262 



DIPLOMATIC CORRESPONDENCE AND FOREIGN RELATIONS. 



er the American commissioners had any further 

 proposal to make. 



The American commissioners replied that, 

 in view of the position taken by the British 

 commissioners, it appeared that the treaty of 

 June 15, 1846, might have been made under a 

 mutual misunderstanding, and would not have 

 been made had each party understood at that 

 time the construction which the other party 

 puts upon the language whose interpretation 

 is in dispute ; they therefore proposed to abro- 

 gate the whole of that part of the treaty, and 

 rearrange the boundary-line which was in dis- 

 pute before that treaty was concluded. 



The British commissioners replied that the 

 proposal to abrogate a treaty was one of a 

 serious character, and that they had no instruc- 

 tions which would enable them to entertain 

 it ; and, at the conference on the 20th of March, 

 the British commissioners declined the pro- 

 posal. 



At the conference on the 19th of April, the 

 British commissioners proposed to the Ameri- 

 can commissioners to adopt the Middle Chan- 

 nel (generally known as the Douglas Channel) 

 as the channel through which the boundary- 

 line should be run, with the understanding that 

 all the channels through the Archipelago should 

 be free and common to both parties. 



The American commissioners declined to 

 entertain that proposal. They proposed that 

 the Joint High Commission should recognize 

 the Haro Channel as the channel intended by 

 the treaty of June 15, 1846, with a mutual agree- 

 ment 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 declined this pro- 

 posal, and stated that, being 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, re- 

 newed their proposal for a reference to arbi- 

 tration, and hoped that it would be seriously 

 considered. 



The American commissioners replied that 

 they had hoped that their last proposal would 

 be accepted. As it had been declined, they 

 would, should the other questions between the 

 two Governments be satisfactorily adjusted, 

 agree to a reference to arbitration to deter- 

 mine whether the line should run through the 

 Haro Channel, or through the Rosario Straits, 

 upon the condition that either Government 

 should have the right to include in the evi- 

 dence to be considered by the arbitrator such 

 documents, official correspondence, and other 

 official or public statements, bearing on the 

 subject of the reference, as they may consider 

 necessary to the support of their respective 

 cases. This condition was agreed to. 



The British commissioners proposed that 

 the arbitrator should have the right to draw 

 the boundary through an intermediate chan- 



nel. The American commissioners declined 

 this proposal, stating that they desired a de- 

 cision, not a compromise. 



The British commissioners proposed that it 

 should be declared to be the proper construc- 

 tion of the Treaty of 1846 that all the channels 

 were to be open to navigation by both parties. 

 The American commissioners stated that they 

 did not so construe the Treaty of 1846, and, 

 therefore could not assent to such a declaration. 



The discussion of this subject was continued 

 during this conference, and in the conference 

 of the 22d of April the treaty articles XXXIV. 

 to XLII. were agreed to. 



The joint high commissioners approved this 

 statement, and directed it to be entered on the 

 protocol. 



On May 6th, the high commissioners having 

 met, Lord de Grey said that, as the Joint High 

 Commission would not meet again after to-day, 

 except for the purpose of signing the treaty, 

 he desired on behalf of himself and his col- 

 leagues to express their high appreciation of 

 the manner in which Mr. Fish and his Ameri- 

 can colleagues had, on their side, conducted 

 the negotiations. It had been most gratifying 

 to the British commissioners to be associated 

 with colleagues who were animated with the 

 same sincere desire as themselves to bring 

 about a settlement, equally honorable and just 

 to both countries, of the various questions of 

 which it had been their duty to treat, and the 

 British commissioners would always retain a 

 grateful recollection of the fair and friendly 

 spirit which the American commissioners had 

 displayed. 



Mr. Fish, in behalf of the American commis- 

 sioners, said that they were gratefully sensible 

 of the friendly words expressed by Lord de 

 Grey, and of the kind spirit which had 

 prompted them. From the date of the first 

 conference the American commissioners had 

 been impressed by the earnestness of desire 

 manifested by the British commissioners to 

 reach a settlement worthy of the two powers 

 who had committed to this Joint High Com- 

 mission the treatment of various questions of 

 peculiar interest, complexity, and delicacy. 

 His colleagues and he could never cease to ap- 

 preciate the generous spirit and the open and 

 friendly manner in which the British commis- 

 sioners had met and discussed the several 

 questions that had led to the conclusion of a 

 treaty which, it was hoped, would receive the 

 approval of the people of both countries, and 

 would prove the foundation of a cordial and 

 friendly understanding between them for all 

 time to come. 



Mr. Fish further said that he was sure every 

 member of the Joint High Commission would 

 desire to record his appreciation of the abil- 

 ity, the zeal, and the unceasing labor which 

 the joint protocolists had exhibited in the dis- 

 charge of their arduous and responsible duties, 

 and that he knew that he only gave expression 

 to the feelings of the commissioners in saying 



