gation of the straits." It is quite clear from this language that Sir Robert Peel neither believed nor claimed that the deflection from the parallel of 49° had left Great Britain in possession of any other island or territory than the island of Vancouver; nor from anything which was publicly known at the time of the treaty can it be inferred that such a belief was entertained in any other quarter. It is equally true that, from that time to the present day, the construction thus given to the first article of the treaty by Sir Robert Peel has been steadily maintained by the United States. The conversation of Mr. Buchanan with Mr. Crampton, of January, 1848, to which Lord John Russell refers, constitutes no exception to this statement. If Mr. Buchanan understood the word channel in the convention to mean "the main navigable channel," as he is reported to have done by Mr. Crampton, he equally well understood that this "main navigable channel" was the Canal de Haro, which he had distinctly mentioned as the treaty channel in his private letter to Mr. McLane, to which I referred in my despatch of October 20; and if, in the same conversation, he "suggested that the point should be left for decision by the commissioners," this only indicated his entire confidence in the result of their examination, while it anticipated the actual course of this government when the commissioners were appointed. In the instructions under which Mr. Campbell entered on his duties, no restraint whatever was placed upon his judgment on this point, but he was left entirely free to determine the boundary line according to the language of the treaty. I have already had occasion to express my regret that Her Majesty's government did not feel itself at liberty to invest the British commissioner with the same discretion.

I may be pardoned for suggesting that the course of the British government has not been marked by the same consistency of claim. In the beginning of the discussion it was stated by Lord John Russell, in his dispatch of August 24, 1859, that "the British commissioner was clearly of opinion that both the boundary intended by the plenipotentiaries who negotiated the treaty of 1846, and also the channel spoken of in the treaty, is the channel known as Rosario Straits, and Her Majesty's government fully share that opinion." This opinion, however, was controverted by the statement of Lord Aberdeen, which was quoted in the same despatch, who is certain that it was the intention of the treaty to adopt the mid channel of the straits as the line of demarcation, without any reference to islands; and by the memorandum, also, of Sir Richard Pakenham, who expressly declared that neither the Canal de Haro nor the Rosario Strait could, in his judgment, "exactly fulfil the conditions of the treaty, which, according to their liberal tenor, would require the line to be placed along the middle of the channel (meaning, I presume, the whole intervening space) which separates the continent from Vancouver's Island." The boundary, therefore, claimed by Lord John Russell and that described by the British negotiators of the treaty were two entirely different lines, the one being the Straits of Rosario, and the other a line of demarcation drawn midway between Vancouver's Island and the continent, without reference to any intervening islands. In his despatch to Lord Lyons of December 16, Lord John Russell appears substantially to abandon the former of these lines, and to adopt the line suggested by Lord Aberdeen and Sir Richard Pakenham, while in his last despatch on this subject, that of the 9th ultimo, he maintains that "either the Canal de Rosario or the Douglas Channel might be held to be the boundary contemplated by the treaty." Thus we have presented the extraordinary case of three widely different boundaries, either of which it is claimed may be fairly regarded as the treaty boundary, while the only boundary excluded is that very boundary which was mentioned in distinct terms by Mr. McLane, Mr. Benton, and Mr. Buchanan at the time the treaty was negotiated, and which is the only one (as this government conceives) that is quite consistent with the known intention of the treaty. These three boundaries have, indeed, the single point of agreement that they all

leave to Great Britain the island of San Juan; but this can hardly relieve the inconsistency of the British claim. Two of them, the Rosario Channel and the Douglas Channel, are excluded by the concurrent testimony both of the American and British negotiators, and it is difficult to understand how they can be further insisted on by the British government. The only choice remaining, therefore, is between the Canal de Haro and the arbitrary line of demarcation, described by Mr. Pakenham. The considerations which seem to this government quite decisive in favor of the Canal de Haro were sufficiently stated in my despatch of last October, and need not be repeated here. In reference, however, to the line suggested by Mr. Pakenham, it is sufficient, perhaps, to observe that since the British government appears to have concurred with Mr. Buchanan in 1848 that the line to be chosen was the "main navigable channel" between the point of deflection and the Straits of Fuca, it can hardly contend now that this requirement is answered by adopting a boundary which passes alike over land and water, and furnishes, of course, no channel at all.

