Open Collections

     North American.
o.
E P 0 ET
ON  THE LOCATION  OF
THE   BRITISH-ALASKAN   BOUNDARY
UNDER  THE
ANGLO-RUSSIAN   CONVENTION   OF   182 5..
BY
COLONEL  D.  R. CAMERON, R,A., C.M.G
Colonial Office,
September 1886.  TABLE OF CONTENTS.
Report on the Location of the British Alaskan Boundary.
Page.
Subject.
1-21
„-3
3-12
4-5
5
„-6
EEPOET.
Plan of the report.
The boundary denned   by   the   Anglo-Eussian Convention  of £| February
1825.
Terms used in the Convention in their general acceptation.
The Negotiators.
Topographical knowledge of the coast line at the date of the Convention.
The Water Bound art.
Eecognition of the Prince of Wales Island.
Southernmost point of the island: Knowledge of its latitude and longitude
during the negotiations ; still undetermined.
Cape Chacon and Point Nunez.
Cape Muzon.
Eeference in the Convention to the latitude and longitude of the southernmost
point of Prince of Wales Island was merely for the purpose of recognition of
the island named.
$he line between Prince of Wales Island and Portland Channel determined
by geographical features.
Difference between the force of the references to latitude 54° 40' N. in the
Conventions of Eussia with Great Britain and the United States.
Portland Channel—its recognition.
Vancouver's use of both canal and channel with regard to Portland Channel,
Eussian, French, and English synonyms.
Canal and channel used synonymously by the Eussian and British Negotiators,
54° 45' N. mentioned by the British Plenipotentiary as the latitude of the
northern side of the ocean entrance to Portland Channel, to the Eussian
Plenipotentiaries ; the same latitude on Eussian Charts of 1802 and 1826.
54° 45£' Vancouver's latitude for a point half a mile south of the northern side
of the entrance.
United States chart No. 225 corrected to 1882 shows the same entrance
between 54° 46' N. and 54° 45'N, but shows the boundary as passing
through Observatory Inlet and not entering Portland Channel until it reaches
about 55° 2' N. latitude.
The British chart No. 2431 of 1865, upon which the United States chart is
professedly based, does not show any such boundary.
United States chart No. 710 agrees with United States chart 223 in topographical location of the ocean entrance to Portland Channel.
Vancouver's references to the channel-its head mouth ^^fefe^'
Sir Charles Bagot's mention of the latitude of its mouth clearly distinguish
the channel referred to in the Convention.
o   23036.
G. 94.
a 2 IV
Page.
Subject.
9-13
,-10
11-13
,-21
,-14
»    >5
,-21
15,
17-18
19
» 21
21
The line joining Prince of Wales Island and Portland Channel was not intended
by the Negotiators to be a parallel of latitude line.
A great circle line indicated.
Question of sovereignty over open sea bordering on the line between the Prince
of Wales Island and Portland Channel, and over islands that may be traversed
by such a line.
Portland Channel—its boundaries.
Its inland termination according to the surveys of Vancouver 1793—and of
Pender 1868.
A mid-way (au milieu) line through (jusqu'a, ce qu'elle touche la terre ferine)
Portland Channel.
Suggestion for its approximate realisation.
Boundaries of Portland Channel: point at which the line running northerly
leaves the channel: its importance.
Misinterpretations of the 3rd Article of the Convention with regard to the
latitude of the head of Portland Channel.
Correct interpretation.
Origin of the reference to 56° N. latitude.
Portland Channel to the parallel of 56° N. latitude.
The point at which the line, running northward, strikes the parallel of 56° N.
latitude. 1
56° N.  LATITUDE  TO  THE  MERIDIAN  OP  141° W.  LONGITUDE.
Inland topography—knowledge of, by the Negotiators of the Convention.
Vancouver's inland delineation was not relied upon by the Negotiators: its
probable meaning and origin. #
Portland Channel and the parallel of 56° N. latitude being connected by a great
circle line, the boundary thence proceeds northward by the tops of the
mountains next the ocean.
Mountains bordering the coast were proposed first by the Eussians as their
eastern limit.
Successive modifications of British proposals with regard to the eastern boundary
until nnally they accept the mountains bordering the coast.
Substitution—at the instance of Eussia-of the line of the tops of the mountains
next the ocean instead of the line of their seaward bases.
Eussian proposal to abandon the ocean-bordering mountains as their eastern
b7laBrit?sh      t0 ad°Pt ^ UQif°rm Wldth °f 10 mar*e Wues-reJeTteS
The British Plenipotentiary reports that the terms required by his instructions
for Great Britain have been acceded to and embodied in the Convention
The British Plenipotentiary is informed that the terms of the Conv^n™ »
exactly conformable to his instructions. Convention are
^bouTd^ °f ^ W°rd ^ aS ■*"** the ^termination of the inland
That the shore line of inlets was not included in the tPrm SI ;a „u
The Meridian line op UP W. longitude to the Arctic Ocean.
*i Page.
Subject.
21-22
22
>,
,,-29
,,-23
23-24
24
25
,,-26
26
27
28
£8r29
29
29-32
33-59
59-67
67-68
69-72
Probable Cost op Marking the British Alaskan Boundab*.
Previous estimates, they were based on erroneous views of the interpretation
of the Anglo-Eussian Convention.
Partial demarcation, its disadvantages internationally and economically.
300,000/. now estimated as the probable cost of completing the work.
The conditions upon which this estimate is based.
Eemarks on Views op the United States Government with
regard to the convention.
" The boundary is supposed to follow a mountain range"—remarks on.
The unreliability of inland details on Vancouver's charts having been noted by
the Negotiators, and dealt with by them accordingly, cannot be used in
support of an interpretation of the Convention based on the assumption that
the Negotiators were deceived as to the features of the country by those
details.
" There would seem to be ground ... for supposing that he (Vancouver) at one
« time regarded Pearse Canal of later geographers as the lower part of Port-
" land Canal,"—does not adequately recognise Vancouver's detailed, clear,
and never modified description of Portland Canal as including the part
recently called Pearse Canal.
Wales Island, south of the ocean entrance to Portland Channel, is perfectly
distinct from Prince of Wales Island ; and sovereignty over Prince of Wales
Island is not affected by the course of the boundary jn the neighbourhood of
Wales Island.
That a parallel of latitude boundary between Prince of Wales Island and Portland Channel was intended,—'is not tenable.
The assumption that the terms of the Convention imply that Portland Channel
extends to 56° N. latitude is erroneous.
The boundary is not shown as jn  Portland  Inlet in Commander Pender's
Survey.
Probable origin of placing the boundary erroneously in the recently called
Portland Inlet.
Portland Inlet being more navigable than the ocean entrance to Portland
Ghannel did not influence the Negotiators. The first Eussian proposal was
to draw the line to, and thence not through, the canal, but only so far as to
reach the coast-mountains.
That the line—northward from Portland. Channel to 56° N. latitude—should be
" in continuation of the general trend of the mid-channel line,"—is opposed
to the terms of the Convention.
Professor Dall's views as to the interpretation of the Convention.
His objection to the line along the mountains bordering the sea :—« This would
j§ give us in many places a mere strip of territory, not more than three miles
". wide, meandering in every direction."
The general tendency of Professor Dall's arguments, and its inconsistency with
the circumstances of the case.
No.
2.
3-34.
APPENDICES.
Memorandum of the circumstances which led to the conclusion of the
Convention.
Official correspondence of the Negotiators of the Convention.-Copies
and extracts from the Eecord Office.
35-39.  Extracts from Vancouver's VoTAGES.-Explanatory of topography
referred to in the Convention.
40.
41.
Eussian Convention with the United States, fT April 1824.
Eussian Convention with Great Britain, -|£ February 1825. Tl
Page.
Subject.
72-78
78-79
80-83
No.
42. Despatch of 19 January 1886 from the United States Minister, transmitting Mr. Secretary Bayard's instructions (Washington, 20.11.85.)
with regard to the boundary.
43-44. Replies from the Hydrographic Department of the British Admiralty
with regard to tides, latitudes and longitudes, and chart nomenclature.
45.
1.
6.
7.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
Extract from Dominion of Canada Sessional Papers, Vol. XL, 1878,
No. 125, details of proposed organization and of expenditure in
marking the boundary.
LIST OF MAPS.
Copy of a tracing  from Vancouver's Atlas, illustrating, by-an added
red line, his exploration of Portland Channel.    See Appendix 35,
pp. 62—66.
Copies of parts of Vancouver's Charts VII. and XII., superimposed,
showing that the inland mountain topography was not the result of
survey, and was intended by him to represent merely a generally
mountainous region.
Copy of part of Vancouver's Chart VII., including the Prince of
Wales's Archipelago, Observatory Inlet, and Portland Channel.
Copy of part of a Eussian Chart of 1802, supposed to have been consulted by the Negotiators of the Anglo-Eussian Convention of 1825,
showing mountains along the water's edge. See pp. 1 and 23, and
Appendix No. 29, p. 55.
Copy of part of a Russian Chart of 1826, illustrating the Eussian
interpretation of Vancouver's mountain topography. The Chart, it
may be assumed, was prepared from data collected prior to the
Convention. Portland Canal is not named on it. Observatory
Inlet is named.
Copy of part of a Colonial Office manuscript map, 1831, showing
Eussian territory to be limited by the western shore line of Portland
Channel from the ocean to the Channel's head. The islands, excepting Fillmore Island (see Map No. 15), which was not coloured,
being allotted to British territory.
Copy of part of a Eussian Chart of 1844, showing Portland Channel
and Observatory Inlet distinctly separate ; and a trading establishment—up to 1835—at Nasse, and another on the Stikine.
Copy of part of a Eussian Chart of 1849, showing Prince of Wales
Island, Point Wales (on Wales Island), and mountains along the
water's edge of the coast.
Copy of part of a Eussian Chart of 1853, showing the channel recently
(since 1868) called Pearse Channel as part of Portland Channel;
the site of Nasse Factory in latitude 55° N., and mountains bordering the water's edge along the coast.
A copy of part of Arrowsmith's Map of 1863, showing sites of trading
establishments on the coast in latitudes 52^° N., 55° N., and 57° N.
Copy of part of British Admiralty Chart, No. 2,430, Vancouver's Island
to Cordova Bay.    (1856.)
Copy of part of British Admiralty Chart, No. 2,431, Cordova Bav to
Cross Sound.    (1865.) |
United States Chart, No. 713, Eeconnaissance Shores of Tlevak.
Copy of part of United "States Chart, No. 225, S.W. Coast of Alaska-
Alexander Archipelago, 1882.
Copy of part of United States Chart, No. 710.
Copy of Pender's Survey (1868) of the northern extremity of Portland Channel.
Reduced copy || of the whole of Pender's Survey of Observatory
Inlet and Portland Channel. J
*£> REPORT.
L I
No. 1.
The following remarks on the location of the British Alaskan boundary, in respect of
their order, follow the sequence indicated in the Convention by which the boundary is
defined; and in respect of their matter, are suggested by interpretations of the terms of
the treaty opposed to the intention of its framers.
The order adopted, following the northerly course of the line, is :—
The water boundary:
1st, from the southernmost point of Prince of Wales Island to Portland Channel.
2nd, the course of the line through Portland Channel.
The land boundary:
1st, from Portland Channel to the parallel of 56° North latitude.
2nd, from 56° North latitude to contact with the meridian of 141° West longitude.
3rd, from contact with the meridian of 141° West longitude to the Arctic Ocean.
The matter aims at a demonstration of the intentions of the framers of the Convention,
founded upon records of the negotiations, maps, charts, and the wording of the treaty
itself; and brings into contrast with the conclusions thus arrived at, views inconsistent
with them, and based, it is believed, on imperfect information.
The interpretation of the Convention supported by the arguments now submitted,
will be found to be an unstrained and natural version of the terms of the treaty, consistent
in every respect with the inferences to be drawn from the records of the negotiations
and not inconsistent in any single point with the geographical features referred to.
On the other hand, it is shown that the alternative interpretations abound with
untenable assumptions, improbabilities, inconsistencies, and contradictions. These
pupport the view that the treaty description of the boundary—in every detail except as
regards the meridian line to the Arctic,—is inaccurate, incomplete, or impracticable.
The interpretation maintained in this report to be that intended by Russia and Great
Britain, is precise and definite ; and, consistently with the attitude of the contracting
parties at the date of their Convention, indicates a line easier to be recognised and
marked than any other which could, even now, be described in words.
The British Alaskan Boundary is defined by the  Convention of f|- February 1825 Appendix
between Great Britain and Russia. No. 41, p. 69.
A general sketch of the origin, and of the course of the negotiations which terminated
in the Convention, is contained in a Confidential Memorandum drawn up for the use of Appendix
the Foreign Office in 1835, and reprinted in 1868. No. 2, p. 29.
The Right Hon. Mr. George Canning was Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs
during the negotiations. His Excellency Sir Charles Bagot was the British Plenipotentiary who commenced the negotiations at St. Petersburgh. They were concluded by
Mr. (afterwards Sir) Stratford Canning. Count de Nesselrode, Imperial Secretary of
State, and Monsieur de Poletica, Imperial Councillor of State, were the Russian
Plenipotentiaries, and Count de Lieven was the Russian Ambassador throughout.
Of the Articles of the Convention, Nos. 3 to 6 inclusive alone relate to the subject of Appendix
this report. . No.4i,P.70.
Sir Stratford Canning—who, as British Plenipotentiary, concluded the Convention—
wrote of the terms in which the agreement was expressed as follows :—" The Articles
| of the Convention depend for their force entirely on the general acceptation of the Appendix^
" terms in which they are expressed." '    'p' ° '
At the date of the negotiations there was a fairly accurate knowledge of the ocean
topography referred to in the Articles just specified. This knowledge, commop to the
Russian and British authorities concerned in the negotiations, was chiefly derived from
Vancouver's explorations with H.M. ships " Discovery " and " Chatham " in the years
Mr  G Canning when instructing Sir Charles Bagot on the 20th January 1824, refers Appendix
d to a Russian map published in 1822.* No-9> P-35*
him to Vancouver's chart and
In Humboldt's Political Essay on the Kingdom of New Spain, 8vo. ed., 1811,
Vol II, pp. 388-9, he refers to a beautiful official Russian chart of 1802, embracing
from 40° to 72° N. lat., and from 125° to 224° long. (Paris meridian); the names m
Russian characters. A Russian chart exactly answering the above description, with_ the
exception that longitude is reckoned from Ferro (=18° W. long, from Greenwich), is in
* It may safely be assumed that this Russian map of 1822, in its details, closely followed the Eussian map
published in 1826.    See attached Map, No. 5.—D. E. C.
0   23036. A Appendix
Map No. 4.
Appendix
No. 8, p. 34.
Docket.
Appendix
No. 7, p. 34.
Appendix
possession of the Hydrographic Department of the British Admiralty (Reference No. 546,
-A.C.); and it agrees with the size given by Humboldt in metres and decimals.
These maps embrace the region touched on by the Convention of 1825. They
profess to include the most recent discoveries of Russian and foreign navigators. The
Admiralty copy has on its face at the right-hand side the following manuscript note:—
ft N.B.—The Russians claim the coast of America as far as the coloured part is
marked." It is also docketed, " Chart of the N.E. part of Russia, and the claim of
P the Russians to that part of the American coast where coloured."
This colouring assigns Prince of Wales and Revilla Gigedo Islands to Russia, and
terminates on the continent in Behrns Canal at 55° 50' N. lat.
The note would indicate that the map had been consulted with reference to the
negotiations of 1824-5.
The details of the map are largely taken from Vancouver's charts of 1798.
On 20th January 1824 Mr. G. Canning also transmitted a sketch map from a Russian
chart he had received from Sir John Barrow, Secretary to the Admiralty; and, with
reference to the chart itself, Lord Francis  Conyngham notes  (Record Office, Bussia
Domestic yo]   l4^ 13 januaiy 1824), "it is copied from Vancouver's Survey."
Various >
The chart referred to by Lord F. Conyngham was probably the Russian chart of
1802, previously mentioned.
Of part of the islands off the Alaskan coast, Humbo'dt says (Vol. II., p. 394) : " It
" appears that the great island of the King George Archipelago has in fact been examined
" with more care and more minutely by Russian navigators than by Vancouver. Of this
" we may easily convince ourselves by comparing attentively * * * * the charts
" published at St. Petersbourg in the Imperial depot in 1802 and the charts of Van-
" couver." King George's Archipelago mentioned by Humboldt is only a small part of
the survey by Vancouver, which included the Russian post " Sitka."
The Russian Plenipotentiaries, in the course of the negotiations, referred to English
maps as furnishing the most recent and reliable information.
In replying to the British Plenipotentiaries' second Projet, the Russian Plenipotentiaries
So. 14, p. 43. remarked : " D'apres les cartes les plus r^centes et les meilleures publiees en Angleterre,
" les etablissemens de la Compagnie de la Baie de Hudson ne se rapprochent des cdtes
" que par le 53me et le 54me degr6, et Ton ne saurait prouver que sur aucun point ils
" arrivent jusqu'au grand ocean."
Again, on the ff March 1824, in remarking on Sir Charles Bagot's rejoinder to the
Projet just mentioned, the Russian Plenipotentiaries remark :—
" Qu'au reste d'apres le teinoignage des cartes les plus r^centes publiees en Angleterre,
" il n'existe aucun etablissement Anglais ni sur la cote meme du continent, ni au nord
" du 54 degre de latitude septentrionale."
Then on the 5th April 1824 Count de Nesselrode, in writing to Count de Lieven,
remarks :—
" On ne peut effectivement assez le repeter, d'apres le t6moignage des cartes les plus
" recentes, l'Angleterre ne possede aucun etablissement ni h la hauteur du Portland
" Canal, ni a bord meme de 1'ocean."    *    *    *
The maps of Arrowsmith, hydrographer to His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales,
were noted for their reliability at the time of the Convention; he made maps for the
Hudson's Bay Company, and the Company placed all their topographical information at
his disposal. A map of North America first published in 1795, but corrected up to
1814 (now in the library of the Royal Geographical Society), is dedicated by Arrowsmith
to the Hudson's Bay Company in recognition of their liberal communications to him.
Mr. Stanford of Long Acre procured from the late Mr. Arrowsmith, and has now in his
possession, many original sketches and surveys of Hudson Bay Company's territory.
But, for the details of the Alaskan coast Arrowsmith was almost wholly indebted to
Vancouver. On the other hand, it was probably to Arrowsmith's maps the Russian
Plenipotentiaries referred, when they spoke of the position of the Hudson Bay factories
for the title of the map of JMorth America says it includes " all the new discoveries on
" the interior parts of North America," and Vancouver's charts are confessedly on'v
coast-line surveys. J
H. S. Tanner, a leading United States' geographer, who published an Atlas (now in
the Royal Geographical Society's library) of North America, at Washington in 18<>2
(corrected to 1825) speaks in his preface of" Arrowsmith and of Vancouver ;" he refers
Appendix
No. 16, p. 45
Appendix
No. 17, p. 47 As will be understood from what immediately follows, Tanner's depreciatory remark
cTid not apply to the south-west coast of Alaska, but to the interior of tie Unfted SteteT
&c, for he goes on to not.ce « The Atlas to Vancouver's Voyages," savin- •-« These
charts, with the exception of a few points" (none of these points affect the subject of
this report)     to be noticed hereafter, were used almost exclusively " (by himself^ « for tho
western coast below the latitude of 60° N.   The high estimation in which Vancouver's
charts are deservedly held by men of science renders any remarks here, in their com-
'• mendation, entirely superfluous." '
Tanner took special interest in the north-west coast of America, for he discusses the
question of the claim of Russia raised by the Imperial Ukase of 1821, whence originated
the Conventions of 1824-5 between Russia and Great Britain, and between Russia and
the United States.
It is thus apparent that both Russian and British authorities, when negotiating the
Convention of 1825, had access to the most recent and trustworthy sources of topographical knowledge with respect to the north-west coast of North America.
The Russian authorities referred during the negotiations to British charts and the
ritisn authorities referred to Russian charts.
B
The water boundary is   described by the  3rd  Article  of the  Convention in  the
following terms:—" La ligne de demarcation entre les Possessions des Hautes Parties
' Contractantes, sur la cote du continent et les lies de l'Amerique Nord-Ouest sera
" tracee ainsi qu'il suit:—
| A partir
" trouve sous
Water
Boundart.
Appendix
No. 41, p. 70,
du point le plus meridional de Pile dite Prince of Wales, lequel point se
la parallele de 54me degre, 40 minutes de latitude Nord, et entre le 131me
et le 133me degre de longitude Ouest (Meridien de Greenwich), la dite ligne rei
au Nord le long de la passe dite Portland Channel jusqu'au point de la terr
--\i\  olio of+oint lo   ^l-!me J„r_„X A* l„*:t.„J~  AT„..J  "
ou elle atteint le 56me degre de latitude Nord.
emontera
e ferme
The Prince of Wales Island above referred to is recognised at once by the recorded
latitude and longitude of its southern coast.
The island is the principal feature of what Vancouver named the Prince of Wales's
A    , .    t        f\$m 8vo Edn- Vol. IV., p. 273
Archipelago (see Vancouver 4to £do>> yoL jj   f, 419 and Chart VII.  of Vancouver's
Atlas).
One of the earliest map references to what Vancouver had called " Prince of Wales's
Archipelago" as "Prince of Wales Island" is to be found in the Atlas of Tanner,
already alluded to, published at Washington in 1822, and improved in 1825.
The first record of official use of the name " Prince of Wales Island f appears to be
in the first Projet submitted in 1824 by the Russian Plenipotenitaries, in which the
name " Tile du Prince de Galles" occurs; and subsequently the name was adopted by
the British Plenipotentiary.
Vancouver correctly supposed that the lands to which he had given the name -J Prince
of Wales's Archipelago," did not form a single island ; but he had not verified his
supposition; and consequently, on his chart, their sub-division into separate islands does
not appear.
Hence  it was natural for the Plenipotentiaries to refer to the   Archipelago as an.
island.
-xr ,    tt r -rv 8vo Ed., Vol. IV., pp. 272-3 e, T, „ ,., *
. Vancouver s Voyage of Discovery,  —s »£—„,   .! Fr   .,_.   , says:—"Its   (the
J 4to Ed., Vol. 11., p. 419
Duke of Clarence's Strait) " western shore is an extensive tract of land, which (though
" not visibly so to us), I have reason to believe is much  brokeu and divided by water,
" forming as it were a distinct body in the great archipelago.    This I have honoured
" with the name of The Prince of Wales's Archipelago.'"
The name Prince of Wales's I Island" appears to have been first adopted on British
Admiralty charts in 1861, in the case of No. 2,430, Vancouver Island to Cordova Bay,
originally published in 1856;   and so introduced from a Russian chart of 1849-
The correct recognition of the island has been dwelt upon at some length, because, as
will hereafter appear, the United States' authorities take the view that | Wales Island "
to the north of the entrance to Observatory Inlet is " The Prince of Wales Island " of
the Convention of 1825.
The commencement of the line is described by the 3rd Article of the Convention as
beino- at the point I le plus meridional de l'ile dite Prince of Wales, le quel point se trouve
" sous la parallele du 54me degre, 40 minutes de latitude Nord, et entre^ le 131me et le
I I33me degre" de longitude Ouest (Meridien de Greenwich)."    And Article IV. further
A 2
Prince op
Wales
Island.
Appendix
No. 39, p. 67.
Map No. 3.
Appendix
No. 12, p. 42.
No. 13, p. 42.
Appendix
No. 43, p. 79.
Map No. 8.
Map No. 11.
See p. 25.
See p. 75.
See p. 76.
'Southernmost point
op Prince
op Wales
Island, Appendix      refers to the line as follows; " II est entendu, par rapport a. la ligne de demarcation
No.4i,P.70. « determined dans 1'Article precedent; 1° Que lTle dite Prince of Wales appartiendra
1 toute entire a la Russie."
It may at once be observed that it is highly improbable that the southernmost point
of Prince of Wales Island or Archipelago will be found to be exactly in latitude
54° 40' N. In fact it has not yet been ascertained that the southern coast of Prince of
Wales Archipelago has been surveyed by any reliable authority. It is certain that it has
not been surveyed by any British authority since Vancouver's time.
Vancouver did not survey the southern coasts of the Prince of Wales's Archipelago ;
yet, until recently, the details given by his charts have been those entirely depended on.
The two prominent features of the south of the Prince of Wales's Archipelago are
Capes Muzon and Chacon, both marked on Vancouver's chart as adopted from some
other authority. He makes no reference to Cape Muzon in the text of his Voyage of
Discovery, but he notes that he supposed he had recognised in the distance on the 14th
August 1793, what Caamano had called Cape Chacon. Vancouver remarks (Vancouver's
Voyages, 8vo. Ed., Vol. IV., p. 18<K « About noon j knded on a small island i ;ng to the
J *      4to. Ed., Vol. II., p. 370
south from Cape Northumberland, where I observed the latitude to be 54° 51-J-'
" longitude 228° 55^' " (=131° ffi W. from Greenwich), "from this island, which is
" tolerably high, I gained a very distinct view of the surrounding rocks, and breakers in
" all directions, * * * * * * From hence also the west point of entrance into
" this, arm of the sea, called by Senr. Caamano—Cape de Chacon, lies S. 67 W. eight or
" nine leagues, and Cape Fox E. by S. five leagues distant."
Thus it will be apparent that Vancouver's determination of the position of Point
Chacon did not pretend to be precisely accurate ; there is even room to consider his
recognition of Point Chacon as doubtful. He merely saw, at an estimated distance of
24 or "27 nautical miles, what—from Caamano's information,—he assumed to be Point
Chacon.
From amongst leading authorities in nautical topography, the following items are
noted with regard to Cape Chacon :—
A. G. Findlay's North Pacific Ocean and Japan Directory, Ed. 1886 (British),
p. xvii.:—
N. Lat. W. Long. Authority
54° 42' 0" 131° 54' Vancouver, &c.
and p. 599> " This latter cape is the S.E. point of the Prince of Wales Archipelago,
" and bears S.W. ^ S. from the former" (=Cape Northumberland) "about.25 miles.
" distant in
" Lat. 54° 43', N.
"Long. 131° 54'W."
In the edition of 1851, Part I. of the same work, at p. xxxix, the latitude is given as
N. 54° 43', and the longitude as W. 131° 56'.
On the authority of Vancouver, and at page 442, it is said :—
I This latter cape is the S.W.* point of the Prince of Wales's Archipelago, and bears
" W.S.W. from the former (=Cape Northumberland) 8 or 9 leagues off."
The Pacific Coast Pilot 1883 (United States), p. 64, says :—
" Nearly S.W. by W. from Barren Rock, according to Russian authorities about 24
' miles, is situated Cape Chacon or de Chacon, named by Caamano, and forming the
" south-eastern point of Prince of Wales Island. * * * * The outlines of the land
" are very differently given by different authorities, but most of them agree in placing it
" in about latitude 54° 42' N., and nearly or quite on the same parallel with Point
" Nunez and Cape Muzon."
Appendix British Admiralty charts take the latitude of Cape Chacon from Vancouver's chart as
No. 43, p. 79. 54° 421- N.
A large manuscript map compiled by Mr. L. Hebert, jr., in 1831, in the Colonial
Office^ assigns lat. 54° 40' N. to Cape Chacon; but there is nothing to indicate its
authority, and it is probable that it is based on the latitude recorded in the Convention
of 1825.
Cape Chacon has generally been considered the southernmost point of Prince of Wales
Island referred to in the Convention ; yet, as noted by the United States' Pacific Coast Pilot
it aiffers little, if anything, in latitude from  Points Muzon, and Nunez, which, although
on islands distinct from what is now called Prince of Wales Island, are nevertheless on
part of the Prince of Wales's Archipelago, called Prince of Wales Island in the Conventi
ot 1825.
Appendix
Map No, 6
ion
S.E.?—D. R. C. 5
j The latitude of Cape Muzon, the south-western point of the Archipelago, is subject to
similar doubt. r J
It has been seen that while Vancouver's record of the position of Cape Chacon was
attributed to his own observation by Findlay's Directory of 1851, Vancouver himself
refers to Caamano as his authoritv.
| ' In Findlay's book of 1851 it Will be found (Part I., page xxxviii.) that to Cape Muzon
is assigned lat. 54 43' N. on the authority of Quadra in 1775.
According to the other authorities already mentioned, the references to Cape Muzon
are to the following effect:—
Findlay's North Pacific Ocean Directory of 1886 does not assign a latitude to Cape
Muzon. At page 605, it is said " of the coast of Prince of Wales Archipelago we know
I but very little," and at page 606, " Cape Muzon, the S.E. (S.W. ?) point of the
| Archipelago, is 12 miles to the east," i.e., from Port Bazan, but the latitude of Port
Bazan is not given.
British Admiralty charts show the position of Cape Muzon as given on Vancouver's
charts; but Vancouver indicates on the charts themselves that he noted Cape Muzon
upon Spanish authority.
The  United States' Pacific Coast Pilot (1883), p. 64, mentions that Capes Muzon,
Nunez,   and Chacon are  nearly or quite on the  same parallel, 54° 42'; and, at p. 65,
records a determination on the spot by Brundige,  viz., 54° 42' 15" N., and another by MapNo 13
reconnaissance with reference to  Howkan village, of which the latitude and longitude,
54° 49' 39" N. £ \       .    \ ~.
1881 by Lieutenant-Commander Nichols, U.S.N.,
132° 50' 12" W.,
54° 41' 4
were determined
m
giving
N.
as the positiou of Cape Muzon.
132° 44' 7"W
'j The Colonial Office manuscript map of 1831, by Mr. Hebert, assigns 54° 45' N. lat. to
Cape Muzon, and about 54° 42|' to Cape Nunez.
Russian official charts give the following latitudes to Capes Muzon and Chacon :—
Muzon.
Chacon.
N.
54°
43'
54°
46'
54°
45>
54°
45'
54°
42'
54°
IflP
54°
424'
54Q
'42i'
exc
ept
in the Colonial
Chart of 1802, Northern parts of the Pacific Ocean
Chart, No. 1345, of 1844 Do. do.
Chatham Sound to Queen Charlotte Island, 1849 „
Southern half of the Koloschensk Archipelago, 1853      „
In no case does the latitude appear to be given as 54° 40'
Office manuscript map, which was probably, in this respect, drawn to accord with the
latitude mentioned in the Convention, and in Arrowsmith's map of 1795 corrected in
1811, '18, '19, '20, '24, '33, '39, and 1850.*
The preceding notes make it appear that at the time of the Anglo-Russian Convention of 1825, an 1 even so lately as 1867, when Alaska was transferred to the United
States, the southernmost point of Prince of Wales Island had not been authoritatively
ascertained and is still undetermined.
Similarly the longitude of the southernmost point of the island was not definitely
determined, and it may therefore be assumed that the mention of latitude and longitude
was made use of in order to indicate approximately the neighbourhood. That this is the
correct interpretation may also be inferred from the construction of the sentence of the
Convention (3rd Article) in which the latitude is named, and from several circumstances
during the negotiations.
" A partir du Point le plus meridional de l'ile dite Prince of Wales " are the words
which first occur; and those that follow: "lequel point se trouve sous la parallele du
I 54me degre, 40 minutes, de latitude Nord, et entre le 131me et le 133me degre de
" longitude Ouest," are used merely parenthetically to facilitate reference to the geographical feature alluded to.
Taking the words as they occur, they are plainly the equivalent of
" the line com-
" mencing at
Appendix,
Map No. 4.
Map No. 7.
Map No. 8.
Map No. 9.
the southernmost point of Prince of Wales Island, which point we, the
negotiators, believe to be about latitude 54° 40' N. and between 131° and 133° west
" longitude."
The territory to be assigned and not a latitude or a longitude was the subject matter
of the negotiations. The Russian Government had been ready to consider such a
division of territory as might be marked out by the parallel of 55° N. lat, but
finding this line would leave two comparatively small  parts of the supposed island»
f   * Also in Arrowsmith's map of 1832 (Royal Geographical Society's Map rcom, No. 39) gives 54° 40'| but
the map of 1795 corrected to 1814 gives 5415 42'.—D.R,C. 6
.Appendix
No, 12, p. 42.
See also
p. 27.
Appendix
No. 14, p. 43.
Appendix
Ko. 14, p. 44.
Appendix
No. 40, p. 68.
No. 41, p. 69.
Appendix
No. 17, p. 46.
Appendix
No. 15, p. 45.
No. 17, p. 47.
Appendix
No. 9, p. 36.
No. 11, p. 40.
No. 12, p. 42.
No. 17, p. 46.
Portland
Channel.
Appendix
Ko.41,p.70.
Prince of Wales's Archipelago, projecting on the British side, and would unnecessarily
ignore the advantages of natural geographical features in connexion with international
limits, they pressed for the southernmost point of the island as the commencement of the
In  their  reply to   Sir   Charles  Bagot's  first  Projet  the   Russian   Plenipotentiaries
remarked :— , . .   s
"Les propositions faites par les Plenipotentiaires de Russie a Sir Charles Bagot et
" que Son Excellence a et6 priee de prendre en mure consideration, tendaient a faire
1 admettre le 55me degr6 de latitude septentrionale comme ligne de demarcation entre
" les possessions respectives sur la cote Nord Ouest de 1'AmeVique.
" Cette mAme limite a deja ete assignee aux possessions Russes par la charte que
| l'Empereur Paul ler accorda a la Compagnie Americaine.
"Comme la parallele du 55me degre coupe file du Prince de Galles dans son extre-
" mite meridionale, laissant en dehors deux pointes de terre, les Plenipotentiaires de
" Russie ont propose que ces deux pointes fussent comprises dans les limites Russes.
" voulant eviter par la, une division de territoire egalement incommode aux deux parties
" interessees.
" Pour completer la ligne de demarcation et la rendre aussi distincte que possible, les
." Plenipotentiaires de Russie ont exprime le desir de lui faire suivre le Portland Canal
" jusqu'aux montagnes qui bordent la c6te."
These remarks show w'ith perfect clearness that the governing idea in the minds of the
Russian Plenipotentiaries, when embodying in the Convention the record of latitude and
longitude, was to indicate a boundary by geographical features and not to require one to
be determined by geodetic measurement. Having first proposed a parallel of latitude
boundary, they modified their proposal in order that the line might accord with
geographical features.
Again, referring to the same subject, in their reply to Sir Charles Bagot's amended
proposal, the Russian Plenipotentiaries recorded at a subsequent conference that, " 11
" etait aussi de leur convenance mutuelle de determiner ces limites d'apres les separations
" naturelles qui forment toujours les frontieres les plus distinctes et les plus certaines."
" * * * " On ne parlera point ici des deux pointes de 1'iledu Princede Galles qui sont
" situees au-dessous de la ligne de 55me degr£ de latitude nord. Ces deux pointes ne
I pourraient etre d'aucune utilite a la Grande Bretagne, et si neuf-dixiemes de Tile du
" Prince de Galles appartiennent a la Russie il est eVideinment d'un interet re'ciproque
" que l'lle lui appartienne tout entiere."
Latitude 54° 40 was mentioned in the 3rd Article of the Convention of 17th April
1824, between Russia and the United States, as the line limiting the extension of their
respective nationalities on the N.W. coast and among its islands.
The negotiations with regard to the British Convention were proceeding at the same
time as those of the Convention with the United States, but in the United States'
Convention there was no mention made of Prince of Wales Island.
The United States' Convention provided for a geodetic limitation pure and simple, not
assigning sovereignty, but limiting future extension.
The British Convention described a line to be determined by geographical features,—of
one of which the approximate geodetric position was named—to separate sovereign
possessions.
Asa matter of fact, 54° 40' was noted by Count de Nesselrode, in connexion with
Prince of Wales Island, in his Despatch of the 5th April 1824, the day the Treaty with
the United States was signed. But it is no more open to argue that 54° 40' was "named
in the British Convention becau.se it occurred in the United States Convention, than it
is to maintain that it was brought into the United States' Convention in consequence of
its connexion with Prince of Wales Island—already accepted by the British.
Presumption is strongly in favour of the latter view,—for it would appear that the
only motive for selecting 54° 40' N. latitude as a limit to United States extension —
was the circumstance that, in their negotiations with the British—the Russians bad
already perseveringly urged a claim to sovereignty over the whole of Prince of Wales
Island.
Russia and the United States had previously concurred in selecting the parallel of
55  N. latitude.
From the southernmost point of Prince of Wales Island the line is defined as one which
" remontera au Nord le long de la passe dite Portland Channel, iusqu'au Point de la
" terre ferme ou elle atteint le 56me degre de latitude Nord."
The ordinary English translation of the words "la passe dite Portland Channel," is
" the channel called Portland Channel." -chamiel"6 IStS **' Vat3COUVer frequently used the word "canal
as synonymous with
Appendix
No. 36, p.;6&
Appendix
No. 35, p. 66.
•Sim
Appendix
No. 12, p. 42.
Appendix
No. 13, p. 42.
No. 14, p. 43.
Appendix
No.l5,p.44,
Appendix
No. 13, p. 42.
i^^^^ M # ^ 371' °f ^ ^ ^ « WS foli0 c^s, the name
Chal^L  ^ W V°L |$ P' H Por^nd Canal has been changed to Portland
KA^f^r C'ASe\cma[ and *te^ are used as descriptive of a narrow inlet
^S^Sae^Wf | I W# Phonetic^'closely
otetfrCnCh W°rd CW iS StiU thG S^°n^me 0f both the E^h words canal and
| leVo^tla^d ^B^ °f ** RUSSkn PleniPotendaries they speak of the feature as
5 Jnjbe rejoinder by the British Plenipotentiary it is referred to as "le Canal de Port-
Ip the Russian reply, the name used is " le Portland Channel "
c Wble,in answering, the British negotiator speaks of the' water as "le Portland
The entrance to Portland Channel  is referred  to by   Sir  Charles Bao-ot durine- hi*
negotiation with  the Russian Plenipotentiaries as being in latitude 54^5'N^
Bagot's? s--        C°Unter Pr0J6Cl' Submitted b? the Russi*n negotiators Sir'Charles
8 il est a remarquer en reponse a la proposition faite par les Plenipotentiaires Russes
qiiune 1'gnede demarcation tracee de lextremite meridionale de Tile du Prince de
Galles jusqu a 1 embouchure du  Canal de Portland,   de la par le milieu de ce canal
j oterait a Sa Majeste Britannique la souverainete de toutes ces
arises et de ces petites baies qui se trouvent entre les latitudes 56° et 54° 45' dont
plusieurs (a ce qu .1 y a tout lieu a croire) communiquent directement aux etablissemens
de la Compagme de Hudson s Bay * * * tandis que de l'autre cdte la Compagnie
Kusse Amencaine ne possede aucun etablissement sur la terre ferme entre les deux
paralleles sus-mentionnees."
The Russian charts of this region published in 1802 and 1826 also give the latitude
of the mouth of Portland Canal or Channel as 54° 45^'.
And  Vancouver,   by   whom   the  Canal   was   named,    (see   Vancouver's  Vovae-e«
8vo Edn., Vol. IV., p. 19L . J 8 1
4to Edn., Vol. II., p. 371 ' mentions the latitude of a point at its mouth within half a
mile   of   the   continental shore to the north as 54° 45^' (see Vancouver's Vovae-es
8vo Edn., Vol. IV., p. I4fi | &
4to Edn.. Vol. 11., p. 344 |
Consequently there is no doubt as to the passage through which the boundary was
intended to run from the ocean.
On the United States' chart, No. 225, S.W. coast of Alaska, Alexander Archipelago, Appendix,
corrected by United States' authorities up to  1882, the mouth of   Portland Canal* Map No. 7.
is shown as between 54° 45' N„ latitude, and 54c 46'.
On the same chart the international boundary is erroneously marked as leaving
Portland Canal 55° 2' and passing to the ocean through the mouth of Observatory
Inlet.
The United States' chart now referred to is based on the British Admiralty chart,
No. 2431, Cordova Bay to Cross Sound, which, however, does not show the boundary
line. This British Admiralty chart is founded on a Russian chart of 1853. The
British survey of Observatory Inlet in 1868 has been embodied in the United States
chart. Since the first publication of these British and United States charts there is
indicated a regular interchange of hydrographical information between the two countries.
Again, on the United States' chart, No. 710, Revilla Gigedo Channel,  S.E. Alaska, Map No. 15.
1885, from surveys in 1883, shows the entrance to' Portland Canal as being in the latitude
above noted.
