REPORT FROM COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, ADVISING THE PRESIDENT TO
SUBMIT THE SAN JUAN BOUNDARY QUESTION TO ARBITRATION, IN THE SENATE,
MARCH 19, 1861.
By the withdrawal of Southern Senators, the Republicans were
left with a majority in the Senate, enabling them to reorganize
the Standing Committees, which was done March 8, 1861. At the
head of the Finance Committee was Mr. Fessenden, instead of
Mr. Hunter,--of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Trumbull, instead
of Mr. Bayard,--of the Military Committee, Mr. Wilson, instead
of Mr. Jefferson Davis,--and of the Naval Committee, Mr. Hale,
instead of Mr. Mallory. Mr. Sumner was appointed Chairman of
the Committee on Foreign Relations, in place of Mr. Mason, of
Virginia, who had held this position from December 8, 1851.
With the former on the new Committee were Messrs. Collamer,
of Vermont, Doolittle, of Wisconsin, Harris, of New York,
Douglas, of Illinois, Polk, of Missouri, and Breckinridge,
of Kentucky. The appointment of Mr. Sumner to this important
position was contrasted with his treatment at an earlier day,
when the omission of his name from any committee was justified
on the ground that he was “outside of any healthy political
organization in this country,” and this Senatorial sally was
received with “laughter.”[141] Mr. Hale and Mr. Chase were in
the same category. Only Democrats and Whigs were accepted: such
was the Law of Slavery. At last this was all changed.
The reorganization of the Committees attracted the attention
of the press at home and abroad. It was properly recognized
as marking a change from old to new. The London _Star_, in an
elaborate article on the transition, welcomed especially the
new Chairman of the Committee of Foreign Relations.
“The Republican Senators have selected for the Chairman
of this Committee the Hon. Charles Sumner, a statesman
deservedly honored in this country, not only for his
eloquence as an orator, but for his unswerving fidelity to
the cause of Freedom. No man could have been chosen for
this office in every respect more acceptable to the English
people. It is not only as the Antislavery legislator, who,
from the first moment that he took his seat in the Senate
as the representative of Massachusetts, has ever raised
his voice and given his vote for the hapless negro,--it is
not only as the patriot who almost suffered martyrdom on
the floor of the Senate Chamber from the ruffian hand of
Preston S. Brooks, that the English people will be disposed
to regard his appointment with hearty approval: he has
established other claims to our sympathy and admiration,
which we must not be slow to recognize. Mr. Sumner is
well known in this country--scarcely less, indeed, than
in America--as the stanch friend of Peace. Years ago, in
his famous oration on the True Glory of Nations, he set
forth the advantages of a pacific policy, with arguments as
cogent and irresistible as those which have been employed
by Mr. Cobden, and with an eloquence of language and a
fertility of illustration which revived the oratory of
classic times.…
“And if during the period of Mr. Lincoln’s administration
causes of dispute should unhappily arise between America
and Great Britain, or any other foreign power, Mr.
Sumner will not fail to point to _arbitration as the
only reasonable and satisfactory mode_ of settling
international differences. _He will not, if he can help
it, permit San Juan to be made a casus belli_, or tolerate
any more of those periodical expeditions against the weak
and effeminate republics of South America, by which Mr.
Buchanan and his predecessors treated with contempt the
solemn injunctions of the Fathers of the Republic, that
their posterity should avoid the fatal quicksands of
European diplomacy, and abstain from intermeddling with the
affairs of other states.”
The very questions anticipated by the London journal were
presented at an early day, even before its article could reach
Washington. The advice of the Senate was asked by the President
on submitting the San Juan Question to arbitration.
March 16, 1861, the following Message from President Lincoln
was read in Executive Session, and on motion of Mr. Sumner
referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
“TO THE SENATE:--
“The Senate has transmitted to me a copy of the Message
sent by my predecessor to that body on the 21st day of
February last, proposing to take its advice on the subject
of a proposition made by the British Government through its
minister here to refer the matter in controversy between
that Government and the Government of the United States
to the arbitrament of the King of Sweden and Norway, the
King of the Netherlands, or the Republic of the Swiss
Confederation.
