Colonial Despatches
The colonial despatches of Vancouver Island and British Columbia 1846-1871
Despatch to London
Musgrave, Anthony to Wodehouse, John 22 February 1871, CO 60:43, no. 3470, 177.
Abstract
Musgrave, Anthony to Wodehouse, John 22 February 1871, CO 60:43, no. 3470, 177.
Despatch to London.
Minutes (5), Enclosures (untranscribed) (1), Other documents (2).
No. 16
22nd February 1871
My Lord,
I have the honor to forward for Your Lordship's information a
Copy of a Resolution of the Legislative Council requesting, with
reference to the appointment of a jointCommission
Commission by her
Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States to
settle all international difficulties, that I will represent to
Her Majesty's Government and also to the Government of Canada
the great importance of the Island of San Juan to the Dominion
of Canada, as well as the undoubted claimsof
of the Crown to the
same; and the desirability of settling the boundaries of the
possessions of the United States North of British Columbia; and
further that the question of the Fisheries in the Pacific be
considered at the same time.
Commission by her
Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States to
settle all international difficulties, that I will represent to
Her Majesty's Government and also to the Government of Canada
the great importance of the Island of San Juan to the Dominion
of Canada, as well as the undoubted claimsof
of the Crown to the
same; and the desirability of settling the boundaries of the
possessions of the United States North of British Columbia; and
further that the question of the Fisheries in the Pacific be
considered at the same time.
2. Her Majesty's Government are already so fully informed with
regard to the Island of San Juan,that
that I need not offer any
observations on this subject.
that I need not offer any
observations on this subject.
3. As regards the other two subjects mentioned in the
Resolution, the language and intention of the Council are
obscure. The utility is questionable at present of any more
precise definition of the boundaries of the United States (late
Russian) territories to the North of British Columbia, thanis
is
already laid down in the Convention between Great Britain and
Russia of the 28th/16 of February 1825. To run a boundary line
and place landmarks along "the summits of the Mountains situated
parallel to the Coast as far as the point of intersection of the
141st degree of west longitude" is scarcely practicable. The
fourth Article of the Convention, however, provides thatwhen
when
the summit of the mountains shall prove to be at the distance of
more than ten marine leagues from the ocean the limit shall be
formed "by a line parallel to the windings of the Coast and
which shall never exceed the distance of ten marine leagues
therefrom." It is to the uncertain character of this line of
demarcation that I am led to believe the Resolution of the
Council refers.
4.
is
already laid down in the Convention between Great Britain and
Russia of the 28th/16 of February 1825. To run a boundary line
and place landmarks along "the summits of the Mountains situated
parallel to the Coast as far as the point of intersection of the
141st degree of west longitude" is scarcely practicable. The
fourth Article of the Convention, however, provides thatwhen
when
the summit of the mountains shall prove to be at the distance of
more than ten marine leagues from the ocean the limit shall be
formed "by a line parallel to the windings of the Coast and
which shall never exceed the distance of ten marine leagues
therefrom." It is to the uncertain character of this line of
demarcation that I am led to believe the Resolution of the
Council refers.
4. It is not clear what is meant by the Council as "the
question of the Fisheries in the Pacific;" for I am not aware
than any such question has ever arisen. I am informed, however,
that the object aimed at by the Council is that the same rights
which may be claimed by, or conceded to the United States in
British waters on the Atlantic coast should be conceded to
British subjects on the American Coast on thePacific
Pacific. This
appears to me to have been already sufficiently settled by the
first Article of the Convention of 1825, supposing that
Convention to be still operative. But I observe that the
provisions of that Treaty appear to have been temporary, and
although continued in force by the later Treaty of 31st
December 1858 (12th January 1859) this latter agreement was
onlymade
made for ten years and further until after twelve months
notice should be given of an intention to terminate the same.
As the ten years have now expired the terminable character of
existing arrangements may render some fresh agreement
necessary or expedient.
