LAST PHASE OF OREGON BOUNDARY 209
laws. To prevent a repetition of this outrage, until the gov- ernment of the United States could be apprised of it, I have placed troops on the island, with such orders as I have deemed necessary to effect this object." To the Adjutant General at Washington he made the somewhat indefinite statement that he "disclaimed any intention of asserting any sovereignty over the island of San Juan, beyond that which the necessity of the case had demanded." 42 Ambiguous as this is I decline the task of harmonizing it with the proclamation of Pickett. That proclamation was the establishment of a complete Amer- ican sovereignty or words are meaningless. But did Great Britain violate the treaty as Harney alleges? That would make some difference, certainly.
The gravamen of the charge against the British authorities was that they attempted to arrest an American citizen and take him to Victoria for trial tinder British laws for an of- fense committed against a British subject. The offense was not denied (indeed, the offender, perhaps needlessly, avowed Tils'" deed) a Hudson's Bay Company's hog was shot but the incident of the alleged attempted arrest is variously de- scribed. Harney did not get his story straight. As explained to Douglas the soldiers were ordered to San Juan
"to protect the American citizens residing on that island from the insults and indignities which the British au- thorities of Vancouver's Island, and the establishment of the Hudson's Bay Company recently offered them, by sending a British ship-of-war from Vancouver's Island to convey the chief factor of the Hudson's Bay Company to San Juan for the purpose of seizing an American citizen and forcibly transporting him to Vancouver's Island to be tried by British laws.' 43
This inaccurate account gave Douglas a fine opportunity to deny the charge. That Harney was reflecting the popular feeling in identifying the Company with the government there can be no doubt, nor can it be doubted that there was some justification. It was not, however, technically correct, and Douglas, could point out that the Company's officers had no
42 Ibid, p. 38.
43 Ibid, p. 22.
