^>. ^k IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) /. 1.0 I.I tu " "^ IlM 1^ lllll^ 1118 1.25 1.4 1.6 1 ^ 6" ^ m ^^ /a °m Photographic Sciences Ojiporation /# iV #^\ ^^ '•c^ %^ ^1> ^^^ 33 WEST MAIN STREET WERSTCR.N.Y. M580 (716) 877 4i»03 CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. V \ i f CIHIVI/iCIVIK Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Insiitut Canadian de microreproductions historiques Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliogiaphiques The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy uvailabie for filming. Featuies of this copy which may ba bibliographically unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. d n D Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur I I Covers damaged/ Couverture endommagee □ Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaurde et/ou pelliculAe I I Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque Coloured maps/ Cartes gdographiques en couleur Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue o' black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bieue ou noire) □ Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couieur U" ' Bound with other material/ Rel:4 avec d'autres docume n documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La reliure serree paut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge intdrieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have bee.'i omitted from filming/ II se paut que certaines pages blanches ajouties lors dune restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque cela 6tait possible, ces pages n'ont pas 6t6 film6es. Additional comments:/ Commentaires suppldmentaires; L'lnstitut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a 6t6 possible de se procuier. Les details de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la methods normale de filmage sont indiquAs ci-dessous. I I Coloured pages/ Pages de couleur Pages damaged/ Pages endommagdes Pages restored and/oi Pages restaurdes et/ou pelliculdes Pages discoloured, stained or foxe< Pages d^colories, tachet6es ou piqu^es I I Pages damaged/ I I Pages restored and/or laminated/ r~~| Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ n Pages detached/ Pages ddtach6es pn/Showthrough/ 1— )j Transparence I I Quality of print variss/ Quality in^gale de I'impression Includes supplementary material/ Comprend du materiel suppldmentaire Only edition available/ Seule Mition disponible 1 8 1 V d e b ri r( n n Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalament ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont M filmdes d nouveau de fa9on d obtenir la meilleure image possibie. This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est filmd au taux de reduction indiquA ci-dessous 10X UX 18X \/ 12X 16X 20X 22X 26X 30X 28X 32X e 6tails s du lodifier r une Image IS The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks to the generosity of: Library of the Pubiic Archives of Canada The Images appearing here are the best quaiity possibie considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and in keeping with the filming contract specifications. Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on the last page with a printed or Illustrated Impres- sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All other original copies are filmed beginning on the first page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, and ending on the last page wkh a printed or illustrated Impression. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol -^(meaning "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol y (meaning "END"!, whichever applies. Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too iiarge to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in tiie upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: L'exemplaire fiim4 fut reproduit grAce A la gAnirositt de: La bibliothdque des Archives publiques du Canada Les images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec ie plus grand soin, compte tenu de ia condition et de la nettet« de l'exemplaire fiim6, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de fiimage. Les exemplaires orlginaux dont ia couverture en papier est imprimAe sont filmte en commenpant par ie premier plat et en terminant soit par la dernldre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'iliustration, soit par ie second plat, selon Ie cas. Tous les au;-res exemplaires orlginaux sont film6s en commenpant par la premlire page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'iliustration et en terminant par la derniire page qui comporte une telle empreinte. Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la derniire image de cheque microfiche, selon Ie cas: Ie symbols — »> signifle "A SUIVRE", Ie symbols V signifie "FIN". Les cartos, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent Atre flimds d des taux de reduction diffArents. Lorsque Ie document est trop grand pour dtre reproduit en un seul clichA, 11 est filmA A partir de Tangle supArisur gauche, de gauche d droite, et de haut en bas, en pranant ie nombre d'images nAcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la mAthode. irrata to pelure. n d n 32X 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 Price One Shilling. 