on by Mr. McLane at the same time. (See sketch No. 2, p. 61.) There can be little doubt that both Lord Aberdeen and himself had also in their possession the Spanish Admiralty chart of Vancouver's Island, Greenhow's, De Mofras', and other maps of the north-west coast.

"None of the maps extant at that day present a perfectly correct idea of the space between the continent and Vancouver's Island at and immediately south of the forty-ninth parallel. The Straits of Fuca and the archipelago east of the Canal de Haro are fairly enough represented; but between the Haro Archipelago and the forty-ninth parallel the space is inaccurately represented as free from islands, and, consequently, with but a single channel between the continent and Vancouver's Island. The surveys made subsequently to the conclusion of the treaty show that what was laid down by the early Spanish navigators, by Vancouver and by Wilkes, as the eastern coast of Vancouver's Island, is in fact the coast of an extensive archipelago skirting the shore of the main island between latitude 48° 47′ and 49° 10'. The actual space between the coasts of the continent and Vancouver's Island is nearly twice as great as it appears on the enclosed sketches from Vancouver's chart and Wilkes's map. A glance at the Coast Survey chart which I deposited in the department with my report of last February, will give some idea of the true position of the coast of Vancouver's Island; but as that part of the chart is only copied from a sketch furnished Captain Alden by the Hudson's Bay Company, it is by no means reliable. I send herewith a tracing from the last Admiralty chart of 'Vancouver Island and the Gulf of Georgia,' showing the same change in the coast of Vancouver's Island on a smaller scale. The British surveying steamer Plumper has recently completed the survey and chart of the greater portion of this space hitherto so little known, except to the Hudson's Bay Company. As soon as I obtain a tracing of it from Captain Richards, I will have a copy of the Coast Survey chart corrected by it and forwarded to the department.

"The claim of the British Government made by their Com

missioner, that the 'channel which separates the continent from Vancouver's Island' is the channel nearest the continent, or that through which the track of Vancouver's vessel is traced, makes it important to examine Vancouver's chart in connection with the line described by Lord Aberdeen, and at the same time to trace on Wilkes's chart the line described by Mr. McLane.

"Mr. McLane, in tracing on the map the forty-ninth parallel 'to the sea, that is to say, the arm of the sea called Birch's Bay,' evidently supposed that the space between the continent and Vancouver's Island at the forty-ninth parallel was designated as Birch Bay. And from the conspicuous position given to the name of Birch Bay on Wilkes's map, and even on Vancouver's chart, such an error might very naturally occur. In reality, however, Birch Bay is only the small indentation on the mainland at the extreme right of the name, and is a few miles south of the forty-ninth parallel. The name of the Gulf of Georgia is intended by Wilkes to extend from the parallel of 50° as far south as the northern extremity of the Canal de Haro, including the space supposed by Mr. McLane to be Birch Bay. The line described by him thence by the Canal de Haro and Straits of Fuca to the ocean,' gives the whole of Vancouver's Island to Great Britain, in accordance with Lord Aberdeen's instructions to Mr. Pakenham, and with the understanding between Mr. McLane and Lord Aberdeen, as detailed by the former in his letter of May 18, 1846. The English Government have endeavoured to create an impression that the Canal de Haro was unknown as a navigable channel when the treaty was negotiated, and that the channel through which Vancouver sailed was well known. The Canal de Haro, on the contrary, has always been well known as a navigable channel, and its name generally put down on maps even of a small scale, which is not the case with the channel through which Vancouver sailed. It is sufficient for the United States that Captain Wilkes surveyed the Canal de Haro in person, and that the fact is officially reported in his 'Exploring Expedition,' which was reprinted and republished in England in 1845, with

the atlas containing the 'Map of the Oregon Territory.' His survey and soundings proved it to be the main channel, and a tracing of his chart was in the hands of Mr. Bancroft while a member of Mr. Polk's cabinet. The channel through which Vancouver sailed has had various names. It is called the

'Canal de Fidalgo' on the early Spanish maps. Vancouver gave it no name. De Mofras, in 1841, has no name for it. Wilkes called it [in 1841]' Ringgold's Channel.' The English Admiralty map of 1849 has it Rosario Strait.' Arrowsmith, in 1849, called it 'Vancouver's Strait,' and it is now universally called Rosario Straits. On all of these maps the channel nearest Vancouver's Island at its southern end is designated as the Canal de Haro, having received its name from its discoverer as early as 1789. De Mofras [in 1841] in describing the space between the continent and Vancouver's Island, says:- Here is found a multitude of little islands, which, notwithstanding the safe shelter they offer to vessels, present great impediments to navigation. The easiest passage is by the Canal de Haro, between the island of Quadra and Vancouver and that of San Juan.' And this opinion he must have derived from the general report of those engaged in the navigation of these waters, as his own explorations are considered very superficial.

