of the few among the group of islands, which is of easy access to a sailing-vessel.

[8]

Cowlitz Bay, on the western side of Waldron *Island, is also an excellent stopping-place, easy of access or egress.

There are two small anchorages in Stuart Island, Reid and Prevost Harbors, but they are only suited to small vessels or steamers.

A vessel passing through the Canal de Haro may seek shelter in any of the above-mentioned anchorages, but the great depth and irregular nature of the bottom would render it impossible for her to anchor anywhere in the main channel.

1

Such is the most complete account which Her Majesty's Government is able to lay before His Imperial Majesty respecting the hydrography of the two channels which are in controversy.

ORIGIN OF THE NAMES OF THE TWO CHANNELS.

With regard to the origin of the respective names of the two channels there is some uncertainty. From an account published by Mr. Robert Greenhow, the librarian of the Department of State of the United States, in his "History of Oregon and California," (Boston, 1845,) it would appear that, in the summer of 1790, an attempt was made by the Spaniards to explore the waters supposed to be identical with a northwest passage leading into the Polar Sea, which, according to an ancient tradition, had been discovered in the sixteenth century by a Greek pilot, called commonly Juan de Fuca. For that purpose, to quote Mr. Greenhow's words, (History, p. 221,) "Elisa, the commandant of Nootka, detached Lieutenant Quimper, in the sloop Princess Royal, who traced the passage in an eastwardly direction, examining both its shores to the distance of about a hundred miles from its mouth, when it was observed to branch off into a number of smaller passages toward the south, the east, and the north, some of which were channels between islands, while others appeared to extend far into the interior. Quimper was unable, from want of time, to penetrate any of these passages; and he could do no more than note the positions of their entrances and of several harbors, all of which are now well known, though they are generally dis[9] tinguished by names *different from those assigned to them by the Spaniards. Among these passages and harbors were the Canal de Caamano, afterward named by Vancouver Admiralty Inlet; the Boca de Flon, or Deception Passage; the Canal de Guemes, and the Canal de Haro, which may still be found under those names in English charts, extending northward from the eastern end of the strait; Port Quadra, the Port Discovery of Vancouver, said to be one of the best harbors on the Pacific side of America, with Port Quimper near it on the west; and Port Nunez Gaona, called Poverty Cove by the American fur-traders, situated a few miles east of Cape Flattery, where the Spaniards attempted, in 1792, to form a settlement. Having performed this duty as well as possible, under the circumstances in which he was placed, Quimper returned to Nootka, where he arrived in the beginning of August."

It is probable that it was upon the authority of Quimper, who was an ensign of the royal navy of Spain, that the name of the Canal de Haro was given to the strait which separates Vancouver Island from the island of San Juan, in the Spanish chart of the discoveries made on the northeast coast of America, annexed to the narrative of the expedition of the Spanish exploring vessels, Sutil and Mexicana, which was published at Madrid in 1802, by order of the King of Spain.

Chart No. 1.

Appendix No. 4.

A very brief allusion is made in the first chapter of that narrative to Quimper's expedition. He is stated to have sailed from the Port of Nootka on May 31, 1790, to have reconnoitered the Port of Claucaud, (in Vancouver Island,) to have entered afterward into the Canal of Fuca, to have visited certain ports and part of the coast, to have taken surveys, and to have retired on the 1st of August, the weather not permitting him to continue his labors.

Mr. Greenhow cites, as his authority, the journal of Quimper's voyage, among the manuscripts obtained from the hydrographical department at Madrid.

Appendix No. 4.

Chart No. 2.

On the other hand, the name of Rosario Channel appears, from the narrative of the Sutil and Mexicana, to have originated with [10] Lieutenant *Elisa, who, prior to the arrival of those vessels, had penetrated into the upper waters, now called the Strait of Georgia, and had given to them the name of "El Canal del Rosario." That name is accordingly given to those waters in the chart which represents the course of that expedition. Vancouver, on the other hand, in his chart, to which reference will be made hereafter, assigns that name to certain narrow waters farther north, which separate the continent from the island now called Texada. How the name has come to be applied in modern days to the waters of the Strait of Georgia, as they are traced southerly through the islands until they join the headquarters of the Straits of Fuca, does not appear. No name was in use at the time when the treaty of June 15, 1846, was concluded, to distinguish these waters from the upper waters. The fact, however, is clear, that the name assigned by the Spaniards to the upper waters of the ancient Gulf of Georgia is used in the present day to denote the channel which Her Majesty's government maintains to be the true continuation of that strait.

Appendix No. 4.
Chart No. 1.

The expedition of the Sutil and Mexicana, in 1792, appears to have ascended the Straits of Fuca to its headwaters, having touched first at Port Cordova, (now Esquimalt Harbor,) at the southern extremity of Vancouver Island. It thence proceeded between the Island of Bonilla (Smith's Island) and the southeast point of Lopez Island, at that time believed to be one and the same island with San Juan, until it reached the mouth of the Canal de Guemes, which separates the Island of Guemes from the continent. The expedition then passed up that strait into the "Seno de Gaston," now Bellingham Bay, and thence along the passage which separates the island of Pacheco (now Lummi Island) from the continent, into the upper waters now known as the Strait of Georgia. The two vessels continued their voyage onward in those waters past the promontory of Cepeda, afterward called Point Roberts by Vancouver, and were employed in reconnoitering the Boca de Florida, the first large inlet north of Point Roberts, when they were joined by Vancouver.

