States had acquired a right of way to the Pacific by pur-
chasing the Louisiana territory from Napoleon, who had
not the naval strength to hold it. It is hard to understand
how so learned and impartial an historian as Fiske should
make such a mistake; possibly his sources of information
were influenced by some of the disputes which arose in
connection with the various international boundary
questions in this part of the world. The identification
and monumenting of our historic sites should, however,
help to neutralize the effect of any little errors of this kind
in the future.

“Another good reason for the identification of Mac-
kenzie’s Rock is that it marks the end of a journey which,
in my opinion, is the cause of Canada’s having an outlet
on the Pacific Coast to-day.

“To support this somewhat sweeping statement I
should explain that this country, although elaborately
surveyed about the time of Mackenzie’s visit, was without
an owner for many years afterwards.

“The reason for this was the terms of the Nootka
Convention whereby Spain abandoned all her claims to the
sovereignty of this part of the Pacific Coast. To quote
Howay and Scholefield’s ‘History of British Columbia’:
‘Neither treaty nor declaration ever transferred or
attempted to transfer the abandoned Spanish sovereignty.’
The land was left ‘without sovereignty in any European
state, a sort of no-man’s land, to which title could be
acquired by entering into possession and exercising domin-
ion over it.’

“Such dominion was exercised by the North West
Company, whose traders entered into possession of the
country by establishing posts west of the Rocky Mountains.
Their advance agent, Alexander Mackenzie, arrived on
the coast while the question of the restitution of the lands
at Nootka Sound of which Meares claimed to have been
dispossessed was still under discussion and recorded his
mighty achievement on ‘The Rock’—Mackenzie’s Rock—
a few weeks after Captain George Vancouver had camped
near and, perhaps, on the very spot.”

F. W. HOWAY.

Page Nine