In thus alluding to the several boundaries which have been suggested by Great Britain as treaty boundaries, I do not forget that the Douglas Channel has been proposed from the beginning as a convenient compromise, however, upon the assumption that the Straits of Rosario are still claimed by Great Britain as the channel intended by the convention; and as this claim, for reasons which I have already referred to, can hardly now be maintained, I do not think that the British offer should any longer be considered as an offer of compromise. The whole subject in question is the island of San Juan, which is claimed on the one side by the United States, and on the other side by Great Britain; and a proposal which gives the island to Great Britain is a proposal to surrender the whole American claim, and not, in any sense of the term, a proposition to compromise. The argument, from convenience, moreover, which is so earnestly pressed by Lord John Russell, seems to me, I confess, to have very little foundation. I cannot understand why the access by Great Britain to her American possessions would be any the less easy or safe because the island of San Juan had been conceded to the United States. All the channels and the straits are equally open to both nations; and, in a military point of view, I have already shown that, from the great width of the Canal de Haro, its navigation could never be interrupted by the establishment of works on the island of San Juan. While, therefore, the President feels himself obliged to decline to adopt the Douglas Channel as the boundary of the two countries between Vancouver's Island and the continent, and to maintain the Canal de Haro as the true boundary in that quarter, which was intended by the treaty, he is glad to believe that no serious injury can be inflicted upon British interests by the adoption of the American line. It is deeply to be regretted, certainly, that the views of the two governments upon this subject are so directly opposed, but he confidently hopes, by some early arrangement, alike acceptable to both nations, this difference of opinion may yet be amicably adjusted.

You will read this despatch to Lord John Russell, and leave with him a copy

of it.

I am, sir, respectfully, your obedient servant,

GEORGE M. DALLAS, Esq., &c., &c., London.

LEWIS CASS.

No. 23.

Extract of a note of the 25th of May, 1860, from Lord Lyons to Mr. Cass.

*

*

*

*

*

I am likewise directed to say that it would, in the opinion of Her Majesty's government, serve no good purpose to settle the question of San Juan, unless

The

this matter of the Hudson's Bay Company were settled at the same time. British government desire to see the stipulations of the treaty of 1846 faithfully carried into effect; and they would object equally to a direct or an indirect violation of its provisions.

*

*

*

*

*

No. 24.

Lord Lyons to Mr. Cass.

WASHINGTON, June 6, 1860.

SIR: I have just received from Rear-Admiral Baynes, Commander-in-chief of Her Majesty's naval forces in the Pacific, a copy of orders issued to the commanding officer of the United States troops in San Juan, on the 10th of April last, by General Harney, and communicated by the General's direction to the officer in command of Her Majesty's troops on the same island. I do myself the honor to enclose a copy of the orders in question, and I earnestly beg that the United States government will take them immediately into consideration.

It would be superfluous to remark upon the inconsistency of the whole tenor and spirit of these orders with the satisfactory arrangement made by General Scott in November last. But there is one point to which I cannot but call the particular attention of the government of the United States.

General Harney directs the officer in command of the United States detachment to acknowledge and respect the civil jurisdiction of Washington Territory over the island of San Juan, and he goes on to say "that he is satisfied that any attempt of the British commander to ignore this right of the Territory will be followed by deplorable results which it will be out of his power to control."

I will contrast with this order the following passage taken from a letter addressed by General Scott to Governor Douglas on the 9th of November last : In the same spirit I had earlier determined to instruct our commanding officer on the island to allow no person claiming to be a functionary of Washington Territory to interfere with any British subject residing or happening to be on the same island while it shall remain in dispute between our respective governments.

To this passage I will add an extract from the orders given by General Scott to the United States officer commanding on San Juan, and communicated in the same letter by General Scott to Governor Douglas :

The General-in-chief wishes it to be remembered that the sovereignty of the island of San Juan is still in dispute between the two governments, and, until definitively settled by them, that British subjects have equal rights with American citizens on the island.

It will no doubt be in your recollection that a copy of the letter to Governor Douglas on the 9th of November, which I have quoted, was appended to the instructions given by General Scott to the United States officer on San Juan, that a copy of it was transmitted to General Harney "for his information and guidance," by General Scott, in a letter bearing the same date, and that General Scott at the same time stated to General Harney that he "wished it to be remembered that the sovereignty of the island was still in dispute between the two governments, and, until definitively settled between them, that British subjects had equal rights with American citizens on the island."

It is unnecessary for me to say anything more to show that the recent orders of General Harney are inconsistent with the arrangement made by General Scott, approved by the President, and accepted by Her Majesty's government. Under that arrangement tranquillity had been maintained at San Juan for six months, and cordial relations had subsisted between the British and American authorities in the neighborhood. I am confident that the government of the United States

will lose not a moment in taking measures to arrest the deplorable consequences which would, indeed, be only too likely to follow any disturbance of the settlement so justly and wisely effected by General Scott.

