published, I was prepared, without delay, to enter upon the settlement of the question, and so informed the British commissioner. * * * * * In consequence of an accident to her machinery, which detained her some time at Rio Janeiro, the steamer Plumper did not arrive at Vancouver's Islaud as soon as she was expected. Captain Prevost awaited her arrival until the close of October, when he concluded to enter upon the determination of the boundary line without further delay. The joint commission met on the 26th day of October, and Captain Prevost, expressing his regret at the continued absence of Captain Richards, stated that he had had opportunities of verifying the general accuracy of the Coast Survey chart of the channels and islands between the continent and Vancouver's Island, and was willing to adopt it for the purpose of determining the boundary line. We therefore proceeded to the discussion of the subject, which resulted in a correspondence, a copy of which is herewith transmitted for your information as embodying fully our respective views in regard to "the channel which separates the continent from Vancouver's Island;" through which, according to the treaty, the boundary line is to be traced. From a perusal of the correspondence it will be perceived that for a portion of the distance between the forty-ninth parallel and the Straits of Fuca, we disagree as to "the channel" referred to in the treaty; the British commissioner claiming Rosario Straits and I maintaining the Canal de Haro to be "the channel." Between these two channels are several islands, embracing a space of about 400 square miles, the sovereignty of which is involved in a decision of the question. Captain Prevost finally proposed such a compromise as would throw within the territory of the United States all the islands but San Juan, the largest and most valuable of the group. Being fully satisfied, from my own observation, that the Canal de Haro is the main channel, and consequently "the channel" intended by the treaty, and being supported in this opinion by indisputable contemporaneous evidence of the highest official character, I declined to accede to any compromise. Captain Prevost thereupon proposed a reference of the whole matter to our respective governments, to which proposal I also declined to accede, but informed him that I should report the proceedings of the joint commission to my government, and at the same time submit all the correspondence on the subject. Deeming this course to be the proper one under the circumstances, I have the honor to lay before you a copy of the proceedings and correspondence above referred to for your consideration and action thereon, and for such further instructions in relation to the determination of the water boundary as may be deemed advisable and necessary by the department. The speech of Senator Benton of June 18, 1846, on the ratification of the treaty, to which frequent reference is made in the accompanying correspondence, will be found in the appendix to the Congressional Globe, volume sixteen, first session twenty-ninth Congress, 1845-'6, page 867. And I would respectfully refer you to your own speech on the same occasion, in which you confirm the correctness of my views in regard to "the channel which separates the continent from Vancouver's Island." At the time of my discussion with the British commissioner, I was not aware of the existence of this important additional contemporaneous testimony. Although differing with Mr. Benton in the construction to be placed upon many points of the treaty, and opposing its ratification as firmly as Mr. Benton advocated it, there is no disagreement between you as to the meaning of the language of the treaty defining the boundary line now in dispute In commenting upon the first article of the treaty you thus describe the water boundary : Vancouver's Island is separated from the continent by an arm of the sea about two hundred and fifty miles in extent; different portions of which are known by different names. One part is called the Straits of Fuca; another the Canal de Arro; another the Gulf of Geor gia; and the fourth, Queen Charlotte's Sound. Your speech will be found in the appendix to the Congressional Globe, volume 17, second session twentieth Congress, 1846-'47, page 26. With the highest respect, I have the honor to be your most obedient servant, ARCHIBALD CAMPBELL, Commissioner Northwest Boundary Survey. Hon. LEWIS CASS, Secretary of State. CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND BRITISH COM MISSIONERS. Captain Prevost to Mr. Campbell. HER BRITANNIC MAJESTY'S SHIP SATELLITE, SIR: With reference to the various consultations we have had as to the direction in which the boundary line should run through the channel separating the continent from Vancouver's Island, at and to the southward of the forty-ninth parallel of north latitude, into the Straits of Juan de Fuca, and from thence to the Pacific Ocean, I have the honor to communicate to you in writing the views I entertain of the subject. 