Thus, at the dates referred to, we find Russian, United States and British charts agree
in the geodetic location of the ocean entrance to Portland Canal.
The course of the canal included under the name Portland is minutely detailed by
Appendix
Map No. 4.
Map No. 5.
Appendix
No. 36, p. 66.
Appendix
No. 35, p. 66.
Map No. 12.
Map No. 9. '
8vo Edn., Vol. IV., pp. 132-146
336-344
i
Vancouver (Vancouver s Voyages 4to Edn.} Vol. 11., pp. .   ,-
He sums up his notice of it thus : " In the forenoon we reached that arm of the sea,
I whose examination had occupied our time from the 27th of the preceding to the 2nd
* i.e. 'Vancouver's Portland Canal.
Appendix
No. 35, p. 62.
Appendix
No. 35, p. Q6, 8
Ante p. 6.
See
p. 25.
| of this month (August 1793). The distance from its entrance to its source is about
" 70 miles; which, in honour of the noble family of Bentinck, I named Portland's Canal'
(4toed., Vol. IF., p. 37J).
The latitudes and longitudes given by Vancouver as those of the entrance and source of
the canal,—the length 70 miles,—the chart records already referred to,—and Sir Charles
Bao-ot's reference to the latitude of the entrance to Portland Canal, all concur m establishing the fact that Portland Channel as understood at the date of the Convention had
communication with the ocean entirely distinct from the entrance to Observatory Inlet,
called—only since about 1853—Portland Inlet.
It has already been explained that the southermost point of Prince of Wales Island
and the Portland Canal as regulating the boundary line, were adopted on the suggestion
of the Russian Plenipotentiaries, as well marked geographical features conducing to
international convenience as compared .with a parallel of latitude at first desired by them;
and, as a matter of fact, it would appear from the most reliable authorities that the
southern point of the Prince of Wales island and the ocean entrance to Portland Canal
are not on the same parallel. It further appears—from the mention in the Convention
(Art. III.) that the southernmost point of the Prince of Wales Island was supposed
to be in about latitude 54° 40' N., while Sir Charles Bagot had referred to the entrance
to Portland Canal being in 54° 45' N.,—-that the negotiators did not suppose these places
were on the same parallel of latitude.
Under these circumstances it follows that the boundary described by the Convention
of 1825 as "& partir du point le plus meridional de l'ile dite Prince of Wales * * * *
" la dite ligne remontera au Nord le long de la passe dite Portland Channel," follows the
course of a great circle between the south of the Prince of Wales Islaud and the centre
of the Portland Canal ocean entrance.
Such a line is the most direct that can be drawn on the earth's surface between any
two named terminal points. All points on it viewed from either extremity appear to be
what would be popularly described as in line.    It is consequently the simplest.
There are numerous rocky islets between Portland Canal and the south of Prince of
Wales Island, and in case of the great circle line just referred to, intersecting any of these,
it would be plainly in the spirit of the negotiations which resulted in the Convention of
1825, to rule that in case the great circle line between the southernmost point of the
Prince of Wales Island and the entrance to Portland Canal be found to intersect anv
island, then the sovereignty of such island shall appertain wholly to that Power to which
the great circle apportions the larger portion as determined by lower water sea-mark line.
The southern parts of ^ Prince of Wales Island were claimed—on similar grounds,—
as appropriately appertaining to Russian territory.
It is further to be noted tint between Prince of Wales Island and Portland Canal the
international dividing line passes over open sea—much more extensive than would, under
ordinary circumstances, have its sovereignty determined by a boundary line.
Notwithstanding the circumstance that the Convention of 1825 orioinated in the
British objection to the Russian Ukase of 1821 assuming sovereignty over open ocean,
there is room to doubt whether the Russian Government in concluding the Convention
of 1825 may not have regarded its terms as implying a consent by the British Govem-
ment to their claim to sovereignty over inter-insular sea limited by the line between
Prince of Wales Island and Portland Canal.
Such a view would, however, be inconsistent with the claims generally advanced by
the United States with regard to the definition of coast territorial waters.
From the British point of view it is most probable that the line between Prince of
Wales Island and, Portland Canal was regarded merely as a line limiting laud territory ;
whereas the Russian point of view would probably have given it the aspect of determining
water as well as land sovereignty. p
The force of these remarks may be appreciated on perusal of the following extract from
Appendix
No. 25, p.
of both sides of Behring's Straits.
"The Power which would think of making the Pacifick a mare clausum" (this refers
to the provisions, of the Russian Ukase of 1821) "may not unnaturally be supposed
k capab e of a disposition to apply the same character to a strait comprehended between
" two shores of which it becomes  the  undisputed owner.     But the shutting up of
Behrmgjs Straits or the power to shut them up hereafter would be a thing not to be
" tolerated by England. 9
Appendix
No. 29, p. 55.
Appendix
No. 31, p. 57.
"Butin some way or other, if not in the form now prescribed, the free navigation of
Behring's Straits, and the seas beyond them, must be secured to us."
Subsequently on 8th December 1824, Mr. G. Canning, in instructing Sir S. Canning
with regard to Behring's Straits, gives his reasons for deciding to omit mention of Behring's
Straits in the Convention.
Sir S. Canning, in Despatch No. 15 of ^ '     , 1825, when reporting the conclusion of
the Convention, remarks :—
" With respect to Behring's Straits, I am happy to have it in my power to assure you,
" on the joint authority of the Russian Plenipotentiaries, that the Emperor of Russia has'
" no intention whatever of maintaining any exclusive claim to the navigation of those
" straits or of the seas to the north of them."
And there is no allusion to Behring's Straits in the Convention itself.
On the other hand Russia, by the 6th Article of the Convention, assented to the
British claim to navigate the ocean to and from all rivers between Mount St. Elias and
Portland Canal, flowing out of British territory. Yet as by the recent Treaty of
Washington with the United States the British claim to navigate rivers, &c, within
these limits is restricted by consent to navigation of the Stickeen, it is possible the
United States might contend that they are by the Treaty of 1867 with Russia invested
with territorial rights over all water between the islands on the coast, north of the
southernmost post of Prince of Wales Island to Cape Spencer, approximately in latitude 58° 10' N., excepting only as regards approach to the Stickeen.
Under these circumstances it may be desirable that a definite understanding should be
arrived at as to the meaning to be attached to the inter-territorial line from Prince of
Wales Island to Portland Canal.*
Portland Canal, as described by Vancouver, and as known at the time of the Convention of 1825, was limited on its north and west by the continental shore, and on its east
and south respectively by the mainland and islands separating it from Observatory Inlet,
which inlet includes the recently named Portland Inlet.
There is still some doubt as to the exact position of the northern extremity of the
Canal.    Vancouver's record is 55° 45' N. lat., 230° 6' long. (= 129° 54' W. long.).
Recent observations (Commander Pender's Admiralty Survey 1868) assign a northerly Map No. 17.
extension of about 12 miles (55° 56' N.) to the Canal; but as the water in the Canal
was found by Vancouver to be fresh for 20 miles from the point he noted as its termination, and it is known that two fresh water streams flow into it at its northern end,
there is room for variety of opinion as to what exact point should be considered the head
of the Canal.
« Vancouver ^ ^Jf^^klK says> at 11 a-m'> 29 Jufr i793> " [t " <the Port"
4to. Edn., Vol. 11., p. 340
land Canal) " was found to terminate in low marshy land," and he subsequently indicates that he did not stay to examine the locality, since he mentions that two hours
afterwards, on his return journey, he had observed for latitude three miles to the southward. When, at 10 a.m. on the 29th July 1793, Vancouver reached the head of the
Canal it was about dead low water of spring tides, and four days previously he had
noted a rise of 20 feet in the Observatory inlet. Such a rise in the neighbourhood of
low marshy land might well account for variety of statement in recording the latitude of
the termination of the Canal.
The outline of Portland Canal is such that no difficulty should arise in coming to an
agreement as to the exact position of the international line passing through it.
A few points, however, require preliminary consideration with a view to clearing the
subject. . ,
The Russian Plenipotentiaries when asked by Sir Charles Bagot to put their original
verbal contre Projet in writing, thus referred to Portland Canal:—
" Pour completer la ligne de demarcation et la rendre aussi distincte que possible les
Plenipotentiaires de Russie ont exprime le desir de lui faire suivre le Portland Canal
jusqu'aux montagnes qui bordent la cote."
Sir Charles Bagot, in replying, commenced by a recapitulation of what he understood
the Russian suggestion to be, and remarked, " En reponSe a la proposition faite par les
•" Plenipotentiaires Russes, qu'une ligne de demarcation tracee de 1'extremite meridionale
1 de l'ile du Prince de Galles jusqu'a l'embouchure du Canal de Portland, de la par le
" milieu de ce canal jusqu'a ce qu'elle touche la terre ferme ; de la jusqu'aux montagnes
" qui bordent la c6te."
* In this connexion, however, see Count de Nesselrode's statement after the conclusion of the Convention,
as reported by Sir S. Canning, Appendix 34, p. 58.—D. 11. C.
o   S3036. B
Appendix
No.35, p. 64.
Appendix
No. 35, p. 62.
No. 44, p. 79,
Appendix
No. 12, p. 42.
Appendix
No. 13, p. 42. 10
appendix,
Hap No. 1.
Vppendix,
lap No. 15.
Appendix,
Map No. 15.
'■ Sir Charles Bagot here plainly enlarged the claim made by the Russian Plenipotentiaries.
They did not propose that the line should ascend Portland Canal beyond the point at
which the Canal intercepted the mountains bordering the main coast line: they submitted that the line should should run up the Canal only "jusqu'aux montagnes qui
bordent la c6te." But Sir Charles Bagot assumed their meaning to be that the line
should run throughout the length of the Canal.
The accuracy of Sir Charles Bagot's recapitulation of the Russian proposals was not,
however, questioned by them; and as his interpretation of their proposal is not inconsistent with the terms used in the 3rd Article of the Convention, viz., 4 la dite ligne
remontera au Nord le long de la passe dite Portland Channel," the interpretation must
be accepted as deciding the meaning of these terms.
In a general sense it is quite practicable to draw a line midway between two others
in the same plane.which do not intersect; but theoretically, and assuming the measurements to be made from the external to the medial line, a line cannot be drawn so as to
be equi-distant from two lines varying in direction, which are not themselves theoretically
parallel to one another, and symmetrical.
Probably as strict a practical definition as can be given of a medial line suitable to
the case under discussion is that it shall be a line so placed between the opposite Canal
boundaries that lines intersecting it at right angles and limited by the opposite boundaries shall be bisected by ir. The characteristic of such a line is that were a vessel
moving along it, the boundaries of the Canal would be equi-distant on the vessel's beams.
Yet the definition fails to satisfy the problem under the circumstances of sudden or
angular change of direction or of breadth in the Canal, and requires to be supplemented
by the following :—" Where the application of the foregoing definition fails to give a
" continuous line, a conventional medial line shall be agreed upon, so as to connect
" the adjacent extremities of the interrupted lines described in accordance with the
" definition."
For the purpose of simplifying the demarcation of the medial line, the outlines of the
Canal should be conventionally modified into a succession of connected straight lines,
and then the medial international line located with reference to these conventional
lines.
With regard
Island at the
accompanying
to the course of Portland
channel's
tracing
Channel in the neighbourhood of Tongass
mouth, it is clearly indicated by the red line drawn on the
from   Vancouver's  chart,   No.   7.      The   red   line  illustrates
Vancouver's exploratory boat track, which, as stated by him, followed the course of the
channel he called Portland Canal.
On the United States' chart, No. 710, of Revilla Gigedo Channel (1885), the topography is delineated on a somewhat large scale, and names are allotted to most of the
principal geographical features. These names will make clear the following verbal
description of the Canal boundary entrance.
Commencing between Tongass and Kannaghunut Islands the Canal throughout its
length follows the continental shore line, leaving on its southern and eastern side, in
succession—
Sitklan Island,
Wales Island,
Fillimore Island, and
Pearse Island.
This course  allots  to United  States' territory a distinct entrance (of
depth of 17 fathoms) round the North and East of Tongass Island.
The next point attracting attention, and apparently of much importance, is the
determination of the place—at the northern extremity of Portland Canal, where'the line
leaves it.
The head of the Canal is the nearest route to the ocean for a British region of considerable extent to the north and east.
a minimum
in 1868, is probably the most
Appendix, The Admiralty survey by Commander Pender,  R.N.,
Map No. 17. authentic available chart of this part of the Canal.
The survey shows Salmon River flowing in a south-easterly direction and Bear River
in a south-westerly direction to conjunction at the head of the Canal.
The valleys of these two rivers are delineated as acutely separated by lofty moun-
£9R Tn™ ri^P«cipitou8ly from the water of the Canal, attain elevations of 2,000,
4,500, 5,000, and 6,000 feet in the course of a few miles. '
wwn™ 11
By the survey the northerly course of the medial line of the Canal would terminate(
close to where soundings of 24 fathoms are shown on the edge of a sand-bank at the.
junction of the two streams with the Canal, approximately in 55° 54^' N. lat.
Before passing on to the course of the line beyond the head of the Canal, it may be
well to clear away ambiguity occurring in the" wording of the 3rd Article of the Convention.
The words " la dite ligne remontera au nord le long de la passe dite Portland Channel, Appendix
" jusqu'au point de la terre ferme ou elle atteint le 56me degre de latitude nord " have Ko. 41, p.70.
'been  translated into English   as follows :—" The said line shall ascend to the north
along   the Channel called Portland  Channel as far as the point of the continent Seepp.25-6.
" where it strikes the 56th degree of north latitude."
The original and the translation are both liable to be understood as implying
that Portland Channel extends northward beyond 56° N. latitude; but that tne
boundary line is not to follow the course of the Canal further than the parallel of 56°.
This interpretation is not, however, the only possible one, and, as will be seen, is
incorrect.
In English and Russian charts at the date of the Convention the latitude of the
northern extremity of Portland Canal is always shown as 55° 45' N. as determined by
Vancouver, excepting in the Russian chart of 1802, on which the latitude assigned is
approximately 55° 42-1-' N. Erom the date of the Convention until as recently as the Appendix,
survey by Commander Pender, R.N., in 1868, the accepted latitude has been 55° 45'N. Map No. is.
Commander Pender's survey assigns about 55° 54' to the position where it may be
assumed Vancouver considered the Canal to terminate, but this possible approximation
to 56° N. lat. cannot be considered as affecting.the point under discussion in any way.
Not only is there the evidence of official charts, which were probably consulted  by
the negotiators, showing that  Portland Channel did not extend so far north as 56° N.
latitude,  but there is on record that one of these charts was furnished to the British
negotiator for the express purpose of the negotiation, and that he consulted Vancouver's Appendix
chart,  for he mentions the latitude given on these charts for the mouth of Portland E°"}?'p' tH
Channel; and he gives reasons connected with the head of the Channel, for his contention     '    'F'
that both shores of it should be British territory.    There are also numerous other references made by both the British and  Russian  Plenipotentiaries to topographical details
of the region, a knowledge of which at the time was obtainable only from Vancouver's
charts or others founded on them.
Two references were made by the Russian Plenipotentiaries to the latitude of the head
of Portland Canal as being 56° N., but under circumstances not requiring minute
precision as regards latitude :—
In supporting their contre Projet they submitted arguments to Sir Charles Bagot in Appendix
March 1824, remarking, " C'est par ces raisons que les Plenipotentiaires de Russie ont Noii4, p. 43.
" propose pour limites sur la cote du continent au Sud, le Portland  Channel dont
" l'origine dans les terres est par le 56me degre de latitude nord, et a Test    *    *    *    ."
And ao-ain, " Le projet d'arrangement des Plenipotentiaires de Russie laisse ouvert a
" l'extension successive des Colonies Anglaises :— |
((1° ******** *
" 2°. Tout le territoire situe" entre les etablissemens  Anglais au 54me et l'oi igine du Appendix
" Portland Channel qui est au 56me parallele." No. 14, p. 43.
In the first quotation the line of Portland Canal is roughly referred to as a southern
boundary, whereas it is in fact almost due north and south, and therefore an eastern
boundary; and like absen.ee of precision is attributable to the reference to latitude.
Similarly in indicating general limits to another region in the case of the second
quotation/the stretch between British establishments in lat. 54° and Portland Channel
lat. 56° is mentioned. Neither latitude is correct, but both are sufficiently so for the
use made of the reference to them. The reference in this case is plainly to trading
where Fort M'Laughlin, in about 52^° N., is noted by Arrowsmith.
But if these circumstances should possibly leave room for doubt that the negotiators
were under the impression at least that it was probable Portland Canal did not extend
so far to the north as 56° N. lat. there is the direct and conclusive evidence of the
Russian Plenipotentiary himself,—Count de Nesselrode who subsequently, on the 5th
April 1824, in writing instructions to the Russian Ambassador, remar1
40'
io     proposions de porter la froptiere meridionale de nos domaines au 54  4(
utir sur le continent au Portland Canal dont I'embouchur
Appendix
No. 17, p. 46.
" de latitude et de la faire aboutir sur le continent au Portland Canal dont 1 emboucnure
<"< dans 1'ocean est a la hauteur de Tile du Prince de Galles et l'origine dans les terres entre
" le 55° et 56° de latitude;" and Mr. Canning's description of the line, to Sir Charles Bagot, Append!:
on 12 July 1824. '
B 2
No. 24; p. 51. 12
Appendix
No. 17, p. 46.
No. 7, p. 34.
No. ll,p.;40.
Appendix
No. 29, p. 55.
Feom
Portland
Channel to
56° N. Lat.
Appendix
No. 31, p. 57.
u
<(
Consequently the Plenipotentiaries could not have intended the formal declaration of
their agreement to be interpreted as stating in effect that Portland Canal either passed or
actually reached so high a latitude as 56° N.
The origin of the reference in the Convention to 56° N. latitude may be traced
through another passage in the same Despatch from Count de Nesselrode to Count de
Lieven ; and in Sir Charles Bagot's Despatch of ^ March 1824 to Mr. Canning.
The Count de Nesselrode remarks " * * * * les dernleres propositions de Sir
« Charles Bagot furent * * * de stipuler que notre frontiere suivrait de cette ile |
(Prince of Wales) " la passe dite Duke of Clarence Sound et qu'elle n'aboutirait a la
'* c6te qu'au dessus du 56° de latitude septentrionale."
Also the Count had been urging that the Russian territory on the coast should be of
the uniform breadth of 10 marine leagues as far north as Mount St. Elias, to which
exception was taken by the British authorities. Finally it Was agreed that from the
latitude of 56° northward the tops of the mountains next the sea should mark the line.^
Reverting again to the suggested' interpretation of the 3rd Article of the Convention
.which would make it appear that the framers of the Convention supposed Portland
Channel extended northward to 56° N. lat., it will be seen that the terms of the Treaty
are directly opposed to such a rendering.
The second paragraph of the 4th Article of the Convention was originally embodied
parenthetically" in the 3rd Article as explanatory of the course of the line there
described.
In the letter of Sir S. Canning of l71Frtetbmar-Y1825, covering the Convention which he
° 1 March
had just concluded, he says to Mr. G.  Canning:—" The second paragraph of the 4th
I Article had already appeared parenthetically in the 3rd Article of the Projet and the
whole of the 4th Article is limited in its signification and connected with the Article
immediately preceding it, by the first paragraph."
Consequently, there are three references in the 3rd and 4th Articles, all referring to
identically the same spot on the parallel of 56° N. latitude :—
(a.) 3rd Art.—" * * jusqu'au point de la terre ferme ou elle atteint le 56me degr6 de
latitude nord."
(b.) 3rd Art.—" * * de ce dernier point la ligne de demarcation suivra la create des
montagnes," Fyiff
(n.) 4th Art.—" * * la  crete  des   montagnes    qui   s'etendent  dans   une  direction
parallele a la cote depuis le 56me degre de latitude nord * *."
It is thus clear that the reference (c.) is not an allusion to a point on the Portland
Channel, for "la crete des montagnes " cannot be on an inlet.
It is equally clear, both from the covering letter of Sir S. Canning and from the
language of the Convention itself, that the point alluded to in (b.) is the same as that
named in (c).
It is no less clear that the words " de ce dernier point" in (b.) refer to the position
described in (a.) as " jusqu'au point de la terre ferme ou. elle atteint le 56me degre de
" latitude nord." And, consequently, the conclusion is irresistible, that " elle attaint le
I 56°* degr6 de latitude nord" does not refer to Portland Canal, but to the mainland,,
attaining 56° north latitude.
The mistaken interpretation of the Convention is due to the ambiguity in the use of
the personal pronoun "elle" in the words "jusqu'au point de la terre ferme ou elle
" atteint le 56me degre de latitude." By the erroneous interpretation " elle" is made to
refer to " la passe dite Portland Canal"; by the correct interpretation "elle " refers
to " la terre ferme."
The acceptance of the word " elle" as referring to " la passe dite Portland Channel '*
involves grammatical error, confusion of ideas, and redundancy in the sentence.
Of the three feminine nominatives preceding "elle," viz., " la ligne," "la passe," and
" la terre," grammatical rule refers the pronoun to the last.
The draftsman of the Article has evidently had in his mind's eye, when describing
the line, a point in movement developing a line over stationary geographical features
The line, he proposes, shall go to the north along Portland Channel, up to the point
of the continent,  where it attains  the 56th degree of N. latitude; from   this point
the line shall follow the tops of the mountains, &c.
the words " where it attains " apply to the Canal, the idea of the draftsman has
for in this case the point developing the line is supposed at first to
been  confused
be moving al
direct o
ing along a stationary geographical feature, and then without necessity, and in
pposilion to the governing idea of the composition, the draftsman neglects the
developing point, and sets the geographical feature in movement of development until it
reaches the 5b  of latitude, then once more reverts to his main idea, and considers the 13
geographical features stationary, and a point to be moving over them developing a
line. r
The redundancy in the sentence on the supposition that fj elle atteint" refers to " la
" passe dite Portland Channel," is still more striking. In this case there could be no
occasion whatever for the introduction of the words " de la terre ferme" Without these
words the sentence stands "la dite ligne remontera au nord le long de la passe dite
f. Portland Channel jusqu'au point ou elle atteint le 56™^ degre de latitude nord."
On the other hand, as the intention was that the line should reach 56° of latitude,
-and it was believed that the Channel did not extend so far to the north, the words "dela
" terre ferme" are not only naturally introduced, but aid in avoiding ambiguity, since
withdut them the inference might and prob'ably would be that the line was to reach the
parallel of 56° on the waters of the Channel; but with them it is prescribed that the end
of the section of4(he line is to be found on a point " de la terre ferme."
That the expression " la terre ferme " may have been here used to indicate a point
on the waters of Portland Channel is further negatived by the reply (already quoted), of
Sir Charles Bagot to the Russian contre Projet, in which he interprets their proposal to
mean a line traced to the mouth of Portland Channel, thence along the middle of the
channel "jusqu'a ce quelle (la ligne) touche la terre ferme."
The foregoing remarks show that the Convention of 1825, when defining the line-
Subsequent to its arrival at the head of Portland Channel, requires that the boundary
should run to a point on the parallel of 56° N. lat. and from the same point (de ce dernier
point) continue onwards.
This point of the parallel of 56° N. lat. is defined in effect to be that, at not more
than 10 marine leagues from the ocean, where the crest of the mountains nearest the
ocean may be found, or, failing such mountains, a point on the parallel at 10 marine
leagues from the ocean.
Little or nothing was known of the inland topography of Alaska, by the Negotiators
of the Convention of 1825.
Vancouver's charts showed by conventional signs an unsurveyed mountainous region
bordering on the coast; but both the Russian and British negotiators, while doubtful as
to the intention of the authors of the charts, conceived the probability of these inland
details being unreliable, and so framed the 3rd and 4th sections of the Treaty as to
provide for this contingency.
The Russian Plenipotentiaries offered to secure to the British the unfettered navigation
of all the rivers qui aboutissent a Vocean dans cette m4me UsiSre. That is to say, they
did not know what rivers there were, but their offer extended to any there might be.
The Russians repeated their proposal to the same effect as follows :—
| Les Plenipotentiaires de Sa Majeste Imperiale prevoyant m&me le cas ou, sur la
" lisiere de la cdte qui appartiendrait a la Russie, il se trouverait des fleuves au moyen
" des quels les etablissemens Anglais pourroient communiquer avec l'ocean, se sont
" empresses d'offrir par une stipulation eventuelle la libre navigation de ces fleuves."
Mr. Canning having referred the boundary question to the Hudson's Bay Company,
their Governor in replying remarked: "Neither party have any very accurate geo-
§ graphical information with respect to the country in the immediate neighbourhood of
" the sea, and * * * the most satisfactory manner of settling this point probably
" would be by inserting in any article providing for the boundary on the mainland ' the
1 ' nearest chain of mountains not exceeding a few leagues of the coast.'
Mr. Canning, in writing to Count de Lieven, refers to " rivers which may be found to
" empty themselves into the sea within the Russian frontier."
Again, in writing 1o Sir Charles Bagot, he says : " The seaward base of the mountains
I is assumed as that" (eastern) "limit. But we have experience that other mountains on
| the other side of the American continent, which have been assumed in former Treaties as
" lines of boundary, are incorrectly laid down in the maps; and this inaccuracy has given
I nse to very troublesome discussions. It is therefore necessary that some other security
I should be taken that the line of demarcation to be drawn parallel with fhe coast, as
" far as Mount St. Elias, is not carried too far inland. This is done by a proviso that
I that line shall in no case (i.e., not in that of the mountains which appear by. the map
" almost to border the coast turning out to be far removed from it) be carried further
" to the east than a specified number of leagues from the sea."
Then, Count de Lieven in writing to Mr. Canning says :—
« * * * ji ne serait point impossible, vu le peu de certitude des^ notions geograph-
I iques que Ton possede encore sur ces parages, que les montagnes designees pour limite
** s'etendissent par une pente insensible jusqu'aux bords meme de la cdte."
Appendix
No. 40, p. 70.
Appendix
No, 13, p. 42.
56G N. Lat.
to 141° W.
Long.
Appendix-
No. 12, p. 42
Appendix
No.l4,p. 43*
Appendix
No. 18, p. 48.
Appendix
No. 22, p. 50.
Appendix
No. 24, p. 31.
Appendix
No. 26, p. 52. 14
Appendix
No. 29,j?. 55.
Appendix
No.ll, p. 41
Appendix,
Map No. 2,
Appendix,
Aiup No. 4.
Map No. 5.
Map No. 3.
Map No. 2.
Appendix
No. 11,p. 70.
Impressed by the importance of guarding against the possible unintended consequence
of topographical ignorance, Mr. Canning- again reverts to the subject in writing to Sir
Stratford Canning, and remarks :-—
" The inconvenience against which we wished to guard was that which you know and
" can thoroughly explain to the Russian Plenipotentiaries to have existed on the other
" side of the American continent, when mountains laid down in a map as in a certain
" given position, and assumed in faith of the accuracy of that map as a boundary between
" the possessions of England and the United States, turned out to be quite differently
" situated, a discovery which has given rise to the most perplexing discussion. Should
" the maps be no more accurate as to the western than as to the eastern mountains, we
" might be assigning to Russia immense tracts of inland territory, where we only intended
" to give, and they only intended to ask, a strip of sea coast! "
Sir Charles Bagot, in explaining on the 17th March 1824 to Mr. Canning his reasons
for suspending the negotiations, wrote:—" I certainly could not venture to take upon
" myself the heavy responsibility of making any further concessions of a territory,
" the value and possible local advantages of which I had no means of estimating, and
" which I believe are as yet imperfectly known."
From the foregoing quotations it is plainly evident that the negotiators of the Convention—one and all—were ignorant of inland Alaskan topography, and were alive to
their ignorance.
In the Appendix will be found copies from two distinct charts of Vancouver's Atlas.
These are so placed as to facilitate comparison.
The coast lines exactly corresponded:—the conventional mountain markings on the
mainland do not correspond. What has been misread as the representation of a mountain
range at, roughly speaking, 10 marine leagues inland, appears in one of the charts, but
not in the other. The coast-line mountains appear in both. In neither is the inland
mountain delineation such as to suggest that it was the result of detailed observation.
The perspective views of the mountain scenery given in Vancouver's Atlas serve to
interpret, the conventional signs by which the general features are indicated. The text
of his history throws further light on the subject.
Markings such as are given on Vancouver's charts along the coast of Alaska may also
be seen on charts Nos. 3, 15, 16, and 17 of the Atlas of La Perouse's voyage—which
preceded Vancouver's ; and, on the charts of other authorities on the Pacific Coast of
North America, prior to Vancouver, will l>e found the "caterpillar" class of delineations
attributed by Mr. Bayard to the poor topographic skill of Vancouver.
The  weight given  to  Vancouver's  inland  mountain  topography,  by  the   Russian
authorities, may be very accurately estimated by a comparison of their charts of 1826
and 1802 with any corresponding one of Vancouver's.
gBjit, to return to the course of the boundary line :-—
When the two extremities of the section of the boundary between Portland Channel
and 56° N. lat. are found, they should be connected by the arc of a treat circle.
The marking of such a line will probably be found to present Tess difficulties than
would the marking of any other line defined without reference to previously verified
topographical details.
In a clear country an arc of a great circle is, of course, the simplest of all to mark out,
since it lies wholly within a vertical plane. It is, in fact, what in popular language
would be described as a straight line were it marked out by poles.
Commencing at the highest point of the parallel of 56° N. lat. in its course over the
mountain nearest to the main coast line, the boundary is to run northward along the
line of mountain tops nearest to the ocean, provided these be net more than 10 marine
leagues from the ocean ; where the non-existence of mountains may render the line
indeterminate, it is to conform to the windings of the general coast line, but is never to
exceed 10 marine leagues from the ocean.
of which it is
, . .  ,    , „- v   „ o— remontera au nord
■    -    jusqu au point de la terre ferme ou elle atteint le 56me deo-re de latitude
de ce dernier point la ligne de demarcation suivra la crete des
It will be convenient here to quote the exact words of the Convention,
ubmitted that the foregoing is a correct interpretation :—" la dite lie-ne rerr
8 Nord
si
1
iituees  parallelement  a la cote  jusqu'au point  d'intersection   du   14
ongitude ouest   *    *    *    *     "
P
montagnes
degre
de
lieues marines de l'ocdan, la limite entre les possessions Britanniques, et la lisiere de Appendix
No. 11, p. 39.
Appendix
No. 12, p. 42.
Ibid.
15
c6te mentioned ci-dessus comme devantjappartenir a la Russie sera formee par une ligne
parallele aux sinuosites de la cote, et qui ne pourra jamais en etre eloignee que de dix
lieues marines."
In these extracts from the Convention, the words " la crete des montagnes situees
I parallelement a la cote " are understood to refer to the tops of the mountains next to
the sea, between 56° N. lat. and the intersection of the boundary with the meridian of
141° W. long.
The foundation for this interpretation is based upon the language of the Convention
'itself, and upon the remarks of the negotiators as to the object they had in view when
drawing up the Convention. ,*p
On the 16th February 1824, at the first Conference of the Plenipotentiaries, Sir Charles
Bagot proposed a boundary line passing through Chatham Straits to the head of Lynn
Canal, thence N.W. to 140° W. long., &c.
The Russians replied verbally by proposing at first the parallel of lat. 55°, but
subsequently in writing modified their suggestion and desired a line from the south of
Prince of Wales Island up Portland Channel as far as the mountains bordering the coast,
thence along these mountains to 139° W. long.
This proposal is the first occasion of reference to mountains along the coast, and several
of the expressions in which it is couched were subsequently embodied in the Convention
ultimately arrived at,
" Pour completer la ligne de demarcation et la rendre aussi distincte que possible, les
Plenipotentiaires de Russie ont exprim6 de desir de lui faire suivre le Portland Canal
jusqu'aux montagnes qui bordent la c6te. De ce point la limite remonterait le long de
ces montagnes parallelement aux sinuosites de la cote, jusqua ia longitude du 139™°
meridien de Londres, degre dont la ligne de prolongation vers le Nord formerait la limite
ulterieure entre les Possessions Russes et Anglaises au Nord, comme a 1'Est.''
It is to be noted then that the Russians were the first to propose the mountain boundary line and described the mountains to which they referred as those next the sea (qui
bordent la cote).
In making a rejoinder Sir  Charles Bagot, as already mentioned, commenced by re- Appendix
capitulating what he understood the Russian amended proposal to be, and referred to it No. 13, p. 42.
as requiring that the line should pass from the head of the Portland Canal "jusqu'aux
" montagnes qui bordent la cdte, et de la, le long de ces montagnes jusqu'a la longitude
" du 139me degre."
Sir Charles then suggested that the following should be the line :—
A west and east line through the channel along the north of Prince of Wales and Duke
of York's islands to the mainland, approximately at the mouth of the Stikeen River, and
f, de la se prolongeant dans la meme direction sur la terre ferme jusqu'a un point distant
" de la cote de dix lieues marines, la ligne remonterait de ce point vers le Nord ouest, Ibid, p. 43.
" parallelement aux sinuosites de la cote, et toujours a la distance de dix lieues marines
" de rivage jusqu'au 140me degr6 de longitude, dont elle suivrait alors le prolongement
** jusqu'a la mer glaciale."
Here the British Plenipotentiary proposes to diminish the southing of territory desired
by Russia, but to increase its breadth. The Russians had proposed a line marked by
mountains along the windings of the coast (parallelement aux sinuosites de la cote).
Sir Charles Bagot replies by suggesting a broader strip of territory, but not extending
further to the south than about 56° 31' N. lat., limited by an eastern boundary following
the windings of the coast and always at 10 marine leagues from it.
Both parties had now adopted in the same sense the wTords " parallelement a la cote."
The Russians applied them to a line along.mountains, and therefore necessarily irregular
in direction. The British Plenipotentiary borrowing the words and their meaning applied
them to a line commencing at 10 marine leagues inland without regard to mountains, but
added "et toujours a la distance de dix lieues marines du rivage," thus pointedly
indicating that he understood the borrowed words " parallelement a la cote," merely in the
sense of " along or in the general direction of the coast line," that is, in the sense in which
they had been used by the Russian Plenipotentiaries.
When answering the last proposals by the British, the Russians speak of the mountain
boundary suggested by them as " la chaine de montagnes qui suit a une tres petite distance
V les sinuosites de la c6te."
The British Plenipotentiary, while yielding in some measure with regard to insular
territory, adhered to the continental line last proposed by him.
The Russian Plenipotentiaries then reverted to their original Projet, and thereupon
the conferences ceased while references were being made to the British Government by
both Sir Charles Bagot and the Russian Government.
•./1
.■■
Appendix
No. 12, p. 43.
Appendix
No. 14, p. 43.
Appendix
No. 15, p. 45.
No. 16, p. 45. "*6
Appendix
No. 11, p. 39.
Appendix
No. 17, p. 46.
Appendix
No. 17, p. 47.
Appendix
No. 17, p. 47.
Appendix
No. 18, p. 48.
Appendix
No. 22, p. 50.
Appendix
No. 21, p. 49.'
Appendix
No. 23, p. 50.
Appendix
No. 24, p. 50.
Appendix
No, 26, p. 52.
Appendix
No. 24, p. 50.
In Sir Charles Bagot's Despatch of || March 1824, to Mr. Canning, will be found a full
account of the negotiations up to that date.
The points in dispute were communicated by Count de Nesselrode to the Russian
Ambassador in London, with instructions for his guidance in submitting the case to the
British Government.
Count de Nesselrode, in his Despatch dated 5th April 1824, writes of the extent Of
territory on the coast desired by Russia in the following terms ■—" Nous bornons nos
" demandes a celle dune simple lisiere du continent " * * * "elle (la Russie) se
" reserve uniquement un point d' appui."
This Despatch was communicated to Mr. Canning, who consulted with the Hudson's
Bay Company on the subject. The Governor of the Company in replying remarked
on the 19th April 1824 :—" They," the Company, " beg me, however, to suggest the
" expediency of some more definite demarcation on the coast than the supposed chain of
I mountains contiguous to it, and they conceive there can be no difficulty in arranging.
" this point, from the expression in the proposition of the Russian negotiators "' la
" \ chaine de montagnes, qui sont h, une tres petite distance des sinuosites de la cote/
" Neither party have any very accurate geographical information with respect to the
" country in the immediate neighbourhood of the sea, and if the intentions of the
" Russians are fairly to be inferred from the words used in their proposal, the most
" satisfactory manner of settling this point probably would be by inserting in any Article
" providing for the boundary on the mainland, 'the nearest chain of mountains not
" exceeding a few leagues of the coast.' "
On the 29th May 1824, Mr. Canning, alluding to Count de Nesselrode's Despatch to
the Russian Ambassador, informed Count de Lieven that he intended to send to Sir
Charles Bagot further instructions, which he hoped would meet the views of the Russian
Court, and remarked " Sir Charles Bagot's discretion will be so far enlarged as to
" enable him to admit, with certain qualifications, the terms last proposed by the Russian
" Government.
" The qualifications will consist chiefly in a more definite description of the limit to
" which the strip of land required by Russia on the continent is to be restricted in the
" selection of a somewhat more western degree of longitude as the boundary to the
" northward of Mount Elias, in precise and positive stipulations for the free use of all
" rivers which may be found to empty themselves into the sea within the Russian
" frontier and of all seas, straits, and waters which the limits assigned to Russia may
" comprehend."
On the same day Mr. Canning informed Sir Charles Bagot of his correspondence with
Count de Lieven, and transmitted copies to bim.
On the 29th June 1824, Mr. Canning told Sir Charles Bagot of his intention to
furnish him with a draft Convention.
On the 12th July the draft was sent with instructions.
Before despatch to Sir Charles Bagot the draft Convention was submitted to the
Russian Ambassador, who subsequently, on the 24th July 1824, remarked as follows :—
" Le Projet de Convention redige par le Cabinet Anglais fait courir la limite des
" Possessions Russes et Anglaises sur la cote Nord-ouest d'Amerique au sud du Mont
" Klie, le long de la base des montagnes qui suivent les sinuosites de cette cote."
" II est a observer qu'en these generale, lorsqu'une chaine de montagnes sert a fixer
" une limite quelconque, c'est toujours la cime de ces montagnes qui forme la ligne de
" demarcation. Dans le cas dont il s'agit ici, le mot de base par le sens indefini qu'il
" pr$sente, et le plus ou moins d'extension qu'on peut lui donner, ne parait guere propre
" a mettre la delimitation a l'abri de toutes contestations ulterieures, car il ne serait
" point impossible, vu le peu de certitude des notions g^ographiques que l'on possede
" encore sur ces parages, que les montagnes designees pour limite, s'etendissent par une
w pente insensible jusq'aux bords memes de la cote."
It will thus be seen that not merely did the British negotiators stipulate for a
boundary along the mountains which are next the sea, but they were plainly and
thoroughly understood in this sense by the Russian negotiators.
In the instructions accompanying the draft Projet sent to Sir Charles Bagot, on the
12th July, 1824, Mr. Canning says:—" His Majesty's Government have resolved to
" authorise your Excellency to take as the line of demarcation a line     *    *    *    *
; following the sinuosities of the coast along the base of the mountains nearest the sea
" to Mount Elias and thence    *    *    *    *
' I enclose the draft of a Projet of Convention founded upon these principles, which
your Excellency is authorised to sign previously to your quitting St. Petersburg.' 17
<i
a
" There are two points which are left to be settled by your Excellency, 1st, in fixing
the course of the eastern boundary of the strip of land to be occupied by Russia on the
coast. The seaward base of the mountains is assumed as that limit. But we have
experience that other mountains on the other side of the American continent, which have
been assumed in former Treaties as lines of boundary, are incorrectly laid down in the
maps, and this inaccuracy has given rise to very troublesome discussions. It is therefore
necessary that some other security should be taken that the line of demarcation to be
drawn parallel with the coast as far as Mount St. Elias is not carried too far inland.
This is done by a proviso that that line shall in no case (i.e., not in that of the mountains
which appear by the map almost to border the coast, turning out to be far removed from
it) be carried further to the east than a specified number of leagues from the sea. The
" utmost extent which Her Majesty's Government would be disposed to concede would be
I a distance of ten leagues. But it would be desirable if your Excellency were enabled
" to obtain a still more narrow limitation.
" 2ndly * * * * * "
jl In this quotation again occurs the word "parallel" applied in the wide sense of | general
direction."
