SEARCH
0-9 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
Prev | Current Page 300 | Next

Watkin, E. W. (Edward William), 1819-1901

"Canada and the States"

In getting up a
grievance it is now doubly dangerous to claim it, as we know that,
comparing it with the Haro Channel, it is decided against us, on what
we must suppose to be good reasons. On the above contention, too, we
absolve our Government of their blunder, and make a scape-goat of the
Emperor of Germany. The words of the Treaty define the boundary to be a
line drawn southerly through the centre of the channel from the centre
of the channel separating Vancouver's Island from the mainland. Had the
existence of three channels been then known, one of them--the one
meant--would certainly have been named. Only one channel, Rosario, was
known at the time, and the presumption is that it was meant. Making too
sure of this we claimed it. It is, however, clear to my mind that the
whole space between the Continent and Vancouver Island was treated as
one channel. The Douglas, or middle channel, would then fulfil to the
letter the words of the Treaty, and give us all we wanted, and still
leave a channel free to the Americans. It was, I contend, a fatal error
to abandon this position. Having done so and departed from the words of
the Treaty, it was really a toss up which of the two other channels was
selected by the umpire. Though we argued that Rosario was the only
channel known at the time of the Treaty, the Americans argue (as you
know how) that it was not so, and moreover that there was no intention
to give us more than Vancouver Island.


Pages:
288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312