, 1860-01-06

/ "
outside one of group of smaller islands il
close proximity to the shore, and it is &
much greater distance from Vancouver thar
from any of the other islands behind itself
or than any of those islands are from the
main land of Washington. There are sev
eral channels between these small island!
(some sixteen in number all of which
channels have distinct and known names by
which they have been long recognized-as
for instance, the Rosario Strait-whilst the
outside channel separating Bellevue from
Vancouver, has ever been regarded and
known as a continuation of the Fuca
Straits mentioned in the treaty, and which
as before observed, ran into the Gulf oI
I Georgia, some twelve or fifteen miles south
of the British boundary line.
You will perceive also that Bellevue is
beyond marine league, or three miles, OF
longest range of cannon shot, which some
publicists contend is the limit prescribed by
the laws of nations as tile jurisdiction nat
urally appurtenant to the adjacent main,
land, sometimes designated as ''littoral SOY.
ereignty." Great Britain has, in disputes
with the United States heretofore, urged
the empirical doctrine of three miles
against US, and it is fair that she should
abide it now.
But the terms of the treaty are clear,
plain and unambiguous In the first place,
the term channel" employed in the treaty
clearly applies to the waters in the Gulf Oi
Georgia, opposite the forty-ninlh degree
parallel Of latitude and nearly twenty miles
north Of the northermost end Of BELLEVUE
Island, and the designation middle of the
Fuea Straits" is the clause governing this
question. The waters between Vancouver
aud Bellevue are the Straits Of Juan de
Fuca"-so oil the geographical authorities
say. II this position be correct there is
no room for contest. But concede this
view to be incorrect, and that the term
Channel" is the controlling word. The
line prescribed by the treaty is under such
construction a line in the middle of the
channel which separates the continent from
Vancouver's Island, not one which Sepa-
rates the continent from Bellevue Island or
the other islands adjacent to the coast of
the continent and naturally appurtenant to
it. The question is susceptible Of plain
and simple solution upon principles Of COM
mon sense, aud all the obfuscation and OBJ
scuration Of diplomacy cannot make it
otherwise. When on Bellevue Island, are
you on the western side of "the middle of
the channel which separates the continent
from VancouEer's Island?" This is the
sole question. Is there not still "chan-
nel," nay, several Channels" between you
and Vancouver? Now, the words main"
or principal or "chief," are left out of the
treaty: no description Of "the channel
meant to be the line except that it is the
one (which separates the continent from
Vancouver's Island" If any Of the chan
nels or straits eastward of Bellevue had
been meant, it would have been designated
by its well known name, contained in the
maps extant more than three-quarters Of
century past. The line is called "the chan
nep in the treaty. The prominent object
was to fix the line between Vancouver and
the continent, Vancouver only was intend
ed to be excluded from the territory retain
ed by the United States, and to be relin-
quished by the United States to Great
Britain. No other island is mentioned
There is no express clause by carrying with
Vancouver Island the REIMBURSEMENT Of
other islands appurtenant to it as littoral
islands. If there had even been such
clause, Bellevue or San Juan, as represent
ed, is not within three miles Of Vancouver,
or any littoral island Of Vancouver, and is
not in any other respect or quality natural
ly or geographically an appurtenaDt of
Vancouver, as littoral isle or otherwise /;
and the very reverse is the fact in reference
to its relation to the coast Of the mainland
of Washington Territory and the admitted
littoral isles of Washington situate between
Bellevue and the main coast There are,
it is true, several channels running between
those islands; none, however, half the width
of that separating Bellevue from Vancou-
yer; and as to all Of them, they are not a
common shot in width, and do not hold one
fifth of the volume of water that is held by
the other west Of Bellevue. 1t is reported,
however, that recent photographed sur
veys of the United States Coast Survey
officers and those of the British Admiralty
show that one of these channels has few
inches Of water in it more than that west
of Bellevue. Conccde this to be so, even
if such hydrographical surveys attest such
fact, if the sinuous and narrower channels
winding amongst and through the small
islets east Of Bellevue and extending
through to the Washington shore are the
deepest, that fact in no degree alters the
question. The recent discovery of such
greater depth Of water cannot affect the
treaty made upon different presumption.
On the contrary, the treaty is to be con-
strued to conform to what was intended by
the parties upon what was then known to
them If any of these inside channels
were intended, they would have been desig-
mated by the name found for each on the
old English and Spanish maps, and not left
to subsequent ascertainment as to depth Of
water, &c, without any stipulation provid-
ing for such ascertainmeRt. Mark! The
suggestions are based upon concession
argHendo of the hypothesis assumed by
Lord John Russell, that the channel be-