BC Historical Books

BC Historical Books

BC Historical Books

The Alaska frontier Balch, Thomas Willing, 1866-1927 1903

Item Metadata


JSON: bcbooks-1.0348287.json
JSON-LD: bcbooks-1.0348287-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): bcbooks-1.0348287-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: bcbooks-1.0348287-rdf.json
Turtle: bcbooks-1.0348287-turtle.txt
N-Triples: bcbooks-1.0348287-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: bcbooks-1.0348287-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

Thus we wish to retain, and
the English Companies wish
to acquire.—Count Nesselrode.
A. B. (Harvard)
Member op the Philadelphia Bar
1903  To the Memory
The United States owe   Alaska
This monograph was prepared with the object
of stating briefly but emphatically the title of the
United States to a continuous, unbroken lisiere or
strip of territory on the north west American continental shore betw^n Mount Saint Elias ancf fifty-
four degrees fort^minutes^or^^latituj^ In August, 1898, the Anglo-American Joint High Commission assembledaTT^ueJjee^ and soon after Canada
formally made claim to a large jsjj^ejof^the J£grri-
tory of Alaska. These demands put forth by Canada to the territory of a neighboring and friendly
power are a serious thing, and would imply that
the Canadian Government possesses substantial facts
upon whicH to base its claims. But up to the present time the Canadians have not advanced in support of their contentions _anything but a nebulous
maze of alleged facts. Their whole argument is
founded upon a quibble. If the Canadian Government has any serious and tangible proofs with
which to support its claims, it has not yet made
them public'
Nevertheless, owing to the frequent repetition of
the   myth   started   in Canada about 1884—that the Xll
United States have usurped along the eastern side
of the Alaskan lisiere territory which legally belongs to Canada—a large part of the Canadian
people, especially in British Columbia and Ontario,
have gradually come to believe that this fiction is
true and based upon sound facts. And within the
last few years in England, likewise, some people
are beginning to credit the Canadian claims upon
Alaska. The growth of this sentiment, however, is
founded upon a partial knowledge of the facts involved. This is due to the imperfect manner in
which, up to now, this subject has been presented
to the Canadian and the English peoples. The
public men and publicists who have argued in favor of the Canadian demands have curtailed and
omitted important and vital fac£s- F°r instance,
when they review the negotiations that resulted in
the Treaty of 1825, they do not consider those negotiations as a whole, but^ only_.PariyL_of thejrm_
They do not rebut the evidence afforded by the
many Canadian, English, French, German, Russian
and other maps which mark the frontier line claimed
by the United States. Why has no Canadian considered chart number 787 of the British Admiralty,
which in 1901, three years after the Quebec Conference assembled, marks the frontier so as to give
the United States^ a continuous^janbroken lisiere
above fifty-four degrees forty minutes ?
The facts and the evidence upon which this work INTRODUCTORY  NOTE. xiii
is based were collected in Alaska, London, Edinburgh, Paris, Berlin, Saint Petersburg and many
other places. The authorities are cited so that in
case I have made any mistakes or fallen into any
errors, they may be pointed out and corrected.
A paper, La Frontiere Alasko-Canadienne, which
was printed in the Revue de Droit International,
January, 1902 (Bruxelles), and another, the Alasko-
Canadian Frontier, which was published in the
Journal of the Franklin Institute, March, 1902,
(Philadelphia), are in part incorporated in this work.
Re-prints of this latter paper were sent in the
spring of 1902 to all the members of the Fifty-
seventh Congress: ten thousand copies were distributed throughout the United States; and from
many newspapers I received vigorous editorial support. In the preparation of the present monograph
I have received most courteous aid from every one
to whom I applied at the Bibliotheque Nationale at
Paris, the Sachsische Konigliche Offentliche Bibliothek
at Dresden, the Library of Congress at Washington,
the Library Company of Philadelphia (including the
Ridgway Branch,) the Harvard University Library, the
University of Pennsylvania Library and the Philadelphia
Law Library. I have received also help and encouragement in one way or another from C. L. Andrews,
Esq., of Alaska, Colonel William R. Holloway, our
Consul-General at Saint Petersburg, Walker Kennedy,   Esq.,   of   Memphis,  Tenn.,   Frank   Nicholls XIV
Kennin, Esq., a Barrister at Toronto and a member
of the Illinois Bar, A. L. McDonald, Esq., of San
Francisco, T. C. Mendenhall, Esq., President of the
Worcester Polytechnic Institute in Massachusetts,
Monsieur le Juge Nys, Vice-President of the Court
of Brussels, P. Lee Phillips, Esq., of the Library of
Congress, John Wallace Riddle, Esq., our Charge
d'Affaires at Saint Petersburg, the Hon. Frederick
W. Seward, ex-Assistant Secretary of State, of Mont-
rose-on-the-Hudson, the Hon. Charlemagne Tower,
recently our Ambassador at Saint Petersburg and
now Ambassador at Berlin, O. H. Tittmann, Esq.,
Chief of the United States Coast and Geodetic
Survey, George W. Van Siclen, Esq., of Cornwall,
N. Y.; and Edwin Swift Balch, Esq., Wharton Barker,
Esq., Colonel Augustus C. Buell, Charles H. Cramp,
Esq., L. Clarke Davis, Esq., George Peirce, Esq.,
and Harvey M. Watts, Esq., of Philadelphia; and
other gentlemen at home and abroad whom I am
not at liberty to name.
On page 46 on the seventh line from the bottom
the Russian American Company is meant.
The language of jthe^treaty which is given both
intheonginal French and in the English translation, is of itself sufficient to maintain the American
claim; but the history of the negotiations which resulted in the execution of that instrument, Ihe contemporary facts, and the maps which are here for
the most part for  the first time grouped  together, INTRODUCTORY  NOTE. XV
exclude the possibility of honest doubt as to the
validity of the American title. It is not extravagant to say that any one who will take the trouble
to master the facts, will agree that the pretence that
the question of right should be submitted to an International Joint Commission or to an International
Arbitration is as unreasonable as would be such a
demand for the settlement of the question of the
ownership of one of the original Thirteen States.
This work was undertaken with the purpose of
placing in a concise form before the American
people the facts involved in this case. And I hope
that every good American will take a real interest
in not seeing this question settled in the dark and
will lend a hand in waking up the American people
to what is going on. For the question is well
summed up in the words of Count Nesselrode,
"Thus we wish to retain, and the English companies wish to acquire."
T. W. B.
Philadelphia, January ioth, 1903.  THE  ALASKA FRONTIER.
THE advance of the United States and of England across the continent of North America
towards the Pacific Ocean, of Spain along the Pacific coast towards the north, and of Russia across
Siberia to the east, brought about in the first
quarter of the nineteenth century a clashing of
interest between these powers over the ownership of the north-west coast of America and its
The Americans, Lewis and Clark, crossed the continent and discovered the Columbia River, and thus
by right of discovery, began the claims of the
United States upon the north west coast. Whatever rights France had in the far north west
reverted to the United States by the Louisiana
purchase in 1803. The claims of Spain to the territory lying to the north of California were merged
by treaty in 1819 in those of the United States.
The Hudson's Bay Company in the quest for
furs sent its trappers and advanced its trading
posts further and further west; and, as the authorized agent of the British Crown, it carried the sovereignty of the English King across  the continent
nearer and nearer to the Pacific. Cook, Vancouver and other English seamen, too, sailed along the
North American shore washed by the Pacific Ocean.
The Russian Cossacks, first under an ataman named
Yermak, gradually bore, in their search for the
valuable sable skins, the sway of the " Great
White Tsar" across Siberia to the waters of the
Pacific, thus proving that Bishop Berkeley was
only half right when he wrote—"Westward the
course of empire holds its way." Then with the
exploring expedition commanded by the Cossack,
Deshneff,1 who probably sailed through Bering Strait
in  1648,2 and with that led in 1741 by Bering, the
"A. Faustini: Una Questione Artica, Roma, 1902 : Estratto
della Rivista Italo-Americana, Anno I., Fasc. II., Luglio, 1902.
2 The Strait of Anian or Bering Strait was known to the European world apparently long before Deshneff's expedition, for
on a number of maps of the second half of the sixteenth and the
first half of the seventeenth centuries the strait is marked, and
Alaska itself is drawn approximately correctly.
Theatrum orbis terrarum Ant. Abrah. Ortellii. Antwerpia
MDLXX. (The American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia.)
The map entitled "Typus Orbis Terrarum " gives the Strait of
Anian about where Bering Strait is. Theatrum Orbis Terrarum.
Abrahamus Ortelius Antverpianus, eius Majistatis Geographius
[x579] (Kon. Oef. Bib. Dresden). In the map "Tartariae sive
Magni Chami Regni typus" Asia runs up beyond 8o° N. lat.
America on the contrary only goes to about 550 N. lat. They
are divided by the " Stretto di Anian." The shape of both Asia
and America is very like the reality and the " Stretto di Anian "
in its shape and position, strongly suggests Bering Strait.
Oost ende West-Indische Spieghel waer in beschreven werden
de twee laetste navigatien   *   *   *   de eene door den vermaerden EARLY EXPLORERS. 3
Dane, across the Pacific to the great land, the
bolshaia zemlia, to the east, the Russians began
to explore and then to settle on the American
The United States, England and Russia continued
to affirm their sovereignty to greater and greater
areas of land in the north-west part of the American continent. And Russia even went so far as
to assert her right to the absolute dominion over
Bering Sea and a large extent of the northern part
of the Pacific Ocean. These pretensions to the exclusive sovereignty of a part of the high seas were
made in an Ukase issued in 1821 by the Emperor Alexander the First.   In addition to claiming
Zeeheldt forts van Spilbergen * * * de andere ghedaen by
facob Le Maire. Amsterdam, Jan Janssz, MDCXXI. The
"Nova Totius Orbis Terrarum " shows the Arctic coast of Asia,
the highest point being Novaya Zemlia, in about 790 N. lat.
This is joined to Asia. The north point is marked "T Vlissin-
gerhoot." Between 48 ° N. lat., and 6o° N. lat. are straits between
Asia and America : they are narrowest in about 500 N. lat.
Gerardi Mercatoris et f. Hondii Atlas. Amsterdam, Johan
Jannson und Henricus Hondius. MDCXXXIII. (Kon. Oef.
Bib. Dresden). In German. Colored Maps. In the map "Tar-
taris " the "Anian Fretum " extends between about 550 to 620
N. lat. with "Americae Pars" on one side, and "Tenduc, Reg-
num in quo Christiani regnabant anno 1290" on the other. The
portion of America on the map distincdy resembles Alaska.
A Chronological History of the Voyages into the Arctic
Regions, by John Barrow (London, John Murray, 1818)
appendix, No. II. Barrow gives the narrative of the discovery
of the Strait of Anian by Captain Lorenzo Ferrer Maldonado
in the year 1588.
J 4
exclusive jurisdiction for Russia in the waters of
Bering Sea and a large part of the northern portion
of the Pacific Ocean, he extended also at the same
time the territorial claims of Russia from the fifty-
fifth degree, as claimed by the Ukase of 1799
issued by the Emperor Paul, down to the fifty-first
degree of north latitude. Against the claims of
sovereignty on both land and sea asserted in the
Ukase of 1821 by the Muscovite Empire, both the
American and the English Governments entered
energetic protests. The differences between the
United States and Russia were amicably arranged
by treaty in 1824. On April 5/17 of that year,
Mr. Middleton, the United States Minister at Saint
Petersburg, concluded with Count Nesselrode and
M. de Poletica a convention which recognized the
free navigation of the Northern Pacific Ocean, and
fixed the latitude of fifty-four degrees forty minutes
north as the line that should divide the "spheres
of influence " of the United States and Russia in
North West America. All below that parallel,
Russia agreed to leave to the United States to
contest with Great Britain, and all above it the
United States consented to leave to Russia to dispute with England.3
8 On this point see the memorandum that Mr. Middleton submitted to Count Nesselrode at the fourth conference which preceded the signature of the treaty. Fur Seal Arbitration : Volume V., page 268. THE TREATY OF   1825. 5
It was not until about a year later, after a long
and exhaustive series of negotiations, that the British and the Muscovite Governments finally settled
their conflicting territorial claims. And in those
negotiations the chief object that the English Government had in view was to obtain from the Muscovite Government a retraction of the claims of the
latter to absolute jurisdiction over Bering Sea and
part of the Pacific. By a treaty signed at Saint
Petersburg, February 16/28, 1825, by Count Nesselrode and Monsieur de Poletica, acting for Russia,
and Sir Stratford Canning, in behalf of Great Britain, the Muscoyite Government rescinded its claim
to sovereignty over a part of the high seas and
the two governments arranged for. a defimte~fron-
tier between their respective North American possessions. According to Articles three and four of
this treaty, this frontier was drawn from the Arctic
Ocean, along, the meridian of one hundred and
forty-one degrees west longitude to Mount Saint
Elias,   and   then   was   to   follow   the   crest   of  the
As the Fur Seal Arbitration will often be cited in the course
of this treatise, it is worth while to give here the full title: Fur
Seal Arbitration : Proceedings of the Tribunal of Arbitration
convened at Paris under the treaty between the United States of
America and Great Britain, concluded at Washington, February 29, 1893, for the Determination of questions between the
two governments concerning the jurisdictional rights of the
United States in the Waters of Bering Sea: Washington,
Government Printing Office ; 1895. THE  ALASKA  FRONTIER.
mountains running parallel to the coast, to the
head of the Portland Channel, and down that
sinuosity to the ocean in fifty-four degrees forty
minutes north latitude. But if at any point the
crest of the mountains proved to be at a greater
distance than ten marine leagues from the shore,
then the frontier should run parallel to the sinuosities of the coast at a distance of ten marine
leagues inland, but never further than that from
the shore.4    (See Map No. 2.)
* Owing to the importance of the French text, which the British
Government in its printed argument in the Bering Sea Seal Fisheries Case {Fur Seal Arbitration, Volume IV., page 500) recognized as the official version, and the fact that French is the
diplomatic language of the world, which was probably much
more the case in 1825 than to-day, the French version is given
here in parallel columns with the English translation of the most
important articles.
"Article III.
" La ligne de demarcation entre
les possessions des Hautes Parties
Contractantes sur la c6te du continent et les lies de 1' Amerique nord-
ouest, sera tracee ainsi qu'il suit:
"A partir du point le plus meridional de l'lledite Prince of Wales
lequel point se trouve sous le par-
allele du 54e degr6 40 minutes de
latitude nord, et entre le 1316 et le
i33e degre* de longitude ouest (m^-
ridien de Greenwich), la dite ligne
remontera au nord le long de la
passe dite Portland Channel, jus-
qu'au point de la terre ferme ou
elle atteint le 56s degre* de latitude
nord; de ce dernier point la ligne
de demarcation suivra la cr6te des
montagnes situ^es paralldlement a
"Article 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 northwest, 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 fifty-
four degrees forty minutes north
latitude, and between the one hundred and thirty-first and the one
hundred and thirty-third 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 Prepared in the Office of tke U. S. Coast and Geodetic Survey.    Treasury Department.
United States and English Boundary Claims.
MAP No. 2.
For more than half a century the British Empire
la c6te, jusqu'au point d'intersec-
tion du i4ie degre de longitude
ouest (meme me*ridien), et, finale-
ment, du dit point d'intersection, la
m£me ligne m^ridienne de 141" degre* formera, dans son prolonge-
ment jusqu'a la Mer Glaciale, la
limite entre les possessions Russes
et Britanniques sur le continent de
l'Am6rique nord-ouest.
"Article IV.
" II est entendu, par rapport a la
ligne de demarcation determined
dans P Article precedent :
"i°. Que Pile dite Prince of
Wales appartiendra toute enti&re
a la Russie.
" 20. Que partout oil la crete
des montagnesqui s'etendent dans
une direction parall&le a la c6te
depuis le 56" degre de latitude
nord au point d'intersection du
1419 degre de longitude ouest, se
trouveroit a la distance de plus de
10 lieues marines de l'ocean, la
limite entre les possessions Britanniques et la lisiere de c6te men-
tionnee ci-dessus comme devant
appartenir a la Russie, seraformee
par une ligne paraltele aux sinu-
osites de la c6te, et qui ne poura
jamais en etre eioignee que de 10
lieues marines."
strikes the fifty sixth 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 one
hundred and forty-first degree of
west longitude (of the same meridian) ; and, finally, from the said
point of intersection, the said meridian line of the one hundred and
forty-first 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
"Article IV.
"With reference to the line of
demarcation laid down in the preceding Article, it is understood:
"First. That the island called
Prince of Wales Island shall belong wholly to Russia.
"Second. That, wherever the
summit of the mountains which
extend in a direction parallel to
the coast, from the fifty-sixth degree of north latitude to the point
of intersection of the one hundred
and forty-first 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 [sinuos-
itSs"\ of the coast, and which shall
never exceed the distance of ten
marine leagues therefrom." THE  ANGLO-RUSSIAN   NEGOTIATIONS. 9
never contejj;eJjtjie^nterpr^
by both the Muscovite and t,heTUjiited StatesGovern-
ments that under Articles three and four of the treaty
of 1825, first Russia and later—after the cession of
Russian America or Alaska in 1867 to the American
Union—the United States were entitled to a strip of
territory or lisiere on the mainland from the Portland
Channel or Canp*ljri|;he south up to Mount Saint
Elias in thejiorth so as to cut off absolutely the,
British possessions from access to the sea above tjjg
point of fifty-four degrees forty minutes. In August,
1898, for the firsjt time, the British Empire Jbrmally
claimed at the Quebec Conference that theproper
reading of those two articles entitled Canada to jthe
upper part of most or all of the fiords between the
Portland Canal and Mount Saint Elias.5 (See Map
No. 2.)
A review of the negotiations during the years 1822,
1823, 1824 and 1825 between Count Nesselrode and
M. de Poletica in behalf of Russia, and first of Sir
Concerning the importance of French as the language of diplomacy, see:
Regies Internationales et Diplomatie de la Mer par Theodore
Ortolan, capitaine de Fregate, Chevalier de la 1' Lggion d' Hon-
neur: Second edition, Paris, 1853, Volume I., page no.
Pricis du Droit des Gens moderns de V Europe par G. F.
Martens: Paris, 1804, Volume II., §179, page 25.
6The Alaskan Boundary by the Hon. John W. Foster: The
National Geographic Magazine, November, 1899, Washington,
page 453- p
Charles Bagot and afterwards of Mr. Stratford Canning, later Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, for Great Britain, shows clearly that the agreement^finally reached
as embodied in the treaty of 1825 was intended to exclude the British North American territory from all
access to the sea above the point of fifty-four degrees
forty minutes. From the very inception of the negotiations, the Russians insisted upon the possession for
Russia of a strip or lisiere on the mainland from the
Portland Canal up to Mount Saint Elias expressly
to shut off England from access to the sea at all
points north of the Portland Canal. Sir Charles
Bagot, on behalf of England, fought strenuously to
keep open a free outlet to the sea as far north above
the line of fifty-four degrees forty minutes as possible.
(See map No. 3.) First he proposed that the line
of territorial demarcation between the two countries
should run "through Chatham Strait to the head of
Lynn Canal, thence northwest to the 140th degree of
longitude west of Greenwich, and thence along that
degree of longitude to the Polar Sea."6 To this
Count Nesselrode and M. de Poletica replied with
a contre-projet in which they proposed that the
frontier line, beginning at the southern end of
Prince of Wales Island, should ascend the Portland Canal up to the mountains, that then from
that point it should follow the  mountains  parallel
eFur Seal Arbitration, Volume IV., page 424. Prepared in the Office of the U. S. Coast and Geodetic Survey.    Treasury Department.
Sir C. Bagot's Three Proposed Boundaries, 1824.
MAP No. 3. 12
to the sinuosities of the coast up to the one hundred and thirty-ninth degree of longitude west from
Greenwich, and then follow that degree of longitude
to the north.7
At the next conference Sir Charles Bagot gave
Count Nesselrode and M. de Poletica a written modification of his first proposition. In this new proposal he first stated that the frontier that they demanded would deprive Great Britain of sovereignty
over all the anses and small bays that lie between
the fifty-sixth degree and the fifty-fourth degree
forty minutes8 of latitude; that owing to the proximity of these fiords and estuaries to the interior
posts of the Hudson's Bay Company, they would
be of essential importance to the commerce of that
Company; while on the other hand, the Russian
American Company had posts neither on the mainland between those degrees of latitude, nor even on
the neighboring islands. Sir Charles proposed that
the line of separation should pass through " the middle of the canal that separates Prince of Wales Island
and Duke of York Island from all the islands situated to the north of the said islands until it [the line]
touches the mainland." Then advancing in the same
direction to the east for ten marine leagues, the line
JFur Seal Arbitration, Volume IV., page 427.
8 In the American edition, Fur Seal Arbitration, Volume IV.,
page 428 "45'" is printed ; this is certainly a typographical error
should then ascend towards the north and northwest, at a distance of ten marine leagues from the
shore, following the sinuosities of the coast up to
the one hundred and fortieth degree of longitude
west from Greenwich and then up to the north.9
At the succeeding conference the Russian plenipotentiaries again insisted upon their original proposal
that the frontier line should ascend the Portland
Canal and then follow the mountains bordering the
coast line.
Sir Charles Bagot then brought forward a third
boundary line that, passing up Duke of Clarence
Sound and then running from west to east along the
strait separating Prince of Wales Island and Duke
of York Island to the north, should then advance
to the north and the north-west in the way already
But again the Russian diplomats insisted on their
original proposition. On April 17th, 1824,11 Count
Nesselrode addressed to Count Lieven, the Russian
Ambassador at London, a long and exhaustive review of the negotiations with Sir Charles Bagot, and
instructed Count Lieven to press the Russian views
upon the English Cabinet.    In that communication,
9 Fur Seal Arbitration, Volume IV, page 428.
10 Fur Seal Arbitration, Volume IV., page 430.
11 Fur Seal Arbitration, Volume IV., page 399. In the American edition this letter is dated 1823, but as the context shows, it
should be 1824. H
after speaking of Russia's declaration at the beginning of the negotiations that she would not insist
upon the claim to the territory down to the fifty-
first degree put forward in the Ukase of 1821, and
that she would be content to maintain the limits
assigned to Russian America by the Ukase of i799>
he wentojx-to say "that consequently the line of
the fifty-fifth degree of north latitude, would constitute upon the south the frontier of the States of
His Imperial Majesty, that upon the continent and
towards the east, this frontier could run along the
mountains that follow the sinuosities of the coast
up to Mount Saint Elias, and that from that point
up to the Arctic Ocean we would fix the limits of
the respective possessions according to the line of
the one hundred and fortieth degree of longitude
west from Greenwich.
" In  order  not to  cut  Prince  of   Wales  Island, 1
which according to this arrangement should belong \
to Russia, we proposed to carry the southern fron- 1
tier of our domains to the fifty-fourth  degree for- 1
tieth minute of latitude and to make it reach the
coast of the continent at the Portland Canal whose
mouth  opening  on  the  ocean is at  the  height of
Prince of Wales Island and whose origin is in the
lands  between   the  fifty-fifth  degree  and  fifty-sixth
degree of latitude."
Russia, by limiting her demands to those set forth   \
in the Ukase of 1799, simply defended claims against NESSELRODE  TO  LIEVEN,   1824. 15
which, for over twenty years, neither England nor |
any other power had ever made a protest.    England,
on the contrary, sought to establish her right to ter- j
ritory which she had  thus passively recognized as
Russian, and  which lay beyond any of her settlements.    Count Nesselrode contrasted the policy of
the two states in the pithy sentence: " Thus we wish ;
to retain, and  the English Companies wish to ac- I
The negotiators were thus brought face to face
with their rival claims. The Russians insisted, on
the one hand, that they must have possession of a
lisiere or strip of territory on the mainland in order
to support the Russian establishments on the islands
and to prevent the Hudson's Bay Company from
having access to the sea and forming posts and settlements upon the coast line opposite to the Russian ,
Islands; while Sir Charles Bagot maintained, on the
other hand, that Great Britain must have such part
of the coast and inlets north of fifty-four degrees
forty minutes as would enable the English Companies and the settlements back from the coast to
have free access to the fiords and estuaries opening into the ocean.
After a few months, Mr. George Canning, the
English Foreign Secretary, instructed Sir Charles
Bagot to agree to the Portland Canal as part of the
frontier line; but with the reservation, first, that the
eastern line of demarcation should be so defined as 16
to guard against any possibility, owing to subsequent
geographical discoveries, that it could be drawn at
a greater distance from the coast than ten marine
leagues, and second, that the harbor of Novo-Arch-
angelsk (now Sitka) and the rivers and creeks on
the continent should remain open forever to British
During the course of the new negotiations between Count Nesselrode and M. de Poletica in
behalf of Russia, and of Sir Charles Bagot for England, the second of these two points was the main
object of discussion. Sir Charles was unable to conclude a treaty with the Russian diplomats, for the
latter refused to agree to open forever the port 'of
Novo-Archangelsk to British commerce. Neither
were they willing to grant to the subjects of England the right forever to navigate and trade along
the coast of the lisiere that it was proposed Russia
should have. The British Ambassador, realizing that
it was impossible for him to negotiate a treaty in
accordance with his instructions, soon thereafter left
Saint Petersburg.
In the latter part of the year 1824, Great Britain
appointed Mr. Stratford Canning, later Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, one of the ablest of her diplomats,
to continue the negotiations left unfinished between
Sir Charles Bagot, and Count Nesselrode and M. de
Poletica. When Canning took up the negotiations,
Great Britain had receded from all her contentions THE  MOTIVE  OF  ENGLAND. 17
except as to the width of the lisiere.   In his instruc- i
tions  he  received  power  to  arrange  for a line of f
demarcation that should run along the crest of the 1
mountains, except where the mountains were more
than  ten  marine leagues from the shore, in which I
case the frontier should follow, at a distance of ten I
marine leagues inland, the sinuosities of the shore. ;
With these new instructions, Stratford Canning was 1
able to conclude a treaty to which Sir Charles Bagot
could not have agreed.    And on the 16/28 of Feb- f
ruary  1825,  Stratford Canning on behalf of Great!
Britain and Count Nesselrode and   M. de Poletica \
for Russia, signed a treaty definitely dividing Can-  '
ada and Russian America.
George Canning, towards the end of his instructions to Stratford Canning", showed what was the
chief motive of England in the pending negotiations with Russia.    He wrote:
" 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. m
" We negotiate about territory to cover the remonstrance upon principle.
" But any attempt to take undue advantage of
this voluntary facility, we must oppose."12
Thus the chief concern of the English Government was to obtain from that of Russia an official
disclaimer of the assertion in the Ukase of 1821 that
the waters of Bering Sea and parts of the northern Pacific were exclusively Russian waters. Russia
would not assent tol formally recognize the right of
English ships freely to navigate those seas, unless
the boundary question was also arranged, and settled
so as to insure to Russia an unbroken lisiere from
the Portland Canal up to Mount Saint Elias. And
on this last point, England, after a long and stubborn resistance, finally yielded.
Much of the trouble that the negotiators of the
Anglo-Muscovite treaty of 1825 had in agreeing
upon the eastern boundary of the lisiere was due
to a lack of knowledge respecting the mountains
along the northwest American coast. According to
Vancouver's chart (See Map No. 4), a Russian map
published in 1802 (See Map No. 5), and other available information a mountain range ran along the
coast not far from the sea.13  Wfien"'Stratford Canning
I Fur Seal Arbitration, Volume IV., page 448.
13 We know from the correspondence of Sir Charles Bagot that
the negotiators knew of the map of 1802. Fur Seal Arbitration, Volume IV., page 409. Vancouver's Chart of the Northwest Coast of America, copied from the
French Edition of 1799.
MAP No. 4. *ac&*
•4-d- &n /]
."—r~m—3:;'- *-~~" ™— ■.■.-«-.----<.
&sJt Qaulv~*+
... a •*v   rvy
4^1 "5a»
<*: C^d>e«ciAlV-~£jyr     >..