8 A N J U A N, * ALASKA. AND THE NORTH-WEST BOUNDARY. ny A. G. DALLAS, I- ATE GOVEllNOR OF P.UPEBT'.S LAND. HENEY S. KING AND CO., Qr^, CORNIIILL, AND 12, PATERXOSTER KOW. ?i 1873. / '■%} Ja ^E-- n >' 4^K ''' Wm<. "^ SAN JU AN ALASEA., \ AN') THE NORTH-WEST BOUNDARY. BY A. G. DALLAS, LATE GOVERNOR OP EUPERT's LAND. HENEY S. KING AND CO., 65, CORNHILL, AND 12, PATERNOSTER ROW 1873. SJ^ [All Eights Reserved.'] SAN JUAN, ALASKA, AND TffE NORTH-WEST BOUNDARY. While fully accepting tlie settlement of the San Juan question as irrevocable, I am induced to endeavour to clear up, in as few words as possible, the misconcep- tions by which the case is still surrounded. If apology were needed for reviving the subject at all, it must be borne in mind that we are not yet out of the wood, either in regard to the Haro Strait or the land and water boundary between our territories and Alaska, where precisely similar difficulties present themselves, 3ubject to the same differences of interpretation. Some vindication of our national character in the eyes of the world is also imperatively demanded ; standing convicted, as we do, of having so long and persistently asserted a claim which has been authoritatively decided against us, while it is but little known that the basis of our contention had been expressly excluded from the arbitration. Our experience in this, as in other questions, revives the consideration of how far, and under what circum- stances, it may be practicable, on the part of the Exe- cutive, to consult Parliament before committing the country to Treaties or Conventions. In this instance, our representatives consented to nullify a Treaty, which a reference to Parliament would certainly never have sanctioned. The importance of the possession of San Juan island, whether exaggerated or not, must depend upon the measure of value placed upon it. It is certainly not worth going to war about, and no reasonable man ever contemplated such a contingency ; but rather than lose it in the way we have, I submit that it would have been more consistent with our dignity, and less humiliating to our pride, to have made the United States Govern- ment a present of the whole question at issue, than to have consented to set aside the Treaty, and refer to arbi- tration two .'dternative and subordinate propositions, not even alluded to in it, on conditions almost entailing defeat. The Treaty of 1846 defined the north-west water boundary to be "a line drawn from the middle of the channel which separates the continent from Van- couver's Island southerly through the middle of the ** said channel and of Fuca Strait to the ocean." The Government of that day has been blamed for not having appended a map or chart to the Treaty. It is a sufficient reply to this, that there was at that time no complete chart of the Straits in existence, and that the words of the Treaty supplied in themselves a perfect definition. They demanded not necessarily a navigable shij) channel (any more than the land boundary demanded a road or pathway), but a line of demar- cation through the middle of the whole channel sepa- rating the continent from Vancouver's Island. Such a line, including the free navigation of the whole channel to both parties, would fulfil every condition of this ex- plicit Treaty, which either of the substituted passages, De Haro and Rosario, fails to do.-^ 1 Vide opinion of Sir Kichard Pakenliam, our representative in negotiating the Treaty of 1846 : — " I deny that either can exactly fulfil the conditions (( (( Though the existence of the De Ilaro and Rosario channels was known to the negotiators of the Treaty of 1846, yet these passages were not even alh'ded to in that Treaty. \ The Gulf of Georgia and the Strait of De Fucr., were evidently and reasonably treated as one channel, to be connected by a centre line of demarcation, irrespective of the more or less navigable and tortuous passages, more or less known to have existed through the interposing archipelago. I would here beg to call particular attention to this argument : — If the line of the water boundary had been intended to apply to a navigable passage, why were the words " whole channel " used in securing the right of free navigation to both parties ? These words are evidently superfluous if applied to one navigable channel separating two independent States — such a channel neces- sarily carrying with it a free right of navigation. I will noi; here enter into the reasons why the plain words and obvious meaning of the Treaty, pointing to the middle of the space between the continent and Van- couver's Island, throughout, the whole length of the line of water boundary, were departed from, and the De Haro passage to the extreme left contended for by the Americans, while we claimed that of Rosario on the extreme right. Apart from the various arguments advanced, and not without strong presumptive evidence, on both sides, it exactly suited the American, view of the case to insist on this departure, as they might win every- thing on the De Haro standpoint, while they were certain " of the Treaty, which, according to their literal tenor, should require the "line to be traced along the middle of the channel (meaning, I presume, ** the whole intervening space) which separates the continent from Vancou- " ver's Island, And I think I can safely assert that the Treaty of the 15th "of June, 1846, was signed and ratified without any intimation to us " whatever, on the part of the United States Government, as to the par- "ticular direction to be given to the line of boundary contemplated oy "Art. I. of that Treaty." i to lose somethiug on the middle ground of the Treaty. We, on the other hand, reasonably concluded that if beaten upon the Rosario, we could fall back upon a middle channel and the express terms of the Treaty. How we came to grief may be told in a few words. On the failure of the Commissioners specially ap- pointed by both parties, in 1856, to settle the boundary on the spot, the Clarendon-Johnson Treaty was negotiated in 1869. This Treaty, so far as related to the north- west boundary, was unexceptionable, as it simply provided for a reference