"Lord Aberdeen, in tracing the boundary line, follows the forty-ninth parallel to the sea-coast, and deflects 'thence in a southerly direction through the centre of King George's Sound and the Straits of Fuca to the ocean.' On either of the accompanying tracings, and, indeed, upon any map of the north-west coast, we may look in vain for 'King George's Sound' between the continent and Vancouver's Island. This mistake is not so readily accounted for as Mr. McLane's in regard to Birch Bay, as the name is nowhere to be found on Vancouver's chart, which is said to have been used by the British Government in reference to the water boundary. King George's Sound' is the name that was given, in 1778, by Captain Cook, to Nootka Sound, on the western coast of Vancouver's Island, between latitude 49° and 50°. The name was never much in vogue,

except to distinguish a mercantile association formed soon after the discovery of Nootka, called the 'King George's Sound Company.' There is, however, no need of conjecture as to Lord Aberdeen's actual meaning. He simply miscalled the Gulf of Georgia. I should hardly have noticed this discrepancy, nor that of Mr. McLane, if the British Commissioner had not seized upon the latter with a view to weaken Mr. McLane's evidence in favour of the Canal de IIaro, maintaining that if the Canal de Haro should be adopted upon Mr. McLane's statement, with equal justness it might be argued that the line along the forty-ninth parallel should not strike the water at the fortyninth parallel, but that it should deflect to Birch's Bay, which is a few miles to the southward.'

"On Vancouver's chart the Gulf of Georgia' extends as far south as the eastern extremity of the Straits of Fuca, and the name as printed appears intended to embrace generally the whole space between the continent and Vancouver's Island, including the Canal de Haro and Rosario Straits. From the forty-ninth parallel in a southerly direction,' as far as latitude 48° 47', there is but one channel represented by Vancouver, and there is no practical difficulty in drawing a line through thecentre' of it. From there, southerly to the Straits of Fuca, a line drawn through the centre of King George's Sound' [or Gulf of Georgia] that is, midway between the shores of the continent and Vancouver's Island, would cut these islands into parts, and divide their jurisdiction between the United States and Great Britain; to avoid which, even in regard to the large island of Vancouver, the United States yielded their rights to the portion south of the forty-ninth parallel, and agreed, as a compromise, upon the nearest natural boundary. Of course, a line dividing the smaller islands into parts could never have been contemplated by the British Government, nor has it ever been claimed. But such would be the practical effect of Lord Aberdeen's proposition, if literally carried out. Giving the proposition, however, the advantage of the most liberal as well as the most literal interpretation, the centre of the space between the continent and Vancouver's

Island cannot, by any possibility, be transferred to the centre of Rosario Straits. The utmost liberality or literality could only force the line through the channel east of the island of San Juan. A line drawn through that channel would more nearly pass through the centre of the whole space between the continent and Vancouver's Island than if drawn through any other channel. But it has never been pretended that San Juan Channel was intended by the British Government as the boundary channel, and therefore can never be claimed as 'the channel' intended by the treaty. The two channels respectively claimed are the Canal de Haro and Rosario Straits, through one of which, according to the views of each Government, must the boundary line be run to carry the treaty into effect.' Mr. McLane's despatch of May 18, 1846, to his Government, is the most important cotemporaneous evidence (on the American side of the question) of the intentions of the British Government in relation to the boundary channel, and Lord Aberdeen's instructions to Mr. Pakenham of the same date the highest evidence the British Government could produce on the British side. Mr. McLane's evidence in favour of the Canal de Haro is explicit, and requires no explanation. I have shown that the line described in Lord Aberdeen's proposition cannot be tortured into a line through the middle of Rosario Straits. As he mentions neither channel, the same might be said of the Canal de Haro; and if there was nothing further to guide us as to the line really intended by Lord Aberdeen, we might have to fall back on the motive which induced the deflection from the forty-ninth parallel to the ocean by the water boundary, viz., to give Great Britain the whole of Vancouver Island, or, according to the 'generally admitted principle' in such cases, adopt the main channel. In either case the Canal de Haro would answer to the channel' of the treaty.

"But, fortunately, Lord Aberdeen does not leave the meaning of his proposition in any doubt; for he concludes his description with an explicit declaration of the object of the boundary, thus [or, in this manner] giving to Great Britain