tions of Captain Cook in his third voyage to the Pacific; (2) the establishment of a fur-trading settlement at Nootka Sound by Brit-. ish merchants in 1788, and the Nootka Sound convention between Great Britain and Spain of October 28, 1790; (3) the subsequent explorations of Vancouver and Mackenzie and the settlements of the Hudson's Bay Company. The question of the northern boundary of the United States, and of the extent to which it was to be carried westward of the Lake of the Woods, was suggested in connection with the Hawkesbury-King convention of 1803, and also in the convention concluded by Messrs. Monroe and Pinkney in 1807; but neither of these conventions was ratified. The next attempt to settle the question was made in the negotiations that resulted in the conclusion of the convention between the United States and Great Britain of October 20, 1818. The negotiators, however, failed to agree, and by Article III. a joint occupation for ten years was agreed upon. The question was discussed at London by Messrs. Rush and Canning in the negotiations growing out of the famous Russian ukase of 1821 in relation to the northwest coast. The negotiations were resumed in 1826 on the suggestion of the British Government. They were conducted on the part of the United States by Albert Gallatin. No agreement was reached, and on August 6, 1827, a convention was concluded by which the joint occupation was extended indefinitely, subject to its termination by either party on twelve months' notice. The Webster-Ashburton treaty of August 9, 1842, did not provide for the adjustment of the dispute, and a proposal made by the British minister at Washington later in the year for the renewal of the negotiations remained without result, though President Tyler at one time thought of sending a special mission to England for the purpose of effecting a settlement. In 1844, Mr. Richard Pakenham arrived in the United States as minister of Great Britain and renewed, in behalf of his Government, the proposition to resume negotiations. The Democratic convention that assembled in Baltimore in May, 1844, declared that the title of the United States to the "whole of Oregon" was "clear and unquestionable.” This declaration was popularly interpreted as meaning "Fifty-four forty or fight." On April 27, 1846, the President approved a joint resolution of Congress, which authorized him, in his discretion, to give notice of the termination of the joint occupation of the territory; and such notice was duly given. The subsequent settlement by a division of the territory doubtless was facilitated by the outbreak of the war with Mexico. As has been seen, the treaty of June 15, 1846, provided that the boundary should follow the 49th parallel of north latitude to "the middle of the channel which separates the continent from VancouH. Doc. 551-vol 5-46 ver's Island," and should thence proceed southerly "through the middle of said channel." A controversy afterwards arose as to what was the channel thus referred to. The United States maintained that it was a channel to the westward, called Canal de Haro; the British Government contended for a channel to the eastward, called Rosario Strait. Between these two channels certain islands, one of which in particular, San Juan Island, was considered to be of strategic importance. From this circumstance the question came to be known as that of "the San Juan water boundary." By Articles XXXIV.-XLII. of the treaty of Washington of May 8, 1871, the dispute was referred to the German Emperor, as arbitrator, to determine through which of the two channels mentioned the line should run. He decided in favor of the claim of the United States. For a full history of this boundary question, see 1 Moore, Int. Arbitrations, chap. vii., pp. 196–236. As to the arbitration of the claims of the Hudson's Bay Company and the Puget's Sound Agricultural Company, under the treaty of July 1, 1863, see 1 Moore, Int. Arbitrations, chap. viii., pp. 237–270. 11. CLAYTON-BULWER TREATY. $ 836. April 19, 1850, a convention was signed at Washington for the purpose of setting forth the views and intentions of the governments of the United States and Great Britain concerning an interoceanic canal and the political independence of Central America. This convention formed the subject of long and varied controversies, which are detailed elsewhere. It was at length superseded by the Hay-Pauncefote treaty of Nov. 18, 1901. See supra, § § 351-367. As to the London commission, under the convention of 1853, see Moore, 12. RECIPROCITY TREATY OF 1854. § 837. June 5, 1854, William L. Marcy, Secretary of State, and Lord Elgin, special plenipotentiary of Great Britain, signed at Washington a treaty for the temporary adjustment of the question of the northeastern fisheries by means of a reciprocal arrangement embracing commerce and navigation as well as the fisheries. In consequence of this arrangement, the American fishermen were readmitted, so long as the treaty lasted, to the inshore fisheries, their right to which the convention of 1818 had renounced, while the British fishermen were admitted to the inshore fisheries on the eastern coasts of the United States north of the 36th parallel of north latitude. But in each case it was expressly declared that the "liberty" thus granted applied solely to the sea fisheries, and that the salmon and shad fisheries, and all fisheries in rivers and mouths of rivers, were reserved by each country exclusively for its own fishermen. Provision was made for the marking of the reserved fisheries by means of a mixed commission. 1 Moore, Int. Arbitrations, chap. xiii., pp. 426–494. As to a subsequent temporary arrangement of the northeastern fisheries For the history of the northeastern fisheries, see supra, § § 163–168. Under the reciprocity treaty between the United States and Great Britain of 1854, the President can not issue his proclamation giving effect to the treaty as to Canada alone in anticipation of the action of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edwards Island, nor until he shall have received evidence not only of the action of these provinces, but also of the Imperial Parliament. Cushing, At. Gen., 1854, 6 Op. 748. The convention of 1854 for mutual reciprocity of trade with Canada, terminated by notice, did not operate to release a forfeiture previously incurred. Pine lumber, 4 Blatch. 