At the date of writing the Despatch above quoted Mr. Canning had not received Count de
Lieven's note on the adoption of a mountain base line, but he received it on the 24th July
1824, and on the same day transmitted a copy of it to Sir Charles Bagot, remarking:—
" Your Excellency will observe that there are but two points which have struck Count
" Lieven as susceptible of any question: the first, the assumption of the base of the
" mountains instead of the summit as the line of boundary; the second, the extension
| of the right of the navigation of the Pacifick to the sea beyond Behrings Straits."
" As to the first no great inconvenience can arise from your Excellency (if pressed for
" that alteration) consenting to substitute the summit of the mountains instead of the
" seaward base, provided always that the stipulation as to the extreme distance from the
'" coast to which the lisieVe is in any case to run, be adopted (which distance I have to
" repeat to your Excellency should be made as short as possible) and provided a stipulation
" be added that no forts shall be established or fortifications erected by either party on the
" summit or in the passes of the mountains."
Here it should be noted that Mr. Canning in speaking of a summit line instead of a
base line plainly refers to one and the same set of mountains, viz., the mountains next
the sea. He assented to the line being drawn over these mountains and not oyer others
which might be beyond them.
For reasons, one of which referred to the mountain boundary line, the draft Convention
did not prove acceptable to the Russian Court, who submitted a contre Projet, and on
the 12th September 1824,.Mr. Canning remarked to Count de Lieven:—" This refusal"
viz., to conclude the Treaty, " is the more unexpected as the chief alterations made
" in the original Projet were, introduced here (as your Excellency can bear witness) at
" the suggestion of the Russian Plenipotentiaries themselves. I have not yet had time
" to give sufficient consideration to the contre Projet now presented on the part of
" those Plenipotentiaries to be enabled to say positively whether it can be accepted in
" all its parts." Mr., Ganning concludes by desiring that the negotiations may be
continued in London instead of at St. Petersburg.
Mr. Canning then referred the Russian, contre Projet to the Hudson's Bay Company,
of which the Governor, in replying, said, " it does not appear to me that the counter
" project of Russia is so essentially different.from the one which His Majesty's Ministers
have considered it advisable .'to propose to Russia, as far as the Hudson's Bay
Company are concerned, to reject it except in the 2nd Art., which should more
" accurately define the eastern boundary from the Portland Canal to 61° of north
1 latitude to be the chain of mountains at a 'tres petite distance de la cote,' but that
" if the summit of those mountains exceed ten leagues that the distance be substituted
" instead of the mountains."
The proposal to continue the negotiations in London instead of at St. Petersburg
was not carried into effect. Sir Stratford Canning was instructed to undertake the duty
of British Plenipotentiary instead of Sir Charles Bagot, who had left St. Petersburg.
Sir Stratford was fully informed of all previous proceedings and was furnished with a
copy of the last Russian contre Projet.
In his instructions to Sir Stratford, Mr. Canning remarks on that contre Projet, and
says: « The Russian Plenipotentiaries propose to withdraw entirely the limit of the
" lisilre on the coast which they were themselves the first to propose, viz., the summit
I of the mountains which run parallel to the coast, and which appear, according to the
o   53036. C
Appendix
No. 25, p. 51.
Appendix
No. 29, p. 55
Appendix
No. 29, p. 55.
Appendix
No. 27, p. 52.
a
<i
Appendix
No. 28, p. 53.
Appendix
No. 29, p. 53.
Ibid, p. 55. 18
((
tt
ft
it
it
<(
(C
man, to follow all its sinuosities, and to substitute generally that which we only
suggested as a correction of their first proposition.
" We cannot agree to this change. It is quite obvious that the boundaryof mountains
where they exist is the most natural and effectual boundary. The inconvenience
against which we wished to guard was, that which you know and can thoroughly
explain to the Russian Plenipotentiaries to have existed on the other side of the
American continent, when mountains laid down in a map as in a certain given position
and assumed in faith of the accuracy of that map as a boundary between the possessions of England and the United States turned out to be quite differently situated,
a discovery which has given rise to the most perplexing discussion. Should the maps
be no more accurate as to the western than as to the eastern mountains, we might
be assigning to Russia immense tracts of territory where we only intended to give,
and they intended to ask, a strip of sea coast!
" To avoid the chance of this inconvenience we proposed to qualify the general proposition ' that the mountains should be the boundary' with the condition ' if these
'' mountains should not be found to extend beyond 10 leagues from the coast.' The
Russian Plenipotentiaries now propose to take the distance invariably as the rule. But
we cannot consent to this change. The mountains, as I have said, are a more eligible
boundary than any imaginary line of demarcation, and this being their own original
proposition the Russian Plenipotentiaries cannot reasonably refuse to adhere to it.
" Where the mountains are the boundary, we are content to take the summit instead
of the ' seaward base ' as the line of demarcation."
" A Projet, such as it will stand according to the observations of this Despatch, is
enclosed, which you will understand as a guide for the drawing up of the Convention,
but not as prescribing the precise form of words, nor fettering your discretion as
to any alterations not varying from the substance of these instructions.
*
*
*
*
Appendix
So
o, 50.
" It remains only in recapitulation to remind you of the origin and principles of this
** whole negotiation.    It is not on our part essentially a negotiation about limits.
" It is a demand of the repeal of an offensive and unjustifiable arrogation* of exclusive
" jurisdiction over an ocean of unmeasured extent; but a demand qualified and mitigated
" in its manner, in order that its justice may be acknowledged and satisfied without
" soreness or humiliation on the part of Russia.
" We negotiate about territory to cover the remonstrance upon principle.
" But any attempt to take undue advantage of this voluntary facility we must oppose.
" If the present Projet is agreeable to Russia, we are ready to conclude and sign the
If Treaty.
" If the teiritorial arrangements are not satisfactory we are ready to postpone them,
" and to conclude and sign the essential part, that which relates to navigation alone,
" adding an Article stipulating to negotiate about territorial limits hereafter.
" But we are not prepared to defer any longer the settlement of that essential part of
" the question, and if Russia will neither sign the whole Convention, nor that essential -
'•' part of it, she must not take it amiss that we resort to some mode of recording in the
t? face of the world our protest against the pretensions of  the Ukase of 1821, and
" effectually securing our interests against the possibility of its future operations."
Prom the foregoing extracts it will be seen that Sir Stratford Canning had no option
left to him with regard to the terms upon which he was to agree to the continental
boundary line; and that the terms were, in so far as the mountain line is concerned,
identical with those contained in the last instructions to Sir Charles Bagot, with the solo
exception that Sir Stratfprd Canning was now directed to require " a small extension "
of the line of demarcation, from the point where the Usiere on the coast terminates in
latitude 59°, to the northward, The extension required being " from 139° to 141° W.
loinr."
This point had been signified to Count de Lieven, but Mr. Canning had omitted to
mention it to Sir Charles Bagot, Reference is first made to it when Ittr. Canning assents
to the line passing up Portland Channel.
^ It follows that what has been said as to the sense in which phrases were used while
Sir Charles Bagot was British Plenipotentiary applies with equal force to their use while
Sir Stratford Canning was acting.
The same mountains—those next the sea—are referred to throughout; the same probability of the distance of the mountains from the coast being found to vary considerably
Contained in the Ukase of 1821.—D.B.C. Appendix
No. 30, p. 56.
Appendix
No. 31, p. 57.
Appendix
No.26, p. i
Appendix
No. 33, p. 1
19
is expressed, and the same general parallelism is implied by the words  " parallel to the
coast" and "parallelement a la cdte."
Sir Stratford Canning arrived at St. Petersburg on the ~   January 1825, and on
Jan 28
yeb    q 1825 reported having re-opened negotiations with the Russian Plenipotentiaries,
and on February — 1825 mentions having read Mr. Canning's last Projet to the Russian
Plenipotentiaries.
Sixteen days subsequently—^-i—'- 1825—he reports having concluded and signed the
Convention on the previous night, and mentions the points in which the Convention
varies from the Projet as originally submitted by him; stating—
" The line of demarcation along the strip of land on the north-west coast of America
" assigned to Russia is laid down in the Convention agreeably to your directions, notwith-
" standing some difficulties raised on this point as well as regards the order of the Articles
" by the Russian Plenipotentiaries."
In this passage there is the most direct evidence of the construction to be put upon
the provisions of Articles 3 and 4 of the Convention with regard to the mountain
boundary line.
The line agreed upon was the one described by Mr. Canning, whose meaning had
been fully and clearly explained, and was perfectly understood by the Russians.
So well did the Russians understand what the British proposal was, that they pointed
out the mountains' base line might be found to coincide with the coast line itself; and
foreseeing difficulty in determining a base line—but only on this account—suggested that
the tops of the mountains instead of their seaward bottoms should be accepted as regulating the boundary. In the 4th Article of the Convention—the Russian coast territory
between Portland Channel and 141° W. long., is described as " la lisieVe de cdte," i.e.,
'■*' the marginal strip of coast."
Mr. Canning in acknowledging on 2nd April 1825 the receipt of the signed Convention informs Sir Stratford of Has Majesty's particular satisfaction at the conclusion of
the Treaty in a manner so exactly conformable to the instructions given to him.
Passing next to the expression " la cote " occurring in the 2nd and 3rd Articles of the
Convention, it can easily be shown that the general coast line of the continent, exclusive
of inlets, creeks, and simitar narrow waterways^ is the sense in which the words are
used.
In their reply to Sir Charles Bagot's second proposal, the Russian Plenipotentiaries,
in summing up the effect of their suggestion in respect to British interests, speak of the
extent of coast line and of territory left to British occupation; and say—
1° Toute la partie de la cdte situe^e entre l'embouchure du Portland Channel et le
51me degre latitude nord, envisage comme limites des Possessions Russes dans l'Oukaze
de 4/16 Sept. 1821.
2°. Tout le territoire situe entre les etablissemens Anglais au 54rae et l'origine du
Portland Channel qui est au 56me parallele.
3°. Tout le territoire situ6 derriere la chaine de montagnes * * *
In these sentences it is  apparent that the Russian Plenipotentiaries used the word
cSte as not embracing the shore lines of Observatory Inlet and of Portland Canal, nor of
the extensive inlets upon which is marked by Arrowsmith the English trading post Fort Map No. ia
M'Laughlin, approximately in latitude 52^  N.
Sir Charles Bagot, when reporting to Mr. Canning the check which happened in the
-negotiations, spoke of his proposal " being coupled with the concession of a line of coast
" extending ten marine leagues into the interior of the continent." This can hardly be
understood to mean a breadth of ten marine leagues measured eastward from the iiead
of the inlets. # m
Mr. Cannin0", when enlarging the discretion of Sir Charles Bagot, wrote, " It is there-
" fore necessary that some other security should be taken, that the line of demarcation
" to be drawn parallel with the coast as far as Mount St. Elias is not carried too far
ti inland.
" This is done by a proviso that that line shall in no case (i.e., not in that of the
" mountains which appear by the map almost to border the coast, turning out to be far
" removed from it) be carried further to the east than a specific number of leagues from
I the sea.    The utmost extent which His  Majesty's  Government would be disposed to
concede would be a distance of ten leagues."
C 2
Appendix
No. 14, p. 43.
Appendix
No. 11, p. 40.
Appendix
No. 24, p. 51,
•
« 20
Appendix
No. 17, p. 46.
Appendix
No. 13, p. 42.
Appendix
No. 14, p. 43.
No. 17, p. 47.
Appendix
No. 15, p. 44.
Appendix
No. 16, p. 45.
Appondix
No. 17, p. 47.
This language is inconsistent with the supposition that the coast line was considered
by Mr. Canning to extend to the heads of inlets. He did not contemplate the extension
of the lisiere's breadth in dependence upon the undefined lengths of inlets.
Count de Nesselrode speaks of Portland Canal as being within the ocean boundary of
the continent. When instructing Count de Lieven as to the points to be referred to the
British Government, Count de Nesselrode says:—"Nous proposions de porter la
" frontiere meridionale de nos domaines au 54° 40' de latitude, et de la faire aboutir sur
" le continent au Portland Canal, dont l'embouchure dans l'ocean est k la hauteur de
" l'ile du Prince de Galles et l'origine dans les terres entre le 55° et 56° de latitude."
Thus the Count regarded and spoke of the mouth of Portland Canal as a point on
the continental coast, but alluded to the Canal itself as being within the continent.
Sir Charles Bagot had stated the belief that between 54° 45' and 56° N. lat. there
was direct communication by inlets with British trading posts. The Russians replied by
admitting the existence of British posts at 53° and 54" N. latitude near the coast, but
submitted Sir Charles could not point to any British establishment actually on the ocean
coast line.
The reference is understood to be to Millbank Sound, the position marked on Arrow-
smith's map as Fort M'Laughlin, on an inlet.
Sir Charles Bagot rejoined by declaring that there existed a British post " meme pres
de la cote au nord du 55me degre." This probably referred to either a trading post at
Nasse harbour* within Observatory Inlet or at the mouth of the Stickeen.
But to whatever particular station allusion was made the argument was of the following kind. The British asserted that the continental coast line should belong to the
Power which had settlements on it. The Russians admitted the principle, but denied
that British posts on inlets could be held to be on the coast.
In maintaining their views the Russians subsequently asserted " Qu'au reste, d'apreV
le temoignage des cartes les pros r^centes, publiees en Angleterre il n'existe aucun
etablissement Anglais ni sur la cote meme du Continent, ni au Nord du 54° degre de
latitude septentrionale."
Similarly Count de Nesselrode, in writing to Count de Lieven, repeats the argument:—
Ou ne peut effectivement assez le repeter, d'apres le temoignage des cartes les plus
recentes, l'Angleterre ne possede aucun etablissement, ni a la hauteur du Portland
" Canal, ni a bord meme de I' Ocean." ffit
The preceding passages show that during the negotiations the shores of inlets were
not included in the meaning intended to be conveyed by the words ** la c6te." This is.
perfectly in accord with the wording of the Treaty itself.
In the 2nd clause of the 4th A rticle provision is made for the case of the mountains
being found at more than 10 marine leagues inland, and it is there laid down that the
measurement shall be made, not from inlets, but from the ocean.
The Convention stipulates, " Que partout ou la crete des montagnes, qui s'etendent
" dans une direction parallele a la c6te * * * se trouverait a la distance de plus
" de dix lieues marines de l'ocean * * * la limite * * * sera formee par une
" ligne parallele aux sinuosites de la c6te, et qui ne pourra jamais en. etre eloignee que
" de dix lieues marines,"
The word " ocean " is wholly inapplicable to inlets. Consequently the line, whether
marked by mountains or only by a survey line, has to be drawn without reference to inlets.
Had it not been so clearly provided against by express stipulation in the 2nd clause of
the 4th Article of the Convention, and by the accepted principles of international law, it
might, in the case of the absence of mountains, be argued that the breadth of the lisiere
should be measured from the sea water's edge wherever—in inlet or elsewhere it outlined the continent. And that this being the coast line where no mountains exist within 10
leagues, is equally the coast line whence to determine the mountains nearest to the coast.
But, as said above, inlets in either alternative—the occurrence or non-occurrence of
mountains within 10 leagues,—are not part of the coast line determining the boundary.
None of the inlets between Portland  Channel and the meridian of 141° W. long are
a
«
it
a
the waters within the mouths of the inlets*are as much territorial waters, accord]
an universally admitted international law, as those of fresh-water lake or stream would be
under analogous circumstances.
f lh£ ?c^SOn 8 B*7 C?™Pany ^o, in 1831, erected buildings for their trade at Nasse harbour, styled the
post " Fort Simpson," unhl its abandonment in 1835, and its replacement by the present Fort Simnson
^Appendix 2b, p. 53, in which a British trade establishment at latitude 57° N. is mentioned by the gSJSiw
of the Hudson's Bay Company, and Maps 7, 9, and 10.—D.R.C. *       governor 21
The question of the water being salt or fresh is not one in any way affecting the
argument.
As far as non-mountainous eountry may extend—but within 10 marine leagues of the
ocean-—the inlets are in fact included by the Convention within la V&tirede cote mention^ Appendix
ci-des$us comme devant appartenir d la Bussie." No- 41, p. 70
On the other hand so much of these inlets as happen to be in mountainous territory, Art' **'
or beyond 10 marine leagues from the ocean, together with the dry land about them, is
assigned to Great Britain as much as are rivers and lakes in the same regions.
Nothing short of an express stipulation to the contrary effect would, it is conceived,
serve to maintain the proposition that inland waters in the lisidre de cdte assigned to
Russia' were not part and parcel of that lisiere.
But if they were really part and parcel of the lisiSre itself, their mere existence
cannot possibly be a reasonable foundation for arguing that they involve an increase of
the breadth of the HsiSre of which they are component parts.
The limits of the lisiSre are, by the Convention, expressly dependent on the relative
positions of ocean line and neighbouring mountain line.    There is not the faintest suggestion throughout the negotiations of any intention to refer the breadth of the lisiSre to
any other standards, and the only reference to inlets in the Convention (Art. VII.) is in Appendix
a form almost directly declaratory of assent to the doctrine of territorial authority over No. 41, p. 71
them.
If the sovereignty over inlets does not pass in accordance with the doctrine that they
are part and parcel of the surrounding territory, there was no occasion for the reciprocal
concession made in the VII. Article of a right to navigate these inlets.
Regarded from this point of view rivers and inlets are identical.
As reasonable then would it be to hold that under the Convention the breadth of the Meridian
lisiSre assigned to Russia is determined by the head waters of its rivers, as that the head IiINB 0F
waters of its creeks and inlets regulate the breadth. *
From the point where the eastern limit of the lisiSre attains 141° W. long., the
boundary line follows the meridian to the Arctic Ocean. There is no room for difference
of opinion as to the intention of the Convention in respect of this section of the line.
Probable Cost of marking the British Alaskan Boundary.
No international agreement has yet been arrived at with regard to the interpretation
of the terms of the Convention defining the British Alaskan boundary.
Under these circumstances no reliable estimate of the cost of effecting the demarcation
can be formed.
In 1874-5, when it was anticipated that the demarcation was about to be effected, See Domi-
detailed estimates of the cost were prepared for Her Majesty's Government and for the nion °f
Government of the United States.    Those estimates, of which there were several, varied gggsional
widely, for they were based on the assumption of there being alternative methods, one or papers,l878,
other of which might have been selected as that to be acted upon. Vol. XI.,
Excluding the consideration of a line to be determined under fresh conditions to be No-125-
agreed upon between the two countries now concerned, the lowest estimate submitted
was one providing for the marking of a very few points on the boundary, suggested by
the United States Government.
The highest estimates provided for the location of the line on the supposition that a
large part of it would traverse an exceptionally mountainous region, between the parallel
of 56° N. latitude and Mount St. Elias, parallel, in an approximately mathematical sense,
to the windings of the coast, including in those windings the intricate outlines of all
inlets, &c.
An examination of the records of the negotiation's which resulted in the treaty definition of the boundary, has served to show that the extreme difficulties upon which the
larger estimates were based, have not to be met. At the same time it becomes apparent
that the adoption of the temporary expedient of marking a few points, regarded at
present as prominent, under natural but erroneous views of the terms of the treaty, m
not one which it is desirable to follow.
The incomplete marking of a boundary is largely open to the well-founded objections
to which total absence of marking is open.
It has  been asserted that the boundary  runs   at places through valuable mineral
regions.
In such a country partial demarcation maybe even more  dangerous internationally
than no marking at all, for from partial marking opposing interests would inevitably 22
draw arguments to justify occupation, and to support pretensions at spots where marking
happened to be absent. ] ...
The objection to partial demarcation, because inefficient for the object aimed at, is
enhanced by consideration of cost.
Interrupted procedure involves repeated outfit and organization, and these entail heavy
additional expenditure.
The cost of demarcation of the line, if located as indicated in this Report, would
approximately amount to 300,000/. (=£1,500,000) on the British side; and would entail
five vears' field work.
In the absence of a definite decision as to the principle upon which the Convention is
to be interpreted, it would be quite'useless to enter here into a detailed examination of
the probable cost of completing the work.
The sum now arrived at, it may be stated, is based upon the following data and
considerations:
1 st. That before the work is undertaken there shall be a thorough understanding
between the two Governments—British and United States—as to the interpretation of
the terms of the Convention.
2nd. That the Commissioners entrusted with the execution of the work should, before
going into the field,—confer and arrive at agreement as to the details for giving effect to
the decisions of their Governments.
Appendix 3rd. That on the British side the organization of the expedition shall be practically
No. 45, p. 80. gy^ as was detailed in the estimate submitted in 1875 for marking the line according
to the United States suggestion for determining only a few points, but making allowance
for the work taking more time, and for the sum apportioned to mules, forage, and
civilians being available for steam water-transport, boats, and crews, to the extent that it
may be found desirable to thus apply it.
By the arguments presented in this Report it would appear that, consistently with the-
terms of the treaty with Russia, the line does not run through the interior of the
mountainous region between Portland Channel and Mount St. Elias, but skirts it on the
seaward side ; and consequently that for this portion of the boundary the location of the
line may be approached at all points to within a few miles by water.
On the other hand, there may be entailed hitherto unforeseen hydrographic survey
between Prince of Wales' Island and the north-eastward part of Pearse Island, and
possibly in the neighbourhood of Lynn Canal.
Appendix
No. 42.
-78.
p. 7
Remarks on the Views of the United States Government as expressed in the
Instructions of Mr. Secretary Bayard to Mr. Phelps, United States
Minister, of 20th November 1885, and the Letter of Mr. Phelps to the Marquis
of Salisbury of 19th January 1886.
Mr. Phelps' letter encloses a copy of Mr. Bayard's instructions; and, essentially, is-
2 limited to a repetition of some of Mr. Bayard's remarks.
These commence by stating that the British Alaskan water boundary, although not a
subject of doubt to the United States Government, has been misunderstood in other
quarters, and that the land supposed to follow a mountain range is impracticable of survey^,
if not geographically impossible.
Mr. Bayard then proceeds to note that it may fairly be assumed that the negotiators
based a theoretical boundary on what they beli ved to be a substantially correct representation of geographical features on charts before them; and he subsequently adds that
it may be assumed with confidence that the charts employed in the negotiation were those
of Vancouver.
Passing over such points in Mr. Bayard's instructions as do not appear to be concerned
in supporting the views he expresses, it may be noted with regard to his remark that "the
inland boundary is supposed to follow a mountain range," the statement may not be left
without comment.
When mountains are mentioned as a boundary, without any understanding or ex»
planation, it is generally assumed that the general watershed line of the mountains is that
intended; and this acceptation is based upon the circumstance that a watershed is the
only well defined line on a mountain,—and of the many that may exist in a range of
mountains, the principal is the only one common to all the region embraced.
If Mr. Bayard refers to a mountain range as regulating the Alaskan boundary in the
foregoing sense, he cannot have known of the discussions which passed between the
negotiators, nor sufficiently considered the wording of the Convention. 23
The treaty describes the line as marked by the crest of mountains situated along the
coast.    Why this reference of the mountains to the coast ?   If a line having mountains
intervening between it and the coast had been intended, would it be reasonable to refej
it to the coast, and to give no other indication of its location. The general watershed
line could not have been meant, for that, by the flow of rivers, was known to all to be
far inland. The passage is surely most simply interpreted as equivalent to saying that
the line is marked by the tops of the mountains next the coast. And this is in fact an
exact condensation of the terms in which the British negotiators explained the meaning
of the sentence to the Russian authorities, and it was so understood by the Russians.
The French text does not speak of the line as being marked out by une chaine de
montagnes situee parallelement a la cote (a mountain range along the coast); but it
individualises and specifies the mountains describing the line as following la crSte des
montagnes sitwees parallelement a la cdte, that is following the line of the tops of the
mountains next the coast.
As previously explained there was a discussion between the British and Russians
whether the line should be along the seaward base of the mountains or over their tops,
and the Russian Minister pointed out the difficulty in locating a base line referring at
the same time to the precedents afforded by treaty practice for selecting the top
line instead of the bottom line; but he offered no argument in favour of a general
mountain range watershed line; and no such argument would have been apposite, for
the only advantage of a general.watershed line is facility in determining its location. But
this advantage was already attained in a higher degree by the coast line mountains
being selected, for their location was really far easier to identify than that of general
-watershed mountains.
Mr. Bayard attributes what he conceives to be errors on the part of the negotiators
of the Convention, to inaccuracy in Vancouver's charts, yet so far as these charts bear
upon the water boundary question they are still indisputably correct; but, as regards
the topography along the land boundary they never professed to be correct, and the
negotiators of the treaty fully appreciated their unreliability in this respect.
There is no point touched by the Convention, in connexion with the water boundary,
which is not thoroughly intelligible from Vancouver's charts, nor any point which has
had additional light thrown upon it by subsequent explorations.
Two Russian charts, one of 1802 and another of 1822, are known to have been
consulted by the British negotiators ; further, it is known that Arrowsmith's maps of
that date were consulted by the Russians, for they refer to the location of the posts
of the Hudson's Bay Company which were to be found only on Arrowsmith's maps, and
they allude—in records of the negotiations, to these data as given by the most recent and
reliable English maps; a remark which could only apply to the work of Arrowsmith.
He was the most esteemed British geographer at the time. He was hydrographer to
H.R.H. the Prince of Wales and geographer to the Hudson's Bay Company. But bis
maps of the Alaskan coast line, as all others, including Russian and United States, of
the same region at that date were based upon Vancouver's charts.
Vancouver's charts may thus be accepted as having guided the negotiators in their
definition of the water boundary; but cannot be accepted as having determined their
description of the land boundary in any other sense than that where the name Portland
Channel occurs it is due to Vancouver. On the other hand it is certain that the belief
of the negotiators that Vancouver's inland topography was not reliable led to their
defining a line which might have as well been described had the map before them
presented only the sea line—on an otherwise blank sheet—from Portland Inlet to Mt. St.
Elias and thence to the Arctic Ocean. Both the British and Russian negotiating
authorities recorded their sense of the necessity of describing such a line as should be
independent of the location given to inland features on the maps before them.
Nevertheless it is a fact that the negotiators noted on Vancouver's, or on some other*
map—it matters not by whom made—what they interpreted to imply a mountain range
closely bordering on the coast.
Vancouver's Charts show such indications; in one case closely following the water
line, in another at some leagues inland. Chart VII. shows both ranges. Chart XII.
shows only a single range.
The United States photographic copy of Chart VII. has not reproduced the shore line
range with as much force as they appear in the original, while the inland range, more
decided for graphical effect, is in consequence of its bordering blank paper still further
intensified by comparison, and has naturally been selected by Mr. Bayard as illustrating
the text of the Convention.    But irrespective of the actual existence of either of the
* See the Russian map
-D.R.C.
of 1802, No. 4, and of 1826, No. 5, and Appendix Nos. 7
p. 34 and <9 p. 55.
Appendix...
Map No. 2.
Map No. 3. 24
Appendix,
No. 24, p. 51.
Appendix,
No. 26, p. 52.
Map No. 2.
Map No. 3.
Map No. 4.
Map No. 5.
Appendix
No. 35, p.@g.
Appendix-
No, 35, p.59.
„ 35, p.66.
„ 38, p.67.
i-mges supposed to have been imaged in Vancouver's charts and noting only the water
line range, it may be asked in what respect the delineation of the water line range fails to
illustrate the text of the Convention with as much verisimilitude as the remoter range ?
Mr. Canning describes the map topography as representing mountains almost bordering
the coast, and the Russians wrote of the mountains as those qui bordent la cote, and also
as likely to be found sloping into the sea itself I Is the inland chain or is the coast line
chain the more likely to have been the subject of these remarks ?
It would be unnecessary to offer an explanation of the inland details noted on
Vancouver's published charts were it not that attention has been directed to their supposed
Inaccuracy in order to strengthen an erroneous interpretation of the Convention.
Any one familiar with map making and map reading will at once recognise
Vancouver's indications of mainland mountain topography as mere conventional signs in
use for many years and arranged for pictorial effect, to represent unsurveyed supposed
mountainous regions. Any one possessed of Vancouver's Atlas must have noted on its
pages undoubtedly careful perspective views of the mountains bordering on the water line,
and these pictures must carry conviction to an observer's mind that Vancouver could not
possibly have seen from his boats the range which it is erroneously alleged he intended
to depict as existing many leagues inland.
Moreover the history of Vancouver's explorations for the illustration of, and in
connexion with which the Atlas was published, leaves no room for doubt that none of
Vancouver's expedition penetrated inland on the Alaskan coast beyond a distance of
being within.call of their boats on the beach.
In reporting the completion of his coast survey Vancouver writes :—
"I am> at length able to inform you of our having finally traced and determined the
" continental boundary of North-west America from the latitude of 24° 54' north and
" longitude 244° 33' east; north-westward through all its various turnings and windings
| so far as its different inlets have been found safely navigable for our boats, to Cape
" Douglas." And in allusion to the principal object of his expedition, the discovery of a
navigable passage between the Pacific and Altantic, he continues to say :—" During the
" investigation we have never been able to penetrate beyond the barrier of the lofty
" mountains which, covered with eternal snow, extend nearly in a connected chain along
" the western border of the continent, I believe, to its utmost limits."
| Many times,too in his history Vancouver refers to lofty mountains sloping abruptly
and precipitately.into the sea itself on the Alaskan water line.
.The mountains enclosing Portland Channel are now known to attain 2,000, 3,000 and
4,000 feet in height, and their neighbours beyond even 6,000 feet.
So precipitous are these and so close to the water that Vancouver's party was driven
by the rising tide from his camp to his boats; and Commander Pender's party had
a.like experience in recent years.
Such is the character of the features conventionally recorded by Vancouver's water
edge marking and involved configuration inland.
Such is the general character of the country which it is alleged proved Vancouver
tpjbe but a poor topographer, Vancouver, whose chief duty was to map the coast line,
and upon whose work many of the most reliable maps of the present day are largely
based, -and for many details are even wholly dependent. A poor topographer because
he did not accurately delineate the inland features of a country through which, iu
supporting another point in his contention, Mr. Bayard alleges it would be impracticable
to survey a single frontier line!
Whatever errors may have been committed in reading Vancouver's charts are certainly
not attributable to him ; and, as has been remarked, with regard to the inland frontier
the negotiators, whatever may have been the opinion they formed of Vancouver's
intention, guarded against being led into error by depending upon his details.
IMr. Bayard makes the qualified admission that Vancouver may have at one time
regarded the Pearse Canal of later geographers as the lower part of Portland Canal.
The fact that he did so is however clearly on record in his history. He describes
Portland Canal in detail from its head to its junction with the ocean, and distinguishes
it from the entrance to Observatory Inlet, and" did not subsequently modify his view.
The southern and northern points of the entrance now called Portland Inlet, he named
Point Maskelyne and Point Wales, and gives the latitude of the southern point.
He also gives the latitude of a point of land at the entrance to Portland Channel or
Canal.
Alluding to these two passages Mr. Bayard contends that a boundary line deflectino-
• to the northward from the broad waters of Dixon Entrance and passing through a
" narrow and intricate channel lying north-westward from Portland Inlet known on the
" United States Coast Chart of 1S«5 as Pearse Channel until it suddenly deflects south- 25
■daKS*5**--1^—.r^-Ksi
ward
again at right angles to re-enter Portland Inlet, thereby appearing to make
British territory of Pearse and Wales Islands, and throwing doubt on the nationality
several -small islands   at   the south-western   extremity of Wales Island is
Appendix
No.42,p
of several -small islands   at   the south-western   extremity of Wales Island is in
|| manifest contradiction with the treaties, which provided that the island called Prince
" op Wales's Island shall belong wholly to Russia."
The contention apparently depends upon the relation of the suggested line to Wales Ibia>£. 76.
Mand, and on the assumption that Wales Island and Prince of Wales Island are one
-and the same.
"But Wales Island, so called about 1853 from Wales Point which wns named by
Vancouver, is between the mouths of Portland Channel and Observatory Inlet, and
-40 miles to the east of Prince of Wales Island;; nor in the Convention Is there any
reference whatever to Wales Island.
In the description given above by Mr. Bayard of a line suggested by some one, it is
not quite clear to what particular channel north-westward from Portland Inlet he refers. Appendix
There are several channels, and there is some indication in Mr. Bayard's remarks that a No.42,p.7i
channel which is not the entrance described by Vancouver, is alluded to. 3BTo/8fi,p.6«
The suggested line under discussion by Mr. Bayard is spoken of as deflecting northward from the broad waters of Dixon Entrance, and Mr. Bayard makes no remark upon
■.its course up to the point of deflection. This silence is only consistent with Mr. Bayard's
subsequent arguments, founded on the assumption that the treaty prescribes a parallel «of
latitude line through Dixon Entrance.
But it has been shown in the course of this Report that the negotiators did not con- Ante, p. 8-
template a parallel  of latitude line, and there is no allusion to any such line in tire
Convention.    Apart from the evidence furnished by records of the negotiations of the
intention of the framers of the Convention to„connect the southernmost point of Prince
of Wales Island with the entrance to Portland Channel by a direct line, there is the
internal evidence in the  Convention itself.    When it was intended in the case of the
meridian of 141° W. longitude that the boundary should follow a geodetic line, it was so
^explicitly stated, and when it was desired that the line should be determined at any
point by geodetic measurement, it was so explicitly stated ; as for example, .the intersection with the parallel of 56° N. latitude, and again the termination of its westerly
^course at the meridian of 141° W. longitude.    In each of these cases the intention is
•stated  with  perfect  clearness   and decision^ the  terms in which the  provisions  are
•expressed in the Convention leaving not a shadow of a doubt that geodetic determination
{governed the location of the line.
Under these circumstances and in the absence of any direct statement in the Treaty
*to support the contention, the assumption that a parallel of latitude was intended to be
the course run between named terminal geographical^eaftures is untenable.
Again, Mr. Bayard speaks of the line passing by the north-west of Pearse Island, then
turning southward again at right angles to re-enter Portland in$et.    It is-esctremely
difficult to follow this description unless, indeed, it  be intended to convey the idea that
'the line on re-entering Portland Inlet is supposed to run up the remainder of Observatory
Inlet instead of up Portland Channel as described inethe Convention.
Regarding Pearse 'Channel, which is a direct continuation of the upper waters of
Portland Channel, as merely the lower part of Portland Channel, it is difficult to discover
on what principle anyone could have suggested first the line should leave the Portland
Channel to re-enter what is now called Port,land,iinlet at & point where that inlet is
admittedly in conjuction with Observatory Inlet.
Mr. Bayard indeed desires to dispute the conformity bfutne suggested unreasonable
line with the terms of the Convention ; but, in ;Sut>mitting his arguments against it, he
assumes details which cannot be assented to. •*» ie
The true ocean entrance to the Portland Channel, of the Convention is *by Fort
Tongass, and the line up the channel allots Wales, Pearse, and other islands to Great
Britain. Jsmkk
Mr. Bayard interprets the 3rd Article of the;f-€onvention as directly stating that
Portland Channel reaches as far north as 56° N. latitude.
At a first reafling of the English translation as quoted in the printed copy of Mr. Append.
.by way of .or
/a.
Appendix
Map No. 1
^Seesp. 11.
meaning
go
is that the said line shall
tirough Portland Channel, northward until it strikes 56° N. latitude.
The personal pronoun it in the quoted English translation might jpossibly vbe refereed
to either the line, or Portland Channel, or the continent.
The words are "the said line shall ascend to the north along the Channel called
" Portland Channel, as far as the point of the continent where it strikes the 56th degree:
W of north latitude."
No. 41, p.
No. 42, p.
A    2303C.
D 26
Mr. Bayard's
Instructions,
p. 75.
p. 76.
Appendix
No. 35, pp.59
-62.
Mo. 36, p. 66.
No. 37, p. 66.
No. 38, p. 67.
Map No. 9.
Appendix
No. 13, p.42.
Ex. Russian
Chart of about
1825 No, 5.
Arrowsmith's
of 1795 cor-
leoted to 1814.
U. S. Tanner's
of 1822.
3£x. Stanford's
Library Map
of the World
1872.
Appendix
No. 42, p. 75.
Appendix
No. 43,p.79.
M*p No. 17.
The use of the word strikes, with relation to a continent, is so exceptional as to lead
one to conclude that by " it strikes 56° N. latitude," the translator cannot have meant
that the continent strikes 56° N. latitude. 5  .
But in the French text the equivalent words are " elle atteint le 56me degre de latitude
" nord;" and there is nothing in the word atteint which makes it exceptional to refer it
to la terre ferme. ...
It may be mentioned that on the French text being submitted to two Parisian literary
gentlemen without comment, each of them said that elle referred to la ligne; but, on its
being pointed out that atteint appeared in the present tense, each of them stated that
according to strict grammatical rule, elle as used, referred to la terre ferme. Neither of
these gentlemen was aware of the circumstances of the case, and had only the words
before them to go by.
If the English translation were worded U to the point of the continent where it attains
" 56° N. lat.," there would be no room for the suggestion that the terms of the
Convention were inconsistent with the features to which they referred, and with the
details of the maps upon which the terms were based. Attains is a truer translation of
atteint, than strikes is. And inasmuch as—even in the English translation—if, of two
fairly legitimate but different renderings, one is consistent with facts and the other inconsistent, it is not too much to assume that the consistent rendering is that which should
govern the interpretation.
At the same time, it is not admitted that the English translation of the Convention is
authoritative.    The ratification is in French.
Mr. Ba3'ard having remarked that "there are evident reasons for believing" that the
authors of the Anglo-Russian Treaty of 1825 had for their purpose "the location of the
" natural boundary line in the broader channel called Portland Inlet on the Admiralty
" and United States Coast Survey Charts" refers to " Portland Channel, Portland Canal,
" or Portland Inlet as it is indifferently styled on the several charts."
As previously noted, ante p. 7, in the 4to edition of Vancouver's History, PortlandCanal
is the name applied to what, in the subsequent 8vo edition, is styled Portland Channel.
On his charts the name is invariably | Portland Canal." During the negotiations both
names were used. But on no chart up to and for many years after the Convention can
there be found the name Portland Inlet; and, when thereafter it. is found to occur, it is
believed to be invariably limited to the entrance of Observatory Inlet, a totally different
channel from that of Portland Canal as described by Vancouver, and clearly so indicated
on the Russian chart of the southern half of Kolschensk Archipelago, 1853.
JO7
In addition it will be remembered that Sir Charles Bagot, one of the British negotiators,
clearly marked his knowledge of the difference between Portland Canal ocean entrance
and the more recently styled Portland Inlet, by naming very approximately the latitude
of the former.
It may further be remarked that until the results of the Convention gave special
importance to Vancouver's Portland Channel, geographers regarded Observatory Inlet
as the more important of the two, for on some maps both channels were named, but on
ethers Portland Channel was delineated without name, while Observatory Inlet was
distinguished by name.
Then m subsequent years Portland Canal, as the more important channel, appears
named, while Observatory Inlet is sometimes shown -without name.
At first there was no special importance attached to Portland Channel; but Observatory
Inlet was noted as the inlet in which a series of astronomical observations were taken by
which the surveys of the neighbouring region were finally corrected. So soon, however
as Portland Channel was • understood to be the continental southern limit of Russian
territory, the temporary interest attached to Observatory Inlet sank into insignificance
when compared with the permanent interest now connected with Portland Canal; and
this change is reflected in the details given by map makers.
It is believed that no chart or map by any maker at all can be produced showing the
supposed location of the boundary line as passing through the entrance of Observatory
Inlet until after that entrance was styled Portland Inlet. So far as can be traced it would
appear that this name was first applied some time about the year 1853. Mr. Bayard
appears to be under a misapprehension in supposing that British Admiralty Charts or
Surveys shew the boundary as passing through Portland Inlet. It is not so shewn on
Commander Pender's Survey of 1868, quoted by Mr. Bayard, nor on Admiralty Chart
No. 2,431, to which a reduction from that Survey has been added.
Even were such a chart producible it could not
between
lave any bearing on the case, unless
indeed   , were ot a character to demonstrate the international understands
Russ:a and Great Britain arrived at
m
8-2'
40. 27
Mr. Bayard's
Instructions
p. 76.
See ante p. 6
-8.
Appendix
No. 14, p. 43.
No. 16, p. 45.
No. 17, p. 47.
Appendix
No.14, p. 43.
No. 15,r.4l.
On the other hand the sequence of events, the styling of Observatory Inlet entrance
Portland Inlet, and the location of the boundary through it, are strongly suggestive of
cause and effect.
Mr. Bayard refers to the direct ocean entrance to Observatory Inlet being more
navigable than the direct ocean entrance to Vancouver's Portland Channel, as a ground
for assuming that the negotiators intended the line to pass through the former.
