The British commissioners found in the correProposals and Counspondence of Mr. Everett nothing to induce ter Proposals. them to change the opinion which they had previously expressed, and they asked whether the American commissioners had any further proposal to make. The American commissioners proposed to abrogate that part of the treaty of 1846 which was in dispute and rearrange the boundary line. This proposal the British commissioners at a subsequent conference declined, and on the 19th of April they offered to adopt the middle channel-generally known as the Douglas Channelas that through which the boundary line should run, with the understanding that all the channels through the archipelago should be free and common to both parties. The American commissioners declined this offer and proposed the Haro Channel, with a mutual agreement that no fortifications should be erected by either party to obstruct or command it, and with proper provisions as to any existing proprietary rights of British subjects in the island of San Juan. The British commissioners replied that, convinced of the justice of their view of the treaty, they could not abandon it except after a fair decision by an impartial arbitrator. They therefore renewed their proposal of arbitration. The American commissioners replied that as their last proposition, which they had hoped would be accepted, had been declined, they would, should the other questions between the two governments be satisfactorily adjusted, agree to a reference to arbitration to determine whether the line should run through the Haro Channel or through the Rosario Strait, upon condition that either government should have the right to include in the evidence to be considered by the arbitrator such documents, official correspondence, and other official or public statements bearing on the subject of reference as it might consider necessary to the support of its case. To this condition the British commissioners agreed; but they proposed that the arbitrator should have the right to draw the boundary through an intermediate channel. The American commissioners declined this proposal, stating that they desired a decision, not a compromise. They also declined a proposal of the British commissioners to declare the proper construction of the treaty of 1846 to be that all the channels were to be open to navigation by both parties. They said that they did not so construe the treaty, and therefore could not assent to such a declaration. This discussion continued till the 22d of April, when Articles XXXIV. to XLII. of the treaty, for the arbitration of the controversy, were agreed to, Emperor of Germany as Arbitrator. By these articles it was provided that the respective claims of the United States and Great Britain to the Canal de Haro and the Rosario Straits should be submitted to the "arbitration and award of His Majesty the Emperor of Germany," who should decide, "finally and without appeal, which of those claims is most in accordance with the true interpretation of the Treaty of June 15, 1846." It was also provided that each party should submit to the arbitrator a written or printed statement, and that each should have the right to reply to the statement of the other. The arbitrator was authorized to proceed in the arbitration either in person or by a person or persons named by him for that purpose. The negotiations which resulted in the conclusion of this agreement of arbitration justified, as may be surmised by the foregoing summary of them, the contentious and almost turbulent history of the subject. The difficulty in effecting a settlement was enhanced by reports as to the strategic impor tance, from a military point of view, of the possession of San Juan Island. In reality, this question of the water boundary constituted one of the most troublesome of all the subjects with which the Joint High Commission was required to deal, and perhaps came nearer than any other to precipitating an unsuccessful termination of its labors.1 For the conduct of its case before the arbiAmerican Agent. trator the Government of the United States chose as its representative George Bancroft, who, by his historical studies, as well as by his practical familiarity with the subject, which he gained as a member of the cabinet of Polk and as minister of the United States in London, was preeminently fitted for the task. When the case of the United States was committed to his charge he was minister at Berlin, a post in which he had already rendered illustrious 1 Earl de Grey in the House of Lords, June 12, 1872, in defending the Treaty of Washington, said that Earl Derby adopted an easy mode of criticising the treaty in respect of questions which he did not desire to discuss by merely declaring that they were of no importance and that they could be settled with the utmost facility. "My noble friend," said Earl de Grey, "took as an instance the case of the island of San Juan; but so far from that question being settled with the utmost facility, it was one of those which caused us the greatest trouble. The United States commissioners raised great difficulties on the subject, and we were obliged to insist strongly upon the views of Her Majesty's Government with respect to it." (Hansard, CCVI. 1865.) services and which he continued to hold till his resignation of it in 1874. "The treaty of which the interpretation is referred to Your Majesty's arbitrament," said Mr. Bancroft in his memorial to the arbitrator, "was ratified more than a quarter of a century ago. Of the sixteen members of the British cabinet which framed and presented it for the acceptance of the United States, Sir Robert Peel, Lord Aberdeen, and all the rest but one, are no more. The British minister at Washington who signed it, is dead. Of American statesmen concerned in it, the minister at London, the President and Vice-President, the Secretary of State, and every one of the President's constitutional advisers, except one, have passed away. I alone remain, and after finishing the three score years and ten that are the days of our years, am selected by my country to uphold its rights. Six times the United States had received the offer of arbitration on their northwestern boundary, and six times had refused to refer a point where the importance was so great and the