bancroft, who was a member of President Polk's Cabinet when the treaty was concluded, wrote repeatedly to Lord Palmerston after receiving this chart, and uniformly described the Straits of Arro" as the channel through the middle of which the boundary is to be continued." The Canal de Haro, then, as being the best channel leading from the point of deflection to the Straits of Fuca; as answering completely the purpose for which the deflection was made; as being the only channel between the island 1116] and the main-land *which does answer this purpose, and as being supported, also, by a large amount of personal testimony contemporaneous with the treaty, must fairly be regarded, in my judgment, as the treaty channel. * Nor are there any important difficulties which seem to me to be necessarily in conflict with this conclusion. Lord John Russell, indeed, says that it is beyond dispute that the intentions of the British government were that the line of boundary should be drawn through Vancouver's Channel. But this assumption is wholly inconsistent, not only with the treaty itself, but with the statements both of the Earl of Aberdeen and of Sir Richard Pakenham. Lord Aberdeen declares that it was the intention of the treaty to adopt the mid-channel of the straits at the time of demarkation, without reference to islands, the position of which, and indeed the very existence of which, had hardly at that time been accurately ascertained; "and he has no recollection of any mention having been made during the discussion of any other channel than those described in the treaty itself." Sir Richard Pakenham is still more explicit. "Neither the Canal de Haro nor the channel of Vancouver," he says, "could, as I conceive, exactly fulfill the conditions of the treaty which, according to their literal tenor, would require the line to be traced along the middle of the channel, meaning, I presume, the whole intervening space which separates the continent from Vancouver's Island." He adds further, that he has no recollection whatever that any other channel was designated in the discussions than that described in the language of the treaty. Surely there is nothing in this testimony which supports the statement of Lord John Russell that the channel of Vancouver was the channel intended by the treaty; but on the contrary another and entirely different channel is suggested as that which the convention requires. After these statements of Lord Aberdeen and Sir Richard Pakenham, the Rosario Channel can no longer, it seems to me, be placed in competition with the Canal de Haro. Whether the latter is the true channel or not, in the opinion of the British negotiation, it is quite certain, by the concurrent testimony of both the American and British negotiators, that the former channel is not. In respect, moreover, to the Canal de Haro, the other considerations to which I have referred appear to me to quité outweigh the mere want of recollection of Lord Aberdeen and Sir Richard Pakenham, or their general impression at this time as to what is required by the literal language of the treaty. [117] *There is one allusion in Sir Richard Pakenham's memorandum to which I think it right to call your special attention. It is the reference which he makes to his final instructions from Lord Aberdeen, dated May 18, 1846, and describing the boundary line which he was authorized to propose to Mr. Buchanan. These instructions were shown by Lord Napier to Mr. Campbell, and according to his clear recollection, the description quoted by Sir Richard Pakenham was followed in dispatch by these words: "Thus giving to Great Britain the whole of Vancouver's Island and its harbors." This places beyond controversy the object which was intended by deflecting the treaty boundary south of the parallel of 49°, and ought to have great weight, undoubtedly, in determining the true channel from the point of deflection to the Straits of Fuca. * GEORGE M. DALLAS, Esq. LEWIS CASS. The British govern not clain the so called Rosario as the boundary. No. 75. Lord John Russell to Lord Lyons. [Extracts.] FOREIGN OFFICE, December 16, 1859. MY LORD: In pointing out, therefore, to your Lordship that in whatever manner the question was ultimately settled, Her Majes ment in 1859 does ty's government could not yield the island of San Juan, Her Majesty's government were, by implication, abandoning a large part of the territory they had claimed, and were merely insisting on the retention of an island, which, from the peculiarity of its situation, it was impossible for Her Majesty's government to cede without compromising interests of the gravest importance. * The fact is, that, by the instructions with which Captain Prevost was furnished, he was authorized, in case he should be of opinion that the claims of Her Majesty's government, to consider the Rosario Strait as the channel of the treaty, could not be sustained, to adopt any other intermediate channel on which he and the United States commissioner might agree. [118] *Sir R. Pakenham seems to think that the conditions of the treaty would obtain their most exact fulfillment if the line were carried through the Douglas Channel. Or, again, if it would be inconvenient to both nations to have five or six islands partially divided between them, would it not be fair and expedient to look for a channel which shall be the nearest approximation to that line, midway between the continent and the island of Vancouver, which is designated by the treaty? And if Douglas's Channel fulfills this condition, is it not the line most in accordance with the treaty, as well as with general policy and convenience? Lord J. Russell moderation of his If I notice General Cass's allusion to the letters which he says Mr. Bancroft repeatedly wrote to Lord Palmerston does injustice to the in 1848, it is only for the purpose of placing on record what, own administration no doubt, Mr. Bancroft duly reported to his government at the time, viz, that Lord Palmerston gave Mr. Bancroft dis: quiescence of silence, tinctly to understand that the British government did not acquiesce in the pretensions of the United States that the boundary line should be run down the Haro Channel. In 1848. Lord Palmerston gave the ac LORD LYONS. J. RUSSELL. I certify that the paper hereto annexed is a correct copy of the Statement furnished by the Acting Superintendent of the Census, of the returns of the Ninth Census, from the "disputed" Islands in the County of Whatcom, Territory of Washington. In testimony whereof, I, Hamilton Fish, Secretary of State of the United States, have hereunto subscribed my name and caused the seal of the Department of State to be affixed. Done at the City of Washington, this twenty-ninth day of March, A. D. 1872, and of the Independence of the United States of America the ninety-sixth. HAMILTON FISH. [119] Abstract of the returns at the Ninth Census, from the "disputed" islands in the County of Whatcom, Territory of Washington. The population of the Haro archipelago, more than two-thirds Ameri can. 120] *CHARTS AND MAPS TO MEMORIAL AND REPLY. 4. Photograph of Map of de Haro. 1790. (See page 17.) B. Photograph of Map of Eliza. 1791. (See page 17.) C. Photograph of Map of Vancouver. 1798. (See page 15.) D. Photograph of Map of Galiano and Valdes. 1802. (See page 17.) E. Photograph of Map of Duflot de Mofras. 1844. (See page 15.) F. Photograph of Map of Wilkes. 1845. (See page 11.) G. Photograph of Map of W. Sturgis. 1845. (See page 9.) H. Lithograph of U. S. Coast Survey Map of Washington Sound and Approaches. (See end of the volume.) J. Lithograph of Map of de Haro. 1790. (See end of the volume.) K. Lithograph of Map of Eliza. 1791. (See end of the volume.) L. Lithograph of Spanish Chart published in 1795. (See end of the volume.) M. Cross Sections of Haro and Rosario Channels. (See page 130.) N. Sketch to illustrate the route of the vessels of the Hudson's Bay Company. (See page 126.) 0. Copy of Map H, with a blue line drawn southerly from the center of the Gulf of Georgia in latitude 49°; with red lines to show the channels through Haro northward; and a yellow line to show the socalled Rosario Channel. (See end of the volume.) |