show that the intention and understanding of the British and United States Governments in relation to the water boundary remained unchanged from the conference between Lord Aberdeen and Mr. McLane until the complete and final ratification of the treaty by the two Governments. After the message was prepared and the necessary papers copied at the State Department, the President transmitted them to the Senate on the 10th of June for their advice as to his acceptance or rejection of the projet of the treaty submitted by Mr. Pakenham in his conference with Mr. Buchanan. The motive that induced the President to take the unusual course of asking the previous advice of the Senate arose from the prominent part taken by the Senate in the discussions of the Oregon question, and the importance the British Government attached to the opinions and action of that body, as will have been seen by the extracts from Mr. McLane's letter heretofore quoted. As I am desirous of showing you the exact position the Senate occupied in relation to the negotiation and ratification of the treaty, I must make one more extract from Mr. McLane's letter on that subject:

"It is not to be disguised (he says) that since the President's annual message and the public discussion that has subsequently taken place in the Senate, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to conduct the negotiation in its future stages, without reference to the opinion of senators, or free from speculation as to the degree of control they may exercise over the result. Whatever, therefore, might be prudent and regular in the ordinary course of things, I think it of the utmost importance upon the present occasion, if the President should think proper to propose any modification of the offer to be made by Mr. Pakenham, that the modification should be understood as possessing the concurrence of the co-ordinate branch of the treaty-making power.'

"After several days' debate the Senate advised the President to accept the proposal of the British Government for a convention to settle boundaries, &c., between the United States and Great Britain west of the Rocky or Stony Mountains.'

"In accordance with that advice the President accepted the proposal, and on the 16th of June laid before the Senate, for their consideration, and with a view to its ratification,' 'the convention concluded and signed by the Secretary of State on the part of the United States, and the envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of Her Britannic Majesty on the part of Great Britain.'

66

6

Upon its receipt a debate ensued, which resulted in a resolution, that the President be requested to communicate to the Senate a copy of all the correspondence which has taken place between this (the United States) Government and that of Great Britain relative to the Oregon treaty, together with the despatches and instructions forwarded to our minister, Mr. McLane, and a full and complete copy of his despatches and communications to this Government on the same subject not heretofore communicated to the Senate.'

"The scope of the resolution exhibits the deep interest manifested by the Senate in every step of the negotiation, and shows clearly that no detail connected therewith was deemed unworthy of their consideration.

"On the 18th of June the Senate gave its 'constitutional advice and consent to the treaty,' and the President ratified it. On the 22nd Mr. Buchanan transmitted to Mr. McLane at London the treaty ratified by the President and Senate, with special power,' authorising him to exchange the ratifications with such person as may be duly empowered for that purpose on the part of the British Government.? The ratifications were exchanged by Mr. McLane and Lord Palmerston.

"From the incipient step taken by Lord Aberdeen, in making the proposition to the United States Government for a settlement of the Oregon question, and through all the subsequent stages in the progress of the treaty to its complete ratification, we look in vain for any evidence that the original proposition communicated to Mr. McLane was ever altered. I have shown that Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Pakenham must have understood it alike.

"The President-from whom emanated all the instructions in relation to the negotiation-in transmitting the proposal of the British Government to the Senate for their advice, accompanied it by Mr. McLane's letter furnished for their information and consideration in giving that advice. Therefore there can be no doubt of his understanding of the language of the treaty. It cannot for a moment be supposed that such grave, deliberate, and unusual action would have been taken, without the most perfect understanding on his part of the meaning of the document he laid before them. The letter of Mr. McLane accompanying his message conveyed that meaning.