I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, sir, your most obedient, humble servant,

Hon. LEWIS CASS, &c., &c, &c.

LYONS.

Captain Pickett to Captain Bazalgette.

CAMP PICKETT, SAN JUAN, April 30, 1860.

SIR: I have the honor to inform you that, in obedience to orders received from the Headquarters Department of Oregon, I have to-day relieved Captain Hunt, and assumed command of this post

In accordance with orders emanating from the same source, I herewith enclose an extract from my letter of instructions.

With every desire that the cordial understanding existing between you and Captain Hunt shall continue to be maintained between ourselves, I am, &c., G. E. PICKETT,

Captain G. BAZALGETTE,

Captain 9th Infantry, Commanding Post.

Royal Marines, H. B. Majesty's Troops.

Captain Pleasonton to Captain Pickett.

[Extract.]

CAPTAIN:

*

*

*

HEADQUARTERS DEPARTMENT OF OREGON, Fort Vancouver, W. T., April 10, 1860. * a copy of which you will furnish Captain Bazalgette for the information of Rear-Admiral Baynes. 1st. Lieutenant General Scott has left no orders or instructions with the General commanding to grant a joint military occupation of San Juan Island with British troops, neither has any authority been delegated by the government of the United States to the General to offer or accept such occupation of that island. The offer made by General Scott when in command here was not accepted by Governor Douglas at the time, and consequently concluded that transaction. No arrangement has been made since to renew it within the knowledge of the General commanding.

2d. The British authorities having submitted the assurance to General Scott that no attempt would be made by them to dislodge by force the United States troops on San Juan Island, they were permitted to land troops for similar purpose to which your command was designed in the original orders conveyed to you in July last, viz: the protection of our citizens from Indians, both native and foreign.

In connection with this service the General commanding takes occasion to present you to Admiral Baynes and the officers with whom you will be brought in contact as an officer possessing his highest confidence that nothing will be omitted in maintaining a frank and generous intercourse in all matters coming within your powers, to establish a practical solution of the present misunderstanding which shall prove honorable and satisfactory to all parties until a final settlement is attained by the two governments.

Ex. Doc. 29--17

3d. Under the organic act of the Congress of the United States for the establishment of the territorial government of Washington, the first legislative assembly, in 1854, passed an act including the island of San Juan as a part of Whatcom County; this act was duly submitted to Congress, and has not been disapproved; it is, therefore, the law of the land. You will be obliged, consequently, to acknowledge and respect the civil jurisdiction of Washington Territory in the discharge of your duties on San Juan, and the General commanding is satisfied that any attempt of the British commander to ignore this right of the Territory will be followed by deplorable results out of his power to control.

The General commanding will inform the governor of Washington Territory that you are directed to communicate with the civil officer on the island in the investigation of all cases requiring his attention. In the event of any British interest being involved, you will notify the officer placed there by Admiral Baynes to enable him to propose some arrangement satisfactory to his instructions as well as those of the civil officer. Let it be understood, in case of disagreement of these parties, that no action is to be taken until the case has been referred to Admiral Baynes and the governor of Washington Territory, respectively.

These suggestions will be acceptable to the conditions which govern the territorial authorities of Washington, while satisfying the military obligations of the military service to their own as well as to the civil laws of the country; and it is fair to presume they will be adopted by Admiral Baynes, since the tenor of his instructions to Captain Bazalgette is sufficiently liberal to justify this conclusion.

I remain, Captain, very respectfully, your obedient servant,

MY LORD: I have received your lordship's communication of the 6th instant, enclosing copies of orders issued by General Harney to the commanding officer of the United States troops on the island of San Juan, dated on the 10th of April last, and communicated by the General's direction to the officer in command of Her Majesty's troops on the same island, and have lost no time in bringing the subject to the attention of the President.

I am now instructed to inform you that the arrangement entered into by General Scott in the month of October, 1859, in order to prevent any collision on the island of San Juan between the American and British authorities pending the negotiations between the two governments was strictly in pursuance of a previous arrangement which was made with Mr. Crampton by the Secretary of State of the United States in July, 1855, and met the full approval of this govern ment. The orders of General Harney, to which his attention has been called by the note of your lordship, and which appear to be in violation of the arrangement of General Scott, have been read, therefore, by the President both with surprise and regret. It is earnestly hoped that, upon a full explanation of all the circumstances attending them, it may be found that they were not intended to bear the construction which seems naturally to belong to them, and that in