, 1859-10-03
Tho Trouble In the Northwest
fF1om The Il, 7, Evening Fost.t

An examination Of the correspondence pubs
1ished by our government at the time Of the
ratification Of Slr. po!k's treaty has shed some
light On the subject Of the prcsenP dispute in
regard TO the Island Of San Juan.
In tile first place, there is uo good ground
for the prctepce that Mr. Buchanan was opposed
to the line Of 49'. lie conducted the negosia-
ton entirely, and with an anxious desire from
the beginning to hare the question settled Oh
TINT liuc. IL a letter dated July 12, 1915, only
four months afler Ills appointment as Secretary
Of State, be informs Mr. WLane. thea our Min
ister in London, that the President would not
take the responsibility Of a war to establish the
line Of 81 4p, after 80 many Of his predeces-
sors bad offered to agree on the line Of 49,.
He therefore had renewed the offer to 3fr.
Pakenham. Mr. Adams offer in 1915 had in-
cauded the free navigation Of tile Columbia.
This was no longer admissible, but in lien Of it
Mr. Buchanan proposed to allow certain free
ports IN the Strait Of San Juan de Fuca; or, for
m equivalent, be might consent to ,Eire up tho
small 'cap" as he called it, Of the island lying
south OF 49,, since it was Of DO importance to
the United States, but might be Of some va1ne
to Great Britain.
This offer WAS declined By Mr. Pakenham,
without eren referring TO bis own government;
aud the offer itself was Withdrawn by Mr. Bu-
facts are not generally known, but they show
thu: Ar. buchanan is the author Of the plan for
giving Great britain the detected boundary
which is now in dispute, md that he is, there
fore, properly responsible to the country for the
ambiguity in the description Of the boundary
line which causes The trouble.
It was the withdrawal of Alr. Buchanau's offer
which startled Sir Robert Peel. and led him to
express in Parliament his regret Al the sudden
interruption Of the negotiation. Letters from
Mr.. buchanan to Ar. N'Laue, Of January eth.
1sa6, and from Mr. u Lane 10 Mr. Buchanan, Of
February 7th and Nay 18th, 1876, show cores
ponding anxiety on the part Of our government
to get the negotiation resumed, and indicate
some Of the steps by which it Hns accomplished.
3fr. rakephao Was induced to make the offer of
the proposed boundary IN the belief that tho
President would ask the advice Of the Senate,
and that two.shirds of the Senate were ready ut
once to adyise him In favor Of the treaty before
it was signed This was done for tue sake Of re-
lievioe the President from tho modification OF
backing down, BY throwing the responsibility
upon tho Senate. That was the way We got rid
Of "54' 40' or feht."
One word rs to the present question. Mr.
MLane, in both his letters, speaks Of the Straits
Of Fuca rs an inevitable paFt Of the boundary,
aud tells Nr. Buchanan TINT it is not possible 10
obtain the line Of forty-osne degrees direct to
sea- In another passage he speaks Of the pro-
say, br the Canal de AFRO and the Fuca Strait.'
This expression is specially important, as show
ing that it was The western channel which was
contemplated in negotiations Of tn7t day. No
other channel is named or referred to. 1t vas
doubtless either by rakenham's craft or Du.
chanan's stupidity that the channel intended
was not explicitly named in the treaty, which
would have prevented The present difficulty By
giving Us alf the small islands.