of these waters, even before 1846, than of any similarly situated waters in any part of the globe.

Before that epoch, the waters east and south of Vancouver Island had been visited by at least six scientific expeditions, from four several nations: three from Spain, one from Great Britain, one from France, and one from the United States; and the discoveries of all the four nations had been laid before the world.

De Haro, of the Spanish exploring party of 1789, discovered, and partly sounded and surveyed, the one broad and inviting channel which then seemed, not merely the best, but the only avenue by water to the north; and he left upon it his name.

The official reports of the expedition of Lieutenant de Eliza in 1791, and the large and excellent map which accompanied his narAppendix No. 62. rative, prove that on the 31st day of May, 1791, an armed boat was ordered to enter and survey the canal of Lopez de Haro; but the survey was interrupted by the hostile appearance of six Indian canoes, filled by more than a hundred warriors. On the 14th day of June, the exploration of the canal de Haro was resumed, and was continued till the whole line of the canal de Haro was traced from Fuca's straits to its continuation in the great upper channel.

But the Imperial Arbitrator may ask if these discoveries were published to the world; and the United States answer that they were published before the end of the century, both in Spain and in England. In 1792 the Spanish vessels Sutil and Mexicana, commanded by Captains Galiano and Valdes, taking with them the map of Lieutenant de Eliza, verified and completed the exploration of the interior waters. The results of the three Spanish expeditions were published officially by Spain in 1795, in an elaborately prepared chart for mariners, of which a lithographed copy accompanies this reply.

Map 1.

14.

Appendix to Me

The map of Eliza was also communicated to Vancouver in 1792, [20] at the time when he met Galiano and Valdes, in the *waters east of Vancouver Island. Thus Captain Vancouver became equally well aware of the superiority of the channel of Haro. That he put trust in the communications made to him by the Spaniards, is morial No. 12, pp. 13, proved beyond a doubt, for he incorporated them into his map. The discoveries of the Spaniards, enriched by additional surveys of Vancouver himself, were published in Great Britain in 1798, in connection with his voyage. Before the end of the eighteenth century, therefore, the relative importance of the channels in the waters east of Vancouver Island was known to every one who cared to inquire about it, and who could gain access either to the chart published in Cadiz, or to the account of Vancouver's voyage which was issued in London. Her Majesty's Government seems certainly to have been in possession of the surveys of Captains D. Galiano and C. Valdes, for in the first chart drawn by the British Admiralty of Vancouver Island and the Gulf of Georgia, and published in February, 1849, they are cited as equal in authority to the chart of Vancouver, and as equally well known.

Appendix to Me

As to the result of the French explorations, Duflot de Tmorial No. 48, p. 55. Mofras, in his work published in 1844, reports:

Dans l'espace qui s'étend de la terre ferme jusqu'à la partie Est de la grande ile de Quadra, il existe une foule de petites îles qui, malgré les abris sûrs qu'elles offrent aux navires, présentent à la navigation de grandes difficultés. Le passage le plus facile est par le canal de Haro, entre l'ile de Quadra et Vancouver et celle de San Juan.

In the space between the continent and the eastern part of the large island of Quadra, there is a multitude of small islands, which, in spite of the safe shelters that they

offer to ships, present great difficulties to navigation. The most easy passage is through the canal de Haro, between the island of Quadra and Vancouver and that of San Juan.

The testimony of Duflot de Mofras is clear and unequivocal. It is impartial, and it is authoritative, as it occurs in a formal report to his sovereign.

[21] * Commodore Wilkes himself, in 1841, made all the surveys and soundings that were necessary for the safe navigation of the Haro channel, and, in 1845, published officially, both in London and America, that he had done so.

The American adventurers who collected furs in those waters for the trade with China knew the relative value of the two channels. At Boston, in 1845, Mr. Sturgis, the great representative of that class, describes the Haro channel correctly as the northernmost navigable channel, and draws the boundary line through the center of its waters. And his pamphlet and his map were known and approved by Lord Aberdeen before the treaty was framed.

Thus in Cadiz, in Paris, in Philadelphia, in Boston, and in London, the character of the Haro channel had been publicly made known before the end of 1845.

The British claim that the Hudson's Bay Company navigated those waters from 1827 or 1828 to 1846. Is it credible that for nineteen years they should have sailed a distance of six German miles, and, at the end of that time, be able to affirm that they were ignorant of the most obvious, broadest, shortest, nearest, and best channel to Fraser's River? Unless they took the channel of Haro, they must have passed it twice on every voyage, and a sailor, from the mast-head of a vessel, or even from the deck, could have seen it in all or nearly all its extent.

Governor Douglas, one of the most enterprising and inquisitive of men, famous for his "intimate acquaintance with every Appendix, No. 66, crevice on the coast," came in 1842, with the knowledge and P. 104, 1, 12-14. approval of Lord Aberdeen, to select the station for the Hudson's Bay Company near the southeast of Vancouver. From the hill that bears his name, his eye could have commanded the whole of the canal de Haro, and his experience of the sea would have revealed to him at a glance the great depth of its waters. Moreover, in a good boat, with a

[22]

favoring wind and tide, he could have passed through the whole channel in less than three hours. To say that he was not thoroughly well aware of its merits is, to those who know the character of the man, beyond the bounds of credibility.

