_
"My dear Sir Edward,
"I wrote you a few hurried lines last night, with an enclosure, for
publication, on the subject of the San Juan Arbitration.
"In the 'Times' of yesterday there is a letter signed 'The Ghost,'
which, like all that the 'Times' permits to appear in its columns, is
intended to throw dust in the eyes of the public, and direct attention
from the real authors of the calamity, viz., the present Government, to
that of Lord Aberdeen, or the German Emperor. The letter says, 'It is
difficult to understand how an arbitrator could have accepted the task
imposed upon him,' &c., alluding to his being debarred from deciding on
the middle channel. An arbitrator will, of course, decide upon any
conditions laid down; but is it not much more difficult to understand
_why_ we should have imposed such conditions on the arbitrator, on
the demand of America, when we had the simple words of the Treaty to go
by?
"The same letter, in alluding to Harney's invasion, says, 'It is
pleasant to remember how promptly the American Government disavowed the
act of their officer.' They never did so practically. They never
withdrew the offensive troops, and forced us to maintain an equal
number of men there since that date, at who can tell what cost to this
country, and for what good end?
"In considering the main question, I all along held that we erred in
claiming the Rosario Channel; for the reason that although I have no
doubt whatever it was the channel intended in the Treaty (as against
the Haro Channel, and excluding consideration of the middle channel),
we cannot prove to demonstration that it was so.
Pages:
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311