•J.Vto^*   i
Map published in 1802 by the Russian Quartermaster-General Department
at Saint Petersburg, now in the Library of Congress.
and Count Nesselrode   and  M. de   Poletica  finally
agreed   upon   the   mountain   divide  as  the  frontier
between the two nations, Canning, acting upon instructions from his cousin, George Canning, who was
British  Secretary   of Foreign  Affairs,  insisted   that
should the summit of the  mountains prove to be,
at any point, more than  ten  marine  leagues  from
the shore, then  the line of demarcation   should  be
drawn parallel to the sinuosities of the  shore at a
distance  of ten  marine  leagues.     This ten league
limit to the eastward was inserted on purpose, as
George Canning stated in his instructions to Strat-\
ford Canning to guard England against a possibility j
of having her territory pushed back to the eastward j
. a hundred miles or more from the sea in case the
crest of the mountains was found in reality to lie fan
back from the coast instead of close to it as was then \
The text of the treaty of 1825 is the crucial and
final statement of how the line of demarcation between Alaska and the Dominion of Canada should
be found.   A review of the pourparlers between the
Russian and the British representatives that culminated in the Anglo-Muscovite treaty of 1825 shows
clearly that the negotiators of that treaty intended}
to include within the Russian territory a lisiere ori \
the mainland, stretching from the Portland Channel j
or Canal in the south up to Mount Saint Elias in
the north; and extending between  those points far } 22
enough inland to exclude the English  possessions I
absolutely from access to the coast line above fifty- f
four degrees  forty  minutes.    Within  recent years |
some Canadians have tried to read into that agree-1
ment between Russia and England a meaning radi-1
cally different from the interpretation which all the}
world, including until a few years  since  even the .
Canadians  themselves,   understood.    Not   only  are
there within the text of the treaty itself expressions ■
and provisions that place beyond question the fact!
that Britain should not have an access to tide water
on the northwest coast above fifty-four forty;  but
also the whole course of history from 1825 until a
comparatively recent time  shows that the  authorities on the British side of the line thought so too.
And even as recently as August,  1901, the British
Government set the seal of its approval upon that
view of what the treaty of  1825  meant by  republishing Admiralty  Chart No. 787, upon  which  the
frontier is marked from the  head   of the  Portland
Canal and then up on the continent to Mount Saint
Elias so as  to  include  all  the sinuosities  in their
entirety within United States territory.     (See Map
No.  1.)
In the ten years succeeding the promulgation of
the  Anglo-Muscovite  treaty  of   1825,   the  Russian
government gave on several official maps a visual
interpretation of the meaning of Articles three and
four of the treaty.    During the same years, too, both EARLY  MAPS. 23
the Canadians and the   English also issued maps r
drawn  by   their   leading  cartographers.    All  these)
maps interpreted the eastern boundary of the Russian lisiere as described in the treaty of 1825, so as!
to  give  the   Muscovite  Empire  a   continuous, unbroken strip of land on the continent, extending far
enough inland  so as  to include all the sinuosities
above fifty-four forty within Russian territory.    Again
and  again  in   subsequent years  both  Canada and
England reaffirmed upon other maps, many of them
official  publications, the frontier as it was depicted
in the Russian maps.
In the year 1825, shortly after the treaty defining the frontier between Russian and British North
America became known, A. Brue, one of the leading French cartographers, published at Paris a map
entitled: " Carte de 1'Amerique Septentrionale; Re-
digee par A. Brue, Geographe du Roi; Atlas Uni-
versel, pi. 38." On this map Brue drew the boundary of Russian America on the continent from the
top of the Portland Canal at the distance of ten
marine leagues from tide water round all the sinuosities up to the one hundred and forty-first degree of longitude, and then along that meridian
to the north. Two years later, in 1827, the celebrated Russian admiral and navigator, A. J. de
Krusenstern, published at Saint Petersburg, "par
ordre de Sa Majeste Imperiale," a "Carte Gener-
ale de l'Ocean Pacifique, Hemisphere Boreal."    (See 24
map No. 6.) Krusenstern drew on the mainland the
frontier of Russian America from the top of the Portland Canal round the sinuosities of the shore at a
distance of ten marine leagues from tide water up
to the one hundred and forty-first degree of longitude and then northward along that meridian. Along
the line of the one hundred and forty-first degree is
inscribed, "Limites des Possessions Russes et Ang-
laises d' apres le Traite de 1825." Two years later,
in 1829, there appeared at Saint Petersburg a map of
the eastern extremity of Siberia and the north west
coast of America. This was map "No. 58" (b) " of
the "Atlas Geographique de l'Empire de Russie,"
etc., that was prepared by Functionary Piadischeff.
(See map No. 7.) On this map, Piadischeff drew the
Russo-British frontier from Mount Saint Elias down
to the top of the Pordand Canal and then along that
sinuosity down to the sea at fifty-four degrees forty
minutes,14 thereby shutting off Britain from access
to the sea above fifty-four degrees forty minutes.
14 The reproduction of map '' No. 58'' (see map No. 7) was
made from a copy of Piadischeff's Atlas now in the possession
of the writer that belonged to Prince Alexander of Hesse, the
brother of the Empress Alexander the Second of Russia. The
titles and nomenclature of the Atlas are given both in Russian and
French. The French title is : Atlas Geographique del'Empire
de Russie, du Royaume de Pologne et du Grand Duche de Fin-
lande * * * par le Fonctionnaire de la 6s Classe Piadischeff,
employe' au Dtpot Topographique militaire dans V Etat-Major de
Sa Majeste Impe~riale : Commend en 1820 et termini en 182 j,
revu et corrigZ en 1834.. Imperial Russian Map : " Dresse par M. de Krusenstern, Contre-Amiral * * *
MAP No. 6. "Carte G6n6rale * * * de la c6te N. W. (sic) de l'AmIsrique," prepared
at Saint Petersburg in 1829, by Functionary Piadischeff
"au D£p6t Topographique militaire."
Again on the map of Russian America in the
Atlas of the Russian Empire published by the
Russian War Office in the years 1830 to 1835, the
frontier of Alaska is marked as Krusenstern and
Piadischeff had drawn it.15    (See map No. 8.)
The British Government made no protest against
the way Krusenstern and Piadischeff had marked
the boundary. On the contrary, a few years later,!
in 1831, a map was prepared by Joseph Bouchette,
Jr., I Deputy Surveyor General of the Province of
Lower Canada," and published the same year at
London by James Wyld, geographer to the King,
and I with His Majesty's most gracious and special
permission most humbly and gratefully dedicated
* * * to His Most Excellent Majesty King William IVth * * * compiled from the latest and
most approved astronomical observations, authorities, and recent surveys."    It reaffirmed the bound-
Map 1 No. 6ou (a) " of this atlas is entitled, " Carte Generate
de 1'Empire de Russie," etc. This is a map of the whole Russian
Empire in 1829, and in the left hand lower corner the boundary
of the Russian American lisiere is given as on map "No. 58."
Charles Sumner used this general map of the Empire, "No. 60," in
preparing his speech in support of the purchase of Alaska in 1867.
The copy that he had is now in the Harvard University Library.
16 Atlas of the Russian Empire. (In Russian.) Map No. 8 is
reproduced from "Map No. 63" of a copy of this atlas, now
in the possession of the writer, which belonged originally to
Count Dimitry Petrowitsch Severin, at one time Minister Plenipotentiary of the Emperor of Russia to the King of Bavaria. 63
Map of Russian America published in the years 1830-1835 by the
Russian War Office.
MAP No.  8. Canadian Map of 1831: " Compiled   *   *   *   by Joseph Bouchette, Jr.,
Deputy Surveyor General of the Province of Lower Canada."
MAP No. 9. 3°
ary as given upon Krusenstern's Imperial map.
(See Map No. 9.) Duflot de Mofras, who was an
attache of the French Legation to Mexico, gives
upon his map of the western coast of America,
published in 1844, the same frontier line between
the two empires.16 (See Map No. 10.) Again in
a " Narrative of a Journey Round the World,
during the years 1841 and 1842, by Sir George
Simpson, Governor-in-chief of the Hudson's Bay
Company's Territories in North America" published at London in 1847,17 a maP m volume one,
showing the author's route, gives the line of demarcation between the Russian and the English territories as it was laid down by Krusenstern in his
map of 1827.    (See map No. 11.)
Likewise on the map prepared by Captain Tebenkoff of the Imperial Russian Navy, which was published in 1849 (see Map No. 12), and on an English
map to accompany S. S. Hill's Travels in Siberia,
published at London in 1854 (see Map No. 13), the
frontier of the Alaskan lisiere is given as Krusenstern and Piadischeff drew it.
Three years later, in 1857, an investigation into the
16 The title of de Mofras's map is: Carte de la cdte de V Amirique
sur V oc&an Pacifique septentrional * * * dressS par Mr'
Duflot de Mofras, Attach^ cl la Ligation de France a Mexico
pour servir a V intelligence de son Voyage d' exploration, public
par ordre du Roi   *   *   *    Paris, 184.4.
17 London; Henry Colburn, 1847 : there is a copy in the British
Museum. B g» B £i
Map of Duflot de Mofras,
'Publife par ordre du Roi, sous les Auspices de M. le President du Conseil des Ministres et
de M. le Ministre des Affaires Etrangferes, Paris, 1844."
MAP No. IO. Map in " Narrative of a Journey Round the World,"
by Sir George Simpson, London, 1847.
MAP No. 11. Map prepared by Captain Tebenkoff, of the Imperial Russian Navy, 1849.
MAP  NO.   12. <f ***-     .   T o
§J4fov    ^SJCet,'-**Qb~&:    ..     ^%SK » "^   ife
*^ ^^^*
1       —r-
' l.i        —r
JKan> Em**?  0 V
Map of the Russian Empire to accompany Hill's Travels, 1854.
affairs of the Hudson's Bay Company was held by
a special committee of the House of Commons. At
that investigation, Sir George Simpson, who was examined, presented a map of the territory in question,
and, speaking for the Company, said: I There is a
margin of coast, marked yellow on the map, from
540 40' up to Cross Sound, which we have rented
from the Russian Company." (See Map No. 14.)
This map shows that the strip of land on the continent extended far enough inland to include all
the sinuosities of the coast so as to exclude, according to the United States claims, the British
territory altogether from any outlet upon salt water
above fifty-four degrees forty minutes.
Also on a Russian Imperial map published in
1861 (see Map No. 15), the Russian Government
again claimed, without calling forth any protest from
the British Government, for its American possessions
an eastern frontier identical with that it had asserted
soon after the treaty of 1825 upon the maps of Krusenstern and Piadischeff.
John Arrowsmith's map of the Provinces of British Columbia and Vancouver Island, published at
London in 1864, gives eloquent testimony of what
English cartographers thought was the eastern
boundary of the Russian lisiere a year or two before
the Emperor Alexander the Second sold Russian
America to the United States (See Map No. 16).
By a number of overt acts, too, the British Empire   Arrowsmith's Map of the Provinces of British Columbia and Vancouver Island, 1864.
recognized the right of Russia to a continuous lisiere
on the continental shore above fifty-four degrees forty
minutes. One of these acts, for example, was the
case of the British brig Dryad.
In June 1834, notwithstanding that by Article six j
of the treaty of 182518 the Muscovite and the British I
Governments had agreed that British traders should f
have the right forever to navigate freely all rivers j
crossing the  Russian  lisiere, the   Russians   turned
back, near   the   entrance of the  Stikine River, the
British brig Dryad while on its way to establish a
trading post in  the interior  on  the  Stikine  River
above the  limit of Russian territory.    Sailing from
Vancouver, the Dryad, after passing through Clarence Strait, reached near the north end of Wrangell
Island, the Russian post, called Fort Saint Dionis-
sievsky, at the mouth of the Stikine  River.    When
the  Dryad arrived   off the Russian fort, the commander of the English expedition, Mr. Ogden, who
18 "Article VI.
" II est entendu que les sujets de
Sa Majeste Britannique, de quel-
que c6te qu'ils arrivent, soit de
l'ocean, soit de l'interieur du continent, jouiront a perpetuity du
droit de naviguer librement, et
sans entrave quelconque, sur tous
les fleuves et rivieres qui, dans
leurs cours vers la Mer Pacifique,
traverseront la ligne de demarcation sur la lisiere de la c6te indi-
quee dans l'Article III. de la pres-
ente Convention."
"Article VI.
"It is understood that the subjects of His Britannic Majesty, from
whatever quarter they may arrive,
whether from the ocean, or from
the interior of the continent, shall
forever enjoy the right of navigating reely, and without any hindrance whatever, all the rivers and
streams which, in their course towards the Pacific Ocean, may cross
the line of demarkation upon the
line of coast described in article
three of the present convention." 4o
had to use row boats to send on his expedition to
its intended destination up the river, asked the
Russian commander, Lieutenant Larembo, for permission to proceed. But this the Muscovite officer
refused, basing his reply on the eleventh article of
the treaty of 1825.19 Mr. Ogden then proceeded
to Novo-Arkhangelsk, where he discussed the matter with Baron Wrangell. But the latter refused
his consent to the proposed settlement. Thereupon
the Dryad returned, and Mr. Ogden reported to
his Company what had happened. The Hudson's
Bay Company lodged, for the losses it had suffered,
a complaint with the British Government against the
Russian-American Company, and claimed twenty-one
thousand pounds sterling or about one hundred and
thirty-five thousand roubles damages.
During several years the Muscovite and the British
Governments exchanged many communications on
the subject.    Finally Lord Palmerston pressed upon
19        "Article XI.
" Dans tous les cas de plaintes
relatives a l'infraction des Articles
de la presente Convention, les au-
torites 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 1'aflfaire et de ses circonstances
a leurs Cours respectives, lesquel-
les s'engagent a la r£gler a l'ami-
able, et d'apres les principes d'une
parfaite justice."
"Article XI.
"In every case of complaint on
account of an 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." THE  DRYAD.
the attention of the Russian Government that in 1834
the term of ten years granted in Article seven of f
the  treaty of 182520 to English subjects and ships j
freely   to  navigate  and  trade   along  the  estuaries
of the  Russian  lisiere  had not  expired  when  the I
officers of the  Russian American Company turned
back the Dryad in 1834.    Lord Palmerston also insisted  that, as  by the  terms  of Article six of the 1
treaty   of   1825, the  English   were  guaranteed  the
free   navigation   of all  the  rivers   {fleuves)   which,
taking their rise in British territory, crossed the Rus-i
sian domains, the  Russian  colonial  authorities had
transgressed their powers in causing the Dryad expedition  to  turn  back.    The  Russian  Government
was thus hard pressed upon this question, especially
by the latter argument of Lord Palmerston.    Finally,
with the full consent of Count Nesselrode and Lord
Palmerston, Baron Wrangell, on behalf of the Russian-American Company, and Sir George Simpson,
20      "Article VII.
" II est aussi entendu que, pendant l'espace de dix ans, a dater
de la signature de cette Convention, les vaisseaux des deux Puissances, ou ceux appartenant a
leurs sujets respectifs, pourront
reciproquement frequenter, sans
entravequelconque, toutes les mers
interieures, les golfes, havres, et
criques sur la c6te mentionnde
dans 1'Article III, afin d'y faire la
p6che et le commerce avec les indigenes."
"Article 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
three for the purposes of fishing
and of trading with the natives." 42
acting for the Hudson's Bay Company, met in Hamburg in the early part of 1839 for the purpose of
amicably arranging the incident. After a few days'
negotiations, these eminent representatives of their
respective companies made an agreement with a view
to settle not only all past differences, but also to
eliminate all chances of future difficulties. For this
purpose, they agreed on February 6th, 1839, that for
a term of ten years beginning the 1st of June, 1840,
the Russian American Company should lease to the
Hudson's Bay Company all of the lisiere, including
Fort Saint Dyonissievsky extending from Cape Spencer at Cross Bay and the Mount of Good Hope down to
fifty-four forty. The Hudson's Bay Company was to
relinquish all claims for damages against the Russian
Company, and was to pay as rent to the latter two
thousand Columbian sea-otter skins. This agreement was renewed in 1849 for ten years and in 1859
for two or three years more, and again in 1862 for
three years, and finally was extended to 1867.21
21 Tikhmenief's Historical Review of the Development of the
Russian American Company and of its operations up to the present time. Saint Petersburg, 1861. (In Russian.) Volume I.,
page 264 et seq.
Parliamentary Papers, 1857.
Accounts a—Rep. XV.
Report from the Select Committee on the Hudson's Bay Company together with the proceedings of the Committee, minutes
of evidence, Appendix and Index. Ordered, by the House of
Commons, to be printed 31 July and 11 August, 1857. LEASE  OF  THE  LISIERE. 43
The first article of the lease of the lisiere by the
Russian American Company to the Hudson's Bay
Company was in these terms:
I Article I. It is agreed that the Russian American Company, having the sanction of the Russian
Government to that effect, shall cede or lease to the
Hudson's Bay Company for a term of ten years, commencing from the first of June, 1840, for commercial
Second Session, 1857.
Veneris, 8 "die maii, 1857.
Ordered, That a Select Committee be appointed '' to consider
the state of those British Possessions in North America which
are under the Administration of the Hudson's Bay Company,
or over which they possess a License to Trade," (page II.),
pages 59, 91.
Fur Seal Arbitration, Volume II.; Appendix to the Case of
the United States, Volume I., 1892, page 10.
Memorandum relative to the treaties of 1824 and 1825.
Memorandum of Baron Wrangell.
Memorandum of the Russian American Company concerning
the Dryad incident.
Report of the Board of the Russian American Company concerning the case of the Dryad, November 14, 1835.
Letter of Count Nesselrode to Count Kankrin, December 12th,
Letter of Sir George Simpson to Baron Wrangell.
Letter of Count Nesselrode to Count Kankrin, December 9th,
Report of the Board of the Russian-American Company, December 20th, 1838.
Text of Agreement between the Russian American Company
and the Hudson's Bay Company, signed at Hamburg, February
6th, 1839.
Letter of Baron Wrangell to Sir George Simpson, 1839. 44
purposes, the coast (exclusive of the islands) and the
interior country belonging to His Majesty the Emperor of Russia, situated between Cape Spencer,
forming the northwest headland of the entrance of
Cross Sound and latitude 540 40' or thereabouts, say
the whole mainland coast and interior country belonging to Russia, together with the free navigation
and trade of the waters of that coast and interior
country situated to the southward and eastward of a
supposed line to be drawn from the said Cape Spencer to Mount Fairweather, with the sole and entire
trade or commerce thereof, and that the Russian
American Company shall abandon all and every
station and trading establishment they now occupy
on that coast, and in the interior country already
described, and shall not form any station or trading
establishment during the said term of ten years, nor
send their officers, servants, vessels, or craft of any
description for the purposes of trade into any of the
bays, inlets, estuaries, rivers, or lakes in that line of
coast and in that interior country. It shall neither
have any trading relations with the Indians living on
that coast or inland, nor shall receive as traffic, or in
any other manner furs, skins, or any other products
of the aforementioned coast and continent. And in
good faith and in a literal sense we cede and give
up to the Hudson's Bay Company all trading and
barter on the aforesaid strips of land and will protect the Hudson's Bay Company during ten years by LEASE  OF  THE   LISIERE.
every possible means, in case any other Russian
subject or foreigner might prevent or injure the
Company in its trade, inasmuch as if the coast
and continent were not ceded, but were occupied
by the Russian-American Company itself. And that
the Russian-American Company will allow the Hudson's Bay Company to take and keep possession of
the Russian redoubts on Cape Highfield, near the
estuary of Stikine, and also to occupy other points
of the aforesaid coast and continent, by establishment of other trading stations, according to their
own wish. And in case this treaty should not be
renewed after the expiration of a term of ten years,
it is agreed, that the Hudson's Bay Company delivers to the Russian-American Company the aforementioned post on Cape Highfield, as well as all
other posts, which the Company will in this lapse of
time establish in the limits of the aforementioned
Russian dominion. In return for these concessions
and this protection and in consideration of the commercial advantages the Hudson's Bay Company may
have therefrom, it is agreed that the Company will
pay yearly or deliver to the Russian-American Company, in form of a rental, two thousand otters—
(not counting those with torn and damaged skins)
—taken on the east side of the Stone ridge, during ten years ,* the first rental payment of the
2000 skins of otters is to begin on June ist or
before  1841, and is to be delivered to  the  agents 46 THE  ALASKA  FRONTIER.
of the Russian-American Company on the Northeast coast."
By article ninth of this agreement, the Hudson's
Bay Company relinquished all its claim for damages against the Russian-American Company in
these terms:
"The Hudson's Bay Company shall relinquish
their claim now pending on the Russian Government, the Russian American Company, or whoever
else it may concern, for injury and damage said to
be sustained by the Hudson's Bay Company arising
from the obstruction presented by the Russian
authorities on the North-West coast of America to
an expedition belonging to the Hudson's Bay Company at the entrance of the river Stakine on the
North-West coast of America in the year eighteen
hundred and thirty-four, outfitted and equipped by
the Hudson's Bay Company for the purpose of forming a commercial station in the interior British territory on the banks of the said Stakine river."
It was clearly understood at the time that Sir
George Simpson and Baron Wrangell made the
agreement whereby the American Company leased
the lisiere to the English Company, that owing to
this strip or lisiere, the territories of the Hudson's
Bay Company were shut off from access to tidewater.
This is proved absolutely by the testimony that Sir
George Simpson gave himself in 1857—he was for
thirty-seven years Governor of the Hudson's Bay Com- SIR  GEORGE  SIMPSON S  TESTIMONY.
pany—before a " Select Committee "22 of the House
of Commons of the British Parliament which was appointed "to consider the state of those British Possessions in North America which are under the Administration of the Hudson's Bay Company, or over
which they possess a License to Trade." The Committee consisted of nineteen members in all, among
whom were Mr. Secretary Labouchere, the chairman,
Lord John Russell, Lord Stanley, Mr. Edward Ellice,
a native of Canada and a Director of the Hudson's
Bay Company, Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Roebuck and Sir
John Pakington. Part of Sir George Simpson's testimony was as follows :
11026. Besides your own territory, I think you
administer a portion of the territory which belongs
to Russia, under some arrangement with the Russian
Company?—There  is   a   margin  of  coast   marked
22 Parliamentary Papers, 1857.
Accounts a—Rep. XV.
Report from the Select Committee on the Hudson's Bay Company together with the proceedings of the Committee, minutes
of evidence, Appendix and Index. Ordered, by the House of
Commons, to be printed 31 July and 11 August, 1857.
Second Session, 1857.
Veneris, 8°diemaii, 1857.
Ordered, That a Select Committee be appointed "to consider
the state of those British Possessions  in North America which
are under the Administration of the Hudson's Bay Company, or
over which they possess a License to Trade," (page II.).
yellow in the map from 540 40' up to Cross Sound,
which we have rented from the Russian American
Company for a term of years.
"1027. Is that the whole of that strip?—The strip
goes to Mount Saint Elias.
"1028. Where does it begin ?—Near Fort Simpson, in latitude 540; it runs up to Mount Saint Elias,
which is further north.
"1029. Is it the whole of that strip which is included between the British territory and the sea ?—
We have only rented the part between Fort Simpson
and Cross Sound.
" 1030. What is the date of that arrangement?—
That arrangement, I think, was entered into about
1839. n
" 1031. WThat are the terms upon which it was
made; do you pay a rent for that Land ?—The
British territory runs along inland from the coast
about 30 miles; the Russian territory runs along
the coast; we have the right of navigation through
the rivers to hunt the interior country. A misunderstanding existed upon that point in the first instance ; we were about to establish a post upon one
of the rivers, which led to very serious difficulties
between the Russian-American Company and ourselves ; we had a long correspondence, and, to guard
against the recurrence of these difficulties, it was
agreed that we should lease this margin of coast,
and pay them a rent; the rent, in the first instance, SIR   GEORGE  SIMPSON'S  TESTIMONY. 49
in otters; I think we gave 2,000 otters a year; it is
now converted into money; we give, I think, 1500^
a year."
It will be observed from  the foregoing questions
and the replies of Sir George Simpson, that the Hud- |
son's Bay Company in 1839 recognized by an official \
act, to wit, a lease of Russian territory, that Russia j
had a lisiere on  the  continent  from   Mount  Saint  1
Elias almost down to Fort Simpson, and that owing 1
to this strip of land the British territory was pushed  |
back about thirty miles " inland from the coast."    In
addition it will  be noted that Sir  George Simpson
in describing the  positions and extent of the land
rented by his Company from the Russian company,
referred to a map (see map No. 14) that he showed
the committee, and upon which the lisiere belonging
to Russia was marked so as to include the sinuosities of the coast, the Lynn Canal and all the other
fiords above fifty-four degrees forty minutes, entirely,
and so cutting off the British territory absolutely from
all contact with tide water.
More than that, owing to the community of interest of both companies in the peaceful development of the fur trade brought about by the lease
and its renewal, General Politkovsky, a director of
the Russian American Company, addressed, early
in 1854—when it seemed likely that the strained
relations between Russia and England would result    in    actual   war   between   them—a    note   on
behalf of the Russian American Company to
Privy Counsellor L. G. Seniavin, of the Russian Foreign Office. In this communication, he pointed out
that in case of war with England, the posts and property of the company in America would be liable to
capture and destruction; and that, as the Hudson's
Bay Company was likewise in an exposed position on
the northwest American coast, it would be to the
mutual interest of the two companies to obtain
the consent of their respective Governments to
agree to recognize the possessions of both companies along the northwest American coast as
neutral territory in case of hostilities. General Po-
litkovsky requested, therefore, for his company,
authority to enter into correspondence with the authorities of the Hudson's Bay Company upon this
subject. Towards the end of January the Emperor
Nicholas approved of this proposition. Accordingly,
the management of the Russian American Company
communicated with that of the Hudson's Bay Company. This latter company thought likewise that it
was for its best interest that the fur trade should
go on without the interruption that war would
cause. And the management of the Hudson's Bay
Company, therefore, urged upon the attention of the
British Government the plan of neutrality proposed
by the Russian American Company. About the middle of March, 1854, the British Government gave its
approval to a territorial neutrality along the north- AGREEMENT  OF  NEUTRALITY,   1854-56. 5 I
west American coast, provided the Russian Government reciprocated. But the British Government reserved the right to stop all ships on the high seas,
and to blockade the coast. After some further correspondence on the subject between the two Companies, and between them and their respective Governments, the neutralization of the territoral possessions of both companies along the northwest American coast was satisfactorily arranged. And this
agreement of neutrality, sanctioned by both Governments, was loyally carried out during the period of
the Crimean War.28
28 Letter of General Politkovsky of the Russian American Company to Privy Counsellor L. G. Seniavin of the Russian Foreign
Office, January 14, 1854.
Letter of Privy Counsellor Seniavin to General Politkovsky,
January 25, 1854.
Letter of H. U. Addington of the British Foreign Office, March
22, 1854.
Letter of Sir A. Colvill, Governor of the Hudson's Bay Company, to the management of the Russian American Company,
March 24, 1854.
Letter of Privy Counsellor Seniavin to General Politkovsky,
March 31st, 1854.
Letter of Mr. Hilferding to the Consul General at London,
April 1st, 1854-
Letter of John Shepherd, Deputy Governor of the Hudson's
Bay Company, to the management of the Russian American
Testimony of Sir George Simpson before a Select Committee
of the House of Commons, 1857.
Parliamentary Papers, 1857.
Accounts a—Rep. XV.
Report from the Select Committee on the Hudson's Bay Com- 52
Thus by another official act the British Government recognized officially that the British territory
in North America was cut off above fifty-four forty
on the north west coast from access to tide water.
Independently of the fact that the lease was made
in 1839 to begin June 1st, 1840, and that it was
several times renewed, thus extending the agreement to 1867, when shortly thereafter Russia sold
Alaska to the United States, this arrangement between the two companies is proved by what took
place in the course of Sir George Simpson's examination in 1857 before a Committee of the House of
Commons. When the question of the lease in 1839
by the Hudson's Bay Company of the Russian lisiere
came up a second time during Sir George's examination, the following questions and answers were asked
and given :
"1732. Chairman. I think you made an arrangement with the Russian Company by which you hold
under a lease a portion of their territory ?—Yes.
pany together with the proceedings of the Committee, minutes of
evidence, Appendix and Index. Ordered, by the House of Commons, to be printed 31 July and 11 August, 1857.
Second Session, 1857.
Veneris, 8°diemaii, 1857.
Ordered, That a Select Committee be appointed "to consider
the state of those British Possessions in North America which are
under the Administration of the Hudson's Bay Company, or over
which they possess a License to Trade," sections 1738-1742. SIR  GEORGE  SIMPSON S  TESTIMONY.
" 1733. I believe that arrangement is that you hold
that strip of country which intervenes between your
territory and the sea, and that you give them 1500^ a
year for it ?—Yes.
" 1734- What were your objects in making that
arrangement?—To prevent difficulties existing between the Russians and ourselves; as a peace offering.