But this is entirely an '• ex post facto " argument, or involves the assumption that the
negotiators had made themselves acquainted with the navigability of the two channels.
It is unnecessary to refer here again to the declared motives determining the selection
by the negotiators of the line of Portland Canal. Navigation was not an element in it.
But assuming for the moment that it was likely to have been so, whence did the
negotiators arrive at the knowledge which guided them ?
On the charts, Vancouver. does not note soundings. In the details recorded in his
History could they alone have hoped to find the information necessary to guide them to
a conclusion which—under the supposed circumstances—must have impressed them as of
over-ruling importance. But, if these gentlemen referred to Vancouver's History for
such details, is it possible to conceive that while they were tracing in his text the course
of what they called Portland Canal, they were in fact examining his description of what
he called Observatory Inlet \ If such an examination of Vancouver's text, as is here
supposed, had actually been made by the negotiators, their investigations must have extended to the neighbouring channels, and again they are found reading the text description
of one channel believing it to be the description of an entirely different channel.*
Moreover the records of the negotiations are not merely silent with regard to the
navigability of Portland Canal, but they afford no trace of an operating motive for
determining the southern limit of Alaska by navigable water.
The Russians recorded their opinion that the boundary should be drawn with a view
to prevent collisions between the traders of Russian and British nationalities. Sir
Charles Bagot pressed upon their attention that British trade was being carried on about
latitude 55°, that is the Nasse River trade through Observatory Inlet. There is every
natural reason then to suppose that the line would, by mutual consent of the parties,
have been by preference located through Vancouver's Portland Canal in which neither
urged any existing Dredojminant claim, than through Observatory Inlet in which the
British had an exceptional interest.
It is also to be remembered that the first Russian proposal was to draw the line from
Prince of Wales Island only to Portland Canal, and thence only so far up it as to reach
the- mountains bordering the coast. In this there is no suggestion of their aim being to
obtain inland navigation, for the impression, a true one, was that the mountains came
close to the water's edge. The extension of the line throughout Portland Canal plainly
originated in a misinterpretation of the Russian original proposal, still, however, without Ante, p. io.
any idea of navigation on the part of the British or of the Russian negotiators.
The selection of the entrance to the Portland Canal having been thus determined, it is
not open now to contend in effect that a line more advantageous to the Russians might
have been selected, and consequently probably was intended to be described, although as
a matter of fact not so described.
It is further to be noted that such an argument as that, founded on a presumed
intention to draw the line along the most navigable course, cannot be effectively used by
the United States authorities, for when the question of St. Clair Flats Canal was raised
some years ao-o, the United States maintained in effect that a line described as to be.
drawn from "the inflow of a navigable stream into Lake St. Clair, thence to its outflow
from the lake through another navigable channel was not necessarily a line along the
most navigable channel, in fact the only natural one, of the stream entering the lake.
Mr. Bayard concludes his enumeration of " evident reasons " for assuming that the
negotiators intended to describe a line passing through Portland Inlet, that is to say,
through the ocean entrance of Observatory Inlet, by remarking:—
" Tt is not therefore conceived that this water part of the boundary line, can ever be
" called in question between the two Governments."
Each of the reasons upon which Mr. Bayard's conclusion is based has been discussed
in more or less detail, with the effect of showing that they are, without exception, due
to erroneous views. It would therefore appear to be unnecessary now further to extend
the examination of them.
But notice has to be taken of Mr. Bayard's references to the line between the head of
Portland Channel and the parallel of 56° N. latitude.
*»/
Appendix
No. 12, p. 42.
* There are no more channels in the neighbourhood than Vancouver's Observatory Inlet and his Portland
Channel. If the negotiators studied Observatory Inlet, mistaking its description for that of Portland Channel,
they must a1 so have'mistaken the description of Portland Channel for that of Observatory Inlet.—D.R.C.
D 28
Appendix
No. 42, p. 76
Ibid, p. 76.
Ibid,, p. 77.
Ante, pi. Il-
See als&a&te-.
p. 12.
$eh ante,
yp.1G-21.
Appendix
No. 42, p. 77.
Appeudix
No. 42, p. 7
Alluding to an alleged error in the Treaty description of this part of the line, Mr.
Bayard says, " This, however, is of little importance, for, with the better topographical
" knowledge we now possess, we know that a Conventional line, in continuation of the
H general trend of the mid-channel line, would strike the 56th degree of north latitude
" at a distance of some four or five miles inland."
Again, he speaks of "the intersection of the mi&channel line of Portland Channel
with the 56° north parallel."
And yet again, "the line projected from t/ie mid-channel line of Portland Channel'
intersects at about the 56th degree of north latitude the back bone range in question."
These remarks are all made on the assumption that the direction of the line in its
northward course on leaving the head of Portland Channel is governed by its antecedent
course-
There' is nothing in the terms of the Convention to sustain this assumption. ^
The intersection of the boundary line with the parallel of 56° N. latitude is clearly
described in the 3rd and 4th Articles of the Convention to be alternatively at one or other
of two points, namely, if there be no mountains on the parallel within 10 marine leagues
of the ocean, then at that point of the parallel which is at 10 marine leagues ; if there-
be mountains on the parallel within 10 marine leagues of the ocean, then at the point
where such mountains are next the sea.
The two terminal points of this section of the line are thus definitely indicated.
Mr. Bayard's argument involves disregard of the meaning of the words | de ce dernier
point " in the 3rd Article of the Convention.
These directly assert that the line, in its northward course, is to leave the parallel
of 56° N- latitude at the precise spot at which it arrives at the parallel from the
southward.
The points at which Mr. Bayard would have the line intersect the parallel of 56° N„
latitude exceeds-10 marine leagues from the ocean.
It has been shown that inlets: are not included, as supposed by Mr. Bayard, in the
term la cote regulating the course of the line ; if further confirmation of this were needed
it may be gathered from the fact that on the opposite assumption it would be impossible
to find any one point on the parallel ©f 56° N. latitude at which the line might arrive
from the southward and pass northward without direct contradiction of the language
of the Conventions..
What is now advanced may be realised fr©m the following explanation. Part of the
parallel of 56° N. latitude is the chord of an arc of SO'marine leagues radius from the
head* of Portland Channel. On the supposition that the outline of inlets forms part of
hi cdte whence the breadth of la lisiSre is to be measured, and that there are no mountains, the boundary line may not intersect this chord; for, if it does,, in its-course north
©f the parallel it must traverse territory within 10 marine leagues of the coast.
Assume next that there are mountains on the parallel. In this case a point of intersection of the arc with the parallel is the point of arrival and departure of the line.
It cannot be the eastern intersection for this would involve a departure north very
many leagues beyond the prescribed limit.
It cannot be the western intersection except on the chance, infinitesimally small, tha*
at this point the crest of the mountains bordering the coast, occur.
Mr, Bayard in concluding his instructions to Mr. Phelps makes a long and interesting
quotation* from a report by Professo* Dall.
Nowe/k is believed, of Professor Dall's published accounts ©f his explorations in-
Alaska touch the region between' Morant St. Elias and Portland Canal; and there is some
uncertainty whether his quoted description of the regien is founded on direct persona.!
experience, or merely on reasoning from what he saw m a country somewhat remote
from the location of the part of the line under discussion.
Accepting the descriptions, however, as correct, Professor Dali's explanations of the
difficulties in drawing the alternative lines he alludes to, are in a great measure indisputable, but there is one Kne to the demarcation of which he attributes no physical
difficulty. l   J
The single continuous^ range being nonexistent, if we attempt to decide on the
" ' summit' of the mountains we are at once plunged into a sea of uncertainty/'
" Shall we," he asks, " take the ridge of the hills nearest the beaches 8}
And-—replying to himself—continues—
" This would give us, in many places, a mere strip of territory not more than three
" miles wide, meandering in every direction."
This—excepting the allusion to supposed excessive meandering—happens to be the
very line indicated by the Convention, in case the country should be mountainous. 29
The breadth of coast it assigns to the United States, according to Professor Dall, is
just such as the Russian Plenipotentiaries assumed it might be found to do.
The "mere strip of territory" precisely describes what the British negotiators
reiuctantly assented to, and what the Russians agreed to.
The words used by Professor Dall are in fact almost the exact equivalent of those used
by the Russians in urging their claim to at least touch the continent. " Nous bornons
" nos demandes a celle d'une simple lisiere du continent."
*   il  ne serait point impossible, vu le peu de certitude des notions geogra-
e phiques que Ton possede encore sur ces parages que les montagnes designees pour
| limite s'etendissent jusqu'aux bords meme de la c6te."
And Mr.. Canning, instructing Sir Stratford Canning, mentions the same border as what
: we (British) only intended to give and they (Russians) only intended to ask, a strip of
" sea coast!"
The alternative lines enumerated by Professor Dall are all based on erroneous
interpretations of the Convention already dealt with.
It cannot be expected that the "beach hills'" are marked in situ by a continuous
ridge ; but the tops of the hills next the sea mark the line of the Convention ; and, in
the absence of any certain topographical information, the negotiators could not possibly,
it is thought, have selected a line simpler to recognise and easier to mark. No sea of
mountains has to be explored, but from the parallel of 56° N. latitude to the neighbourhood
of Mount St. Elias the demarcation may be effected from a convenient sea base line
no where distant from the working parties more than a few miles.
Professor Dall's arguments are directed to questioning the advantages—from a
surveyor's point of view—of a mountain boundary line.
The Russian and British negotiators selected a mountain boundary line in consequence
of its advantages as an international limk.
A geodetic line—such as Professor Dall desires—is most difficult to mark in a
mountainous region, and is almost wholly dissociated from the objects to be subserved by
an international boundary.
Statesmen may not limit their yiew to the considerations of the physical difficulties in
marking national boundaries.
D. R. CAMERON, Colonel R.A.
1886.
See ante,
p. 16.
Appendix
No. 17, p. 47.
Appendix
No. 26, p 52.
Art.VI'. p.71.
Appendix
No. 29, p.55.
Appendix
No. 12, p. 4?.
No. 29, p.-55.
No. 2.
Memorandum of the Circumstances which led to the Conclusion of the Convention
between Great Britain and Russia of 1825, relative to Trade in the Pacific, and
the Limits of their Possessions on the North-west Coast of America.
In September 1821 the Emperor of Russia issued an Edict, containing regulations
relative to trade on the eastern coast of Siberia, the North-west coast of America, and
the Aleutian, Kurile, and other islands of the Pacific.
These regulations granted to Russian subjects an exclusive right of commerce,
whaling, and fishery in all the islaads, ports, and gulfsr from Behring's Straits to the
fifty-first degree of north latitude, and from the Aleutian Islands to the eastern coast
of Siberia, as well as along the Kurile Islands, from Behring's Straits to the South Cape
of the Island of Urup, to the 45° 50' of north latitude.
All foreign vessels were prohibited, under the penalty of confiscation, from approaching
this territory within 100 Italian miles, unless driven by stress of weather, &c, and even
then they were forbidden to carry on any trade whatever, either with the natives or
with the Russian American Company.
On the publication of the Ukase, the Russian Minister for Foreign Affairs stated to
Sir Charles Bagot that the object of it was to prevent the " commerce interlope " of
the citizens of the United States, who were not only in the habit of resorting to the
Russian coasts and islands of the Pacific, for the purpose of interfering in the Russian
trade with China in the lucrative sale of sea otter skins, but were also in the constant
habit of introducing prohibited articles, and especially gunpowder, into the Russian
dominions in that quarter. The Russian Minister also said that representations had
been repeatedly made upon this subject to the American Government, who had professed to be unable to control their citizens in those distant seas; but had intimated that
they should not take in ill part any measures which the Russian Government might deem
it expedient to adopt for the protection of its own rights. 30
Baron Nicolay communicated the Ukase officially to Lord Londonderry, and the
question was then submitted to the King's Advocate.
Sir Christopher Robinson reported, that the object of Russia appeared to be to obtain
indirectly the acknowledgment of territorial rights assumed over a portion of sea that
might become of great importance with reference to trade, and in consequence of the
discoveries which were making in that quarter; that a right of sovereignty over a sea
of such extent, merely because its opposite limits touched the possessions of the same
Power, was much greater than was ordinarily recognised by the principles of the Law of
Nations ; and that it may be expedient to declare the intention of His Majesty's
Government to adhere to those established principles, and to deprecate any infringement
of the usual rights of commerce.
Lord Londonderry accordingly acquainted Count Lieven that he was directed to
make such a provisional protest against the enactments of the Ukase as was necessary
in order to save the rights of His Majesty's Crown, and of the persons and property of
His Majesty's subjects; that the British Government were willing to enter into amicable
explanations on the question ; but that, in the mean time, it could not admit that the
intercourse which had previously existed in those seas could be deemed to be illicit,
even supposing that the vast and imperfectly occupied territories, which were considered
as erroneously claimed by Russia, really belonged to His Imperial Majesty.
Verbal communications afterwards 'passed between Count Lieven and the Duke of
Wellington, in London and at Verona, in consequence of which it was proposed by the
former that a negotiation upon the subject should be entered into at St. Petersburgh.
Sir Charles Bagot was immediately instructed to open the discussion, and full powers
to conclude a treaty were forwarded to him.
During the discussions an overture was made by the United States to join in the
negotiation, which was accepted by the two Powers ; and as it was understood that
Russia had waived her extravagant pretension of maritime jurisdiction, there was every
prospect of the conclusion of a tripartite convention upon that point.
With respect to the territorial question, it was intimated to Sir Charles Bagot that
the British Government would prefer a fixed line of demarcation to a joint occupancy,
and that a line drawn at the fifty-seventh degree between the Russian and British
settlers would be an arrangement satisfactory to His Majesty, and would assign to
Russia as much as she could justly claim.
Sir Charles Bagot, in conversation with Count Nesselrode, observed that, as the
United States could make no pretension to territory so far north as the fifty-first degree,
the question of boundary would rest between Russia and Great Britain alone ; that the
pretension of Great Britain had always extended to the fifty-ninth degree of north
latitude, but that his Majesty was disposed to consent to take as the line of demarcation
the fifty-seventh degree, to the southward of which it was supposed that Russia had no
settlement.
The American Minister (Mr. Middleton) at St. Petersburgh, however, soon afterwards
received his instructions, from which it appeared that the United States asserted an eaual
pretension, at least, to that of either Great Britain or Russia, to the whole of the coast
as high as the sixty-first degree, and an absolute right to be parties to any subdivision
of it which might be made. This pretension and right were stated to be grounded upon
the Treaty of 1819, under which the Floridas were ceded to the United States by Spain ;
and it was alleged that the United States, having by that treaty become possessed of all
claims which belonged to Spain, to the north of the forty-second degree, and Russia
having already disclaimed, in 1790, all interference with the pretensions of Spain, south
of the sixty-first degree, any division of the coast between the forty-second and sixty-first
degrees ought, in strictness, to be made solely between the United States and Great
Britain.
The American Minister admitted that it was not the intention of his Government to
push its pretensions to that extent. The United States were ready to acknowledge that
no country had any absolute and exclusive claim to the territory; but they meant to
assert that they, as heirs to the rights of Spain, had, in fact, the best pretensions to it of
either of the three Powers concerned.
The American Government proposed that, a division being made between the three
Powers, a joint convention should be entered into, renewable at the pleasure of the
parties, for the purpose of mutually granting to each other, for a limited period the
freedom of fishery and of trade with the natives, and whatever other advantages the
coasts might afford ; and the American Minister at St.
full powers to conclude such a convention.
tages tne
Petersburgh was furnished with 31
But Sir Charles Bagot, whose instructions and powers did not contemplate the putting
forward of such pretensions by the United States, thought proper to suspend the
negotiation, so far as regarded the question of territory.
He had previously intimated to Count Nesselrode that Great Britain might be satisfied
to take Cross Sound, in about latitude 57i°, as the boundary on the coast, and a meridianal
line drawn from the head, of Lynn Canal, or about the 135th degree of west longitude,
as the boundary in the interior. M. Poletica, the Russian plenipotentiary, suggested
the 55th degree as the boundary which Russia would desire, to obtain, and stated that it
would be with extreme reluctance that Russia would consent to relinquish her settlement
at Sitka, or New Archangel.
In consequence of the unexpected pretensions of the United States, Sir Charles Bagot
•was directed to negotiate only with Russia, between which Power and Great Britain a
satisfactory arrangement might be anticipated.
It was observed by Mr. Canning that the intervention of the United States in the
negotiation would obviously tend to complicate the question between Russia and Great
Britain, and that a fresh agreement between Great Britain and the United States was
unnecessary, because a freedom of intercourse fcr the subjects of the two Powers with
the country claimed by either, on the north-west coast, was already established by
treaty.
With a view to the conclusion of an arrangement with Russia, Sir Charles Bagot was
instructed to obtain some record of the disavowal by that Power of the extravagant
maritime pretensions advanced in the Emperor's Ukase, and to require an equitable
adjustment of the limits, first, by a line of demarcation, to be drawn between the
southernment settlement of Russia and the northernmost post of the' North-west
Company; and, secondly, by another line, to be drawn through the channel which
separates from the mainland the islands, upon one of which Sitka is situated.
The Russian plenipotentiaries, on entering upon the negotiation, expressed the
repugnance of His Imperial Majesty to renounce pretensions which had been advanced
in 1800 by the Emperor Paul, and which had hitherto been undisputed ; but Sir Charles
Bagot successfully insisted upon maintaining as the bisis of negotiation that which had
already been agreed upon, namely, that the question of strict right should be provisionally
waived on both sides. He was not, however, successful as to the limits ; tor, although
lie had expressed every disposition to be accommodating as to the sea-line, the Russian
Government laid claim to parts of the mainland over which Russia could not possibly
have acquired any right, and which Great Britain, in fact, was partially occupying.
Sir Charles Bagot had offered the 55th degree as the line of demarcation upon the
islands, in order to preserve to British subjects uninterrupted access to the Pacific
Ocean, and in order to secure to Great Britain the 56th degree of ncrth latitude as the
British boundary upon the coast; but the proposition was rejected by. the Russian
plenipotentiaries, and Sir Charles, in consequence, deemed it expedient to suspend the
negotiation.
The question between Russia and the United States was shortly afterwards brought
to a conclusion by the signature of. a treaty stipulating that the subjects and citizens of
the two Powers might resort, without restraint, to the Pacific Ocean and to the points
of its coasts which were not already occupied ; that the Americans should not form any
establisnment to the north of 54° 40', or the Russians any to the south of that latitude;
and that the citizens and subjects of both powers might frequent, for 10 years, the
interior seas, gulfs, harbours, and creeks upon the coast.
The objections of the Russian Government to Sir Charles Bagot's propositions having
been considered, he was directed to consent to include the south points of Prince of
Wales Island within the Russian frontier, and to admit, as the line of demarcation, a
line to be drawn from the southernmost point of Prince of Wales Island, from south to
north, through Portland Channel, till it should strike the mainland in latitude 56°;
thence a line following the sinuosities of the coast along the mountains nearest to the
sea as far as Mount Elias in latitude 60°, and thence the 135th degree of longitude as
far as the Polar Sea; the distance of the line along the mountains at no point U exceed
10 leagues from the sea.
Sir Charles Bagot was also directed to obtain, if possible, a period longer than 10
years during which the subjects of the two Powers should continue at liberty to resort
to the possessions of each Power, and he was also directed to require a stipulation for
the permanent admission of British subjects to the harbour of New Archangel, and to
rivers, creeks, &c, on the continent  (including the sea beyond Behring's Straits), as a 32
compensation for the perpetual right which would be granted to Russia to the territory
included within the new boundary.
The Russian Government positively refused to grant to British subjects a perpetual
right of trading with the port of New Archangel, and *ith the ports in the Russian
territory within~the line of demarcation ; declaring that, lthough at the expiration of
a period of 10 years they might be disposed to renew' the privilege, they could not
consent to grant it in perpetuity : and they equally declined to permit British subjects
to resort to the Russian territory above the 60th degree, even for a limited period.
They also required that the right of freely navigating the sea beyond Behring's Straits
should be accepted by Great Britain as a concession Irrom Russia.
Sir Charles Bagot, finding that he could not induce the Russian plenipotentiaries to
depart from their resolution upon either of these points, again suspended the negotiation,
and soon afterwards returned to England.
In the meantime Mr. Ward was directed to propose to the Russian Government that
instructions should be sent to Count Lieven for the purpose of negotiating the treaty
in London.
It was, however, decided that Sir Stratford Canning should repair on a special mission
to Russia, in order to finish the negotiations at St. Petersburgh.
He was accordingly instructed to propose to the Russian Government a project of a
treaty, which, in order to obviate the Russian objections as to Russian maritime
jurisdiction, and as to British navigation, contained two articles corresponding with those
which have been recently concluded upon those points between Russia and the United
States, with a proviso as to the period of 10 years, that, if a more extended term, with
respect to the port of New Archangel, should be granted to the subjects of any other
Power, the same extension should be granted also to British subjects, the line of
demarcation in this project was very nearly the same as that proposed by Sir Charles
Bagot.
The Russian Government having acquiesced in the project, without any material alteration, a treaty was concluded between the plenipotentiaries, the principal stipulations of
which were, that the subjects of the two Powers might resort, without restraint, to the
Pacific Ocean and to such parts of the coast thereof as had not been already occupied :
that the line of demarcation between the possessions of the two Powers should be drawn,
beginning from the southernmost point of Prince of Wales Island, in 54° 40'north latitude,
and between the 131st and 133rd degrees of west longitude ; thence, northerly, along
Portland Channel to the point where it strikes the coast in the 56th degree; thence by
the summit of the mountains along the coast, and within the distance of 10 Ieao-ues from
that coast to the point where such line intersects the 141st degree of west longitude, and
from thence due north to the Frozen Ocean ; that Prince of Wales' Island should belong
wholly to Russia: that neither party should form any establishment within the limits
assigned to the other: that British subjects should have free access for ever to the river*
and streams which cross the line of demarcation upon the coast, and for 10 years, at least,
to the port, of New Archangel : and that the subjects of both Powers may frequent all
the internal seas, gulfs, havens, and creeks upon the coast.
The treaty is silent witf^r||peCt to Behring's Straits ; but Sir Stratford Canning was
assured by the Russi^n^ygnM)otentiaries that the Emperor had no intention whatever of
maintaining any exclave claim to^he navigation either of those straits or of the seas
to the north of them,
A j?opy of each ofthe treaties above-mentioned, between Russia and the United States
and Great Britian, is annexjg.to this memorandum.*
„■■ .     ^   --Simum (Signed)       L. HERTSLET.
Foreign Office, JulyyJSSo* jtijte
* See Appendix 40 and 41. 33
No. 3.
The Right Hon. G. CANNING to Sir CHARLES BAGOT.
(Dated February 5, 1823.)
(No. 1.) '
(Extract.)
*
*
I avail myself of the opportunity of a Russian courier (of whose departure Count
Lieven has only just apprized me) to send this note to your Excellency, and to desire
that your Excellency will proceed to open the discussion with the Russian minister upon
the basis of the Instruction * to the Duke of Wellington.
*
No. 4.
Right Hon. G. CANNING to Sir C. BAGOT.
(No. 9.)
(Extract.)
July 12, 1823.
*
* * * * * * * *
I avail myself of this opportunity to write to your Excellency on the several subjects
to which I have here adverted, communications and instructions upon which you will
find in my accompanying Despatch.
* * * * * * * * *
(No. 12.)
No. 5.
Right Hon. G. CANNING to Sir C. BAGOT.
Subject.
July 12, 1823.
Delay in consequence of United States proposing to join negotiations : inquires
what terms would be acceptable to Russia as regards ocean navigation. With regard
to mainland boundary Mr. Canning proposes that " a line of demarcation drawn at the
| 57th degree between Russian and British settlers would be an arrangement satisfactory
" to us, and would assign to Russia as much as she can pretend to be due to her ■* *."
" The arrangement might be made if more agreeable to Russia for an expirable period of
"  10 to 15 years."
No. 6.
Right Hon. G. CANNING to Sir C. BAGOT. . #; -    ;
(Private.)
Foreign Office, July 25, 1823.
Since my Despatch, No. 12, was written it has occurred tome that an " expirable
period" to a regulation of boundaries might be liable to some objection, as keeping alive
a subject of jealously and contest. Therefore, in bringing forward the suggestion of a
"line of demarcation " (as you are instructed to do) you will not yourself propose such
a modification, though if proposed you may receive it for consideration. If it should be
found impossible at once to agree upon the precise limits, the settlement of them might
be referred to a Commission.
I have, &c.
His Excellency Sir Chas. Bagot. (Signed)        GEORGE CANNING.
* This Instruction was forwarded to Sir C. Bagot in Despatch No. 5 of December 31, 1822.
o   23036.
E m
Ik    r ..v5^K^'i^'-J^'.;"^"  No-7- i:    v'- ■ ;: ■■;;       :
A Memorandum* in the Record Office, Volume 146 Russia, Domestic, Various.
January 13, 1824.
Mr. Canning will perceive by the enclosed Russian Chart (copied from Vancouver's
Survey) that the Russian settlement of Sitka is on a small island they have so named
in the mouth of Norfolk Sound and in latitude 57° 5' N.
The great island contiguous to it is named by Vancouver " King George's Archipelago,"
and the strait which separates it from another island (Admiralty Island) is named
"Chatham Strait"; that between Admiralty Island and the Continent "Stephen's
Strait" or " Passage." It is probable that since the settlement of Sitka, the Russians
may have extended their possessions to the great adjacent island. I should think therefore that if latitude 56°, which takes in the whole of that island, and the longitude
225° (or which is the same thing 135° west) were assigned as the Russian limits,
Chatham Strait, Lynn Canal, and a line running from the head of the latter in the
direction of north-west would form an unobjectionable boundary. Perhaps a sketch of
this part of the chart might accompany Sir C. Bagot's instructions.
Docket.
January 13, 1824.
Respecting the Russian and English boundaries on N.W. coast of America.
No. 8.
ADMIRALTY to FOREIGN OFFICE.
Dear Sir, Admiralty, January 14, 1824.
I think the enclosed sketch (which may be considered as correct with regard to
latitudes and longitudes) may be of service to Sir Chas. Bagot in his negotiations.
I do not know how far the cession of Icy Cape and the whole of Behring's Strait may
enable Russia to set up the claim of considering that strait a mare clausum by the
possession of both shores, distant, as they are in the narrowest part, 13 sea leagues ; but
one would not wish, I think, to concede such a point to her, though practically it might
be only a dead letter. If, however (and I confess I am sanguine enough to expect it),
Captain Parry should ascertain a navigable passage round Icy Cape, it would be of the
utmost possible importance to the North-west Company to transport their furs direct
from Mackenzie's River to China, instead of sending them as now 3,000 miles to
Hudson's Bay, a few thousand more by sea to England, and 10,000 still more thence
to Canton. It may appear ridiculous to entertain a hope that steam vessels will one
day sail from Mackenzie River round Icy Cape, but when it is considered that Franklin
met with no obstruction to navigation for 500 miles along the same coast, which runs in
one and the same parallel, and that there is an immense bed of coal on the shore of Slave
Lake close to that river, we must admit that far more wonderful events have happened
than this within the last 50 or 60 years.
I have, &c.
The Right Hon. Geo. Canning. (Signed)       JOHN BARROW.
Docket.
Admiralty, January 14, 1824.
Mr. Barrow.
Enclosing a sketch relating to the N.W. coast of America.
The sketch was forwarded to Sir Charles Bagot.
(Initialled) F. C.
  (Lord Francis Conyngham.)
* This memorandum is unsigned, but is apparently in the handwriting of Lord Francis Conyngham.   D.R.C, 35
No. 9.
Right Hon. G. CANNING to Sir C. BAGOT.
(No. 2.)
Sir, ,^„   f Foreign Office, January 20, 1824.
A long time has elapsed since I gave your Excellency reason to expect additional
instructions for your conduct in the negotiations respecting the Russian Ukase of 1821.
That expectation was held out in the belief that I should have to instruct you to
combine your proceedings with those of the American Minister, and the framing such
instructions was of necessity delayed until Mr. Rush should be in possession of the
intentions of his Government upon the subject.
Upon receipt of your Excellency's Despatch No. 48, reporting the arrival of
Mr. Hughes at St. Petersburgh with the instructions of the Government of the United
States to Mr. Middleton, I applied to Mr. Rush for information as to the tenor of those
instructions. I then found what I had not before been led to suspect, that Mr. Rush
had himself authority to enter into negotiations with us as to the respective claims of
Great Britain and the United States on the North-west Coast of America, although he
does not appear to have been instructed to invite such negotiation here if we should
prefer leaving it to be conducted at St. Petersburgh.
It seemed, however, that it would greatly facilitate your Excellency's task at St.
Petersburgh if we could come to some satisfactory understanding with Mr. Rush on the
principles and leading points of the negotiation, and that at all events it was advisable
to ascertain so much from Mr. Rush as might enable us to judge whether it would or
would not be expedient to agree to the proposal of the United States for combining our
negotiations with Russia into one.
Such a combination had indeed been already proposed by us with respect to so much
of our respective discussions with Russia as turned upon the maritime pretensions of
the Russian Ukase. But that proposal had not been made in contemplation of the
territorial question, to which the pretensions of the United States have given a new and
complicated character.
The object in applying jointly to Russia for a disavowal or qualification of her
maritime pretension was at once to simplify and to soften to Russia that act of qualification or disavowal, by enabling Russia to satisfy both Powers at once, with special
and separate concession. But as in the question of territorial limits, Russia, at whatever point her pretensions might be stopped, could have but one of the two Powers for
her neighbour, there did* seem to be any obvious advantage in bringing both to bear
upon her together in the settlement of those limits.
It is true"that as while we confine upon the Russian territory to the north, we also
confine upon that of the United States to the south, we must at one time or other
come to a settlement with each of those powers. But there is no obvious or cogent
reason for making those settlements simultaneous, especially as we have already a
Convention subsisting with the United States which suspends the necessity of any
definite settlement with that Government for five years yet to come.
Whether, therefore, your Excellency should be empowered, according to the desire
of the Government of the United States to negotiate and conclude a tripartite arrangement with Russia and the United States, or should be instructed to pursue that
negotiation with Russia singly according to the tenor of your present powers, was a
question to be determined in a great measure by the more or less probability of a satisfactory understanding between Great Britain and the United States as to their relative
as well as their joint concern in such negotiation.
Now we have good reason to believe that in respect to the question of territorial
dominion between us and Russia, an arrangement may be agreed upon which will
satisfy the wishes and secure the convenience of both parties by a line of demarcation
to be drawn between the southernmost settlement of Russia and the northernmost part
of the North-west Company. j      .
The most southern establishment of Russia on the ISorth-west Coast of America is
Sitka which is not laid down in our latest maps with sufficient exactness, but which
appears by the Russian map published in 1822 to be situated, as the enclosed copy of
a letterf from Mr. Pelly, Chairman of the Hudson's Bay Company, also represents it,
in latitude 57° and not (as the map, of which a copy was enclosed by your Excellency
indicates) on the continent, but on a small island of the same name at the mouth of
Norfolk Sound, the larger islands contiguous thereto forming (what is called by Van-
!fi!IKl
lilK
-* Did not seem (?;—D.R.C.
E 2
Not printed. 36
couver) King George's archipelago, are separated from each other by a strait called
Chatham Strait, and from the mainland by another strait called Steven's * Strait or
passage. Mr. Pelly positively avers that they have no settlement on the mainland
nor any commerce to the eastward of the coast, He suggests, therefore, the channel
between the islands and the mainland as the most desirable line of demarcation, which
being agreed to, the line to the southward might be drawn so as to comprehend Sitka
and all the Russian settlements upon the islands. If this agreement could not be
obtained it would certainly prevent all danger of a collision with Russia, and the
United States not intending, as it is understood, to urge any claim in opposition to
that actual occupancy, whether on the part of Russia or of Great Britain in the latitudes
in which Great Britain and Russia come in contact, the drawing of that line is clearly
a matter which practically concerns only the two Powers between whose possessions it
is to be drawn.
The intervention of the United States in such an arrangement could be necessary only
as an umpire. Such an intervention in this case is not likely to be required on account
of an irreconcileable conflict of pretensions between Great Britain and Russia ; nor would
a Power whose pretensions are (theoretically at least) in conflict with both parties be the
fittest for such an office.
Your Excellency's Despatch No. 48 describes latitude 55° as the point at which
M. Poletica appeared to wish that the line of demarcation between Russia and Great
Britain should be drawn. By a memorandum which I have received from Mr. Rush,
of what his Government would propose as a general settlement, it appears that latitude
55° is the point at which the United States likewise would propose for that same line of
demarcation.
This coincidence certainly argues either a foregone understanding between Russia and
the United States, or a disposition on the part of the United States to countenance and
promote what they know to be the desire of Russia.
When to this statement I add that the United States propose, according to the aforesaid memorandum of Mr. Rush, to draw the line of demarcation between themselves and
Great Britain at latitude 51° the point at which the Russian pretension, as set forth in
the Ukase of 1821, terminates, it does not seem very uncharitable to suppose that the
object of the United States in making a selection otherwise wholly arbitary of these two
points of limitation for British dominion was to avoid collision with Russia themselves,
and to gratify Russia at the expense of Great Britain. There is obviously no great
temptation to call in such an arbiter if the partition between Russia and ourselves can
be settled, as no doubt it can, without arbitration.
By admitting the United States to our negotiation with Russia we should incur the
necessity of discussing the American claim to latitude 51° at the same time that we were
settling with Russia our respective limits to the northward.
But the question of the American claim is for the present merged in the Convention
of 1818; and it would be a wanton increase of difficulties to throw that Convention
loose, and thus to bring the question, which it has concluded for a time, into discussion
precisely for the purpose of coincidence as embarrassing as it is obviously unnecessary.
If Russia, being aware of the disposition of the United States to concede to her the
limit of latitude 55°, should on that account be desirous of a joint negotiation she must
recollect that the proposal of the United States extends to a joint occupancy also, for a
limited time, of the whole territory belonging to the three powers ; and that the Convention now subsisting between us and the United States gives that joint occupancy
reciprocally in the territory to which we both lay claim.
To this principle it is understood the Russian Government object; nor, so far as we
are concerned, should we be desirous of pressing it upon them ; but as between ourselves
and the United States we are not prepared to abandon it, at least for the term for which
the Convention of 1818 has to run ; there would be some awkwardness in a tripartite
negotiation which was not to be conducted and concluded in all its parts upon an uniform
principle.
These reasons had induced us to hesitate very much as to the expediency of accedino-
to the proposition of the United States for a common negotiation between the three
Powers ; when the arrival of the speech of the President of the United States at the
opening of the Congress supplied another reason at once decisive in itself, and susceptible
of being stated to Mr. Rush with more explicitness than those which I have just now
detailed to your Excellency; I refer to the principle declared in that speech which prohibits any further attempt by European Powers at colonization in America.
Upon applying to Mr. Rush for an explanation of this extraordinary doctrine, I found
Stephen's ?   D.R.C. 37
lum unprovided with any instructions upon it. He said, indeed, that he had not heard
from his Government since the opening of the Congress, and had not even received
officially a copy of the President's speech.
His conviction, however, was that against whatever Power the President's doctrine was
directed, it could not be directed against us. He appealed in support of that conviction
to the existence of the Convention of 1818, by which we and the United States, hold
for a time joint occupancy and common enjoyment of all the territory on the Northwest Coast of America above latitude 42°.
It was obviously the impression on Mr. Rush's mind that this pretension on the part
of his Government was intended as a set-off against maritime pretension of the Russian
Ukase.
I do not mean to authorise your Excellency to report this construction at St. Petersburgh as that of the American Minister, but you will have no difficulty in stating it as
one to which we think the President's speech liable; as that, indeed, which appears to
us to be by far the most probable construction ; as such it furnishes a conclusive reason
lor our not mixing ourselves in a negotiation between two parties whose opposite pretensions are so extravagant in their several ways as to be subject not so much of practical adjustment as of reciprocal disavowal.
Mr. Rush is himself so sensible of the new consideration which is introduced into the
negotiation by this new principle of the President's that, although he had hitherto urged,
with becoming pertinacity, the adoption of the suggestion of his Government, he has,
since the arrival of the President's speech, ceased to combat my desire to oursue the
course—already begun, of a separate negotiation at St. Petersburgh, and has promised to
write by this messenger to Mr. Middleton, to prepare, him for your Excellency's continuing to act upon your former instructions.
It remains, therefore, only for me to direct your Excellency to resume your negotiation with the Court of St. Petersburgh at the point at which it was suspended, in consequence of the expected accession of the United States, and to endeavour to bring it as
speedily as possible to an amicable and honourable conclusion.
The questions at issue between Great Britain and Russia are short and simple. The
Russian Ukase contains two objectionable pretensions : first, an extravagant assumption
of maritime supremacy; secondly, an unwarranted claim of territorial dominions.'
As to the first, the disavowal of Russia is, in substance, all that we could desire.
Nothing remains for negotiation on that head but to clothe that disavowal in precise
and satisfactory terms. We would much rather that those terms should be suggested
by Russia herself than have the air of pretending to dictate them; you will therefore
request Count Nesselrode to furnish you with his notion of such a declaration on this
point as may be satisfactory to your Government. That declaration may be made the
preamble of the Convention of limits.
As to the territorial question, I have already stated that the line of demarcation the
most satisfactory to us would be one drawn through the channel separating the islands,
upon one of which Sitka is situated, from the mainland.
If this cannot be obtained as the boundary, then the line on the mainland must be
drawn to the north of the northernmost post of the North-west Company till it strikes
the coast, and thence may descend to whatever latitude may be necessary for taking in
the islands, on one of which Sitka stands.
It does not appear from your Excellency's Despatch how far the line proposed by
M. Poletica, to be drawn at latitude 55°, was intended to run to the eastward. If to the
Rocky Mountains, it obviously would be wholly inadmissible by us, inasmuch as the
communication of the North-west Company from Canada, through those mountains with
the whole of the north-west country, is in a higher latitude than 55°.
Neither has Russia any claim whatever to any inland territory approaching that latitude. She has no occupancy inland. Mr. Pelly's report denies that she has any, even
on the coast, and it is to the coast alone that discovery could, in the nature of things,
give any title. #
It is absolutely essential, therefore, to guard against any unfounded pretension, or any
vague expectation of Russia, to the Eastward; and for this purpose it is necessary that,
whatever degree of latitude be assumed, a definite degree of longitude should also be
assigned as a limit between the territorial rights of the two Powers.
If your Excellency can obtain the strait which separates the islands from the mainland as the boundary, the prolongation of the line drawn through that strait Would strike
the mainland near Mount Elias, the lowest point of unquestioned Russian discovery.
But if that were too much to insist upon, the 135th degree of longitude, as suggested
by your Excellency, northward from the head of Lynn's harbour might suffice. 38
It would, however, in that case be expedient to assign with respect to the mainland,
southward of that point, a limit, say, of 50 or 100 miles from the coast, beyond which
the Russian posts should not be extended to the eastward. We must not admit the
Russian territory to extend at any point to the Rocky Mountains on any account,
because by such an admission we should establish a direct and complete interruption
between our territory to the southward of that point, and that of which we are in
possession to the eastward of longitude 135° along the course of the Mackenzie river.
As your Excellency had already made so much way in previous discussion, it is to
be hoped that, on resuming the negotiation, very little time need be required to bring it
to a conclusion.    It is extremely important to conclude it as quickly as possible.
It beino- once decided not to negotiate jointly with the United States, we must take
care to be out of the way while the discussions between Russia and the United States
are going on, and the example of having come to agreement with us promptly and
amicably on both points of litigation would perhaps not be less valuable to Russia in
' her subsequent discussions with the United States, than would have been the facility
which we had in contemplation when we originally proposed that her disavowal of the
maritime principle should be addressed simultaneously to us both.
At that time our claim to such disavowal and the claim of the United States were
precisely alike. Russia had nothing to plead against either of us as a compensation for
those claims. The principle put forth by the President of the United States has introduced a difference between the respective situations of the United States and Great
Britain, which did not exist before. In the former state of things it might have been
expedient both for ourselves and for the United States, as well as* distasteful to Russia,
to return an answer common to us both; but, as things stand now, Russia might naturally wish to qualify her answer to the United States with some reciprocal demand of
explanation.
The only point of view in which the United States could now insist upon interfering
with, or even taking cognizance of, the negotiation between us and Russia, would be in
order to see that the pretensions on the North-west Coast of America, derived to the
United States from Spain, through the Treaty of 1819, were not prejudiced by our
separate agreement.
