M'arthur Democrat. (McArthur, Vinton County, Ohio) 1853-1865, 1859-11-17
The oregon BOUNDARY DIsnu,c.

There are indications of serious
troubles with Great Britain in regard
to the Oregon boundary question and
the ownership ofthe San Juan Islands.
The poiut in controversy hinges ON
the construction that is to be put or
the treaty of peace negotiated between
the United States and Great Britain
on the 18th of June, 1916. The first
article is in these words:
"From the point on the forty ninth
parallel OF north latitude, where the
boundary laid down in existing treat.
les and controversies and conventions
between the United States and Great
Britain terminates, the line of boun.
Diary between the territories of the
United States and those of Her Brit.
anic Majesty shall be continued west.
ward along the said forty ninth paral-
lei OF north latitude to the middle Of
the chaDnel which separates the conti-
nent from VancOuyer's Island, and
thence southerly through tho middle
Of the said channel and of Fuca's
Straits, to the Pacific Ocean: Provid-
ed, however, that the navigation oftho
whole Of the said channel and straits,
south OF the forty.nin,h parallel OF
north latitude, remain free and open to
both parties"
The boundary line mentioned seems
so clear as to admit OF no dispute
The word "channel" employed in tho
treaty clearly applies to the water in
the Gulf OF Georgia, opposite the for
ty'ninth degree parallel Of latitude and
nearly twenty miles north OF the north
ernrnost end Of Bellevue Island, and
the designation "middle of the Fuca
Straits" is the clause governing this
question. The waters between Van
couver and Bellevue are the "Susits
OF Juan de Fuca"-so all the geo.
graphical authorities say.
This brings the whole OF tho San
Juan Islands clearly within the limits
OF the land conceded to the United
States. These islands are in close
proximity, and are clearly appurtenent
to the main land ofthe American Ter.
ritory ofWashington. The only ques.
tion is this: when On the island, arc
You on the western side OF the "mid.
die OF the channel" which separates
the continent from Vancouver's Ia.
lands This is the sole question. Is
there not still a channel" nay, sew.
eral "channels," between YOU and
Vancouver Now, the s"main,"
or "principal," or chief" are LETT out
OF the treaty; no description of 1.-The
channel" meant to be the line, except
that it is the one (which separates tho
continent from Vancouver's Island"
Ii any Of the channels or straits east.
ward of Bellevue had been meant, it
would have been designated by its
Well.Enown name, contained in tho
maps extant more than three.quarters
OF a century past. The line is called
"the channel" in the treaty. The
prominent object was to fix the line
between Vancouver and the continent.
Vancouver only was intended to bo
excluded tiom the territory retained
by the United States, and to be relin.
quished by the United States to Great
Britain. No other island is mention.
ed.
There is NJ express clause by car
rying with Vancouver's Island the 70.
linquishment Of other islands appur.
tenant tu its littOral islands. If there
had ever been such clause, Bellevue
or San Juan, as represented, is not
within three miles of Vancouver, or
any littoral island of Vancouver, and
is not in any other respect or quality
naturally or geographically an appur.
tenant of Vancouver, as a littoral isle
or otherwise; and the very reverse is
the fact in reference to its relation to
the coast Of the mainland of Washing.
ton Territory and the admitted lttor.
al isles of Washington situate between
Bellevue and the main coast. There
are, it is true, several channels run.
ming between those islands; none,
however, half the width OF that sepa.
rating Bellevue from Vancouver; and
as to all of them, they are not can.
non-shot in width, and do not hold
one.titth of the volume of water that is
held by the other west Of Bellevue.
Thus fortified by the language of
the treaty, our Administration may
well insist that Great Britain shall
abandon her pretensions.- Gin. Eng.