« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »
« But even while making the effort to induce the United States Government to adopt that channel, the British Government frankly acknowledged the necessity of an interpretation of the treaty. Mr. Crampton refers to the Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs as the official authority from whom he received his instructions. Whether the person then holding the position of Principal Secretary of State had any connection with the negotiation of the treaty I am unable to say, but, as it was shortly after the conclusion of the treaty, it is presumed that he must have been, at least, as fully informed upon the subject as any who have succeeded him. And the absence of any evidence then that the Rosario or Vancouver Straits was intended or proposed, proves clearly that none was in existence. Under these circumstances, it can hardly be expected of me to attach much importance to the intimation of the Earl of Clarendon, unaccompanied by any evidence of the fact, that Rosario Straits was the channel contemplated by the British Government, or to change my views on your presumption that his intimation was based on substantial grounds.
" In opposition to your opinion that the words of the treaty are so peculiarly precise and clear as to point out unmistakably Rosario Straits as the channel, Mr. Crampton, speaking on the part of his Government, says :
But between the Gulf of Georgia and the Straits of Fuca the line is less distinctly and accurately defined by the verbal description of the treaty by which it is established,' &c.
“And here allow me to quote a general maxim from Vattel, which is peculiarly applicable to the position of the British Government in relation to their present claim that Rosario Straits was meant as the channel of the treaty :
66. If he who can and ought to have explained himself clearly and plainly has not done it, it is the worse for him ; he cannot be allowed to introduce subsequent restrictions which he has not expressed.'
“ He adds :66The equity of this rule is extremely visible, and its
necessity is not less evident. There can be no secure conventions, no firm and solid concession, if these might be rendered vain by subsequent limitations that ought to have been mentioned in the piece if they were included in the intentions of the contracting powers.'
“The proposition or projet of the treaty having been drawn up and submitted by the British Government to the United States, the rule excludes, therefore, all claim to Rosario Straits, without the most indisputable proof, of which I have yet to see the first evidence.
“ Notwithstanding your objection to my argument in favour of the Canal de Haro, as the channel of the treaty, on the ground that the continent embraces the islands adjacent to it as far as the Canal de Haro, I maintain that my view is correct and according to well-established principles of international law ; for in order to define a channel we must know the coasts which bound it. The Canal de Haro on one side is bounded by the coast of Vancouver's Island, on the other by the coast of the nearest islands, which are natural appendages to the continent. For the correctness of this position I would respectfully refer you to Wheaton’s ‘ Elements of International Law,' pp. 233-4, my copy of which is at your disposal.
66 Your objection to the Canal de Haro on the ground that there is another navigable channel situated more adjacent to the continent, the existence of which, you say, my conclusion in favour of the Canal de Haro would ignore, will apply equally to Rosario Straits. For there are, undoubtedly, channels nearer to the continent than Rosario Straits-viz., Bellingham Channel and the channel between Lummi Island and the mainland; the former being the very one through which Mr. Arrowsmith drew the boundary line. I am aware that the other channel is narrow; still, it is navigable, and cannot be objected to on the ground that it is not, and it certainly, as well as Bellingham Channel, is closer to the mainland than Rosario Straits; and these two channels combined would possess more completely the characteristics required by you for the channel' of the treaty than Rosario Straits. In
answer, therefore, to your inquiry, “In what relation does the Rosario Strait stand with regard to the continent ?' I would respectfully state that, in my opinion, it stands in the same relation to it as the San Juan Channel, or any other · channel, between the two just alluded to and the Canal de : Haro.
“ Your quotation from Vattel, that it is not necessary to give a term the same sense everywhere in the same deed, is quite inapplicable to the use of the word “southerly' in the treaty; for that word only occurs once, whereas the rule referred to is where expressions which are susceptible of different signification occur more than once in the same piece.'
“ Your further quotation, that every interpretation that leads to an absurdity ought to be rejected,' must, therefore, necessarily apply to the strictly technical meaning you attach to the words.
“ The trifling inaccuracies' in the map of Charles Preuss, to which you allude, were not pointed out by me at all with the view of strengthening my position as regards the Canal de Haro, but simply to show that, in drawing boundary lines, he did so on his own authority, and was neither guided by the treaty nor the treaty-makers. You say you do not bring forward this map as any authority for the line of boundary,' but merely as a counter evidence to what you  have advanced as to the Canal de Haro being the channel of the treaty.
