III. REPLY OF THE UNITED STATES ΤΟ THE CASE OF THE GOVERNMENT OF HER BRITANNIC MAJESTY, PRESENTED TO HIS MAJESTY THE EMPEROR OF GERMANY, AS ARBITRATOR, UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE TREATY OF WASHINGTON, JUNE 12, 1872. REPLY. The United States on the 12th of December last presented their Memorial, on the Canal de Haro as the boundary line of the United States of America, to the Imperial Arbitrator, and to the representative of Her Britannic Majesty's Government at Berlin. To the Case of the Government of Her Britannic Majesty, likewise submitted at that time, they now offer their reply. A formal answer to every statement in the British Case to which they take exception, would require a wearisome analysis of almost every one of its pages. They hold it sufficient, to point out a few of the allegations which they regard as erroneous; to throw light upon the argument on which the British principally rest their Case; to establish the consistency of the American Government by tracing the controversy through all its changes to its present form; and, lastly, to apply to the interpretation of the Treaty some of the principles which Her Britannic Majesty's Government itself has invoked. I. THE BRITISH CASE. British Case, p. 3. The argument of Her Britannic Majesty's Government has kept in the background the clear words of the Treaty describing the bound[4] ary, and has made no attempt to bring them into harmony with the British claim. On the contrary, in the statement of the question submitted for arbitration, it assumes that the Treaty of 1871 speaks "as if there were more than one channel between the continent and Vancouver Island through which the boundary may be run." The United States are of the opinion that the Treaty of 1846 designates the Haro Channel precisely as the only channel of the boundary. The words are: "The channel that separates the continent from Vancouver Island;" and there is but one such channel. The socalled Straits of Rosario touch neither the continent nor Vancouver Island. The name of the continent of South America, as used by geographers, includes the group of islands south of the Straits of Magellan. The continent of Asia includes Ceylon and Sumatra; the continent of Europe includes Great Britain and Ireland, and the Hebrides. Asia Minor includes Lesbos, and Scio, and Samos, and Rhodes, and Tenedos; and so the continent of North America includes all adjacent islands, to the great Pacific. Were the question to be asked, "What channel separates the continent of Europe from Candia?" the answer would not draw the line north of the greater part of the Ægean Archipelago, but, like all European diplomacy, would point to the channel south of Santorin. In like manner, when the Treaty speaks of "that channel which separates the continent from Vancouver Island," nothing is excepted but Vancouver Island itself. The United States assented, in 1871, to no more than that Great Britain might lay her pretensions before an impartial tribunal, all the while believing and avowing, that the simple statement which has just been made is absolutely conclusive on the point submitted for arbitration. British Case, p. 33. Senate Documents, The British Case seeks to draw an inference unfavorable to the American demand from the proviso in the Treaty of 1846 which secures to either party the free navigation of the whole [5] *of Fuca's Straits. It is quite true that the right was safe, and was known to be safe "under the public law;" yet it appears vol. ix. Doc. 489, p. from documents printed at the time, that, as the recent morial, p. 47. assertion by the Russian Government of a claim to the exclusive navigation of a part of the Northern Pacific Ocean was recollected, it was thought best to insert the superfluous clause, recognizing the straits of Fuca as an arm of the sea. 44. Appendix to Me British Case, pp. 10, 32. Appendix No. 62, The British argument seems suited to mislead by its manner of using the name "straits of Rosario." The first channel from the straits of Fuca to the north, that was discovered and partly examined in 1790, was the Canal de Haro. The expedition under Lieutenant Eliza explored that channel in June, 1791, with the greatest industry and care, and discovered the broad water which is its continuation to the north. That water, lying altogether to the north p. 100, 1. 37, 38. of the northern termination of Haro Channel, was named by the expedition, El Gran Canal de Neustra Señora del Rosario la Marinera. Thus the Canal de Haro and the true Spanish Channel of Rosario form at once the oldest historical continuous channel, as it is the one continuous boundary-channel of the Treaty of 1846. The passage which the British authorities now call the Straits of Rosario, appears as early as 1791 on the map of Eliza as the Channel of Fidalgo. Vancouver, coming after Eliza, transferred the name of Rosario to the strait east of the island of Vancouver Island Texada. The British Admiralty, soon after receiving the Georgia. From the Surveys made under its orders in 1847 by Captain Kellett, suddenly removed the name of the straits of Rosario from Galiano and C. Valdes the narrow water between the continent and the island of Texada, where it had remained on British maps for fifty years, to the passage which the Spaniards called the channel of Fidalgo. And yet the Government of Her Britannic Majesty advances the assertion, that "how the name has come to