"1735. What was the nature of those difficulties?—We were desirous of passing through their
territory, which is inland from the coast about 30
miles. There is a margin of 30 miles of coast belonging to the Russians. We had the right of navigating the rivers falling into the ocean, and of settling the interior country. Difficulties arose between
us in regard to the trade of the country, and to
remove all those difficulties we agreed to give them
an annual allowance. I think, in the first instance,
2000 otter skins, and afterwards 1500^ a year.
" 1738. During the late war [the Crimean] which
existed between Russia and England, I believe that
some arrangement was made between you and the
Russians by which you agreed not to molest one
another ?—Yes, such an arrangement was made.
"1739. By the two companies?—Yes; and Government confirmed the arrangement.
" 1740. You agreed that on neither side should
there be any molestation or interference with the
trade of the different parties ?—Yes. 54
"i 741. And I believe that that was strictly observed during the whole war?—Yes.
" 1742. Mr. Bell. Which Government confirmed
the arrangement, the Russian or the English, or
both ?—Both Governments."
This additional  information shows that the Eng- *
lish  Company rented the lisiere from the Russian 8
Company, because the lisiere  shut off the  English 1
Company from access to the fiords of the sea that J
advanced  into  the  continent.     And  further, these f
questions and replies prove that the English Govern- i
ment—by confirming the agreement of the English |
Company  with  the   Russian  not  to  interfere  with
each other while their respective Governments were  1
busy waging war in other parts of the world during j?
the   years   1854,   1855   and   1856—recognized   and I
sanctioned  the  claim  of   Russia   that  she had an 1
unbroken   lisiere   on   the   mainland   extending  far |
enough inland so as to envelop within her own do- |
mains the Lynn Canal and all the fiords that pene- |
trate into the continent above the  Portland Canal. I
Sir George Simpson exhibited in 1857 before the .
Committee a map, which was subsequently printed |
by  order  of the  House  of Commons.    (See  map |
No. 14.)    He referred to the agreement between the |
two companies and showed on this map the area of f
the leased strip, and the inland boundary of the lisiere I
as marked on that map agrees with the boundary I
claimed by the United States.   It was in order to gain | FIFTY-FOUR  FORTY  OR  FIGHT.
access to the sea and to avoid the possibility of any
clash between the agents of the two companies resulting from the long Alaskan pan handle that cut off
the Canadians from the sea above fifty-four forty, that
the Hudson's Bay Company was willing to pay a
rental: it was, as Sir George Simpson said, paid as
a " peace offering." Forty-one years later Canada, as
the successor of the Hudson's Bay Company, presented to the United States at the meeting of the
Anglo-American Joint High Commission at Quebec
a territorial claim radically at variance with the
boundary of Alaska as publicly exhibited to the
world in 1857, by the Hudson's Bay Company
through its Governor-General.
But previous to the Crimean War, back to the
time of the controversy over the northwest boundary
between the United States and Great Britain, during
Polk's administration, when the cry of " Fifty-four
forty or fight" so famous in our history was raised,
Russia offered us her American possession, provided
that we should maintain our claims up to fifty-four
degrees forty minutes north, the most southern point
of her territory.24   If we had accepted her offer and
^Papers relating to Foreign Affairs, accompanying the annual
message of the President to the second session of the Fortieth Congress, 1867, Part I., Washington: Government Printing Office,
1886, page 390.
Seward at Washington as Senator and Secretary of State, by
Frederick W. Seward, Volume III., pages 346-347.
Fur Seal Arbitration; Volume IV., pages 276-277. r
persisted in our claims, the North American British
possessions would have been practically shut out
from access to the Pacific Ocean. But President
Polk's administration, after the death of Andrew
Jackson,25 backed down in the north to seek an extension in warmer lands in the south. England thus
gained a large outlet on the Pacific coast.
Time wore on. In 1859 the subject of a transfer
of Russian America to the United States was revived. At that time Senator Gwin of California, in
behalf of the Buchanan administration, had some interviews with the Russian minister at Washington
25Governor William Allen of Ohio or " Old Bill" Allen as he
was known in his State, told many years since Colonel Augustus
C. Buell, the author of a " Life of Paul Jones," the following incident about the territory west of the Rockies. He said that once
when Andrew Jackson was President, the British Minister, in an
interview with Secretary Van Buren, informally referred to the
question of arranging the northwest boundary west of the Rockies along the forty-ninth degree ; Van Buren at once reported the
matter to General Jackson, who replied that he had fought for
the southern end of the Louisiana Purchase, and that though he
was then pretty old, yet there was still enough blood in his veins
to enable him to fight if necessary for the northern end. The
British Government did not reopen that question until Jackson
was dead. Colonel Buell, in a letter to the writer, says that
'' Old Bill Allen, then a Senator from Ohio, was the author of
' Fifty four forty or fight' ! And the speech in which he uttered
the phrase so endeared him to Jackson that the old man always
afterwards, so long as he lived, used to call him ' My son,
William.' " Concerning Polk's character see Martin Van Buren, by Edward M. Shepard in the American Statesmen series,
New York, 1899, page 412. PROPOSED  SALE  OF  RUSSIAN   AMERICA,   1859.        57
in reference to buying Alaska.26 In these conversations, " while professing to speak for the President
unofficially, he [Senator Gwin] represented ' that
Russia was too far off to make the most of these
possessions; and that as we are near, we can derive
more from them.' In reply to an inquiry of the Russian Minister, Mr. Gwin said that ' the United States
could go as high as 5,000,000 dollars for the purchase,' on which the former made no comment. Mr.
Appleton, on another occasion, said to the Minister
that ' the President thought that the acquisition
would be very profitable to the States on the Pacific;
that he was ready to follow it up, but wished to know
in advance if Russia was ready to cede; that if
she were, he would confer with his Cabinet, and
influential members of Congress. All this was unofficial ; but it was promptly communicated to the
Russian Government, who seem to have taken it into
careful consideration. Prince Gortschakow, in a dispatch which reached here [Washington] early in the
summer of 1860, said that the • offer was not what
might have been expected; but that it merited mature reflection; that the Minister of Finance was
about to inquire into the condition of these possessions.' The Prince added for himself that ' he was
by no means satisfied personally that it would be
for the interests of Russia politically to alienate these
possessions ; that the only consideration which could
2SFur Seal Arbitration : Volume IV., 1895, page 277. 58
make the scales incline that way would be the prospect of great financial advantages ; but that the sum
of 5,000,000 dollars does not seem in any way to
represent the real value of those possessions,' and
he concluded by asking the Minister to tell Mr.
Appleton and Senator Gwin that the sum offered
was not considered 'an equitable equivalent.'"27
Soon afterwards, the momentous Presidential election of i860 and the beginning of the Civil War of
1861, brushed aside the subject of the purchase of
Alaska.28 During the four years that the war raged,
Russia was the one great nation that consistently
from the beginning of that struggle favored the
Union cause.29 While other great Powers were either
luke-warm towards or even hostile to the maintenance of the integrity of the United States, the Muscovite Empire was the open friend of the Union.
Soon after the commencement of hostilities, Prince
Gortschakoff, on July 10th,  1861,30 addressed a note
wFur Seal Arbitration: Volume IV., page 278.
28Fur Seal Arbitration: Volume IV., page 278.
29 Seward at Washington, as Senator and Secretary of State,
by Frederick W. Seward: New York, 1891, Volume III., pages
40, 49.
30 Prince Gortschakoff's letter of July 10th, 1861, to M. de
Stoeckl, Senate Ex. Doc. No. 1, 37th Congress, 2nd Session:
Washington, Government Printing Office, 1861, page 308. Mr.
Cameron to Mr. Seward, St. Petersburg, June 26th, 1862.
House Ex. Doc. No. 1, 37th Congress, 3d Session, pages 447-
448.    Mr. Taylor to Mr. Seward, October 29th, 1862; ib. page RUSSIA AND  THE  UNITED  STATES,   1861-65. 59
to M. de Stoeckl, the Russian Minister at Washington, in which he instructed him to assure Secretary
Seward of the friendly feelings that the Russian
Government held for that of the United States. In
various other ways the Russian Government evinced
its sympathy with that of the United States. So
much so, in fact, that L. Q. C. Lamar, whom President Davis intrusted in 1862 with the mission of
representing the Confederate States at the Court of
Saint Petersburg, never found it worth while to proceed   beyond   Paris   on   his   mission.31    While   the
463. Prince Gortschakoff to Mr. Bayard Taylor, Charge d'Affaires, ib. page 464 : " Russia has declared her position and will
maintain it. There will be proposals for intervention. We believe that intervention could do no good at present. Proposals
will be made to Russia to join in some plan of interference. She
will refuse any intervention of the kind. Russia will occupy
the same ground as at the beginning of the struggle. You may
rely upon it, she will not change."
81 The letters that passed between Judah P. Benjamin, the
Secretary of State of the Confederacy, and Lamar, concerning
the latter's mission, are in the Diplomatic Correspondence of the
Confederacy, in the keeping of Judge Lewis Jordan at the Treasury Department at Washington. Benjamin in a letter dated at
Richmond, November 19, 1862, says that because of the note
that the Cabinet of Saint Petersburg addressed to that of Washington, early in the war, to which an extensive publicity was
given, the Confederate Government did not think it worth while
to send sooner a representative to Russia.
Lamar in a letter to Benjamin dated at London, March 20,
1863, notes the fear of the British Government in September
1862 to openly interfere in the war.    Lamar writes :
'' The events of a day may reverse it [the policy of the Government] entirely, as the following facts will illustrate : THE  ALASKA  FRONTIER.
English Government permitted—in spite of the protests of the American Minister to England, Charles
Francis Adams—the building of the Alabama and
other Confederate cruisers in English ports and
allowed them to sail, armed with English guns and
[On Lamar's letter, the following paragraph has been copied
by the Confederates on to a blank space where Lamar evidently
intended that a translation of his narrative in cypher should be
" In cypher in the original My informant states the declaration of a leading member of the Government party (the intimate
confidential friend of Ld* P. [Palmerston] ) that the Confederacy
would be recognized in a few days & that he would be appointed
minister to the C. S. A. All the names given in the original.
This took place in September last [1862]. Only a few days
after, the same distinguished personage said to my informant,
'the game is up.    We have had to take another tack.' "
Evidence from the Confederate side, and, therefore, of much
importance, showing how the Emperor Alexander the Second,
threw his influence into the international scales in favor of the
United States Government during the Civil War, is found in the
following memorandum of an interview between Justice Lamar
and Louis Napoleon. It was written September 12th, 1901, by
Colonel Augusus C. Buell, and addressed to Charles H. Cramp,
Esq. It proves, as the Diplomatic Correspondence of the Confederacy also shows, that the late Justice Lamar, who was appointed in 1862 to represent the Confederate States at the Court
of Saint Petersburg, never found it worth while to proceed further on his mission than Paris.    Colonel Buell says :
"The late Lucius Q. C. Lamar, shortly after he had been appointed an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court by President
Cleveland, related to me at his apartments in Washington the
following :
"Early in 1862 when the military fortunes of the Confederacy
were at their zenith and when Jefferson Davis had reason or
thought he had reason to believe that the independence of the
Confederacy would be recognized by England and France, he ENGLAND  AND  THE  UNITED  STATES,   1861-65.      61
manned with English crews, and to receive aid and
comfort in Cape Town, Singapore and other English
ports, in order to attack the commerce of a friendly
nation, the Government of the Tsar not only did not
sent Mr. Lamar, in the capacity of special envoy and plenipotentiary, to St. Petersburg for the purpose of enlisting the good will
of the Russian Government, if not its open co-operation with England and France in the expected recognition.
* * * * * s|c *
" After two or three interviews with de Morny, Mr. Lamar was
informally presented to Louis Napoleon.
"fc *fc sfc "jJ ""J "*s "js
"Touching the object of Mr. Lamar's mission to Europe the
Emperor said that it would be worse than fruidess for him to approach the court of Saint Petersburg.
" He said that the Emperor of Russia and all his advisers were
hopelessly prejudiced in favor of the United States ; that was due,
he said, to two causes :
"First, that Russia, still smarting under the sting of her defeat
by France and England in the Crimean War, would not make
common cause with them in anything : but would be impelled by
her resentment and wounded pride to antagonize any policy
which her late enemies were known or believed to favor; and she
had reason to believe that France and England at that time
viewed the effort of the Confederacy with benevolence.
"The second and more important reason was that the effort of
the Confederacy to disrupt the Union and establish independence
represented to the minds of those in control of Russian affairs
the doctrine of separatism, than which no doctrine could be more
odious at Saint Petersburg.
"He said that the Emperor of Russia was at that moment
struggling with a movement in his own dominions in the shape
of a Polish insurrection, the aim of which was cognate to that of
the Confederacy.
" This the Emperor Napoleon III. elaborated according to Mr.
Lamar's narrative, with great force and perspicuity and completely convinced him that it would be perfectly idle to ask the
Emperor of Russia to favor in the United States a movement 62 THE   ALASKA FRONTIER.
recognize the belligerency of the Confederate States,
but in addition, when the Emperor Louis Napoleon
and Lord Palmerston and Lord John Russell were
anxious to intervene in the struggle in behalf of the
based upon a principle cognate to that which he was at that time
bringing all the resources of his Empire to crush in Poland.
"On his part, Mr. Lamar represented to the Emperor that
there would be nothing in common between the Government of
the United States and that of Russia on the grounds of political
principle * on the contrary the doctrines on which the two Governments were based were diametrically diverse to each other in
every respect.
| The Emperor Napoleon said that, while that might be true in
the academic sense or speculatively, it cut no figure in the existing situation.
'' On the other hand, there was a similarity between the respective aims and interests which easily produced a sentimental
friendliness and that the step from such a state of feeling to acts
was a very short one. At any rate, the Emperor Napoleon said
it was doubtful whether Mr. Lamar would be cordially received
in any capacity in Saint Petersburg at that time and it was perfectly certain not only that he would not be received there as
the accredited envoy of the Southern Confederacy but that the
right of the Confederacy to ask recognition of its envoy would
be denied at the outset.
| Such action on the part of the Russian Government at that
time, the Emperor Napoleon said, would have a more or less
decisive influence adverse to the interests of the Confederacy at
other Courts of Europe and might embarrass the efforts of the
friends of the Confederacy in France and in England.
"On the strength of these representations Mr. Lamar remained in Paris and proceeded no farther towards the execution
of his mission.
I He represented to the Government at Richmond what he
had learned from de Morny and Louis Napoleon with the result
that he was soon after recalled to the South and no further
attempt was made by the Confederate Government to communicate in any manner with the Imperial Russian Government." THE  RUSSIAN  FLEETS,   1863. 63
Confederacy,32 the Emperor Alexander the Second
refused to join any combination for intervention in
the American Civil War, and took good care to
make it known that in case any Power actively
sided with the Confederate States, Russia would
support  the  Union  Government.38   The  most tan-
82 Autobiography of fohn Stuart Mill, New York, 1879, page
268. Wordsworth and the Coleridges by Ellis Yarnall, New
York, 1899, page 256. August Belmont in a letter dated at
London, July 30, 1861, to William H. Seward wrote that Lord
Palmerston had told him : '' We do not like slavery but we want
cotton, and we dislike very much your Morrill tariff."
England and France agreed to act in common. Senate Ex.
Doc. No. 1, 37th Congress, 2d Session, pages 106, 225.
88 Concerning the attitude of Russia towards the United States
during the Civil War, see:
Memoir of Thurlow Weed, edited by Thurlow Weed Barnes ;
Boston, 1884, Volume II., pages 346-347. Thurlow Weed relates a conversation between Admiral Farragut and Admiral
Lessovsky during the winter of 1863—64 as follows :—
*' Admiral Farragut lived at the Astor House, where he was
frequently visited by the Russian Admiral, between whom, when
they were young officers serving in the Mediterranean, a warm
friendship had grown up. Sitting in my room one day after dinner, Admiral Farragut said to his Russian friend, ' Why are you
spending the winter here in idleness?' 'I am here,' replied the
Russian Admiral, ' under sealed orders, to be broken only in a
contingency that has not yet occurred.' He added that other
Russian war vessels were lying off San Francisco with similar orders. During this conversation the Russian Admiral admitted
that he had received orders to break the seals, if during the Rebellion we became involved in a war with foreign nations. Strict
confidence was then enjoined."
"Louis Napoleon had invited Russia, as he did England, to
unite with him in demanding the breaking of our blockade.   The 64 THE  ALASKA  FRONTIER.
gible proof that the Muscovite Empire gave to the
Russian Ambassador at London informed his government that
England was preparing for war with America, on account of the
seizure of Mason and Slidell. Hence two fleets were immediately
sent across the Atlantic under sealed orders, so that if their
services were not needed, the intentions of the Emperor would
remain, as they have to this day, secret. It is certain, however,
that when our government and Union were imperiled by a formidable rebellion, we should have found a powerful ally in
Russia, had an emergency occurred."
Mr. Barnes then immediately adds :—
"The latter revelation is corroborated by a well-known New
York gentleman, who was in St. Petersburg when the Rebellion
began, and who, during an unofficial call upon Prince Gortschakoff, was shown by the Chancellor an order written in
Alexander's own hand, directing his Admiral to report to President Lincoln for orders, in case England or France sided with
the Confederates."
The Alabama Arbitration by Thomas Willing Balch, Philadelphia, 1900, page 28 et seq., for an account by George Peirce,
Esq., of an interview in 1872 between Ex-Governor Curtin, then
United States Minister at Saint Petersburg, and Prince Gortschakoff. The Russian Chancellor showed Governor Curtin the orders
to the Russian admirals, and other important correspondence.
A letter of Secretary Seward to John Bigelow, Consul-General
at Paris, dated June 25, 1862, published in the New York Sun,
January 5th, 1902. Mr. Seward said: "Between you and myself
alone, I have a belief that the European state, whichever one it
may be, that commits itself to intervention anywhere in North
America, will sooner or later fetch up in the arms of a native of an
oriental country not especially distinguished for amiability of
manners or temper."
A letter from Wharton Barker, Esq., about the policy of Russia
during the Civil War, printed in the New York Sun, January
9th, 1902. Mr. Barker, for many years a financial agent of the
Russian Government in the United States, relates an interview
to which he was called in August 1879, at the Palace of Pavlovsk,
by the Emperor Alexander the Second, and says in part: THE  RUSSIAN   FLEETS,   1863. 65
world at large of its readiness to aid the Govern-
" With great earnestness and some sadness he [the Emperor]
said that in the autumn of 1862 France and Great Britain proposed to Russia in a formal but not in an official way the joint recognition by European Nations of the independence of the Confederate States of America. He said his immediate answer was, ' I
will not co-operate in such action and I will not acquiesce, but on
the contrary I shall accept recognition of the independence of the
Confederate States by France and Great Britain as a casus belli
for Russia, and that the Governments of France and Great Britain
may understand this is no idle threat, I will send a Pacific fleet to
San Francisco, and an Atlantic fleet to New York. Sealed orders
to both Admirals were given.' After a pause he proceeded saying, j my fleets arrived at the American ports, there was no recognition of the independence of the Confederate States by Great
Britain and France, the American rebellion was put down and
the great American Republic continues. All this I did because
of love for my own dear Russia rather than for love of the
American Republic. I acted thus because I understood that
Russia would have a more serious task to perform if the American
Republic with advanced industrial development was broken up
and Great Britain left in control of most branches of modern
industrial development.'"
Narrative of the Mission to Russia, in 1866, of the Hon.
Gustavus VasaFox: New York, 1873, passim.
The New York Tribune, October 2nd, 1863, page 3.
The Life of Lordfohn Russell, by Spencer Walpole, London,
1889 : second edition, Volume II., pages 344, 349~352-
Papers relating to Foreign Affairs accompanying the Annual
Message of the President to the Second Session of the Thirty-
eighth Congress : Part III. ; Washington, 1865, page 279.
lb., Part II, Washington 1864, pages 763-779passim.
Abraham Lincoln by John G. Nicolay and John Hay: New
York, 1890, Volume VI., pages 63-66.
Quelques Pages d' Histoire Contemporaine : Lettres Politiques,
by Prevost-Paradol: Paris, 1864-1866, Volume II., pages 201
et seq., Volume III., page 166. ffp
ment of President Lincoln, if foreign nations interfered with the American Government in its efforts
to preserve the integrity of the United States, was
the assembling during the autumn of 1863 in the
harbors of New York and San Francisco of two
Russian Fleets. That which collected at New York
was under the command of Admiral Lessovsky and
that which assembled at San Francisco was under
the orders of Admiral Popoff.84
84 The squadron of Admiral Lessovsky consisted of the flagship Alexander Nevski, the Osliaba, the Peresvet, the Variag,
and the Vitiaz. The Variag arrived in September, and Admiral Lessovsky with his other ships reached New York during
October. The authorities of the city gave the Russians a grand
welcome. They showed the Russian officers over the fortifications of the port, gave them a public reception and held a military review in their honor. The significance of these festivities
were the more marked in that an English fleet, to whom only
the usual courtesies were extended, was also in the harbor at the
time. In October, a committee of leading citizens gave the
Russian Officers a ball at the Astor House. A few of the gentlemen on the committee in charge of the ball were George Opdyke,
Mayor of New York, Charles P. Daly, W. H. Aspinwall, J. W.
Beekman, Elliott F. Shepard, Hamilton Fish and Royal Phelps.
(The Daily Alta California, San Francisco, Nov. 18, 1863.)
Afterwards Admiral Lessovsky took his squadron into Chesapeake Bay and up the Potomac River; and President Lincoln
and Secretary Seward gave the Russians a most cordial welcome
at Washington.
It is a curious coincidence that, as in 1863 the then Variag was
the first of the Russian war vessels to reach an American port, so,
too, a generation later, a new Variag was the first of the two war
ships—that the Messrs. Cramp of Philadelphia were then building for the Russian navy—that was launched (1900) and put into
commission (1901). PURCHASE  OF  RUSSIAN  AMERICA. 67
In January 1866, the Legislature of the Territory
(now the State) of Washington sent a memorial to
President Johnson in reference to the fishing question
in Russian American waters. This Memorial, on its
presentation to the President in February 1866 was
referred to the Secretary of State, by whom it was
communicated to M. de Stoeckl, the Russian Minister, with remarks on the importance of some early
and comprehensive arrangement between the two
Powers in order to prevent the growth of difficulties, especially from the fisheries in that region.
About this time Mr. Cole, newly elected Senator
from California, sought to obtain, in behalf of individuals in his State, a license or franchise from the Russian Government to gather furs in a part of Russian
America.   The charter of the Russian-American Com-
The fleet of Admiral Popoff at San Francisco consisted of the
Flagship Bogatyre, the Abreck, the Calevale, the Gaidamack,
and the Rynda. The Gaidamack arrived first on the 16th of
October, 1863, and the Rynda came last on the 7th of the following month. On the 17th of November, 1863, the civil and military authorities of San Francisco and California gave Admiral
Popoff and his officers a grand ball. "It was not," to quote the
Alta California, "a mere ball, but also a political demonstration." The committee that had the ball in charge consisted of
the Hon. F. F. Low, Governor-elect of California and chairman ;
the Hon. Ogden Hoffman, United States District Judge; Admiral C. H. Bell, in command of the United States Pacific Squadron ; Brigadier General George Wright, in command of the Department of the Pacific; the Hon. Charles James, Collector of the
Port of San Francisco ; the Hon. H. P. Coon, Mayor of the city ;
and many representative citizens. 68
pany was about to expire. That Company had already
sublet all its franchises on the mainland, from fifty-
four degrees forty minutes up to Cross Sound, to
the Hudson's Bay Company. This lease would expire in June 1867.85 Senator Cole had repeated conferences with M. de Stoeckl. The latter, however,
had not authority to act; and accordingly a communication was sent to Mr. Clay, the United States
Minister at St. Petersburg, who brought the subject
to the notice of the Imperial Government.
During the winter of 1866—67, Secretary Seward—
who even as early as i860 had expressed in public
the hope that Russian America would become a part
of the American Union86—quietly conducted with M.
de Stoeckl, the Russian Minister at Washington, negotiations for the purchase of Russian America.37 In
renewing, through M. de Stoeckl, the pourparlers that
representatives of the two friendly nations had had
on the subject years before, " Seward found the Government of the Czar not unwilling to discuss it. Russia would in no case allow her American possessions
to pass into the hands of any European power. But
the United  States always  had  been  and   probably
' Fur Seal Arbitration, Volume IV., page 279.
' Seward at Washington as Senator and Secretary of State,
1861-1872, by Frederick W. Seward, New York, 1891, Volume
III., page 346.
87 Seward at Washington as Senator and Secretary of State,
1861-1872, by Frederick W. Seward, New York, 1891, Volume
III., page 346.
always would be a friend. Russian America was a
remote province of the Empire, not easily defensible,
and not likely to be soon developed. Under American control it would develop more rapidly, and
be more easily defended. To Russia, instead of a
source of danger, it might become a safeguard. To
the United States it would give a foothold for commercial and naval operations, accessible from the
Pacific States. Seward and Gortschakoff were not
long in arriving at an agreement over a subject
which, instead of embarrassing with conflicting interests, presented some mutual advantages."88
In October, 1866, M. de Stoeckl, who enjoyed the
confidence of our Government, returned home on a
leave of absence. While he was at Saint Petersburg,
the subject of leasing to an American Company the
rights that Russia had formerly rented to the Hudson's Bay Company, was under consideration. The
Russian Government, however, was opposed to any
such minor arrangement. It wished to hand over to
the United States for a fair consideration the whole of
Russian America. The possessions of distant American territory, lying across the seas, was an element of
weakness to Russia, and the Empire was anxious to
part with it to the United States, a friendly power.
Besides,  Russia, in withdrawing her  flag from the
88 Seward at Washington as Senator and Secretary of State,
1861-1872, bv Frederick W. Seward, New York, 1891, Volume III., page 347. 7o
New World to the Old, and in preferring the United
States to England as a purchaser of Russian America, evinced once more, as upon former occasions, her
friendship for the United States. "As M. de Stoeckl
was leaving in February [1867] to return to his post,
the Archduke Constantine, the brother and the chief
adviser of the Emperor, handed him a map with the
lines in our Treaty marked upon it and told him he
might treat for this cession."39
The two Governments agreed upon seven millions
two hundred thousand dollars ($7,200,000.) in gold as
the purchase price. The final settlement was arranged at the State Department between Seward
and de Stoeckl on the night of March 29—30, 1867.40
" The treaty was then and there engrossed, signed,
sealed and prepared for transmission to the Senate."41
The morning after Seward and de Stoeckl had
come to an agreement about the purchase, Charles
Sumner, Chairman of the Committee on Foreign
Relations, arose in the Senate, and, although an
opponent of President Johnson, moved after the
clerk had read the treaty, that favorable action should
be taken upon it.
39 Sumner's Speech 1867 : Fur Seal Arbitration, Volume IV.,
page 280.
40 Seward at Washington as Senator and Secretary of State, by
Frederick W. Seward, New York, 1891, Volume III., page 348.
41 Information received from Frederick W. Seward, Esq. SUMNER S  SPEECH.
Sumner immediately began to prepare to speak
in the Senate in favor of the ratification of Seward's policy of purchasing what was then known as
Russian America. The Massachusetts Senator, in
the great speech that he delivered in the United
States Senate in the spring of 1867, referred at the
outset of his remarks to the boundaries of the territory which the administration proposed to buy as
clear and definite.    He began by saying:42
I Mr. President : You have just listened to the
reading of the treaty by which Russia cedes to
the United States all her possessions on the North
American continent in consideration of 17,200,000.,
to be paid by the United States. On the one side is
the cession of a vast country with its jurisdiction and
its resources of all kinds; on the other side is the
purchase-money.    Such is the transaction on its face.
1 In endeavoring to estimate its character, I am
glad to begin with what is clear and beyond question.
I refer to the boundaries fixed by the treaty. Commencing at the parallel of 540 40' north latitude, so
famous in our history, the line ascends Portland
Channel to the mountains, which it follows on their
summits to the point of intersection with the 141°
west longitude, which line it ascends to the Frozen
Ocean, or, if you please, to the north pole. This is
the eastern boundary, separating  this  region from
Fur Seal Arbitration, Volume IV., page 269. i
the British possessions, and it is borrowed from the
treaty between Russia and Great Britain in 1825
establishing the relations between these two Powers
on this continent. It will be seen that this boundary
is old ; the rest is new."