“In that Message my predecessor stated that he wished to
submit to the Senate the precise questions following,
namely:--
“‘Will the Senate approve a Treaty referring to either of
the sovereign powers above named the dispute now existing
between the Governments of the United States and Great
Britain concerning the boundary line between Vancouver’s
Island and the American continent? In case the referee
shall find himself unable to decide where the line is by
the description of it in the Treaty of June 15, 1846, shall
he be authorized to establish a line according to the
Treaty as nearly as possible? Which of the three powers
named by Great Britain as an arbiter shall be chosen by the
United States?’
“I find no reason to disapprove of the course of my
predecessor in this important matter, but, on the contrary,
I not only shall receive the advice of the Senate thereon
cheerfully, but I respectfully ask the Senate for their
advice on the three questions before recited.
“ABRAHAM LINCOLN.
“WASHINGTON, March 16, 1861.”
From this Message it appears that the subject had been already
before the Senate on the submission of President Buchanan in
the last days of his Administration. In his Message the latter
stated these precise questions:--
“Will the Senate approve a treaty referring to either of
the sovereign powers above named [Sweden, the Netherlands,
or Switzerland] the dispute now existing between the
Governments of the United States and Great Britain
concerning the boundary line between Vancouver’s Island and
the American continent?
“In case the referee shall find himself unable to decide
where the line is by the description of it in the Treaty of
June 15, 1846, shall he be authorized to establish a line
according to the Treaty as nearly as possible?
“Which of the three powers named by Great Britain as an
arbiter shall be chosen by the United States?”
February 27, 1861, Mr. Mason, from the Committee on Foreign
Relations, reported the following Resolution, directly
responsive to the questions proposed.
“_Resolved_, That in the opinion of the Senate the boundary
in dispute between the Governments of Great Britain and
the United States should be referred to the arbitrament
and final award of an umpire to be agreed on between the
two Governments; that such umpire should, if practicable,
determine said boundary as the same is prescribed in the
Treaty aforesaid; or if that be not practicable, then that
he be authorized to establish a boundary, conforming as
nearly as may be to that provided by said Treaty.
“And that, of the three powers referred to in the Message
of the President, the Senate would indicate as such umpire
the Republic of the Swiss Confederation.”
This was the last diplomatic act of Mr. Mason as Chairman of
the Committee on Foreign Relations.
* * * * *
March 19, 1861, Mr. Sumner submitted the following Report,
which was his first diplomatic act as Chairman.
* * * * *
The Committee on Foreign Relations, to whom was referred the
Message of the President of the United States dated the 16th
instant, with the documents accompanying it, have had the same
under consideration, and now report.
The Treaty concluded between Great Britain and the United States on
the 15th of June, 1846, provided in its first Article that the line of
boundary between the territories of her Britannic Majesty and those
of the United States, from the point on the 49th parallel of north
latitude, to which it was ascertained, should be continued westward
along this parallel, “to the middle of the channel which separates the
continent from Vancouver’s Island, and thence southerly, through the
middle of said channel and of Fuca’s Straits, to the Pacific Ocean.”
When the commissioners appointed by the two Governments to mark the
boundary line came to that part of it required to run southerly
through the channel dividing the continent from Vancouver’s Island,
they differed entirely in their opinions, not only concerning the
true point of deflection from the 49th parallel, but also as to the
channel intended in the Treaty. After long discussion, producing no
result, they reported a disagreement to their respective Governments.
Since then the two Governments, through their ministers here and at
London, have carried on a voluminous correspondence on the matter in
controversy, each sustaining the conclusion of its own commissioner,
and neither yielding in any degree to the other. Meanwhile the
unsettled condition of this question produced serious local
disturbance, and on one occasion threatened to destroy the harmonious
relations existing between Great Britain and the United States, causing
serious anxiety.
If our construction of the Treaty be right, the island of San Juan,
with other small islands, will fall to the United States, while, if
the British interpretation be adopted, these islands will be on their
side of the line. President Buchanan, in his Message to the Senate of
February 21, 1861, declared his conviction that the territory thus in
dispute “is ours by the Treaty fairly and impartially construed.” But
the British Government, on their side, insist that it is theirs. The
argument on both sides seems to have been exhausted.