Pacific. This
appears to me to have been already sufficiently settled by the
first Article of the Convention of 1825, supposing that
Convention to be still operative. But I observe that the
provisions of that Treaty appear to have been temporary, and
although continued in force by the later Treaty of 31st
December 1858 (12th January 1859) this latter agreement was
onlymade
made for ten years and further until after twelve months
notice should be given of an intention to terminate the same.
As the ten years have now expired the terminable character of
existing arrangements may render some fresh agreement
necessary or expedient.
5. I should add that Iwas
was not aware of the intention to move
this Resolution until after it had been passed or I should have
endeavoured to secure that the objects of the Council should be
more clearly expressed. But, I have not thought it expedient to
return it to them for reconsideration lest public discussion
here should awaken jealousy and opposition in the neighbouring
Americanterritories
territories which might produce difficulties in any
negotiations at Washington.
was not aware of the intention to move
this Resolution until after it had been passed or I should have
endeavoured to secure that the objects of the Council should be
more clearly expressed. But, I have not thought it expedient to
return it to them for reconsideration lest public discussion
here should awaken jealousy and opposition in the neighbouring
Americanterritories
territories which might produce difficulties in any
negotiations at Washington.
Minutes by CO staff
Mr Herbert
I suppose we must ask (the F.O.) what answers Lord Granville would suggest should be given to this.
I suppose we must ask (the F.O.) what answers Lord Granville would suggest should be given to this.
The San Juan Water Boundary is pointed out in Ld Granville's
letter to the High Commissioners as one of the principal
subjects which will probably be brought under their notice; & it
is stated that copies of all correspondence which has been
presented to Parliament respecting this question (amongst
others) will be forwarded to them.
I send on a copy of the present Queens' Advocate opinion upon
the question how far the U States are bound by the Treaty of
1825. I should be disposed to refer Mr Musgrave Confidentially
to the Despatch (Confidential) of 17 Jan/68 in which Sir T. Twiss's
opinion was embodied, or to send him a
Copy of the Despatch, as
Govr Seymour's papers were not kept in good order, & this may
have been mislaid.
Copy of the Despatch, as
Govr Seymour's papers were not kept in good order, & this may
have been mislaid.
To F.O. as suggested.
HTH
12/4
I wd send Mr M a copy of the despatch abovementioned. I think
he has exercised a wise discretion in not referring these
resolutions back to the council for the reasons he gives.
EHKH
13/4/71
Send Mr Musgrave Copy of the Despatch to Mr Seymour—& approve
his course. In sending Mr Musgrave's despatch to F.O. say that
it is unnecessary to make any observations upon the St Juan
question, as Lord Granville is fully aware of the importance
attached by the Dominion, to which British Columbia is about to
be united, to the possession of St. Juan; that
it would no doubt
be out of the question to undertake to fix with precision the
boundary between British Columbia and Alaska, but that it might
be desirable to obtain from the U.S. Govt a recognition of the
limits laid down by the Treaty of 1825; that as regards the
fisheries in the Pacific, it does not seem very clear what is
intended, but that if the resolution means an attempt should be
made to obtain from the U.S. the right of fishing within U.S.
waters on the Pacific Coast, Lord Granville will probably agree
with me in thinking that it is very improbable that such a
concession could be obtained and that it would not be desirable
to introduce any such fresh matter into the negotiations.
it would no doubt
be out of the question to undertake to fix with precision the
boundary between British Columbia and Alaska, but that it might
be desirable to obtain from the U.S. Govt a recognition of the
limits laid down by the Treaty of 1825; that as regards the
fisheries in the Pacific, it does not seem very clear what is
intended, but that if the resolution means an attempt should be
made to obtain from the U.S. the right of fishing within U.S.
waters on the Pacific Coast, Lord Granville will probably agree
with me in thinking that it is very improbable that such a
concession could be obtained and that it would not be desirable
to introduce any such fresh matter into the negotiations.
Let me see draft.
K
April 15/71
Documents enclosed with the main document (not transcribed)
Resolution of the Legislative Council, 14 February 1871, as per
despatch.
Other documents included in the file
Rogers to Under-Secretary of State, Foreign Office, 20 April
1871, forwarding copy of the despatch and resolution for consideration
with regard to the settlement of border disputes in the colony.
