this subject from having been officially informed by high and competent authority that the channel commonly known in England as Vancouver's Strait, that now called 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, altogether with the very peculiar wording of the treaty, would seem almost conclusively to prove the fact.

"7. I would now respectfully call your attention to the language of Mr. Benton, in the speech which he made in the Senate upon the ratification of the treaty, and had you not yourself alluded to it, I should have quoted it in further proof of what I have advanced as to the Rosario Strait being the channel which separates the continent from Vancouver's Island.' In describing the boundary line he designates the channel as being the one which separates Vancouver's Island from the continent,' and he then proceeds to trace the line through the Canal de Haro to the Straits of Fuca, clearly showing what was the impression on his mind of the wording required to meet the boundary line he described. The Canal de Haro, or Arro, is, undoubtedly, the navigable channel which, at its position, separates Vancouver's Island from the continent, and therefore, while other channels exist more adjacent to the continent, cannot be the channel which 'separates the continent from Vancouver's Island.'

"8. 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 and afterwards, I beg to mention that I have in my 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 the Gulf of Georgia, through the channel now called the Rosario Strait, and thence through the Straits of Fuca to the Pacific Ocean. 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 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 the Gulf of Georgia, through the 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 the channel which I maintain is the channel of the treaty, and is the one which was contemplated by the British Government at the time of its conclusion. I have further, in my possession, an attested tracing of 'a diagram of a portion of Oregon territory,' dated SurveyorGeneral's Office, Oregon City, October 21st, 1852, and signed John B. Preston, Surveyor-General, in which the boundary line between the British possessions and those of the United States, is also carried through the channel lying adjacent to the continent, or through the Rosario Strait. Both these documents being official, and published by high authority, afford, I think, strong evidence that the Canal de Haro has not always been contemplated and received in the United States as the channel of the treaty.

"9. In further illustration of my proposition that the Rosario Strait is the channel of the treaty, I would observe that, apart from the very peculiar wording of the treaty, in which the greater is separated from the lesser, the continent from the island, it would seem clear that in whatever channel the boundary line commences its southerly course, it should continue through the middle of the said channel,' until it reach the Straits of Fuca. Now it has been agreed that the initial point of the boundary line is found in the channel called the Gulf of Georgia, and the continuance of that channel is, as was deemed by Vancouver, through the Rosario Strait. This is

sufficiently proved by local observation, which shows that the principal body of water flows uninterruptedly from the Gulf of Georgia through the Rosario Strait, causing a regularity of current which is not found elsewhere; for the waters flowing through the Canal de Haro are split by the various islands contiguous to it in different directions, causing an irregularity and diversity of current which is not found in the Rosario Strait, and therefore the Canal de Haro cannot be deemed a continuance of the channel between Saturna Island and Vancouver's Island. Putting the question of current aside, I think a glance at the map as to which channel is in continuation of the Gulf of Georgia will sufficiently test the truth of what I assert.

"10. Having thus replied to the principal arguments you have advanced in support of the adoption of the Canal de Haro as the channel of the treaty, and having shown you how firmly satisfied I am of the correctness of my opinion as to the Rosario Strait being a channel which in all respects answers to the channel of the treaty, which the Canal de Haro does not, I trust you may, upon reflection, be induced to modify your view that the Canal de Haro is the only channel which, according to the language of the treaty, 'separates the continent from Vancouver's Island.'

"With the highest consideration and esteem, I have the honour to subscribe myself your most obedient and humble servant,

"JAMES C. PREVOST."

The United States Commissioner rejoined in the following letter: ()

"United States North-west Boundary Commission, "Camp Simiahmoo, 49th parallel, November 18th, 1857. "SIR, I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 9th instant in reply to mine of the 2nd instant.

(') American State Papers, p. 20.

"In the communication of my views, made in compliance with your request, I clearly showed from contemporaneous evidence what was the intention of the framers and ratifiers of the treaty of June 15th, 1846, in using the words describing the water boundary line between the territories of the United States and the British possessions.

Although the language of the treaty alone is sufficiently explicit to my mind, the disagreement between us, in respect to a part of the distance through which the boundary line is to be traced, rendered it, in my opinion, desirable, if not necessary, in order to carry the treaty into effect, that we should arrive at a mutual understanding of the actual intention of the treaty makers, and for that purpose that we should resort to the ordinary mode of interpretation in cases of obscurity or uncertainty. I, therefore, deemed it but an act of frankness to exhibit to you the evidence I had in my possession of the intention of the British Government in framing the language of the treaty, and of the understanding of the United States Government in adopting it. Considering the character of this evidence, and the weight to which it is entitled, it is difficult for me to comprehend how you could resist the conclusion to which it so clearly led,-viz., that 'the channel' referred to in the treaty was intended to apply to the Canal de Haro.

"With this clear and satisfactory evidence, answering in the fullest manner to the requirements of the rules laid down for ascertaining the true meaning of the language of a treaty, it is pursuing the shadow instead of the substance to confine ourselves to its mere words; and, judging by the course of argument adopted by you in your present communication, I infer that you do not now altogether disagree with me in that opinion. As you seem, however, to attach importance to what you call the peculiar wording of the treaty in regard to the relative position of the words, the continent and Vancouver's Island, I have carefully considered your argument thereon, but cannot perceive its force. The words of the treaty are, the channel which separates the

continent from Vancouver's Island,' and, in my opinion, they are placed in their proper position. Nothing could be more natural, in tracing and describing the long line of land boundary from the Rocky Mountains westward, than for the authors of the treaty to place the continent before Vancouver's Island; and it would be strange if they had done otherwise. Still I do not conceive that a change in the position of the words could make any difference in the meaning of the expression.

"The argument you draw from Mr. Benton's speech on this point is the one of all others I should bring forward (if I thought any necessary) to show there was no peculiarity in the wording of the treaty, or, if there were any, that it was in favour of the Canal de Haro; for Mr. Benton, after stating that the first article of the treaty is in the very words he would have used himself if the two Governments had allowed him to draw it up, and with the very words of the treaty before him. as he spoke, uses the expression, the channel which separates Vancouver's Island from the continent,' as conveying precisely the same meaning as the language of the treaty; for he immediately thereafter declares that this language carries the line through the Channel de Haro, and 'gives us the 'cluster of islands' between that channel and the continent. Surely no fair deduction can be drawn from the remarks of Mr. Benton to show that the language of the treaty, in his opinion, required a transposition of the words to carry the boundary line through Canal de Haro. After using the expression, reversing the order of the words of the treaty, he says, 'I am in favour of the first article of the treaty as it stands.' He certainly would not have said this if, as you assert, he must have thought it required a change in the wording of the treaty to make the language applicable to the Canal de Haro.

"Your admission that the Canal de Haro is undoubtedly the navigable channel which at its position separates Vancouver's Island from the continent,' in my opinion is equivalent to the settlement of the question-the continent, according to the well-known geographical fact that islands are