Page images

terms of the treaty ; for, even if according to your proposition all the space referred to should be considered one channel, it would be impossible to run a line through the middle of the said channel' in strict accordance with the terms of the treaty,without coming in contact with islands. But following the precedents in like cases where there are several channels, it would make no difference in the result, for the main channel would have to be adopted, and, consequently, the Canal de Haro would still be the channel of the treaty.

"From the conclusion of your letter it might appear as if I had disappointed a reasonable expectation on your part that I would respond to your proposition for a mutual concession. Considering the powerful evidence I have brought forward to sustain my opinion that the Canal de Haro is the channel,' against your opinion alone, unaccompanied by a particle of evidence to sustain it, I am at a loss to understand upon what ground you could have expected me to yield one inch of the line I have claimed, and proved to be the true boundary intended by the treaty. I must candidly confess that I think any proposition with a view to concession on the part of the United States was hardly justifiable under the circumstances.

“ With the highest regard and esteem, I have the honour to be, very respectfully, your obedient servant,

“ Commissioner on the part of the United States for

“ determining the North-west Boundary Line.
Captain James C. Prevost, R.N.,
“H.B.M. First Commissioner N.W. Boundary.”

The sixth meeting of the Commission was held on the 3rd day of December, 1857, at the camp of the United States North-western Boundary Commission, Simiahmoo Bay, Gulf of Georgia.

Captain Prevost, (4) Her Majesty's first Commissioner, stated that he had duly received and atten

[ocr errors]

( ) American State Papers, p. 49.

tively considered all Mr. Campbell's correspondence upon the subject of “the channel,” through which the boundary line was to pass according to the treaty, and that he was unable to admit that the Canal de Haro, as claimed by Mr. Campbell, was a channel which would meet the requirements of the treaty, but on the contrary, that he considered the channel now called the Rosario Strait was the only one which would in all points answer to the channel described in the treaty. Such being the case, and Mr. Campbell remaining firm in his opinion as to the Canal de Haro being the channel through which the boundary line should pass, Captain Prevost had proposed that the disagreement should be settled by mutual compromise, which proposition Mr. Campbell declining to entertain, he begged now to submit that the whole matter and correspondence connected with the same should be referred by each to his Government.

Mr. Campbell, United States Commissioner, in reply, stated that he did not concur in the proposal as to the reference of the matter to the respective Governments, but that so far as he was concerned he should report proceedings to his Government, submitting at the same time all the correspondence upon the subject.

The Commissioners agreed to adjourn until circumstances should render their meeting again necessary; and accordingly the Commission adjourned.

A minute of these proceedings was drawn up and signed by the two Commissioners.


[ocr errors]

It would appear that the United States Commissioner inferred, from his failure to convince Captain Prevost that the Canal de Haro was the “channel” intended by the treaty, that the last-mentioned officer had been hampered by the instructions issued to him by Her Majesty's Government. In order to satisfy his mind with reference to the conclusion he had drawn, Mr. Campbell wrote, on the day after the last meeting of the Commission, the following letter to Captain Prevost :(

“ United States, N.W. Boundary Commission,

“ Camp Simiahmoo, Dec. 4, 1857. “SIR, -At our first official meeting on the 27th day of June last, after examining each other's instructions, it was mutually understood that we were equally invested with full powers for determining the boundary line between the United States and British possessions, from its intersection with the eastern shore of the Gulf of Georgia to the Pacific Ocean. It was upon that understanding that I have since acted in our conferences and correspondence. In our meeting of yesterday, however, it was stated by yourself or secretary that your instructions required you in case of disagreement to propose to refer the matter to our respective Governments. This statement, taken in connection with the whole tenor of your correspondence, and the paper submitted by you at our last meeting, has led me, upon further reflection, to apprehend tliat you were governed by instructions which virtually, if not

(1) American State Papers, p. 92.

positively, prohibited you from adopting the Canal de Haro as the boundary channel, without reference to your own judgment thereupon. I will, therefore, be obliged to you to inform me whether or not I am correct in this inference. Not having been furnished with a copy of your instructions, I am unable to come to a satisfactory conclusion upon the subject without calling upon you for the desired information.

“ I need hardly say that my instructions left me entirely free to adopt that channel which should be found to correspond with the terms of the treaty and the intention of the treatymakers. Having been furnished by your own Government with a copy of my instructions, you could not fail to perceive that I was not restricted or confined to any particular channel or channels.

“ With the highest respect and consideration, I have the honour to subscribe myself your most obedient servant,

" ARCHIBALD CAMPBELL, “ Commissioner on the part of the United States for

“ determining the North-west Boundary Line.” Captain James C. Prevost, R.N., “ British Commissioner North-west Boundary, &c. &c. Captain Prevost replied as follows:(0)

“ Her Britannic Majesty's Ship Satellite,

Esquimault, Vancouver's Island, Dec. 8, 1857. “SIR, -I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 4th instant, which came to hand at 2 P.M. of

this day.

“ 2. In reply to your request for certain information as to the extent of my powers as Her Britannic Majesty's Commissioner for determining the water boundary line under the first article of the treaty between Great Britain and the United States of June 15, 1846, I beg to furnish you with an extract from Her Majesty's Commission, dated the 18th December, 1856, by which you will perceive that my powers as Her

(") American State Papers, p. 93.

Majesty's First Commissioner for determining the aforesaid line of boundary are full and entire. This commission was exhibited to you at our first official meeting, when our respective powers were exchanged and found to be in due form.

“3. My commission constitutes me Her Majesty's “ First Commissioner for the purpose of surveying, ascertaining, and marking out, in conjunction with the Commissioner or Commissioners appointed or to be appointed by the President of the United States in that behalf, so much of the line of boundary hereinbefore described (referring to a quotation of the first article of the treaty) as is to be traced from the point where the forty-ninth parallel of north latitude strikes the eastern shore of the Gulf of Georgia;' and it declares, 'we do hereby give to our said Commissioner full power and authority to do and perform all acts, matters, and things which may be necessary and proper for duly carrying into effect the object of this our commission.'

“4. You state that the whole tenor of my correspondence and the paper submitted by me at our last meeting has led you upon further reflection to apprehend that I was governed by instructions which virtually, if not positively, prohibited me from adopting the Canal de Haro as the boundary channel without reference to my own judgment thereupon. The foregoing extract from Her Majesty's Commission will show you how erroneous such a supposition is. I mentioned at our last meeting that my instructions did point out a course I was to adopt in the event of disagreement. That instructions should be complete and should provide for all contingencies is no more than should be expected. I am directed, in the event of not being able to decide upon a channel upon which we (my colleague and I) may mutually agree, as the one through which the boundary line should run, to propose a reference of the matter to our respective Governments.

65. I here beg again most emphatically to repeat what I respectfully conceive is sufficiently evidenced by my previous correspondence, that, with the full and unfettered exercise of my own judgment, I cannot admit that the Canal de

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »