the continent means the continent in as strict a sense as the island means the island, and neither literally nor geographically can an island be deemed the continent, as you would seem to imply. When terms are unmistakable, and can be interpreted closely and literally as the words of the treaty in this case can, that seems to me to be no strong argument which requires for its support such a latitude of meaning as you would claim in your interpretation of the word continent. I maintain that the continent as well as the island must be regarded according to its natural signification, and according to its natural position; and when two or more channels exist between a continent and a particular island, the argument appears to me irresistible that the channel contiguous to the continent is the channel separating the continent from the island, while the channel contiguous to the island is the channel separating the island from the continent. It matters not what may lie between the two to form the channels, whether it be an archipelago of islands, or a group of sunken rocks. It also seems to me a fact equally irresistible, that in such case a transposition of words must convey an opposite meaning, and I must acknowledge myself at a loss to conceive how you can maintain that they do not. In the case I have put, the channels have surely some means of being described apart from any nominal designation, and I see no more direct or positive way than that I have defined. Therefore, while the words of the treaty pointedly provide that the boundary line is to run through the channel which separates the continent from the island, I can never agree that the Canal de Haro, as the channel separating the island from the continent, can be the channel which separates the continent from the island, and consequently the channel of the treaty. process of reasoning'in no way affects either the importance' of the island or the importance' of the continent; it is but placing natural objects in their natural position, and dealing with them accordingly.

This

"4. Your principal arguments in favour of the Canal de Arro being the channel of the treaty are based upon the cor

respondence of Mr. McLane, and upon the speech of Mr. Benton, and from the former you draw an inference that the Canal de Haro was the channel proposed by the British Government. This inference I cannot adopt. I do not perceive in anything that has been produced any evidence that the Canal de Arro was proposed by the British Government. The mention of the Canal de Arro by Mr. McLane in his letter of 18th May, 1846, cannot surely be cited as a proof that this channel was so proposed. He reports the result of a conversation, and mentions what would probably be offered. The fact that the Canal de Arro was not offered, is. I think, sufficiently established in the absence of the name, both from the draught of the convention presented on the 6th of June, 1846, by Mr. Pakenham, to which you allude, and from the treaty itself. I can never suppose that the British Government, in retaining Vancouver's Island, would consent to give up the channel which was best known in England at the time the treaty was negotiated, and in place thereof adopt a channel which, at that time, was scarcely, if at all, known by them to be navigable. The channel now called the Rosario Strait was known in England as the navigable channel of the day, it was the channel through which Vancouver sailed, and it was the channel used by the vessels of the Hudson's Bay Company since 1825, in their communications with the northern parts of the continent or island, and I think you will agree with me in deeming it, under these circumstances, scarcely possible that the British Government should knowingly forego the treaty right of navigating the channel thus generally used. Even in the present day, when the Canal de Arro is comparatively well known, I unhesitatingly assert that sailing vessels, proceeding from the southern ports of Vancouver's Island to the northern settlements, would scarcely ever use the Canal de Arro in preference to the Rosario Strait, and I should be surprised if Captain Alden, of the United States navy and Coast Survey, whose remarks you have quoted, did not agree with me in this opinion, for in none of his observations that you have adduced do I find any opinion that the

Canal de Arro is preferable to the Rosario Strait for sailing vessels.