Under these circumstances, it appears from the correspondence submitted
to the Senate, that General Cass, Secretary of State, by letter of June
25, 1860, to Lord Lyons, the British Minister at Washington, invited
the British Government to make a proposition of adjustment. Here are
his words:--
“And I have it further in charge to inform your Lordship, that
this Government is ready to receive and fairly to consider any
proposition which the British Government may be disposed to
make for a mutually acceptable adjustment, with an earnest hope
that a satisfactory arrangement will speedily put an end to all
danger of the recurrence of those grave questions which have
more than once threatened to interrupt that good understanding
which both countries have so many powerful motives to maintain.”
The reply of the British Government to this invitation was communicated
by Lord Lyons, in a letter to General Cass, dated December 10, 1860,
in the course of which he uses the following language.
“In reference to the line of the water boundary intended by the
Treaty, with respect to which also her Majesty’s Government
have been invited by the United States Government to make a
proposition for its adjustment, I am instructed to inform you
that her Majesty’s Government are glad to reciprocate the
friendly sentiments expressed in your note of the 25th of June,
and will not hesitate to respond to the invitation which has
been made to them.
“It appears to her Majesty’s Government that the argument on
both sides being nearly exhausted, and neither party having
succeeded in producing conviction on the other, the question
can only be settled by arbitration.”
Lord Lyons then proceeds to details connected with the offered
arbitration, and, in behalf of his Government, proposes that the King
of the Netherlands, or the King of Sweden and Norway, or the President
of the Federal Council of Switzerland should be invited to be arbiter.
Upon these facts the President submits to the consideration of the
Senate the following interrogatories.
“Will the Senate approve a Treaty referring to either of
the sovereign powers above named the dispute now existing
between the Governments of the United States and Great Britain
concerning the boundary line between Vancouver’s Island and the
American continent?
“In case the referee shall find himself unable to decide where
the line is by the description of it in the Treaty of June 15,
1846, shall he be authorized to establish a line according to
the Treaty as nearly as possible?
“Which of the three powers named by Great Britain as an arbiter
shall be chosen by the United States?”
The Committee, in conclusion, recommend to the Senate the adoption of
the following Resolution.
“_Resolved_, That, in pursuance of the Message of the President
of the 16th instant, the Senate advises a reference of the
existing dispute between the Government of the United States
and the Government of Great Britain, concerning the boundary
line which separates Vancouver’s Island and the American
continent, to the arbitration of a friendly power, with
authority to determine the line according to the provisions
of the Treaty of 15th June, 1846, but without authority to
establish any line other than that provided for in the Treaty.
“And of the three powers named by Great Britain, the Senate
advises that the Republic of Switzerland be chosen by the
United States as arbiter.”
* * * * *
On two different days the Senate proceeded with this
resolution, when, March 27, 1861, the day before the close of
the Session, it was ordered that its further consideration be
postponed to the second Monday of December next. This was done
on the suggestion that the time was not propitious for the
arbitration of a disputed boundary line. April 12, Fort Sumter
was bombarded.
* * * * *
A difference between the resolution of Mr. Mason and that
of Mr. Sumner will be noted. The former declared that the
umpire “should, if practicable, determine said boundary as
the same is prescribed in the Treaty aforesaid; or if that be
not practicable, then that he be authorized to establish a
boundary, _conforming as nearly as may be to that provided by
said Treaty_.” The latter resolution declared, that the arbiter
should have “authority to determine the line according to the
provisions of the Treaty of 15th June, 1846, _but without
authority to establish any line other than that provided
for in the Treaty_.” The obvious purpose was to prevent a
compromise line. This same purpose appears in the terms of the
Treaty between the United States and Great Britain, signed at
Washington, May 8, 1871, where, after mentioning the Article
of the original Treaty under which the question arose, it is
declared, that, “whereas the Government of her Britannic
Majesty claims that such boundary line should, under the
terms of the Treaty above recited, be run through the Rosario
Straits, and the Government of the United States claims that it
should be run through the Canal de Haro, it is agreed that the
respective claims of the Government of the United States and
of the Government of her Britannic Majesty shall be submitted
to the arbitration and award of his Majesty the Emperor of
Germany, who, having regard to the abovementioned Article of
the said Treaty, shall decide thereupon, finally, and without
appeal, _which of these claims is most in accordance with the
true interpretation of the Treaty of June 15, 1846_.” This
provision follows substantially the early resolution of Mr.
Sumner.