That object cannot be more effectually provided for than by inserting into our
Convention with Russia, as a protection for the claims of the United States, that part of
the 3rd Article of the Convention concluded by us with the United States in 1818, which
was inserted in that Convention for the protection of the claims of Spain herself in the
rights which she had not then ceded. By that article it is stipulated that the agreement
between the two contracting parties " should not be taken to affect the claims of any
" other Power or State in any part of the said country." Such a clause your Excellency
will voluntarily propose to insert in the Convention which you are to conclude with
Count Nesselrode, aud you will apprize Mr, Middleton of your intention of proposing
that insertion.
I have &c.
Sir C. Bagot. (Signed)      'GEORGE CANNING.
Sir,
No. 10.
Right Hon. G. CANNING to Sir C. BAGOT.
(No. 3.)
Foreign Office, January 20, 1824.
I write this separate Despatch to your Excellency for the purpose of enclosing to
you certain information and suggestions! on the subject of our discussion with Russia
respecting the north-west coast of America, which I have  received since my Despatch
No.       on that subject was prepared.
Any additional information is valuable upon a question of so much doubt and
obscurity, and the suggestions are well worth attention, considering the quarter from
which they come. But I would not incumber my other Despatch, already so voluminous'
with the matter herewith transmitted, nor make it part of the positive instructions to your
hxcellency.
* Not distasteful (?)—D.E.C.
f See Appendix No. 8, p. 34.
Sir John Barrow's letter of 14th January 1824.—D.R.C
SBS3 39
I rely confidently on your Excellency's ability and zeal to make the best arrangement
that can be made for the interests of your country to the extent of the most sanguiue of
the views opened in these enclosures, but I am not willing to instruct you to break off
the negotiations on a demand of greater advantages, if you find that you can obtain the
terms laid down m my other Despatch, and that you cannot obtain any improvement of
H.*.t ill •
I have. &c.
Sir Charles Bagot, (Signed)        GEORGE CANNING.
&c.    &c.   &c.
(No. 23.)
No. 11.
Sir C. BAGOT to Right Hon. G. CANNING.
Sir, ... St. Petersburgh, March 17/29, 1824.
It is with a feeling of considerable disappointment that, after constant negotiation
for more than six weeks, after having gone to the utmost limit of your instructions, and
after having taken upon myself to go even far beyond them, I should nevertheless have
to acquaint you that I have entirely failed in inducing the Russian Government to
accede to what I consider to be a fair and reasonable adjustment of our respective pretensions on the north-west coast of America, or to the adoption of any line of territorial
demarcation which appears to me to be reconcileable under the spirit of your instructions
with our legitimate interests in that quarter of the world.
In order that I may put you in complete possession of the whole course of my negotiation upon this subject, and may explain the precise grounds upon which I have felt
myself compelled to suspend for the present all further proceedings in this business, it
will I fear be necessary that I should enter into detail, and that I should load this
Despatch with several papers which are now become of importance.
It was on the 16th of last month that I had my first conference upon this question
with the Russian Plenipotentiaries, Count Nesselrode and M. Poletica. I opened this
conference by explaining to the Plenipotentiaries the reasons for which His Majesty had
judged it advisable to treat separately upon this matter rather than as it had been
originally intended in concert with the Government of the United States. I then laid
before them Count Lieven's note to you of the 31st January 1823, proposing that the
question of strict right should be provisionally waived on both sides, and that the adjustment of our mutual pretensions should be made upon the sole principle of the respective
convenience of both countries.
This basis of negotiation being willingly accepted by all parties, I stated that so far
as I understood the wishes and interests of Russia her principal object must be to secure
to herself her fisheries upon the islands and shores of the north-west coasts of North
America, and the posts which she might have already established upon them; that on the
other hand our chief objects were to secure the posts upon the continent belonging to
the Hudson's Bay Company, the embouchures of such rivers as might afford an outlet
for our fur trade into the Pacific and the two banks of the Mackenzie River; that in
the belief that such were our respective objects, I would propose as our boundary a
line drawn through Chatham Straits to the head of Lynn Canal, thence north-west to
the 140° of longitude west of Greenwich and thence along that degree of longitude to
the Polar Seas. |NW    .
This proposal was made by me verbally, and was taken for consideration by the
Russian Plenipotentiaries, who at our next meeting offered a Contre Projet, which I
afterwards requested might be reduced to writing, and of which I now enclose a copy
marked A.*
In offering this Contre Projet Count Nesselrode seemed to intimate that however
disposed the Emperor might be to retract pretensions advanced by himself which might
be thought to conflict with the interests of other powers, it would be asking too much
of the imperial dignity to require that pretensions advanced 25 years ago by the
Emperor Paul, and which had hitherto been undisputed, should be now renounced. I
thought it mv duty upon an intimation of this kind being made to declare at once that
all considerations of such a nature were incompatible with the stipulated basis of our
negotiation, and that if the question of national dignity was to be touched, I, too, should
have much to say upon that head, and should probably find it quite impossible to make
* p. 42.
\i 40
those concessions which, upon the simple ground of mutual convenience, I might perhaps
without difficulty do. This explicit declaration had its desired effect, and the Russian
Plenipotentiaries  engaged not to introduce  again  arguments  of this  kind into our
discussions.
As the Contre Projet offered to me appeared to be, generally speaking, entirely
inadmissible, I drew up such a modification of my original proposal as would, I thought,
meet the only reasonable objection made to it (an objection made in conversation by
the Russian Plenipotentiaries), viz., the inconvenience which Russia might experience
by vessels of the United States claiming a right, under their Convention with Great
Britain, to visit the waters lying between King George's Archipelago and the Islands
and Continent to the eastward of it, and which might in this manner seriously annoy the
subjects of His Imperial Majesty in their pursuits and occupations upon those shores.
This modification of my first proposal will be found in the enclosed paper marked B.,*
which I delivered to the Russian Plenipotentiaries at our next conference.
You will observe that in making the proposal so modified, I, in fact, exceeded in some
degree the strict letter of your instructions, by assigning to Russia the islands lying
between Admiralty Island to the north, and Duke of York and Prince of Wales Islands
to the south, but I entertained sanguine expectations that such a proposal, coupled with
the concession of a line of coast extending ten marine leagues into the interior of the
continent, would have been considered as amply sufficient for all the legitimate objects
which Russia could have in view, and quite as much as she could pretend to with any
shadow of real claim or justice.
So far, however, from this being the case, my amended proposal was met' at our next
conference by observations which I again requested might be reduced to writing, and
which will be found in the enclosed paper marked C.f
As in this paper parts of the main continent to which Russia cannot by possibility
have ever acquired any claim, and of which Great Britain is at this moment in partial
occupation, are offered to His Majesty in the light of concessions, it became necessary
for me to reject any such offers as a boon in the mosifexphicit terms, and you will find
that I have not failed to do so in the enclosed paper marked D.,\ with which I replied to
the paper in question.
As, however, I felt strongly the importance of adjusting this business, if possible, at
the present moment, and as I felt also that, although the Russian Plenipotentiaries had,
in consequence of my former remark?, agreed to waive altogether all question of national
dignity in discussing it, His Imperial Majesty might yet possibly feel an invincible
repugnance to retract from the pretensions advanced by the Emperor Paul in the Charter
given to the Russian American Company in 1799 (however unacknowledged by other
powers such pretension might have been), I thought that I should not aet in opposition
to the spirit, at least, of my instructions if in deference to such a sentiment on the part
of the Emperor, and with a view to finish 1 he business quickly, I ventured to make 3'et
one other proposition which, while it saved this point of dignity to Russia by giving to
her the 55th degree of latitude as her boundary upon the Islands, might preserve also
uninterrupted our access to the Pacific Ocean, and secure to His Majesty the 56th decree
of north latitude as the British boundary upon the coast.;
The proposition by which I had hoped to effect these objects will also be found in
the paper marked D.,t in delivering which I gave it clearly to be understood that it
contained my ultimate proposition.
It was not till the day before yesterday, that is nearly ten days after I had given in
this paper, that 1 was invited to another conference, when I was informed that the
Imperial Government had, after anxious consideration, taken their final decision, and
that they must continue to insist upon the demarcation as described by them in the
first paper marked A.
j Finding this to be the case, I repeated that I had already gone far beyond the utmost
limit of my instructions and that I was sorry to say that I must now consider our
negotiations as necessarily suspended so far at least as the question of territorial
demarcation was concerned.
Count Nesselrode then inquired whether I should object to transmit to my Court
the final decision of himself and M. de Poletica as it is declared in the enclosed paner
marked E,§ and whether I did not think that His Majesty's Government, seeing how
slight our disagreement was, might not be disposed to furnish me with such further
instructions as would enable me to meet the views of the Russian Government inform
Q at the same time that it was intended to acquaint Count Lieven by the courier
* p. 42. t P- 43. % p. 44. § p. 45~ '
ing me ---*«; ^fcnCB*"***—a—^--^ ■ ss-r.
41
who is to be despatched to-night to London with the course which the negotiation
had taken, and to instruct him to hold some conversation with you upon the subject.
I told Count Nesselrode that I should of course feel it to be my duty to transmit
this and all other papers connected with the negotiation to you without loss of time,
but that I could not by any means take upon myself to say what might be the opinion
of His Majesty's Government as to the pretensions so tenaciously adhered to by the
Imperial Government further than by saying that certainly they were such as had
never been contemplated by my Court in the instructions with which I had as yet been
furnished, and that if a territorial arrangement perfectly satisfactory to both parties
could not now be made, it might possibly be thought by my Government that our
respective pretensions might still remain without any serious inconvenience in the state
in which they had before stood, and that it would only be necessary for the present to
confine their attention to the adjustment of the more urgent point of the maritime
pretension, a point which would not admit of equal postponement.
In reply to this observation, Count Nesselrode stated, to my extreme surprise, that if
the territorial arrangement was not completed, he did not see the necessity of making
any agreement respecting the maritime question ; and I found myself most unexpectedly
under the necessity of again explaining very distinctly, both to him and to M. Poletica,
that the maritime pretension of Russia was one which, violating as it did the first and
most established principles of all public maritime law, admitted neither of explanation
nor modification, and that my Government considered themselves possessed of a clear
engagement on the part of Russia to retract in some way or other a pretension which
could neither be justified nor enforced.
Here the matter rested, but I ought to state that, notwithstanding this unexpected
observation of Count Nesselrode, I do not at all believe that, had we been able to agree
upon our southern line of demarcation, we should have found any real difficulty either
as regards the retractation of the maritime pretension, or as regards our western boundary, or any other of the minor details which we should have been called upon to adjust;
but the observation was made, and considering what has already passed upon this subject,
both here, in London, and in America, considering also the delicacy with which His
Majesty had left it to the Russian Government themselves to frame the terms in which
their retractation of this preposterous pretension should be made, His Majesty's Government may perhaps think it advisable that Count Lieven should be again giveu clearly
to understand that it is a point to which no slight importance is attached by His
Majesty, and that the pretension, as it now stands, will admit of no remedy but that of
publick, formal, and precise retractation in some shape or another.
Such has been the course of my late negotiation upon this question, and such the
grounds upon which I have thought it my duty to suspend it for the present.
I know full well the inconvenience of breaking off such a negotiation in such a stage,
and upon a point which, judging only by the map, might perhaps appear of so little
real importance to His Majesty's present interests, but when I consider by how much
I have already exceeded my instructions, how more than doubtful is the real right of
this Government to any part of the territory in most immediate dispute, and how much
more exorbitant are their pretensions upon the North-west Continent of America than I
had before had reason to suspect, I certainly could not venture to take upon myself the
heavy responsibility of making any further concessions of a territory, the value and
possible local advantages of which I had no means of estimating, and which I believe are
as yet imperfectly known.
It is somewhat remarkable that, whilst the Russian pretension of maritime jurisdiction
stands unrecalled amongst the Oukazes of the Imperial Government, a note, such as
that of which I herewith enclose a copy,* should have been addressed to ms in the midst
of our negotiations, asking protection for a Russian ship to navigate in safety those very
seas and visit those very shores which the Court of Russia has by such high-handed
decrees declared to be a part of her exclusive dominions and a part too which the other
powers of the world are forbidden to approach.
I have not yet answered this note, but if I am pressed to do so before I receive the
instructions of His Majesty's Government in respect to it I shall certainly grant the
certificate required, as was done in a former and similar instance by Lord Cathcart.
I have, &c.
The Right Hon. George Canning. (Signed)        CHARLES BAGOT.
* Not printed.
:
O    58036.
E 42
No. 12.
Contre Projet submitted by Russian Plenipotentiaries.
Les propositions faites par les Plenipotentiaires de Russie a Sir Charles Bagot et que
Son Excellence a ete priee de prendre en mure consideration, tendoient a faire admettre
le 55me degre de latitude septentrionale comme ligne de demarcation entre les possessions
respectives sur la cote N.O. de l'Amerique.
Cette meme limite a deja ete assignee aux possessions Russes par la charte que
l'Empereur Paul ler accorda a la Compagnie Americaine.
Comme la parallele du 55me degre coupe l'ile du Prince de Galles dans son extremity
meridionale, laissant en dehors deux pointes de terre les Plenipotentiaires de Russie
ont propose que ces deux pointes fussent comprises dans les limites Russes voulant eviter
par la, une division de territoire egalement incommode aux deux parties interessees.
Pour completer la ligne de demarcation et la rendre aussi distincte que possible, les
Plenipotentiaires de Russie ont exprime le desir de lui faire suivre le Portland Canal
jusqu'aux montagnes qui bordent la cote.
De ce point la limite remonteroit le long de ces montagnes parallelement aux sinuosites
de la cote, jusqu'a la longitude du 139me degre (meridien de Londres) degre dont la
ligne de prolongation vers le Nord, formeroit la limite ulterieure entre les Possessions
Russes et Anglaises au Nord, comme a Y Est.
Le motif principal qui force la Russie a in sister sur la Souverainete de la lisiere
indiquee plus haut sur la terre ferme depuis le Portland Canal jusqu'au point d'inter-
section du 60° avec le 139° de longitude, c'est que, privee de ce territoire, la Compagnie
Russe Americaine n'auroit aucun moyen de soutenir ses etablissemens qui seroient d&s
lors sans point d'appui; et qui ne pourroient avoir aucune solidite.
En revanche la Russie se' feroit un devoir d'ouvrir aux sujets de Sa Majeste Bri-
tannique la libre navigation de tous les fleuves qui aboutissent a l'ocean dans cette meme
lisiere.
Pour donner.une derniere preuve de son empressement a, aller audevant des vceux du
Gouvernement Anglais, elle ouvriroit aussi au commerce des sujets de Sa Majeste Bri-
tannique et k leurs vaisseaux, le port de Novo Archangelsk dans le cas ou les propositions ci-dessus seroient acceptees.
No. 13.
B.
Modification of the First Proposal originally made by Sir C. Bagot.
Comme il a ete convenu de prendre pour base de negotiations les convenances mutuelles
des deux pays, il est a. remarquer, en reponse a la proposition faite par les Plenipotentiaires Russes, qu'une ligne de demarcation tracee de l'extremite meridionale de l'ile du
Prince de Galles jusqu'a 1'embouchure du Canal de Portland, de la par le milieu de ce
canal jusqu'a ce qu'elle touche la terre ferme, de la jusqu'aux montagnes qui bordent
la cote, et de la le long de ces montagnes jusqu'a la longitude du 139me degre etc oteroit
a Sa Majeste" Britannique la souverainete de toutes ces anses et de ces petites baies qui
se trouvent entre les latitudes 56° et 54° 45' dont plusieurs (a ce qu'il y a tout lieu a
croire) communiquent directement aux etablissemens de la Compagnie de Hudson's Bay,
et seroient par consequent d'une importance essentielle pour son commerce ; tandis que
de l'autre cote la Compagnie Russe Amdricaine ne possede aucun etablissement sur la
terre ferme entre les deux paralleles sus mentionnees, ni meme sur File de Prince de
Galles, ni sur les iles qui sont situees entre celle ci et la terre ferme.
En acceptant la proposition faite par Sir Charles Bagot dans sa premiere conference
avec les Plenipotentiaires Russes il n'y auroit (h ce qu'il paroit) qu'un seul inconvenient
pour la Russie celui qui pourroit resulter du droit que reclameroient peut etre les Etats
Unis, en vertu de leur Convention avec la Grande Bretagne de l'annee 1818 de naviguer
librement dans tous les parages entre l'ile du Roi George, et la terre ferme et de
gener ainsi de quelque sorte le commerce des sujets de Sa Majeste Imperiale dans
ces eaux. r
Pour obvier a cet inconvenient et pour assurer k la Russie l'entiere souverainete" de
ces parages, ainsi que toutes les iles et les cdtes ou il y a effectivement des etablissemens
rasa 43
'Russes, la Grande Bretagne proposeroit de prendre pour ligne de demarcation entre les
territoires des deux puissances une ligne traced de l'Ouest vers 1'Est, par le milieu du
canal qui separe les iles du Prince de Galles et du Due d'York de toutes les iles situees
au Nord des dites iles jusqu'a ce qu'elle touche la terre ferme.
De la se prolongeant dans la meme direction sur la terre ferme jusqu'a un point
distant de la cote de dix lieues marines, la ligne remonteroit de ce point vers le Nord et
le Nord Ouest, parallelement aux sinuosites de la cote et toujours a la distance de dix
lieues ^ marines du rivage, jusqu'au i40™ degre de longitude (de Greenwich) dont elle
Suivroit alors le prolongement jusqu'a la nier polaire.
No. 14.
C.
Observations made by the Russian Plenipotentiaries on the Amended Proposal of
I Sir C. Bagot.
Le motif qui a fait proposer l'adoption du principe des convenances mutuelles, et le
premier avantage de ce principe, e'est d'empecher que les etablissemens respectifs sur la
cote Nord Ouest ne puissent se nuire les uns aux autres et entrer en collision, i
Les etablissemens Anglais de la Compagnie de la Baie de Hudson et du Nord Ouest
tendent a se porter vers l'Ouest par les 53° et 54° de latitude septentrionale.
Les etablissemens Russes de la Compagnie Americaine tendent a descendre au sud
vers le 55me parallele et au dela car il est a remarquer que si la Compagnie Americaine
n'a point encore forme d'etablissement fixe sur la ligne mathematique du 55me, il n' en
est pas moins vrai qu'en vertu de son privilege de 1799—privilege contre le quel aucune
Puissance n'a jamais reclame—elle exploite lachasse et lapeche dans ces parages, et que
regulierement elle occupe les iles et les cotes avoisinantes dans la saison qui lui permet
d'y envoyer ses chasseurs et ses pecheurs.
II etoit done de la convenance mutuelle des deux empires d'assigner de justes limites
a des progress reciproques que ne pouvoient qu'occasionner avec le temps les plus
facheuses complications.
II etoit aussi de leur convenance mutuelle de determiner ces limites d'apres les separations naturelles qui forment toujours les frontieres les plus distinctes et les plus certaines.
C'est par ces raisons que les Plenipotentiaires de Russie ont propose pour limites sur
la cote du Continent au sud le Portland Channel dont l'origine dans les terres et par le
56me degre de latitude N. et a l'Est la chaine de montagnes qui suit a une tres petite
distance les sinuosites de la cote.
D'apres les cartes les plus recentes et les meilleures publiees en Angleterre, les
etablissemens de la Compagnie de la Baie de Hudson, ne se rapprochent des cotes que
par le 53° et le 54me degre, et Ton ne sauroit prouvcr que sur aucun point ils arrivent
jusqu5 au grand ocean.
Cependant d'apr&s le principe des convenances mutuelles le projet d'arrangement des
Plenipotentiaires de Russie, laisse ouverts a l'extension successive des Colonies
Anglaises:
1°. Toute la partie de la cote entre l'embouchure du Portland Channel et le 51me
degre de latitude Nord envisage comme limite des possessions Russes dans l'Oukaze du
4/16 Septembre 1821.
2°. Tout le territoire situe entre les etablissemens Anglais au 54me et Porigine du
Portland Channel qui est au 56me parallele.
3°. Tout le territoire situe derriere la chaine de montagnes dont il a, ete question ci
dessus jusqu'au point d'intersection du 139me degre de longitude (meridien de Greenwich).
Les Plenipotentiaires de Sa Majeste Imperiale prevoyant meme le cas, ou, sur la
lisiere de la cote, qui appartiendroit a la Russie, il se trouveroit des fleuves au moyen
des quels les etablissemens Anglais pourroient communiquer avec l'ocean, se sont
empresses d'offrir par une stipulation eventuelle la libre navigation de ce9 fleuves.
Ils ont en outre annonce a son Excellence Sir Charles Bagot que le Port de Novo
Archangelsk sera ouvert au commerce des sujets de Sa Majeste le Roi de la Grande
Bretagne.
D'autre part les Plenipotentiaires de Russie ont l'honneur de lui observer iterativement
que sans une lisiere sur la cote du continent a partir du Portland Channel, les etablissemens Russes des iles du voisinage n'auroient aucun point d'appui, qu'ils seroient a la
merci de ceux que des etrangers formeroient sur la terre ferme, et que tout arrangement
semblable, loin d'etre fonde sur le principe des convenances mutuelles ne presenteroit que
des dangers a 1'une des parties et des avantages exclusifs a. l'autre.
F 2 u
On ne parlera point ici des deux pointes de l'ile du Prince de Galles qui sont situees
audessousde la ligne du 55- degre de latitude Nord. Ces deux pointes ne pour-
roient etre d'aucune utilitE h la Grande Bretagne et si les neuf-dixi6mes de lile
du Prince de Galles appartiennent a la Russie, il est Evidemment dun mteret reciproque
que l'ile lui appartienne tout entiere. , ; .
Ce court expose" suffit pour justifier le projet que les PlEnrpotentiaires de ba Majeste
Imperiale ont remis k Sir Charles Bagot et sur la teneur du quel ils ne peuvent qu in-
sister
Ils'esperent du reste que les intentions qui ont dicte ce projet seront appreciees tant
par f Ambassadeur de Sa Majeste Britannique que par son Gouvernement.
No. 15.
Sir C. Bagot's Objections to the Observations made by the Russian Plenipotentiaries on
his Amended Proposals, now further modified.
La DEcouverte ou la simple occupation de quelques iles situees sur la cote d'un continent ne peut donner aucun droit a la souverainete de la terre ferme voisine, principe
qui n'est pas moins fonde sur l'opinion reconnue des juristes les plus celebres que sur
l'usage universellement observe entre les nations.
D'apres ce principe Sir Charles Bagot a constamment soutenu dans les conferences
qu'il a eu l'honneur d'avoir avec les Plenipotentiaires de Russie, que Sa Majeste Britannique ne sauroit admettre que les droits de la Russie sur la cote Nord Ouest du
Continent d'AmErique puissent s'etendre vers le midi sur ce continent au de la du point
ou la Russie aura actuellement formE des etablissemens.
II n'a jamais ete affirmE par les Plenipotentiaires de Sa Majeste Imperiale que la Russie
poss&de des Etablissemens quelconques sur la terre ferme au Sud du 60me ou 59me degre
de latitude Nord, mais ils ont declare" que privee d'une lisiere sur la terre ferme, la
Compagnie Russe Americaine n'auroit aucun moyen de soutenir ses Etablissemens sur
les iles, qui seroient des lors sans point d'appui et ne pourroient avoir aucune solidite.
Tout argument fonde sur la consideration de la convenance pratique de la Russie, ne
pouvoit &tre que du plus grand poids, et le Plenipotentiaire de Sa Majeste" Britannique
n'hesita plus d'abandonner, en consequence de cette observation des Plenipotentiaires de
Russie la ligne de demarcation qu'il avoit d'abord proposee, savoir, celle qui devoit passer
par le milieu de Chatham Straits jusqu'a 1'extremitE septentrionale de Lynn Canal et
de la k Mont Elias, ou a l'intersection du 140me degre de longitude, et d'en proposer une
autre qui assureroit a la Russie non seulement une lisiere sur le continent, vis-k-vis de
l'etablissement le plus meridional qu'elle possede sur les iles, mais qui lui assureroit aussi
la possession de toutes les iles et les eaux qui l'avoisinent, ou qui se trouvent placets
entre cet etablissement et la terre ferme, la possession en fin de tout ce qui pourroit devenir,
par la suite, de quelque utility, ou pour sa soliditE ou pour sa prosperite.
Mais le Plenipotentiaire de Sa Majeste Britannique ne peut pas admettre que la Russie
accorderoit ou assureroit a Sa Majeste Britannique un nouvel avantage parsa renoncia-
tion a la partie de la c6te situEe entre l'embouchure du Portland Canal et le degre de
latitude envisage comme limite des Possessions Russes dans l'Oukaze de 1821, ni meme
par sa renonciation a toute partie du continent au midi des Etablissemens qui y ont ete
deja formEs; car, quand meme Sa Majeste Britannique eut jamais reconnu ce degrE de
latitude comme formant la ligne de dEmarcation en autant qu'il regarde les iles, elle ne
pourroit d'apres le principe EnoncE plus haut l'avoir reconnu comme limite sur le continent voisin, sur lequel la Compagnie de la Baie de Hudson avait deja etabli plusieurs de
ses postes les plus importants.
Cette Compagnie a en effet, des etablissemens meme pres de la c6te au Nord du
Sa Majeste Britannique ne pourroit done sans sacrifier les interets de
oo
degrE
k compagnie renoncer a ses droits a la "souverainete de la cdte et des lies qui la
dependent iramediatement jusqu'a la hauteur de 56° 30' de latitude Nord quelque que
soit le degre de latitude que Ton pourra dEfinitivement convenir de prendre pour
limite entre les deux puissances en autant qu'il concerne les iles situees plus a
l'ouest. r
L'origine du Portland Canal peut etre comme il y a lieu a croire, l'embouchure de
quelque fleuve qui coule par le milieu du pays occupe par la Compagnie de la Baie de
Hudson, et il est par consEquent d'une importance majeure a la Grande Bretagne d'en
possEder la souverametE des, deux rives.
SRB 45
Ce fut dans l'espoir de pouvoir concilier ces objets indispensables avec ceux du
Gouyernement Imperial, et de determiner sans plus de delai, une question qu'il
paroissoit etre Egalement de 1'intEret des deux parties d'arranger dEfinitivement au
moment actuel que le Plenipotentiaire de Sa Majeste Britannique eut l'honneur de
proposer dans sa derniere conference avec les PlEnipotentiaires de Russie, une ligne de
demarcation qui tout en conservant k la Russie pour limite meridionale sur les iles
le degre de latitude designe par l'Oukaze de 1799, assigneroit en meme terns a la
Grande Bretagne pour limite sur la cdte de la terre ferme la latitude de
56° 30'Nord.
II semble qu'une ligne tracEe de l'extremite mEridionale du Detroit nommE " Duke
of Clarence's Sound" * par le milieu de ce dEtroit jusqu'au milieu du detroit qui
sEpare les iles du Prince de Galles et du Due d'York de toutes les iles situEes au
nord des dites iles, de la vers Test parle milieu du meme dEtroit jusqu'a la terre ferme,
et se prolongeant en suite dans la direction et de la maniere dejk proposee par le Plenipotentiaire de Sa Majeste Britannique jusqu'a Mont Elias, ou a l'intersection du
140me degre de longitude, formeroit une ligne de dEmarcation qui concilieroit peut etre
d'une maniere satisfaisante les intErets reciproques tant actuels que futurs des deux
empires dans cette partie du globe.
No. 16.
■   " E.
Decision  of Russian Government in  which  they insist upon the demarcation  as
described in their Contre Projet (paper marked A.).
St. Petersburgh, le £$ Mars, 1824.
Les Plenipotentiaires de  Russie ont portE k la connoissance de l'Empereur leur
maltre les dernieres propositions qui leur ont EtE faites par Sir Charles Bagot relativement
k la ligne de demarcation qui sEpareroit les Possessions Russes des Possessions Anglaises
sur la c6te Nord-Ouest du continent de 1'AmErique.
Attentivement examinees par Sa Majeste Imperiale ces propositions ne lui ont point-
paru de nature a pouvoir dtre acceptEes.
L'Empereur charge ses PlEnipotentiaires de dEclarer iterativement a Mons. l'Ambasr
sadeur d'Angleterre:
Que la possession de l'ile du Prince de Galles sans une portion de territoire sur la cote
situEe vis-a-vis de cette ile ne pourroit etre d'aucune utilitE a la Russie.
Que tout l'etablissement formE sur la dite ile, ou sur celles qui l'environnent se
trouveroit en quelque sorte tournEs par les Etablissemens Anglais de la terre ferme et
completement a la merci de ces derniers.
Qu'en consEquence un arrangement semblable ne seroit nullement conforme au principe
des convenances mutuelles.
Qu'au reste d'apr&s le temoignage des cartes les plus rEcentes publiEes en Angleterre
il n'existe aucun Etablissement Anglais ni sur la c6te meme du continent, ni au nord du
54 degrE de latitude septentrionale.
Qu'ainsi quand les limites fixEes aux possessions Russes par la charte de 1799,
n'auroient point en leur faveur depuis 25 ans le consentemenfc tacite de toutes les
Puissances encore la Russie exerceroit elle sur cette partie de la cdte precisEment les
memes droits que la Grande Bretagne, d'ou il resulte que la question devroit toujours
etre resolue, non d'aprEs les intErets exclusifs d'un des deux Empires raajs de maniere a
concilier leurs intErets rEciproques.
Qu'enfin quant k la navigation des fleuves, la Russie croyait avoir offert h la Grande
Bretagne tous les avantages et toutes concessions que celle ci peut dEsirer: et que dans
cet Etat de choses les PlEnipotentiaires de Sa MajestE ImpEriale avoient ordre d'insister
sur leurs propositions antErieures, propositions dont ils ont amplement dEveloppe les
motifs a Son Excellence Monsieur le Chevalier Bagot.
L'Empereur Espere que ces motifs seront apprEciEs par le Gouvernement de Sa
Majeste Britannique et que Mons. l'Ambassadeur d'Angleterre les fera valoir avec ce
desir de rapprocher les opinions respectives qu'il a manifest^ dans tout le corn's do cette
nEgotiation.
Sa MajestE ImpEriale est au regret de ne pas la voir terminer d&s a prEsent, mais Elle
se flatte que les rEsolutions definitives du Cabinet de Londres, empecheront sans doutes
ces pourparlers de demeurer stEriles.
* See Appendix No. 39, p. 67. 46
No. 17.
COMTE DE NESSELRODE to COMTE DE LIEVEN.
Mons. le Comte, St. Petersbourg, Ayril 5, 1824
Par mes depeches du 17 de ce mois j'ai fait connaitre a Votre Excellence les
rEsultats peu satisfaisans de nos nEgotiations avec Sir Charles Bagot relatives aux
frontieres qui doivent separer les Possessions Russes des Possessions Anglaises sur la
cdte Nord Ouest de l'Araerique.
Aujourd'hui Mons. le Comte, je vous developperai les motifs, qui ne nous ont pas
permis d'accepter les propositions de l'Ambassadeur d'Angleterre.
Pour ne pas entrer sans necessitE dans de trop longs dEtails, je me bornerai a discuter
ici le point de la question sur lequel nous n'avons pu tomber d'accord.
L'Oukaze du 4/16 Septembre 1821 avoit porte jusqu'au 51° de latitude septentrionale
les limites des domaines de la Russie sur la cote Nord Ouest du continent Americain.
Cependant l'Empereur setant convaincu que presque a la meme epoque la Compagnie
Anglaise de la Baie d'Hudson avoit formE des etablissemens par les 53° et 54° de
latitude septentrionale, et que ces Etablissemens n'etoient meme plus tres eloignes
de la cdte, nous autorisa a donner des l'ouverture des negociations une preuve
de ses intentions conciliantes en dEclarant a Sir Charles Bagot que nous nous tiendrons
aux limites assignees k nos possessions Americaines par la charte de l'Empereur Paul,
qu'en consEquence la ligne du 55me degre de latitude septentrionale, constitueroit du midi
la frontiere des Etats de Sa MajestE Imperiale que sur le continent et vers l'Est, cette
frontiere pourroit courir le long des montagnes que suivent les sinuosites de la cdte
jusqu'au Mont Elie, et que de ce point jusqu'a la mer glaciale nous fixerions les bornes
des possessions respectives d'apres la ligne du 140me degre de Longitude Ouest (meridien
de Greenwich).
Afin de ne pas couper l'ile Prince de Galles, qui selon cet arrangement devoit rester a
la Russie nous proposions de porter la frontiere meridionale de nos domaines au 54° 40'
de latitude et de la faire aboutir sur le continent au Portland Canal dont l'embouchure
dans 1'OcEan est a la hauteur de l'ile du Prince de Galles et l'origine dans les terres
entre le 55° et 56° de lat.
Cette proposition ne nous assuroit qu'une etroite lisiere sur la cdte meme, et elle
laissoit aux Etablissemens Anglais tout l'espace necessaire pour se multiplier et
s'Etendre.
Vous verrez M. le Comte par les pieces ci-jointes qu'en outre nous annoncions
l'ouverture du port de Novo Archangelsk et que nous promettions la fibre navigation
des fleuves qui se trouveroient sur notre territoire.
Apres quelques discussions les dernieres contre-propositions de Sir Charles Bagot,
furent de comprendre toute l'ile de Prince de Galles dans les possessions de la Russie,
mais de stipuler que notre frontiere suivroit de cette ile la passe dite Duke of Clarence's
Sound, et quelle n'aboutiroit a. la cdte qu'au dessus de 56° de latitude septentrionale.
Cette difference si on la considere sur la Carte, paroit insignifiante au premier coup
d'ceil; elle est neanmoins si essentielle pour nous qu'il nous est absolument impossible
d'adherer au plan de demarcation tracE par le PlEnipotentiaire de Sa Majeste
Britannique.
v Nous lui avons exposE dans notre reponse a la seconde note verbale et dans notre
replique du L8 Mars, des considErations que nous ne pouvons perdre de vue et qui nous
semblent dEcisives. L'Empereur vous charge Mons. le Comte d'inviter le Cabinet de
St. James a les peser avec la plus mure attention, et Sa Majeste se flatte qua la suite
d'un examen impartial, il s'empressera lui meme de reconnoitre combien nos raisons sont
graves et legitimes.
s En premier lieu aucun etat n'a rEclame contre la charte de l'Empereur Paul, et ce
silence universal peut et doit Etre envisage comme une reconnoissance de nos droits.
On nous objecte que nous n'avons pas formE d'etablissemens stables sur la cdte Nord
Ouest au dessous de 57° de latitude. Cela est vrai, mais dans la saison de la chasse et de
la peche, la cdte et les eaux avoisinantes sont exploitEes par notre Compagnie Americaine
bien au delk du 55° et du 54° parallele. Ce genre d'occupation est le seul dont ces
parages soient susceptibles, ou du moins le seul qui soit necessaire lorsqu'un peu plus
au nord on a fonde et organise des colonies. Nous sommes done pleinement en droit
dinsister sur la continuation d'un benefice que votre commerce s'est assurE des l'annee
1799 : tandis que les Compagnies Anglaises de la Baye d'Hudson et du Nord Ouest
ont a peine atteint depuis trois ans le voisinage de ces latitudes, tandis qu'elles n'occu-
pent encore aucun point qui touche a l'ocean et qu'il est notoire que e'est pour l'avenir
seulement qu'elles cherchent a s'y
nager les profits de la chasse et
de la pEche.
V
SH 47
Ainsi nous voulons conserver, et les Compagnies Anglaises veulent acquSrir. Cette
seule circonstance suffit pour justifier nos propositions. Elles ne sont pas moins conformes
aux pnncipes des convenances mutuelles, qui devoit servir de base k la nEgociation.
H l'ile du Prince de Galles nous demeure, il faut qu'elle puisse nous etre de quelque
utilitE. Or d'apres le plan de l'Ambassadeur de 1'Angleterre, elle ne seroit pour nous
qu'une chargeet presqu'un inconvenient. Cette ile, en effet, et les Etablissemens que'
nous y formerions, se trouveroient entierement isoles, prives de tout soutien, enveloppEs
par les domaines de la Grande Bretagne et a la merci des etablissemens Anglais de la
cdte. Nous nous Epuiserions en frais de garde et de surveillance dont aucune compensation n'allegeroit le fardeau. Un arrangement pareil reposeroit-il sur le principe des
convenances mutuelles 1
Nous invoquons toutefois ce principe avec d'autant plus de justice que 1'Angleterre
elle meme a prouvE par un acte authentique, qu'elle regardoit comme douteux ses droits
sur le territoire dont elle demande 1'abandon. La Convention passEe le 20 Octobre 1818
entre la Cour de Londres et les Etats Unis declare propriEte commune des deux
Puissances pour dix ans, toute 1'etendue de pays comprise entre les Rocky Mountains,
YOcean Pacifique et les possessions Russes. Les titres des Etats Unis a la souverainete
de ce pays sont done aussi valable que ceux de l'Angleterre.
Cependant le Cabinet de Washington a reconnu que nos limites devoient descendre
jusqu'au 54° 40'. II l'a reconnu par une transaction fbrmelle que nous venons de para-
pher avec son Plenipotentiaire, et cette reconnoissance n'a point pour consequence unique
de fortifier nos argumens, elle nous procure d'autres resultats auxquels nous attachions
avec raison, le plus haut intEret.
Tranquilles de ce cotE nous n'avons maintenant aucune crainte a nourrir, et le
Cabinet de Londres conviendra sans doute, qu'un tel Etat de choses augmente le prix
des sacrifices que nous lui offrons. Deja, il existe une difference de pres de quatre
degres entre la demarcation de l'Oukase du -^ Septembre 1821, et celle que nous
indiquons aujourd'hui. Les Etablissemens des Compagnies Anglaises peuvent occuper
cet intervalle. A l'Est ils peuvent unir les deux cdtes de 1'Amerique, au midi rien
n'empeche qu'ils n'acquie-rent une extension considErable. Pour nous, nous bornons nos
demandes a celle d'une simple lisiere du continent, et afin de lever toute objection, nous
garantissons la libre navigation des fleuves, nous annoncons l'ouverture du port de Novo
Archangelsk.
La Russie ne sauroit pousser plus loin ses concessions. Elle n'en fera pas d'autres,
et elle est autorisEe a, en attendre de la part de l'Angleterre, mais encore une fois elle
ne rEclame que des concessions negatives. On ne peut effectivement assez le repEter,
d'apr&s le temoignage des cartes les plus rEcentes, l'Angleterre ne possede aucun
etablissement, ni a la hauteur du Portland Canal, ni a bord-mdme de 1'OcEan, et la
Russie quand elle insiste sur la conservation d'un mediocre Espace de terre ferme,
n'insiste au fond que sur le moyen de faire valoir, nous dirons plus, de ne pas perdre
les iles environnantes. C'est la position dont nous parlions tout k l'heure; nous ne
recherchons aucun avantage, nous voulons Eviter de graves inconveniens.
En resumE Monsieur le Comte, si Ton consulte le droit dans cette nEgociation, la
Russie a celui qu'assurent, d'une part, un consentement tacite, mais incontestable, de
l'autre, une exploitation paisible depuis vingt cinq ans et qui peut etre considerEe comme
Equivalente a une occupation continue.
Si Ton invoque le principe des convenances mutuelles, la Russie laisse au developpe-.
ment progressif des Etablissemens Anglois, une vaste Etendue de cdte et de territoire;
elle leur assure de libre debouchEs, elle pourvoit aux intErets de leur commerce, et
pour compenser tant d'offres dictees par le plus sincere esprit de conciliation, elle se
reserve uniquement un point d'appui, sans lequel il lui seroit impossible de garder une
moitie de ses domaines.
De telles vues n'ont besoin que d'etre prEsentEes dans leur vrai jour, pour qu'un
Gouvernement comme celui de la Grande Bretagne sache. les apprEcier.^ Douter de
son adhesion dans cette circonstance, ce seroit douter de sa justice, et rt vous sera
facile, l'Empereur se plait a le croire, d'obtenir le consentement dEfinitif de l'Angleterre
a une' transaction qui rempliroit nos vceux et nos esperances en prevenant toute discus-.
sion ultErieure.
Recevez M. le Comte,
L'assurance, etc.
(Signe)       NESSELRODE, 48
No. 18.
HUDSON'S BAY COMPANY to FOREIGN OFFICE.
Hudson's Bay House, London,
Sir, April 19, 1824.
