The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1870-08-17

gable passage (not north of 30 deg. to the
Straits of Fuca, and down the middle of
these Straits to the Pacific Ocean; the nsvi-
cation of the Gulf of Georgia and the Straits
Of Juan de Fuca to be forever free to both
parties, all the islands and other territory
living south and east of this line to
belong to the United states, and
all north and west to Great Britain.
Will Great Britain accede to this L
think she will" Mr.. Bates afterwards wrote
to Mr. Everett that Lord Aberdeen had said
to him that he considered Mr.. Sturgis' pam
phlet "a fair, practicable, and sensible view
of the subject, and that it had been read by
all the ministers. We think it very fair in
ference that Lord Aberdeen purposed in the
treaty to carry ont this identical programme
Sd. Hon. Louis McLane, our minister TO
England, on the 18th of May 1876, wrote to
Mr.. Buchanan that en- arrangement could be
made by making the boundary along the
49th parallel to the sea, and thence through
the Canal de Haro and Straits of Fuca to the
ocean.
4th. It appears plainly that our Senate,
at the date of the confirmation of the
treaty of 1916, understood distinctly
that the Canal de Haro was the boundary
line. See the speeches of Mr.. Benton and
Cass, as quoted in this correspondence.
9TH. Islands appertain rather to the con-
tinent than to another island. Such has been
the principle of the laws of nations, and it
has been recognized in discussions with some
of the Governments OF South America con-
cerning islands near the coast.
9Th. The islands of the Archipelago de
Haro are more important to us than they pos
sibly can be to England-a fact very clearly
set forth by General Totten in
the report above referred to. Eng
land has, in the first-class harbor of Esqui-
malt, on Vancouver's Island, all that can be
wanted for military or commercial purposes,
whereas the United States needs that archi-
pelago as a military and naval station to pro-
tect the whole of Pugets Sound. All of our
possessions in that quarter are frowned down
upon by Vancouvers Island, and Mr.. Folks
cry of '54 deg. 10 min. or fight appeared to
indicate at least clear appreciation of our
wants in that Quarter-we say it appeared to
indicate such an appreciation, for he ought
certainly to have insisted to the end on our
retention of Vancouver's Island. 1t is be-
lieved that it could then have been easily OBJ
tanned.
7th. Any one who carefully reads the cor
respondence will be convinced that this claim
was an after-thought. This view is strikingly
confirmed on reading the memorandum of
Mr.. Packenham, the British negotiator, who
admits (p. 224) that he cannot call to mind
any circumstance of the negotiation ''to
strengthen or invalidate the pretension now
put forward by the United States" This is
quoted by Lord Russell, in his despatch of
24th of August, 1859, to Lord Lyons. That,
at the end of thirteen years, he could recall
nothing to invalidate our claim, is very sig
niicant. 1t is plain, from Mr.. Bancroft's
letter of 29th of March, 1917, to Mr.. Bucha-
nan, that the British claim to the Haro
Archipelago originated with the Hudson's
Bay Company.
! E@The above closes our resume of the prin-
cipal points brought forward in the corre-
! spondence; but we must add q few words
concerning the military occupation of San
Juan, which caused the incorporation in this
report of the whele of Senate document of
! January 80, 1860, setting forth the causes and
results of General SCOTS visit to Puget's
Sound in 1853. This covers seventy-four
| pages of Document No. 20. The Joint occu-
! patton was established by General Scott after
General Harney had, without a particle of
two nations, not on the main
question of the boundary-line, but on
| quite another, viz, whether he should be
| justified in taking exclusive possession OF the
islands pending the action of the two COM
missioners then on the ground for the pur-
pose of deciding the boundary-line. This
exclusive possession he continued, nOtwith-
standing the language of Mr.. Marcy, in his
letter of 18th July, 1856, to Mr.. Crampton
| WHICH expressly prONIleu tudG, p6HuluB Vic
running of the boundary, neither party
''should exclude the other by force, or exer-
else complete and exclusive sovereign rights
within the disputed limits" We have
avoided calling this the ''San Juan
Question:" as that might be misunder-
stood as referring to the action of
Harney, and not to the northwestern bound
airy dispute. His action only obscured the
main question, and kept our Government
busy for twelvemonth in clearing away the
smoke thus raised and it led to the joint
military occupation instituted by General
Scott, which does not appear to have hastened
the settlement of the question.
The briefest notice of this correspondence
requires an allusion to two things in the Ian
guage of the British negotiators. Whereas
our commissioner was simply instructed to
carry out the treaty and run the boundary
line, Captain Prevost's powers
were limited, and he was instructed,
under any circumstances, not
to surrender San Juan Lord Russell, in his
letter to Lord Lyons of the 24th August,
1859, indicates similar ultimatum. There
is small intermediate channel leaving San
Juan on the west, and Lopez and Orcas
Islands on the east, and they would fain per-
suade us into accepting it, though plainly not
answering the requirements of the treaty, and
though its acceptance would imply that
neither party was right in the controversy.
AS Introductory to proposing this solution
(which should be unsatisfactory to either
party, Lord Russell said, ''No settlement OF
the question will be accepted by her Males
ty's Government which does not provide fol
the Island of San Juan being reserved to
the British Crown" So, forsooth, the
only possible solution of the San Juan
question which could be made must be our
surrender of San Juani