2. As the water boundary line to be determined is described in the first article of the treaty between Great Britain and the United States of 15th June, 1846, it in my opinion clearly follows that the direction in which the said line is to be traced should alone be sought in the words of that treaty. I will here quote them so far as they relate to the particular line of water boundary : The line of boundary between the territories of her Britannic majesty and those of the United States shall be continued westward along the said forty-ninth parallel of north latitude to the middle of the channel which separates the continent from Vancouver's Island; and thence southerly through the middle of the said channel and of Fuca's Straits to the Pacific Ocean : Provided, however, That the navigation of the whole of the said channel and straits south of the forty-ninth parallel of north latitude remain free and open to both parties. 3. Now, upon reference to the chart, it will be found, what indeed is the fact, that at the forty-ninth parallel of north latitude, there is only one navigable channel lying between the continent and Vancouver's Island. This channel is commonly called the Gulf of Georgia, and in its open waters will be found the initial point of the boundary line. From this point there can be but little difficulty in carrying the boundary line, according to the words of the treaty, "southerly through the middle of the said channel," to about 48° 45′ of north latitude. Here the waters are studded with islands, through which it is generally admitted two navigable passages are to be found. One is now commonly designated the Rosario Strait, and is situated near to the continent; the other is called the Canal de Arro, and is to be found nearer to Vancouver's Island. Through which of these two channels the boundary line should pass may at first sight appear a matter of doubt, but the precise wording of the treaty, I think, sufficiently determines it. The line is to be carried through the middle of a navigable channel separating the continent from Vancouver's Island, and the only navigable channel separating the continent from Vancouver's Island; at this sition is the channel generally called the Rosario Strait. Therefore, my entire conviction is that the boundary line should be carried through those waters known as the Gulf of Georgia into the Rosario Strait, to the Straits of Fuca, and thence to the Pacific Ocean. po 4. By a careful consideration of the wording of the treaty it would seem distinctly to provide that the channel mentioned should possess three characteristics: 1st. It should separate the continent from Vancouver's Island. 2d. It should admit of the boundary line being carried through the middle of it in a southerly direction: 3d. It should be a navigable channel. To these three peculiar conditions the channel known as the Rosario Strait most entirely answers. 5. It is readily admitted that the Canal de Arro is also a navigable channel, and therefore answers to one characteristic of the channel of the treaty; although I may as well here mention that from the rapidity and variableness of its currents, and from its being destitute of anchorages, except at its extreme ends, it is unsuitable for sailing vessels, and would scarcely ever be used by them so long as the passage through the Rosario Strait remained available; as the currents in that strait being generally regular, and the anchorages convenient and secure, it is by far the more navigable channel of the two. But the Canal de Arro will not meet the two remaining characteristics of the channel of the treaty. It literally and geographically does not separate the continent from Vancouver's Island, that continent having already been separated by another navigable channel, the Rosario Strait; and further, it will be found in tracing the line of boundary according to the literal wording of the treaty, which appears to me peculiarly precise and clear, that the line to reach the Canal de Arro must proceed for some distance in a westerly direction, for which deviation from a southerly direction no provision is made in the treaty. I therefore am unable to admit that the Canal de Arro is the channel of the treaty. 