I have this morning laid before the Committee of the Hudson's Bay Company
Sir Charles Bagot's Despatch,* and papers connected with it, which you did me the honour
to entrust to me on Saturday morning, and I am to state that if His Majesty's Government consider it advisable in other respects to accede to the last proposition made by
the Russian Government for the arrangement of a line of demarcation between the
possessions of Russia and Great Britain on the coast of North America, they see no
reason to object to it, as it will affect their particular interests, and more especially as it
appears to secure to them free access to the sea for the purposes of their trade on the
whole coast to the eastward of the 139 degree of longitude.
They beg me, however, to suggest the expediency of some more definite demarcation
on the coast than the supposed chain of mountains contiguous to it, and they conceive
there can be no difficulty in arranging this point, from the expression in the proposition
of the Russian negotiators, V La chaine des montagnes, qui sont k une tres petite distance
5 des sinuositEs de la cdte."
Neither party have any very accurate geographical information with respect to the
country in the immediate neighbourhood of the sea, and if the intentions of the Russians
are fairly to be inferred from the words used in their proposal, the most satisfactory
manner of settling this point probably would be by inserting in any article providing for
the boundary on the main land the nearest chain of mountains not exceeding a few
leagues of the coast.
I am desired by the Committee further to beg, if these negotiations should be brought
to a satisfactory issue, that you would have the goodness to state to the Russian
Government their great desire to promote a good understanding and a reciprocity of
good offices between the subjects of both nations trading in those remote and
inhospitable countries.
[ have. &c.
To the Right Hon. George Canning, (Signed)       J. H. PELLY.
&c. &c. &c.
(No. 18.)
Extract.
No. 19-
Right Hon. G. CANNING to Sir C. BAGOT.
Foreign Office, April 24, 1824.
*
*
I will not, however, defer till that opportunity the informing your Excellency that
your conduct in suspending the negotiations with respect to the North-west Coast of
America, when you found that the modifications which you judiciously took upon
yourself to make in your instructions were not met by corresponding concessions on the
part of the Russian Government, has received His Majesty's gracious approbation. I
have referred the whole question of this negotiation anew to the Governors of the
Hudson's Bay Company, whose report I expect shortly to receive.
I have some reason to think that that report will recommend the policy of closing
with the Russian proposals rather than leaving the points in dispute unsettled for au
indefinite time. It will then remain to consider, after I shall have learnt the tenour of
the instructions sent to Count Lieven, whether it may be most expedient for the Kind's
service to carry on the ulterior discussions with the Russian Ambassador here or °to
authorise your Excellency to resume and conclude the negotiation
* * * * * **# *
* No. 11, p. 39.
BBS 49
No. 20.
Mr. PELLY (Hudson's Bay Company) to FOREIGN OFFICE.
(Private.)
SIR> ... 3» Portman Square, May 26, 1824.
IP it is intended to conclude any treaty with Russia under the present circumstances, the copy of the communication which I saw yesterday embraced all the points
which appear necessary to secure the objects of the Hudson's Bay Company, with the
exception of a more particular description of how the mountains range with the sinuosity
of the coast, as it is possible that those mountains represented in the charts as closely
bordering on the sea, and described by the Russians as a " tres petite distance," may really
be at a very considerable distance from the coast; and to provide for which case the distance
ought to be limited, as Sir Charles Bagot proposed, to a few leagues, say, not exceeding
10 from the shores. But the copy of the convention between Russia and America
seems to have rendered the concessions proposed to be made by Great Britain (founded
on the basis of mutual convenience) quite unnecessary, for by it Russia has bound herself
in the 3rd Article not to form any establishment to the southward of 54° 40', or Prince
of Wales Island, and by the 4th Article it is covenanted that for ten years all vessels
belonging to the two powers may reciprocally frequent all the harbours for the purposes
of trade with the natives.
I am at a loss to understand how the great object of the arrangement (the prevention
of the collision of the traders of the different powers) is to be attained by these means, or
why Great Britain should cede to Russia the exclusive right to the islands and the
coast from lat. 54° 40" northward to Mount Elias, and to which Russia can have no
claim, and knows them only by the English names of George III. and Prince of Wales
Archipelago. Russia has nothing now to concede in return, the convention with the
United States depriving her of the power of forming any establishment to the southward.
The view which I took of the subject when I had the honour of conferring with you
thereon was, that it would be more for the interest of all parties that the limits of each
power should be defined, and that, as far as the British fur trade was concerned, it would
be better for Great Britain to surrender to Russia all claim she had to the Island of
Prince of Wales and those to the northward of it, provided Russia surrendered to Great
Britain all rights she had to the coasts and islands to the southward from the aforesaid
island to the 51° lat. claimed in the famous Ukase. This would have facilitated the proposed arrangement between Great Britain and the United States of making the Columbia
the boundary between them, but it appears to me that this convention between Russia
and the United States renders it inexpedient for Great Britain to surrender any part of
her claims to that coast unless upon a satisfactory arrangement with the United States
as well as with Russia.
I should have "to offer my apologies  for the freedom with which I have given my
sentiments had not Lord Francis Conyngham   informed me it was your wish that i
should do so.
Believe me, &c.
flight Hoh. Geo. Canning;;
(Signed)
J. H. PELLY,
No. 21.
Bight Hon. G. CANNING to Sir C. BAGOT.   |;
(No. 22.) ^|P
SlR Foreign Office, May 29, 1824.
I transmit to your Excellency a copy of a letter which I have addressed to
Count Lieven* upon the subject-matter of two Despatches! from Count Nesselrode to
Count Lieven which that Ambassador communicated to me, and copies of which I also
eeclose. T, ,, I
Your Excellency will learn from my letter to Count Lieven that you may expect
definitive instructions \ery shortly both for the conclusion of the negotiation relating to
tbe North-west Coast of America j . .        4
I hope to despatch a messenger to your Excellency with these instructions m the
course of next week. f^li
* No. 22, p. 50.
O    23036.
t No. 17, p. 46.    Thcsecond has not been traced.—D.K.C;
G 50
Meantime the enclosed paper will put. your Excellency generally in possession of the
sentiments of Her Majesty's Government upon these several subjects. But your Excellency will not take any step upon them until you shall have received my promised
instructions.
I have, &c.
Sir Chas. Bagot.
(Signed)       GEORGE CANNING.
No. 22.
The Right Hon. G. Canning to Count Lieven.
(Extract.)
Mons. le Comte, Foreign Office, May 29, 1824.
After mature consideration of the two Despatches from Count Nesselrode to
your Excellency on the 5th ultimo, copies of which your Excellency had the goodness
to put into my hands, I have the satisfaction to acquaint your Excellency that I shall be
enabled shortly to send to Her Majesty's Ambassador at St. Petersburgh such instructions on the subject-matter of both as shall meet in a great degree the wishes of your
court.
1st. As to the line of demarcation to be drawn between Russian and British occupation on the North-west Coast of America : Sir Charles Bagot's discretion will be so far
enlarged as to enable him to admit, with certain qualifications, the terms last proposed
by the Russian Government.
The qualifications will consist chiefly in a more definite description of the limU to
which the strip of land required by Russia on the continent is to be restricted, in the
selection of a somewhat more western degree of longitude as the boundary to the northward of Mount Elias, in precise and positive stipulations for the free use of all rivers
which may be found to empty themselves into the sea within the Russian frontier, and
of all seas, straits, and waters which the limits assigned to Russia may comprehend.
It can hardly be expected that we should not also put in our claim for the like privileges of trade as are, or may be, stipulated with Russia by any other nation ; and we
take for granted that the exclusive claims of navigation and jurisdiction over the North
Pacific Ocean, which were put forward in the  Ukaze of September  1821, are to be
altogether withdrawn.
* * * * * *
(No. 24.)
Extract.
No. 23.
The Right Hon. G. CANNING to Sir C. BAGOT.
Foreign Office, June 29, 1824.
On this latter point* it is my intention to furnish your Excellency with the draft of a
Convention which you may sign before your departure from St. Petersburgh.
No. 24.
The Right Hon. G. CANNING to Sir C. BAGOT.
(No. 26.)
SlR'       . ... Foreign Office, July 12, 1824.
After full consideration of the motives which are alleged by the Russian
Government for adhering to their last propositions respecting the line of demarcation to
be drawn between British and Russian occupancy on the North-west Coast of America,
and of the comparative inconvenience of admitting some relaxation in the terms of your
excellency s last instructions, or of leaving the question between the two Governments
unsettled for an indefinite time, His Majesty's Government have resolved to authorise
your excellency to consent to include the south points of Prince of Wales' Island
within the Russian f.ontiers, and to take, as the line of demarcation, a line drawn from-
North-west coast of America. 51
the southernmost point of Prince of Wales' Island, from south to north, through Portland Channel, till it strikes the mainland in latitude 56° ; thence following the sinuosities
of the coast along the base of the mountains nearest the sea to Mount Elias ; and thence
along the 139th degree of longitude to the Polar Sea.
I enclose the draft* of a Projet of Convention, founded upon these principles, which
your Excellency is authorised to sign previously to your quitting St. Petersburgh.
The advantages conceded to Russia by the line of demarcation traced out in this
Convention toe so obvious as to render it quite impossible that any objection can reasonably be offered, on the part of the Russian Government, to any of the stipulations in'
our favour.
There are two points which are left to be settled by your Excellency. First, in fixing
the course of the eastern boundary of the strip of laud to be occupied by Russia on the
coast. The seaward base of the mountains is assumed as that limit. But we have
experience that other mountains on the other side of the American continent, which
have been assumed in former treaties as lines of boundary, are incorrectly laid down in
the maps; and this inaccuracy has given rise to very troublesome discussions. It is
therefore necessary that some other security should be taken that the line of demarcation to
be drawn parallel with the coast, as far as Mount St. Elias, is not carried too far inland.
This is done by a proviso that that line shall in no case (i.e., not in that of the
mountains which appear by the map almost to border the coast, turning out to be far
removed from it) be carried further to the east than a specified number of leagues from
the sea. The utmost extent which His Majesty's Government would be disposed to
concede would be a distance of 10 leagues. But it would be desirable if your Excellency
were enabled to obtain a still more narrow limitation.
Secondly. Article 5 of the Projet is copied from Article 4 of the Convention between
Russia and the United States of America. By the American article the right of visiting
respectively, and resorting to each others possessions, is limited to 10 years. This
limitation is left blank in the Projet.
We should have no objection to agree to the article without any limitation of time;
we should prefer a longer period (say, 20 years) to that stipulated by the Americans.
Your Excellency will obtain either of these extensions if you can. but you must not
agree to a shorter term than 10 years.
Your Excellency will be careful to make it understood that this limitation of time
cannot in any case extend to the use by Great Britain of the Harbour of New Archangel,
still less of the rivers, creeks, &c. on the continent, the use of all which is in the nature
of a compensation for the perpetual right of territory granted to Russia, and therefore
must be alike perpetual. If your Excellency shall, as I cannot doubt, conclude and
sign this Convention before your departure, you will make it a point to bring with you
tne ratification of the Russian Government to be exchanged by Count Lieven against
that of His Majesty.
I am, &c.
Sir Charles Bagot. (Signed)        GEORGE CANNING,
No. 25.
Right Hon. G. CANNING to Sir C. BAGOT,
(No. 29,)
§IB Foreign Office, July 24, 1824,
The projet of a Convention which is enclosed in my No. 26 having been communicated by me to Count Lieven, with a request that his Excellency would note any
points in it upon which he conceived any difficulty likely to arise or any explanation to
be necessary, I have received from his Excellency the Memorandum (a copy of which is
herewith enclosed). \ .... ,  ^
Your Excellency will observe that there are but two points which have struck Count
Lieven as susceptible of any question ; the first, the assumption of the base of the mountains,
instead of the summit, as the line of boundary ; the second, the extension of the right of
the navigation of the Pacific to the sea beyond Behring's Straits,
As to°the first, no great incouvenience can arise from your Excellency (if pressed for
that alteration) consenting to substitute the summit of the mountains instead of the
seaward base, provided always that the stipulation as to the extreme distance from the
coast to which the lisiSre is in any case to run be adopted (which distance I baye to
repeat to your Excellency should be made as short as possible), and provided a stipula-
* No copy of this draft has heen traced.—D.R.C.
G 2 .52
tisn be added that no forts shall be established or fortifications erected by either party
on the summit or in tfee passes1 of the mountains.
As to theseooud point, it is perhaps, as Count Lieven remarks, ftew. But it is to be
remarked in return that the circumstances under wfeich this additional security is required
will be new also. .
By the territorial demarcation agreed to in this projet Russia will become possessed in
acknowledged sovereignty of both sides of Behring's traits.
' 'T'be power which could think of mafeiiag the Pacific a mare claumm may not
unnaturally be supposed capable of a disposition to apply the same character to a strait
comprehended between two shores, of which it becomes the undisputed owner. But the
.shu1#h%»up of Behring's Straits or the power to shut them up hereafter would be a thing
not to be tolerated by England.
Nor could we submit to be excluded, either positively or constructively, from a sea in
which the skill and science of our seamen has been and is still employed in enterprises
interesting not to this country alone, but to the whole civilised world.
The protection given by the Convention to the American coasts of each power may
(if it is thought necessary) be extended in terms to the coasts of the Russian Asiatic
Territory ; but in some way or other, if not in the form now prescribed, the free navigation of Behring's Straits and of the seas beyond them must be secured to us.
These being the only questions suggested by Count Lieven, I trust I may anticipate
with confidence the conclusion and signature of the Convention nearly in conformity
to the project and with little trouble to your Excellency.
The long delay of the ship makes it peculiarly satisfactory to me to have reduced
your Excellency's task in this matter within so small a compass.
I am, Sec.
Sir Chas. Bagot, (Signed)        G. CANNING.
&C.      &C. B3#*-
No. 26.
Memoranoum by Count Lieven.—(24 July 1824.)
Le projet de Convention r&lige par le Cabinet Anglais fait courir la limite des
Possessions Russes et Anglaises sur la Cote Nord Ouest d'Amerique au Sud du Mont
Elie, le long de la base des montagnes qui suivent les sinuosites de cette cote. II est a
observer qu'en these g6neorale lorsqu'une chaine de montagnes sert a fixer une limite
quelconque, e'est toujours la cime de ces montagnes qui forme la ligne de demarcation.
Dans le cas dont il s'agit ici, le mot de base par le sens indefini qu'il presente, et le plus
ou moins d'extension qu'on peut lui donner, ne parait guere propre a mettre la delimitation a 1'abri de toutes contestations ulterieures car il ne serait point impossible, vu le
peu de certitude des notions geographiques que Ton possede encore sur ces parages, que
les montagnes designees pour limite s'etendissent par une pente insensible jusqu'aux
bords meme de la c6te.
Quant a la clause du meme projet, ayant pour but d'assurer aux vaisseaux Anglais
1'entree libre dans la mer glaciale par le ddtroit de Behring, il semble en premier lieu,
que cette condition entierement nouvelle est par *a nature etrangere a I'objet special de*
la negotiation et les termes genereaux dans lesquels elle est concue feront peut etre
hesiter le Gouvernement Imperial k l'admettre sans en modifier l'enonce" actuel pour ne
point exposer les cotes de ses possessions Asiatiques dans la mer glaciale aux inconve-'
mens qui pourraient naitre de la visite des batimens etran°-ers.
No. 27.
The Right Hon. GEO. CANNING to COUNT DE DELIEVEN.
(Extract.)
Mons. le Comte, Foreign Office, September 12, 1824
c- rl , 1S» gr^at regretAand * confess with some surprise, that 1 have learnt from-
Sir Charles Bagot that your Court have declined to conclude the Treaty, the oroiet of
which was sent out by the * Herald." W       P  J
This refusal is the more unexpected, as the chief alterations made in the orio-inal
projet-were introducedhere (as your Excellency can bear wrtness)-at the suggestio°n of
the Russian Plenipotentiaries themselves. »"sg«»won oi 53
I have not yet had time to give sufficient consideration to the Contrte Projet now
presented on the part of those Henipotentiaries to be enabled to say positively whether
it can be accepted in all its parts. But I would fain hope that the differences between
us may be not insurmountable; and I do most earnestly entreat your Excellency to
submit to your Court, by your first messenger, the expediency of sending to your
Excellency instructions and full powers to conclude and sign the Treaty here.
* * * * * *
Sir,
No. 28.
HUDSON'S BAY COMPANY to FOREIGN OFFICE.
Hudson's Bay House,
October 20, 1824.
I duly received Lord Francis Conyngham's letter of the 19th instant, with its
enclosures, and it does not appear to me that the counter project of Russia is so
essentially different from the one which His Majesty's Ministers have considered it
advisable to propose to Russia, as far as the Hudson's Bay Company are concerned,*
to reject it, except in the 2nd Article, which should more accurately define the eastern
boundary from the Portland  Canal to the 61° of north latitude to be the chain of
petite  distance  de la cote," but that if the summit of   those
leagues, that  the said distance be  substituted  instead  of the
mountains at a " tres
ten
mountains exceed
mountains.
It certainly would have been a more advisable arrangement had it been practicable
to have made the sfreight between the mainland and the islands, instead of the
mountains, the division not Qnly as a more natural one, but would have prevented the
possibility of collision of the traders of the two countries, and if. this could be now
obtained, relinquishing the proposed licence of visiting and trading with the natives for
a term of years, in that part of the territory to which Russia is acknowledged as entitled
to the sovereignty, I think it would be advisable ; but if not practicable, we should have
the same privileges as were granted to.the Americans. On a former occasion I proposed the streight as the line of demarcation upon the principle of preventing collision,
which was not only my idea, but you will recollect was one of the principal reasons
stated by Russia for proposing a division of territory ; and when it is considered the
large tract that is conceded to the westward of the 139° of longitude to which Russia
can have no better right than Great Britain, and which it is hoped Captain Franklin
may be the first European who will explore, and that the only pretension she has to
the coast between the 59^ and 54° of latitude is the having made a grant of it to the
Russian Fur Company, which has not been objected to by any European State (for
Russia neither discovered nor has any settlements on it, or on any part of the continent
within those latitudes, and our ownf extend to the 57° and trade with the natives who
come beyond the 60°), I do not think it too much to require, at the same time the
Committee of the Hudson's Bay Company do not attach so much importance to the
object I have pointed out, as to stand in the way of concluding the arrangement if in
other points His Majesty's Government consider it desirable.
I have, &c.
The Rii>ht Hon. George Canning, (Signed)        J. H. PELLY.
&c. &c. &c.
No. 29.
Right Hon. G. CANNING to Mr. S. CANNING.
g "   ' Foreign Office, December 8, 1824.
His Majesty having been graciously pleased to name you his Plenipotentiary for
concluding and signing with the Russian Government a Convention for terminating the
discussions which have arisen out of the promulgation of the Russian Ukase of 1821,
and for settling the respective territorial claims of Great Britain and Russia on the
North-west Coast of America, I have received His Majesty's commands to direct you
As to make it expedient (?)—D.R.C.
f This apparently refers to the Stikine.—D.R.C.
N 54
to repair to St. Petersburgh for that purpose, and to furnish you with the necessary
instructions for terminating this long protracted negotiation.
The correspondence which has already passed upon this subject has been submitted
to your perusal, and I enclose to you a copy,—First, of the projet which Sir Charles
Bagot was authorised to conclude and sign some months ago, and which we had every
reason to expect would have been entirely satisfactory to the Russian Government.
2ndly, of a contre projet* drawn up by the Russian Plenipotentiaries, and presented to
Sir  Charles  Bagot at their last meeting before Sir Charles Bagot's departure from
St. Petersburg.
3rdly, of a Despatchf from Count Nesselrode accompanying the transmission of the
contre projet to Count Lieven.
In that Despatch and in certain marginal annotations upon the copy of the projet are
assigned the reasons of the alterations proposed by the Russian Plenipotentiaries.
In considering the expediency of admitting or rejecting the proposed alterations, it
will be convenient to follow the articles of the Treaty in the order in which they stand
in the English projet.
You will observe, in the first place, that it is proposed by the Russian Plenipoten-'
tiaries entirely to change that order, and to transfer to the latter part of the instrument
the article which has hitherto stood first in the projet.
To that transposition we cannot agree, for the very reason which Count Nesselrode
alleges in favour of it, viz.:—That the " Economie " or arrangement of the Treaty ought
to have reference to the history of the negotiation.
The whole negotiation grows out of the Ukase of 1821.
So entirely and absolutely true is this proposition, that the settlement of the limits of
the respective possessions of Great Britain and Russia on the North-west Coast of
America was proposed by us only as a mode of facilitating the adjustment of the
difference arising from the Ukaze, by enabling the Court of Russia, under cover of the
more comprehensive arrangement, to withdraw, with less appearance of concession, the
offensive pretensions of that Edict.
It is comparatively indifferent to us whether we hasten or postpone all questions
respecting the limits of territorial possession on the continent of America, but the
pretensions of the Russian Ukaze of 1821, to exclusive dominion over the Pacific, could
not continue longer unrepealed without compelling us to take some measure of public
and effectual remonstrance against it.
You will, therefore, take care in the first instance to repress any attempt to give this
change to the character of the negotiation, and will declare without reserve that the point
to which alone the solicitude of the British trovernment and the jealousy of the British
nation attach any great importance is the doing away (in a manner as little disagreeable
to Russia as possible,) of the effect of the Ukaze of 1821.
That this Ukaze is not acted upon, and that instructions have long ago been sent bv
the Russian Government to their cruizers in the Pacific to suspend the execution of it's
provisions, is true, but a private disavowal of a published claim is no security against the
revival of that claim; the suspension of the execution of a principle may be perfectly
compatible with the continued maintenance of the principle itself, and when we have
seen in the course of this negotiation that the Russian claim to the possession of the
coast of America down to latitude 59 rests, in fact, on no other ground than the
presumed acquiescence of the nations of Europe in the provisions of an Ukaze published-
by the Emperor Paul in the year 1800, against which it is affirmed that no public
remonstrance was made, it becomes us to be exceedingly careful that we do not by a
similar neglect on the present occa>ion allow a similar presumption to be raised as to an
acquiesence in the Ukaze of 1821.
The right of the subjects of His Majesty to navigate freely in the Pacific cannot be
held as matter of indulgence from any power. Having once 'been publicly questioned,
it must be publicly acknowledged.
We do not desire that any distinct reference should be'made to the Ukaze of 1821, but
we do feel it necessary that the statement of our right should be clear and positive' and
that it should stand forth in the Convention in the place which properly belongs to it, as
a plain and substantive stipulation, and not be brought in as an incidental consequence
of other arrangements to which we attach comparatively little importance.
This stipulation stands in the front of the Convention concluded between Russia and
the United States of America, and we see no reason why, upon similar claims, we should
not obtain exactly the like satisfaction.
No. 16, p. 45.
tNo. 17, p. 46. 05
For reasons of the same nature we cannot consent that the liberty of navigation
through Behring's Straits should be stated in the Treaty as a boon from' Russia.
The tendency of such a statement would be to give countenance to those claims of
exclusive jurisdiction against which we, on our own behalf and on that of the whole
civilized world, protest.
No specification of this sort is found in the Convention with the United States of
America, and yet it cannot be doubted that the Americans consider themselves as
secured in the right of navigating Behring's Straits and the sea beyond them.
It cannot be expected that England should receive as a boon that which the United
States hold as a right so unquestionable as not to be worth recording.
Perhaps the simplest course after all will be to substitute for all that part of the projet
and contre projet which relates to maritime rights and to navigation, the first two
articles of the Convention already concluded by the Court of St. Petersburgh with the
United States of America, in the order in which they stand in that Convention.
Russia cannot mean to give to the United States of America what she withholds from
us, nor to withhold from us anything that she has consented to give to the United
States.
The uniformity of stipulations, in pari materia, gives clearness and force to both
arrangements, and will establish that footing of equality between the several contracting
parties which it is most desirable should exist between three powers whose interests
come so nearly in contact with each other in a part of the globe in which no other power
is concerned.
This, therefore, is what I am to instruct you to propose at once to the Russian
Minister, as cutting short an otherwise inconvenient discussion.
This expedient will dispose of Article 1 of the projet, and of Articles 5 and 6 of the
contre projet.
The next articles relate to the territorial demarcation, and upon them I have only to
make the following observations :—The Russian Plenipotentiaries propose to withdraw
entirely the limit of the lisiere on the coast which they were themselves the first to
propose, viz., the summit of the mountains which run parallel to the coast, and which
appear according to the map to follow all its sinuosities, and to substitute generally that
which we only suggested as a corrective of their first proposition.
We cannot agree to this change. It is quite obvious that the boundary of mountains
where they exist is the most natural and effectual boundary. The inconvenience against
which we wished to guard was, that which you know and can thoroughly explain to
the Russian Plenipotentiaries to have-existed on the other side of the American
continent, when mountains laid down in a map as in a certain given position, and
assumed in faith of the accuracy of that map as a boundary between the possessions
of England and the United States, turned out to be quite differently situated, a
discovery which has given rise to the most perplexing discussion. Should the maps
be no more accurate as to the western than as to the eastern mountains, we might be
assigning to Russia immense tracts of inland territory, where we only intended to give
and they only intended to ask a strip of sea coast!
To avoid the chance of this inconvenience we proposed to qualify the general proposition, " that the mountains should be the boundary," with the condition " if those
4 mountains should not be found to extend beyond 10 leagues from the coast." The
Russian Plenipotentiaries now propose to take the distance invariably as the rule. But
we cannot consent to this change. The mountains, as I have said, are a more eligible
boundary than any imaginary line of demarcation, and this being their own original
proposition the Russian Plenipotentiaries cannot reasonably refuse to adhere to it.
Where the mountains are the boundary we are content to take the summit instead of
the i seaward base " as the line of demarcation.
1 omitted in my last instructions to Sir Charles Bagot, though I had signified
to Count Lieven, that I intended to require a small extension of the line of demarcation from the point where the lisiere on the coast terminates in latitude 59° to the
northward. .
The extension required is from 139° to 141° W. longitude, the latter being the parallel
which falls more directly on Mount Elias. '
With regard to the port of Sitka or New Archangel the offer came originally from
Russia   but we are not disposed to object to the restriction which  she now applies
We are content that the port shall be open to us for 10 years, provided only that
if any other nation obtains a more extended term the like term shall be extended
to us also. 56
We are content also to assign the period .of 10 years for the f j^^jl
access and commerce with each others territories, which stipulation may be best stated
precisely in the terms of Article 4 of the American Convention. . , . „ . „ ,
P These, I think, are the only points in which alterations are required by Russia, and
we have no other to propose. ,.*•<• fu;. TWr»fl+r.h i«
A Projet such as it will stand according to the observations of th s despatch is
enclosed, which you will understand as furnished to you as a guide for the draw mg Up
of the Convention, but not as prescribing the precise form of words nor fettermg
your discretion  as  to  any  alterations,  not varying  from   the   substance   of   these
instructions.^ ^^ Mg# ^ RuBsian Plenipotentiaries that by the adoption of the
American article respecting navigation, &c, the provision for an exclusive fishery of two
-leagues from the coasts of our respective possessions falls to the ground.
But the omission is in truth immaterial. _
The law of nations assigns the exclusive sovereignity of owe league to each power oft
its own coasts, without any specified stipulation, and though Sir Charles Bagot was
authorised to sign the Convention with the specific stipulation of two leagues, in ignorance
Of what had been decided in the American Convention at the time, yet, after that Con-
vention has been some months before the world, and after the opportunity of reconsidera.
tion has been forced upon us by the act of Russia herself, we cannot now consent, in
negotiating de novo, to a stipulation which, while it is absolutely unimportant to any
practical good, would appear to establish a contract between the United States and us
to our disadvantage. , Wwm
Count Nesselrode himself has franklv admitted that it was natural that we should
receive at the hands of Russia equal measure in all respects with the United States of
America. . . .    . .       „   ,.'
It remains only in recapitulation to remind you of the origin  and principles ol this
whole negotiation.
It is not, on our part, essentially a negotiation about limits.
It is a demand of the repeal of an offensive and unjustifiable arrogation of exclusive
jurisdiction over an ocean of unmeasured extent; but a demand qualified and mitigated
in its manner, in order that its justice may be acknowledged and satisfied, without soreness or humiliation on the part of Russia.
We negotiate about territory to cover the remonstrance upon principle.
But any attempt to take undue advantage of this voluntary facility we must oppose.
If the present projet is agreeable to Russia we are ready to conclude and sign the
Treaty.
If the territorial arrangements are not satisfactory we are ready to postpone them ; and
to conclude and sign the essential parr, that which relates to navigation alone ; adding an
article stipulating to negotiate about territorial limits hereafter.
But we are not prepared to defer any longer the settlement of that essential part of the
question, and if Russia will neither sign the whole Convention, nor that essential part of
it, she must not take it amiss that we resort to some mode of recording in the face of the
world our protest against the pietensions of the Ukaze of 1821, and of effectually
securing our interests against the possibility of its future operations.
I have, &c.
Mr. Stratford Canning, (Signed)        G. CANNING.
&c. &c.
No. 30.
Mb. S. CANNING to Right Hon. G. CANNING.
(Extract.)
St. Petersburgh, February gfa 1825.
On reading the Projet, some difficulties were started, and some discussion took place;
but T hold it unnecessary to trouble you with a more particular account of this
conference, as the Russian Plenipotentiaries were not then prepared to express any
decided opinion as to those parts of the Projet which do not entirely come up to their
proposals, and I have expressly reserved to myself the liberty of recording ray
explanations in an official shape, in the event of their persisting to object to any essential
part of its contents. 57
No. 31.
Mr. STRATFORD CANNING to Right. Hon. G. CANNING.
(No. 15.)
Sir, St. Petersburgh, February 17/ March 1, 1825.
By the messenger Latchford I have the honour to send you the accompanying
Convention between His Majesty and the Emperor of Russia respecting the Pacific
Ocean and North-west Coast of America, which according to your instructions I
concluded and signed last night with the Russian Plenipotentiaries.
The alterations which, at their instance, I have admitted into the projet such as I
presented it to them at first, will be found I conceive to be in strict conformity with the
spirit and substance of His Majesty's commands. The order of the two main subjects
of our negotiation, as stated in the preamble of the Convention, is preserved in the
articles of that instrument. The line of demarcation along the strip of land on the
North-west Coast of America assigned to Russia is laid down in the Convention agreeably
to your directions, notwithstanding some difficulties raised on this point, as well as on
that which regards the order of the articles, by the Russian Plenipotentiaries.
The instance in which you will perceive that I have most availed myself of the
latitude afforded by your instructions to bring the negotiations to a satisfactory and
prompt conclusion, is the division of the 3rd article of the new projet, as it stood when
I gave it in, into the 3rd, 4th, and 5th articles of the Convention signed bv the
Plenipotentiaries.
This change was suggested by the Russian Plenipotentiaries, and at first it was
suggested in a shape which appeared to me objectionable; but the articles as they are
now drawn up I humbly conceive to be such as will not meet with your disapprobation.
The second paragraph of the 4th article had already appeared parenthetically in the
3rd article of the projet, and the whole of the 4th article is limited in its signification
and connected with the article immediately preceding it by the first paragraph.
With respect to Behring's Straits I am happy to have it in my power to assure you,
on the joint authority of the Russian Plenipotentiaries, that the Emperor of Russia has
no intention whatever of maintaining any exclusive claim to the navigation pf those
straits, or of the seas to the north of them,
It cannot be necessary under these circumstances to trouble you with a more particular
account of the several conferences which I have held with the Russian Plenipotentiaries,
and it is but justice to state that I have found them disposed throughout this latter
stage of the negotiation to treat the matters under discussion with fairness and liberality.
As two originals of the Convention prepared for His Majesty's Government are signed
by the Plenipotentiaries I propose to leave one of them with Mr. Ward for the Archives
of the Embassy.
I have &c.
The Right Efon. George Canning, (Signed)     " STRATFORD CANNING.
&p. &c. &c.
No. 32,
Right Hon, J. CANNING to Mr, J CANNING.
(No, 6.)   " W
Sjr Foreign Office, March 15, 1825,
Your Despatches to No. 13 inclusive have been received and laid before the
King,
I enclose to you a copy of a Despatch received from Mr. Addington by which you
will see that the Government and Senate of the United States have ratified the Treaty
of  North-west  American Boundaries  and Navigation  which  was   negotiated at St.
Petersburgh last year.
It is hardly necessary to point out to you the additional force which the conclusion of
this transaction gives to that part of your instructions on the same subjeot which prescribes the demand of this country for terms as favourable as those which have been
obtained by the United States.
I have, &c.
Mr. S, Canning, (Signed)       GEORGE CANNING-
o   23036.
H 58
No. 33.
R[ght Hon. GEORGE CANNING to Mr. S. CANNING.
(No. 8.)      &; • *!|f   :
(Extract.)
c Foreign Office, April 2, 1825.
Your Despatches by the messenger Latchford were received here on the 21st of
March and that of the 12th of March by the post on the 28th.
Having laid them before the King I have received His Majesty's Commands to
express His Majesty's particular satisfaction at the conclusion of the Treaty respecting
the Pacific Ocean and North-west Coast of America in a manner so exactly conformable
to your instructions, and to direct you to express to the Russian Government the pleasure
which His Majesty derives from the amicable and conciliatory spirit manifested by that'
Government in the completion of this transaction.
* *.« * * * *.
No. 34.
Mr. S. CANNING to Right Hon. G. CANNING.
(No. 30.)
SIR} St. Petersburgh, April 3/15, 1825.
I beg leave to trouble you with a few words in acknowledgment of your two
Despatches, the one containing a copy of a letter addressed by you to his Excellency
Prince de Polignac on the subject of certain oyster fisheries lying between the Island of
Jersey and the adjacent coast of France, and the other enclosing a Despatch from Mr.
Addington to you announcing the ratification of the Convention concluded last year
between Russia and the United States touching the navigation of the Pacific Ocean and
other matters connected with that subject.
I trust that the objects to which the communications transmitted with those Despatches
relate have been found to be sufficiently secured by the Convention which, under your
instructions, I have signed during my residence here in concert with the Russian
Plenipotentiaries.
With respect to the right of fishing, no explanation whatever took place between the
Plenipotentiaries and myself in the course of our negotiations. As no objection was
started by them to the article which I offered in obedience to your instructions, I
thought it inadvisable to raise a discussion ou the question, and the distance from the
coast at which the right of fishing is to be exercised in common passed without
specification, and consequently rests on the law of nations as generally received.
Conceiving, however, at a later period that you might possibly wish to declare the law
of nations thereon jointly with the Court of Russia in some ostensible shape, I broached
the matter anew to Count Nesselrode, and suggested that he should authorise Count
Lieven, on your invitation, to exchange notes with you declaratory of the law as fixing
the distance at one marine league from the shore.
Count Nesselrode replied that he should feel embarrassed in submitting this suggestion to the Emperor just at the moment when the ratifications of the Convention were on
the point of being despatched to London, and he seemed exceedingly desirous that
nothing should happen to retard the accomplishment of that essential formality. He
assured me at the same time that his Government would be content, in executing the
Convention, to abide by the recognised law of nations, and that if any question should
hereafter be raised upon the subject, he should not refuse to join in making the su^o-ested
declaration, on being satisfied that the general rule under the law of nations was such as
we supposed.
Having no authority to press the point in question, 1 took the assurance thus given by
Count Nesselrode as sufficient, in all probability to answer every national purpose.
Referring to the American Treaty, I am assured as well by Count Nesselrode as by
Mr. Middleton that the ratification of that instrument was not accompanied with any
explanations calculated to modify or affect in any way the force and meanino- of its
articles. But I understand that at the close of the negotiation of that Treaty a protocol
intended by the Russians to fix more specifically the limitation of the right of trading
with their possessions, and understood by the American Envoy as having no such effect
was drawn up and signed by both parties.    No reference whatever was made to this
SZH 59
paper by the Russian Plenipotentiaries in the course of my negotiation with them, and
you are aware. Sir, that the articles of the Convention which I concluded, depend for
their force entirely on the general acceptation of the terms in which they are expressed.
I have, &c.
The Right Hon. Geo. Canning, (Signed)       STRATFORD CANNING.
&c. &c. &c.
No. 35.
.-■•'  VANCOUVER'S VOYAGES, 8vo Edition, 1801.* >«%_
Extract from Vol IV., Chap. IV., p. 117.
By sunset we entered the arm, up which we expected to find this extensive inland 1793,
navigation.    To its south-east point of entrance I gave the name of Point Maskelyne, Sunday,
after the Astronomer Royal; it is situated in latitude 54° 42^' and longitude 229° 45', July 21st-
and off it he two rocky islets, and to the south of it a small island close to the shore.
The apparent extent of this inlet did not answer my expectations from the description
that had been given of it. Its entrance is not more than two miles and a half across,
and this, at the distance of a few miles, seemed to be materially contracted. If this
be the same branch described by the natives, which is much to be questioned, especially
as some of Mr. Brown's gentlemen considered the opening meant by those people to
be further to the westward, it is called by them Ewen Nass. The word Ewen we
understood to signify great or powerful, as Ewen Smoket, a great chief, but the word
Nass was completely unknown to Mr. Brown and all of his party.
The divided country we had now examined from the forty-seventh degree of north
latitude to this station, and the information derived from Mr. Brown rendered it highly
probable that the continental shore still continued to have extensive islands lying
between it and the ocean, to a very considerable distance further north.
The length of time which, as Mr. Brown understood, occupied these people in making
so distant a journey may be accounted for by their tardy mode of travelling through
each others dominions, or in passing through the various windings and crooked shallow
channels, many of which, though sufficient for their canoes, were very probably unfit
for the navigation of shipping. I have ever found it extremely hard, almost impossible,
indeed, to make the inhabitants of these remote parts, and even the Sandwich islanders,
with whose language we are much better acquainted, comprehend the kind of passage
that is required for ships to pass through, or the kind of port or opening in the land
that is capable of affording them safe and convenient shelter, in addition to which
difficulty selfish or sinister views too frequently regulate them in the information they
communicate. Be this as it may, it was our business, now to determine the question,
and embracing the favourable opportunity of a fair wind, we steered up the inlet, and
were joined by Mr. Whidbey in the cutter, who had traced the continental shore to
Point Maskelyne, where, on its becoming broken, he had desisted from any further
examination until a future opportunity.
From Point Maskelyne, the two clusters of low rocks and breakers before noticed
lie, the northernmost S. 28° W. eight miles and the southernmost S. 33° W. distant
ten miles and a half; these in the day time and in clear weather are easily avoided, as
there are always some of them above the surface of the water, but in dark nights or
foggy weather they must render the navigation of the sound very dangerous. After
passing between the northern cluster of these rocks and the continental shore, with
which they form a channel about a mile in width, we had about that distance from the
mainland soundings at the depth of 45, 55, 30, 19, 12, and 8 fathoms, soft bottom;
the latter about half a mile from Point Maskelyne. No bottom was, however, gained
after passing that point with 60 and 70 fathoms of line until 10 at night, when the
Prince lee Boo, having reached the contracted part of the inlet, made the signal for
having soundings and anchorage. We arrived at this station about 11, and anchored
in 35 fathoms water, soft bottom, after passing two openings on the eastern shore, besides
that immediately round Point Maskelyne, where Mr. Brown had had his dispute with
the natives.
its'
* See also 4tp edition, 1798, p. 327.
H 2
l\t 60
Monday,
22nd July.
We found our station next morning, Monday the 22nd, to be off the north-west, part
of an island lying near the eastern shore, and further up the inlet than those in the
sloop had yet been; no information from them could therefore be any longer of use,
though a continuation of their services would have been very acceptable. This made
me regret that we had not one or two vessels of thirty or forty tons burthen, calculated
as well for rowing as for sailing, to assist us in this intricate investigation, by which
means much despatch would have been given to our survey, and our labours would have
been carried on with much less danger and hardship than we had constantly endured.
I intended to proceed up this inlet until I should see sufficient employment for two
boat parties, which I was convinced the surrounding region would soon afford, and also
to seek a convenient situation where the vessels might remain; and, whilst this service
was executing, to embrace the opportunity for making such astronomical observations
as might be procured, and which were become necessary for correcting our survey, and
ascertaining with precision the situation of the several parts of the broken region through
which we had passed in the vessels and in the boats from Restoration Cove to this inlet.
Pursuant to this determination we weighed about 7 in the morning, and the Prince
lee Boo returned to the Butterworth.