Thus Sumner, who had devoted much time and
study in preparing for this speech, spoke in no uncertain terms about the bounds of the territory which
it was proposed to add to the Union.
The services that the Russian government had
rendered to that of the Union during the Civil War
by sending two fleets across the seas to American
ports in order to neutralize the desire of other governments to join in an attempt to aid in the disruption of the United States, undoubtedly was a potent
element in rallying support in America for the purchase of Alaska.48
48 The following letter, written in 1901, from the son of Secretary Seward helps to clear up some of the Russian-American
relations. The Honorable Frederick W. Seward was himself
Assistant Secretary of State from 1861 to 1869 and took part in
the negotiations for the purchase of Alaska.
" montrose-on-the-hudson,
"Dec. 10, 1901.
" My dear Sir:
I' Your letter of the 6th has been received. You are quite
right, both in your statements and in your conjectures.
"There was no connection between the visit of the Russian
Fleet to the United States in 1863, and the purchase of Russian
America in 1867,—except that each was the manifestation of
Russia's friendship and good-will, at different periods. STATE  DEPARTMENT  MAP,   1867. 73
The Senate confirmed the Treaty. Then without
waiting for Congress to pass the necessary appropriation to enable the United States government to
pay the purchase money, the Muscovite government,
during the autumn of 1867, formally and officially
transferred Russian America to the United States;
and the new territory became from that time known
by the name chosen by Secretary William H. Seward—Alaska.
In buying Alaska, the United States understood
that they obtained from Russia a continuous, uninterrupted strip of land on the continent from Mount
Saint Elias to the Portland Canal, whereby Great
Britain was shut off from access to the Pacific Ocean
[' There was no request, no arrangement, no equivalent in reference to the Russian Fleet. Prince Gortschakoff was a very
sagacious diplomatist. He sent over the Fleet and said it was here
' for no unfriendly purpose.' Of course we knew that we might
count on its aid, if needed, but fortunately we did not need it. The
exchange of public hospitalities showed how it was regarded on
both sides.
"I have endeavored in my 'Life and Letters of W. H. S.' to
narrate the events and incidents of 1863 and 1867, just as I saw
and heard or took part in them. But all histories are apt to get
embroidered with a fringe of romantic fiction, as time goes on. I
do not know who invented that about Alaska. Probably it 'just
"Your information from Russian sources about the Emperor
Alexander's views, entirely accords with my own understanding
of the matter.
j' Very sincerely yours,
"Mr. T. W. Balch." 74
above fifty-four degrees forty minutes. ||* Secretary
Seward and Senator Sumner so interpreted the purchase. The State Department, on a map it issued
at the time, gave a visual effect of what the United
States^ thought they had bought from Russia. (See
Map No. 17.) This map, which Sumner used, was
published, together with his speech, in pamphlet
form. Upon this map, the eastern boundary of
the pan-handle or lisiere of Russian America or
Alaska—which latter name, meaning in the local
tongue " Great Land," Secretary Seward gave to
the purchased territory after it had come into the
possession of the United States—was.drawn so as
to include within the bounds of Alaska all the sin-
uosities that cut into the mainland between fifty-
four degrees forty minutes north and Mount Saint
Elias. The frontier line as thus laid down followed the eastern boundary of Alaska as Krusenstern (1827) and Piadischeff (1829) and Bouchette
(1831) and Arrowsmith (1834) had drawn it on their
maps; and to the frontier as thus marked the English
Government made no protest. General Banks, chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs in the
House so understood it.44 The British Government
made no protest to the territorial claims asserted in
44 Speech of Hon. Nathaniel P. Banks of Massachusetts, delivered in the House of Representatives, fune 30, 1868. F. & J.
Rives and Geo. A. Bailey, Reporters and Printers of the Debates
of Congress, page 6. Map published by the State Department of the United States, 1867.
MAP No. 17. 76
tl ■
Sumner's speech itself or to their exemplification on
the map of the State Department.
Besides, by subsequent acts and maps, the British
Government confirmed the United States Government in its belief that it had bought from Russia,
along with the rest of Alaska, a tongue of territory
that, extending from Mount Saint Elias to the Portland Channel, passed around all the sinuosities of
the coast and sufficiently far inland to altogether
exclude Canadian territory from touching tide water
on the Pacific coast at any point above fifty-four
degrees forty minutes north latitude.
A notable instance of what English cartographers
thought was the area of Alaska was given in 1867,
at about the time of the sale by Russia to the United
States of Russian America. In that year Black's
General Atlas of the World was published at Edinburgh. In the introduction of this work, the following description of Russian America is given :
I Russian America comprehends the N. W. portion
of the continent, with the adjacent islands, extending from Behring Strait E. to the meridian of Mount
St. Elias (about 141° W.), and from that mountain
southward along the Maritime chain of hills till it
touches the coast about 540 40'."
Then, on three maps of this atlas, " The World,"
No. 2, " The World on Mercator's Projection," No. 3,
and " North America," No. 39, the Russian territory
from   Mount  Saint  Elias  down to  the end  of the IMPORTANT MAPS. yj
Portland Canal at fifty-four degrees forty minutes is
marked so as to include within the Muscovite possessions all the fiords and estuaries along the coast
and thus to exclude and cut off the British territory
entirely from all access to tide water above fifty-four
degrees forty minutes. In addition there is given
a small map marked at the top, " Supplementary
sketch map, Black's General Atlas, for plate 41," and
at the bottom, | United States after Cession of Russian-America, April 1867, Coloured Blue." On this
sketch map the territory purchased by the United
States is marked, | Formerly Russian America," and,
like the rest of the United States, it is colored blue.
And the boundary of the new territory of Alaska
is given as upon the other three maps of this Atlas,
Nos. 2, 3 and 39, already cited, according to Brue's
map of 1825, Krusenstern's map of 1827, and the
Canadian and the English maps already referred
to, and in accordance with the territorial claim that
Russia and the United States have always maintained
and acted upon.
Many other maps can be mentioned in addition to
those above quoted against Britain's recent claim.
For examples, Petermann's map in the Mittheilungen
of April, 1869; Hermann Berghaus's " Chart of the
World on Mercator's Projection," 187145 (see Map
No. 18); Alexander Keith Johnston's map of J North
America"  in  his  Handy Royal Atlas  of Modern
45 Published by Justus Perthes, Gotha. Hermann Berghaus's Chart of the World, 1871.
Geography published at Edinburgh and London, in
1881; E. Andriveau-Goujon's map of" l'Amerique
du Nord," published at Paris in 1887, and finally the
wall map (1897) of tne " United States" by Edward
Stanford,46 an important map maker of London today, give to Alaska the limits always claimed since
1825 by Russia and the United States.47
46 The United States: London ; published by Edward Stanford,
26 and 27 Cockspur St., Charing Cross, S. W., 15th July, 1897.
"The following maps support the United States claim to an
unbroken lisiere:
America ; A new General Atlas, Edinburgh, printed by John
Stark, 1830.
Nord-America, verlag von L. Pabst, Darmstadt, ante 1846.
America, Verlag des Geographischen Instituts, Weimar, 1853.
Nord-Amerika, politische Ubersicht von E. von Sydow, Justus
Perthes, Gotha, 1856.
Nord-America, Berlin bei Dietrich Reimer, i860.
Allgemeine Welt Karte in Mercator's Projection von Hermann
Berghaus, 1868.
Map of the Yukon or Kwich-Pak River at the end of Travel
and Adventure in the Territory of Alaska by Frederick Whymper: London, John Murray, 1868.
Map in Alaska, Reisen und erlebnisse im hohen Norden von
Frederick Whymper, 1869 (German translation).
Sibirien und Russick Amerika von Spruner-Menke: Hist.
Handatlas, No. 72: Justus Perthes, Gotha, 1871.
Nord-Amerika von K. Bamberg, Weimar; verlag der
Deutschen Reichsbuchhandlung C. Chun, Berlin, 1881.
General Map of North America by W. & A. K. Johnston,
Geographers to the Queen, Edinburgh and London, 1887.
Amirique du Nord par Ffrere] A[leiis] M[arie] Gfochet]
des E [coles] Chr6tiennes: Paris and Orleans, 1891.
Amirique du Nord: Ins tit ut National de Geographie, Brux-
elles, 1891. 8o
Some maps—for example, " The World " by James
Gardner, published in 1825 and dedicated "To His
Most Gracious Majesty George the IVth "; " Nord
America, Entworfen und gezeichnet von C. F. Wei-
land," 1826 ; and a " Carte Physique et Politique par
A. H. Brue," 1827—bring the Russian boundary on
the mainland from Mount Saint Elias down only to
a point about half way opposite Prince of Wales
Island at about fifty-six degrees and then along the
fiords so as to include all of Prince of Wales Island
in the Russian Territory, instead of carrying the
frontier to the top of the Portland Canal and then
down to the sea at about fifty-four degrees and forty
minutes. But for all the territory above the point
on the continent about half way opposite Prince of
Wales Island up to the one hundred and forty-first
degree west from Greenwich, these maps give the
divisional line between the Muscovite and the British territories far enough inland and around the
sinuosities of the coast so as to cut off the British
territory from all contact with tide water. Besides,
Weiland, in a map of 1843 corrected his error in his
map of 1826, in stopping a little short of the Port-
Amerique Septentrionale: Institut National de Geographic
Bruxelles, 1892.
The British Colonies and Possessions: Edward Stanford,
London, May 24th, 1897.
Puissance du Canada: Atlas de Giographie Moderne par
F. Schrader, directeur des travaux cartographiques de la librairie
Hachette et Cie, Paris, 1899. A- [JPort Conclusion/.
B.\ Majmesbury
£•'. ___ Camdefu
& final aiAffleeh
F. Caned. de> Seymoia
H.A7hp& des Tra&rej1
are i Ns^&rw
W******. «""*. %J&^- &WAL .f§
|fj| /A^'yVfti
Brum's Map of 1833.
MAP No. 19. 82
land Canal in marking the Russo-Canadian boundary; and in Brue's maps of 1833 (see Map No. 19)
and 1839 (see Map No. 20) the divisional line is
given as it was marked on his map of 1825. Gardner's map is overwhelmed by the multitude of English and Canadian maps—governmental and private—
that followed Krusenstern's delineation of the line
of demarcation. And additional proof of how far
south the negotiators of the treaty of 1825 intended that the Russian lisiere should extend when
they used the phrase, " 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
56e degre de latitute nord," is clearly shown by Vancouver's chart upon which he inscribed the name
" Portland Canal." *
Time passed. In 1871, British Columbia became
a part of the Dominion of Canada. And from 1872
to 1884 Canada, by a number of acts and maps,
recognized the validity of the American claims to
aiijmbroken strip or lisiere upon the continental
In 1872, Sir Edward Thornton, acting on his instructions from the British Foreign Office, which was
serving as the intermediary for the Government of
Canada, proposed to Secretary Hamilton Fish, the ad-
48 A Chart showing part of the Coast of N. W. America with
the tracks of His Majesty s Sloop Discovery and Armed Tender
Chatham commanded by George Vancouver : London, 1798. Brue's Map of 1839: "Nouvelle Carte de l'Amerique
Septentri onale. "
MAP No. 20. 84
visability of having a survey made of the territory
through which the boundary ran, so that the frontier
could be located exactly, and Mr. Fish thought well
of the idea and said that he would urge Congress
to provide funds for such a survey.
On December 2d, 1872, President Grant, in his
annual message to Congress, said, after referring to
the then recent settlement of the San Juan boundary
dispute; ®
"Experience of the difficulties attending the_de-
termination of our admitted line of boundary, after
the occupation of the territory and its settlement by
those owing allegiance to the respective Govern-
ments, 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 line. If deferred until population shall enter and occupy the
territory some trivial contest of neighbors may again
array the two Governments in 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
49 Senate Ex.
page 3.
Doc.   No.   14.3,   49th  Congress, 1st  Session, SURVEYOR-GENERAL  DENNIS'S  OPINION.
our territory of Alaska and the coterminous possessions of Great Britain."
It was estimated that a survey of the Alaskan
boundary line would cost the United States something like a million and a half of dollars ; and that
it would probably require nine years in the field and
another year to map the result. The suggestion of
President  Grant was not acted upon by Congress.
At that time no mention was made of Canada's
present claimjthat she is entitled to the upper part
of many or all of the fiords or sinuosities that cut
into the mainland above fifty-four degrees forty
On the contrary, the Surveyor-General of Canada,
J. S. Dennis, in a written communication in 1874 to
the Minister of the Interior of the Dominion, gave his
opinion that it would be sufficient at that time to
determine exactly the points at which the frontier
crosses the rivers.    He wrote at length:
"The undersigned is of opinion that it is unnecessary at present (and it may be for all time) to incur
the expense of determining and marking any portion
of the boundary under consideration other than at
certain of the points mentioned in the extract alluded
to in the dispatch of Sir Edward Thornton to the Earl
of Granville, dated the 15th of February, 1873, that is
to say:—
"1. The head of the Portland Canal or the intersection of the same by the 56th parallel of north latitude. 86
"2. The crossing of the following rivers on the Pacific coast by the said boundary, that is to say: The
Rivers ' Skoot,' 'Stakeen,' 'Taku,' 'Isilcat' and
13. The points where the one hundred and forty-
first meridian west of Greenwich crosses the rivers
Yukon and Porcupine.
"There is no object to be gained of which the undersigned is aware in fixing the intersection of the
boundary along the coast with the 141st meridian assumed to be on Mount Elias, that expenditure, therefore, may be saved." He added further, "the United
States surveys of the coast could be advantageously
used to locate the coast line in deciding the mouths
of the rivers in question, as points from whence the
necessary triangulation surveys should commence in
order to determine the ten marine leagues back." In
addition a United States Coast Survey map, " Certified Domn Lands Office, January 16th, 1878," by Surveyor-General Dennis, was published in connection
with this letter, with the boundary line starting from
the top of the " Portland Canal" and crossing the
Skoot, Stikine and Taku Rivers ten leagues back
from the coast.60    (See Map No. 21.)
The fact that Mr. Dennis said that the boundary
crossed the Skoot River and also that he approved
50 Sessional Papers, Volume XL, Fifth Session of the Third
Parliament of the Dominion of Canada, session 1878 (No. 125)
page 28 and the map vis-a-vis. fjtoss sou*?,   °0
xx ■*?
The Burlani) T>e*barals LithC0-Montreal.
Drm? Lands Office
Jan. /6T? 1878.
S.G.J). I*.
Map published in Canadian Sessional Papers, 18
MAP No.  21. 88
of a map which showed the boundary crossing the
Skoot River, are especially noteworthy evidence
against the Canadian demands. For the Skoot River
does not come to tidewater at all, but flows into
the Stikine some distance from the sea.
Again, in the case of Peter Martin in 1876, the
British and the Canadian Governments recognized
through the settlement of that incident by the British
Foreign Office that on the Stikine River Canada did
not touch tide water.
It was in 1876, while taking a prisoner named
Peter Martin, who was condemned in the Cassiar district of British Columbia for some act committed in
Canadian territory, from the place where he was convicted to the place where he was to be imprisoned,
that Canadian constables crossed with the prisoner
the United States territory lying along the Stikine
River. They encamped with Martin at a point some
thirteen miles up the river from its mouth. There
Martin attempted unsuccessfully to escape, and made
an assault on an officer. Upon his arrival at Victoria, the capital of British Columbia, he was tried
and convicted for his attempted escape and attack
upon the constable; and the court sentenced him.
The Secretary of State, Hamilton Fish, protested
against this infringement of the territorial sovereignty
of the United States in the Territory of Alaska. In a
letter to Sir Edward Thornton, the English Minister
at Washington, he said:   "I have the honor,, there- PETER  MARTIN'S  CASE. 89
fore, to ask again your attention to the subject and
to remark that if, as appears admittedly to be the
fact, the colonial officers in transporting Martin from
the place at which he was convicted to his place of
imprisonment, via the Stickine River, did conduct
him within and through what is the unquestioned
territory of the United States, a violation of the
sovereignty of the United States has been committed,
and the recapture and removal of the prisoner from
the jurisdiction of the United States to British soil
is an illegal act, violent and forcible act, which
cannot justify the subsequent proceedings whereby
he has been, is or may be restricted of his liberty."
The transit of the constables with their prisoner,
Martin, through American territory was not due to
a mistake on their part as to the extent of Canadian
territory, for J. B. Lovell, a Canadian Justice of the
Peace in the Cassiar district of British Columbia
wrote to Captain Jocelyn in command at Fort Wrangel, saying: " The absence of any jail here (Glenora, Cassiar), or secure place of imprisonment necessitates sending him through as soon as possible, and
I hope you will excuse the liberty we take in forwarding him through United States territory without special permission." After an investigation into the
facts of the case, the Dominion Government acknowledged the justness of Secretary Fish's protest by
"setting Peter Martin at liberty without further
delay;" and thus recognized that the Canadian con- 90
stables who had Martin in their charge when they
encamped on the Stikine thirteen miles up from the
mouth of the river, were on United States soil, and
so that Canada's jurisdiction in that region did not
extend to tide water.61
Another recognition by the British Empire that the
lisiere restricted Canadian sovereignty from contact
with the sea, occurred shortly after the case of Peter
Owing to a clash between the United States and
the Canadian customs officials as to the extent of
their respective jurisdiction on the Stikine River,
their two Governments agreed in 1878 upon a provisional boundary line across that river. The Canadian Government had sent in March 1877 one of
its engineer officers, Joseph Hunter, " to execute,"
in the language of Sir Edward Thornton to Secretary
Evarts, " a survey of a portion of the Stikine River,
for the purpose of defining the boundary line where
it crosses that river between the Dominion of Canada
and the Territory of Alaska." This Canadian engineer, Hunter, after measuring from Rothsay Point at
the mouth of the Stikine River, a distance ten marine
leagues inland, determined—in the light of Articles
III. and IV. of the Anglo-Russian Treaty of February
16/28, 1825, which two Articles he was instructed ex-
51 Papers relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States:
Washington ; Government Printing Office, 1877, pages 266, 267,
pressly "by direction of the minister of the interior "
to consider in locating the boundary—that the frontier crossed the Stikine at a point about twenty-five
miles up the river and almost twenty miles in a
straight line from the coast. Without considering
whether, owing to the break in the water shed caused
by the passage of the Stikine through the mountains,
the United States territory extends inland to the full
extent of thirty miles, Hunter decided that the line
should cross the river at a point twenty miles back
from the coast, but still far enough back from the
mouth of the river to shut off Canadian territory
from contact in that district with the sea. He came
to this decision, because he found that at that point
a range of mountains, parallel to the coast, crossed
the Stikine River, and, as he stated expressly in
his report to his chief, he acted upon the theory
that this mountain range followed the shore line
within the meaning of the treaty of 1825 as he
understood it. In his report to his Government he
said : " Having identified Rothsay Point on the
coast at the delta of the Stikine River, a monument was erected thereon, from which the survey
of the river was commenced, and from which was
estimated the ten marine leagues referred to in the
convention." The Canadian Government sent a
copy of this report together with a map explaining
it through the British Foreign Office to Sir Edward
Thornton   at   Washington,   who   communicated   it p^r
to Secretary William M. Evarts, with the purpose
of obtaining his acceptance of this boundary. Mr.
Evarts agreed to accept it as a provisional line, but
with the reservation that it should not in any way
prejudice the rights of the two Governments, whenever a joint survey was made to determine the frontier. By this voluntary proposal of a provisional
boundary across the Stikine River, the British and
the Canadian Governments showed that in 1877 and
1878 they considered that Canadian territory above
the point of fifty-four degrees forty minutes was restricted by the meaning of Articles III. and IV. of
the Anglo-Muscovite Treaty of 1825 from access to
the sea.52 More recent explorations in the valley
of the Stikine as well as the fact that Surveyor-
General Dennis of Canada recognized in 1874 that
the boundary line should cross the Skoot River,
shows that the point fixed by the Canadian, Hunter,
in 1878 was too near the coast line. The frontier
should be drawn still further inland.
In 1885, President Cleveland, in his first annual
message to Congress, recommended with prudent
foresight, a preliminary survey of the Alaskan-British
Columbian boundary line, with a view of locating exactly where that frontier should run before the devel-
62 Papers relating to the Foreign Relations of the United
States: Washington; Government Printing Office, 1878, page
opment of immediately local interests complicated
the settlement of the boundary.    He said :68
" The frontier line between Alaska and British
Columbia, as defined by the treaty of cession with
Russia, follows the demarcation assigned in a prior
treaty between Great Britain and Russia. Modern
exploration discloses that this ancient boundary is
impracticable as a geographical fact. In the unsettled
condition of that region the question has lacked importance, but the discovery of mineral wealth in the
territory the line is supposed to traverse admonishes
that the time has come when an active knowledge of
a boundary is needful to avert jurisdictional complications. I recommend, therefore, that provision be
made for a preliminary reconnaissance by officers of
the United States, to the end of acquiring more precise information on the subject. I have invited Her
Majesty's Government to consider with us the adoption of a more convenient line, to be established by
meridian observations or by known geographical features without the necessity of an expensive survey
of the whole."
In accordance with the President's instructions, Mr.
Bayard, the Secretary of State, wrote at length on
November 20, 1885, to Mr. Phelps, United States
Minister at London, concerning the advantages of
63 A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents,
1789-1897, by James D. Richardson, a Representative from the
State of Tennessee: Washington, 1898, Volume VIII., page 332. 94
settling exactly where the boundary between Alaska
and British Columbia ran.54 Mr. Bayard instructed
in his communication Mr. Phelps to ask the Marquis
of Salisbury for "an .early expression of his views
touching the expediency of appointing an international commission " to fix at the earliest possible opportunity upon a "conventional boundary line" in
substantial accord with the provisions of the Anglo-
Muscovite treaty of 1825.
On January 12, 1886, Mr. Phelps in an interview
with the Marquis of Salisbury, discussed thoroughly
the boundary line between Alaska and British Columbia ; and he proposed to the English Secretary of
Foreign Affairs that the two nations should appoint
a joint commission for the purpose of ascertaining
how the line should run.56 Lord Salisbury received
the proposition with favor, but he desired before proceeding further with the discussion of the subject, to
communicate first by mail with the Government of
the Dominion.
The Canadian Government, while unwilling that
the British Empire should agree with the United
States for a joint commission to investigate where the
boundary line ran, looked with favor upon President
Cleveland's suggestion of a preliminary survey of the
54 Senate Ex. Doc. No. 14.3, 4.9th Congress, 1st Session, page
2 et seq.
36 Senate Ex. Doc. No. 14.3, 49th Congress, 1st Session, page
13, etseq. BAYARD   AND  SALISBURY. 95
country in question. And the British Government in
April 1886, announced to the United States its willingness to agree to such a preliminary reconnaissance.66 In this correspondence both Mr. Bayard and
-Mr. Phelps, realizing the great difficulty of locating
exactly the boundary along the eastern side of the
Alaskan lisiere,67 showed their willingness to consent
to some mutual agreement with Great Britain of
"give and take" in running that line. But they made
it perfectly clear in their communications upon the
subject—Mr. Bayard in his letters to Mr. Phelps, and
the latter in his to the English Ministers—that they
understood that the United States had in any case an
unbroken and continuous lisiere on the mainland.58
And in the whole correspondence no hint, even much
less any formal statement, was made on the part of
the British authorities that the English Empire had
any right to any territory touching tide water above
fifty-four degrees forty minutes.
Apparently as a result of this interchange of views
between the two Governments, the subject was taken
58 Lord Rosebery's letter of April 15, 1886, to Mr. Phelps:
Senate Ex. Doc. No. 143, 49th Congress, 1st Session, page 19.
67 " 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." Mr. Phelps to the Marquis of Salisbury, January 19, 1886, Senate Ex. Doc. No. 143,
page 14.
58 Senate Ex. Doc. No. 143, 49th Congress, 1st Session.
*£ 96
up during the session of the Fisheries Conference of
1887-1888 that was held at the City of Washington
and it was suggested " that an informal consultation
between some person in this country (the United
States) possessing knowledge of the questions in dispute and a Canadian similarly equipped might tend
to facilitate the discovery of a basis of agreement
between the United States and Great Britain upon
which a practical boundary line could be established."
Accordingly a number of informal conferences were
held early in 1888 at Washington, D. C, between
Professor William H. Dall of the United States
Geological Survey and Dr. George M. Dawson, for
many years head of the Dominion Geological Survey.
These gentlemen, who were acquainted with the general features of the country through which the line of
demarcation must pass, held, it appeared when they
talked the matter over, widely different views as to
how the frontier should be drawn. While Professor
Dall thought that there was not a shadow of doubt
that the frontier should pass around the sinuosities of
the mainland above fifty-four degrees forty minutes
and thus at every point shut off Canada from tide
water, Dr. Dawson maintained that the line of demarcation should cut across most if not all of those
same sinuosities. Mr. Dall based his opinion on the
wording of the Treaty of 1825 and the historical development of the Russian-American settlements. Dr.
Dawson  founded  his  contention  upon  a  mistaken DALL AND  DAWSON. 97
reading of the same Treaty. He argued that where
the mountains failed to provide a natural watershed
within the ten leagues limit from the shoreline, the
coast from which the ten leagues inland should be
measured was not the shoreline of all the sinuosities
that cut into the mainland, but the outer edge of the
territorial waters of the lisiere; and that within those
territorial waters were included all parts of the sinuosities above the point where they were only two
leagues or less wide from shore to shore. In advancing this argument in support of his contention,
he failed thoroughly to comprehend the language of
the Treaty. He said in his Report to Sir Charles
Tupper, a copy of which he handed to Mr. Dall,
that the Treaty of 1825 stipulates:
" Que partout ou la cr&te des montagnes qui
s'etendent dans une direction parallele a la cote ....
se trouverait a la distance de dix lieues marines de
l'ocean .... la limite .... sera formee par une ligne
parallele a la cote, et qui ne pourra jamais en etre
eloignee que de dix lieues marines."
Then he went on to say:
"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.
" None of the inlets between Portland Channel and
the Meridian of 141 ° west longitude are six miles in 98
width, excepting, perhaps a short part of Lynn Canal;
consequently, with that possible exception, the width
of territory—on the coast assigned under the Convention to Russia—may not be measured from any
point within the mouths of the inlets. All the waters
within the mouths of the inlets are as much territorial
waters, according to an universally admitted international law, as those of a fresh-water lake or stream
would be under analogous circumstances."
Unfortunately for the strength of the above argument, Dr. Dawson failed to take into account the
actual wording of the Treaty and misquoted it in
the citations above given. For the last sentence
of the Fourth Article of the Anglo-Muscovite Treaty
of 1825 that Dr. Dawson quotes, reads not as he
gives it, but as follows:
" Sera formee par une ligne parallelle aux sinuosi-
tes de la cote et qui ne pourra jamais en Stre eloignee
que de dix lieues marines."
When the sentence, " parallele aux sinuosites de
la cote" is written and read as it is actually in the
Treaty, and not as Dr. Dawson wrote it to Sir
Charles Tupper, "parallele a la cote," it is perfectly
apparent that in the Treaty itself it is expressly
provided that the frontier line shall never pass across
any of the sinuosities, but always around them at
some distance  inland.69
59 Probably the most important aid which has been given to the
crystallization of a public opinion in England favorable to the Ca- ARGUMENT  OF  CANADA. 99
The weakness of the Canadian claims becomes
clearly evident by a comparison and examination of
the Canadian demands from their inception until the
Quebec Conference.     It then becomes apparent that
nadian myth, is the article from the pen of Mr. Thomas Hodgins,
King's Counsellor, Master in Ordinary of the Supreme Court
of Ontario, that appeared in the Contemporary Review for
August, 1902, The Alaska-Canada Boundary Dispute.
