SAN JUAN AND SECESSION Possible Relation to the War of tlie Rebellion -- Did General Harney Try to Make Trouble With English to Aid the Conspiracy ? — A Careful Review of His Orders and the Circumstances Attending the Disputed Possessions During the Year 1859. BY GRANVILLE O. HALLER, Colonel U. S. A., Eetired. (Captain and Brevet Major, Commanding I Company, Fourth . Infantry, and Fort Townsend, Wash., in 1859.) The foJlowliifj intercstiiK/ paper o)i tlie con- troversy between the Enrjtish and United States authorities in 1859 for tlie possession of San Juan island was read l)y Colonel GranriUe (). Halter, of Seattle, at the meet- ing of the Loyal Ler/iou on Thursday evening, Jan. !(>, 1S96, at the Tacoma hotel: Reprinted for R. L. MCORMICK. Gift. nAg'05 SAN JUAN AND SECESSION N 1853, by act of conoress, that portion of Oregon territory north of the Columbia river and north of the 4Gth degree, north latitude, to the east of the Columbia river, where that degree crosses said river, was set apart and organized, as Washington territory. In 1853 the autonomy was organized by Isaac I. Stevens, the first governor (an ex-engineer officer of the United States army, highly distinguished in the Mexican war), and en route to the Pacific coast conducted a railroad survey across the continent, but who resigned ^y ^y ^'' I to accept the offices of governor and superintendent of Indian affairs ^^ in Washington territory. In 1854 the legislature organized counties and defined their boundaries. The Haro archipelago was included in Whatcom county. When the assessor went the rounds of his county, he found on San Juan island a large Hock of sheep, and assessed them as the property of the Hudson Bay com- pany; the chief trader, Mr. Charles John Griffin, notified the assessor that the island belonged to (ireat Britain. When the tax collector called to collect the taxes, the chief trader ignored him and his credentials, claiming he was on a British isle. The sheriff then visited the island to collect delinquent taxes, when he Vvas informed that the island belonged to her majesty, the queen of Great Britam! Whether the island did or did not belong to the queen was not for him to decide; he had come to collect the delinquent taxes, and, not receiving pay, he levied on a band of sheep, and sold at public auction some thirty head or more to cover the' amount assessed and the costs of collecting. James Douglass, the presiding officer of the Hudson Bay company in British .America, and the governor of Vancouver island, in May, 1855, protested to the governor of Washington territory (Stevens), against such proceedings, assuring him that San Juan and all the islands of the Haro archipelago were within his jurisdiction and under the protection of the British laws; that he had the orders of her majesty's ministers to treat these islands as part of the British dominions; all, of course, to little effect. He then caused an account to be made out, showing the number of rams and ewes seized and sold, and of constructive damages resulting from the removal of their rams and loss thereby of Iambs. These he caused to be forwarded to the British minister in Washington City, D. C, to present to the secretary of state of the United States, and demand indemnity for the past and security for the future. These papers were duly presented to Governor Marcy (secretary under President Pierce), who, on referring to the treaty to ascertain if San Juan island was English soil or not, was confounded by the peculiar wording of the first article of the treaty — no channel was named, so the boundary was to follow the middle of a channel undetermined. His broad mind recognized at once that San Juan island was within "fairly disputed limits." The treaty not having disposed of it, the island had not been relieved from the operation of the treaty of 1827, of joint occupation. On the 14th of July, 1855, Governor Marcy, in that terse English of his, wrote to Governor Stevens that "He (the president) has instructed me to say to you — 3 — SAN JUAN AND SECESSION tiiat the ollit-ers of the territory should abstain from all acts on disputed (jrounds wliic'h are calculated to provoke any conflicts, so far as it can be done without implying the concession to the authority of Great Britain of an exclusive right ti'. '^r the premises. "The title ought to be settled before either jjartj- should exclude the other by force, or exercise complete and exclusive sovereign rights within fairly dis- jjuted limits. Application will be made to the British government to interpose witli the local authorities on the