YALL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 05423 6212

;^-:-.i.:^.,_...:;.^-:-',^:::^;._:.v_;^

letter to the
Hon J.Gregory Smith, by
George Gibbs,
7ushington,1869s

lIgive:thefe Books
! for the founding tf a. Collect in, this Colony"

• ILIlIB]&&]SHr •

GiftofT. Whitney Blake.
From the Library of
Prof. William P. Blake.
1312

1ETTEB
TO THE
HON. J. GREGORY SMITH,
OR VERMONT, t
PRESIDENT OF THE NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD,
OH THE
"SAN" JTTAN" TEEATT,

GEOEGE GIBBS,
OF WASHINGTON TEEEITOBY.

McGill & Witherow, Printers and Stereotypers, 366 E street, Washington, B. Q.

LETTER.

Washington, February 4, 1869.
Sir:
In reply to your letter of yesterday, on the so-called "San
Juan question," I have to say, that I am utterly opposed to
Mr. Johnson's convention, referring the title of the island to •
the "President of the Swiss Confederation."
In the first place, I think it derogatory to the honor of the
United States to refer the question at all. The joint occu
pation of the territory on the Pacific was terminated by the
Ireaty of 1846, the line of the 49th parallel being adopted as
the basis; but as this line, prolonged to the sea, would cut off
a part of Vancouver Island, Mr. Buchanan fatally consented
to deflect it through the Gulf of Georgia and the Strait of
Fuca, using the words, "the middle of the channel which sep
arates the continent from Vancouver's Island." It was per
fectly well understood at the time that the compact group of
intermediate islands of which San Juan is one, and which lies
entirely south of the 49th parallel, would belong to the United
States; and Mr. Benton expressly referred to the fact in the
debate when urging the ratification of the treaty. Subse
quently, however, the British, with whom it seems impossible
to make a treaty that shall be a finality, started the claim to
the entire group, insisting that the comparatively insignificant
Canal de Rosario, which merely separates the continent from
those smaller islands, was to be taken as the one "which sep
arates the continent from Vancouver's 'Island," instead of the
larger and deeper Canal de Haro, lying nearer to Vancouver
Island. Their motive was obvious enough. They saw that
this group, taken together, could be completely fortified; that
in its land-locked harbors all the navies of the world could lie
safely, and that the United States would then possess a naval
position, covering at once the Gulf of Georgia, Fuca Strait,

and Puget's Sound, thus holding England in check in those
waters. On the whole line of our coast, from San Diego to the Strait
of Fuca, San Francisco is the only harbor at once accessible
and defensible. The ownership of the southern end of Van
couver Island gave to Great Britain Barclay Sound, one side
of the Strait of Fuca, with the aduftrable harbor of Esquimalt,
and the islands of the Saturna group, bordering the easterly
side of Vancouver Island. The islands nearer the continent,
of which San Juan is the most western, are our only protection
against this immense advantage, and this she wishes to deprive
us of.
Great Britain, in fact, seems to think herself entitled to all
the strategic points of the world. Malta and Gibraltar and
the Cape of Good Hope are but instances of this grasping
spirit of dominion. If we now give up our position on the
Gulf of Georgia, the Sandwich Islands will be the next
point coveted. She knows well that this great inlet, the
Strait of Fuca, and the waters opening into it, Puget's Sound,
and the Gulf of Georgia, must be the commercial centre of
the North Pacific. So far it has had no development, except
as the source from which the lumber of the countries bordering
on that ocean has been obtained. But it is the nearest point
to China and Japan; it is the nearest point to the Canadas,
to New England, and to New York. The Power that owns it
will control absolutely, by its interior railroads, the trade of
one third of the continent, independent of that of Asia. If
the United States carries through this enterprise of the
Northern Pacific Railroad, Great Britain will not undertake
another route, or if she does, it will be a failure. In the ac
quisition of Alaska, an act of statesmanship second only to
the purchase of Louisiana, we have flanked the British terri
tories on the north. I trust we shall not lose the vantage-
ground thus obtained.
The idea undoubtedly existing in the minds of those who
put forth this claim was, that sooner than make the subject
an occasion of war, we would compromise by the adoption of
an intermediate line, the channel known on our maps as "Pres
ident's Passage," which separates San Juan from Orcas and