“You add, both this map, dated in 1848, and the diagram of Surveyor-General Preston, drawn in 1852, are official documents, and are therefore entitled to some weighit.'
“ Considering the summary manner in which you have disposed of the evidence of Mr. McLane and Mr. Benton, I am somewhat surprised that you should attach any weight to these maps, particularly after the proof I have given you of their inaccuracy and want of authority in regard to boundary lines. Since, however, you regard them as entitled to some 'weight, I would respectfully call your attention to the map of the Surveyor-General of Washington Territory for 1856,
published during the present year by the same authority as the map of Mr. Preston. Upon this map the boundary line is drawn from the forty-ninth parallel through the Gulf of Georgia, the Canal de Haro, and the Straits of Fuca, to the Pacific Ocean. Doubtless the present able surveyor-general, Mr. Tilton, has carefully studied the language and terms of the treaty, and has interpreted its meaning therefrom, without any special knowledge of the actual intentions of its authors.
“I have read Mr. Arrowsmith's letter to the secretary of the Hudson's Bay Company, appended to your letter, and am struck with his ingenuity in avoiding the direct question put to him as to the authority by which he was guided in marking the boundary line. Mr. Arrowsmith gives carefully the date of the publication of the map, but adds that, at that time, it contained no boundary line whatever, and that it continued without one until 1852, when he engraved the boundary line as it now stands upon the plate, and published it in 1853. He gives, as his authority for introducing the engraved boundary line, the map of Preuss, published in Washington City in 1848. He then states the reasons why he deviated from the line as laid down by Preuss, giving the larger island to Great Britain and the smaller to the United States, for reasons satisfactory to himself. The diagram of Mr. Preston was considered by Mr. Arrowsmith as confirmatory of that of Mr. Preuss, and as showing the views of the United States Government down to October, 1852.
66 I was well aware of the estimation in which Mr. Arrowsmith was held, in England and elsewhere, as an accurate collector, compiler, and publisher of maps; and the inquiry of the Hudson's Bay Company, and the production of his reply at this time, confirms my opinion.
" I would now respectfully call your attention to the fact that, in the map of 1849, the boundary line of the forty-ninth parallel is drawn and coloured, and, although no boundary line is laid down between Vancouver's Island and the territories of the United States, the whole boundary channel, from the forty-ninth parallel to the Pacific Ocean, is so distinctly
portrayed, hy colouring differently the coast of Vancouver's Island and the adjacent coasts of the United States, that it is a mere quibble on his part to say that the map contains no boundary line whatever.' While he carefully avoids giving the authority for marking thus distinctly the boundary channel, he is critically minute in giving his authority for engraving the line in 1852, and his reasons for dividing the islands of Cypress and Sinclair between the two territories. He does not, however, attempt to explain why he postponed the introduction of the engraved boundary line until 1852, and its publication until 1853. Mr. Preuss's map was published and given forth to the world in June, 1848. Certainly, so eminent a collector of maps as Mr. Arrowsmith could not have failed, before the close of 1852, to obtain possession of a map published in the city of Washington, by order of the United States Senate. If he had it, as it is to be presumed, he evidently regarded it as of no authority until about that period.
" It is to be presumed that, when Mr. Arrowsmith receives the map of Surveyor-General Tilton for 1856, his original impression as to the channel of the treaty will be confirmed, and that he will restore the boundary channel to his map, as in 1849, with the addition of the line from the forty-ninth parallel to the Pacific Ocean.
“If I have not failed entirely in my object, I think you must be satisfied, from the correspondence which has resulted from your letter of the 28th ultimo, that the views I have maintained in regard to the channel are too firmly fixed to admit of my agreeing to any arrangement for defining the boundary line which would divert it from the Canal de Haro. It has been my earnest endeavour to satisfy you of the force and justice of my convictions, by an unreserved exhibition of the evidence upon which I relied to sustain my reading of the treaty. If I have failed in my expectations, the effort has at least given me additional confirmation of the correctness of my views. The evidence I have produced remains uncontroverted and incontrovertible. On the other hand, no argu