northern borders of our territory to abstain trorn like acts of exclusive ownership, with the explicit understanding that any forbearance on either side to assert the rights, respectively, shall not be construed into any concession to the adverse party. "Bj' a conciliatory and moderate course on both sides, it is sincerely hojjed that all difl["iculties will be avoided until an adjustment of the boundary line can 1)0 made in a manner mutually satisfactory. The government of the United States will do what it can to have the line established at an early period." To understand the sound common sense of Governor Marcj-'s letter, we must remember that after Lord Aberdeen had intimated to Mr. McLane, our minister m Ix)ndon (May 15, 1840), that he would instruct Mr. Pakenham to ofl'er the 40th jiarallel to salt water (Birch's bay), then deflect so as to allow England all of Vancouver island; that he would probably name the middle of the Canal de Haro for the boundary line, we find (May 10, 1846), that Sir John Pelly, governor of the Hudson Bay company in London, obtained an interview and effected a cliange in his lordship's mind, and, in the project of the treaty, Lord Aberdeen aimed at Captain Vancouver's red line (on his, Vancouver's, chart of the Gulf of Georgia, used at the time), showing the track of his vessel from Admiralty inlet northward, which he found navigable, west of Whidby island, as the boundary line he desired. Sir John Pelly wanted that finest of the islands, as he called Whidby island, also, but he admitted that he did not see how that could be included. Lord Russell to Lord Lyons, December 16, 1859, well says: "Had Lord Aberdeen and Sir John Pelly obtained the consent of the United States government to their views in favor of the channel marked as navigable by Vancouver, or had Mr. jMcLane and Mr. Senator Benton obtained the assent of Lord Aberdeen and Mr. Pakenham to their opinion that Haro's strait was the channel intended by the treaty, such agreement would have been conclusive. But o.?parate interpretations, not communicated to the other party to a treaty, can- not be taken as decisive in a disputed question." The utmost harmony was re-established between the local governments; the United States had sent out, as the boundary commissioner, Archibald Campbell, Esq., and Great Britain had sent Captain James Prevost as first commissioner ard Captain George H. Richards as assistant commissioner and hydrographer, botli of R. N., to determine the water boundary. When General Harney visited Puget Sound, Mr. Campbell was located near the 49th parallel, engaged in establishing and marking the international boundary line on land; the English commissioners iverc engaged in hydrographic surveys. The commissioners had held repeated meetings and presented their claims, but the wording of the treaty did not con- form to either claim. The English commissioners admitted that they were too far to the east, but their surveys discovered a channel for deep sea-going vessels just east of San Juan island, which conformed more nearly to the wording of the treaty, and they offered to compromise on that. Mr. Campbell insisted the Canal — 4 — S A N JUAN AND SECESSION de Haro separated Vancouver's island from the continent, and was the line Mr. McLane had assented to, etc. The commissioners had reported to their respective governments as far as they had gone, leaving their superiors to resolve the boundary problem. Another matter (when (ieneral Harney visited the Sound, in 1859), worthy of our serious consideration was the unfortunate state of feeling existing through- out the quasi United States. We were no longer united. The "irrepressible con- flict" had arrayed the North against the South, and bitter strife in congress iinluced several states to prepare for a violent separation. We were, at this time, in a much more perilous condition than we were in President Polk's term, when about to fight England for 54 degrees 40 minutes, and Mexico for Texas. Xow, the South, with Texas, was about leady to tight the North, if not allowed to secede, and a war with England, then, would, without doubt, have greatly helped to secure their independence. General Harney's conduct is inexplicable, unless it v\as "'a design and an object with it, the Southern secession from the beginning." The historj' of Washington territory confutes the assumptions of the general against Governor Douglass and the Hudson Bay company. The evidence, although vol connected with the boundary question, is, I think, pertinent to a more thor- ough understanding of our relations