"The high and official authority to whom I alluded in my letter of the 9th instant, as the source of my information that the Vancouver (or Rosario) Strait was the channel contemplated by the British Government, is Her Majesty's present Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, the Earl of Clarendon, and I cannot presume that he would intimate to me in writing, as he has done, that such was the case unless he had substan tial grounds for doing so. That the United States Government may have contemplated the Canal de Arro as the channel of the treaty I do not attempt to dispute, but I firmly maintain that the British Government contemplated the channel through which Vancouver passed-that now known as the Rosario Strait. I cannot, however, but deem that all this is, to a certain extent, extraneous matter. I must again respectfully submit to you that neither the correspondence of Mr. McLane, nor the speech of Mr. Benton, can in any way alter the actual wording and terms of the treaty. Their opinion, however valuable it may be, cannot divert the words of the treaty to an interpretation which, I conscientiously maintain, they literally will not admit. To my mind the wording is peculiarly explicit, and while firmly holding this opinion, it does appear to me an undoubted pursuit of the shadow' to enter into the discussion of extrinsic documents and evidence, when we can so readily grasp the substance' by a strict adherence to the terms of the treaty. As you have quoted the opinion of Vattel regarding the interpretation of treaties in cases of obscurity, I beg you will permit me to request your attention to his opinion in cases where no obscurity exists. He says, The first general maxim of interpretation is that it is not allowable to interpret what has no need of interpretation. When a deed is worded in clear and precise terms; when its meaning is evident, and leads to no absurd conclusion, there can be no reason for refusing to admit the meaning which such deed naturally presents. To go elsewhere in search of conjectures in order to restrict or extend it, is but an attempt to elude it.

6

If this dangerous method,' he says, 'be once admitted, there will be no deed which it will not render useless. However luminous each clause may be, however clear and precise the terms in which the deed is couched, all this will be of no avail if it be allowed to go in quest of extraneous arguments to prove that it is not to be understood in the sense which it naturally presents.'

"I maintain that the treaty in the matter of the channel separating the continent from Vancouver's Island is worded in clear and precise terms,' and, therefore, I cannot admit any evidence on this subject to weigh with me that would lead to an interpretation that the precise terms of the treaty will not admit.

"5. You state that with the projet of the treaty and the chart before them, Mr. McLane and Lord Aberdeen could not fail to see at a glance that the concise language of the treaty clearly indicated the channel which separates the continent from Vancouver's Island. The Gulf of Georgia washing the continent at the northern end of the line, the Canal de Haro, Vancouver's Island at the southern end, and at its junction with the Straits of Fuca, presented to the eye a continuous channel that unmistakably separated throughout its whole length the continent from Vancouver's Island;' and, further, that a glance at the chart of the United States Coast Survey on a large scale, 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.' If the western shore of the Island of San Juan were the shore of the continent, or if no navigable channel existed between the Canal de Haro and the continent, I could agree with you in the conclusion at which you arrive. But as the western shore of the Island of San Juan is not the shore of the continent, and as there is another navigable channel, situated more adjacent to the continent, the existence of which your conclusion would ignore, I must respectfully submit that your conclusion can hardly be a correct one. I would ask, in what relation does

the Rosario Strait stand with regard to the continent? The mode of reasoning you have here adopted would lead to the direct inference either that no other channel existed than the Canal de Haro, or if any other channel did exist, that it had neither an entrance to it from the Gulf of Georgia, nor an exit from it to the Straits of Fuca. I would observe that the maps in use at the time the treaty was negotiated were on a very small scale, and, with every deference to your opinion, I must maintain that a glance at them will show a continuous channel' from the Gulf of Georgia to the Straits of Fuca to be through the channel now called the Rosario Strait, rather than through the Canal de Arro. On Vancouver's map, which is no doubt one of those used at the time, the 'continuous channel' is very apparent, for the track of his ship is distinctly traced through the channel now called the Rosario Strait. But any map, whether on a large or a small scale, will, I conceive, clearly exhibit the Rosario Strait as an uninterrupted channel from the Gulf of Georgia to the Straits of Fuca, while to follow the course from the middle of the Gulf of Georgia to the Canal de Haro, it becomes necessary to proceed nearly at right angles; and, as I have already stated, local experience and observation of the currents will show that the Rosario Strait is a direct continuation of the Gulf of Georgia, while the Canal de Haro is more properly a continuation of the channel between Saturna Island and Vancouver's Island.

"6. You comment upon my reply to your remarks with regard to the term 'southerly,' and you observe that it is 'not entirely just' to apply the term strictly in one case and not in another. I must therefore repeat that I conceive when the words of a treaty can be carried out in their strict and literal sense, there can be no question as to their interpretation ; when they cannot be so carried out, the evident intention of the treaty should be followed. In my former communication. I did not refer to Vattel upon this head, for I considered it superfluous, and only unnecessarily adding to the length of my letter, but as you again notice it, and denominate my