Mr. Hodgins in his presentation of the question entirely passes
over many vital facts at variance with the Canadian argument and
others he states in such a meagre way that they have a semblance
of supporting the Canadian view of the question instead of the
United States side of it as they really do. He never mentions
any Canadian or English maps, evidently because they are
evidence against the Canadian contentions. He gives one or two
extracts from the instructions of the British Government to their
representatives to show that in the negotiations that resulted in
the treaty of 1825, the English plenipotentiary forced the Russian
diplomats to recede from the contention the Muscovites had made
originally. As a matter of fact, a careful examination of the
whole correspondence leading up to that treaty clearly establishes
the fact that England was forced to recede from one proposition
after another until she finally agreed to the demand of Russia
that the Muscovite Empire should have on the continent an unbroken lisiere including all the sinuosities in their whole extent
above fifty-four degrees forty minutes._
Mr. Hodgins gives three short quotations from Count Nesselrode : I' j&troite lisiere sur la cdte," " d' une simple lisiere du continent" "d'un mediocre espace de terre ferme." He does not
say in what book, nor at what pages they may be found. They
are all three taken from Count Nesselrode's letter to Count
Lieven, the Russian Ambassador to England, dated April 17th,
1824. {Fur Seal Arbitration, Volume IV., page 399.) From
these short extracts Mr. Hodgins attempts to argue that the
Russians were only fencing to retain so narrow a strip on
the mainland that it would give them merely the land around *"""""■
the Canadians have advanced two separate and distinct claims with a later modification of one of them,
to the territory that both the Russian and the United
States Governments have always openly contended
the mouths of the sinuosities that advance into the continent:
in other words, that they would be satisfied with a broken
lisiere. But when those quotations are examined with their
complementary contexts in Count Nesselrode's note to Count
Lieven, it is seen that the Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs
instructed the Russian Ambassador at London to make it
known to the English Government that Russia would never be
content with less than a strip or lisiere on the continental shore
above fifty-four forty of sufficient width to include all the sinuosities
in their entire extent. Count Nesselrode distinctly insisted that
the eastern frontier of the lisiere should be drawn along the top of
the mountains that follow the sinuosities of the coast.
For example, the context with which the first of those short
citations is connected is as follows. Speaking of the proposition
that Sir Charles Bagot had made relative to a frontier, Count
Nesselrode said, '' that upon the continent and towards the east,
this frontier could run along the mountains that follow the sinuosities (sinuosites) of the coast up to Mount Saint Elias, and that
from that point up to the Arctic Ocean we would fix the limits of
the respective possessions according to the line of the 140 degree
of longitude west from Greenwich.
" In order not to cut Prince of Wales Island, which according
to this arrangement should belong to Russia, we proposed to carry
the southern frontier of our domains to the 540 40' of latitude
and to make it reach the coast of the continent at the Portland
Canal whose mouth opening on the ocean is at the height of
Prince of Wales Island and whose origin is in the lands between
the 550 and 560 of latitude.
"This proposition only assured us a narrow strip upon the
coast itself, and it left to the English establishments all the space
necessary to multiply and expand."
The original French text of the above quotation is as follows :
"qu'en consequence, la ligne du 55" degr6 de latitude septentri- ARGUMENT OF  CANADA. ioi
was part and parcel of Russian America or Alaska.
The first of the two claims pressed by Canada to
Alaskan territory was that the part of the third
article of the Anglo-Russian Treaty of 1825, which
onale, constitueroit au midi la frontiere des Etats de Sa Majeste
Imperiale, que sur le continent et vers Test, cette frontiere pour-
roit courir le long des montagnes qui suivent les sinuosites de la
c6te jusqu'au Mont Elie, et que de ce point jusqu'gi la Mer
Glaciale nous fixerions les bornes des possessions respectives
d'apres la ligne du 140" degr6 de longitude ouest meridien de
''Afin de ne pas couper 1' He du Prince de Galles, qui selon cet
arrangement devoit rester a la Russie, nous proposions de porter
la frontiere meridonale de nos domaines au 540 40' de latitude et
de la faire aboutir sur le Continent au Portland Canal, dont 1'embouchure dans 1' Ocean est a la hauteur de 1' He du Prince de Galles
et l'origine dans les terres entre le 550 et 560 de latitude.
'' Cette proposition ne nous assuroit qu' une etroite lisiere sur
la cdte mime, et elle laissoit aux Etablissemens Anglois tout
1'espace necessaire pour se multiplier et s'etendre." {Fur Seal
Arbitration, Volume IV., page 399.)
The object of the Russians in having such a strip was to prevent the English from establishing trading posts on the mainland
opposite the Russian islands which could compete with the
Russian establishments in the quest for furs. Had the Russians
allowed the English to have the upper part of the sinuosities
above fifty four forty, the Hudson's Bay Company could have
established posts on the upper reaches of the estuaries to compete with the Russian settlements on the islands.
In support of the Canadian argument that the outward edge
of the territorial waters should be used in computing the ten
leagues inland, Mr. Hodgins intercalates in the English version
of several of the articles which he quotes of the treaty of
1825 a few extracts from the French original, but he does not
place after the word windings of the English text, the French
word sinuosites of the French version. The French copy of the
treaty is the official text, and the British Imperial Government 102
reads, "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 56*- degre de latitude
Nord,"  did  not mean   that  body  of  water which
has recognized it as such; and the use of the word sinuosites
gives a somewhat different meaning from the word windings.
The meaning of sinuositi is more accurately rendered in English
by the word indentation. The word sinuositi alone is proof
enough to overthrow the Canadian argument in support of measuring the ten leagues inland from the outer edge of the territorial
waters instead of from the shores of the sinuosities of the coast.
As the phrase "parallele aux sinuosites de la cdte" goes to the
very heart of the boundary question, it is certainly simpler for a
Canadian to omit that sentence altogether and so avoid all discussion of it.
In reference to the case of Peter Martin in 1876, Mr. Hodgins
fails to show that, in the final settlement of that incident between
the United States Department of State and the British Foreign
Office, the British and the Canadian Governments recognized
that on the Stikine River, Canada did not touch tide water.
Mr. Hodgins cites Chief Justice Marshall—who never heard of
the Alaska boundary question—and other jurists of repute to
show that the United States in this dispute are acting in a
wrong and immoral way. For instance, he quotes two extracts
from ex-President Cleveland. {The Century, New Series, Volume XL., 1901, pages 283 and 290.) An examination of these
passages shows that in them Mr. Cleveland did not condemn the
international morality of the United States either generally or
in this particular instance, but on the contrary sharply attacked
the policy of Lord Salisbury towards Venezuela.
Mr. Hodgins states that "the free navigation of the waters in
the strip of coast Was proffered'' and he quotes from the Russian
Plenipotentiaries to prove his point. When, however, the note
"Observations of Russian Plenipotentiaries on Sir C. Bagot's
Amended Proposal" {Fur Seal Arbitration, Volume IV., pages
428-429) is read in full, it is evident in the first place that the
Russians meant rivers, not waters, since the word they  used PORTLAND  CHANNEL. 103
Vancouver had named Portland Channel or Canal,
but several other stretches of water a long distance away known severally as Duke of Clarence
Strait and Behm's Canal or Channel and Burrough's
is fleuves, and in the second place the note shows also that
the Russians wished an unbroken, continuous strip on the
Mr. Hodgins also cites a passage from Secretary Blaine {Fur
Seal Arbitration, Volume II., page 273) in support of the claim
that Canada now makes to the upper part of the sinuosities such
as the Lynn Canal. But the quotation from Mr. Blaine does not
support the Canadian contentions, for Mr. Blaine in no way gives
up our right to the whole of the Lynn Canal and the enveloping strip of land on the continent. What Mr. Blaine does say
is that which is specially provided for in the treaty of 1825, that
all rivers which take their rise in Canadian territory and then
flow through the Russian or American lisiere, shall be open to
the Canadians for navigation. For example, the Stikine River
takes its rise in Canadian territory, and passing through the
American strip of land, empties into the sea near Fort Wrangell.
In so far as the Stikine is navigable, the Canadians have the
right of through navigation, just as the Rhine and the Danube
are open to the international navigation of the several adjoining
In addition Mr. Hodgins makes the following remarkable
statement: "The United States have acquired their present
great territorial domain partly by Revolution and partly by the
voluntary gift of Canadian territory from Great Britain ; by purchase from France, Spain and Russia; and by conquest from
Mexico and Spain. Under what guileless title should be placed
their unsanctioned appropriation of the Canadian Naboth's vineyard, on the British side of the boundary line ? Perhaps as an
American sequel to the Fashoda incident." In a note Mr.
Hodgins says that the " gift was that part of old French Canada
now the States of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin,
and Minnesota, comprising about 300,000 square miles of Canadian territory ceded by France to Great Britain in 1763." I ■
Bay. And that consequently the frontier line should
not be drawn eastward from the southern end of
Prince of Wales Island through Dixon's Entrance
and then up the estuary that opens at that point into
the ocean as the Russian and the United States and
the great majority of English and Canadian and other
cartographers have marked it, but northward up part
of Duke of Clarence Straits and then north-eastward
along Behm's Canal to Burrough's Bay and then
overland in a generally northward and north-westerly
direction. Besides, it is a fact that that body of water
which the United States have and do claim is " Port-
land Channel" or "Canal-" has been so marked on
several official Canadian and English maps, as for instance a map of the " Northwestern part of the Do-
minion of Canada," which was published by the Surveyor-General at Ottawa in 1898. In addition, upon
a number of these maps, the generic names "channel " and " canal" are used interchangeably to
denote bodies of water of a similar formation or
nature. This is notably the case on the British
"Admiralty Chart No. 787," published in 1877,
and reissued at intervals with corrections up to
1898 (see Map No. 22) and again in 1901 (see
Map No. 1), which gives "Portland Canal" and
"Lynn Chan."60
00 Admiralty Chart No. 787 was first issued in 1877 and reissued with corrections in June 1885, Dec- 1886, March 1889,
July 1889, Dec. 1889, June 1890, March 1891, Sept.  1891, Nov British Admiralty Chart, Published June 21ST, 1877, under the Superintendence of
Captain F. J. Evans, R. N., Hydrographer, and Corrected to April, 1898.
MAP  No.   22. io6
Unfortunately, too, for the adroit Canadian argument that the "Portland Channel " and the "Portland
Canal " cannot possibly mean the same estuary, it is
conclusively proved by comparing the English texts
and the authorized French translation of Vancouver's
Voyages that the name of " Portland Channel" and
the "Portland Canal" mean one and the same identical body of water.
In the English originals of Vancouver's Voyages
the text reads:
" In the forenoon we reached that arm of the sea,
whose examination had occupied our time from the
27th of the preceding to the 2d. of this month. The
distance from its entrance to its source is about 70
miles ; which, in honor of the noble family of Ben-
tinck, I  named  Portland's Canal."61
Again, in the edition of 1801, the text runs thus:
" In the forenoon we reached that arm of the sea,
whose examination had occupied our time from the
27th of the preceding to the 2d of this month. The
distance from its entrance to its source is about
70 miles; which, in honor of the noble family of
Bentinck, I named Portland's Channel."62
1891, Oct. 1892, June 1893,  March  1894, Oct. 1894, Dec. 1894,
April 1895, January 1898, April 1898, August 1901.
61A Voyage of Discovery, by Captain George Vancouver:
London, 1798, Volume II., page 371.
62 A Voyage of Discovery to the North Pacific Ocean, and
Round the World * * * under the command of Captain
George Vancouver: London 1801, Volume IV., page 191.
(Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia.) PORTLAND  CHANNEL.*   VANCOUVER'S  TEXTS.       I07
The French translation published at Paris at about
the same time reads thus :
" L'apres-midi, nous atteignimes le bras de mer,
dont la reconnaissance nous avait occupes, depuis le
27 juillet, jusqu'au 2 de ce mois. La distance de
son entree a son extremite interieure est d'environ
70 milles. Je l'ai nomme Canal-de-Portland, en
l'honneur de la famille de Bentinck."6S
Also in the drafts and counter drafts that passed
between Sir Charles Bagot and Count Nesselrode in
their efforts to agree upon a boundary line, the names
" Portland Canal " and " Portland Channel " are used
To-day, partly because on many maps the name
Portland Canal is given and partly because the "wish
is father to the thought" some Canadians would have
the world believe that Count Nesselrode, Monsieur
de Poletica and Mr. Stratford Canning when they inserted the name " Portland Channel" in the treaty of
1825 did not mean that body of water that Vancouver
had named Portland Channel, but that they intended
to designate thereby some other stretch of water.65
63 Voyage de Dicouvertes, a /' Ocian Pacifique du NordetAutour
du Monde * * * par le capitaine George Vancouver : traduit
de 1'anglais par P. F. Henry: A Paris, de l'lmprimerie de Didot
Jeune, an X., Volume III., page 370. (Academy of Natural
Sciences, Philadelphia.)
64 Fur Seal Arbitration, Volume IV., pages 427-430.
65 On this point see a letter by Mr. Arthur Johnston in the New
York Nation, January 23d, 1902, and a reply to it by Professor io8
And yet the negotiators of the treaty of 1825 knew
of Vancouver's charts, and so of his voyages of
discovery. This first claim by Canada to United
States territory is thus thoroughly well met by the
work of the discoverer and the name given by him
to the Portland Channel, even had not the British
Imperial Government in its formal demand at the
Quebec Conference to the United States, for what
is clearly the latter's domain, acknowledged that
the United States contention as to what is the
Portland Channel is right.
In addition, the debates of the Dominion Parliament show that Sir Wilfred Laurier, the Premier of
Canada, himself acknowledged the unsoundness of
the British Columbian claim as to what body of water
Count Nesselrode and Sir Stratford Canning meant
by inserting in the Anglo-Muscovite treaty of 1825
the name "Portland Channel." Colonel Prior, member in the Dominion Parliament for Victoria, British
Columbia, asked in the spring of 1901 the Government a number of questions and obtained replies
as follows:—
The Hon. E. G. Prior (member for Victoria,
B.C.),66 said:
I Before the Orders of the Day are called, I would
William H. Dall of the Smithsonian Institution, in the Nation,
January 30th.
Debates of the House of Commons, Sessions of 190T: Vol.
LV., page 4407—The Alaskan Boundary. PORTLAND  CHANNEL:   PRIOR AND  LAURIER.      109
ask the right hon. leader of the House to give his
attention to some correspondence I have received
concerning the Alaskan boundary dispute. * * *
Last year I asked in the House:
" 'Has the large map of the Dominion, which was
latterly exposed to view in the vestibule of this building, been sent to the Paris exhibition as an official
map of Canada exhibited by the Government?
" ' Is it true that the boundary between Canada and
Alaska, commonly known as the 'Alaska Boundary,'
is marked on that map according to the United States
contention, and that the boundary according to the
Canadian, or British Columbia, contention, is not
shown at all ?'
" To this question, the Hon. the Minister of Agriculture replied:
"' The map in question was sent to Paris as one of
the exhibits of the Department of Public Work, but
not as an official map. It is true that the boundary
between Canada and Alaska, commonly known as
the 'Alaska Boundary' is marked on that map in two
ways, marking the American contention and the
Canadian contentions as to the boundary, and each
of those markings is distinctly stated to be what it
represents, so that I do not think there can be any
possible difficulty or doubt as to what is meant'"
Colonel Prior continued:—"Last year I wrote to
Mr. Begg, who has taken a great deal of interest in
this question, and we both wrote to  Mr. Brymner, no
who was then in Paris, asking him to go to the exposition and examine the map. I have not got Mr.
Brymner's answer to myself, as I unfortunately left
it at home, but I have a letter here from Mr. Begg
on the same subject, dated 17th April 1901 :—
"' I have been looking over the letter sent to me by
Mr. Brymner of Paris, who visited the exhibition at
your request, and mine, to see if it was as represented—one provisional boundary for British Columbia and another for United States. In his letter to
me dated July 17th, 1900, he says:—"I had your note
re the frontier question, also a letter from Col. Prior,
House of Commons, Ottawa, asking me to go and
see if it was really as you stated, that the boundary
marked ran up Portland Canal, and not up Clarence
Sound, and if two boundaries were given and marked
• provisional.' There is but one boundary marked,
and that is the one claimed by the United States, and
there is absolutely no mention made of its being provisional. There is no distinct colour between American and Canadian territory, so it is very difficult to
trace the line, the area being so great (covered by the
map) that nearly all the names have been left out, so
that neither Portland Canal nor Clarence Sound are
mentioned, Wrangel being the only name given in
that neighbourhood. My object in alluding to this
matter now is that this map may be sent to the Glasgow exhibition, and it would be well to know if the
erroneous boundary is marked running up Portland PORTLAND  CHANNEL:   PRIOR  AND  LAURIER.      Ill
Canal, and if the British Columbian provisional
boundary along Clarence Straits, as shown on British Columbian maps, is entirely left out.'
" ' Mr. Brymner's statement is undoubtedly correct,
and it agrees with what I supposed were the facts of
the case.'"
Colonel Prior then said:
" Of course, I have not seen the map myself, but if
Mr. Brymner's statement, both to Mr. Begg and
myself be correct, namely, that the only boundary
marked on the map is that which the Americans contend for, the Government is greatly to blame for
having allowed such a map to be put on exhibit.
No doubt if on this map only the American contention is shown, that will be brought in as an argument
in favour of the United States whenever the matter
goes to arbitration.
" I would ask my right hon. friend whether he will
find out if it be true that the American boundary is
the only one indicated on this map, or whether there
are two distinct boundaries marked on it and both
stated plainly to be provisional ?"
The Prime Minister, the Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfred
Laurier, replied to Colonel Prior:—" I shall call the
attention of my colleague the Minister of Agriculture
to the representations of my hon. friend. I may say,
however, that in view of the advice we have received
from our law offices, it is very hard to maintain that
the boundary runs up Clarence channel.   The treaty 112
says in so many words the Portland canal, but there
is a difference in opinion between the Americans and
ourselves as to where that channel is. We claim that
it is west of Pearse Island. They claim that it is Observatory Inlet. As to endeavouring to have the line
pass along Clarence channel, which is a pretention
Mr. Begg has often submitted to me, I do not think
any one, who will take a careful view of the matter,
can be convinced of the correctness of that pretention. The point on which we and the Americans do
not agree, is as to what is Portland channel. They
want to make it run up Observatory Inlet and then
to the west, making out that Observatory Inlet is only
a small inlet running into the interior. We, on the
other hand, contend that Portland channel is as it
is described on the map of Vancouver on which the
treaty of 1825 seems to have been based, namely,
all that channel of water which runs west of Pearse
Island." 67
67 Mr. Alexander Begg, '' author of the History of British
Columbia," reprinted at Victoria, British Columbia, from the
British Columbian Mining Record for June, July and August,
1900, an article entitled, Review of the Alaskan Boundary Question. Mr. Begg also contributed to the Scottish Geographical
Magazine for January and February, 1901, very much the same
article under the title of Review of the Alaskan Boundary Question. In these two papers, Mr. Begg devoted much space to show
that the Portland Channel and the Portland Canal were separate
and distinct bodies of water. The replies of Sir Wilfred Laurier
to Colonel Prior on that subject thoroughly answer that part of
the Canadian claim, except that the Canadian Premier was in PORTLAND   CHANNEL:   PRIOR  AND   LAURIER.      113
Colonel Prior then remarked :—" I do not think
that this has anything to do with the question whether
the map is wrongly marked. Whatever boundary is
described on it, should be marked provisional."
To this comment Sir Wilfred Laurier answered :—
" The only provisional line we have agreed upon is
error in claiming that the opening of the Portland Channel into
the ocean lay north instead of south of Wales and Pearse Islands.
Mr. Begg also has something to say about the negotiations previous to the treaty, but he does not refer to many vital passages
that show that the English negotiators—first Sir Charles Bagot
and afterwards Sir Stratford Canning—had to concede one point
after another, until they finally agreed to the original proposition
of the Muscovite negotiators that Russia should have a lisiere on
the mainland above fifty-four forty expressly to shut off England
from access to the sea at all points north of the Portland Canal.
In spite of Sir Wilfred Laurier's statement in the spring of
1901 in the Dominion Parliament that Mr. Begg's contention of
running the frontier Une north instead of east from Cape Chacon,
which is at the southern extremity of Prince of Wales Island,
was untenable, Mr. Begg appears to stand by his former assertions in the following letter which appeared in the Colonist
of Victoria, British Columbia, December 4th, 1902. The able
and forcible letter of Mr. Seward to which Mr. Begg refers will
be found in note 108 on page 175.
'' Two mighty men of war have recently appeared to bolster
up the forlorn hope of the boundary question. One is a Philadelphia lawyer, of some note, judging from the numerous spread-
eagle titles attached to his name in a book called ' The Alasko-
Canadian Frontier'—the titles are as follows : ' Book, by Thomas
Willing Balch, A. B. (Harvard), Member of the Philadelphia
Bar; the American Philosophical Society ; the American Historical Association, etc. ;  Author of the Brooke Family of Whit- ii4
around Lynn canal, and if my hon. friend will look
carefully at the relief map which is exhibited in the
library, he will see that that is the only provisional
line we have agreed to."
But as is seen from Sir Wilfred Laurier's answers
to Colonel Prior, acknowledging the untenableness
church, Hampshire, England,' etc. The paper was read at the
annual meeting of the Franklin Institute, January 15th, 1902.
I Mr. Balch quotes a portion of the Treaty of 1825, but he
does not apply it in the least degree in the book he has published.
Without referring to the Treaty in his arguments the controversy
is futile, and I take leave of Mr. Balch and his beautiful printed
" The other warlike hero who comes forward, is plain Frederick
W. Seward, heralded as the ' son of the great War Secretary,
who negotiated the purchase of Alaska.' Young Mr. Seward, in
a recent letter to the New York Tribune, tells us that he visited
Alaska last summer, and discussed the claim put forward by Canada, as a monstrous one, without a shadow of foundation. But
if Mr. Seward will ' trot out the Treaty' in connection with an
honest, unbiased tribunal, without any subterfuge, Canada will be
found quite willing and ready to submit the question. Let us be
judged by the Treaty and no subterfuge. Mr. Seward concludes
his remarks by stating ' the only tiling which is open to discussion
or which requires settlement in connection with the Alaskan boundary, is its delineation in place, on a line corresponding in all essentials with the Une which has been recognized since the boundary
was first defined by treaty between the government of Russia and
Great Britain. When Canada is prepared to have this done,'
says he, j the United States will cheerfuUy co-operate in the work.
There is no Alaska boundary question in any respect, save this.'
What about running east from Cape Chacon, instead of north,
according to the Treaty ?
"December 2nd, 1902." ENGLISH  AND  CANADIAN  MAPS. 115
of the contention that the Portland Channel and the
Portland Canal were not one and the same sinuosity,
the Canadian Premier did approve the claim that Canada advanced at the Quebec Conference in 1898 that
the opening of the Portland Channel into the ocean_
was not through the natural thalweg that flows between Port Simpson on the south and Pearse and
Wales Islands on the north, but through a much
narrower and practically unnavigable channel to the
north of these two islands.
On many maps, including Canadian and English
maps, the line was drawn to the south of Wales and
Pearse Islands. For instance, Arrowsmith, on his map
issued in 1864, marked the line south of Wales and
Pearse Islands. (See Map No. 16.) The Canadians
on an official Government map of the " Railways of
Canada," published in the year 1884, distinctly drew
the frontier through the passage of water south of
Wales and Pearse Islands, and this channel is
marked on that map " Portland Inlet." (See Map
No. 27.) These maps locate this part of the frontier
in opposition to the British claims by the evidence of
their own cartographers. Furthermore, the opening
of Portland Channel into Dixon's Entrance is shown
by two official maps of the British Government.
Chart number 2431 of the British Admiralty, published on the 13th of July, 1865, corrected to February, 1901, on which Observatory Inlet is marked
according to "Staff Commr, Pender's Survey, 1868," :"1:    ! i
B       ;i
m »»   3«   Of^af3* :^m^fj**lft        C»
British Admiralty Chart, No. 2458, published December 15TH, 1896, and corrected
to March, 1900: prepared under the direction of Rear Admiral Wharton.
gives the north west coast of America from Port
Simpson to Cross Sound. Chart number 2458 of
the British Admiralty, published on the 15th of December, 1896, corrected to March, 1900, shows the
coast line about Port Simpson and the inner channels opposite Prince of Wales Island. (See Map
No. 23.) On both these charts the passage of
water south of Pearse and Wales Islands opening
into Dixon's Entrance is marked " Portland Inlet,"
and the channel to the north of Pearse and Wales
Islands is marked "Pearse Canal."
But in addition, it is a rule of International Law
that where a water boundary is a frontier between
two States, unless it is expressly otherwise provided the line of demarcation between these two
powers shall pass through the deepest part of the
water area, that is through the thalweg. The word
thalweg itself literally means, the way through the
valley, that is through the deepest part of the
As far back as 1625, the great Huig van Groot,
or Grotius, approved the rule that where a river
was the boundary between two peoples, the frontier
was understood, unless otherwise provided for, to run
along the middle of the stream.    He said :
68 Concerning the historic development of the rule of the
Thalweg, see the article of Judge Ernest Nys of Brussels in the
Revue de Droit International (Bruxelles, 1901, page 75) entitled,
'' Rivieres et fleuves frontieres—La Ligne Medi^ne et le Thalweg
—un Apercu historique." n8
" In land defined by a river, its natural boundary, if
the river changes its course gradually, it changes also
the boundary of the territory; and whatever the river
adds to one side belongs to him to whose land it is
added ; because each people must be supposed to
have settled their claims on the understanding that
the river, as a natural terminus, should divide them
by a line drawn along its middle. So Tacitus speaks
of the Rhine as a boundary, so Diodorus of another
river; and Xenophon calls such a river simply the
Uorizont, the boundary."69
In recent years, William Edward Hall, an English Barrister, in his Treatise of International Law,
| Where it [a boundary or frontier] follows a river,
and it is not proved that either of the riparian states
possesses a good title to the whole bed, their territories are separated by a line running down the middle,
except where the stream is navigable, in which case
69" In arcifiniis flumen mutato paulatim cursu mutat et terri-
torii fines, et quicquid flumen parti alteri adjacit, sub ejus imperio
est, cui adjectum est: quia scilicet eo animo populus uterque im-
perium occupasse primitus creditur, ut flumen sui medietate eos
dirimeret, tanquam naturalis terminus. Tacitus dixit: Certum
jam alveo Rhenum, quique terminus esse sufficiat. Diodorus
Siculus, ubi controversiam narrat, quae inter Egestanos et Seli-
nuntios fuit, irorauov, ait, rrjv x^Pav fyw'fovro?, amne fines discrimi-
nante. Et Xenophon talem amnem simpliciter rim bpi^avra, id est,
finitorem, vocat." De fure Belli ac Pacis: Lib. II., Cap. III.,
the centre of the deepest channel, or, as it is
usually called, the Thalweg, is taken as the boundary."70
The Swiss, Alphonse Rivier, for many years and at
the time of his death, Consul-General of his country
to Belgium, in his Treatise, Principes du Droit Des
Gens, says:
"When a water course is a frontier, the bed can
be entirely in one of the territories [adjoining], the
frontier following one of the banks.
5j5 !fS SjC !j! JjS 3f*
"This frontier must be proved, it is not presumed.
In case of doubt, the frontier line shall be the middle
of the bed. Such at least is the ancient rule, still in
vigor as a general rule for non navigable water
courses, simple brooks, while it is absolute (deroge)
for rivers and streams owing to a more and more
constant usage, which numerous treaties have sanctioned for almost a century. According to this custom, the limit is in the middle, not of the bed but of
the current or thread of water, which is called to-day
the Thalweg, a German word which signifies chemin
du val, in English mid-channel. This system has the
advantage of giving to the two countries equal facilities to use the water course; besides, the thalweg,
although variable owing to the continuous action of
70 Fourth edition, Oxford, 1895, page 127 ; this edition was
printed after Mr. Hall's death, but the first two hundred and
seventy-two pages were already in type when he died. 120
the running water, is less so, however, than the median line."71
Halleck, an American, in his International Law,
"Where a navigable river forms the boundary of
conterminous states, the middle of the channel—the
filum aquae or thalweg—is generally taken as the
line of their separation, the presumption of law being
that the right of navigation is common to them both.
But this presumption may be rebutted or destroyed
by actual proof of the exclusive title of one of the riparian proprietors to the entire river. Such title may
have  been  acquired  by prior occupancy, purchase,
n " Lorsq'un cours d'eau forme frontiere, le lit peut etre en en-
tier sur l'un des territoires, la frontiere suivant fun des bords.
;j< * ^ * * * *
'' Cette frontiere doit etre prouvee ; on ne la presume pas. En
cas de doute, la ligne frontiere serait le milieu du lit. Telle est du
moins la regie ancienne, encore en vigueur comme regie generate
pour les cours d'eau non navigables, les simples ruisseaux, tandis
qu'il y est deroge pour les fleuves et rivieres par un usage de plus
en plus constant, que des traites nombreux ont sanctionne depuis
pres d'un siecle. D'apres cet usage, la limite est au milieu, non
du lit, mais du courant ou fil de l'eau, qu'on appelle aujourd'hui le
thalweg, mot allemand qui signifie chemin du val; en anglais
mid-channel. Ce systeme a l'avantage de donner aux deux pays
limitrophes des facilit6s egales pour utiliser le cours d'eau; en
outre, le thalweg, tout variable qu'il est en suite de Taction continue de l'eau courante, Test cependant moins que la ligne m6-
diane." Principes du Droit des Gens par Alphonse Rivier. Paris,
1896, Volume I., pages 167-168.
