contrary, maintains the language of the treaty in regard to the channel' to be so free from obscurity, and 'worded' in such

clear and precise terms,' that he cannot conscientiously admit any evidence to weigh with him that would lead to an interpretation differing from the one chosen by him.

"As it seems to have been no part of the business of the British Commissioner to ascertain by cotemporaneous evidence the actual intentions of his own Government in regard to the water boundary, nor of his own Government to furnish him with such evidence, I suggested to Lord Napier that an examination of the instructions of Lord Aberdeen to Mr. Pakenham containing the proposition' referred to by Mr. McLane ought to throw some light upon the subject. He subsequently produced the original despatch from the archives of the legation, and submitted it to my perusal.

"It is a long document (dated May 18, 1846), and is mainly devoted to a review of the state of feeling between the United States and Great Britain upon the Oregon question, contrasting favourably the conduct of Great Britain with that of the United States throughout the excitement. In resuming the negotiation for an amicable settlement of the question, Mr. Pakenham is authorised to propose as a boundary line the forty-ninth parallel to the sea-coast, thence in a southerly direction through the centre of King George's Sound and the Straits of Fuca to the ocean, thus giving to Great Britain the whole of Vancouver's Island and its harbours.'

"I regret that Lord Napier did not feel at liberty to furnish me with a copy of the document as I requested; but, as he declined, I was obliged to content myself with a careful perusal of it. I wrote down the foregoing description of the boundary line from memory shortly afterwards, and believe it is substantially (if not verbally) correct. For greater certainty, however, it would be well for the department to obtain a copy, as there may be other points touching the subject of the boundary which escaped my notice in the attention I had to bestow on the above extract.

"Mr. McLane, in his despatch to Mr. Buchanan, of the same date (May 18, 1846), refers to the proposition to be

submitted to the United States through Mr. Pakenham, as follows:

"I have now to acquaint you that after the receipt of your despatches, on the 15th instant, by the Caledonia, I had a lengthened conference with Lord Aberdeen, on which occasion the resumption of the negotiation for an amicable settlement of the Oregon question, and the nature of the proposition he contemplated submitting for that purpose, formed the subject of a full and free conversation. I have now to state that instructions will be transmitted to Mr. Pakenham by the steamer of to-morrow to submit a new and further proposition on the part of this Government for a partition of the territory in dispute. The proposition, most probably, will offer, substantially, first, to divide the territory by the extension of the line on the parallel of forty-nine to the sea-that is to say, to the arm of the sea called Birch's Bay; thence by the Canal de Haro and Straits of Fuca to the ocean; and confirming to the United States, what indeed they would possess without any special confirmation, the right freely to use and navigate the strait throughout its extent.'

"Both despatches having been written almost immediately after the nature of the proposition' to be submitted to the United States had been fully and freely discussed, it may seem strange that the description of the boundary line contained in them is not identical. But an examination of the maps which were most probably before Mr. McLane and Lord Aberdeen in describing the line, will show the difference between them to be only apparent.

"I enclose a traced copy of Vancouver's chart, which, Captain Prevost officially informed me, he had not the least doubt ' was the map used by his Government when the boundary line was under consideration. (See sketch No. 1, p. 59.) I also send a traced copy of so much of Captain Wilkes's 'Map of Oregon Territory' as is necessary to show the boundary channel (1) between the continent and Vancouver's Island, which I have every reason to believe is the map which was principally relied

(1) These sketches or traci gs are to be found in the volume of American State Papers quoted by me, but I have not thought them worth reproducing in this book.

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

6

6

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,