6. Having thus frankly communicated in writing the views that I have already expressed to you verbally, I shall feel indebted to you if you will be so good as to favor me in like manner with your views on the subject, in order that I may devote to them every consideration and reflection. With the greatest respect and esteem, I beg you will allow me to subscribe myself, Your most obedient and humble servant, JAMES C. PREVOST. Capt. H. M. Ship Satellite, and Her Britannic Majesty's Commissioner for determining the aforesaid Line of Boundary. ARCHIBALD CAMPBELL, Esq., United States Commissioner N. W. Boundary, &c., &c, &c. Mr. Campbell to Captain Prevost. UNITED STATes Northwest Boundary COMMISSION, Camp Simiahmoo, 49th Parallel, November 2, 1857. SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 28th. ultimo, embodying your views in relation to the determination of the water boundary between the United States and the British possessions, as described in the 1st article of the treaty of June 15, 1846; and in compliance with your request I herewith communicate my views on the subject for your consideration. The following is the description of the whole boundary line, that part of it relating to the water boundary being underscored : "From the point on the forty-ninth parallel of north latitude, where the boundary laid down in existing treaties and conventions terminates, the line of boundary between the territories of the United States and those of Her Britannic Majesty shall be continued westward along the said forty-ninth parallel of north latitude to the middle of the channel which separates the continent from Vancouver's Island, and thence southerly through the middle of the said channel, and of Fuca's Straits, to the Pacific Ocean: Provided, however, that the navigation of the whole of the said channel and straits south of the forty-ninth parallel of north latitude remain free and open to both parties." It was conceded on both sides in our recent discussions that there would be no difficulty in tracing the boundary line through the Gulf of Georgia and the Straits of Fuca, (the northern and southern extremities of the line between the forty-ninth parallel and the Pacific Ocean;) but as there are several navigable channels connecting their waters, a question arose as to which of these was "the channel" intended by the treaty. These channels are caused by a cluster of islands, and are of various dimensions. Among them, however, one is found pre-eminent as to width, depth, and volume of water, and in every respect satisfying the requirements of the treaty. This channel has been known since its first discovery as the "Canal de Huro," and was the only one usually designated by name on the maps in use at the time the treaty was under consideration. While the other channels only separate the islands in the group from each other, the Canal de Haro, for a considerable distance north of the Straits of Fuca, and where their waters unite, washes the shore of Vancouver's Island, and is therefore the only one which, according to the language of the treaty, "separates the continent from Vancouver's Island." The objection raised that for a short distance it would not carry the boundary line in a southerly direction, and thus fails to meet one of the requirements of the treaty, I think, will apply with equal force to the Gulf of Georgia, if the term "southerly" is to be construed in a strictly nautical or technical sense, and with still greater force to the Straits of Fuca, which, for the greater part of its course, runs northwesterly; for the language of the treaty being thence "southerly through the middle of the said channel, and of Fuca's Straits to the Pacific Ocean," the direction applies throughout the whole extent of the line. If objection is made on this ground, the treaty will be nullified and cannot be carried into effect. It is quite evident, however, that the term "southerly" is to be understood only in its common and general sense. It is undoubtedly used here in opposition to "northerly," and simply to show that Vancouver's Island is to be left on the British instead of the American side of the line, for it can hardly be supposed that the framers of the treaty would have ventured, with the general maps before them, to decide upon the whole course of the line except in the most general terms. The impracticability of applying the same test to the Straits of Fuca clearly shows in what sense the term is to be understood. Besides the Canal de Haro, there is a prominent channel nearer to the main land, known at present upon the Coast Survey and British Admiralty charts as "Rosario Strait." The early Spanish navigators called it the "Canal de Fidalgo." Captain Wilkes named it "Ringgold's Channel." It is sometimes called "Vancouver's Straits or "channel," but, except on the Spanish Admiralty maps, I cannot learn that it was ever designated by name on any of the general maps of the northwest coast likely to be used at the time the treaty was made. "Rosario Straits" is a navigable channel, but it does not "separate the continent from Vancouver's Island." In no part of its course does it touch upon the shore of either. It separates the islands of Lummi, Sinclair's, Cypress, Guemes and Fidalgo on the east, from Orcas, Blakely, Decatur and Lopez islands on the west, but in no respect does it "separate the continent from Vancouver's Island," and cannot, therefore, in my opinion, be claimed, in accordance with the language of the treaty, as the channel therein referred to. There is also another navigable channel connecting the Gulf of Georgia