72 Halleck's International Law: Third edition revised by Sir
Sherston Baker, Bart., of Lincoln's Inn and Barrister-at-Law,
London, 1893, Volume I., page 171. PORTLAND  CHANNEL:   THE THALWEG.
cession, treaty, or any of the modes by which other
public territory may be acquired. But where the
river not only separates the conterminous states, but
also their territorial jurisdictions, the thalweg, or
middle current, forms the line of separation through
the bays and estuaries through which the waters of
the river flow into the sea. As a general rule, this
line runs through the middle of the deepest channel,
although it may divide the river and its estuaries into
two very unequal parts. But the deeper channel
may be less suited, or totally unfit, for the purposes
of navigation, in which case the dividing line would
be in the middle of the one best suited and ordinarily used for that object. The division of the
islands in the river and its bays would follow the
same rule."
Bluntschli, a Swiss, who for many years taught the
Laws of Nations at the University of Heidelberg,
says in his Code of International Law:
" If a river is the boundary between two States and
it has not become the exclusive property of one of
them, the frontier, in case of doubt, is taken to pass
through the Thalweg.
" In the case of navigable rivers, the Thalweg is
considered in doubtful cases as the middle of the
river. 122
_." In the same way, the middle of a lake serves as
the line of demarcation between the opposite riparian States, unless another boundary is designated
by usage or treaty. The free navigation of the lake
is therewith as a rule accorded to the inhabitants of
both shores.
" In this case the, middle must be measured from
both shores, as there is no Thalweg, or at least it
is not as distinct in lakes as in rivers.
I 303.
" When two States, which touch the high seas,
are so close to one another that the territorial
waters {Kustensaum) of the one overlaps the territorial waters of the other, both States are bound
to accord to each other the right of sovereignty
{Kiistenschutz) in the common area or else to agree
upon a dividing line.
I The two States are in this case in about the
same position as the Riparian States of a river or
a lake.    They are  both  concurrently  sovereign."7S
,s 1298.
"Bildet ein Fluss die Grenze und ist derselbe nicht in den
ausschliesslichen Besitz des einen Uferstates gelangt, so wird im
Zweifel angenommen, die Mitte des Flusses sei die Grenze.
"Bei schieffbaren Flussen wird im Zweifel der Thalweg als
Mitte angenommen. .ARGUMENT  OF  CANADA. 123
The other or second important demand of Canada,
which seems to have originated about 1884, and
which was formulated a year or two later by General
Cameron, is that the boundary line shall not pass
inland around all the sinuosities that bulge into the
mainland between Mount Saint Elias and fifty-four
degrees forty minutes, but that it shall run close
along side of the coast-line and across most or all
'' Ebenso wird die Mitte eines Landsees als Grenze zwischen
den entgegengesetzten Uferstaten vermuthet, wenn nicht durch
Vertr'age oder Uebung eine andere Grenze bestimmt ist. Dane-
ben wird die freie SchifiTahrt auf den See fur beiderlei Uferbe-
wohner als Regel anerkannt.
" Hier muss die Mitte von beiden Ufern ausgemessen werden,
da es einen Thalweg nicht gibt, oder wenigstens derselbe nicht
ebenso deutlich ist, wie bei Fliissen.
"Wenn zwei Staten, welche an das freie Meer Grenzen,
einander so nahe sind, dass der Kustensaum je des einen Stats
in den Kustensaum des andern hiniiberreicht, so sind sie ver-
pflichtet, einander in dem gemeinsamen Gebiet wechselseitig den
Kiistenschutz zuzugestehen, oder iiber eine Scheidelinie sich zu
jj' Das Verhaltniss der beiden Uferstaten wird ahnlich wie in
den Fallen der Fluss- oder Seegrenze. Es tritt eine concurri-
rende Gebietshoheit ein."
Das Moderne Volkerrecht der Civilisirten Staten als Rechls-
buch Dargestellt von Dr. J. C. Bluntschli: Nordlingen, 1878.
In the authorized French translation by M. Lardy (1870) Le
Droit International Codifi'e the above paragraphs are rendered
in these terms: MM
of the estuaries that cut into the continent above
the Portland Channel or Canal. Canada bases this
demand upon the rule of International Law, that all
sea waters along a coast line are for one league or
three miles territorial waters, and that where even
a fiord or arm of the sea is only two leagues or six
miles across from shore to shore, from that line inland  the  rest of the  estuary  is  territorial waters.
" Lorsqu'une riviere forme la limite, et qu'elle n'est pas deve-
nue propriet.6 exclusive d'un des etats riverains, on admet dans
le doute que la frontiere passe par le milieu de la riviere.
I La thalweg des rivieres navigables est dans le doute regarde
comme le milieu.
"Le milieu d'un lac sert egalement de ligne de demarcation
entre les deux 6tats riverains, a moins qu'une autre limite n'ait
ete consacree par 1'usage ou par les traites. On reconnait dans
la regie aux habitants des deux rives le droit de libre navigation.
" On doit prendre ici pour ligne frontiere le milieu du lac,
parce qu'il n'y a pas de thalweg des lacs.
" Lorsque deux etats sont situes au bord d'une mer libre,
mais si etroite que la bande de mer faisant partie du territoire de
1' un, empiete sur la bande de mer qui depend du territoire de
1'autre, ces deux etats sont tenus de s'accorder reciproquement
les droits de souverainete sur l'espace commun, ou de fixer
ensemble une ligne de demarcation.
"Les deux etats se trouvent ici a peu pres dans la meme position que les etats riverains d'un fleuve ou d'un lac. lis sont
tous deux cpncurrement souverains." ARGUMENT OF  CANADA.
Consequently, they say that as in the treaty of 1825
it was provided that the frontier, between the British
possessions and the Russian lisiere should be a line
drawn along the crest of the mountains "situees
parallelement a la cote" and that in case at any
point the summit of the mountains should prove to
be further than ten marine leagues from the ocean,
that then the line of demarcation should be drawn
by a line parallel to the sinuosities of the shore,
from which it shall be never further than ten leagues
—the Canadians say that in estimating the coast line
the outer edge of the territorial waters must be
taken, and that from this imaginary line the ten
league limit must be computed. Thus they maintain, that the line of frontier does not pass around
all the sinuosities of the coast, but across many
of them, leaving the upper reaches, as the greater
part of the upper extremity of the Lynn Canal, for
example, within Canadian Territory.74
u From the first the Canadians have veered and changed about
continually in their demands. Canadian writers by suppressing
some facts and twisting and manipulating others to suit their
wishes, have managed to present to their countrymen and their
kindred in Britain some apparently plausible arguments in support of the Canadian claim. The Canadian method of citing
evidence brings to mind the following anecdote from the pen
of Charles Reade's The Cloister and the Hearth. (Chapter
XXXVI. Note): "Sinclair was a singer: and complained to
the manager that in the operatic play of Rob Roy he had a
multitude of mere words to utter between the songs. 'Cut,
my boy, cut!' said the manager.    On this, vox. et p. n. cut 1
In support of this proposition they invoke the
well known principle of International Law that
a State has jurisdiction over its marginal waters
to the distance of one marine league from the
shore. And they cite Bluntschli and other world
famed authorities in support of their position.
An argument pressed to support the Canadian
wish that the outer edge of the territorial waters
should be taken instead of the shore line of the
sinuosities of the coast in measuring the ten marine
leagues inland, is that in both the English and the
Russian draft treaties, the word mer was used in the
French copies, while in the French version of the
actual treaty the word mer has given place to ocean.
In the draft convention that George Canning sent
July 12, 1824, to Sir Charles Bagot as a basis for negotiations, among the words used in Article III. of
that draft to designate how the eastern boundary of
the lisiere should run occurs the expression, " depuis
la mer vers l'interieur " (from the sea towards the interior). In Article II. of the Russian counter-draft, in
which the eastern boundary of the lisiere is described,
the expression used is " a partir du bord de la mer"
Scott, and doubtless many of his cuts would not have discredited
the condensers of evidence. But only one of his master-strokes
has reached posterity. His melodious organs had been taxed
with this sentence: ' Rashleigh is my cousin; but, for what
reason I cannot divine, he is my bitterest enemy.' This he condensed and delivered thus: ' Rashleigh is my cousin, for what
reason I cannot divine.' " MER  AND  OCEAN  THEORY.
(starting from the sea shore). Finally in the treaty
of 1825 itself, among the words used in Article IV.
to describe the limits to the east of the lisiere occurs
the expression, "se trouveroit a la distance de plus
de 10 lieues marines de l'ocean." It is argued that
from this substitution of the word ocean in the treaty
for the word mer that was used in the two draft-
conventions the limit of the ocean was intended as
the line from which the ten marine leagues inland
should be measured, and it is urged that by the
use of the word ocian instead of mer the salt water
outside of the islands was meant.
The absurdity of this argument, however, is proved
by the fact that the words ocean and mer in French
geographies and in International Law are used interchangeably to mean the salt water that encircles
all the land on the earth.
To begin with the words mer and ocean are both
used in the treaty itself to mean the same thing,
to wit: in Article I., Ocian Pacifique, and in Article VI., Mer Pacifique.
Then in the Petite Geographie Ancienne of Meissas
and Michelot published at Paris in 1857, the mers
of Europe are described on pages three and four
as follows:
"4 Mers.
"On comptait en Europe treize mers principales,
dont trois grandes et dix petites.
"Les trois grandes etaient: i° l'Ocean Hyperboree 128
B      i
(ocean Glacial du nord); 2° l'ocean Atlantique ; 30 la
mer Interieure (Mediterranee). Les dix petites etai-
ent: i° la mer Germanique (mer du Nord); 20 la mer
Hibernienne (mer d'Islande), formee par l'ocean Atlantique;" and so on. In this quotation it is seen
that the two words are used interchangeably.
In the Petite Geographie Mithodique, by the same
authors, published at Paris in 1896, the watery mass
of the earth is thus described:
"On donne le nom d'ocian ou de mer a la vaste
etendue d'eau salee qui couvre les trois quarts du
"On appelle encore mers diverses parties de
l'ocean auxquelles on donne des noms particuliers."
A little further on Meissas and Michelot say :
" L'Ocean-Glacial du nord et celui du sud s'ap-
pellent aussi mers  Glaciates ou mers Polaires."
How the two words are used interchangeably in
International Law is well expressed by Rivier who
was a thorough master  of his  native  language.
"La mer, ou l'Ocean," he says,76 "est l'immense
etendue d'eau salee qui entoure et relie les continents.
* * * * * *
" Elle est libre.
" La mer libre est done la haute mer, qu'on nomme
aussi la pleine mer. Le Ian gage juridique use de ces
divers termes indifferemment, et le m6me sens est
78 Principes du Droit des Gens par Alphonse Rivier: Paris,
1896, Volume I., pages 234-235. MER  AND  OCEAN.
generalement attribue aux mots mer et Ocean employes sans qualificatif. Quant on enonce le principe
de la liberte de la mer, ou des mers, il s'agit de la
haute mer."
Of the meaning of mer and ocean, Littre, who was a
member of VAcadimie Frangaise, says in his Diction-
naire de la Langue Frangaise :
" REM. Le mot mer, au singulier, se prend dans
deux sens: i° l'amas des eaux qui environne la
terre; 20 dans une acception plus restreinte, une
certaine etendue d'eau salee contigue aux cotes et
portant un nom particulier comme la mer d'Irlande,
la mer du Nord, etc."
"REM. Ocean prend un O majuscule quand il
signifie la vaste etendue d'eau salee qui entoure le
globe, ou quand il est dit absolument pour ocean
Atlantique, ou pour le dieu mythologique; et un o
minuscule quand on parle des parties de cet ocean:
l'ocean Atlantique, ou quand il est pris figurement :
un ocean de feux. On observera que les adjectifs
qui determinent les parties de l'Ocean prennent une
majuscule: l'ocean Atlantique, l'ocean Pacifique,
l'ocean Indien."
Then defining the adjective Oceane, Littre says:
" REM. L'Academie [Francaise] ecrit mer oceane,
par un o minuscule; il faudrait un o majuscule, mer
Oceane, puisqu'on ecrit avec une majuscule mer
Mediterranee, mer Atlantique, mer  Pacifique,   etc."
In   the   first French dictionary which  I'Academie m
Frangaise published in 1694, the interchangeable
use of mer and ocean is thus attested at that
" Mer. s. f. L'amas des eaux qui composent un
globe avec la terre, & qui la couvrent en plusieurs
endroits. La grande mer, ou la mer Oceane. mer Mediterranee. mer Atlantique. mer Germanique. mer Bri-
tannique. mer Pacifique. mer  Glaciale.
" On appelle, La mer Mediterranee, Mer du Levant, & l'Ocean, Mer du Ponant."
"Ocean, s. m. La grande mer qui environne
toute   la terre."
From the above quotations from Littre, backed by
the first dictionary of the French Academy, it is clear
that not only the first authority to-day on the meaning
and value of French words, says that mer and ocian
can be used interchangeably to mean the salt water
that envelops the continents, but also that he actually uses himself the expressions mer Pacifique and
l'ocean Pacifique.
Consequently the attempt to draw a distinction
as to the meaning of the words mer and ocian used
76 Le Dictionnaire de V Acad&mie Frangoise dedik au Roy.
A Paris : Chez la Veuve de Jean Baptiste Coignard, Imprimeur
ordinaire du Roy, & de 1' Academie Francoise, rue S. Jacques, a
la Bible d'Or: et Chez Jean Baptiste Coignard, Imprimeur &
Libraire ordinaire du Roy, & de l'Acad6mie Frangoise, rue S.
Jacques pres S. Severin, au Livre d'Or.—M.DC.LXXXXIV.
Avec privilege de sa Majeste. 'PARALLELE AUX SINUOSITES DE LA COTE.
in the draft-conventions and in  the  treaty of 1825
falls to  the ground.
In constructing the theory and argument that, in
estimating the ten marine leagues inland provided
for by the fourth article of the treaty, the outer
edge of the United States territorial waters should
be taken as the starting point of measurement, the
Anglo-Canadian advocates have left out of account
the strict and exact meaning of the last part of the
fourth article of the treaty of 1825. The French
text of the treaty was the official version, and the
English and the Canadian Governments have both
recognized it as such.77 At the end of the fourth
article of the treaty, it is said that the frontier line
of the lisiere shall be drawn " parallele aux sinuosites de la cote." What does this French expression
mean ? The significance of this phrase is made absolutely clear by the use of the words, cote and
sinuositis. Littre, in his Dictionnaire de la Langue
Frangaise, defines cote in this manner: "||9° Terme
de marine. Rivage de la mer. Une cote basse, sab-
lonneuse, escarpee. Ranger la cote, aller le long
de la cote. Donner a la cote, echouer. Le cour-
rant portait a la cote. II lui donna la gouvernement
de toute la cote de la mer, VAUGEL. Q. C. liv.
II. ch. 8.     Toute  la cote etait  couverte d'hommes,
77 Fur Seal Arbitration, Volume IV., page 500. Dr. Dawson's letter to Sir Charles Tupper of February 7th, 1888 :
Senate Ex. Doc. No. 146, 50th Congress, 2d Session, pages 4-7. I if
d'armes, de chevaux et de chariots en mouvement,
FEN. Tel. XX. La plupart des peuples des cotes
de l'Afrique sont sauvages et barbares, MONTESQ.
Esp. XXI. 2. * * * Se dit, par extension, des
approches de la terre, jusqu'a une certaine distance
au large. Une cote pleine d'ecueils. Les pirates
qui couraient nos cotes.
* * * * * *
Au plur. Les contrees voisines de la mer." Thus
Littre shows that cote means the general shore line
along salt water.
In the first dictionary of the French language that
VAcadimie Frangaise published in 1694, the meaning of sinuositi is thus expressed:78
" Sinueux, euse. adj. Qui est tortueux; qui fait
plusieurs tours & detours. II n' a guere d'usage que
dans la poesie. Les replis sinueux d'un serpent, d'une
couleuvre. le cours sinueux de Meandre.
" Sinuosite. s. f. Estat d'une chose sinueuse. Les
sinuosites d'un serpent, cette riviere a beaucoup de sinu-
ositez, fait beaucoup de sinuositez.
"On dit aussi, En termes de Chirurgie, qu' Une
playe a beaucoup de sinuositez, pour dire, qu'Elle fait
78 Le Dictionnaire de V Acadimie Frangoise dedti au Roy. A
Paris ; Chez la Veuve de Jean Baptiste Coignard, Imprimeur ordinaire du Roy, & de l'Academie Frangoise, rue S. Jacques, a
la Bible d'Or: et Chez Jean Baptiste Coignard, Imprimeur &
Libraire ordinaire du Roy, & de l'Academie Frangoise, rue S.
Jacques pres S. Severin, au Livre d'Or.—M.DC.LXXXXIV.
Avec privilege de sa Majeste. 'PARALLELE AUX SINUOSITES DE LA C6TE.
des tours & des detours. On dit de mesne, qu'il y
a des endroits sous la terre ou il y a beaucoup de sinuositez." Then Littre defines sinuositi as meaning*:
"Qualite de ce qui est sinueux. Cette riviere fait beaucoup de sinuosites. II allait dans une chaloupe avec
deux ingenieurs cotoyer les deux royaumes de Dane-
mark et de Suede, pour mesurer toutes les sinuosites,
Font. Czar Pierre. Les jeunes Deliens se melerent
avec eux (les Atheniens) pour figurer les sinuosites
du labyrinthe de Crete, Barthel, Anach. ch. 76." Webster defines sinuosity to mean : " 1. The quality of
being sinuous, or bending in and out. 2. A series of
bends and turns in arches or other irregular figures ;
a series of windings. ' A line of coast certainly
amounting with its sinuositiis, to more than 700
miles.'    S. Smith."
Thus back in 1694 the men who were officially
empowered by the State to declare the meaning
of French words and to regulate French grammar,
and the great authority of to-day on the same subject, have said that a sinuosity was an indentation
or a pouch. Such a meaning exactly fits the configuration of the Lynn Canal or Channel, for instance,
which is a sinuositi de la cote of the northwest coast
of North America. The water of the Lynn Canal
is salt or sea water, not fresh water. And the shores
that enclose the Lynn Canal are part of the general
coast line or cote to use the word of the French
text   of   the   treaty   of    1825.     Consequently,   in • ,f ' i
finding the frontier line according to the expression
" parallele aux sinuosites de la cote," the shore line
passing around the Lynn Canal must be taken as the
basis from which to measure the ten marine leagues
inland and not some imaginary water line crossing near its mouth. And so in the same way with
all the other sinuosities or fiords or estuaries that
cut into the mainland above fifty-four forty, their
shore lines must be taken as the lines of departure from which to measure the ten marine leagues
Thus by inserting the words sinuositis and cote, the
negotiatorsmade it perfectly clear that—in directing
that the eastern line of demarcation of the lisiere
should be drawn " parallele aux sinuosites de la
cote,"—they meant that the frontier should pass
around all the sinuosities that advance into the
mainland and not cut across any of them, so that
the whole of the Lynn Canal and all the other
fiords above the Portland Canal would be included
within the Russian lisiere. For if the line cut across
the sinuosities of the shore, how could it be parallel to
them ?
Besides, Mr. William H. Dall of the United States
Geological Survey has pointed out that the Canadian argument, that the ten leagues inland should
be measured from the outer line of the territorial
waters as the basis of measurement, disproves itself
through a reductio ad absurdum. -    Li  ..—^-.n.^ ;_
"It happens," he says,79 "that there are none of
the islands in the archipelago north of Dixon's
Entrance which do not at some point approach
within six miles of one another or of the continental shore. They are all mountainous. As General Cameron, if he applies his hypothesis, has no
right to apply it partially or imperfectly, it will follow that all the archipelago for that purpose will
become solid land. Of this 'land' there would be
a strip, excluding all of the continent, in no place
less than fifty and sometimes eighty miles wide.
Under the treaty not over thirty miles from the
ocean could be possessed by Russia when not
mountainous, and as the mountains come to the
sea nearly all the way from Cape Muzon to Cape
Spencer, the only property possessed by Russia in
the archipelago would have been (i) Prince of
Wales Island, which in the treaty is absolutely
given to her, and (2) a strip a mile or two in average width on the ocean shores of the most seaward islands. It is perfectly easy to verify this
if one would take such trouble, and it is certainly
absurd enough for anybody."
The Canadians, moreover, overlook that rule of
International Law, that two States can agree by
treaty or otherwise, to suspend as between themselves any rule of the   Laws of Nations, provided
79 Senate Ex.  Doc.  No.  146, 50th Congress,  2nd Session,
page 25. w\
that they do not thereby trespass upon the rights
of other Powers.
Grotius recognized that two Nations can, as between themselves, alter the rules of the Laws of
Nations.    Thus he said:
" For peoples as well as individuals may by compact concede to another not only the Rights which
are theirs specially, but also those which they have in
common with all men : and when this is done, we
may say, what Ulpian said when an estate was sold
on condition that the purchaser should not carry on a
thunny fishery to the prejudice of the seller, namely,
that there could not be a servitude over the sea, but
that the bona fides of the contract required that the
rule of the sale should be observed; and therefore
that the possessors and their successors were under
a personal obligation to observe the condition."80
Von Martens, a representative of Hanover at the
Diet of the Germanic Confederation, who taught the
study of International Law at Gottingen in the latter
part of the eighteenth and the beginning of the nine-
80'' Possunt enim ut singuli, ita et populi pactis, non tantum de
jure quod proprie sibi competit, sed et de eo quod cum omnibus
hominibus commune habent, in gratiam ejus cujus id interest
decedere : quod cum fit, dicendum est quod dixit Ulpianus in ea
facti specie, qua fundus erat venditus hac lege, ne contra vendi-
torem piscatio thynnaria exerceretur, mari servitutem imponi non
potuisse, sed bonam fidem contractus exposcere, ut lex vendi-
tionis servetur. Itaque personas possidentium et in jus eorum
succedentium obligari." De fure Balli ac Pads, Lib. II., Cap.
teenth centuries, held, concerning the ability of two
States to change as between themselves the Laws
of Nations, this opinion :
" In the same way, it depends upon the free choice
of a nation to conclude or not treaties with another,
without that a third power is authorized to stop her,
so long as these treaties do not injure the right of
the third power, and without especially that she is
authorized to force her to conclude a treaty, or to
accede to it against its will."81
Phillimore, an English authority on the Laws of
Nations, says:
" No treaty between two or more Nations can
affect the general principles of International Law
prejudicially to the interests of other Nations not
parties to such covenant."82
He says also:
" Moreover, the Right to enter into lawful Conven-
tions or Treaties with other States is as unquestionably inherent in every independent State, as the right
81" De meme, il depend du libre arbitre d'une nation de cimen-
ter ou non des traites quelconques avec une autre, sans qu'une
tierce puissance soit autorisee a Pempecher, tant que ces traites
ne blessent pas ses droits, et sans que surtout elle soit autorisee,
a la forcer de conclure un traite, ou d'y acceder contre son gre."
Pricis du Droit des Gens moderne de I' Europe, par G. F. de
Martens : Paris, 1864, Volume I., § 119—" De la liberie de conclure des Traites," page 320.
82 Commentaries upon International Law by Sir Robert Phillimore, London, 1879.    Third Edition, Volume I., page 46. II
to make lawful covenants is inherent in every individual." g
In recent years, Bluntschli writes:
"States, in so far as they are independent, can
regulate by treaties the questions which specially
concern them, and thus create between themselves
a purely conventional law."M
In addition, the Duke of Wellington in a note to
Count Lieven, the Russian Ambassador at London
on November 28th, 1822, also recognized this rule.
Speaking of the exclusive sovereignty that Russia
had claimed in the Ukase of 1821 over Bering Sea
and a considerable part of the Pacific Ocean he said:
88 Commentaries upon International Law, by Sir Robert Philli-
more, London, 1882.    Third Edition, Volume II., page 69.
84 Das Moderns Volkerrecht der Civilisirten Staten als Rechts-
buch Dargestellt von Dr. J. C. Bluntschli: Nordlingen, 1878.
The original German text of Bluntschli is as follows:
'' Die Staten kbnnen als selbstandige Personen ihre besondern
Rechtsverhaltnisse durch Vertrage unter einander ordnen, so dass
daraus eigentliches Vertragsrecht entsteht."
In the authorized French translation of Bluntschli, by M. de
Lardy, first Secretary to the Swiss Legation at Paris (1870), this
paragraph is rendered thus :
'' Les etats, en tant que personnes independantes, peuvent
regler par des traites les questions qui les concernent specialement,
et creer ainsi entre eux un droit purement conventionel." INTERNATIONAL  LAW.
"We contend that no Power whatever can exclude another from the use of the open sea. A
Power can exclude itself from the navigation of a
certain coast, sea, etc., by its own act or engagement, but it cannot by right be excluded by another.
This we consider as the law of nations, and we
cannot negotiate under a paper in which a right is
asserted inconsistent with this principle."85
Thus an English statesman of World wide note is
in accord with the masters of International Law that
two Nations can, as between themselves, change
the Laws of Nations.
Consequently, according to the Laws of Nations
and the interpretation placed by the Duke of Wellington upon the rules and regulations in force between Nations, the Muscovite and the British Empires
had ample and perfect authority to disregard, as
between themselves, a rule of International Law,
provided that they did not thereby trespass upon
the rights of other States. Russia and England
could agree then, as they did by the treaty of February, 1825, to take—irrespective of the theory that
for purposes of sovereignty territorial waters are
"land"—the shore line of the mainland as the basis
of computation in measuring ten marine leagues inland. And the evidence is abundant to show that
the   shore  of the  continent  itself was  exactly the
**Fur Seal Arbitration, Volume IV., page 35 and also page 391. \B>
i i
base line that they intended should be used to
compute the ten leagues towards the interior and
not an imaginary water line passing from headland
to headland.
Ex-Secretary of State, John W. Foster, has shown
too, that the negotiations that resulted in the treaty
of 1825 cut off the British Traders from all access
to the interior waters of the lisiere except by special
license. The seventh article of the treaty provided,
I that, for the space of ten years from 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 interior seas, gulfs, havens,
and creeks on the coast mentioned in article three
for the purpose of fishing and of trading with the
natives." The negotiations were broken off a second
time because the Russian plenipotentiaries refused to
rnake_p_errjetual this right to frequent without hindrance the inland waters. When the negotiations
were renewed, they were resumed upon the basis of
the fourth article of the Russo-American treaty of
1824.86   In referring to this point, Secretary George
86 "Article Quatrieme.
" II est neanmoins entendu que
pendant un terme de dix annees, a
compter de la signature de la pr6-
sente Convention, les vaisseaux des
deux Puissances, ou qui appartien-
droient a leurs citoyens ou sujets
respectifs,   pourront   reciproque-
" Article Fourth.
"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 FOSTERS  ARGUMENT.
Canning said in his instructions to Sir Stratford
Canning: "Russia cannot mean to give the United
States of America what she withholds from us, nor
to withhold from us anything that she consented to
give to the United States."87 With pungent force
Mr. Foster has pointed out how the provisions of
the seventh article of the treaty of 1825 show that
all the inland waters of the lisiere in their whole
extent were to belong to Russia. He has said that,
" this ten yeaiV privilege is inconsistent with any
other interpretation of the treaty than the complete
sovereignty of Russia over, not only a strip of territory on the mainland which follows around the sinuosity of the sea, but also of the waters of all bays or
inlets extending from the ocean into the mainland.
This is the more manifest when the subsequent history respecting the provision of article four of the
American and article seven of the British treaty is
recalled. At the expiration of the time of ten years
the Russian Minister at Washington gave notice to
the Government of the United States that the privilege had expired, and a notification to that effect
was made in the public Press of the United States.
ment frequenter sans entrave quel-
conque, les mers inteneures, les
golfes, havres et criques sur la c6te
mentionn£e dans l'article precedent, afin d'y faire la p£che et le
commerce avec les naturels du
81 Fur Seal Arbitration, Volume IV., page 447.
without any hindrance whatever
the interior seas,-gulfs, harbors,
and creeks upon the coast mentioned in the preceding article, for
the purpose of fishing and trading
with the.natives of the country."
