"I.-Lord Odo Russell to Earl Granville.-(Received October 28.)

66

My Lord, I have the honour to transmit herewith to your Lordship, by Admiral Provost, the decision and award of the Emperor of Germany respecting the true interpretation of the Treaty of June 15, 1846, which, in accordance with the 35th Article of the Treaty of Washington, is given in writing, signed by His Majesty, and dated on the 21st inst., and is forwarded to me by M. de Balan, in a letter dated to-day, the 23rd inst., which has just been delivered at this Embassy.

"I have, &c.

ODO RUSSELL."

"II.-M. Balan to Lord Odo Russell.

(Translation. Inclosure 1.)

"Berlin, Oct. 23, 1872.

"His Imperial and Royal Majesty having, in accordance with the Treaty of Washington of May 8, 1871, given his Channel; but if the Americans choose to fortify San Juan Island and hostilities should arise, she could only use it with their permission. In short, the decision of the Emperor places the United States in a position to command the only channel of communication between Victoria and the mainland-the only way to the open sea possessed by the Dominion. Thus does Brother Jonathan become the strong man armed, keeping the door of the Pacific. Emperor William has given him the key. John Bull foolishly threw it away. But, instead of presenting the case as we have suggested it should have been presented, the British went for Rosario straight-that is to say, they joined issue on Rosario, as being the channel of the Treaty and of justice and equity. In principle they may have been right. As an act of policy they were wrong. Of course the Americans claimed Haro Channel; and thus it became the sole prerogative of the referee to decide as between these two channels, which of them in the highest degree fulfilled the conditions and spirit of the Treaty. There was no room for compromise; no opportunity of deciding the dispute in a spirit of equity by selecting the Middle Channel. And it may well be believed that the arguments in support of Haro, as being the channel of the stupid Treaty, were more adroitly framed and more deftly put than were those of Rosario."-Letter of D. G. T. Macdonald, C. E., late of the Government Staff of B.C., to The Times, October 24, 1872.

Royal award in the Boundary question at issue between Great Britain and the United States, the undersigned has the honour herewith to transmit to his Excellency Her Britannic Majesty's Ambassador, Lord Odo Russell, the award in writing, informing him at the same time that a similar document has been forwarded to the Envoy of the United States at this Court.

"The undersigned, &c.

"BALAN."

III.-We, William, by the grace of God, German Emperor, King of Prussia, &c.

'After examination of the Treaty between the Governments of Her Britannic Majesty and that of the United States of America, dated at Washington May 6 (u), 1871, by virtue of which the above-named Governments have submitted to our arbitration the question at issue between them-viz., whether the line of boundary, which, according to the Treaty, dated Washington, June 15, 1846, after it had been continued westward along the 49th parallel of north latitude to the middle of the channel which separates the continent from Vancouver's Island, shall be further drawn southerly through the middle of the said channel and of Fuca Straits to the Pacific Ocean, should be run, as claimed by the Government of Her Britannic Majesty, through the Rosario Straits or through the Canal of Haro, as claimed by the Government of the United States, in order that we should decide finally and without appeal which of these claims is most in accordance with the true interpretation of the Treaty of June 15, 1846;

"Have, after taking into consideration the statement of the experts and jurists appointed by us to report upon the contents of the respective cases and counter-cases with their inclosures, given the following decision:

"The claim of the Government of the United States"viz., that the line of boundary between the dominions of

(u) Sic in orig. query May 8?

"Her Britannic Majesty and the United States should be "run through the Canal of Haro, is most in accordance "with the true interpretation of the Treaty concluded "between the Government of Her Britannic Majesty and "that of the United States of America, dated at Washing"ton, June 15, 1846.

"Given under our hand and seal, at Berlin, October 21, "1872. (x).

“ WILLIAM.”

It is certainly very unsatisfactory that the reasons of the experts and jurists should not have been stated. It has been generally believed that the question was treated purely as one of (y) geography (z) to be decided by reference

(c) Some able and interesting articles and letters on the subject of this decision, written by competent authorities, will be found in The Times of October 18, 23, 26, 29, 30, 1872.