with the Straits of Fuca. It passes between the islands of San Juan, Spieden and Stewart on the west, and Waldron, Orcas, Shaw and Lopez on the east; but, like Rosario Straits, fails to touch the continent or Vancouver's Island. There are besides other channels no doubt navigable, but none except the "Canal de Haro" answers the requirements of the treaty in all respects. Although I do not regard the relative merits of the navigability for sailing vessels of the Canal de Haro and Rosario Straits as having any bearing on the determination of the question before us, both being acknowledged navigable in the sense of the treaty, yet, as you have expressed an opinion thereon unfavor able to the Canal de Haro, I must beg respectfully to call your attention to the remarks of Captain Alden of the United States navy on the same subject. This gentleman was for many years in charge of the hydrographic survey of the Pacific coast, and during the working seasons of three years was engaged in examining and surveying these channels. In a report to the Superintendent of the Coast Survey in 1855, he says: "The Gulf of Georgia and Straits of Fuca are connected by two good ship channels called on the charts Haro and Rosario straits. They are of sufficient width, and navigable for vessels of the largest class. The great depth of water presents a difficulty, but anchorages may be had for the most part, as the chart shows, at convenient distances along the shores." In a previous report in 1853, in comparing the two channels, he says that "in almost every respect" the Canal de Haro is the "better" of the two channels. And again in the same report, after speaking of the various channels, he says: It will be seen that the Canal de Haro is the widest, deepest and best channel." He expressed to me frequently the same opinion after my arrival on this coast, during the brief period in which he was attached to the boundary commission as commander of the Coast Survey steamer Active. My great deference to your knowledge of nautical affairs obliges me to avail myself of the opinions of one of the most experienced and accomplished officers of our Navy and Coast Survey upon a subject relating purely to navigation. No person, however, can travel on these inland waters, and through these channels, and fail to be impressed with the idea of their peculiar adaptation to steam navigation, and the belief is general that eventually steamboats will supersede, in a great measure, the use of sailing vessels. The Canal de Haro, being a much shorter communication between the Gulf of Georgia and the Pacific Ocean, would then have an advantage over Rosario Straits. From the views hereinbefore expressed, you will perceive that even if we adhere to the mere letter of the treaty, I am firmly convinced that the Canal de Haro is "the channel" through which the boundary line should pass, and unless your consideration thereupon should modify your views, we are still as far from a determination of the boundary line as when we commenced the discussion of the subject. Therefore, should your opinion remain unchanged, it must be evident that, by taking the literal reading of the treaty alone as our guide, we are not likely to come to an agreement, nor will its "precise wording" solve the doubt which you intimate may arise at first sight of the chart, as to which of the two channels the boundary line should pass through. I therefore think it becomes necessary to look beyond the mere words of the treaty, and endeavor, if possible, to reach the actual intentions of the treaty makers in using them, for undoubtedly they must have had in their minds some particular channel, though not designated by name in the treaty. The rule laid down by Vattel is, that, "as soon as we meet with any obscurity in a treaty, we should seek for what was probably in the thoughts of those who drew it up, and interpret it accordingly." Now, however clear it may be to me that the Canal de Haro is "the channel," taking the words of the treaty in the most literal sense consistent with its execution, yet the fact that you are as firmly convinced that Rosario Straits is "the channel," would imply that there was some obscurity in the language of the treaty before us. Vattel also says: It is a question in the interpretation of a treaty to know what the contracting powers have agreed upon, in order to determine precisely, on any particular occasion, what has been promised and accepted-that is to say, not only what one of the parties has had the intention to promise, but, also, what the other has reasonably and sincerely thought to be promised; what has been sufficiently delared to him, and upon which he must have regulated his acceptThe interpretation of every act, and of every treaty, ought, then, to be made according to certain rules proper to determine the sense of them, such as the parties concerned must naturally have understood when the act was prepared and accepted. ance. # # |