be" British Case, p. 10. so "applied in modern days does not appear." For this act of the British Admiralty in February, 1849, there exists no historical justification whatever. Мар К. Admiralty Map of and the Gulf of surveys of Captain G. Vancouver, R. N., 1793, Captains D. 1792, Captain H. Kellett, R. N., 1847. Published Feb. 28, 1849. [6] Мар К. The United States have obtained from the Hydrographical Bureau in Madrid a certified copy of two reports, made in 1791, of the explorations of de Eliza, and a fac-simile of a map which accompanied them. On this authentic map, of which a lithographic copy is laid before the Imperial Arbitrator, the position of the canal de Haro, of the Spanish canal de Rosario, and of the channel of Fidalgo may be seen at a glance, as they were determined by the expedition of Eliza in the year 1791. The British Case exaggerates the importance of the voyage of Captain Vancouver. So far were American fur-traders from following his guidance, they were his forerunners and teachers. Their early voyages are among the most marvelous events in the history of commerce. So soon as the Independence of the United States was acknowledged by Great Britain, the strict enforcement of the old, unrepealed navigation laws cut them off from their former haunts of commerce, and it became a question from what ports American ships could bring home coffee, and sugar, and spices, and tea. All British colonies were barred against them as much as were those of Spain. So American ships sailed into eastern oceans, where trade with the natives was free. The great Asi atic commerce poured wealth into the lap of the new republic, and Americans, observing the fondness of the Chinese for furs, sailed fearlessly from the Chinese seas or round Cape Horn to the northwest coast of America in quest of peltry to exchange for the costly fabrics. and products of China. They were in the waters of northwest America long before the Hudson's Bay Company. We know, alike Meare's Voyage. from British and from Spanish authorities, that an Ameri- er's Voyages, vol. i. can sloop, fitted out at Boston in New England, and com- Journal. Documento manded by Captain Kendrick, passed through the straits of archivo de Indias en Fuca just at the time when the American Constitution went No. 62. p. 101, into operation-two years before Vancouver, and even before Quimper Iv1, 235. Vancouv xx. Quimper Ms. existento en el Sevilla. Appendix and de Haro. Americans did not confine themselves to one pas[7] sage in preference to others, but entered every channel, and inlet, and harbor, where there was a chance of trafficking with a red Indian for skins; and they handed down from one to another the results of their discoveries. The instruction from the British Admiralty to Captain Vancouver was prompted by an account, which they had seen, of the voyage Appendix No. 63, of Kendrick, and the belief, derived from that account, that 101, 102. the waters of the Pacific might reach far into the American continent. Vancouver was therefore instructed to search for channels and rivers leading into the interior of the continent, the farther to the south the better, in the hope that water communication might be found even with the Lake of the Woods. In conformity to these instructions, founded on the voyage of Americans, he entered the straits of Fuca, and keeping always as near as he could to the eastern shore, he vainly searched the coast to the southern limit of Puget Sound. Turning to the north, he passed through the channel of Fidalgo, or the spurious Rosario, because his instructions required him to keep near the shore of the continent. The inference of Her Britannic Majesty's Government, that the socalled Rosario Strait is the channel of the Treaty because Vancouver sailed through it, is a fallacy. He never committed such a mistake as to represent the so-called Rosario, which he apparently did not even think worthy of a name, as being comparable to the channel of Haro. The argument of Her Britannic Majesty's Government misstates the character and exaggerates the value of the chart of Vancouver by assuming that he prepared directions to mariners for navigation. But the chart which is produced is only one map among many, never published apart from a work, too voluminous, expensive, and rare to find a place on board the small vessels of fur-traders. The line on his map is nothing more nor less than the track of his own course while engaged in explorations under controlling instructions, and is a track which no ship has followed or is likely to follow. [8] The British argument frequently refers to the soundings taken by Vancouver in the Fidalgo-Rosario Channel. Only British Case, pp. two such soundings appear on his map, while there are five 11, 18, 19, 28, 31. or six on an arm of the Canal de Haro, and one on its edge, showing that its waters were found to be more than two hundred feet deep. The chart of these waters for mariners, published by the Spaniards in 1795, exhibits many soundings to facilitate the Map L Appendix No. 64, use of the Canal de Haro. If this excellent chart contains no soundings in the great center of the channel of Haro, it is for a reason to which Vancouver repeatedly refers, that the usual soundinglines of those days were not long enough to touch bottom P. 102, in the deep waters where walls of igneous rock go perpendicularly down hundreds of feet, close even to the shore. "Even nearest the islands," |