, 11 f
Persistent efforts were made by the United States
to have the privilege extended for another period of
ten years, but it was firmly refused by Russia. The
*Rriti^h__p_rivilege was likewise terminated upon the
expiration of the ten years mentioned, and this
article of the treaty was never again revived."88
Furthermore, it is a fact that George Canning in
his instructions to Sir Charles Bagot, of January 15th,
1824,89 stated that while the British Government
wished to restrict the extent of Muscovite territory as
much as possible, yet it was ready to give, as a quid
pro quo for the repeal by the Russian Government
of the Ukase of 1821, an eastern frontier line for the
Russian lisiere one hundred miles back from the
ocean, and to have the line to the Arctic Ocean
drawn along the one hundred and thirty fifth degree of longitude.
Canning said:—
"It is absolutely essential, therefore, to guard
against any unfounded pretensions, 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 be assigned as a limit between the territorial
rights of the two Powers.
I If your Excellency can obtain  the   strait  which
The Alaskan Boundary, by the Hon. John WV Foster, page
Fur Seal Arbitration, Volume IV., pages 419-420. CANNINGS   HUNDRED   MILES  LISIERE.
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
I 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 on any
account admit the Russian territory to extend at any
point to the Rocky Mountains."
Such an agreement would have included in Russian America or Alaska all the Klondike gold
The facts already cited show how absurd and unjust
is the claim that Canada presented at the Quebec
Conference in 1898 to the upper reaches of the sinuosities that cut into the continental shore above fifty-
four forty. And yet, there is still more English and
Canadian evidence of great importance—which Canadian writers have ignored—that practically debars
both the British and the Canadian Governments from
pleading in support of the Canadian demands to an
outlet on tide water above the Portland Channel or
Canal. 144
In 1901, three years after the territorial claims of
Canada were presented at the Quebec Conference
in 1898, a map "North West Canada & British
Columbia" showing the dioceses of the Church of
England in Canada was published in the Proceedings of the Church Missionary Society.90 (See Map
No. 24.) On this map the boundaries of the dioceses are marked with heavy dotted blue lines.
And the western limits of the dioceses of Caledonia
and Selkirk, which abut against Alaska, are drawn
precisely where the Muscovite and the American
Governments have always maintained the frontier
is located. This semi-official map, therefore, shows
that three years after the assembling of the Anglo-
American Joint High Commission, the Church of
England, through its representative, the Church
Missionary Society, considered that the field of its
missionary labors in Canada, extended only as far
west as the boundary claimed by the United States.
At the Paris Exposition of 1878, the Canadian
Government exhibited a map prepared the previous
year, showing the boundaries of the Dominion, which
received, on account of the excellency of its draftsmanship, a first prize.    On this map the frontier between
90 Proceedings ofthe Church Missionary Society for Africa and
the East: One-Hundred-and-Second-Year, 1900-1901. London
Church Missionary House, Salisbury Square, 1901. "North
West Canada & British Columbia. C. M. S. Report PI. 10."
(Opposite page 499.)  *m
Canada and Alaska was marked, it is understood, in
accordance with the Russian and the United States
ideas of the boundary. This map hung thereafter
for a number of years in the Parliament Building at
Ottawa until it "disappeared" about 1886. While it
is not possible at present to give a reproduction of
this map, three others, more or less rare, are at hand,
which show what the Canadian authorities thought
was the boundary the year immediately before the
Paris Exposition of 1878, and also six years afterwards, at the time General Cameron was beginning
to formulate the myth that Canada has ever since
reiterated and gradually perfected. The copy of the
first of these maps, which was published in 1877,
belonged to the late Pierre Margry,91 for many years
keeper of the Archives of the Ministry of Marine at
Paris. The map is entitled: " Map of the north west
part of Canada * * * by Thomas Devine * * *
By order of the Hon. Joseph Cauchon, commissioner of Crown lands, Crown department, Toronto,
* * * 1877." This official Canadian map published in 1877, upholds, as the accompanying reproduction shows, the United States frontier claim.
(See Map No. 25.) On an official Canadian map
of British Columbia, published in 1884, while the
frontier line is not marked along the Portland
Channel  but  from   Cape   Chacon  to   the   head   of
This map is now in the possession of the writer.
• -— -~^ -..' -_
III  It's
Behm's Canal in fifty-six degrees north latitude,
yet from that point the frontier line, though sometimes marked too close to the shore, is drawn so
as to include all the sinuosities of the mainland
in their entirety in American territory. (See Map
No. 26.) And again on another Canadian Government map, issued in 1884, " Map shewing the Railways of Canada, to accompany Annual Report on
Railway Statistics, 1884, Collingwood Schreiber, Chief
Engineer and Genl. Manager Canadian Government
railways," the frontier runs south of Pearse Island,
then up the Portland Channel, and then far inland,
sustaining absolutely the contention of the United States
and overthrowing all the Canadian arguments about
measuring the ten leagues inland from the outer line
of the territorial waters.    (See Map No. 27.)
It is difficult to see how the Canadian government
can in any way evade the evidence furnished against
it by these official maps. But the British Imperial
Government is even more sharply blocked by its
own official admissions from backing up the Canadian
claims. For upon the British " Admiralty Chart Nr>
787," giving the North-west coast of America from
" Cape Corrientes, Mexico, to Kadiak Island," prepared in 1876 by F. J. Evans, R. N., published in
1877 and corrected up to April i8o8Lthe_frontier of
the United States is marked frnrn the Arctic Ocean
down along the one hundred and forty-first degree of
longitude west from Greenwich, and then advancing  "Map shewing the Railways of Canada, to accompany annual report on Railway
Statistics, 1884, Collingwood Schreiber, Chief Engineer and Genl. Manager
Canadian Government Railways."   Compiled by Canadian Pacific Railway.
on the continent but passing round the sinuosities of
the coast so as to give a continuous lisiere of territory
cuttingoff the Dominion of Canada from all contact
with any of the fiords or sinuosities that bulge into the
continent between Mount Saint Elias and the Port-
land Channel, the frontier is drawn to the head of
the Portland Channel at about fifty-six degrees.
(See Map No. 22.) But not satisfied with this official
confirmation of the Russian and the United States
claims, which was made only five months before the
Quebec Conference met, the British Admiralty ac-
tually renewed upon this same chart, corrected to August
{201, more than two years after the conference adjourned, their sanction of the boundary claimed first
by Russia, and afterwards by the United States. (See
Map No. 1.) Thus the British Government itself has
upheld both before the assembling of the foint High
Commission and also since that body adjourned the
territorial claims held and maintained by-both the
Russian and^ the United States^ Governments, whereby-
Canadais nof entitled to an outlet upon tid* wafer
above fifty four forty?1    In the face of these two
921 bought one copy of Admiralty Chart No. 787, corrected to
April, 1898, at Edward Stanford's, 26 and 27 Cockspur, Charing
Cross, S. W., London, in September, 1901, and two copies of
the same chart corrected to August, 1901, at Stanford's in London, in September, 1902.
A section of Admiralty Chart No. 787 corrected to April,
1898, showing the Alaskan lisiere, was reproduced in The Alasko-
Canadian Frontier ( The fournal of the Franklin Institute, March,
/ 152
issues (1898 and 1901) of Chart No. 787, how can
any British statesman in the future argue in favor
of the Canadian claims?
But there is still more official English evidence that
blocks the Canadian demands.
When the Duke of Wellington was about to start
in 1822 to represent England at the International
Congress of Verona, he received from Secretary
Canning instructions to urge upon the attention of
the Russian plenipotentiaries at that Congress the
protest of the British Government against the Ukase
of 1821. In those instructions, after consulting and
obtaining the opinion of the great English jurist
Lord Stowell (earlier Sir William Scott), Canning
wrote to the Duke of Wellington:
" Enlightened statesmen and jurists have long held
as insignificant all titles of territory that are not
founded on actual occupation, and that title is, in
the opinion of the most esteemed writers on public
law to be established only by public use."93
In a Memorandum on the Russian Ukase of 1821,
that the Duke of Wellington wrote at Verona, October 17th, 1822, for Count Nesselrode, he said:
"The best writers on the laws of nations do not
1902).    A reprint of this article was sent to all the members of
the present Congress, including Mr. Griffith of Indiana who thereupon called attention to that chart in the House on May 13, 1902.
See the Congressional Record, May 14th, 1902, page 5825.
93 Fur Seal Arbitration, Volume IV., page 388. OCCUPATION  AND  USE.
attribute the exclusive sovereignty, particularly of
continents, to those who have first discovered them;
and although we might on good grounds dispute with
Russia the priority of discovery of these continents,
we contend that the much more easily proved, more
conclusive, and more certain title of occupation and
use, ought to decide the claim of sovereignty."94
In addition, Sir Robert Phillimore, a leading authority upon questions of International Law, has thus described what confers upon a Nation title through
"The next step," he says,95 "is to consider what
facts constitute occupation ; what are the signs and
emblems of its having taken place: for it is a clear
principle of International Law, that the title may
not be concealed, that the intent to occupy must be
manifested by some overt or external act.
"9$> !j! SJ» •*■ H"* •»"■
" These acts, then, by the common consent of nations, must be use of and settlement in the discovered
* * * * * *
"Indeed, writers on International Law agree that
Use and Settlement, or, in other words, continuous
use, are indispensable elements of occupation prop-
04 Fur Seal Arbitration, Volume IV., page 389.
95 Commentaries upon International Law by Sir Robert Phillimore, D. C. L., a member of Her Majesty's Most Honourable
Privy Council, and Judge of the High Court of Admiralty.
Third Edition, London, 1879.   Volume I., pages 331, 333, 334. 154
erly so called. The mere erection of crosses, land
marks, and inscriptions is ineffectual for acquiring or
maintaining an exclusive title to a country of which
no real use is made.
" But when occupation by Use and Settlement has
followed upon discovery, it is a clear proposition of
Law, that there exists that corporeal possession (cor-
poralis quaedam possessio [Grotius] detentio corporahs
[Bynkershoek] which confers an exclusive title upon
the occupant, and the Dominium eminens, as Jurists
speak, upon the country whose agent he is."
In the light of the above statements of International Law by two of the leading statesmen of England, Canning and Wellington, at the time she negotiated the Anglo-Muscovite treaty of 1825, as well
as the above quotation from an English international
jurist of such world wide repute as Phillimore, by
what acts have Russia, England and the United
States demonstrated their respective rights of occupancy to the territory included in the unbroken
Alaskan   lisiere ?
On the one hand the British Government, up to the
Quebec Conference, at least, has not claimed that
either through British officials or subjects it ever
actually occupied any part of the American territory
to which it formally laid claim at the Quebec Conference in 1898. Instead of this the British Authorities
recognized both by English and Canadian official
maps, by confirming the lease of the Russian Ameri- OCCUPATION  BY RUSSIA.
can Company to the Hudson's Bay Company of the
unbroken lisiere on the main land from Cross Sound
down to fifty four degrees forty minutes, by numerous
acts of British officials and even by English and Canadian state papers, that the British Empire had not
rights of occupancy in the Alaskan lisiere.
On the other hand, both the Muscovite and the
United States Governments enforced their right to
the lisiere by actual acts of occupancy and sovereignty in the territory to which the English Empire
now lays claim. In the first place, as soon after the
promulgation of the treaty of 1825 as the necessary
information could be collected and arranged, the
Russian Government published in 1827 Krusenstern's
map showing as Russian territory an unbroken
strip on the continent down to fifty-four degrees
forty minutes, and all the interior waters enclosed by
it. Two years later, in 1829, the Imperial Government in Piadischeff's atlas renewed this claim, and
subsequently re-asserted it on many other maps,
such as the map of Russian America in the atlas
issued in the years 1830 to 1835 by the Russian War
Office, and that of Tebenkoff published in 1849, and
on the official Russian map of 1861. The Russian
American Company also built forts and established
trading posts in the lisiere, thus actually occupying
the territory in question for the purpose of the fur
trade. Besides, in 1839, the Russian American Company leased the strip of coast to the Hudson's Bay 156
Company, which was a recognition of the sovereignty
of Russia in the lisiere by Britain through its authorized agent, the Hudson's Bay Company. And the
English Government further confirmed the lease.
This arrangement by lease was renewed in 1849
for ten years and again in 1859 for a few years,
and also in 1862 for three years, and then again it
was extended to 1867. On the map, too, that Sir
George Simpson exhibited in 1857 before a Parliamentary Committee and which Parliament ordered
to be printed, the lisiere was marked according to
what Russia and since 1867 the United States have
always claimed as the extent of their territory. At
the end of the various renewals of the original lease
the Russian American Company re-entered into possession of the forts and ports in the strip, thus
adding again a de facto to its de jure occupation.
The Russian American Company also received the
allegiance of the Indians who inhabited the lisiere.
Soon after the purchase of Alaska by the United |
States in 1867, the Department of State published a
map of the newly acquired territory, which Charles
Sumner made use of in his speech in favor of the
purchase. Upon this map the boundaries of Alaska
were marked according, to the treaty of 1825 so as
to give to the United States a lisiere thirty miles
inland on the continent, thereby including in American territory an unbroken lisiere below Mount Saint
Elias of the same length and width as was marked OCCUPATION  BY THE UNITED  STATES. 157
upon the Russian maps. When Alaska was transferred in 1867, a small force of United States troops
immediately occupied Sitka, Port Tongas and other
posts. The United States have established and maintained, since the transfer, customs posts in the lisiere
and collected revenue in it. The United States revenue cutters have patrolled the inland waters surrounded by the lisiere. The United States have
received the unquestioned allegiance of the Indians
in the lisiere. Americans established mission schools
towards the head of the Lynn Canal in the early
eighties. In the United States census of 1880, and
also in that of 1890, the Indians living in the lisiere
were publicly and officially returned as part of the
population of the United States. In addition, under
the protection of the United States Government,
American citizens settled in and occupied the lisiere
on the main land; they built towns within the panhandle ; and they founded and developed industrial
enterprises in the strip.96
Thus it becomes apparent that while the United
States have actually occupied and made use of the
Alaskan lisiere—as Russia had begun to occupy and
use the strip before the sale in 1867 to the United
States—both Great Britain and Canada not only by
^A good deal of information about the value and wealth of
Alaska is given in a paper read by Mr. Donald Fletcher of
Seattle at the Trans-Mississippi Commercial Congress at Saint
Paul, Minn., 1902.    Printed at Seattle, Washington. i58
many official aets confirmed the belief of Russia and
the United States that the lisiere was continuous and
included all the sinuosities above fifty-four forty in
their entirety, but also abstained from all attempts—
except under the form of a lease of the lisiere by
the Hudson's Bay Company from the Russian American Company—to occupy and make use of the strip.
The title to an unbrokenlisiere on the continental
shore has thus received an important confirmation
through prescription.
Sir Robert Phillimore thus speaks of title by prescription : w
" The practice of nations, it is not denied, proceeds
upon the presumption of Prescription, whenever there
is scope for the admission of that doctrine. The same
reason of the thing which introduced this principle
into the civil jurisprudence of every country, in
order to quiet possession, give security to property,
stop litigation, and prevent a state of continued bad
feeling and hostility between individuals, is equally
powerful to introduce it, for the same purposes,
into the jurisprudence which regulates the intercourse of one society with another.
"In other words, there is an International Prescription, whether it be called Immemorial Possession, or by any other name.    The peace of the world,
91 Commentaries upon International Law, by Sir Robert Phillimore, 1879, London.   Third Edition, Volume I., pages 361-363. PRESCRIPTION.
the highest and best interests of humanity, the fulfilment of the ends for which States exist, require
that this doctrine be firmly incorporated in the
Code  of International  Law."
After citing with approval upon this point Grotius
and Vattel, Phillimore continues:
" But that Prescription is the main pillar upon
which the security of national property and peace
depends, is as incontrovertible a proposition as that
the property and peace of individuals rest upon the
same doctrine."
Phillimore then gives his sanction to a passage of
Henry Wheaton upon this subject in the following
"To these remarks should be added the observation of a great modern jurist:—
''' The general consent of mankind has established
the principle, that long and uninterrupted possession
by one nation excludes the claim of every other.
Whether this general consent be considered as an
implied contract or as positive law, all nations are
equally bound by it, since all are parties to it, since
none can safely disregard it without impugning its
own title to its possessions; and since it is founded
upon mutual utility, and tends to promote the general welfare of mankind.'"
Concerning the  perfection  and the  loss  of title
™ Commentaries upon International Law by Sir Robert Phillimore, 1879, London.    Third Edition, Volume I., page 365. i6o
to territory through   prescription, Alphonse  Rivier,
"Does  a State lose the right to make good its
sovereignty upon  territory,  owing  to  a  prolonged
omission ?
"There is no doubt, nevertheless, that a State
which during a considerable lapse of time remains
silent concerning its real or pretended right and accepts the injury (lision) without protest or resistance,
appears to renounce this right or these pretensions,
abandoning them, and acquiescing in the contrary pretensions. It must be said for prescription as for occupation : the Laws of Nations do not make history
retrace its steps; it sanctions, on the contrary, the
state of things that the evolution of history has created and time has consecrated."
Edmund Burke, too, recognized  in the following
99'' Un Etat perd-il le droit de faire valoir sa souverainer.6 sur
un territoire, par Tenet d'une omission prolongee?
" II n'est pas douteux, neanmoins, que l'Etat qui pendant un
laps de temps consid6rable garde le silence sur son droit vrai ou
pretendu et accepte la lesion sans protestation ni resistance, parait
renoncer a ce droit ou a ces pretentions, les abandonner, et ac-
quiescer aux pretentions contraires. On doit le dire pour la prescription comme pour 1' usucapion : le droit des gens ne fait pas
rebrousser chemin a | histoire, il sanctionne au contraire T etat de
choses que revolution historique a cree et que le temps a consa-
cr6." Principes du Droit des Gens, par Alphonse Rivier, Consul
G6neral de la Confederation Suisse a Bruxelles: Paris, 1896, Volume I., page 220. PRESCRIPTION.
passage that  prescription  is a part of the Law of
"If it were permitted to argue with power, might
one not ask one of these gentlemen, whether it would
not be more natural, instead of wantonly mooting
these questions concerning their property, as if it were
an exercise in law, to found it on the solid rock of prescription?—the soundest, the most general, the most
recognized title between man and man that is known in
municipal or in public jurisprudence ,* a title in which
not arbitrary institutions but the eternal order of things
gives judgment; a title which is not the creature, but
the master of positive law; a title which, though not
fixed in its term, is rooted in its principles in the Law
of Nature itself, and is indeed the original ground of
all known property; for all property in soil will always
be traced back to that source, and will rest there.
* * * These gentlemen, for they have lawyers
amongst them, know as well as I that in England we
have had always a prescription or limitation, as all
nations have against each other. * * * All titles
terminate in Prescription."
When it is remembered that for a period of more
than seventy years—all through the Russian possession of Russian America from 1825 to 1867 and the
United States occu^atimi_of_Alaska from the latter^
date_until the Quebec Conference convened in 1898—
100 Edmund Burke, Volume IX., page 449.   Letter to R. Burke,
Esq. 162
the British Empire made no formal protest against
the right of sovereignty to a continuous, unbroken
lisiere on the mainland from fifty-four degrees forty
minutes in the south up to Mount Saint Elias in
the north which first the Muscovite JEmpire and
afterwards the American Republic openly asserted:
and that l on the contrary the British Empire not
only passively assented to that right of sovereignty
exercised in the continuous lisiere first by Russia
and afterwards by the United States, but also again
and again actually confirmed it; it becomes clear
that   the   United   States,   had   they  no  other  legal
grounds upon which to base their right to the un-
broken lisiere on the continental shore, would have
obtained by prescription a good title to that strip.
In a conference held at Washington on May 30th,
1898, between ex-Secretary of State John W. Foster
and Reciprocity Commissioner John A. Kasson, representing the United States, and Sir Julien Paunce-
fote, the British Ambassador, and Sir Louis Davies,
a member of the Canadian Ministry, acting for the
British Empire, the United States and Great Britain
agreed to appoint a Joint High Commission to consider and arrange upon a basis more favorable for
both sides commercial reciprocity, the Bering Sea
seal question and other important subjects.
The Commission met and organized for business
at Quebec, August 23d, 1898. The American Commissioners were Senator Fairbanks, of Indiana, Chair-
man, Senator Gray of Delaware, Representative Ding-
ley of Maine, ex-Secretary of State Foster of Indiana,
Reciprocity Commissioner Kasson of Iowa, and T.
Jefferson Coolidge of Massachusetts, ex-Minister to
France. The British Commissioners were Baron
Herschel, Lord High Chancellor of England, Chairman, Sir Wilfred Laurier, Premier of Canada, Sir
Richard Cartright, Canadian Minister of Trade and
Commerce, Sir Louis Davies, Canadian Minister of
Marine and Fisheries, and Sir James T. Winter,
Premier of Newfoundland.
Soon after the Commission met at Quebec, the
British Government claimed that the eastern bound-
ary of Alaska should run from the extremity of
Prince of Wales Island at fifty-four degrees forty
minutes, along the estuary marked on recent maps
as Pearse Canal to the head of the Portland Channel, fronitherej-^Tjugb^
the mountains nearest to the shore and across all
the sinuosities of the sea that advance into the continent up to Mount SaintElias.    (See Map No. 2.)
The subject of the boundary between Alaska and
Canada was discussed at length. Mr. Foster we
know, from his article on the subject and the ability
he has displayed in many important posts at home
and abroad, presented the American point of view
with force and learning. And Lord Herschel we
can be sure, judging from his long and distinguished record as  a jurist and a judge, made the 164
most of the Canadian contention. But the Commis-
sioners, after many sessions extending over several
months, were unable to agree as to the meamng_ of
the languageof the treaty of 1825. The British Commissioners then proposed " a conventional boundary,
by which Canada should receive, by cession or perpetual grant, Pyramid Harbor," on the Lynn Canal,
and a "strip of land connecting it with Canadian
territory to the northwest" and the rest of the
boundary to be drawn about as the United States
claimed it should be. This plan the American Commissioners refused. The British representatives then
asked for the submission of the whole territory in
dispute to the arbitration of three jurists of repute,
one chosen by the United States and one by Great
Britain, and the third by these two. These judges,
the Anglo-Canadian Commissioners desired should
be governed in making their decision by the following rules:101
" (a) Adverse holding or prescription during a
period of fifty years shall make a good title. The
arbitrators may deem exclusive political control of a
district, as well as actual settlement thereof, sufficient
to constitute adverse holding or to make title by prescription.
101 Sessional Papers, Volume 14, Session 1899, Volume
XXXIII. (99). Boundary between Alaska and Canada. Protocol No. LXIII. of the Joint High Commission, Washington,
respecting the boundary between Alaska and Canada. February 18th, 1899. THE  QUEBEC  CONFERENCE.
I (b) The arbitrators may recognize and give effect
to rights and claims resting on any other ground
whatever valid according to international law, and
on any principles of international law which the arbitrators may deem to be applicable to the case,
and which are not in contravention of the foregoing rule.
" (c) In determining the boundary line, if territory
of one party shall be found by the tribunal to have
been at the date of this treaty in the occupation of
the subjects or citizens of the other party, such effect
shall be given to such occupation as reason, justice,
the principles of international law, and the equities
of the case, shall, in the opinion of the tribunal,
The United States Commissioners, while ready to
accept arbitration with rules "a" and "b" desired
rule "c" to read—in order to make it conform with
the local conditions in Alaska—thus:
" In considering the ' coast' referred to in said
treaties, mentioned in Article III. [the treaties of
1825 and 1867], it is understood that the coast of
the continentjs intended, In determining the boundary line, if territory of one party shall be found by
the tribunal to have been at the date of this treaty
in the occupation of the subjects or citizens of the
other party, such effect shall be given to such occupation as reason, justice, the principles of inter-
national law and the equities of the case shall,  in 166
the opinion of the tribunal, require; and all towns
and setri^mentsjon tide water, settled under the au-
thority of the_Umted States and under the jurisdic-
tion_of_the United States at the date_of this treaty,
shall remain within the territory and jurisdiction of
the United States."
To this change in rule "c," the Anglo-Canadian
representatives replied they could not agree. They
objected to the declaration added to the first part of
rule " c," which ran as follows : " In considering the
' coast' referred to in said treaties, mentioned in
Article III. [the treaties of 1825 and 1867], it is
understood that the coast of the continent is understood."
Commenting on the above quotation, the British
Commissioners said: " while it was probably intended
only by this clause that the line should be drawn
upon the continent, the language used is open to
In   addition  they  objected  to  the
words " that all towns or settlements on tide water,
settled under the authority of the United States and
under the jurisdiction of the United States at the
date of this treaty, shall remain within the territory
and jurisdiction of the United States," as a marked
and jmportant departure from the rules that governed
the Venezuela boundary question.102
102 Concerning the Venezuela Boundary question, see the article
by ex-President Cleveland in The Century, Volume LXII., New
Series Volume XL., May to October, 1901. THE  QUEBEC   CONFERENCE. I67
The American Commissioners then inquired whether
the Anglo-Canadian representatives would consider
the selection of an umpire from the American continent. The British Commissioners answered that
they considered such a choice as "most objectionable."
"The American commissioners declined the Brit-
ish plan of arbitration, and stated that there was
no analogy between the present controversy and
the Venezuelan dispute ; that in the latter case the
occupation of the territory in question had from the
beginningbeen followed by the constant and re-
peated protests and objections_of Venezuela, and the
controversy was one of long standing; but that in
the case of the Alaskan territory there had been
a peaceful and undisputed occupation and exercise of
sovereignty for more than seventy years, and that no
question respecting_this__Qceupation ajad_-soy^Lt£ignty
had been raised by the British Government until"
the Joint High Commission was appointed. "They
challenged their British colleagues to cite a single
instance in history where a_ subject attended with
such circumstances" was submitted to arbitration.
But the United States representatives offered to sul>
mit the dispute to the decision of three judges of the
highest standing from each country. With the provision, however, that as territorial questions touched
so vitally the sovereignty of nations, a_bjnding
decision   could  only  be   given  by  four  of the  six 168
judges. The BritishCommissioners, however, rejected
this plan of the American Commissioners.103 The
position of America on the one hand, and of
Canada and Britain on the other, concerning the
Alaskan boundary question, are well summed up
in the words of Nesselrode in 1824: "Ainsi nous
voulons conserver, et les Compagnies Angloises
veulent acquerir." (Thus we wish to retain,
and the English companies wish to acquire).
The Joint High Commission adjourned in March,
1899, and the boundary question was referred to the
108 The Canadians in their anxiety to have their claims to American territory submitted to an " impartial" arbitration seem to
forget entirely that in 1899 Britain refused the offer of the South
African Republic to refer the differences pending between those
two powers to an " impartial" arbitration, and that afterwards
Canada sent troops to aid in bringing the Transvaal and the
Orange Free State under the dominion of the British Crown. The
Transvaal offered to submit the differences with England to a
Court composed of two arbitrators, nominated by the two governments respectively, who '' shall agree respecting a third person,
who shall act as President of the arbitration tribunal," which
should decide in every case by a majority vote.
Sir Alfred Milner, in submitting this proposal to his Government, wrote:—
" It is evident that this third person will virtually decide everything, and it is provided that he shall ' not be a subject of one of
the arbitrating parties,' i. e., a foreigner.
"On this ground alone I feel sure her Majesty's Government
will not accept the proposal. For every reason I think it is desirable that it should promptly intimate its total inability to entertain it."
See extract from Sir Alfred Milner's dispatch of June 14th,
1899, to his Home Government: The Times, London, August
26th, 1899, page 5. MODUS  VIVENDI,   OCTOBER   20,   1899. 169
two  Governments  for   further  negotiations.     Since
then  the Joint High Commission has not met.
By a modus vivendi agreed upon on October 20,
1899, between the American Secretary of State
and the British Chargi d'Affaires at Washington,
the actual occupation of territory about the head of
the Lynn Canal was decidedly altered.104 No question of territorial jurisdiction about the, summit _of
the Lynn Canal arose until the Klondike gold excitement of 1897. Towards the latter part of that
year a post of the Canadian Northwest Mounted
Police was at Lake Tagish at a point called Tagish
Post many miles to the north of the White and the
Chilkoot Passes. By the Circular of Instructions
issued by the Commissioners of Customs of Canada, December 17th, 1897, a^ merchandise coming
from the United States into the Northwest Territory of Canada must be reported at Tagish Post.105
Soon afterwards the Canadian customs post was advanced southward to Bennett and then on to the summit of the Chilkoot Pass, and afterwards withdrawn to
Lake Lindeman, which is south of Bennett. In the
spring of 1898 a United States Customs Post was
1M Modus Vivendi between the United States of America and the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, fixing a provisional boundary line between the Territory of Alaska and the
Dominion of Canada about the Head of Lynn Canal.