"The Senate upon this extraordinary occasion gave their advice to accept the proposition. And upon what did they found their advice? Upon the words of the projet of the treaty, and the explanation of the same more in detail by Mr. McLane. They believed them to be in perfect harmony. A perusal of Mr. Benton's speech upon the ratification of the treaty will show how exactly he, as one of the co-ordinate branch of the treaty-making power, understood the proposal of the British Government to agree with Mr. McLane's statement of it, when he advised the President to accept it. In that speech he says:

"In my high and responsible character of constitutional adviser to the President, I gave my opinion in favour of accepting the propositions which constitute the treaty, and advised its ratification. The first article is in the very terms which I would have used, and that article constitutes the treaty. With me it is the treaty. The remaining three articles are subordinate and incidental, and only intended to facilitate the execution of the first one. The great question was that of boundary.'

"The first article being the treaty, in Mr. Benton's opinion, he must have made himself well acquainted with its full meaning. The leading position he occupied on the Oregon question is well known. In expounding the treaty to his colleagues, he describes the boundary line, and designates the Canal de Haro' as the channel' through which the line

is to pass.

He had before him the treaty and the letter of Mr. McLane, and he gives his advice and consent to the ratification of the treaty with a mind clear of doubt,' for he says, "The great question of the boundary is settled.'

6

"The injunction of secrecy was removed from the executive proceedings, correspondence, and documents, relating to Oregon, and they became a portion of the public documents of the Senate. As a documentary history of the negotiation, published to the world, by order of the Senate, upon the conclusion of the treaty, they are entitled to all the credit which is due to undisputed cotemporaneous evidence. Taken in connection with the speech of Mr. Benton, giving fully his views of the meaning of every article of the treaty, it forms a chain of evidence proving conclusively that the line of boundary between the United States and the British possessions, after it deflects from the forty-ninth parallel, was intended by the language of the treaty to run through the middle of the Gulf of Georgia and the Canal de Haro, and thence through the middle of Fuca Straits to the Pacific Ocean.

"From the foregoing communication you will perceive that I have given the most careful consideration and study to the additional arguments you have advanced, and the evidence you have adduced, to prove Rosario Straits to be a channel which in every respect answers to the language of the treaty; but I must frankly, though with the most respectful deference to your opinion, acknowledge that they have failed to convince me. I have, on the other hand, endeavoured to rebut your arguments against my views in regard to the channel, which I need hardly say have only been strengthened by reflection. since my letter to you of the 2nd instant.

"With the most perfect respect and esteem, I beg to subscribe myself, your most obedient and humble servant, "ARCHIBALD CAMPBELL,

"Commissioner on the part of the United States for

"determining the North-west Boundary Line.

"James C. Prevost, Esq.,

"British Commissioner North-west Boundary, &c."

On the 20th November, the fifth meeting of the joint commission was held, and Captain Richards, who had arrived in the interim, was introduced to the United States Commissioner. On the 24th, Captain Prevost replied to the letter of that commissioner as follows:(1)—

"Her Britannic Majesty's Ship Satellite,

"Simiahmoo Bay, Gulf of Georgia, November 24, 1857. "SIR,-I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 18th instant, in reply to mine of the 9th instant, upon the subject of the interpretation to be given to part of the first article of the treaty between Great Britain and the United States, of 15th June, 1846.

"2. I have given to your said letter the most careful consideration, but it appears to me for the most part only a recapitulation at greater length of the testimony you have already adduced in support of your views of the channel which separates the continent from Vancouver's Island,' and to which I have already replied in a previous communication; nevertheless, there are one or two points you have commented upon, that I deem it but right to notice.

"3. You state that my 'admission that the Canal de Haro is undoubtedly the navigable channel which at its position separates Vancouver's Island from the continent,' is, in your opinion, 'equivalent to the settlement of the question; the continent according to the well-known geographical fact that islands are appurtenant to the mainland-e:nbracing, as natural appendages to its coasts, the islands between it and the Canal de Haro.' I would respectfully observe to you that in the first article of the treaty, the direction of the water boundary line is pointed out by reference to natural objects, which are distinctly denominated, and I must conceive, with all deference to your adverse opinion, that those objects must be viewed according to their natural signification; and that

(1) American State Papers, p. 30.