of the Treaty of 1846, in" all its integrity, to arbitration. This, however, did not suit the views of our astute antagonists, and the Clarendon-Johnson Treaty was never ratified by the American Senate. At the Washington Convention, on March 15, 1871, the American Commissioners proposed to abrogate the Treaty so far as related to the water boundary. This, after a reference to England, was declined. They how- ever carried their point by a ftank movement in this wise, viz., by declining to adopt, or even allow the arbitrators to consider, a channel intermediate between De Haro and Rosario. To this our Commissioners unaC' countably and fatally consented, thus abrogating the Treaty of 1846. They also allowed that the only channel open to free navigation, to both parties, should be the one to be selected by the Arbitrator, though the Treaty provided that the navigation of the whole channel and strait south of the 49 th parallel of north latitude should remain free and open to both parties.' By this concession the Rosario Strait would seem to become an inland water of the United States. In this Conference the United States Commissioners, as 1 The \\ . ole story is told in Blue Book, " North America," No. 3 (1871). London : Harrison and Son, Pall Mall (C— 346). Price 2^rf. f above shown, declined to admit the words of the Tivaty pointing to the middle ground, ou the frivolous pretext that theyde. ired a decision, not a compromise — as if one did not involve the other ; while, with the same )reath, in rejecting the Treaty, they actually substituted r com- jn'omtse. It is unaccountable that we did not avail ourselves of the opportunity, and secure a decision on the whole Treat I/, instead of the fatal compromise. The question then submitted to arbitration being, not the Treaty of 1846, but its application to another issue, and expressly excluding a centre line of demarcation pomted to in the Treaty, it is no wonder that, in the absence of satisfactory explanation, a belief has gained extensive ground, both in this country and the colonies, that the Island of San Juan was purposely given up with the view of conciliating America. The only other con- clusion we can come to is that we were overreached. Although the decision of the Emperor of Germany, even on the point . submitted, has been called in question by high authority,^ it must be borne in mind that we had the preponderating influence of Mr. Bancroft, the only survivor of the negotiators of the Treaty, against us at Berlin. Without questioning the honesty of his understanding of the meaning of the Treaty of 1846, it does not follow that the opposing parties had understood the question in the same light, ** 1 See opinion of Professor Cristofo Negri, in Tima^ Novemher last : — " I am able to say that the English are not in the wrong I have arrived, at the conviction that at Berlin too complete a victory has been given to the Government of the United States. The decision of the umpire has been given, and that 'lecision is law, even if it were erroneous. I deplore that it should have been rendered improbable that, in international controversies, at least in those that do not spring from a mere desire of predominancy, recourse will in future be had to the sj'stem of arbitration." " I need only refer to the well-known misunderstandings of "under- standings " on the late indirect "Alabama '' claims. Our negotiator, Sir Richard Pakenham, as already shown, had a totally different impression from that of Mr. Bancroft as to the Treaty of 1846. I A I 8 fortified as they were by the speeches and writings of contemporary American statesmen and other authorities/ and by the published American maps of Fremont, Preuss, and Preston. The exact w^ords of the award, " am meisten im Emk- lans:e," &c., translated in our Blue Books as "most approaching the meaning of the Treaty," are perplexing and apt to mislead, in that they apply an absolute term to a comparative i^-sue. The award is clearly a decision upon a comparative and subordinate issue, not an abso- lute decision upon the whole Treaty, which has never yet been adjudicated upon. The people of the Dominion of Canada have been almost taunted with putting up so quietly with the loss ; but it would have been both undignified aiid unpatriotic to have done otherv^ise. It is of course folly to cry over spilt milk, but it may not be amiss to inquire how the milk came to be spilt. We have no ground to flatter ourselves that we have gained a step in conciliating the Americans, educated as they have been in the belief that they were contending for an undoubted right, yielded by us only when it could be no longer withheld. It is strange, however, that no account ever appears to 1 Mr. Senator Benton, in his speech of June 18th, 1846, said : " I knew " the Straits of Fuca, ana that these straits foruied a nivtiiral bomHf'ry for " us, aii'l also divided the continent /rom the islands, and the fertile from jhe " desolate regions. I knew that the continental coast ^nd the inhabitable " --ountry terminated on the south shore of those straits, and that the north- " west archipelago — the thousand desolate and volcanic islands, derelict of all "nations —commeDced on their shore ; and I wanted to go no farther than " the good-land and continental coast went. I was always in favour of a deflec- " tion of a line through the Straits of Fuca, but I said nothing about it. It " was a detail, and I confined myself to the proposition of the Une as a basis. " I had expected the deflection to have commenced furthoi back (fouth) on the " continent, so as to have kept our line a little farther off from Fort Langley, at " the mouth of Fraser's River, almost in sight of which it now passes. If " this had been asked, I, for one, would have been willing to grant it." If 9 be taken of the desirability of conciliatirg the people of England. We seem to treat the Americans as children whom it is incumbent on us always to keep in good humour, while flattering ourselves that we stand on higher ground. It is not until we come into actual conflict that we are painfully reminded that the reverse is more like the truth. It may not be out of place here to refer to one example. Under the Nootka Sound Convention of 1790, as well as in agreement with our treaties with the United States in 1818 and 1828, we were at full liberty to settle upon any part of the disputed region. In July, 1859, the island of San Juan — then in the quiet, and almost sole, occupation of the Hudson Bay Company as a sheep farm, under a convention with Mr. Marcy, on the part of the United States, declaring the disputed islands under the Treaty of 1846 to be neutral ground — was suddenly, and in defiance of this convention, forcibly taken possession of, on a frivolous and untenable pretence, by the United States troops under General Harney. To the wholesome dread of responsibility, and owing to great forbearance on the part of our authorities on the spot, it is alone due that the United States troops were not summarily ejected by the preponderating British naval force which imme- diately assembled. From the position thus usurped the Americans never receded. After the usual war of words and despatches, we were allowed to land a similar number of troops on the other side of the island. There they have remained till within the last month or two, to the great advantage, no doubt, of the colonists, but at the cost of the British, tax-payer. No reparation was ever made by the United States Government for this unpro- voked outrage. It is to be hoped that the experience of the past will enable us to deal more satisfactorily with the still open 10 ill question of tlie boundary between our territories and Alaska. By the Treaty of 1825 with Riissia, this terri- tory, subsequently sold to the United States in 1867, by Treaty of June 20 in that year, was in neither case more accurately described in its western boundary, than by a line to be drawn not more than ten marine leagues from the coast. The difficulty of determining this line will be apparent when it is borne in mind that the coast for 600 miles is mountainous and rugged in the extreme, densely wooded, and intersected by arms of the sea, very much like the west Highlands of Scotland. Add to this, that through these thirty miles and along this coast there ^re several streams, rising in British territory, through which, under* our Treaty of 1825 with Russia, we possess the right of navigation. The Naas River, flowing exclusively through British territory, is one of the two largest and most important streams north of Fraser River, and runs into an arm of the sea separating our territory from Alaska. This arm is obstructed by islands, offering precisely similar diffi- culties as in the case of San Juan. They are of little or no value in themselves, but may command our access to the Naas River from seaward, and their posses- sion be of great importance to us. There is no reason, I believe, why these difficulties should not be amicably settled at Washington or in London, without the necessity of sending Commissioners tr^ the spot. In estimating the value of what we have lost, or may yet lose or gain, the following opinion, in regard to one of the finest portions of the American Union, by a leading London journal, while reviewing a speech of Lord Aberdeen in support of the Treaty of 1846, may serve as a caution to writers and speakers ignorant of the country, and ill-informed on the question in dispute : — 11 <( (( (( (( (( (( (< l( C( a (( (( (( a "The Oregon Territory {which then included WasKimjton Territory) is really valueless to England and to Amer.'.ca. The only use of it to America would be to make it an addition to territories already far too large for good government, or even for civilization. The emigrants to Oregon must pass through thousands of miles of unoc- cupied land, with a soil and climate far better than they will find on the shores of the Pacific. And when they get there, what will be the social state of a few thousand families, scattered through a territory more than six times as large as England, and three thousand miles from the seat of government "? They will mix with the Indians, and sink into a degraded race of half-caste barbarians. If she could obtain sovereignty over the whole of the lands west of the Rocky Mountains to-morrow, every wise American statesman must wish that the next day they should sink into the sea." Verhum sat. Since writing the above I have beeu surprised to find, in a pamphlet just publisiied by Lord Bury, the following remarks, under the head of "San Juan": — " Whether the decision be or be not satisfactory to ** us, it cannot bo laid to the account of the Treaty now under dis- ** cussion." Again : " Serious as may be the results to the Dominion " of the award given by the Emperor of Germany, it must, I think, " be conceded that the fortune of the question was naither made "nor marred by the Treaty of Washington. The High Commis- "sioners did nothing more than refer the meaning of a former *•' Treaty to arbitration." A reference to Blua Book No. 3, 1871, must, I think, satisfy his lordship that the fortune of the question wa-^ marred by the Treaty of Washington, and that the High Commissioners did not refer the meaning of a former Treaty to arbitration. i.OXDOK : R. CLAT, SONS, AND TAYLOl!, I'U.'M'Krs, BKEA1> STREET Pi T.I. I I -n^^mmrmm^^t^ ii^ii^^pwn^i™p«»!|PPi|i^""i(PPi»iiiip>ppi^ \