The British Government has not produced one particle of evidence of an older date than 1846, that any one questioned the navigability of the Haro channel, while all the evidence which the American Government has thus far produced to establish it, is older than the treaty, is supported by the testimony of four different nations, and proves beyond all possibility of doubt, that before the treaty of 1846 the superiority of the canal de Haro was known by all who cared to know anything on the subject.

The testimony which Her Britannic Majesty's government of to-day brings forward to prove the ignorance of its predecessors is found to be the more groundless the more it is examined. It would be difficult to state too strongly the objections which any British court of law would make to it. The declarations are taken by the one party without notice to the other. The distinguished officers of the Hudson's Bay Company, men like Governor Douglas, are passed by; for they could not be expected to stultify themselves by pleading ignorance of the merits of

Haro channel. Obscure men bear positive testimony to that about which they knew nothing. A set of written questions is presented to them, and in different places, and on different days, they answer in large part in the same words, implying that answers, as well as questions, were prepared beforehand. The testimony thus picked up is of the less value, as the witnesses were not cross-examined; and yet, without being confronted or cross-examined, they involve themselves in contradictions if not in falsehoods.

The questions are framed so as to seem to be to the point, and yet most of them are of no significance.

British Case, pp. 4N, 49.

William H. McNeill pretends to have used Vancouver's charts, not knowing that Vancouver made no charts except as an illustration of his own voyage. Then he affirms that [23] *in coming south from Fraser's River he went through Rosario straits; while the Rosario straits on Vancouver's map lie far to the north of Fraser's River. Again, he says that the navigation of Haro straits is much impeded by numerous small islands and rocks; whereas it may be seen by the charts of the British Admiralty, as well as those of the United States Coast Survey, that the channel is broad and singularly deep, and where the bottom is marked rocky, the soundings show a depth of three hundred, six hundred, and even a thousand feet. The same man puts his name to the statement that what he calls the strait of Rosario was the only surveyed channel; whereas the canal de Haro had been surveyed both by Spanish and American expeditions.

British Case, p. 51.

William Mitchell testifies twice over that the so-called Rosario strait was the only known channel; while the channel of Haro appears on the Spanish chart, on the French, on the American, and is given by Vancouver himself. The same William Mitchell testifies, like McNeill, and equally falsely, that in June, 1846, the straits of Rosario, so called, were the only surveyed channel.

But Alexander C. Anderson exceeds others in alacrity. He testifies that as late as 1851 the passage through the Haro strait British Case, p, 54. was incompletely known. Now the large charts prepared by Wilkes and his officers had been for several years exposed for sale to anybody that chose to buy them, and it is absolutely certain that they were presented by the American minister at London to Lord Palmerston, British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and by him thankfully acknowledged, in the year 1848; so that the Government of Her Britannic Majesty happily possesses the means. of correcting the rash declarations of the last-named witness. The American Government cannot offer the rebutting testimony of American mariners, for their fur-trade on the northwest coast had been

Appendix No. 51.

broken up by the British before 1810, and when at a later day [24] they attempted to renew it, they had been forcibly compelled by

the officers and servants of the Hudson's Bay Company to give up the field. The American sailors, therefore, who were familiar with those regions have long since gone to slumber with their fathers.

Eritish Case, p. 11.

But the British Case enables the American Government to cite the log-books of the Hudson's Bay Company. It nowhere ventures to say that the log-books of the vessels of the Hudson's Bay Company prove that they never went through the Haro channel, but only that they used the so-called Rosario straits as the "leading channel." This is a confession that the log-books of those vessels show that sometimes one channel was used by them, sometimes the other. It is admitted by the British Case that in 1843 the Cadboro sailed through Haro straits, and that once, at least, the

British Case, pp. 52, 48.

Mayne's Four Years

p. 39.

Hudson's Bay Company's steamer Beaver chose the same route. Commander Mayne admits that when the Hudson's Bay Company established their headquarters at Victoria, the canal de in British Columbia, Haro became used. In corroboration of this use of the channel of Haro, especially from the year 1842 to 1846, some affidavits and statements are offered, correcting the testimony con- Appendix Nos. 53, tained in the British Case, and confirming facts which the 54, 57, 58, 59, 60, British Case itself admits. From the want of time, no notice could be given to the other party; but among the witnesses will be found some of the highest officers in the Army and Navy of the United State, as well as men known by their works to the scientific world.

61.

British Case, p. 30.