[11]

Chart No 2.

The expedition under Vancouver, after making a complete survey of the Strait of Fuca up to its headwaters, had also passed onward through the channel between the the northeast point of Lopez Island and the continent; but instead of directing its course eastward, like the Sutil and Mexicana, on reaching Guemes Island, it continued its course northward along the main channel, which separates Blakely Island from Cypress Island, and anchored in Strawberry Bay.

Thence it pursued its course between Orcas Island and Lummi (Pacheco) Island, until it reached Birch Bay. Passing onward, it pursued a north and west course past Point Roberts, and fell in with the Spanish

vessels Sutil and Mexicana, as already mentioned, off the first large inlet north of Point Roberts.

The narrative of Vancouver's expedition was made public in 1798, and there was annexed to it a chart, in which the course of the expedition is traced through the present Rosario Strait, and soundings are given at the entrance and in various parts of that strait, and in the upper waters of the ancient gulf in continuation of that strait.

The Name of the Canal de Arro appears also in this chart, assigned to the lower part of the strait which separates Vancouver Island from San Juan; but the parts on the west and north shores of these waters are not shaded, intimating that Vancouver derived his information from Spanish authorities.

No soundings whatever are given of the Canal de Haro, either in Vancouver's chart or in the Spanish chart annexed to the narrative of the voyage of the Sutil and Mexicana.

Chart No. 2.

The chart of Vancouver, in which the soundings, as above mentioned, are laid down, has been the guiding chart for all British vessels navigating the waters between the continent and Vancouver's Island from 1798 until some time after 1847, when a more accurate survey was made of the Strait of Fuca by Captain Kellett; and there is evidence preserved in the logs of vessels in the service of the Hudson's Bay Company prior to that year that it was their invariable practice to use the Rosario Strait as the leading channel from Fuca's

Strait into the upper waters now known as the Strait of Georgia. [12]. *Mr. Greenhow, in his "Memoir on the Northwest Coast of

North America," (New York, 1840,) page 139, says that "the observations of Vancouver form the basis of our best maps of the west coast of America, from the thirtieth degree of latitude to the northern extremity of Cook's inlet, as also of those of the Sandwich Islands, which he surveyed with care. The maps contained in the atlas annexed to the journal of the voyage of the Sutil and Mexicana are nearly all copied from those of the British navigator."

EXTENT OF FUCA'S STRAIT.

Chart No. 3.

It will have been observed by His Imperial Majesty that Her Majesty's Government, in speaking of Fuca's Strait, uses that expression to denote the inlet of the sea which extends from Cape Flattery to Whidbey Island, which lies off the American continent. The utmost length of Fuca's Strait would thus extend over about 205 of longitude, equal, in that latitude, to about 80 miles, (English,) when it merges, at its southeast extremity, in Admiralty Inlet, and at its northeast extremity in Rosario Strait.

NAVIGATION OF FUCA'S STRAIT.

Chart No. 4.

The Rosario Strait and the Canal de Haro are both of them connected immediately with Fuca's Strait, so that it is possible for a vessel setting out from a port on either side of the channel, under the 49th parallel of north latitude, to pass by either of these intervening channels into Fuca's Strait, and thence to the Pacific Ocean; with this difference, however, that a vessel passing down the Rosario Strait would enter Fuca's Strait at its eastern end in about 122° 47' west longitude, the proper and safe course for such a vessel being to the eastward of Davidson's Rock, at the distance of about 1 mile south of Cape Colville, and so would have to navigate the whole of Fuca's Strait on its

Chart No. 3.

way to the Pacific Ocean, whereas a vessel passing down the Canal [13] de Haro can keep a safe *course between Discovery Island and the Middle Bank, and enter the Strait of Fuca in about 123° 10' west longitude, and so would only be obliged to navigate about two-thirds of Fuca's Strait on its way to the Pacific Ocean. On the other hand, a vessel entering Fuca's Strait from the Pacific Ocean, and bound up the Rosario Strait by night, after making the light upon Race Island, would have to make the light upon New Dungeness, which is about 70 miles from Cape Flattery, and then the light upon Smith or Blunt Island, which lies almost in the centre of the eastern end of Fuca's Strait and about 6 miles from the entrance of the Rosario Strait. Having made Smith's Island, the vessel may pass safely either to the northward or the southward of it, according as the wind may allow. In the former case she would probably have to pass within 3 miles of Cape Colville before she can enter the Rosario Strait. On the other hand, if she is obliged to keep a course to the southward of Smith's Island, she would probably have to pass within 3 miles of Whidbey Island before she reaches the entrance of the Rosario Strait. She might thus be obliged, in one or the other case, to navigate within the three miles limit. On the contrary, a vessel entering Fuca's Strait from the ocean, and bound up the Canal de Haro, will not be under any necessity to pass within territorial waters on either side of the boundary line in order to reach the entrance of the Canal.