:

(y) One of the experts was, I believe, a Professor of Geography. () Macdonald, C. E., cited in the former note, in a second letter to the Times, October 26, 1872, has said, inter alia "The future of Canada on the Pacific cannot be said to have been decided at Berlin, but I am afraid that the people will feel the greatest disappointment when they hear of the award of the Emperor of Germany, though nobody in Canada will question the impartiality of the arbitrator. Several circumstances will make the loss of San Juan, and of what hangs to San Juan, very much felt. The people of Canada generally will continue, I think, to believe that the equity of the whole case favoured England. As regards the Canadian Province of British Columbia in particular, the island of San Juan is not far from the capital city, Victoria, and the inhabitants of Victoria and of its populous neighbourhood will be reminded daily of their loss by the presence of the divorced territory before their eyes, in the foreground of scenery not easily matched anywhere. Another great section of the population of British Columbia, as has already been pointed out in your columns, will also feel the effect of the award very much.

"The settlers in the southern portion of the mainland of British Columbia will have just about the same feelings on the matter that Londoners would have were the access to the mouth of the river Thames suddenly limited to a single narrow channel, one side of which (with the joint right of navigating the single channel) was owned by a foreign Power. Your readers, I think, already know that the

to charts and maps; but this of course is not the only way of discovering what was really the question or the intention of the Treaty makers of 1846. And it must be presumed that the usual rules of (a) construction were applied to the solution of the difficulty presented by the case, such as reference to contemporaneous acts of the parties, documents and statements preceding and accompanying the execution of the Treaty, and the like criteria.

IV. It is a duty, according to Hubner (b), the great champion of Neutrality, incumbent upon Neutrals to use every means in their power to procure the re-establishment of peace; and, of course, as much their duty to prevent, if possible, the breaking out of war. Galiani (c) is

of a different opinion. The part of mediator, he thinks, may be accepted; but its acceptance is not obligatory by National or International Law. Future neutrality might be, he says, compromised, and the spite of one of the belligerents attracted by it. In short, that justice does not require, and prudence forbids an accepting, much more a seeking, of the office of mediator.

It is impossible to lay down any certain rule upon a subject which must be greatly affected by the circumstances of each case. But I may be allowed to express a prefer

southern portion of the mainland of British Columbia contains the choicest agricultural land in the province, possesses a fine climate, and is the bed of the lower portion of the great river Fraser, along the course of which river is one of the best routes into the pastoral and mining regions of the interior. Your readers are, therefore, prepared to appreciate the natural and profound disappointment of the people of Canada under the above circumstances, and more particularly in view of the fact that the valuable channels lost to them are of no present value to the foreign Power which has gained them, because the channels do not lead to any considerable portion of the territory of that foreign Power. The lost channels lead to Canadian waters, Canadian shores, and Canadian rivers."

(a) See vol. ii. c. viii.

(b) De la Saisie des Bâtimens neutres, t. i. pt. i. c. ii. s. 11.

(c) Galiani, De' Doveri de' Principi Neutrali verso i Guerregianti, e di questi verso i Neutrali, c. ix. 162.

ence for the manlier and more Christian principle of Hubner, to the low, and probably after all unsafe, expediency of Galiani. Much, however, must depend upon the subject of dispute, upon the character of the disputants, and upon the position and authority of the State which tenders its good offices.

"In Protocol 23 to the Treaty of Paris, 1856, the Pleni"potentiaries do not hesitate to express, in the name of their "Governments, the wish that States, between which any "serious misunderstanding may arise, should, before appeal❝ing to arms, have recourse, as far as circumstances might "allow, to the good offices of a friendly Power." (d)

Alas! for such wishes:-two most terrible wars have been waged in Europe and America since this solemn international record was made. Of that between the Northern United and the Confederate revolted Southern States of North America, it may be said, both that no American Ambassador subscribed the Protocol or the Treaty of Paris, and also that a civil war was not within the scope of the instrument; and yet this last position seems scarcely tenable, when the gigantic(e) proportions of that extraordinary conflict are con

(d) Vol. i. App. x. p. 609.

(e) "I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, in pursuance of the Act of Congress approved July 13, 1861, do hereby declare that the inhabitants of the said States of Georgia, South Carolina, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Alabama, Louisiana, Texas, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Florida (except the inhabitants of that part of the State of Virginia lying west of the Alleghany Mountains, and of such other parts of that State and the other States hereinbefore named as may maintain a loyal adhesion to the Union and the Constitution, or may be from time to time occupied and controlled by the forces of the United States engaged in the dispersion of said insurgents), are in a state of insurrection against the United States, and that all commercial intercourse between the same, and the inhabitants thereof, with the exceptions aforesaid, and the citizens of other States and other parts of the United States, is unlawful and will remain unlawful until such insurrection shall cease or has been suppressed; that all goods and chattels, wares and merchandise, coming from any of said States, with the exceptions aforesaid, into other parts of the United States, without the special licence and