with our neighbors across the line, who stand accused by the general, because it will throw side lights on their actions, which are always more reliable than mere accusations. It is a part of our history that Governor Stevens, of Washington territory, and General Joel Palmer, of Oregon, wei'e appointed commissioners to negotiate v,ith Indians for lands appropriated to white settlements by acts of congress. These commissioners inaugurated a grand council, at which the Yakima Indians (fourteen' tribes), the Nez Perce and the confederate band located on or near the Walla Walla (three tribes), all lying on. the east side of the Cascade mountains, in Oregon and Washington, were to meet them at their council ground on the Walla Walla river. This assembly made it possible for Kamiaken, a very intelli- gent chief of the Yakima Indians, to combine all who were unwilling to part with th.o homes of their forefathers into a seoet association, pledged to exterminate the hated white settlers. The persistent efforts of the commissioners were gaining chief by chief, with the possibility that the luiwilling Indians would lose their homes. In this extremity it was proposed to massacre the commissioners and small guard of soldiers, but Kamiaken advised the disafi'ected chiefs to sign the treaty — the whites^ had not conformed to their treaty promises to the Indians on the Willamette; it was only to gain time — and it would be a great advantage, while the whites considered the Indians friendly, to have time to procure powder and lead, and, when winter set in, the Columbia would be frozen over and steamers tied up; at the same time the snow on the Cascade mountains would make the crossing impracticable; then, at a signal, their warriors would fall, simultaneously, upon the unsuspecting whites, which could not fail to destroy them, having no escape, and no assistance could reach them in time. It was my fortune to sound the tocsin of war, before the winter set in, and suddenly Oregon and Washington found a bloody war on their hands. The local Indians on Puget Sound, instigated by the Yakima-Klickitats, made a raid on the unprotected settlers, massacring the pioneers, their wives and children, and setting lire to their dwelling places. Although Governor Stevens had applied, early in his administration, to the — 5 — SAN JUAN AND SECESSION secretary of war for 1,000 stands of arms and anununition, for any eniergent-y,. the secretary declined until tlio militia were enrolled and the allotment deter- mined. Hence, our territory was tal:> 017 139 641 4 • SAN JVAN AND S E C E S iS J N PERSISTENT FALSE HISTORY. There are many statements publislied as history of Washington that are wholly groundless; there are two of then, so often, asserted that thev are accepted as rel.abe and likely to crystallize into history. One persistently States that D,- Parens A\ h.tnian, by riding through midwinter's storms and snow 1842-43 to neaH "foo;/'''-" "^'"^^ ^-^^-^ ^•■- *'- British, winle the fact 'remains Ihat nea.lj 1,000 enugrants had arrived in the country (W42) before the doctor had started. The other ,s even more persistently atlirmed, to the effect that (Jeneral Harney had saved to the United States the island of San Juan from the g,-asp of PiStt '"^ *""""■ ""'"1^^'"""' '^"^1 '^'' g^J'«"t conduct of Captain The nulitary occupation, as a matter of course, would be distasteful to (ire^ Britain and her minister in \Yashington City, immediately on hearing "That ^.eport had reached the city that troops of the United State's had actualfy taken possession of the island of San Juan," demanded a prompt explanation, '^nd we lc?rn from his answer to the explanation: rvn""i Z "^^''^-'"'^P' ^^ l'^'- »^«.i^«ty's government to learn as to the past, that (^oneral Harney did not act upon that occasion upon any order from the United Slates government, but entirely upon his own responsibility." 0" the 20th of October, 1850, General Scott arrived first at Fort Vancouver, ;■' .'II ^'''P*''^^ ^''^'^^' ■i^'^g^ advocate, and Colonel Casev a member of the general court-martial in session there-made possible bv" 'the Sollenno incident. In concluding, I wish to say, inasmuch as General Harney is dead, and mo>t all the officers connected with the military occupation, that this compilation nun- be ^ -al Scott" did a -reat wrong to the general through ,)ealoT;-'y. ^ Respectfully submitted, GRANVILLE O. HALLER. Colonel U. S. A retired (Captain and Brevet major, Commanding I Companv. I'ourth Infantry and Fort Townsend. Wash., in 18.-)!).). [Reprinted from The Tacoma Sunday Ledger of January 19, 18!Ki.]