The U.S. Census D explains that all political purpose was
disclaimed, & that it was taken solely in the interests of
statistical science!
Copy to
F.O. calling attention to the last par. of this despatch
as to claims
of the Courts at
Washington over the persons and
property of American residents in
S. Juan?
Sir F. Rogers
By the arrangement of
1859,
San Juan was to be jointly occupied,
militarily, by detachments of British Marines and United States
Troops. That arrangement is temporary, and without prejudice to
the claims of either Government. A vast quantity of corres has
since taken place, but I think that I have annexed as much as you
will care to look at.
Proposed convention (
F.O./554 of 69).
Simply states that at that date, it was of no use reopening the
question (
F.O./6150/70,
4 June).
Besides this correspondence, the Legislature of
B. Columbia moved
a Resolution (
Gov 5724/70) for the settlement of the question in
their interest.
A Memorial, said to have been signed by a number of Residents in
Victoria,
V.I., (
F.O./917/70) praying for annexation to the States,
and addressed to the President,
was stated by
M Musgrave to be
the production of some forty aliens there resident (
Gov 3869/70).
The Canadian View of the question is given in M/37/68
(M37/68/69).
To sum up, the proposed Convention has lapsed by time owing to
the opposition with which it met in the States; which Americans and
English have alike sought a termination of the difficulty according
to their respective views.
Incidentally, the following questions have been raised:
The relative professional ranks of the American and British
commanding
officers.
As to the taking of an American Census in the
Island. The States have abandoned this project.
Claim of
Washington Territory to decide on Civil cases from the
Islands. These papers are in circulation. They shall be sent you as
soon as possible, if you wish to see them. A minute of yours is now
being drafted.
Printed copy of corres annexed for reference.
M Monsell
It appears to me that this
Washington Law Court may get
us into some difficulty. A state tribunal being an echo
of the popular feeling will of course proceed recklessly in
its judgements, according to the popular view of the popular rights.
Then will come the question of enforcement. Even if Enforced
as bet American subjects, the Act of Enforcement
w be
contrary to the notion of a mere joint military occupation
and
the practice of enforcement on the U.S. side, unaccompanied by
the exercise of any civil authority on our side would establish
a precedent against us. On the other hand, if a population grows
up, it is no doubt requisite that they
sh be subject to some
civil authority.
If it belongs to G Britain at all, it belongs to
B. Columbia
(vide Lg in Act of Parl)—and their
Courts
w have in our view the same right of interference
as those of
Washington.
Either both Courts ought to act therefore—avowedly—or
neither. And it appears to me that the matter ought to be
placed before [
M Firth?]
in this light. I am not myself aware
that there is any reason for desiring one form of equality
more than another, so long as equality is secured.
If the U.S. Courts give judgement in a matter in which British
subjects are concerned—it will I suppose be necessary
effectually to resist Enforcement of their decree—w I
suppose the Military Officers on both sides, might not
improbably agree to do, in an amicable way, if they are left alone.
It seems to me however that the W.D. letter is almost a
direction to allow the
Washington Courts to enforce their decrees.
I
sh be disposed to write to the
F.O. in something of this
sense.
Only
M E.T.
must not be at liberty to quote the letter from
the War department, but must find his own way to opening up the subject.