and incapable to have, use, exercise, or put in use, any monopoly or any such commission, grant, license, charter, letters patent, proclamation, &c., or any liberty, power or faculty, grounded or pretended to be grounded upon them or any of them.

This statute has never been repealed or annulled. It stands as a part of the common law of England, and there can be no question that it renders totally void and inoperative the license for exclusive trade granted to the Hudson's Bay Company. This question would have been undoubtedly determined by the courts of law if individuals had been found powerful enough to contend with this wealthy company.

Chief Justice Draper, of Canada, in his evidence before the committee of Parliament, says: "With regard to the exclusive license to trade (perhaps with the prejudice which lawyers have in favour of their particular views), I never could understand how it could be contended for in a court of law for an instant. The exclusive license to trade appears to me to be diametrically contrary to the statute of James the First." (Referring undoubtedly to the statute before quoted, although he does not cite it.) "The only question, I think, which could arise upon it, speaking always individually, would be whether or not that statute applied to a colony, or was confined to a monopoly within the mother country. Assuming that it was confined to a monopoly within the mother country, it still, I think, would be open to a very fair argument that it did apply to this company, because their charter makes the seat of their government in England."

He further says, in answer to a question from Lord John Russell-"I understand you to give a decided opinion as to the monopoly of trade?" Upon that point I have never entertained a doubt."

The simple question presented to the Department of State, in view of the facts above presented, is this:Will the government of the United States suffer the natural rights of its citizens to labour and trade to be controlled and restrained by a company of merchants, the legal existence of whose rights is hardly recognised by

the British government, and only so far upheld as they are, from considerations of political expediency, but not of law.

I beg leave to submit to the Department of State that this is a question of no trifling importance to the Pacific States and Territories of the United States. One quarter part of the labouring element of the State of California and the Territories of Oregon and Washington will be diverted to these new regions. The product of gold in California and the agricultural produce of Oregon and Washington Territories will be materially diminished. If the present restrictions are allowed, the gold of the new regions, after paying enormous profits to the British monopolists, will pass through their hands to England without benefitting our own country or people, The countries of California, Oregon, and Washington, although furnishing all the supplies for the new gold region, will be impoverished by the abstraction of their own labourers, while the profits from the sale of supplies produced in these American territories will be absorbed by foreign monopolists.

The government of the United States must determine whether it is consistent with its own self-respect and its duty to its citizens, that this state of things should continue.

In behalf of the citizens of Washington Territory, whom I immediately represent, and further in behalf of the citizens of our whole Pacific coast, I would request that the government of the United States should interpose with the British authorities for the removal of the restrictions above referred to. And I further request that this government demand the repayment of all sums collected by the Governor of Vancouver's Island for licenses to dig gold, and that it make reclamation for the value of all vessels and cargoes confiscated in consequence of the proclamations of Governor Douglas, before referred to.

In conclusion, I would say that I have no hesitation in expressing my opinion upon the legal questions involved in this paper, as I have been aided in their investigation

by the professional advice of my friend, John L. Hayes, Esq, counsellor at law of this city, to whom I am happy to express my obligation.

I have the honour to be,

Very respectfully, &c.

ISAAC J. STEVENS,

Delegate to Congress from Washington Territory.

TREATY MADE BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND GREAT BRITAIN IN REGARD TO LIMITS WESTWARD OF THE ROCKY MOUNTAINS, JUNE 15, 1846.

Art. 1. From the point on the forty-ninth parallel of north latitude, where the boundary laid down in existing treaties and conventions between the United States and Great Britain terminates the line of boundary between the territories of the United States and those of her Britannic Majesty shall be continued westward along the said forty-ninth parallel of north latitude to the middle of the channel which separates the continent from Vancouver's Island, and thence southerly through the middle of the said channel, and of Fuca's Straits, to the Pacific ocean: Provided, however, that the navigation of the whole of the said channel and straits, south of the fortyninth parallel of north latitude, remain free and open to both parties.

Art. 2. From the point at which the forty-ninth parallel of north latitude shall be found to intersect the great northern branch of the Columbia river, the navigation of the said branch shall be free and open to the Hudson's Bay Company, and to all British subjects trading with the same, to the point where the said branch meets the main stream of the Columbia, and thence down the said main stream to the ocean, with free access into and through the said river or rivers, it being understood that all the usual portages along the line thus described shall, in like manner, be free and open. In navigating the said river or rivers, British subjects, with their goods and produce, shall be treated on the same footing as citizens of the United States; it being, however, always

understood that nothing in this article shall be construed as preventing, or intended to prevent, the government of the United States from making any regulations respecting the navigation of the said river or rivers not inconsistent with the present treaty.

Art. 3. In the future appropriation of the territory south of the forty-ninth parallel of north latitude, as provided in the first article of this treaty, the possessory rights of the Hudson's Bay Company, and of all British subjects who may be already in the occupation of land or other property lawfully acquired within the said territory, shall be respected.

Art. 4. The farms, lands, and other property of every description belonging to the Puget's Sound Agricultural Company, on the north side of the Columbia River, shall be confirmed to the said company. In case, however, the situation of those farms and lands should be considered by the United States to be of public and political importance, and the United States government should signify a desire to obtain possession of the whole or of any part thereof, the property so required shall be transferred to the said government, at a proper valuation, to be settled upon between the parties.

No. III.

DESPATCH FROM WASHINGTON.

The "New York Times" has the following despatch from Washington :

The Government is perfectly satisfied that the steps taken by Great Britain will prevent any collision or misunderstanding between the miners and the Government authorities at the newly-discovered gold-diggings in New Caledonia. It is an interesting fact, never yet made public, that the Hudson's Bay Company have for some time been anxious to sell to the United States all their rights and interests under the treaty of 1845.

Under the provisions of this treaty this company own and hold a number of forts, posts, and trading-houses situated in the territory of the United States; also large stocks of horses, sheep, and cattle. Lord Napier, the British Minister, was authorized by the company to sell them to the United States for the sum of six hundred thousand dollars. Several meetings were held at the State Department on the subject, but without a sale being effected. According to the testimony of General Lane and Governor Stevens, the sum named was very low for the property proposed to be transferred. The stock alone, they stated, would bring at auction one-half the price named. The Secretary of State was favourable to the purchase, but he much doubted the disposi tion of Congress to make the necessary appropriation. As things now stand, in order to avoid a complication of our matters with the Hudson's Bay Company, the Secretary of State may close the contract, provided the offer is still open, and provided, further, Congress wil make the appropriation to meet the payment. It is essential to the peace and good understanding of the two Governments that this interest of the Hudson's Bay Company on our side of the line be extinguished. The popular impression, however, that this company is unfriendly in its feelings towards our people is entirely erroneous. In 1855, when the people of Oregon were engaged in a bloody Indian war, and could not obtain supplies from any other quarter, this company furnished them with provisions and ammunition at a low price and on time. They have always endeavoured to keep down Indian disturbances, and have frequently furnished important information to the Government authorities.

- Another Washington correspondent writes:

At the instance of Governor Stevens, of Washington Territory, our country, through Mr. Dallas, called the attention of the British Government to the apprehended difficulties with the Governor of Vancouver's Island in arresting the passage of our citizens into the gold regions. The British Secretary of State for Foreign