right so clear. But, when consent was obtained to bring the question before Your Majesty, my country resolved to change its policy, and in the heart of Europe, before a tribunal from which no judgment but a just one can emanate, to explain the solid foundation of our demand, and the principles of modera tion and justice by which we have been governed. The case involves question of geography, of history, and of international law; and we are glad that the discussion should be held in the midst of a nation whose sons have been trained in those sciences by a Carl Ritter, a Ranke, and a Heffter." The representative of Great Britain before British Agent. the arbitrator was Admiral James C. Prevost. His connection with the subject related back to the year 1856, when, a captain in the royal navy, he went to the northwest coast as British commissioner to cooperate with the commissioner of the United States in the demarcation of the boundary. His knowledge of the controversy was comprehensive and thorough, and, like that of Mr. Bancroft, was enlivened by participation in the making of its history. On the 29th of July 1871 Mr. Bancroft and Presentation of the British chargé d'affaires at Berlin delivered Cases. at the foreign office formal notes, identical in terms, addressed to Prince Bismarck, chancellor of the Empire, requesting the Emperor to accept the office of arbitrator. On the 1st of the following September Mr. Von Thile, the German secretary of state, formally replied, conveying the Emperor's acceptance. The American case, or memorial, was delivered at the foreign office on the 12th of December, and the British case on the 15th. The second and definitive statement of Great Britain was presented in the same manner on the 10th of the following June, and that of the United States on the 11th.' The Emperor's In such hands as those of Mr. Bancroft and Admiral Prevost, it is needless to say that nothing was lacking in the presentation of the claims of either government. The first and final statements of both governments, in which the arguments advanced in the prior discussions were elaborated and supported with great ability, were, together with the accompanying evidence, referred by the Emperor to three experts, Dr. Grimm, vice-president of the supreme court at Berlin; Dr. Kiepert, the eminent pupil of Carl Ritter; and Dr. Goldschmidt, a member of the supreme commercial court at Leipsic, each of whom made a report. On the 21st of October 1872 the Emperor rendered an award, holding that the claim of the United States that the boundary should be drawn through the Haro Channel was "most in accordance with the true interpretations" of the treaty of 1846. The text of the award, in German and in English, is as follows: Wir Wilhelm von Gottes Gnaden, Deutscher Kaiser, König von Preussen, &c., &c., &c. Nach Einsicht des zwischen den Regierungen Ihrer Britischen Majestät und der Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika geschlossenen Vertrages de dato Washington den 6ten Mai,2 1871, Inhalts dessen die gedachten Regierungen die unter ihnen streitige Frage: ob die Grenzlinie, welche nach dem Vertrage de dato Washington den 15ten Juni, 1846, nachdem sie gegen Westen längs des 49ten Grades Nördlicher Breite bis zur Mitte des Kanals, welcher das Festland von der Vancouver Insel treunt, gezogen worden, südlich durch die Mitte des gedachten Kanals und der Fuca-Meerenge bis zum Stillen Ocean gezogen werden soll, durch den Rosario-Kanal, wie die Regierung Ihrer Britischen Majestät beansprucht, oder durch den Haro-Kanal, wie die Regierung der Vereinigten Staaten beansprucht, zu ziehen sei, Unserem Schiedsspruche unterbreitet haben, damit Wir endgültig und ohne Berufung entscheiden, welcher dieser Ansprüche mit der richtigen Auslegung des Vertrages vom 15ten Juni, 1846, am meisten im Einklange stehe; 'Papers relating to the Treaty of Washington, V. 255-263. Nach Anhörung des Uns von den durch Uus berufenen Sachund Rechtskundigen über den Inhalt der gewechselten Denkschriften und deren Anlagen erstatteten Vortrages, Haben den nachstehenden Schiedsspruch gefällt Mit der richtigen Auslegung des zwischen den Regierungen Ihrer Britischen Majestät und der Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika geschlossenen Vertrages de dato Washington den 15ten Juni, 1846, steht der Anspruch der Regierung der Vereinigten Staaten am meisten im Einklange, dass die Grenzlinie zwischen den Gebieten Ihrer Britischen Majestät und den Vereinigten Staaten durch den Haro-Kanal gezogen: werde. Urkundlich unter Unserer Höchsteigenhändigen Unterschrift und beigedrucktem Kaiserlichen Insiegel. Gegeben Berlin den 21ten October, 1872. [L. S.] WILHELM. [Translation.] We, William, by the grace of God, German Emperor, King of Prussia, &c., &c., &c. After examination of the treaty concluded at Washington on the 6th of May, 1871, between the Governments of Her Britannic Majesty and of the United States of America, according to which the said Governments have submitted to our arbitrament the question at issue between them, whether the boundary line which, according to the Treaty of Washington of June 15, 1846, after being carried westward along the fortyninth parallel of northern latitude to the middle of the channel which separates the continent from Vancouver's Island, is thence to be drawn southerly through the middle of the said channel and of the Fuca Straits to the Pacific Ocean, should be drawn through the Rosario Channel as the Government of Her Britannic Majesty claims, or through the Haro Channel as the Government of the United States claims; to the end that we may finally and without appeal decide which of these claims is most in accordance with the true interpretation of the treaty of June 14, 1816. After hearing the report made to us by the experts and jurists summoned by us upon the contents of the interchanged memorials and their appendices Have decreed the following award: Most in accordance with the true interpretations of the treaty concluded on the 15th of June, 1846, between the Governments of Her Britannic Majesty and of the United States of America, is the claim of the Government of the United States that the boundary-line between the territories of Her Britannic Majesty and the United States should be drawn through the Haro Channel. |