At our anchorage, lying from point Maskelyne N. 24 E. distant six miles, the width
of the inlet was scarcely half a league. On the western shore a small opening appeared
to branch off in different directions. North of the island the breadth of the inlet increased
again to about two or three miles, trending N. 39 E. In pursuing this line about four
miles we passed the south point of an opening on the eastern shore two miles wide,
appearing to divide itself into several arms, but the western shore seemed to be compact
from the opening opposite the anchorage until we arrived abreast of an opening, about
two miles wide at its entrance, on the western shore, seemingly divided into two or three
branches, taking a direction about N. 18 W. The observed latitude at this time was
54° 58/ longitude 230° 3'. The branch of the inlet we were now navigating was not of
greater width, nor did it appear likely to become more extensive, than that to the
westward of us just discovered. This made it uncertain which to consider as the main
branch. Four other openings had been passed on the eastern shore whose extent had
not yet been ascertained, and although I was much inclined to follow the ncrth-westeriy
branch, yet I was apprehensive that by so doing we might be led too far from the
continent, and by that mean3 cause additional labour and loss of time. Our route was
for this season continued to the N.N.E., and another division of the inlet stretching to
the eastward was soon discovered.
In the event of a convenient situation being found in this branch I intended to
stop the vessels there, and made the Chatham's signal, who had preceded us during the
forenoon, to steer for the eastern opening, and shortened sail for the purpose of sending
a boat before us to sound. Whilst we lay to wait the boat's return a few of the natives
visited the ship in five or six canoes, they brought little to dispose of, yet appeared
to be anxious that we should remain in their neighbourhood. Several inquiries were
made for Ewen Nass, but these people seemed to be totally ignorant of the phrase until
it had been repeated several times, and we had pointed in various directions ; upon which
some of them repeated the words, and imitated our motions, giving some amongst us
reason to imagine that they meant that Ewen Nass was up this identical branch of the
inlet; though in all other respects we remained totally ignorant of their language.
The appearance and direction of this opening, however, by no means favoured the
opinion that it was an extensive channel communicating with the ocean to the ncrth.
The water that flowed from it remained without mixing on the surface of the water of
the inlet. The upper water was nearly fresh, of a lightish colour, interspersed with
thick muddy sheets, indicating it to have flowed from a small river whose source was not
very remote.
At 3 o'clock the cutter returned with a very unfavourable account of the place
so far as their examination had gone, especially on the northern side of the opening
from whence a shallow flat extended some distance, on which there was not more than
from one to three fathoms water. The latter depth suddenly increased to 30 and at
the distance of a cable's length from the edge of the bank, to 50 and 60 fathoms. This
shallow flat made the communication with the shore very unpleasant, and appeared to be
continued all round. To those in the cutter the opening seemed to be nothing more
than a deep bay with very shallow water, excepting in its north-east part, where a°brarich
rom which the muddy water flowed seemed to extend into the countrv. Across this
branch they had also sounded, and found shallow water. As it did not, from this report
seem likely to answer our purpose, we proceeded round its north point of entrance and
again made sail up the inlet, which, beyond this bay, was in general about half a league
SHHBi
mi 61
wide. The shores on both sides were nearly straight and compact, in this pursuit our
progress was greatly retarded by a counter tide or undertow, and, notwithstanding that
we had a fresh gale from the south-east, the strength of this repelling current was such
that the wind had no influence whatever, though in other situations the vessel with such
a gale would have gone five or six knots per hour. On this occasion the ship became
totally unmanageable; the wind was sometimes a-head, at others a-stern, a-broadside,
and in every other direction; and we were drifting from side to side in the most
unpleasant situation imaginable for two hours and a half, when the force of the wind prevailing, we advanced slowly up the inlet until about 11 at night. The distance of
its shores had now again increased and the country became less elevated. A small cove
was discovered on the eastern shore, where we anchored in 30 fathoms water.
This place, however, not appearing likely to suit our purpose,  Mr. Whidbey was
despatched early the next morning in quest of a more convenient situation, which the adja- Tuesday
cent shores promised to afford, particularly in the northern quarter, where the  land was 23rd July,
moderately elevated, and seemed to be much broken.    The interior country was, however, still composed of lofty, barren and snowy mountains.
In the forenoon Mr. Whidbey returned, having examined two or three coves, of which
the most eligible appeared to be one that we had passed in the dark the preceding
evening on the western shore, not more than a mile from our actual station. This
afforded good anchorage, with every other convenience that we required. Having a
moderate breeze from the southward we lost no time in proceeding thither, where we
anchored in 31 and 35 fathoms water, muddy and small stony bottom. The points of
the cove bore by compass N.N.E. and S. by E., the nearest shore W. by S. about a
cable and a half, distant, and the opposite shore of the inlet E.N.E. one mile distant.
On going on shore we found a small canoe with three of the natives, who were
employed in taking salmon, which were in great abundance up a very fine run of fresh
water that flowed into the cove. Some of these fish were purchased with looking-glasses
and other trinkets. They were small, insipid, of a very inferior kind, and partaking in
no degree of the flavour of European salmon.
In the afternoon the tents, observatory, chronometers, and instruments were sent
on shore under the directions of Mr. Whidbey; and Mr. Johnstone in the Chatham's
cutter, accompanied by Mr. Barrie in the " Discovery's " small cutter, and supplied with
ten days' provisions, departed for the purpose of recommencing the survey of the continental shore northward from Point Maskelyne.
The account I had received of this famous inlet from Mr. Brown inducing me to
undertake the principal examination of it myself, the " Discovery's " yawl and launch were
equipped with supplies for a fortnight, being as much as they could possibly stow ; Lieutenant Swaine was directed to attend me in the latter, and Mr. Puget, with Mr. Menzies,
accompanied me in the yawl. The appearance of the country on the western side of
this inlet left me little doubt of its being the continent, and we departed in full expectation that during this excursion we should finally determine the reality of the discoveries
attributed to the labours of Admiral de Fonte.
With Mr. Whidbey I left the chage of the observatory, with orders to make all necessary observations for correcting the errors and ascertaining the rate of the chronometers;
and the more completely to effect the former, I desired that Mr. Baker, and some others
of the gentlemen, would assist in making as many observations as the circumstances
would admit of for determining the true position of the station we had taken.
Chapter V.
Matters being all adjusted and arranged we departed at 5 o'clock on Wednesday Wednesday,
morning the 24th, in thick, rainy, unfavourable weather, which continued until the fore- 24th July.
noon, when it became fair and pleasant. Our course was first directed along the eastern
shore, which, from our anchorage on the night of the 22nd, took a direction N. 14 E.
for six miles. We passed an island to the west of us, two miles long and half a mile
broad, lying nearly in the same direction about three fourths of a mile from the eastern
shore,' and having reached this extent we entered a narrow arm, leaving to the west
a coast apparently much broken and divided by water.
As we rapidly advanced up this arm, with a southerly wind and a flood tide in our
favour, its width increased to about a mile, and taking a winding course to the E.IN.E.
it was terminated by a low border of land in latitude 55° 26', longitude 230° 36'.
We stopped to dine about a mile short of the low border of land which composed the
head of the arm. Here wc were visited by seven of the natives, who approached us in a
canoe with much caution, and landed some of their party at a little distance, whilst the Thursday,
25th July.
Friday,
26th July.
Saturday,
27th July.
62
others advanced, seemingly with no small suspicion of our friendly intentions; this, however, was soon removed by the distribution of some trivial presents amongst them, and
their reception being made known to their companions who had landed, these without
the least hesitation joined our party also. They were well prepared with arms, consisting
of long spears, bows and arrows, together with an iron dagger that each man wore about
his neck or wrist. The chief of this party was soon pointed out, who, by means of signs
easily understood, desired to partake of our repast. He was given some bread and dried
fish, and afterwards a glass of brandy, all of which were much relished by himself and two
or three of his friends. These people differed very little from the generality of the
circumjacent natives, and rather seemed to be an exception to the trivial differences
pointed out in those few inhabitants who visited us in Fishmonger s Cove. Their language
appeared to be similar in some respects to that spoken at Queen Charlotte's Islands, at
least a few common place expressions of that language were understood by these people.
They made use of these, with many signs, to solicit us to visit their habitations, pointing
out their situation to be on the low land at the head of the arm ; but as it was out of
our route we declined their invitations, and, with a favourable ebb tide, returned towards
the entrance of the arm, being accompanied* by these our new acquaintances, who were
soon joined by another party from the village in a smaller canoe. On finding, however,
that we did not return for the purpose of trading, they all retired to the village.
About 8 in the evening we reached the entrance of this arm, where we took up
our abode for the night; the land of the shores which we had thus traced was, comparatively speaking, low, yet the interior country rose suddenly, and terminated our view
by a range of high barren mountains, mostly covered with snow. The soil of the lower
parts near the shores is chiefly composed of a light mossy substance, formed by the
decay of trees and other vegetable productions, lying on an uneven rocky substance,
which is the general foundation of this country and of all the coast we had yet seen this
season.
At 4 o'clock the next morning, Thursday the 25th, we proceeded again, with thick
cloudy weather, attended with some flying showers of rain. Our course was directed up
the branch that appeared to be the main arm of the inlet through a narrow passage,
occasioned by an island lying in mid-channel, about a league long and three-quarters
of a mile broad, and having near it some rocks and breakers, like that we passed the
preceding day. From the west point of the arm we had quitted, that which we were
now pursuing extended N. 20 W. nearly straight, about 10 miles, where, as usual, it was
terminated by low swampy ground, and in latitude 55° 32', longitude 230° 16'. Our
expectations of discovering the extensive inland navigation, distinguished by the name
of Ewen Nass, were here a little disappointed, still, however, we entertained hopes of
succeeding by the appearance of the low land on the western shore, and we returned in
the afternoon to prosecute its examination. It was found to be a compact shore, much
indented with small bays and coves, and abounding in some places with sunken rocks.
In the south-westernmost of these coves, which is the deepest, we halted for the night,
and although a situation for our tents was fixed upon amongst the pine trees, at least 20
feet above the surface of the water at our landing, and as we thought sufficiently without
the reach of the tide, yet about 2 in the morning of Friday the 26lh it flowed into the
tents, and we were obliged to retire to our boats. At daylight we pursued the western
shore of the inlet towards the ships, where we arrived about noon.
I now entertained no doubt of this being the continental shore, and it was equally
evident to me that it extended itself far up that branch which we had passed in the
afternoon of the 22nd leading to the N.N.W. Having therefore determined to
prosecute my researches in that quarter our stock of provisions was recruited, and
after dining on board we recommenced our examination along the western shore of the
inlet, and rested for the night in a small cove about 12 miles to the southward of the
ship. The afternoon and night were very rainy and unpleasant, but early the next
morning, Saturday the 27th, we set out with fair weather, and having a rapid tide in our
favour soon reached the east point of entrance into the N.N.W. branch, which, after
shore, where we found this arm to communicate with another,* leading in a S.W. and
N.N.E. direction, and being in general about half a league in width. After breakfast
we pursued the latter direction, and steered for the eastern or continental shore This
extends first from Point Ramsden N. 21 W. six miles, and takes a N.N.E course
* The description of Portland Channel commences here.    See Map No. I. D. R. C 63
As we advanced we were joined by a party of fifteen natives in two canoes. A smoke
had before been observed^ amongst the trees on the eastern shore, but we then saw nq
appearance of any habitations. These people approached us without much hesitation,
and in their countenances was expressed a degree of savage ferocity infinitely surpassing
anything of the sort I had before observed in the various tribes that had fallen under my
notice. Many of those we had before seen had their faces painted in various modes ;
but these had contrived so to dispose of the red, white, and black as to render the
natural ugliness of their countenances more horribly hideous. This frightful appearance
did not seem to be a new fashion among them, but to have been long adopted by their
naturally ferocious disposition, and was correspondent to the stern and savage deportment
they took so much pains to exhibit. I offered them such presents as we had been
accustomed to make on similar occasions, but they were rejected by some with disdain,
whilst the few who deigned to take anything received our gifts with a stern and cool
indifference. Amongst the party was a woman who was additionally disfigured by one
of those extraordinary lip ornaments; this did not a little augment her froward, shrewish
aspect. I offered her a looking-glass with some trinkets, but. at the instance of the most
savage fellow of the party she contemptuously rejected them. This Indian then arranged
his spears, about six or eight in number, and placed them with their points jurt over
the bow of the canoe near where he sat; he also laid near him his bow with some arrows,
then put on his war garment, and drew his dagger. Some in the other canoe made similar
preparations, either to menace an attack, or, what seemed to us more likely, to convince
us they were upon their guard against any violence we might be inclined to offer them.
At this time we were considerably ahead of the other boat, and as it was necessary
that we should shortly land on the point from whence the continent takes its N.N.E.
direction for the purpose of taking angles we waited for the launch to come up, and
during this interval we used our endeavours to gain the confidence and, if possible, to
conciliate the good opinion of our visitors.    But all was to no effect; they refused to
accept any more presents, whilst those who had condescended to receive any made
signs that we should go to their place of abode, which we had by this time passed, and
frequently made use of the  words " Winnee waiter," signifying to stop and trade,
producing at the same time some very indifferent sea otter skins.    Recollecting the
avidity with which all the inhabitants of these parts enter into commercial intercourse I
thought their uncourteous behaviour   might have  arisen  from  our  backwardness  in
following the same pursuit, and hoped by offering to trade with them we should be able
to obtain their friendship.    But neither cloth, iron, copper, nor anything we had was in
their opinions  sufficient in quantity or equal m quality to the value of their skins, which
were, without exception, the worst I had yet seen on the coast.    On the launch coming
up we pulled towards the shore; they now seemed better pleased, and on landing they
offered their skins again for sale, but it was not within our reach to purchase them.
Whilst we remained together on shore their behaviour was more civil, and we seemed to
part on much better terms than we had met.    They remained at the point and we
proceeded up the arm.    Their absence, however, was not of long duration, as they
shortly followed us, waving theirl skins, and exposing them for sale; and it was not a
little extraordinary that thfcy should now exchange their skins and other articles of
traffic for the very identical commodities which they had before rejected with so much
contempt.
It was not easy to account for the singular appearance and rude behaviour of this
tribe, so very different from what we had hitherto experienced. Some amongst us
suggested that these people might probably belong to that party on whom Mr. Brown
had recently been obliged to fire in this neighbourhood, and at no great distance from
our actual station, but it appeared to me far more likely that their resentment had been
excited by our perfect indifference to their commodities brought for sale, and our having
declined their invitations to the place of their abode. This opinion was soon confirmed
by their subsequent conduct; on being now offered blue cloth for their skins they
began a song that continued until they came close to us, when I observed that their
arms and war garments were all laid aside, and, having disposed of such things as they
had for sale, they began to betray a somewhat thievish disposition. I endeavoured to
make them sensible of my disapprobation of this conduct, and made signs that they
should depart, with which they reluctantly complied.
I did not observe that these people differed from the generality of the North-west
Americans, otherwise than in the ferocity of their countenances. Their weapons seemed
well adapted to their condition ; their spears, about sixteen feet long, were pointed with
iron, wrought in several simple forms, amongst which some were barbed. Their bows
were well constructed, and their arrows, with which they were plentifully supplied, ap- 64
Sunday
28th July.
i Monday,
29th July
Tuesday,
30th July.
Wednesday.
31st July.
peared but rude, and were pointed with bone or iron. Each man was provided with an
iron dagger, suspended from his neck in a leather sheath, seemingly intended to be
used when in close action. Their war garments were formed of two, three, or more
folds of the strongest hides of the land animals they are able to procure. In the centre
was a hole sufficient to admit the head and left arm to pass through, the mode of wearing
them being over the right shoulder and under the left arm. The left side of the garment
is sewed up, but the right side remains open; the body is, however, tolerably well
protected, and both arms are left at liberty for action. As a further security, on the
part which covers the breast, they sometimes fix on the inside thin laths of wood. The
whole is seemingly well contrived, and I doubt not answers the essential purpose of
protection against their native weapons.
The weather, though pleasant, was unfortunately cloudy about noon, and prevented any
observation being made lor the latitude. The same unfavourable circumstance attended
us during our excursion to the northward of the vessels. We continued to the N.N.E.
without meeting any interruption or break in the shores until about 8 in the evening,
when we arrived at a point on the western shore, situated in latitude 55° 16', longitude
230° 8'. Near this point we rested for the night. From hence the arm took a direction
N. 15 W. continuing in general about the same width.
Between us and the opposite shore was a small island nearly in mid-channel.
The weather being fair and pleasant we started early the next morning, Sunday the 28th,
continuing our researches up this branch. At noon the observed latitude on the eastern
shore was 55° 25', longitude 230° 5', from hence it took a more northerly direction, and
then trended a little to the eastward of north, where by 10 in the forenoon of Monday
the 29th it was found to terminate in low marshy land in latitude 55° 45', longitude
230° 6'. The shores of this inlet were nearly straight, and in general little more than a
mile asunder, composed mostly of high rocky cliffs covered with pine trees to a considerable height; but the more interior country was a compact body of high barren
mountains covered with snow. As we pursued this branch salmon in great plenty were
leaping in all directions. Seals and sea otters were also seen in great numbers even
where the water was nearly fresh, and which was the case upwards of twenty miles from
its termination.
Mortified with having devoted so much time to so little purpose we made the best of
our way back. At noon I observed the latitude to be 55° 42', from whence to our
reaching the western shore, near where we had entered this branch, occupied our time till
late in the evening of Tuesday the 30th, when we brought to in a small cove behind an
island about half a league from us, and not far from the place where we had met the
ungracious natives on the preceding Saturday.
The night was mild and pleasant, but a thick fog in the morning of Wednesday
the 31st not only obscured the surrounding shores, but prevented our departure until
8 o'clock, when on its dispersing we directed our examination along the western or
continental shore  to the S.S.W. in a continuation of the branch we had  seen^ on the
straight, compact, of moderate
At^noon the observed latitude
the inlet still continuing in the
league  to the southward of this
morning of the 27th.    The shores of both sides were
height, and in general little more than a mile asunder.
on the western shore was 54° 55|-', longitude 229° 47';
same direction.    On the western shore, about half a
station, we entered a small opening not more than a cable's length in width stretching
to the northward; up this we had made a little progress, when the launch  which bad
preceded us and had reached its extremity, was met on her return.    Mr/Swaine in
formed me that its termination was about a league from its entrance, and that its width
was from a quarter to half a league.
We stopped for the purpose of dining, and were visited by a canoe, in which were thr^P
persons; they approached us with little hesitation, and seemed well pleased at receivi™
a few trivial presents. \ They earnestly solicited our return to the head of this little arm
where it appeared their chief resided, and who had abundance of furs to barter for
commodities ; but as it was out of our way we declined their proposal   at which
seemed hurt and disappointed, but retired in perfect good humour
After dinner we attempted to return by the way we had come, but on approaching rho
entrance the rapidity of the flood tide prevented our advancing against it StTnear Wh
any of the small trees at the place where we had
an axe, an implement not yet in use with these people
prefer any kind of chisel.    The trees appeared to have
our
they
water, about 6 In the evening.    Many of the small trees at^the
dined had been cut down with
who on all such occasions
been felled for the purpose of gaming convenient access to  the run of water hard b„
Saized^* t0 " °pini°n II °Ur dining Pkce had late1^ been the resort of otfe i iKrfl iTmT in 1—r- i ^mii
(55
Having again reached the arm leading to the S.S.W. we "proceeded in that direction,
and passed two small rocky islets about a mile to the south of the last-mentioned shiall
arm. Finding the main channel new regularly decreasing to half a mile in width and
having a strong southerly breeze, we did not proceed more than three miles before we
rested for the night. The narrowness of the channel and the appearance of its termination before us would have induced me to have relinquished all thoughts of a communication
with the ocean by this route had it not been for the indications presented by the shores
on either side. These gradually decreasing in height, with a very uneven surface, were
entirely covered with pine trees, and as such appearances had, in most instances, been
found to attend the broken parts of the country immediately along the sea coast I was
encouraged to persevere in this pursuit.
We had not been long landed before the natives who had visited us at dinner time
made their appearance again, accompanied by a large canoe, in which was the chief of
their party.
I directed them to land at a small distance from our boats, with which thej' readily
complied. The chief received some presents, and in return gave me two or three sea
otters' tails. This intercourse seemed, by our signs and such words as we had picked
up, to be an assurance of a good understanding between us, and on a promise of entering
further into trade the next morning they retired to a small cove about half a mile from
us, with every appearance of being perfectly satisfied, but about an hour afterwards one
of their canoes was seen paddling towards us. On this a pistol was fired in the air,
which had the good effect of showing that we were upon our guard, and prevented their
giving us any further disturbance.
As soon as it was daylight in the morning of Thursday, the 1st of August, these Thursday,
people, accompained by another canoe, were with us according to appointment the lst August.
preceding evening. They offered for sale the skins of the sea otter, and a large black
bear that seemed to have been killed by a spear in the course of the night. I was not
backward in complying with our part of the agreement; but, like those whom Ave had
Seen on Saturday, these rejected every article we had with us for the purpose of barter;
and, excepting firearms and ammunition, which were not offered to them, we could not
discover on what their inclinations were placed: They followed us, however, for two
miles, persisting in desiring we would "Winnee Watter," until at length finding no
other articles were tendered them than those they had before declined they retired,
exclaiming " Pusee" and " Peshack," which could not be misunderstood as terms of
disapprobation.
This party, including one woman, with a lip ornament, consisted of 16 or 18 persons,
who in character, much resembled (though I think they were not quite so ferocious)
those we had seen the preceding Saturday. This woman, as well as the other we had
seen on the 27th, steered the canoe. She appeared to be a most excessive scold and
to possess great authority. She bad much to say respecting the whole of their transactions, and exacted the most ready obedience to her commands, which were given in a
verv surly manner, particularly in one instance to a man in the bow of the canoe, who,
in compliance to her directions, immediately made a different disposition of the spear.--.
These had all lain on one side of him, just pointed over the bow of the canoe, with
several things lying carelessly over them, but on his receiving her commands the outer
ends were projected further, their inner ends cleared of the lumber that was over them,
and the whole, amounting to about a dozen, were equally divided and regularly laid on
each side of him.
From the place at which we had slept this channel took a direction S. 42 W. about a
league and a half to a point in latitude 54° 48', longitude 229° 39i', from whence the continental shore takes a direction N. 25 W. about a league through a narrow channel not
a fourth of a mile in breadth, having in it several islets and rocks. In order to make
sure of keeping the continental shore on board, we pursued this and left the southwesterly channel, whose width had increased to about a mile, and whose shores appeared
to be much broken, as if admitting several passages to the sea. At the north end of this
narrow channel we came to a larger one extending N. 35 E. and S. 35 W. The former
first attracted our notice; this by noon was found to end in latitude 54° 55|', longitude
229° 40', not in low marshy land, as had been generally the case in the interior parts of
our survey, but by low, though steep, rocky shores, forming many little bays and coves
abounding with rocks and rocky islets. Here were seen an immense number of sea otters,
and amongst them some few seals, but more of the former than I had yet noticed. Having
dined we pursued the examination of the continent in a south-westerly direction, which
brouo-ht us by the evening to its end in that direction in latitude 54° 48^', longitude
229°°31-, fiom hence the channel  extended to the S.S.E. and met that which we had
o    23036. I Friday,
2nd August.
66
quitted in the morning, making the land which formed the western shore and that before
us to the eastward an island about ten miles in circuit. The shores, that had been
nearly straight and compact since we had quitted the rocky arm above mentioned, became
again indented with bays and coves, bounded by many rocks and rocky islets. .
In examining these broken parts of the shore, the launch had preceded the yawl
whilst 1 was taking the necessary angles. On our turning sharp round a point I
discovered her endeavouring, as I supposed, to pass a most tremendous fall of water; the
evening at this time was nearly closing in* and being now about high tide the fall
appeared to be adverse to their proceeding, but finding they continued to advance I
hailed and waved them to desist. On our meeting I found they had possessed but
sufficient strength and time to extricate themselves from a very alarming situation. The
direction of the fall was in a contrary line to what they had expected, as the water was
rushing with great impetuosity through a narrow rocky channel, an<J. falling into a basin
whose surface appeared to be greatly beneath the level of the channel we were navigating;
on their perceiving this their utmost exertions were required for a short time to prevent
the boat from being drawn within its vortical influence. About a mile from the above point
nearly in a south direction we brought to for the night.
In the morning of Friday the 2nd we set out early, and passed through a labyrinth of
small islets and rocks along the continental shore; this, taking now a winding course to
the south-west and west, showed the south-eastern side of the channel to be much broken,
through which was a passage leading S.S.E. towards the ocean. We passed this in the
hope of finding a more northern and westerly communication, in which we were not
disappointed, as the channel we were then pursuing was soon found to communicate also
with the sea, making the land to the suuth of us one or more islands. From the northwest point of this land, situated in latitude 54° 45^', longitude 229° 28', the Pacific was
evidently seen between N. 88 W. and S. 81 W. Off the point, at a little distance from
the mainland, Was an island about half a mile from us; the opposite or continental shore
lying north-east, not quite half a mile distant. Between this and the westernmost land
in sight the shores appeared to be much divided, with small rocky islets and breakers in
most directions.
* * * * * * $ *
*The outermost lies nearly south-east about two miles and a half from the point seen
the former morning, and stated to be the north point of the passage leading towards the
ocean.
15th August.
No. 36.
VANCOUVER'S VOYAGES.
Extract from 8vo EnrnoN,  1801.f
Vol. IV., Chap. V., p. 191.
In the forenoon we reached that arm of the sea, whose examination had occupied our
time from the 27th of the preceding to the 2nd of this month.    The distance from its
entrance to its source is about 70 miles ; which, in honour of the noble family of Bentinck
I named Portland's Channel.J '
No. 37*
16th August.
VANCOUVER'S VOYAGES.
Extract, 8vo Edition, 1801.§
Vol. IV., Chap. V., page 198.
Nothing of any note having occurred during my absence I shall conclude this chanter
by the insertion of the astronomical and nautical observations made at this place • and
m consequence of our having been so fortunate as to be able to obtain those that were
* P. 149 of 8vo edition; p. 346 of 4to edition.
% In 4to Edition, 1798, this is called Portland's Canal.
t See also 4to Edition, 1798, p. 371,
§ See also 4to Edition, 1798, p. 376"! 67
essential for correcting our former survey, and for our future regulation in that respect,
this branch obtained the name of Observatory Inlet ; and the cove, where the vessels
were stationed, that of Salmon Cove, from the abundance of that kind of fish that were
there taken.
No. 38.
VANCOUVER'S VOYAGES.
Extract, 8vo Edition, 1801.*
Vol. IV., Chap. VI., p. 204.
A want of wind, and the flood tide, prevented our weighing until 9 the following 19th
morning, Monday the 19th, when, with the ebb tide, we again proceeded, but did not
reach the entrance of Observatory Inlet until 2 o'clock in the morning of Tuesday 20th
the 20th, a distance of not more than 13 leagues from Salmon Cove.
The west point of Observatory Inlet I distinguished by calling it Point Wales, after
my much esteemed friend Mr. Wales, of Christ's Hospital, to whose kind instruction, in
the early part of my life, I am indebted for that information which has enabled me to
traverse and delineate these lonely regions.
August.
August,
No. 39-
VANCOUVER'S VOYAGES.
Extract, 8vo Edition, 1801.f
Vol. IV., Chap. VII, page 273.
ItsJ western shore is an extensive tract of land, which (though not visibly so to us) I
have reason to believe is much broken and divided by water, forming as it were a distinct
body in the great archipelago. This I have honoured with the name of the Prince of
Wales's Archipelago; and the adjacent continent, to the northward from Gardner's
Channel§ to Point Rothsay, the extent of our survey to the north this season, I have
distinguished with that of New Cornwall.
Ni *
Mi
No. 40.
Convention between the United States and Russia, relative to the Pacific Ocean and
the North-western Coast of America, signed at St. Petersburg   y= April 1824.
In the Name of the Most Holy and Indivisible Trinity,
The President of the United States of America, and His Majesty the Emperor of all
the Russias, wishing to cement the bonds of amity which unite them, and to secure
between them the invariable maintenance of a perfect concord, by means of the present
Convention, have named, as their Plenipotentiaries to this effect, to wit: the President
of the United States of America, Henry Middleton, a citizen of said States, and their
Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary near His Imperial Majesty : and His
Majesty the Emperor of all the Russias, his beloved and faithful Charles Robert Count
of Nesselrode, Actual Privy Counsellor, member of the Council of State, Secretary of
State directing the administration of foreign affairs, Actual Chamberlain, Knight of the
Order of St. Alexander Newsky, Grand Cross of the Order of St. Wladimir of the First
Ciass, Knight of that of the White Eagle of Poland, Grand Cross of the Order of St.
Stephen of Hungary, Knight of the Orders of the Holy Ghost and of St. Michael, and
* See also 4to Edition, 1798, p. 379.
X Duke of Clarence's Strait,
t See also 4to Edition, 1798, p. 419.
§ Canal, in 4to Edition, 1798.
I 2 68
Grand Cross of the Legion of Honour of France, Knight Grand Cross of the Orders of
the Black and of the Red Eagle of Prussia, of the Annunciation of Sardinia, of Charles III.
Actual Counsellor of State, Knight of the Order of St. Anne of the First Class, and
Grand Cross of the Order of St. Wladimir of the Second: who, after having exchanged
their full powers, found in good and due form, have agreed upon and signed the following
stipulations :
I. It is agreed, that in any part of the Great Ocean, commonly called the Pacific
Ocean, or South Sea, the respective citizens or subjects of the high contracting powers
shall be neither disturbed nor restrained, either in navigation or in fishing, or in the power
of resorting to the coasts, upon points which may not already have been occupied, for the
purpose of trading with the natives ; saving always the restrictions and conditions determined by the following articles.
II. With the view of preventing the rights of navigation and of fishing exercised upon
the great ocean by the citizens and subjects of the high contracting powers, from becoming the pretext for an illicit trade, it is agreed that the citizens of the United States shall
not resort to any point where there is a Russian establishment, without the permission of
the governor or commander; and that, reciprocally, the subjects of Russia shall not resort,
without permission, to any establishment of the United States upon the north-west
coast.
III. It is moreover agreed that, hereafter, there shall not be formed by the citizens
of the United States, or under the authority of the said States, any establishment upon
the North-west Coast of America, nor in any of the islands adjacent, to the north of
fifty-four degrees and forty minutes of north latitude; and that, in the same manner,
there shall be none formed by Russian subjects, or under the authority of Russia, south
of the same parallel.
IV. It is, nevertheless, understood, that, during a term of ten years, counting from the
signature of the present Convention, the ships of both powers, or which belong to their
citizens or subjects, respectively, may reciprocally frequent, without any hindrance whatever, the interior seas, gulfs, harbours, and creeks, upon the coast mentioned in the preceding article, for the purpose of fishing and trading with the natives of the country.
V. All spirituous liquors, fire-arms, other arms, powder, and munitions of war of every
kind, are always excepted from this same commerce permitted by the preceding article;
and the two powers engage reciprocally, neither to sell, or suffer them to be sold to the
natives by their respective citizens and subjects, nor by any person who may be under
their authority. It is likewise stipulated, that this restriction shall never afford a pretext, nor be advanced, in any case, to authorise either search or detention of the vessels,
seizure of the merchandise, or, in fine, any measures of constraint whatever towards the
merchants or the crews who may carry on this commerce ; the high contracting powers
reciprocally reserving to themselves to determine upon the penalties to be incurred, and
to inflict the punishments in case of the contravention of this article, by their respective
citizens or subjects.
VI. When this convention shall have been duly ratified by the President of the United
States, with the advice and consent of the Senate on the one part, and on the other by
His Majesty the Emperor of all the Russias, the ratifications shall be exchanged at
Washington in the space often months from the date below, or sooner, if possible. In
faith whereof the respective Plenipotentiaries have signed this convention, and thereto
affixed the seals of their arms.
Done at St. Petersburg, the 17/5 April of the year of Grace 1824.
HENRY MIDDLETON.
Le Comte CHARLES DE NESSELRODE.
PIERRE DE POLETICA. 69
No. 41.
Convention  between  Great
Britain and Russia,
1825.
February ^,
signed  at  St.  Petersburgh,
16'
(Presented to Parliament, May 16, 1825.)
In the name of the Most Holy and Undivided Trinity.
(Translation.)
His   Majesty  the  King of the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and
His Majesty the Emperor of all the Russias,
being desirous of drawing still closer the
ties of good understanding and friendship
which unite them, by means of an agreement which may settle, upon the basis of
reciprocal convenience, different points connected with the commerce, navigation, and
fisheries  of their  subjects  on  the Pacific
Ocean, as well as the limits of their respective   possessions   on   the   North-west
Coast of America, have named Plenipotentiaries to conclude a Convention for this
purpose, that is to say :—His Majesty the
King   of the   United  Kingdom  of Great
Britain and Ireland, the Right Honourable
Stratford Canning, a member of His said
Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council,
&c.    And His Majesty the Emperor of all
the   Russias,   the   Sieur   Charles   Robert
Count  de Nesselrode, His  Imperial Majesty's Privy Councillor, a member of the
Council of the Empire, Secretary of State
for the Department of Foreign Affairs, &c,
and the Sieur Pierre de Poletica, His Imperial  Majesty's Councillor of State, &c.
Who, after having communicated to each
other their respective full powers, found in
good and due form, have agreed upon and
signed the following Articles :—
I. It is agreed that the respective subjects of the high contracting parties shall
not be troubled or molested, in any part of
the ocean, commonly called the Pacific
Ocean, either in navigating the same, in
fishing therein, or in landing at such parts
of the coast as shall not have been already
occupied, in order to trade with the natives,
under the restrictions and conditions specified in the following Articles.
II. In order to prevent the right of
navigating and fishing exercised upon the
ocean by the subjects of the high contracting parties, from becoming the pretext for
an illicit commerce, it is agreed that the
subjects of His Britannick Majesty shall
not land at any place where they may be
a Russian establishment without the permission of the Governor or Commandant;
and, on the other hand, that Russian subjects shall  not land without permission at
Au nom de la  Tres Sainte et Indivisible
Trinity.
Sa Majeste le Roi du Royaume Uni de
la Grande Bretagne et de lTrlande, et Sa
Majeste^ l'Empereur de toutes les Russies,
desirant resserrer les liens de bonne intelligence et d'amitie qui les unissent, au moyen
d'un accord qui regleroit, d'apres le principe des  convenances reciproques,  divers
points relatifs au commerce, a la navigation,
et aux pecheries de leurs sujets sur l'Ocean
Pacifique,   ainsi  que  les  limites  de leurs
possessions respectives sur la C6te Nord-
ouest de l'Amerique, ont nomme des Plenipotentiaires pour conclure une Convention
& cet effet, savoir :—Sa Majeste le Roi du
Royaume Uni de la Grande Bretagne et de
l'lrlande, le Tres Honorable Stratford Canning, Conseiller de Sa dite Majeste en Son
Conseil Prive, &c.    Et Sa Majeste l'Empereur de toutes les Russies, le Sieur Charles
Robert Comte de Nesselrode, Son Conseiller
Priv£ actuel, member du Conseil de 1'Empire, Secretaire d'Etat dirigeant le Ministere
des Affaires Etrangeres, &c.; et le Sieur
Pierre de Poletica, Son Conseiller d'E tat
actuel,   &c.      Lesquels   Plenipotentiaires,
apres  s'etre  communique leurs Pleinpou-
voirs respectifs, trouves en bonne et due
forme,  ont   arrete   et   signe  les   Articles
suivans:—
I. II est convenu que dans aucune partie
du Grand Ocean, appele communement
Ocean Pacifique, les sujets respectifs des
Hautes Puissances contractantes ne seront
ni troubles ni gen^s soit dans la navigation,
soit dans l'exploitation de la peche, soit
dans la faculte d'aborder aux cotes sur des
points qui ne seraient pas deja occupes, afin
d'y faire le commerce avec les Indigenes,
sauf toutefois les restrictions et conditions
determinEes par les Articles qui suivent.
II. Dans la vue d'empecher que les
droits de navigation et de peche exerces sur
le grand ocEan par les sujets des Hautes
Parties contractantes, ne deviennent le pre-
texte d'un commerce illicite, il est convenu
que les sujets de Sa Majeste Britannique
n'aborderont a aucun point ou il se trouve
un Etablissement Russe, sans la permission
du Gouverneur ou Commandant; et que
reeiproquement, les sujets Russes ne pour-
ront   aborder   sans   permission, a   aucun w
any British establishment on the North-west
Coast.
III. The line of demarcation between
the possessions of the high contracting
parties upon the coast of the continent and
the islands of America to the north-west,
shall be drawn in the manner following :—
Commencing from the .southernmost
point of the island called Prince of Wales
Island, which point lies in the parallel of
54 degrees 40 minutes north latitude, and
between the 131st and the 133d degree of
West longitude (meridian of Greenwich),
the said line shall ascend to the north along
the channel called Portland Channel, as far
as the point of the continent where it strikes
the 56th degree of north latitude; from this
last-mentioned point, the line of demarcation shall follow the summit of the mountains situated parallel to the coast, as far
as the point of intersection of the 141st
degree of west longitude (of the same
meridian); and, finally, from the said point
of intersection, the said meridian line of the
I41st degree, in its prolongation as far as
the frozen ocean, shall form the limit between the Russian and British possessions
on the Continent of America to the northwest.
IV. With reference to the line of demarcation laid down in the preceding Article,
it is understood;
1st, That the island called Prince of
Wales Island shall belong wholly to Russia.
2ud, That wherever the summit of the
mountains which extend in a direction
parallel to the coast, from the 56th degree
of north latitude to the point of intersection
of the 141st degree of west longitude, shall
prove to be at the distance of more than
ten marine leagues from the ocean, the limit
between the British possessions and the line
of coast which is to belong to Russia, as
above mentioned, shall be formed by a line
parallel to the windings of the coast, and
which shall never exceed the distance of
ten marine leagues therefrom.
V. It is moreover agreed that no establishment shall be formed by either of the
two parties within the limits assigned by
the two preceding Articles to the possessions
of the other; consequently British subjects
shall not form any establishment either upon
"the coast or upon the border of the continent
comprised within the limits of the Russian
possessions, as designated in the two preceding Articles; and, in like manner, no
establishment shall be formed by Russian
subjects bsyond the said limits.
VI. It is understood that the subjects of
His Britannick Majesty, from whatever
quarter they may arrive, whether from the
ocean or from the interior of the continent,
etablissement Britannique sur la cote
Nord-ouest.
III. L<a ligne de demarcation entre les
possessions des Hautes Parties contractantes, sur ia cote du Continent et les iles
de l'Amerique Nord-Ouest, sera tracee ainsi
qu'il suit:—i
A partir du point le plus meridional
l'ile dite Prince of Wales, lequel point se
trouve sous la. parallele du 54me degrtJ,
40 minutes de latitude Nord, et entre le
131me et le 133me degre de longitude
Ouest (meridien de Greenwich) la dite
ligne remontera au nord le long de la
passe dite Portland Channel jusqu'au
point de la terre ferme ou elle atteint le
5f3me degrE de latitude Nord ; de ce dernier point la ligne de demarcation suivra la
crete des montagnes situees parallelement
a la cdte, jusqu'au point d'intersection du
141me degre de longitude Ouest (meme
meridien) et finalement, du dit point d'intersection, la meme ligne meridienne du
141 me degre formera dans son prolonge-
ment jusqu'a la mer Glaciale, la limite entre
les possessions Russes et Brittaniques sur
le Continent de l'Amerique Nord-Ouest.
IV. II est entendu, par rapport a la ligne
de demarcation determinee dans 1'Article
precedent;
1. que l'isle dite Prince of Wales appar-
tiendra toute entiere a la Russie.
2. que partout ou la crete des montagnes
qui s'etendent dans une direction parallele
a la cote depuis le 56me degre de latitude
nord au point d'intersection du 141 me
degre de longitude ouest, se trouveroit a,
la distance de plus de dix lieues marines de
l'ocean, la limite entre les possessions Bri-
tanniques et la lisiere d# cote mentionnee
cidessus, comme devant appartenir a la
Russie, sera formee par une ligne parallele
aux sinuosites de la cote et qui ne pourra
jamais en etre eloignee que de dix lieues
marines.
V. II est convenu en outre, que nul
etablissement ne sera forme par l'une des
deux parties dans les limites que les deux
Articles precedens assjgnent aux possessions
de l'autre. En consequence les sujets Bri-
tanniques ne formeront aucun Etablissement
soit sur la cdte, soit sur la lisiere de terre
ferme comprise dans les limites des possessions Russes, telles qu'elles sont designees
dans les deux Articles precedens; et de
meme nul etablissement ne sera form6 par
des sujets Russes au dela des dites limites.