Lopez islands, and in this way they would break the continuity
of the chain, and in fact steal the key of the lock. They
hoped also to gain the cession of Point Roberts, a part of the
continent falling south of the parallel, and a commanding posi
tion on the Gulf of Georgia, near the entrance to Fraser river.
The danger of war was a bug-bear. It is now known that,
when the original treaty was made, the British government
would have yielded the whole of Vancouver Island rather than
fight; and that later, if firmly met, she would have receded
from her claim to the San Juan group. The movement of
General Harney, in taking military possession of San Juan,
was the right one. There was a vast deal of bluster and
threatening on the part of the British, but there would have
been no fighting to get possession of it; but Mr. Buchanan,
then President, made another fatal mistake. He sent out
General Scott to compromise once more, and a new joint
occupation was agreed upon. The duplicity of the British
in this matter was shown during the joint survey of the north
west boundary. While the American commissioner, Mr. Arch
ibald Campbell, had full powers to settle the line, his English
colleague, Captain Prevost, of the British navy, had secret
instructions not to settle unless San Juan Island was yielded,
and the negotiations were continued for months in vain be
fore the reason leaked out.
The idea seems to prevail, that England, becoming indifferent
to the possession of these western territories, only wants to
be "let down gracefully."* This mistake will prove as ruinous
as the others. She never was more determined to hold on to
these points than now. If she is to lose her possessions on
the Pacific, as she must eventually, she wishes to make us
pay the heaviest penalty for the acquisition. She will get
all the higher price for holding San Juan and Point Roberts.
The Reverdy Johnson treaty shows this in every line. The
question of the true construction of the treaty of 1846 is not
the one submitted. The story is told in the second and in the
separate articles. The second article reads thus:
"If the referee should be unable to ascertain and determine
the precise line intended by the words of the treaty, it is
agreed that it shall be left to him to determine upon some line

6
which, in his opinion, will furnish an equitable solution1 of the
difficulty, and will be the nearest approximation that can be
made to the accurate construction of the treaty."
And the "separate article" (a perfect anomaly in diplom
acy) provides, that this treaty shall not go into operation or
have any effect until the question of NATURALIZATION, now
pending, shall have been satisfactorily settled. If that does
not mean that San Juan Island (and Point Roberts too) is
to be given up as a consideration for the naturalization
treaty, it has no meaning.
The settlement of this question is left to the arbitration of
the "President of the Swiss Confederation." We might
well hesitate at the submission of so important a matter to a
person of whose functions and abilities we know nothing, who
may or may not be a lawyer or a statesman. But what
shall we say when we find that there is no such person in ex
istence? There is NO "President of the Swiss Confederation."
There are presidents of the Conseil National, of the Conseil
des Etats, and of the Conseil Federal ; three presidents after
a fashion : that is, presiding officers of three different bodies,
who are elected annually. But to which of them is this sub
ject submitted? Is it to President Kaiser, of Soleure, to
President iEppli, of St. Gall, or to President Dubs, of
Zurich? And why was it not submitted (if there is to be any submis
sion) as a question, pure and simple, of the interpretation of
the treaty of 1846 ? Are we to compromise every fresh claim
that Great Britain may set up on any occasion by a new con
cession? If there is a real doubt about the true intent and
meaning of that treaty, let us submit it as such, and submit
it to some authority, high enough, learned enough, and re
sponsible enough, to decide it at once.
Submit it for example to the consideration of some body of
jurists of eminence and character: to the "Court of Cassa
tion" of France, the ultimate law court of appeals of the
French empire; to the faculties of law of Heidelberg or Ber
lin, rather than to any sovereign, or potentate, or president,
who may be governed by ideas of what is politic, or of what
is "equitable." Such a reference would be, it is true, a

novelty in the affairs of nations ; but we have a parallel in
the jurisdiction of our own Supreme Court. One hears there,
as the great French jurist de Tocqueville remarked with ad
miration, the cause called (for example) of the State of Mas
sachusetts vs. the State of New York. Why not, then, in a
case like this, of the interpretation of a treaty, or, as in that
of the Alabama claims, one of the interpretation of inter
national obligations, submit it to such courts ? Our own
Supreme Court might, in like manner, be the arbiter between
other nations.
Whether or not the Court of Cassation would assume this
office, of course I do not know; I merely present the sugges
tion ; but if it did, its intervention would elevate the consid
eration of the great courts of justice throughout the civilized
world, and would lessen the danger of wars, springing from
the uncertainty of diplomatic controversy, and from the inter
ests or prejudices of rulers.
So far as the Northern Pacific Railroad is concerned, one of
its western termini must ultimately be on Puget's Sound, and
it will never do to leave it entirely under British guns. More
than that, the command of the Sound involves that of the Co
lumbia River, for two days' march from its head would carry a
hostile force to the mouth of the Cowlitz, with no possible ob
struction, except such an interior line of forts as the Govern
ment never would consent to keep up, and the population of
the country would not justify. It is far better even to leave
the island as it stands, in joint occupation, until we are ready
to take it.
I have said nothing on the importance of the route of the
Northern Pacific Railroad; that must speak for itself. Its
completion is the conquest of British America. What is called
" the Fertile Belt," the country of the Saskatchawan and the
Red River of the north, becomes ex necessitate rei an appanage
of the United States by its construction. Its eastern termi
nus i's of course the city of New York, which thenceforth su
persedes London as the commercial capital of the world.
I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
GEORGE GIBBS.
Hon. J. Gregory Smith.