You may give my name as the writer of the enclosed letter, but
not for publication, as I do not wish to make an enemy of the 'Times.'
Send me a copy of the paper in which it may appear, or make any use you
may like of it.
"I send you Tuckerman's Report. It is very satisfactory and re-
assuring.
"I and some others here were much pleased at your expose of Fowler. He
tried to set up here as the cock of all our railways, but he got the
worst of it, and now he has got his quietus (that is, if you intend to
let him rest), and has lost what he was very ambitious of, viz., high
social position in the North. The Duke of Sutherland and others with
whom he had gained a footing, have given him the cold shoulder, and I
hope you will, by some means or other, enlighten his friends at the
Egyptian Embassy. I may write a few lines to you tomorrow - being now in
great haste,
"Yours truly,
"A. G. DALLAS.
"P.S. - I have not kept a copy of my San Juan letter, which I have only
just hurriedly written."
"Dunean, Inverness, N.B.
"30 October, 1872.
"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. 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. Why such a red herring as this
was allowed to decoy us from the straight path of the words of the
Treaty is what, in the words of Dundreary, 'No fellah can understand.'
"I hope I have made myself clear to you, and that you will ventilate
the subject in Canada (through the press), where and in British
Columbia there must be a deep feeling of disappointment and disgust,
without a just appreciation of how we came to be so befooled.
"Don't forget to send me any paper that may be published on the subject
through you. I feel as if I had been personally swindled and insulted,
and have lost all confidence in our present ministry. I am writing this
again at midnight, having been from home all day.
"Yours truly,
"A. G. DALLAS.
"P.S. - Laing passed through Inverness to-day, on his way to canvass the
Orkneys."
At Victoria, Vancouver's Island, in a fine position fronting the sea,
there is a granite pedestal to record the services of Sir James
Douglas, K.C.B., the father-in-law of Governor Dallas. The services of
Sir James, were rendered to the great benefit, not only of the island,
but of British Columbia generally.