182. 13. TREATY OF WASHINGTON, 1871. $838. By a treaty between the United States and Great Britain, signed at Washington May 8, 1871, provision was made for the settlement, by an arbitration to be held at Geneva, of what were generically known as the "Alabama claims," growing out of the acts of the Alabama and other Confederate cruisers during the civil war in the United States. The treaty settlement also included the claims of citizens of the United States (other than the Alabama claims) and of subjects of Great Britain growing out of the civil war in the United States (Articles XII-XVII.); the North Atlantic fisheries (Articles XVIII-XXV., XXXII., XXXIII.); the navigation of certain rivers and canals and of Lake Michigan (Articles XXVI.-XXVIII.); the system of bonded transit (Articles XXIX., XXX., XXXIII.) ; certain features of the coasting trade (Articles XXX., XXXIII.) ; the exemption from duty of lumber cut on American territory watered by the St. John and floated down that river to the United States. (Article XXXI.), and the San Juan boundary (Articles XXXIV.XLII.). The forty-third article related to the exchange of ratifications. The Geneva Arbitration, Moore, Int. Arbitrations, I. chap. xiv. 495–628. As to the San Juan water boundary, see id. chap. vii. 196–236. Before the Geneva tribunal "the United States demanded compensation for the following classes of losses and expenditures, so far as they grew out of the acts of the cruisers, viz: 1. Direct losses growing out of the destruction of vessels and their cargoes.' 2. The national expenditures in the pursuit of those cruisers.' 3. 'The loss in the transfer of the American commercial marine to the British flag.' 4. 'The enhanced payments of insurance.' 5. The prolongation of the war, and the addition of a large sum to the cost of the war and the suppression of the rebellion.' It was denied by Great Britain that a submission of all the claims to arbitration carried with it the right of the arbitrators to take into consideration all the elements of loss, and it was insisted that the tribunal had no right, under the terms of the treaty, to take classes three, four, and five into consideration in its estimate of damages. The United States denied this proposition, and contended that the tribunal was invested with power to decide the question of the extent of its jurisdiction. The tribunal, without deciding that question, held that these claims do not constitute, upon the principles of international law applicable to such cases, good foundation for an award of compensation or computation of damages between nations, and should, upon such principles, be wholly excluded from the consideration of the tribunal, in making its award, even if there were no disagreement between the two governments as to the competency of the tribunal to decide thereon.' And in regard to the second of the above items of loss, the tribunal, in its award, decided thus: 'Whereas, so far as relates to the particulars of the indemnity claimed by the United States, the costs of pursuit of the Confederate cruisers are not, in the judgment of the tribunal, properly distinguishable from the general expenses of the war carried on by the United States: The tribunal is therefore of opinion, by a majority of three to two voices, that there is no ground for awarding to the United States any sum by way of indemnity under this head.' The tribunal awarded to the United States the sum of fifteen and onehalf millions of dollars in full satisfaction of the claims referred to it." Davis' Notes, Treaty Volume (1776-1887), 1334. As to the so-called "indirect claims," the controversy concerning them, and their exclusion from the consideration of the tribunal, see Moore, Int. Arbitrations, I. 623–647. Under article 30 of the treaty of 1871 a British vessel may, in the course of a single voyage, ship goods at two or more successive United States ports on the Lakes, for delivery partly through Canada by land in bond, at other United States ports; and then, after completing her cargo, sail to the Canada port where the land carriage is to begin. Williams, At. Gen., 1873, 14 Op. 310. Under article 30 of the treaty of Washington, of 1871, and article 19 of the regulations made under the first-mentioned article to carry its provisions into execution, it is lawful to transport goods by means of British or American vessels from the ports of Chicago or Milwaukee to points in Canada, thence through Canadian territory by rail, and from the termini of the lines of railway by either British or American vessels to the ports of Oswego and Ogdensburgh, all the above-named ports being "ports on the northern frontier of the United States," within the meaning of said regulations. Devens, At. Gen., 1878, 16 Op. 42. 14. REAL ESTATE CONVENTION, 1899. § 839. By Article III. of the convention between the United States and Great Britain, relating to the tenure and disposition of real and personal property, signed March 2, 1899, it is stipulated that in case any citizen or subject of the one country dies in the other without having in the country of his decease any known heirs or testamentary executors, the competent local authorities shall at once "inform the nearest consular officer" of the nation to which the deceased person belonged, in order that the interested persons may be duly notified. A similar provision is contained in the treaties of the United States with Austria-Hungary, Belgium, Germany, Roumania, and Servia. As a part of the supreme law of the land, it debars State and Territorial, as well as Federal officials from asserting a claim of escheat without the notification provided for. Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, to Mr. Wolcott, M. C., Feb. 3, 1900, 242 MS. Dom. As to the negotiation of the convention of March 2, 1899, see Mr. Hay |