accurately defining the space through which the boundary line is to be traced, will show much more forcibly how well the language of the treaty was chosen to express in few words the object of the negotiators.

"On the assumption that the language used by Mr. McLane to describe the boundary line had been originally the words of the proposition (or projet of the treaty), and not retained, you say that it would seem rather to show that discussion on the subject had taken place, and that the line of boundary had been designedly altered, and the wording of the treaty as it now stands substituted to meet the alteration.'

"I am somewhat at a loss to know between whom you suppose this discussion to have taken place; whether between Mr. McLane and Lord Aberdeen, or between Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Pakenham. It could not have been between the former, for it would not appear that there was any opportunity for discussion after their conference, and before the departure of their despatches; or if it had been, Mr. McLane would certainly have notified his Government of the fact. Nor do I see how any discussion could have taken place between Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Pakenham that could have effected any alteration in the proposition; for it would appear that Mr. Pakenham had neither power to accept nor offer modifica tions, as will be seen by an extract from Mr. McLane's letter, and his own statement in the conference with Mr. Buchanan. Mr. McLane says::

"It may be considered certain also in my opinion that the offer now to be made is not to be submitted as an ultimatum, and is not intended as such, though I have reason to know that Mr. Pakenham will not be authorised to accept or reject any modification that may be proposed on our part, but that he will in such case be instructed to refer the modification to his Government.'

"From the foregoing extract it will be perceived that Mr. Pakenham had no authority to accept any proposed alteration to the treaty, though it is not presumed the proposition for the change you suggest could have been expected from Mr.

Buchanan. On the other hand, Mr. Pakenham was not authorised to propose any modifications, as has been seen from his conference with Mr. Buchanan, June 6th, in which he submits the draught of a convention setting forth the terms which he had been instructed to propose to the Government of the United States for the settlement of the Oregon question,' which could not have been otherwise than in conformity with the terms of the proposition communicated by Lord Aberdeen to Mr. McLane. I cannot, therefore, admit that the original proposition was designedly altered' with the consent of either Mr. Buchanan or Mr. McLane. Nor can I agree with you that the islands you refer to, barren, rocky, and valueless' as they might then have been deemed, would have been conceded as readily as you suppose, after the positive assertions of the President (communicated to Mr. McLane by Mr. Buchanan) that he would not consent to surrender any territory claimed by the United States south of the forty-ninth parallel, with the exception of the southern end of Vancouver's Island. I cannot conceive the motive which could induce any officer of the United States Government to surrender a portion of the territory which the line proposed by the British Government threw on the American side, when at the same time he knew the proposition was not an ultimatum, and not intended as such, as will be seen from the extract of Mr. McLane's letter heretofore quoted. In addition thereto he says:

"I do not think there can be much doubt, however, that an impression has been produced here that the Senate would accept the proposition now offered, at least without any material modification, and that the President would not take the responsibility of rejecting it without consulting the Senate. If there be any reasonable ground to entertain such an impression, however erroneous, an offer less objectionable, in the first instance, at least, could hardly be expected."

"And he again says:

"Feeling very sure, however, that the present offer is not made or intended as an ultimatum, I think it only reason

able to infer an expectation on the part of those who are offering it, not only that modifications may be suggested, but that they may be reasonably required.'

"From the foregoing extracts you must perceive that the United States Government was not in a position to make concessions, and from the speech of Mr. Benton, which I submitted to your perusal, you will have seen that a portion of the members of the Senate insisted upon modifications, which would have been asked of the British Government, if Mr. Pakenham had been authorised to grant them, and were only prevented from doing so by the delay incident to sending to England.

"I cannot therefore admit that any such alteration as you suggest could have possibly taken place. Everything connected with the settlement of the Oregon question was at that time deemed important. And no officer of the United States Government would have ventured to make such a concession without its being fully understood by all who had any connection with making or ratifying the treaty. Even the reason you suggest for the concession is one which would apply with greater force against the boundary line running through Rosario Straits than through the Canal de Haro; for Rosario Straits being narrower than the Canal de Haro, the objection to the former applies with greater force than it does to the latter. After much reflection and consideration, I am quite unable to conceive when and where this designed alteration' could have taken place, and if it be not an entire supposition, I would respectfully ask for further information on the subject, in order that I may regulate my judgment accordingly.

"Your opinion that the line of boundary was altered, you say, is strengthened by your having been officially informed, by high and competent authority, that the channel commonly known in England as the Vancouver Strait-that now called the Rosario Strait-was the channel contemplated by the British Government as the channel of the treaty; and the mention of a particular channel by Mr. McLane, and the

absence of the name of that channel from the treaty, together with the very peculiar wording of the treaty, would seem almost conclusively to prove the fact.'

"I have no means of determining the source from which the high and competent authority you refer to received his information; but I would respectfully suggest that, after the cotemporaneous documentary evidence I have produced, the mere assertion of any person at this time, no matter what his position may be, unless he was immediately concerned in the negotiation of the treaty, can be of little weight. It is quite possible that the British Government may have contemplated Rosario Straits as the channel; but I would respectfully submit that they proposed the Canal de Haro, and that the United States Government accepted that proposition.

"In your endeavour to show that the Canal de Haro could not have been the only channel regarded in the United States as the channel of the treaty, both at the time of its ratification and afterwards, you state that you have in your possession a 'Map of Oregon and Upper California, published at Washington City in 1848, drawn by Charles Preuss, "under the order of the Senate of the United States," in which the boundary line between the British possessions and those of the United States, distinctly lithographed and coloured, is carried down through the channel now called Rosario Straits," &c. You further say that, if the 'Canal de Haro was the only channel contemplated by the Senate of the United States as the channel of the treaty, it seems remarkable that within a short period of its conclusion a map should be “drawn under the order of the Senate," and published and given forth to the world with a boundary line upon it, not drawn through the Canal de Haro,' but through Rosario Straits.

"I have also in my possession a copy of the same map, and, as its title declares, it is a 'Map of Oregon and Upper California, from the surveys of John Charles Frémont and other authorities,' and is accompanied by a geographical memoir, which was also published by the Senate at the same time. By an examination of that memoir, it will be seen

that the accurate delineation of the boundary formed no part of the object for which the map was directed. The boundary line north, as well as south, on that map was drawn merely to show the extent of the country described in the memoir.

"By a comparison of the Mexican or southern boundary on the same map with the true line as defined by the commissioners and surveyors appointed under the treaty, an error quite as remarkable will be found on that line as on the northwestern boundary, and one which, upon examination, must completely dispel any impressions that may have been made upon your mind that it has any authenticity, or is of any authority whatever as a map showing the boundary between the British possessions and the United States. The best evidence of this is to be found in the fact that, after its publication, the Mexican boundary line was surveyed and marked by the United States Government without reference to Mr. Preuss's map, and the true line was found to be totally different from that laid down by Mr. Preuss.

"By examining carefully the lithographed line on this map, drawn from the forty-ninth parallel to the Straits of Fuca, it will be seen that, instead of running through the middle of Rosario Straits, as you suppose, it runs directly against Sinclair's Island on the north, and Cypress Island on the south, leaving a space of over five miles without any boundary line; but if this should be joined, it would bisect the two islands. It also runs tangent to Smith's Island on the eastern side-an island upon which it is the intention of the United States Government to build a light-house, and for which an appropriation has been made.

"I point out the inaccuracies of this map, so far as relates to the boundary line, without any intention of depreciating it in any respect, but simply in order to show you that it is not considered authority for the boundary lines drawn upon it, and that it was not intended to be so considered. I could exonerate the Senate from censure for publishing the map and giving it forth to the world with their apparent sanction, but