VI. II est entendu que les sujets de Sa
MajestE Britannique, de quelque cote qu'ils
arrivent}> soit de l'Ocean soit de I'iuterieur
du Continent, jouiront a perpetuite du droit 71
Shall for ever enjoy the right of navigating
freely, and without any hindrance whatever,
all the rivers and streams which, in their
course towards the Pacific Ocean, may cross
the line of demarcation upon the line of
coast described in Article 3 of the present
Convention.
VII. It is also understood that, for the
space of ten years from the signature of the
present Convention, the vessels of the two
powers, or those belonging to their respective subjects, shall mutually be at liberty
to frequent, without any hindrance whatever, all the inland seas* the gulfs, havens,
and creeks on the coast mentioned in Article 3, for the purposes of fishing and of
trading with the natives.
VIII. The port of Sitka, or Novo Arch-
angelsk, shall be open to the commerce and
vessels of British subjects for the space of
ten years from the date of the exchange of
the ratifications of the present Convention.
In the event of an extension of this term of
ten years being granted to any other power,
the like extension shall be granted also to
Oreat Britain.
IX. The above-mentioned liberty of
commerce shall not apply to the trade in
spirituous liquors, in firearms or other arms,
gunpowder or other warlike stores ; the
high contracting parties reciprocally engaging not to permit the above-mentioned
articles to be sold or delivered1, in any
manner whatever, to the natives of the
country.
X. Every British or Russian vessel navigating the Pacific Ocean, which may be
Compelled by storms or by accident to take
shelter in the ports of the respective parties,
shall be at liberty to refit therein, to provide
itself with all necessary stores, and to put
to sea again, without paying any other than
port and lighthouse dues, which shall be the
same as those paid by national vessels. In
case, however, the master of such vessel
should be under the necessity of disposing
of a part of his merchandise in order to
defray his expenses, he shall conform himself to the regulations and tariffs cf the
place where he may have landed.
XL In every case of complaint on account
of the infraction of the Articles of the present
Convention the civil and military authorities
of the high contracting parties, without
previously acting or taking any forcible
measure, shall make an exact and circumstantial report of the matter to their respective Courts, who engage to settle the same
in a friendly manner and according to the
principles of justice,
XII. The present Convention shall be
ratified, and the ratifications shall be ex-
de naVigtier librerheiit et sans entrave quel-
conque sur tous les fleuves et rivieres qui
dans leurs cours vers la mer Pacifique, tra-
versetont la ligne de demarcation sur la
lisiere de la cdte indiquee dans l'Article 3
de la presente Convention.
VII. II est aussi entendu que pendant
l'espace de dix ans k dater de la signature
de cette Convention, les vaisseaux des deux
Puissances ou ceux appartenans k leurs
sujets respectifs, pourront reciproquement
frequenter, sans entrave quelconque, toutes
les mers interieures, les golfes, havres, et
criques sur la cote- mentionnee dans l'Article 3, afin d'y faire la pdche etle commerce
avec les indigenes.
VIII. Le port de Sitka, ou Novo Arch-
angelsk, sera ouvert au commerce et aux
vaisseaux des sujets Britanniques durant
l'espace de dix ans, k dater de l'echange
des ratifications de cette Convention. Au
cas quune prolongation de ce terme de dix
ans soit accordee k quelque autre Puissance,
la mdme prolongation sera egalement accordee a la Grande Bretagne.
IX. La susdite liberte de commerce ne
s'appliquera point au trafic des liqueurs
spiritueuses, des armes a feu, des armes
blanches, de la poudre a canon, ou d'autres
munMons de guerre; les Hautes Parties
contractantes s'engageant reciproquement a
ne laisser ni vendre, ni livrer, de quelque
maniere que se puisse etre, aux indigenes
du pays, les articles ci-dessus mentionnes.
X. Tout vaisseau Britannique ou Russe
naviguant sur 1'Ocean Pacifique, qui sera
force par des tempetes, ou par quelque
accident, de se refugier dans les ports des
parties respectives, aura la liberte de s'y
radouber, de s'y pourvoir de tous les objets
qui lui seront n^cessaires, et de se renoettre
en mer, sans payer d'autres droits que ceux
de port et de fanaux, lesquels seront pour
lui les memes que pour les batimens na-
tionaux. Si, cependant, le patron d'un tel
navire se trouvoit dans la necessite de se
defaire d'une partie de ses marchandises
pour subvenir a ses depenses, il sera tenu
de se conformer aux ordonnances et aux
tarifs de 1'endfBit ou il aura aborde.
XI. Dans tous les cas de plaintes relatives a I'infraction des Articles de la presente
Convention, les autorites civiles et militaires
des deux hautes parties contractantes, sans
se permettre au prealable ni voie de fait, ni
mesure de force, seront tenues de faire un
rapport exact de l'affaire et de ses circon^
stances a leurs Cours respective3, lesquelles
s'engagent a la regler a 1'amiable, et d'apres
les principes d'une parfaite justice.
XII. La presente Convention sera ratifiee,
et les ratifications en seront echangees a 72
changed at London within the space of six
weeks, or sooner if possible. m ]
In witness whereof the respective plenipotentiaries have signed the same and have
affixed thereto the seal of their arms,
,    ,,     twenty-eighth
Done at St. Petersburgh, the sjxt'eeath ■
day of February, in the year of our Lord
one thousand eight hundred and twenty-five.
(l.s.)
(l.s.)
(l.s.)
STRATFORD CANNING.
THE COUNT   DE NES-
SELRODE.
PIERRE DE POLETICA,
Londres dans l'espace de six semaines, ou
plutdt si faire se peut.
En foi de quoi les plenipotentiaires respectifs l'ont signee, et y ont appose le cachet
de leurs armes.
Fait a St. Petersbourg, le I^^Fevrier,
° seize
de l'an de Grace mil huit cent vingt-cinq.
(l.s.)   '   STRATFORD CANNING.
(l.s.)       LE COMTE DE NESSELRODE.
(l.s.)       PIERRE DE POLETICA.
Note.—The ratifications were exchanged by the Right Hon. George Canning and Count
de Lieveu in London on 9th April 1825.
No. 42.
Mr, PHELPS to the MARQUIS OF SALISBURY.    (Received January 20.)
Legation of the United States, London,
My Lord, January 19, 1886.
Referring to the conversation held with your Lordship on the 12th instant,
relative to the boundary between the British possessions in North America and the
territory of Alaska, I have the honour to transmit herewith a copy of the statement of
the facts contained in the instructions sent me by rny Government, together with copies
of the maps therein referred to.
I think your Lordship will find in these documents the confirmation of the statements
I made in the conversation above mentioned.
In the treaty between the United States and the Emperor of Russia, of the 30th
March 1867, whereby the territory of Alaska was ceded to the United States, the
eastern boundary of that territory, which divides it from the North American possessions
of Her Majesty, is designated by.embodying in the treaty, in terms, the language of
Articles III, and IV. of the Convention between Great Britain and Russia, of the
28th February 1825, whereby that boundary is established.
Those Articles are as follows :—
" Commencing from the southernmost point of the island called Prince of Wales'
Island, which point lies in the parallel of 54° 40' north latitude, and between the 131st
degree and the 133rd degree of west longitude (meridian of Greenwich), the said line
shall ascend to the north along the channel called Portland Channel, as far as the point
of the continent where it strikes the 56th degree of north latitude ; from this last-
mentioned point, the line of demarcation shall follow the summit of the mountains situated parallel to the coast as far as the point of intersection of the 141st degree of west
longitude (of the same meridian), and finally, from the said point of intersection, the said
meridian line of the 141st degree, in its prolongation as far as the Frozen Ocean.
(l IV. With reference to the line of demarcation laid down in the preceding Article,
it is understood :^—
" 1. That the island called Prince of Wales' Island shall belong wholly to Russia "
(now, by this cession, to the United States).
| 2. That whenever the summit of the mountains which extend in a direction parallel
to the coast from the 56th degree of north latitude to the point of intersection of the
141st degree of west longitude shall prove to be at the distance of more than 10 marine
leagues from the ocean, the limit between the British possessions and the line of coast
which is to belong to Russia as above mentioned (that is to say, the limit to the possessions ceded by this convention) shall be formed by a line parallel to the winding of the
coast, and which shall never exceed the distance of 10 marine leagues therefrom." 73
The boundary thus indicated has no apparent ambiguity. But it was established and
described when the region through which it runs was entirely unexplored. It was doubtless
agreed upon in view of the map known as Vancouver's map, then almost the only one
available, which shows a range of mountains apparently continuous and sharply defined,
running parallel with the coast about 10 marine leagues inland, from the 56th degree of
north latitude to their intersection with the 141st degree of west longitude, and forming
a natural and plainly obvious permanent boundary. And probably the mountains, as
seen from the sea, present that appearance to the eye.
But recent explorations since the country has begun to be occupied, show that no such
boundary as that described in these treaties exists within the limits above mentioned, or
is capable of being determined. And that the monuments by which it is indicated in the
treaties tend only to confusion and uncertainty.
Instead of a continuous range of mountains along the summit of which a tangible and
reasonably direct line can be run, the whole region proves to be broken into a sea of
mountains, with spurs running in various directions, covering laterally a very wide
surface.
By no criterion, either of height, direction, or continuity, can a line be laid down that
could be regarded as " following the summit of the mountains," and any approximation
that should be attempted, to the line prescribed in the treaties, would be no nearer than
various other approximations that might be made, and which would be widely different
from each other.
The only other indication of this part of the boundary contained in the treaties, the
limit of 10 marine leagues from the ocean, equally fails of practicable location. The
Coast proves upon survey to be so extremely irregular and indented, with such and so
many projections and inlets, that it is not possible, except at immense expense of time
and money, to run a line that shall be parallel with it, and if such a line should be surveyed it would be so confused, irregular, and inconsistent that it would be impossible of
practical recognition, and would differ most materially from the clear and substantially
straight line contemplated in the treaties.
The result of the whole matter is, that these treaties, which were intended and understood to establish a proper boundary, easy to observe and be maintained, really give no
boundary at all so far as this portion of the territory is concerned.
A further difficulty is disclosed by the recent surveys in respect to this line. It is
found that Portland Channel does not extend so far north as the 56th degree of north
latitude. This, however, can probably be easily rectified upon proper survey by extending
the general line of Portland Channel some four or five miles further to the north.
Under these circumstances I am instructed by my Government to propose, through
your Lordship, to Her Majesty's Government, that a commission be agreed on by the
Governments of the United States and uf Her Majesty, to be composed of commissioners
to be appointed by each, who shall, under such instructions and conditions as may be
mutually concurred in and upon such surveys and examinations as may be found
necessary and practicable, either designate and establish the boundary line in question
or report to the respective Governments such facts, data, and recommendations as may
afford a basis for its establishment by Convention between them.
In addition to the statement of facts above mentioned, I have the honour to send
herewith copies of the maps therein referred to. The book called " United States' Pacific
Coast Pilot " I must ask your Lordship to have the kindness to return at your convenience,
as I have no other copy. But should you desire it, I shall be happy to send to the
United States for a copy for the use of Her Majesty's Government. And I shall be
much obliged if your Lordship will cause copies to be sent me of the British and
Canadian official maps mentioned in the statement.
In the conversation with your Lordship before alluded to, reference was made to the
time within which my Government must apply to Congress for the appropriation necessary
for the expenses of the Commission on its part if sent out this year. I have since
informed myself on that point by telegraphic communication with the Department of
State, and learn that if an agreement should be reached between the Governments by
the 1st April, the appropriation can probably be obtained.
I venture to suggest, however, in view of the reasons which will readily occur to your
Lordship, for as early an adjustment of this boundary as may be found practicable; that
as such an expedition can only make progress in the summer, and as some time must
necessarily be occupied in its appointment, outfit, and arrangements, it will doubtless
o    23036.
K 74
be for the mutual interests of the Governments that a decision in regard to it should be
made as soon as may be consistent.
I have, &c.
(Signed)        E. J. PHELPS.
Enclosures.
1. Statement from Instruction No. 144 of the 20th November 1885 from Mr. Bayard
to Mr. Phelps.
2. Vancouver's Chart No. 7 (photographed).
3   United States' Coast Survey Chart of Alaska No. 960, 1884.
4. United States' Coast Survey Chart No. 710, Revilla Gigedo Channel, 1835.
5! " United States' Pacific Coast Pilot," Alaska, Part I., 1883.
6. Treaty between the United States and Russia for the cession of Alaska, 30th March,
1867-
Enclosure 1 in No. 3.
Mr. Bayard to Mr. Phelps.
Department of State, Washington,
SIR< November 20, 1885.
Shortly after assuming the duties of this Office, my attention was drawn to the
circumstance that the existing boundary line between the territory of Alaska and her
Majesty's possession of British Columbia, is not only open to doubt in certain quarters,
although not in doubt so far as this Government is concerned, in respect of the water-
boundary from Prince of Wales' Island and through the Portland Channel, but that it is,
also, with regard to the inland frontier, which is supposed to follow a mountain range, an
impracticable one to survey, if not a geographical impossibility.'
The territory of Alaska was acquired by the United States from Russia, subject to the
existing, demarcation of the eastern frontier-line between Russia America and British
America, under the Convention between Great Britain and Russia of the 16th (28th)
February, 1825, and the description of the line contained in Articles III and IV of that
Convention was incorporated literally—as to the English text thereof—in the 1st Article
of the Treaty between the United States and Russia concluded on the 30th March, I867.
Copies of the latter Treaty are hereby annexed for your information.
I am not aware that any question concerning the true location of the line so stipulated
ever rose at any between Great Britain and Russia prior to the cession of Alaska to the
United States. If any such question had arisen, and was pending at the time of the
cession, the United States would naturally have succeeded to the Russian interest
therein just as to any other right of Russia affecting the ceded territory. This Government, however, had no intimation then, and has had none since, from Her Majesty's
Government, that any such question existed. It is not thought likely, however, that
question in this regard could have existed, as the inlet, and the country through
which the boundary line of 1825 ran, were in 1867 still practically unexplored. The
boundary was then, as it is still, a theoretical one, based, as it is fair to be presumed, on
the charts which the negotiators had before them in t825, and which they doubtless
assumed to be a substantially correct expression of geographical facts.
It is certain that no question has arisen since 1867 between the Governments of the
United States and Great Britain in regard to this boundary.
The ascertainment of the true line of demarcation under the Anglo-Russian Treaty
would, however, appear to have been the subject of informal consultation soon after
Russian Alaska passed to the United States, but no record of any official correspondence
between the two Governments is found.
In his annual message to Congress, December 2, 1872, President Grant, after referring
to the then recent settlement of the San Juan Island dispute, said :—
' Experience of the difficulties attending the determination of our admitted line of
boundary, after the occupation of the territory and its settlement by those owing
allegiance to the respective Governments, points to the importance of establishing, by
natural objects or other monuments, the actual line between the territory acquired by
purchase from Russia, and the adjoining possessions of Her Britannic Majesty. The
region is now so sparsely occupied that no conflicting interests of individuals or of
jurisdiction are likely to interfere to the delay or embarrassment of the actual location of
the Ime.    If deferred until population shall enter and occupy the territory, some trivial 75
contest of neighbours may again array the two Governments m antagonism. I therefore
recommend the appointment of a Commission, to act jointly with one that may be
appointed on the part of Great Britain to determine the line between our territory of
Alaska and the coterminous possessions of Great Britain."
An estimate of the probable cost and time of a survey of the Alaskan boundary line
on the part of this Government, then made, fixed the cost at about 1,500,000 dollars,
and the time required as nine years in the field, and at least one year more for mapping
the results ; which illustrates the magnitude of the labour.
1 he suggestion of President Grant was not then acted upon by the Congress, and
does not appear to have been since revived before that body. Since that time the
condition of increasing settlement apprehended by President Grant has, assumed marked
proportions. A territorial Government has been organised for Alaska, and enterprise
and capital are slowly, but steadily, making their way toward those distant shores.
In the judgment of the President, the time has now come for an understanding
between the Government of the United States and that of Her Britannic Majesty, looking
to the speedy and certain establishment of the boundary line between Alaska and British
Columbia. And this necessity is believed to be the more urgent, inasmuch as the
treaty line is found to be of uncertain, if not impossible, location for a great part of its
length.
In the first place, the water boundary line, from the southernmost point of Prince of
Wales Island to the 56th degree of north latitude, is not found uniformly located on the
charts of different modern geographers. On a majority of such charts, as, for example,
those of Staff-Commander D. Pendis'* Survey for the Admiralty in 1868, and those of
the Geological Survey of Canada, recently published, the boundar}' follows the central
line of the main channel, known as Portland Inlet, while in other charts prepared by
British geographers, the line deflects to the northward from the broad waters of Dixon
Entrance, and passes through a narrow and intricate channel lying north-westward from
Portland Inlet, known on the United States' Coast Survey Chart of 1885 as Pearse
Channel, until it suddenly deflects southward again at right angles, to re-enter Portland
Inlet, thereby appearing to make British territory of Pearse and Wales Islands, and
throwing doubt on the nationality of several small islands at the south-western extremity
of Wales Island. This latter construction is at the outset in manifest contradiction
with the treaties, which provided " that the island called Prince of Wales' Island shall
belong wholly to Russia" (now, by cession, in 1867, to the United States).
There would seem to be ground, in the text of Vancouver, the original explorer and
geographer of the region, for supposing that he at one time regarded Pearse Canal f of
later geographers as the lower part of Portland Canal. But there are very evident
reasons for believing that this was not the construction intended by the authors of the
Anglo-Russian Treaty of 1825, and that their purpose was the location of the natural
boundary line in the broader channel called Portland Inlet on the Admiralty and the
United States' Coast Survey Charts.
For a clear understanding of the subject, Chart No. 7 of Vancouver's Atlas ; the
British Admiralty Chart, No. 2,431, corrected to June 1882, or any later edition; the
United States' Coast Survey Chart, No. 710, of 1885; and the charts of the Coast Pilot
of Alaska, recently issued by the United States' Coast Survey, should be consulted.
Of these, photographic copies of Vancouver's Atlas Chart No. 7, and copies of the
Coast Survey publications, are herewith sent you. You can doubtless obtain copies of
the British Admiralty Chart by application in the proper quarter.
The language of the treaties is :—
1 Commencing from the southernmost point of the Island called Prince of Wales'
Island, which point lies in the parallel of 54° 40' north latitude, and between the 131st
and the 133rd degree of west longitude (meridian of Greenwich), the said line shall
ascend to the north along the channel called Portland Channel, as far as the point of the
continent where it strikes the 56th degree of north latitude."
So far the treaties relate to the water-boundary, and it is to be remembered, as already
remarked, that the line so described was intended to leave Prince of Wales' Island
Russian territory in 1825, and a possession of the United States in 1867-
No record has been found in print, or otherwise so far as sought, of the circumstances
attending the drawing up of the Anglo-Russian Convention of 1825, which would throw
light on the understanding of the negotiators on this point; but it may be assumed with
confidence that the charts employed in the negotiation were those of Vancouver.    They
t Peawe cinaUakes'its name from  Pearse Island, so called by Captain Pender, R.N., in 1868, after an
officer in the United States service.—D. R. C.
K 2
n i
76
were made by a British officer under the direction of the British Government, and would
therefore be acceptable as a standard by that party to the Convention. They were the
most recent charts than extant, and for half a century they remained the only authentic
charts of that region, the Russians having at that time made no original surveys of
importance in this district. Moreover, the wording of the Convention of 1825 is found to
be in complete accord with the features presented by Vancouver's chart, and especially
with Chart No. 7 in the atlas accompanying the narrative of his voyage. The description in the convention seems to be a faithful reproduction of the picture actually present
to the eyes of the negotiators in that chart.
The first discrepancy that meets us is, that neither on Vancouver's nor on any other
chart known, does the water-way of Portland Channel strike "the 56th degree of north
latitude." On Vancouver's Chart No. 7 it ends in a cul-de-sac about 15 miles before
the 56th degree is reached. This, however, is of little importance, for, with the better
topographical knowledge we now possess, we know that a conventional line, in continuation of the general trend of the mid-channel line, would strike the 56th degree of north
latitude at a distance of some 4 or 5 miles inland.
While Portland Channel, Portland Canal, or Portland Inlet, as it is indifferently styled
on the several charts, is, and has long been, readily identified as the main passage inland
from the southernmost point of Prince of Wales' Island, the intricate and narrow passage
separating Pearse Island from the mainland is practically unsurveyed. It does not
appear at all on the Pender Admiralty Charts of 1868. In the United States' Coast
Survey Charts it is conjecturally marked by dotted lines.
The fact that the parallel of 54° 40', by the most recent surveys, enters the mouth of
Portland Inlet, that the most navigable channel trends thence directly inland in an almost
straight line, that Prince of Wales' Island is in terras excluded from British territory,
and that the name used in the Anglo-Russian Convention of 1825 is found on all existing
maps, possessing authority, applied to Portland Inlet or Channel, and not to Pearse
Channel, lend reason and force to the conviction that it was the intention of the negotiators that the boundary line should directly follow the broad and natural channel mid-
way between the shores, and extend, if need were, inland in the same general direction
until the range of hills, hereafter to be considered, should be reached (as appears in
Vancouver's Chart) at or near the 56th parallel.
It is not, therefore, conceived that this water part of the boundary line can ever be
called in question between the two Governments.
There is, however, ample ground for believing that the erroneous premises upon
which the negotiators apparently based their fixation of the inland boundary line along
the coast render its true determination and demarcation by monuments a matter of doubt
and difficulty in carrying it into practical effect, and that, in prevision of the embarrassments which may follow delay in the establishment of a positive frontier line, it is the
interest and the duty of the two Governments to reach a good understanding which
shall forthwith remove all chance for future disagreement.
The Convention of 1825 continues, from the point where the quotation given above
ceases, as follows :—
" From this last-mentioned point" [the intersection of the mid-channel line of Portland Channel with the 56th north parallel] " the line of demarcation shall  follow the
: summit of the mountains situated parallel to the coast as far as the point of intersection
" of the 141st degree of west longitude (of the same meridian), and, finally, from the said
" point of intersection the said meridian line of the 141st degree in its prolongation as far
" as the Frozen Ocean "   Provided, as the Convention proceeds to stipulate in the
second paragraph of the following Article IV., "that whenever the summit of the moun-
" tains which extend in a direction parallel to the coast, from the 5f3th degree of north
" latitude to the point of intersection of the 141st degree of west longitude, shall prove to
" beat the distance of more than 10 marine leagues from the ocean, the limit between the
: British possessions and the line of coast which is to belong to Russia as above mentioned
" (that is to say, the limit to the possessions ceded by this Convention) shall be formed
by a line parallel to the winding of the coast, and which shall never exceed the distance
" of 10 marine leagues therefrom."
Here, again, there is conclusive internal evidence that the negotiators accepted as a
fact, and described in words, the picture presented to their eyes by the chart actually
spread before them. If we examine Vancouver's charts we find the evident reason for the
language employed in the Convention. Vancouver, who to his integrity and zeal as a
navigator joined an excellent hydrographic faculty, seems to have been but a poor topographer, and represented an impossibly regular land formation, such as could not well
exist, and has not been discovered to exist anywhere on the world's surface     His charts 77
exhibit, at a moderate distance from the shore, a uniformly serrated and narrow ran^e of
mountains, like an enormous caterpillar, extending, with a general parallelism to the shore,
from one end of the region in question to the other, except at scattered points, where
valleys intervene, which we now know to be the valleys of the Taku, Stikine, and other
rivers. The line projected from the mid-channel line of Portland Channel intersects, at
about the 56th degree of north latitude, the backbone range in question, and were the
features of Vancouver's Chart a correct representation of the topography, no more excellent
and convenient, boundary could be imagined than that following the depicted serrated ridge.
It is not singular that, assuming the chart to be correct, both parties should have agreed to
accept this remarkably uniform feature as marking the boundary. The better knowledge
of that region now possessed shows that Vancouver's topography is not correct. There
is no such range of hills as indicated upon Vancouver's charts, and as assumed by the
negotiators of the Convention of 1825. The topography of the region in question has
not as yet been accurately charted, but enough is known of its natural features to wholly
disprove the conjectural topography of Vancouver.
Professor William H. Dall, whose researches in Alaska are well known, and whose
explorations have so largely contributed to our present knowledge of the geographical
and geological character of that country, upon being invited by me to report as to the
accuracy of Vancouver's charts, writes as follows :—
" We have no good topographical maps of this part of Alaska; but, having been
engaged nearly nine years exploring and surveying the territory, I assert, without fear
of contradiction, that nothing of the sort " (depicted by Vancouver) " exists. We have,
instead, what has been aptly called a jj sea of mountains,' composed of short ranges with
endless ramifications, their general trend being parallel with the general curve of Northwestern America, but, so far as their local parts are concerned, irregular, broken, and
tumultuous to the last degree. In certain places, as from Cape Spencer to Yakutat Bay,
we have the nearest approach to such a range; but even here there are broad valleys,
penetrating an unknown distance, and lateral spurs given off in many directions. These
Alps rise conspicuously above their fellows ; but to the eastward another peculiarity of
the topography is that the hills or summits are nearly uniform in height, without
dominating crests and few higher peaks.
| The single continuous range being non-existent, if we attempt to decide on the
' summit' of the mountains we are at once plunged into a sea of uncertainty. Shall
we talce the ridge of the hill nearest the beaches \ This would give us, in many places,
a mere strip of territory not more than three miles wide, meandering in every direction.
Shall we take the highest summits of the general mass of the coast ranges ? Then we
must determine the height of many thousands of scattered peaks, after which the
question will arise between every pair of equal height and those nearest to them. Shall
we skip this way or that, with our zigzag, impossible to survey except at fabulous
expense and half a century of labour. These peaks are densely clothed with trees and
deep soft moss and thorny underbrush, as impenetrable and luxuriant as the savannahs
of Panama.
| In short, the ' summit of the mountains ' is wholly impracticable. We may then fall
back on the ' line parallel with the windings of the coast.' Let any one, with a pair of
drawing compasses, having one leg a pencil point, draw this line on the United States'
Coast burvey Map of Alaska (No. 960 of 1884). The result is sufficient to condemn it.
Such a line could not be surveyed; it crosses itself in many places, and indulges in
myriads of knots and tangles. The line actually drawn as the boundary on that map
omits the intricacies, and is intended merely as an approximation. It would be subject
to almost insuperable difficulties for the surveyor^ simplified as it is, and the survey
would cost more than the whole territory cost originally. These are the false geographical assumptions on which the language of the treaty was based, and the
difficulties they offer when it is proposed to realise, by survey, the verbal boundary."
The words of Mr. Dall are those of a practical man, conversant with the region, and
experienced in the class of difficulties in the way of an actual demarcation of the
Conventional frontier.
The line traced upon the Coast Survey Map of Alaska, No. 960, of which copies are
sent to you herewith is as evidently conjectural and theoretical as was the mountain
1 summit" line traced by Vancouver. It disregards the mountain topography of the
country, and traces a line, on paper, about 30 miles distant from the general contour of
the coast. The line is a winding one, with no salient landmarks or points of latitude and
longitude to determine its position at any point. It is, in fact, such a line as is next to
impossible to survey through a mountainous region; and its actual location there, by a
Surveying Commission, would be nearly as much a matter of conjecture as tracing it on
paper with a pair of dividers.
'!
\J 78
If the coast and interior country from Dixon Entrance to Mount St. Elias were
already accurately surveyed, its topography charted, and the heights of all its | summits "
determined, it would even then be impossible, except by Conventional compromise, to.
locate such a line as the treaties prescribe. To illustrate this, a case nearer home may be
supposed. Examine, for instance, an Ordnance Survey Map of Scotland, and attempt to
mark out upon it a line which, starting from the " intersection " of the mid-channel line of
the Firth of Solway and the 55th parallel, shall thence follow the " summit of the mountains " northward, as far as the 58th parallel, and which, where such " summit" shall be
more than " 10 marine leagues " from the Atlantic coast, shall follow the " winding '
thereof. If the tracing of such a line on paper, when every material fact of contour and
altitude is precisely known, were found to offer difficulty, the obstacles to the delimitation of an actual frontier, with landmarks and monuments, through a wholly unexplored
country, much more broken than Scotland is, and with a sea-coast scarcely less intricate,
could not fail to be many fold greater.
As a rule, a theoretical frontier, based on the assumed contour of mountain chains, is
more difficult to determine with accuracy than one following known watercourses or
bounded by right lines having geodetic termini.
Rude and inaccessible as is the " sea of mountains " of South-eastern Alaska, and
forbidding as it may appear for ordinary purposes of inland settlement, it should be
remembered that it is a mineral-bearing region, the geological continuation of the gold
and silver belt of California and Nevada, and may at any time spring into an importance
not now calculable. It is of evident advantage to both countries to agree upon some
boundary line capable of survey at a reasonable cost, or so precisely and practically
described that in case of need any given point thereon may be readily determined in
advance of a general survey, and to do this while the whole question of local values is in
abeyance.
I am, &c.
(Signed)        T. F. Bayard.
A ccompaniments.*
1. Vancouver's Chart, No. 7-    (Photographed.)
2. United States' Coast Survey Chart of Alaska, No. 160, 1884,
3. United States' Coast Survey Chart, No. 710, Revilla Gigedo Channel, 1885,
4. " United States' Pacific Coast Pilot," Alaska, Part I., 1883.
5. Treaty between the United States and Russia for the cession of Alaska, March 30,
1867-
Enclosure 2 in No. 3.*
Treaty concerning the Cession of the Russian Possessions in North America by His
Majesty the Emperor of All the Russias to the United States of America.
Concluded, March 30, 1867.
Ratified by the United States, May 28, 1867.
Exchanged, June 20, 1867.
Proclaimed by the United States, June 20, 1867.
By the President of the United States of America.
No. 43.
(Extract.)
Hydrographic Department, Admiralty,
March 26, 1886.
Replies to Questions contained in Colonial Office Letter of 20th March 1886 relating
to the Boundary of Alaska. ii§
* * * * *
The latitude and longitude—at present adopted on the British charts, of the southern
point of Prmce of Wales Island (or Archipelago) Cape de Chacon, is latitude 54° 42J'
* Accompaniments and enclosures not reprinted. D.R.C. 79
N., longitude 131° 54' W. the latitude being taken from Vancouver's chart published in
London, May 1st, 1798; the longitude being that of Vancouver (131° 45' W.) adapted to
the Admiralty charts.
The most recent determination of the latitude and longitude of this point is by the
American Coast Survey. A chart* published by the United States Government
| Reconnaissance of the Shores of Tlevak and connecting Straits from Cape Muzon to
Tlevak narrows,—Alaska,"—issued January 1883, shows that the latitude and longitude
were determined, of a position in Long Island—Howkon Village,—which, by Vancouver's
chart (based on Spanish authorities, but which still remains as the only source of information we possess) is 48 minutes of longitude west of Cape de Chacon, and 7h minutes of
latitude north. This will give the position of Cape de Chacon as latitude 54° 42' 09" N
and longitude 132° 2' 12" W.
The name, Prince of Wales Island, appeared first on the Admiralty chart entitled
Vancouver's Island to Cordova Bay, No. 2430 (published in June 1856), in about the year
1861. The name appears to have been applied from the Russian chart of 1849, and as
being synonymous with the Prince of Wales Archipelago of Vancouver.
The name of " Wales Island " appears to have been first applied to the Admiralty
chart ' Queen Charlotte Island and adjacent coasts,'—on its publication in March 1853 ;
and to have been perpetuated therefrom on other Admiralty charts to the present day.
No authority is known for this. In all probability the want of a name for the island at
the entrance of this large fiord, by which reference could be made to it, prompted the
extension of Vancouver's name for the south point to the whole island. This practice is
of daily occurrence in compiling charts in the Hydrographic Office.
The most authentic record of the latitude and longitude of Point Wales (or Wales
Point of modern charts), the southern point of Wales Island mentioned in answer 5, is
latitude 54° 42' 29" N., longitude 130° 28' 40" W. It was determined in the Admiralty
survey of those parts in 1868, by triangulation from a station at Port Simpson, fixed by
astronomical observation.
The name Portland Inlet first appears in the Admiralty chart, " Queen Charlotte
Island and adjacent coasts," published in March 1853; and has been perpetuated therefrom on other Admiralty charts to the present day. No authority can be traced for
bestowing this name.
This chart was, on the publication of No. 2430 in 1856, removed from the plate in
order to insert other plans in its place.    No copy has been retained at the Admiralty.
During these operations (i.e., the survey of Portland Canal and Observatory Inlet in
1868) the lower part of Portland Canal, which lies west of the island termed Pearse
Island by the surveyors in 1868, was not examined, and is therefore shown as a dotted
line, which was also reproduced on the existing plate.
No. 44.
Captain D. PENDER, R.N., to Colonel D. R. CAMERON.
( Extract.)
Hydrographic Department, July 8, 1886.
Taking high water on 26th July 1793 at about 2 a.m. (which would agree fairly with
the "establishment" of our Survey (H.W., Nasse Ih. 5m., Portland Canal lh. 30m.)).
It would have been H.W. on the 29th at about 4.30 a.m., and consequently low water
on that day about 10 a.m. at head of Portland Canal.
That would have been some days after spring tides.
By the Nautical Almanac for 1793 it was full moon on July 22nd.
* See Appendix Map No. 13. 80
(Extract Dominion of Canada Sessional Papers, 1878, Vol. XL, No. 125.
No. 45.
APPENDIX I.
The proposed strength and pay of the staff of the Commission are as follows
Strength and Distribution.
Head-quarters.
1 commissioner.
1 secretary.
2 clerks.
2 servants,
grooms,
cooks,
boatmen,
camp foreman.
Indians.
surgeon.
1 assistant.
1 veterinary surgeon.
1 assistant.
1 geologist and botanist.
1
4 photographers.
4 servants.
4 cooks.
6 packers.
6 boatmen.
assistant*
Note.—The above details were revised after the manuscript from which the Sessional
Paper was printed had been submitted.—D. R. C.
One.
Astronomical Party.
2 officers.
1 computer.
1 sergeant in charge of work.
2 chainmen.
1 instrument man.
2 front picket men.
2 rear
1 topographer.
2 servants.
2 cooks.
4 axemen.
1 packmaster.
13 packers.
7 boatmen.
1 herder.
Two.
(2.) Surveying Parties.
Each.
1 officer.
I sergeant in charge of work.
1 compass man.
1 instrument man.
2 chainmen.
2 picket men.
2 topographers.
1 servant.
2 cooks.
4 axemen.
1 packmaster.
11 packers.
7 boatmen.
1 herder.
Commissariat Department.
3 pack masters.
20 packers.
2 herders. 81
1 sergeant in charge.
10 axemen.
1 cook.
Four.
(4.) Trail-making Parties.
1 packmaster.
2 packers.
1 blacksmith.
1 carpenter.
1 saddler.
Artificers,
I tailor.
1 shoemaker.
1 cook.
Summary of Distribution.
	
Officers.
Non-Com.
Officers.
Sappers.
Civilians.
Indians.
Head-quarters         -
Astronomical party -
Two surveying parties
Four trail making parties
Commissariat          -
Four depot parties  -
Casualties   -
5
2
2
1
1
2
1
1
4
9
16
20
6
38
30
54
59
36
4
5
4
Total
10
5
55
226
4
Summary of Estimates of Pay.
Officers.
1 commissioner
1 secretary
1 astronomer
1 assistant astronomer
1 surgeon   -
1 geologist and botanist
1 veterinary surgeon
1 commissary
2 surveyors, 1,461 dollars each
Dollars.
- 4,867
- 1,582
- 2,922
- 1,948
- 2.000
- 2,000
- 1,800
- 2,000
- 2,922
Per annum 22,044
Royal Engineers.
1 sergeant-major -
1 quarter-master-sergeant -
3 sergeants,. #1 "83^ each  -
4 corporals, $1'66§ each   -
4 2nd corporals, #1'50 each
8 lance-corporals, #1*33^ each
39 sappers, |T16| each
Dollars.
2-00
2-00
5-50
6'66f
6'00
10-66|
45*50
Per day #78-33£
o   33036. 82
Details of Pay of Civilians for One Month.
Party.
Servants.
*1
jq
D
,14
8
©
S °
7*
H
■g
BO
■ -"£
o
M
s
8,-g
S o
5 3
o
<
Astronomical
Q
40
80
2
40
$
80
4
45
f
180
i
126
125
13
60
780
(J) Surveying     -         •
Q
40
80
4
40
160
8
45
360
2
125
250
22
60
1,320
(4) Trail parties -
—
—
—
4
40
160
40
45
1,800
4
125
500
8
60
480
(4) Depots
—
—
—
4
40
160
Commissariat
—
-
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
3
123
375
20
60
1,200
Head-quarters
6
40
240
6
40
240
Pore-
*""*
"""
X
"
6
60
360
Heart-quarters
Assistants.
3
60
180
Clerks.
2
75
160
men.
1
60
60
Grooms.
40
80
—
—
—
Trail parties
—
—
—
—
—
—
8
60
180
Casualties -        -        -
—
—
—
—
—_
—
"**
2,580
	
~~*
~"
5
60
800
Totals
—
580
—
950
—
—
1,330
—
—
4,440
(continued.)
Party.
6
•a
55
**d
S °
(I0
la
c
o
8
1
o
o o
s
o
P
o
a
•<
is
o
a
Total.
Astronomical
1
80
$
30
7
40
$
280
	
—
$
	
	
	
1,555
(2) Surveying
O
30
60
14
40
560
—
—
*« ^mi
—
—
—
2,790
(4) Trail parties -
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—    j
•   —
—
2,940
(4) Depots
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
160
Commissariat
0
30
60
—
—
—
8
60
480
8
40
120
2,235
Head-quarters
—
—
—
12
40
480
—
•     —
—
—
—
— '
1,320
Head-quarters
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
*^ii
470
Trail partie*
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
180
Casualties -
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
	
	
—
300
Totals
—
150
—
—
1,320
—
—
480
120
11,950
Summary of Estimate of E£penditure in the Field for three years.
Pay of officers, civil and military -
„     detachment, Royal Engineers    -
„     civilians ----_.
Purchase of mules        ------
Winter quarters ----._
Outfit, including purchase of instruments
Provisions        ---->._
Forage -----..
Transport of Royal Engineer detachment and instruments from
England via Victoria to Fort Simpson ...
Transport of provisions, tools, camp sundries, &c. from San
Francisco to Fort Simpson
Sundries and contingencies      -
Dollars.
66,129
85,776
430,200
80,000
60,000
34,548
103,689
142,560
14,155
10,000
36,240
Total
#1,063,29;
Of the above sum 480,000 dollars would be required in the first year. 83
APPENDIX II.
Estimate of Expenditure,
Head of Expenditure.
In proportion to duration of fieldwork
C Annual pay of officers
! „ Royal Engineers
,, civilians
-<   Annual cost of provisions -
„ forage
„ transport -
Annual sundries and contingencies
50 per cent, to be added for and period over J   Winter quarters
three seasons        - - - 1   Outfit
Independent of duration of work
/" Wii
\  Out
f  Transport of Royal En
\  Purchase of mules
gineers from England
Amount.
Dollars.
22,041
28,592
143,400
34,563
47,520
3,300
12,113
60,000
34,548
14,155
80,000
APPENDIX III.
Head of Expenditure.
To comply strictly
with Treaty, 7 years.
United States
Scheme, 3 years.
By altering Treaty,
2 years.
Pay of officers, civil and military                           1           r
„     detachment, Eoyal Engineers       -            «
„    civilians   ------
Purchase of mules            ..-.-,
Winter quarters                                          ?        §jjii!|        1
Outfit and equipment        ?.----
Purchase of provisions     -
„         forage            -            -      M 1
Transport of Royal Engineers from England
„          stores and provisions             -
Sundries and contingencies-         -           -           -            -
Dollars.
154,287
200,095
1,003,800
80,000
65,455
51,882
241,941
332,640
14,155
25,000
60,511
Dollars.
66,129
85,776
430,200
80,000
60,000
34,548
103,689
142,560
14,155
10,000
36,240
Dollars.
40,482
57,171'
111,992
6,000
50,000
32,985
80,000
7,128
14,155
7,000
15,800
2,229,766
1,063,297
422,713 LONDON: Printed by Etbe and SpottisWooDe,
Printers to the Queen's most Excellent Majesty.
JTor Her Majesty's Stationery Office.
[ 10999.—50.—9/86.]