It is a remarkable characteristic of the British Case, that while it seems to make assertions in language of the most energetic affirmation, it qualifies them so as to make them really insignificant. It might almost be said that the British Case gives up its own theory of the ignorance of Lord Aberdeen as to the character of the Haro channel; for it affirms, not that he was ignorant about its navigability, but that he "had no assurance that it was even navigable in its upper waters." "No assurance" is a very vague expression; so is [25] *the phrase "upper waters;" and with them both nothing is asserted, while the form of the statement is an ample confession that Lord Aberdeen was at least perfectly well acquainted with the existence of the strait. When, using the same words with which they introduced their total misapprehension of Mr. Webster's opinion, they write of the Haro channel, "It is not too much to say that Her Majesty's Government had a firm belief that it was a dangerous strait," it is enough to reply that not one word has been presented to show that Lord Aberdeen believed it a dangerous strait; and without his positive testimony, which has not been produced, this is an idle and groundless assertion. Strange as it is for a great nation to come before a tribunal like that of the German Emperor, and complain that the treaty which they themselves draughted contains an ambiguity due, not to bad faith, but to ignorance, the United States have avowed themselves ready Proctocols 36 and to abrogate that part of the treaty on the ground alleged by 37 of Conference be the British Government, that it might have been made missioners, at Wash under a mutual misunderstanding; and to re-arrange the boundary which was in dispute before the treaty was concluded. When put to the test, the British are compelled practically to acknowledge the candor and forbearance of the Americans in the formation of the treaty, and that, if the work were to be done over again, they have no hope of a settlement so much to their advantage. The treaty, as it is understood by the United States, made very large concessions to Great Brit ain; and the British Government insists upon preserving it.

tween the High Com

ington.

Then, since Her Majesty's Government will not consent to cancel the treaty, it must be accepted according to its plain meaning; and if its meaning is not plain, the party which draughted it must suffer the consequences of the ambiguity.

[26]

*III.-PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE TREATY OF 1846.

The United States have always held the treaty to be free from ambiguity, and have maintained their understanding of it with unvarying consistency. If between a channel that had a name, and one that had none, the British Government intended to take the British Case, pp. channel without a name, it should have described it with 28, 33.

distinctness and care; instead of which, the words of their description

exclude the channel without a name, and apply exactly and alone to the Haro Channel.

Appendix No. 68, p. 107.

In January, 1848, the British minister at Washington, treating the "islets" of the San Juan archipelago as of "little or no value," expressed a "wish" to the United States that the passage used by Vancouver in passing from Admiralty Inlet to the north, might be mutually considered as the channel of the treaty. No claim whatever was preferred, and the wish was excused, "because otherwise much time might be wasted in surveying the various intricate channels formed by the numerous islets which lie between Vancouver's Island and the main-land, and some difficulty might arise in deciding which of those channels ought to be adopted for the dividing boundary." The letter of Lord Palmerston, under which the British minister at Washington expressed this wish of Her Majesty's Government, has never been communicated to the Government of the United States.

To Mr. Bancroft, who, immediately after the ratification of the treaty, was selected as the United States minister at London, and who on all occasions spoke and wrote of the canal de Haro as the boundary channel, Lord Palmerston, then Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, never presented any counter claim; and the American minister was persuaded that danger to the immediate peaceful execution of the treaty arose, not from within the ministry, but from the [27] parliamentary influence of the Hudson's Bay Company, whose desires the ministry seemed reluctant to adopt.

Appendix No. 51, pp. 60, 61.

Mr. Bancroft did not suffer the authoritative interpretation of the treaty on the part of his Government to rest on the uncertainty of conversations which time might obliterate, or memory pervert.

On the last day of July, 1848, Lord Palmerston observed that he had no good chart of the Oregon waters; and having asked to see a traced copy of Wilkes' chart, Mr. Bancroft immediately sent it to him with this remark:

Unluckily this copy does not extend quite so far north as the parallel of 49°, though it contains the wide entrance into the straits of Haro, the channel through the middle of which the boundary is to be continued. The upper part of the straits of Haro is laid down, though not on a large scale, in Wilkes' map of the Oregon Territory. Obtaining from Washington an early copy of Wilkes' surveys, Mr. Bancroft delivered it to Lord Palmerston with the following official note:

NOVEMBER 3, 1848.

MY LORD: I did not forget your lordship's desire to see the United States surveys of the waters of Puget's Sound, and those dividing Vancouver's Island from our territory.

These surveys have been reduced, and have just been published in three parts, and I transmit for your lordship's acceptance the first copy which I have received. The surveys extend to the line of 49°, and by combining two of the charts your lordship will readily trace the whole course of the channel of Haro, through the [28] middle of which our boundary line passes. I think you will esteem "the work done in a manner very creditable to the young Navy officers concerned in it. I have the honor, &c.,

Viscount PALMERSTON, &'c., &c.

GEORGE BANCROFT.

To this formal and authorized announcement of the Haro as the boundary, the answer of Lord Palmerston, written after four days, was in like manner official, and ran as follows:

FOREIGN OFFICE, November 7, 1848.

SIR: I beg leave to return you my best thanks for the surveys of Puget's Sound and of the Gulf of Georgia, which accompanied your letter of the 3d instant.