But as the channel within the archipelago, at the forty-ninth parallel nearest Vancouver's Island, was not considered well adapted to a boundary channel, and, indeed, was little known, I took the broad view, as the Gulf of Georgia was the main channel, and as at the time of the treaty but one channel was known to be in existence, that I should be carrying the treaty into effect in good faith towards my own Government, and most liberally towards Great Britain, by ignoring the archipelago, so as to place myself in the position of the negotiators of the treaty when they had the maps of the day before them.

"The refusal of the British commissioner to adopt the Gulf of Georgia and the Canal de Haro as the boundary channel, together with the additional contemporaneous evidence I have gathered since my discussion with him in 1857, has caused me carefully to review the conclusion at which I had arrived at that time. I still am of the opinion that if the boundary line had been drawn upon the maps of the day, immediately after the conclusion of the treaty, that it would have been drawn through the Gulf of Georgia and Canal de Haro. But the extraordinary pretensions of the British Government that the channel nearest the continent was contemplated by them as the boundary channel of the treaty, and the refusal of the British commissioner to be in the slightest degree influenced by contemporaneous evidence proving the contrary, it seems to me would justify the United States in claiming the boundary line through the channel nearest Vancouver's Island from the forty-ninth parallel to the Straits of Fuca.

"The Gulf of Georgia and Canal de Haro, constituting the main channel, is the natural boundary between the continent and Vancouver's Island, and by far the most convenient in every respect to both Governments. This boundary line carries British vessels from the Pacific Ocean to Fraser River, the nearest point of the British possessions on the continent with which they will have any communication, by a route seventeen miles shorter than by Rosario Straits, the channel they claim as the boundary; while between Simiahmoo Bay,

Bellingham Bay, and Puget Sound, Rosario Straits will be most convenient to American vessels. But between the Pacific Ocean and Point Roberts [American territory], the Canal de Haro is equally convenient for American vessels as it is for British vessels bound for Fraser River, a few miles north of it. In no point of view, however, is Rosario Straits necessary for British vessels, unless the Archipelago de Haro become British territory.

"The Canal de Haro being the only link in the boundary channel between the forty-ninth parallel and the Straits of Fuca, which has been proven by contemporaneous evidence, the question is upon what principle was the Canal de Haro understood to be the channel which separates the continent from Vancouver's Island?' It must have been either because it was the channel nearest to Vancouver's Island, or because it was the main channel. If the former, the archipelago skirting Vancouver's Island to the forty-ninth parallel belongs to the United States; if the latter, the Gulf of Georgia is the boundary channel, and this archipelago belongs to Great Britain. This group of islands is the only one about which any dispute could be got up with plausible show of fairness; and the liberality of the United States in proposing to adopt such a line as would give it to Great Britain, has hitherto prevented such a dispute and transferred it to the Haro group.

"Upon the accompanying map will be found the following lines traced through different channels, viz. :

"1st. The boundary line contemplated by the treaty, as shown by contemporaneous evidence, through the middle of the Gulf of Georgia and Canal de Haro, the main channel between the continent and Vancouver's Island.

6

"2nd. The boundary line claimed by the British commissioner, through the Gulf of Georgia and Rosario Straits, on the pretence that the channel which separates the continent from Vancouver's Island' means the channel nearest to the continent.

"3rd. The boundary line proposed by the British commissioner as a compromise, through the Gulf of Georgia, a

part of the Canal de Haro, and the channel east of San Juan Island.

"4th. The boundary line which might be claimed by the United States in accordance with the letter of the treaty, or by adopting an interpretation of it so as to carry out the sole object of the deviation of the boundary line from the forty-ninth parallel to the ocean through the Straits of Fuca, viz., to give the whole of Vancouver's Island to Great Britain.

"5th. Track of steamers plying between Victoria and Fraser River since the discovery of gold.

"I have the honour to be, very respectfully,

"Your obedient servant,

"ARCHIBALD CAMPBELL,

"Commissioner North-west Boundary Survey.

"Hon. Lewis Cass, Secretary of State."

In the meantime, Mr. Campbell had, on the 18th of May, 1859, addressed a letter to Captain Prevost, stating that nearly eighteen months had elapsed since the last meeting of the commission, and further, as follows:(1)

“I have the honour, very respectfully, to request you to inform me whether I am to expect any further communication from you in regard to the determination of the water boundary, and if so, at what period of time I may probably look for such communication."

To this Captain Prevost replied as follows :(2)

"Her Britannic Majesty's ship Satellite, Esquimault, "Vancouver's Island, May 27, 1859. "SIR,-I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 18th instant, referring to a meeting of the joint commission held upon the 3rd day of December, 1857, (2) Idem, p. 109.

(1) American State Papers, p. 108.

at which you state I proposed that a reference of the whole matter connected with the water boundary should be made by each commissioner to his Government, and as you did not concur in such proposal, and as eighteen months have elapsed without any subsequent proceedings, requesting to be informed whether you are to expect any further communication from me in regard to the determination of the water boundary.

2. It seems to me that this letter conveys the implication that the delay which has taken place in the determination of the line of water boundary originated from my act, and now rests entirely with me. I therefore feel called upon, in justice to myself, to offer a few remarks, and to submit that a review of the facts connected with the question will show that the very opposite is the case.

"3. I am not unmindful that I made the suggestion for a reference of the matter in dispute between us to our respective Governments; and why did I do so? Purposely to facilitate its settlement.

“You objected to such reference, but for what reason I am not in a position to judge.

"4. It needs not that I should enter into any recapitulation of the correspondence that has passed between us. It suffices to say that from the exact wording and intrinsic evidence of the treaty, I formed a clear and fixed opinion as to the direction in which the line of water boundary to be determined between us should be carried. Nothing you advanced, nothing that transpired, shook that opinion in the slightest; on the contrary, the very argument you adduced, founded upon evidence which was not the treaty, only served to confirm my opinion and to establish me in my view as to its correctness. In such a case it would neither have been an unnatural nor unreasonable proceeding on my part, had I determined resolutely to adhere to the views I entertained, and not to depart one iota from the line which I then believed, which I now believe, to be the line of boundary established by the treaty; but, actuated by conscientious motives in fully recognising the importance of a speedy settlement of the matter, in possessing

the most earnest desire to effect that settlement, and in firmly believing that it was the province of the commissioners to adjust any disagreement, without reference, by mutual concession and forbearance, I frankly offered to meet you half-way if you would reciprocate in the same spirit. This conciliatory offer on my part you positively refused to entertain, and I therefore think I am justly absolved from the delay which has in consequence arisen.

"5. I would, with the utmost respect, wish to remind you that on the 16th August last a joint commission meeting was held, at which I expressed my readiness to concert certain measures which it was desirable should then be completed; but proceedings therein were again delayed, not from any desire on my part, but through your declining to act unless I deferred in toto to the views you entertained in connection therewith.

"6. In conclusion, I beg to acquaint you that I have not received any instructions from my Government upon the subject of the reference made by me on account of the contrary views entertained by us, nor am I aware when it is probable that I may receive instructions.

"Permit me to assure you of my consideration and esteem, and believe me to remain your most obedient and humble servant,

"JAMES C. PREVOST,

"Her Majesty's Commissioner, &c., &c.

"Archibald Campbell, Esq.,

"Commissioner on the part of the United States, &c., &c."

Mr. Campbell replied in the following terms: (1)

"United States North-west Boundary Commission, "Camp Simiahmoo, June 7, 1859. "SIR,I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 27th ultimo, in reply to mine of the 18th. The object of my letter, as stated therein, was to request you

(1) American State Papers, p. 110.