that the accurate delineation of the boundary formed no part of the object for which the map was directed. The boundary line north, as well as south, on that map was drawn merely to show the extent of the country described in the memoir.

"By a comparison of the Mexican or southern boundary on the same map with the true line as defined by the commissioners and surveyors appointed under the treaty, an error quite as remarkable will be found on that line as on the northwestern boundary, and one which, upon examination, must completely dispel any impressions that may have been made upon your mind that it has any authenticity, or is of any authority whatever as a map showing the boundary between the British possessions and the United States. The best evidence of this is to be found in the fact that, after its publication, the Mexican boundary line was surveyed and marked by the United States Government without reference to Mr. Preuss's map, and the true line was found to be totally different from that laid down by Mr. Preuss.

"By examining carefully the lithographed line on this map, drawn from the forty-ninth parallel to the Straits of Fuca, it will be seen that, instead of running through the middle of Rosario Straits, as you suppose, it runs directly against Sinclair's Island on the north, and Cypress Island on the south, leaving a space of over five miles without any boundary line; but if this should be joined, it would bisect the two islands. It also runs tangent to Smith's Island on the eastern side-an island upon which it is the intention of the United States Government to build a light-house, and for which an appropriation has been made.

"I point out the inaccuracies of this map, so far as relates to the boundary line, without any intention of depreciating it in any respect, but simply in order to show you that it is not considered authority for the boundary lines drawn upon it, and that it was not intended to be so considered. I could exonerate the Senate from censure for publishing the map and giving it forth to the world with their apparent sanction, but

I presume it will hardly be necessary for me to do so on this occasion.

"I have never seen the diagram, alluded to by you, of a portion of Oregon territory, dated Surveyor-General's Office, Oregon City, October 21, 1852, and signed by John B. Preston, Surveyor-General,' and having the boundary line drawn through Rosario Straits; but no authority can be attached to it, as it formed no part of the duties of the Surveyor-General's Office to determine the boundary line between the United States and British possessions. I am, however, informed, by credible authority, that Mr. Preston was led into the error by seeing the map of Mr. Preuss. Had he seen the Map of Vancouver's Island and the Adjacent Coasts, compiled from the surveys of Vancouver, Kellet, Simson, Galiano, and Valdes, &c. &c. &c. by J. Arrowsmith, 10, Soho Square, London, published April 11, 1849'-more recent than that of Preuss-he, no doubt, would have drawn the line through the Canal de Haro; for as that purports to be a map especially of Vancouver's Island and the coasts adjacent,' no doubt could have been entertained that much care was taken to make it accurately conform to the terms of the treaty. On that map, on a large scale, all the islands east of the Canal de Haro are coloured carefully with the same tint as that given to the territory to which they geographically and conventionally pertain-viz., that of the United States.

"The maps of Preuss and Preston are of no authority as far as the boundary line is concerned. They therefore afford no evidence of the true channel of the treaty. And since its ratification, I am not aware of any authority having been given either by the United States or the British Government for surveying and mapping it definitively until the appointment of the present Commission.

"In further illustration' of your proposition that the Rosario Strait is the channel of the treaty,' you say that it would seem to be clear that, in whatever channel the boundary line commences its southerly course, it should continue through the middle of the said channel until it reaches the Straits of

Fuca,' and add that 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.'

"I fear there is some misunderstanding in regard to an initial point. I certainly am not aware of having agreed to any, though I do not deem it a matter of any moment whether the starting-point of the line be at the forty-ninth parallel or the Pacific Ocean. But even granting that the line starts at the forty-ninth parallel, and is traced through the middle of the Gulf of Georgia, I do not admit that it must necessarily be continued through Rosario Straits, even if Vancouver's chart be referred to. You say Vancouver considered Rosario Strait a continuation of the Gulf of Georgia, and that it was included in that name. By an examination of the chart it will be perceived that the name as lettered passes directly through and over the cluster of islands between the Canal de Haro and the straits now called Rosario Straits, and that it was intended by Vancouver to apply the name of Gulf of Georgia to all the waters between Vancouver's Island and the continent as far south as Fuca Straits (if the lettering on his chart is to be considered as any guide), and applies equally to every other channel in the vicinity. But whatever name may have been given to the waters broken up by the islands, they are all continuations of the waters proceeding from the Straits of Fuca or Gulf of Georgia, and all perfectly on an equality in that respect. The Canal de Haro having the largest volume of water passing through it, it is the main channel among them, and therefore more particularly entitled to be considered as the continuation or connection of the two channels with which all are directly or indirectly connected. And here I beg to say, in regard to the relative merits of the two channels, I must again refer you to the extract from Captain Alden's report on that subject in my letter of the 2nd instant, in which he pronounces the Canal de Haro to be the widest, deepest, and best channel, and in almost every respect the better of the two.

"Upon your supposition that the Canal de Haro had originally been named in the projet of the treaty, and that 'the line of boundary through it had been designedly altered, and the wording of the treaty as it now stands substituted to meet the alteration,' you found an argument to prove that Rosario Straits was the channel' intended as the substitute for the Canal de Haro as follows:- The channel through which the boundary line was to pass not being designated by name, inasmuch as it had no name on the map which was, have not the least doubt, used by the British Government at the time, viz., that of Vancouver, where the channel, now called the Rosario Strait, is shown, as in fact it really is, as a continuation of the waters now called the Gulf of Georgia, the whole being named by Vancouver the Gulf of Georgia.'

I

"It has been acknowledged that the Rosario Straits, in common with the other channels, is a continuation of the Gulf of Georgia, and that the general name of the Gulf of Georgia was given by Vancouver to embrace all the waters between the continent and Vancouver's Island as far south as the Straits of Fuca. But I have shown from his chart that Vancouver did not particularly apply it to the channel called Rosario Straits. If, however, the British Government so understood it, and the Canal de Haro' was dropped from the original projet of the treaty, as you suppose, for the purpose of substituting what was then considered a part of the Gulf of Georgia, it is strange that the Gulf of Georgia' was not inserted instead of the present language, so inapplicable to Rosario Straits. In this argument, if I understand it correctly, Rosario Straits is claimed as the channel for two very different reasons-one because it had a name, the other because it had no name. If the Canal de Haro were mentioned in the original projet, and afterwards expunged to give place to a channel without a name, care should have been taken so to describe it that no other channel, either with or without a name, could be found answering to the language of the treaty.

"In a previous part of this communication I proposed to

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.'