Having thus, in the first place, brought under the consideration of His Imperial Majesty the physical features of the waters through which the boundary line is be drawn, pursuant to the provisions of the Treaty of the 15th June, 1846, Her Britannic Majesty's Government proposes, in the second place, to submit to the consideration of His Imperial Majesty certain rules of interpretation which, in the opinion of jurists of the highest authority, are applicable to the interpretation of Treaties, and which, in the opinion of Her Britannic Majesty's Government, may be properly invoked to elicit the true interpretation of the treaty of the 15th June, 1846.

[14]

*RULES FOR THE INTERPRETATION OF TREATIES.

There are certain admitted Rules to which Her Majesty's Government invites the attention of His Imperial Majesty, as proper to be observed in the interpretation of Treaties:

1. The words of a Treaty are to be taken to be used in the sense in which they were commonly used at the time when the Treaty was.entered into.

Vattel, L. chap.

1511.

In affirmation of this rule, Vattel (1. ii, chap. 17, sec. 271) writes: "In the interpretation of Treaties, compacts, and promises, we 17, 271. Lor, ought not to deviate from the common use of language unless we have very strong reasons for it;" and in illustration of what he means by "the common use of language," he goes on to say, in section 272, "The usage we here speak of is that of the time when the Treaty or the Deed, of whatever kind, was drawn up and concluded. Languages incessantly vary, and the signification and force of words. changes with time.”

2. In interpreting any expressions in a Treaty, regard must be had to the context and spirit of the whole Treaty.

In affirmation of this rule, Vattel (ibid., sec. 285) writes as follows:

Vattel, ibid, sec. 285.

It frequently happens that, with a view to conciseness, people express imperfectly, and with some degree of obscurity, things which they suppose to be sufficiently elucidated by the preceding matter, or which they intend to explain in the sequel; and, moreover, words and expressions have a different force, sometimes even a quite different signification, according to the occasion, their connection, and their relation to other words.

The connection and train of the discourse is, therefore, another source of interpretation. We must consider the whole discourse together, in order perfectly to conceive the sense of it, and to give to each expression not so much the signification which it may individually admit of, as that which it ought to have from the context and spirit of the discourse. Such is the maxim of the Roman law: "Incivile est, nisi totâ [15] lege perspectâ, unâ aliquâ particulâ ejus propositâ, *judicare vel respondere."(Digest, I. i, tit. iii, De Legibus, leg. 24.)

3. The interpretation should be drawn from the connection and relation of the different parts.

Vattel. I. ii, chap. 17. sec. 286.

Upon this rule, Vattel (ibid., sec. 286) writes as follows: The very connection al relation of the things in question helps also to discover and establish the true sense of the Treaty or of any other piece. The interpretation ought to be made in such a manner that all the parts may appear consonant to each otherthat what follows may agree with what preceded, unless it evidently appear that, by the subsequent clauses, the parties intended to make some alteration in the preceding ones. For it is to be presumed that the authors of a deed had an uniform and steady train of thinking; that they did not aim at inconsistencies and contradictions, but rather that they intended to explain one thing by another; and, in a word, that one and the same spirit reigns throughout the same production or the same Treaty.

4. The interpretation should be suitable to the reason of the Treaty. In illustration of this rule, Vattel (ibid., sec. 287) writes: Vattel, ibid., sec. 257. The reason of the law or of the Treaty-that is to say, the motive which led to the making of it and the object in contemplation at the time, is the most certain clue to lead us to the discovery of its true meaning; and great attention should be paid to the circumstance whenever there is question either of explaining an obscure, ambiguous, indeterminate passage in a law or Treaty, or of applying it to a particular case. When once we certainly know the reason which alone has determined the will of the person speaking, we ought to interpret and apply his words in a manner suitable to that reason alone; otherwise, he will be made to speak and act contrary to his intention, and in opposition to his own views.

Pursuant to this rule, a prince who on granting his daughter in marriage has promised to assist his intended son-in-law in all his wars, is not bound to give him any assistance if the marriage does not take place.

[16] *But we ought to be very certain that we know the true and only reason of the law, the promise, or the Treaty. In matters of this nature it is not allowable to indulge in vain and uncertain conjectures, and to suppose reasons and views, where there are none certainly known. If the piece in question is in itself obscureif, in order to discover its meaning, we have no other resource than the investigation of the author's views or the motives of the deed, we may then have recourse to conjecture, and, in default of absolute certainty, adopt as the true meaning that which has the greatest degree of probability on its side. But it is a dangerous abuse to go without necessity in search of motives and uncertain views in order to wrest, restrict, or extend the meaning of a deed, which is of itself sufficiently clear and carries no absurdity on the face of it. Such a procedure is a violation of that incontestable maxim, that it is not allowable to interpret what has no need of interpretation.

It may be observed, by the way, that the motive of the High Contracting Parties to the Treaty of 1846, and the object they had in view, are explicitly stated in the Preamble of the Treaty, so that it will not be necessary for His Imperial Majesty to travel out of the words of the Treaty itself, for the purpose of ascertaining the reason of it.