106 Sessional Papers, Volume XXXIII. (No. 79), 62 Victoria,
1899. 170
established at the head of Lake Bennett.    This point
was selected because the United States maps of that
region showed the boundary to be about at that point
and at the same time it commanded both the White
Pass and the Chilkoot Trails, so that one post served
both.    As   the Canadian officials   claimed   that  the
American post at Bennett was on Canadian territory
and  they  rendered  it  troublesome  for  the   United
States officer there to transact his business, the Bennett post  was  discontinued, and  two  officers were
ordered to establish posts at Lake Lindeman on the
Chilkoot Trail and at the Log Cabin on the White
Pass Trail.    Owing to the lack of accommodations
at Lake Lindeman the officer on the Chilkoot Trail
established himself at the  summit  of the   Chilkoot
Pass and remained there  until travel by  that trail
ceased.    The post at the Log Cabin was maintained
until it was withdrawn according to the modus vivendi
of October 1899 to the summit of the White Pass.
Before the modus vivendi came  into  force,   there
was a Canadian post, called Pleasant Camp, in the
direction  of the  Dalton Trail in  the  valley  of the
Chilcat River,  about  ten   marine leagues,  or  thirty
miles inland from the coast line.    According to the
temporary boundary line along the Klaheela River,
the   point   of   that   temporary   line  nearest   to   the
neighboring branch or sinuosity of the Lynn Canal
is much less than ten marine leagues or thirty miles
inland.    (See Map  No. 28.)    By the terms of the  172
modus vivendi the boundary of American territory
was brought nearer to the coast line at three points.
In agreeing to the summits of the White and the
Chilkoot Passes as the provisional boundary, the spirit
of the treaty of 1825 was observed. For at both
those points there is a natural water shed less than
ten marine leagues from the coast. But in the region
of the Dalton Trail, the frontier, to accord with the
spirit of the Anglo-Muscovite Treaty of 1825, should
be marked much farther inland than the temporary
line agreed upon by the modus vivendi. In this
modus vivendi, the United States acted most generously towards the British Empire, which at that time
was in an awkward position. Only nine days before,
October nth, war had begun in South Africa between the English and the Boers. If, owing to a
possible clash between American and Canadian
miners in their hunt for gold in the region of the
Chilcat River, Britain was anxious for a temporary
boundary in that valley in order to minimize the
chances of trouble, it was not the United States that
was called upon make concessions but rather England and Canada. And yet it was America that
made all the concessions in this temporary arrangement. She withdrew her posts at all three points
and Canada advanced hers correspondingly.
That the boundary should be surveyed and marked
out without unnecessary delay so as to prevent a
possible   conflict between   American   and   Canadian THE  QUESTION  OF  ARBITRATION.
miners there can be no question. There is, however, a radical difference, on the one hand, between
adjusting the inland boundary along the natural
water-shed or at a distance of ten leagues parallel to
the sinuosities of the coast by a joint survey and a
mutual policy of "give and take" so as to round
off—owing to the multitudinous curves and turns
that the line following the sinuosities would take—
the sharp corners, and on the other hand, referring
to an International Tribunal the recent preposterous
and unjust claim of Canada to one or more outlets
on tide water above fifty-four forty. When a joint
survey of the exact boundary is actually carried out,
it may prove to be difficult to determine whether at
certain points there is a natural watershed formed
by mountains passing inland round the sinuosities.
This point, which is the only one about which there
can be an honest difference of opinion, might well
be referred to the International Court of Arbitration
at the Hague.
Since 1623—whenEmericCruce106 urged in his Nou-
veau Cynie the creation at Venice of an International
Court of the Nations—and 1625—when Hugo Grotius
advocated in his De Jure Belli ac Pads a mitigation
of the horrors of war—until now, the development of
International Arbitration as a means of securing International Peace has been slow and difficult.    And it is
10i£miric Cruc'e, by Thomas Willing Balch, Philadelphia,
Allen, Lane and Scott, 1900, pages 24-37. 174
not by trumping up fanciful territorial claims which
are not based upon facts, and then straining every
means to bring them for adjudication before an
International Court that International Peace will be
promoted through International Arbitration. And
such is the position of Britain and Canada in their
efforts to secure one or more outlets on tide water
above "fifty-four forty." Just as Russia and the
United States together have possessed and occupied
an unbroken lisiere on the continent from Mount
Saint Elias to "fifty-four forty" for much more than
fifty years, so the British Empire has had possession
of British Columbia for more than fifty years: and
what would Canada think if the United States asked
the Dominion to submit her title to British Columbia to "an impartial" arbitration ?
While the decision of the Paris Tribunal upon the
Bering Sea seal fisheries very properly knocked out
the contentions of sovereignty put forward by the
United States Government upon an alleged closed sea,
the Court compromised upon the vital point at issue,
for it failed to afford adequate protection for the fur
seals.107 Evidently, encouraged by this miscarriage of
justice, the Canadians hope, that—although they have
no substantial facts with which to support their
claims—if they  claim   only   enough   and   then   can
m Fur-Bearing Animals of Alaska: House of Representatives'
Report No. 2303, 57th Congress, ist session.
The Beidler Bill: H. R. 13,387, 57th Congress, 1st session. THE  QUESTION  OF  ARBITRATION.
have their contentions passed upon by an International Court, they will at least somehow get a port
somewhere on the Lynn Canal. If Canada obtains
a deep water harbor there as she desires, she can
build and fortify a great naval arsenal, from which
she would menace American commerce with Alaska,
Siberia and Japan as it steams to and fro across
the Northern Pacific.108
108 The following letter from the pen of Mr. Frederick W. Seward
appeared in the New York Tribune, Nov. 14th, 1902:
To the Editor of the Tribune :
Sir: Very few people either in England or the United States
seem to comprehend the "true inwardness" of the so-called
'' Alaska Boundary Dispute.'' That is unfortunate, for it contains
the germ of a grave national danger. The average newspaper
reader supposes it to be a dispute over a few acres or square miles
of wild land, perhaps frozen, on either side of an imaginary line.
But it is not a boundary dispute of that sort. The boundary was
established years ago by treaties in which both nations took part.
What the Canadian schemers are pushing for now is "an outlet
to tidewater " by means of a harbor on the Lynn Canal.
What is the Lynn Canal ? It is a great estuary, broad and
deep, like the lower Hudson or the Delaware. It traverses
Southern Alaska and is the chief artery of commerce. It is the
thoroughfare by which all traders, miners and travellers reach the
valley of the Yukon, unless they make a two thousand mile voyage
around by the ocean.
What is the harbor that the Canadian schemers covet ? It is
one of the most important strategic points on our Pacific Coast.
It is a deep, wide, semi-circular basin, safe in all weathers, open
to navigation all the year round, with easy access to the sea, large ' ■
Canada wishes, and she has the support of England,109
to have her claim—that she is entitled to many outlets
upon tide water above fifty-four degrees forty minutes
—submitted to the arbitration of third parties. The
United States should never agree to any such arrangement. If such a plan were adopted and a decision
were given altogether against Canada, she would be
enough to float not only trading craft, but the cruisers and battleships of the British navy. It is surrounded by mountain heights
which, when fortified, would render it impregnable. In a word,
what they want is to establish a naval and commercial port for
Great Britain, resembling Gibraltar or Aden—and to establish it
in the heart of an American Territory, at the head of its inland
navigation ! The power owning such a stronghold might well
claim to dominate the North Pacific. It would cut Alaska Territory in two parts, with British forts and custom houses between,
controlling their intercourse with each other and with the outside
world. Compared with such a stronghold Esquimault or Halifax
is of minor consequence. That port is the objective point that
Canadian schemers are working for. That is what they hope to
extort from us by threats or cajolery. They know what they are
about; apparently we do not * at least, they hope so. So they
muddle the question with specious pretenses of harmless purpose,
by which to "outwit the Yankees."
When this monstrous demand, without a shadow of foundation,
was first put forward it brought to a sudden check the work of
the Joint High Commission to settle questions between Canada
and the United States. If persisted in it will do more than that.
It will tend to break up the present era of good feeling between
the two branches of the English speaking race—an era so full of
promise for both nations and for the whole civilized world.
The whole " claim " is so preposterous and absurd that it would
109 Baron Herschel, Lord High Chancellor of England, presented
the argument for the Canadian territorial claims to the Anglo-
American Joint High Commission. THE  QUESTION  OF  ARBITRATION.
no worse off than she has been from 1825 to the present day, while anything decided in her favor would
be a clear gain to her. This country, on the contrary,
cannot by any possibility obtain more than she now
has, viz., that which she purchased from Russia in 1867
and to all of whose rights she succeeded ; at the same
time the United States can lose heavily. For the inclusion in Canadian territory of only one port,110 like
hardly be credible if we did not know how silly and blind to their
own interests great governments may sometimes be. The Canadian " statesmen" who are pressing it are blind leaders of the
blind. They are like children playing with fire. They do not
realize the far-reaching consequences of the conflagration they are
trying to kindle. For it is not to be believed that the American
people, when roused to an understanding of the question, are
ever going to acquiesce in the construction of a Gibraltar in their
own waters by any foreign power. American patience is great and
American good nature is proverbial, but even these have limits.
Montrose-on-the-Hudson, November, 1902.
110 Mr. Alexander Begg in his article, Review of the Alaskan
Boundary Question (December, 1900, page 24), published at
Victoria, British Columbia, refers to the strategic importance
for the British Empire of having some port north of fifty-four
forty.    He says:
"The strategic importance of that portion of British Columbia now under review should be evident to every intelligent student of the map. The day will assuredly come, in the not very
distant future, when new lines of railway and telegraph will cross
the Canadian half of the continent, and these lines which under
the new Imperial Policy will make Canada the western highway
of the Empire, must play a large part in its consolidation. Can
we afford, therefore, to allow valuable strategic and commercial
points on the Pacific Coast to pass into the hands of a foreign
nation, when by treaty rights they are unquestionably British ?'' 178
Pyramid Harbor or Dyea on the Lynn Canal, would
greatly lessen for the United States the present and
future value of the Alaskan lisiere. The evidence in
the case is overwhelmingly on the side of the United
States and shows that they are entitled, by long, uninterrupted occupancy and other rights, to an unbroken
strip of land on the continent from Mount Saint Elias
down to the Portland Channel. There is no more
reason for the United States to allow their right to the
possession of this unbroken Alaskan lisiere to be
referred to the decision of foreign judges, than would
be the case if the British Empire advanced a claim to
sovereignty over the coast of the Carolinas or the port
of New York and proposed that this demand should be
referred to the judgment of subjects of third Powers.
If the demand of Canada to Alaskan territory is referred to foreigners for settlement, the United States
can gain nothing, while they will incur the risk of
losing territory over which the right of sovereignty of
Russia and then of the United States runs back unchallenged for much more than half of a century.
If France advanced a claim to the Isle of Wight and
then asked England to refer her title to the island
to the arbitration of foreigners, would Great Britain
consent? And for the English Empire to make a
demand to many outlets upon tide water on the
northwest coast of America above fifty-four degrees
forty minutes and then ask the United States to
submit this claim  to  the  arbitration of the  citizens THE  POLICY  FOR THE  UNITED  STATES. 179
of third Powers, is a similar case. Whether the
frontier should pass over a certain mountain top or
through a given gorge is a proper subject for settlement by a joint survey; and by a mutual policy
of give and take in an exchange of the interlap-
ping bits of territory, the sharp corners produced by
a line run parallel to the indentations of the shore
could be done away with.m But by no possibility has
Canada any right to territory touching tide water
above fifty-four degrees forty minutes.
111 On this point see the Bayard, Phelps, Salisbury correspondence in 1885 and 1886. Senate, Ex. Doc. No. 143, 49th Congress, ist Session, page 14. I
Just as the book itself is printed, the Public
Ledger, Philadelphia, Tuesday, February 17th, 1903,
page 1, publishes the following article:
"President and Secretary of War Find it
in a British Map.
"Washington, Feb. 16.—An interesting discovery was made yesterday by President Roosevelt and
Secretary Root in regard to the Alaska boundary.
As they were speaking of the labors of the Alaska
Boundary Commission, of which Mr. Root is a member, they consulted the large geographical globe that
stands near the Cabinet table.
" The globe is so big that the map of Alaska
appears on a large scale, and they easily traced the
boundary line between that Territory and the British
possessions. To their surprise they found that the
boundary as shown there sustains the contention of
the United States in all particulars, although it was
prepared under the direction of the British Admiralty."
(181) 182
The fact that the British Admiralty sustains the
United States claim in Alaska, was discovered in
London by my brother, Mr. Edwin Swift Balch,
who found British Admiralty Chart No. 787, corrected up to August, 1898. I bought the copy
from which Map No. 22 is reproduced September
ist, 1901, at Edward Stanford's in London. This
chart was referred to and its importance explained
in an article by the writer La Frontiere Alasko-
Canadienne, which was printed at the beginning
of the first number of the Revue de Droit International at Brussels for the year 1902 (Second
Series, Vol. IV., page 17). This chart was also
cited as evidence by the writer in a letter of January 27th, 1902, which was published in the Nation of
New York, February 6th, 1902, and in the Evening
Post, February 7th, 1902. The part of this chart
showing the Alaska-Canada frontier was reproduced in the article The Alasko-Canadian Frontier
in The Journal of the Franklin Institute for March
1902 (Vol. 153, No. 3, page 183), and from that
article the map was reproduced in The Philadelphia
Times (since merged in the Public Ledger) of April
6th, 1902. During the past ten months, this chart
has been referred to over and over again by the
newspapers of the United States.
The same chart, corrected to August, 1901, (see
Map No. 1) is cited in this monograph for the first
time as evidence, and is  referred to in reviews  of POSTSCRIPT. 183
this  book in  the Public Ledger and  The Press, of
Philadelphia, to-day, February 22.
On January 24th, 1903, a convention was signed
at Washington by Secretary of State, John Hay,
and the English Ambassador Sir Michael Herbert.
It was ratified by the Senate, and became a treaty
on February nth, 1903. The treaty provides that
the question of the Alaska-Canada boundary shall
be referred to a Commission or Tribunal of six
jurists, three to be appointed by the United States,
and three by Great Britain. King Edward the
Seventh, in his speech opening Parliament on February 17th, said that the treaty referred the frontier
question to "an arbitral tribunal." But as an even
number of Americans, and Britons or Canadians
are to sit on the Commission, it can hardly be said
that the subject is referred to an arbitration.
The American Commissioners, in making up their
opinion must consider the acts of Canada and of
England, the official Canadian Government maps
and the British Admiralty charts. Moreover, the
new treaty provides that the French or official version of Articles III., IV. and V. of the Anglo-
Russian Treaty  of February 16-28,  1825, shall  be 611 '
If. tl
I t!
used in deciding what arrangement the Muscovite
and the British Empires agreed upon in that instrument ; and in the last part of Article IV., the
phrase " parallele aux sinuosites de la cote " is republished correctly. This phrase especially, makes
it incumbent upon the three American Commissioners not to yield to Canada an outlet to salt
water anywhere above the Portland Channel.
T. W. B.
Philadelphia, Washington's Birthday, 1903. INDEX.  INDEX.
Adams, Charles Francis      60
Agreement of neutrality during Crimean War ...    49, 50, 51
'' Ainsi nous voulons conserver, et les Compagnies Angloises
veulent acquerir." Title page, xiii, 15,  168
Alabama, The      60
Alabama Arbitration, The      64
Alaska . x, xi, 9, 21, 52, 55, 57, 58, 73, 74, 76, 89, 93, 94, 181
Alasko-Canadian Frontier, The      xi, 151, 182
Alexander the First, The Emperor        3
Alexander the Second, The Emperor, 35, 60, 61, 63, 64, 65, 173
America         1
Andrews, C. L       xi
Anglo-Russian negotiations 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16
Anian, Strait of        2
Appleton, Mr      57
Arbitration, International .   .   168, 173, 174, 176, 177, 178,  179
Arbitration of the inland boundary 172,  173
Arrowsmith, John 35, 38, 74,   115
Article Fourth of the Treaty of 1824 140,   141
Article III. of the Treaty of 1825 . 6, 8
Article IV. of the Treaty of 1825        8
Article VI. of the Treaty of 1825      39
Article VII. of the Treaty of 1825      41
Article XI. of the Treaty of 1825      4°
Bagot, Sir Charles   . 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 100, 107, 126,  142
Bagot's three propositions 10, 12, 13
Balch, Mr. Edwin Swift xii, 182
Balch, Mr. T. W 113. "4
Balls given to Russian officers 66, 67
Banks, General      xu
Barker, Mr. Wharton      64
(187) i88
Barnes, Mr. T. W      64
Bayard, Thomas F 93» 94. 95
Begg, Mr. Alexander 109, no, in, 112, 113,  114
Behm's Canal 104
Benjamin, Judah P      59
Bennett, Lake 169,  170
Bentinck, Family of 106, 107
Bering        2
Bering Sea 3, 5, l8
Bering Strait  .   .             2, 76
Bigelow, Mr. John ,     64
Blaine, James G 103
Bluntschli 121, 122, 123,  138
Boers, The 172
Bouchette, Joseph, Jr 27, 29, 74
Boundary Commission appointed 183
British Admiralty upholds American claim 151, 181
British Admiralty Chart No. 787 . Frontispiece, x, 22,104,105,182
British Admiralty Chart No. 2431 115
British Admiralty Chart No. 2458 116, 117
British Columbia 82, 88, 93, 94
British Empire 8, 9, 35, 95, 139,  178
British Government, see English Government.
British Government upholds American claim . 22, 148, 151, 152
Bru6, A.  H 23, 80, 81, 82, 83
Brymner, Mr 109, no,  in
Buell, Colonel Augustus C xii, 56, 60
Burke, Edmund 160,  161
Burrough's Bay 104
Bynkershock *   * 154
Cameron, General  146
Canada 82, 90, 124, 157, 163, 175, 176, 178, 179
Canadian arguments 99, 125, 131
Canadian demands .    x, 55, 85, 88, 99, 100, 108, 109, 115, 123
125, 146, 163, 173, 174
Canadian Government   .   .   ix, 82, 88, 90, 91, 92, 94, 143, 144
146, 148 INDEX. 189
Canadian maps,  . 23, 27, 29, 36, 54, 86, 87, 109, no, in,  115
144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149,  150
Canadian writers 22,  125
Canning, George 15, 17, 21, 126, 142,  152
Canning's hundred miles lisiere 143
Canning, Sir Stratford 5, 16, 17, 18, 21, 107,  108
Cape Town      61
Cartright, Sir James T 163
Cassiar district, The 88, 89
Chilkoot Pass, The 169, 170, 172
Church Missionary Society, The 144, 145
Civil War, The 58, 63
Clay, Mr      68
Clarence Sound, Duke of 13, no, in,  112
Cleveland, President 92,  102
Cole, Senator      67
Colonist, The 113
Confederate States, The 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 65
Cook, Captain        2
Coolidge, Mr. T. Jefferson 163
Cdte, the 131, 132
Cramp, Mr. Charles H       xii, 60
Cramp,  Messrs      66
Crimean War 51. 53. 54. 55, 61
Dall, Professor William H 96, 97, 108, 134,  135
Dalton Trail 17°,  *72
Davies, Sir Louis 162,  163
Davis, Jefferson      60
Davis, Mr. L. Clarke      xii
Dawson, Dr. George M 96, 97, 98
Dennis, Mr. J. S 85, 86, 88
Deshneff, The Cossack        2
Devine, Mr. Thomas 146, 147
Dingley, Representative 163
Diodorus Siculus I18
Dionissievsky, Fort Saint 39, 42
Dyea x78 190 INDEX.
Edward the Seventh, King 183
Em6ric Cruce T73
England x, 1, 3, 4, 16, 18, 21, 23,  176
English Cabinet       13
English Government .    5, 27, 35, 39, 40, 51, 52, 54, 60, 74, 88
92, 94, 101, 143, 148, 154, 163,  169
English Maps . Frontispiece, x, 19, 30, 32, 34, 35, 38, 76, 77, 79
80, 82, 104, 105, 115, 116, 144, 145, 148,  151
Evarts, William M      92
Explorers, Early 1, 2, 3
Farragut, Admiral  63
Fifty-four forty 6, 22, 44, 55, 71, 101, 173
"Fifty-four forty or fight"  56
Fisheries Conference  96
Foster, The Hon. John W 140, 141, 163
France      1
Frontiere Alasko- Canadienne, La xi, 182
Glenora      89
Gortschakoff, Prince 57, 58, 59, 64, 69
Grant, President 84, 85
Granville, Earl of       85
Gray, Senator 163
Great Britain 4, 12, 15
Grotius, Hugo 117, 136, 154, 173
Gwin, Senator        57, 58
Hague Court of Arbitration, The 173
Hall, W. H 118
Halleck, General 120
Hay, Secretary John 183
Herbert, Sir Michael 183
Herschel, Baron 163, 176
Hill, Mr. S. S      30
Hodgins, Mr. Thomas 98, 99, 100, 101, 102,   103
Holloway, Colonel William R       xi
House of Commons 35, 47, 54 INDEX.
Hudson's Bay Company  .  1, 12, 15, 35, 36, 40, 42, 43, 44, 45
46, 47, 49, 50, 68
Hunter, Mr. Joseph 90, 91
Inland boundary 173
International Law .   .   .  118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 135
i36> *37, 138, 139, 152, 153, 158, 159, 160, 161
Jackson, General Andrew      56
Johnston, Mr. Arthur 107
Joint High Commission, Anglo-American .  .   .   .  144, 162, 163
164, 165
fournal of the Franklin Institute xi, 151, 182
Kasson, Mr. John A 162, 163
Kennedy, Mr. Walker      xii
Kennin, Mr. Frank Nicholls      xii
Krusenstern, Admiral de 23, 24, 25, 27, 74, 77, 155
Lamar, Lucius Q. C      59, 60, 61, 62
Lardy, Monsieur 123
Laurier, Sir Wilfrid 108, 109, in, 113, 114,  163
Lessosvky, Admiral      63
Lewis and Clark         1
Libraries      xii
Lieven, Count 13, 100, 138
Lindeman, Lake 169, 170
Lincoln, President      66
Lisiere, The . x, 10, 18, 21, 30, 39, 41, 53, 54, 82, 95, 100, 101
125, 155,156, 157, 158, 162, 178, 179
Littr6 129, 130, 131, 133
Log Cabin 170
Lynn Canal 10,49, 133, I34> l69, 175, I7%
Marshall, Chief Justice 102
Martens, von 136
Martin, Peter 88, 89, 90, 102
McDonald, Mr. A. L      xii 192 INDEX.
Meissas and Michelot 127, 128
Menace from Canada 175, r76
Mendenhall, Mr. Thomas C      xii
Mer and Ocean 126, 127, 128, 129, 130
Middleton, Mr        4
Milner, Sir Alfred 168
Modus Vivendi, The *   * 169,170, 171, 172
Mofras, Duflot de 3°, 31
Muscovite Government, see Russian Government.
Napoleon the Third, The Emperor 60,61,63
Nesselrode, Count .   .   4, 9, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 21, 41, 99, 100
107, 108, 152, 168
Nesselrode, Letter to Lieven 13, 14
Nicholas the First, The Emperor      50
North America      1, 52
Novo-Archangelsk 16, 40
Nys, Monsieur le Juge xii, 117
Ocean, see mer.
Occupation and use 152, 153, 154
Occupation of lisiere by Russia 155, 156
Occupation of lisiere by United States 156, 157, 158
Pacific Ocean 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Palmerston, Lord 40, 41
" Parallele aux sinuosites de la c6te"     .   .   .     97, 98, 101, 102
131, 134, 184
Paris Tribunal 174
Paul, The Emperor        4
Pauncefote, Sir Julian 162
Pearse Channel or Canal 115   163
Pearse Island 112
Peirce, Mr. George xii, 64
Petermann' s Mittheilungen       77
Phelps, Mr 93, 94, 95
Phillimore      137, 153, 154, 158, 159
Phillips, Mr. P. Lee      xii INDEX. 193
Piadischeff, Functionary 24, 26, 27, 30, 74, 155
Poletica, Monsieur de 4, 5, 9, 12, 16, 17, 107
Politkovsky, General      49
Polk, President 55, 56
Popoff, Admiral      67
Portland Channel or Canal . . 6, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 18, 21, 23
24> 71, 73, 77, 82, 85, 86, 87, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105
106,107,108, no, 112, 115,124,148,151,163, 178, 184
Prescription      158, 159, 160, 161, 162
Prior, Colonel E. G      108, 109, in, 112
Pyramid Harbor    .   .    11, 164, 178
Quebec Conference, The  .   .   .   . 9, 55, 143, 144, 151, 162-169
Reade, Charles 125
Revue de Droit International ix, 182
Riddle, Mr. John Wallace      xii
Rivier, Alphonse 119, 128, 160
Roosevelt, President 181
Root, Secretary 181
Russell, Lord John      47
Russia ...   3, 4, 9, 10, 14, 16, 17, 18, 21, 22, 49, 55, 57, 58
63, 69, 7°, m 73, 93, 139
Russian America . 9, 14, 35, 39, 56, 57, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 73
Russian American Company   .   .   12, 35, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45
46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 67
Russian fleets      63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 72, 73
Russian Government   .   .   . 5, 9, 27, 35, 39, 40, 41, 51, 54, 59
62, 64, 69, 72, 144, 155
Russian official maps    ...    18, 20, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30
33> 37, 7o
Russian War office 27, 28
Saint Elias, Mount .   .   .   ix, 9, 14, 18, 21, 22, 24, 48, 163, 178
Saint Petersburg xi, 4, 5, 20, 23, 24, 60, 68
Salisbury, The Marquis of      94
Severin, Count      27 194
Seward, Mr. Frederick W 70, 72, 73, 175, I76> T77
Seward, William H 64, 68, 69, 70, 73, 74
Shepard, Mr. Edward M      56
Siberia 1, 2, 24
Singapore      61
Sinuosities 98, 101, 102, 131, 132, 133, 134, 173
Simpson, Sir George    .   . 30, 32, 35, 41, 46, 47, 48, 49, 52, 53
54, 55, 156
Sitka       16
Skoot River 86, 87
Spain         1
Stikine River 39, 45, 86, 90, 91
Stoeckl, Monsieur de 59, 67, 68, 69, 70
Strategic value of a port to Canada 175, 177
Sumner, Charles 70, 71, 72, 74
Tacitus 118
Tagish, Lake 169
Taylor, Bayard      59
Tebenkoff, Captain 30, 33, 155
Thalweg, The 115,  117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122
Thornton, Sir Edward 82, 85, 88, 91
Tittmann, Mr. O. H      xii
Tower, The Hon. Charlemagne       xii
Transvaal, The 168
Treaty of 1824 4, 140, 141
Treaty of 1825   ...     x, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 18, 21, 22, 39, 40, 41
90, 91, 92, 96, 97, 98, 101, 131, 139, 156, 183
Treaty of 1867 70, 73
Tsar, The 2, 61, 68
Tupper, Sir Charles      07
Ukase of 1799 4) I4
Ukase of 1821      4, 14, 18, 138, 152
United States, The    .   .     1, 3, 4, 9, 22, 35, 52, 68, 69, 88, 141
157, 178
United States Government   .   .    9, 63, 66, 67, 70, 76, 144, 155 INDEX. 195
United States  map,  certified and published by Canadian
Government 86, 87
United States maps 7, 11, 74, 75, 156, 171
Use and settlement 153
Vancouver, Captain George     ....    2, 18, 19, 106, 107, 108
Van Siclen, Mr. George W      xii
Variag, The      66
Vattel 159
Victoria 108
Wales Island, Prince of    ....   10, 12, 13, 14, 100, 104, 163
Wales Island 115, 117
Washington, Conference at 162
Watts, Mr. Harvey Maitland      xii
Weed, Thurlow      63
Wellington, Duke of 138, 139, *52
Wheaton, Henry 159
White Pass, The 169, 170
Winter, Sir James T 163
Wrangell Island      39
Wrangell, Baron 4°, 41, 43, 46
Xenophon XI&  MAPS.
No. i. British Admiralty Chart No. 787, published June
2 ist, 1877, under the superintendence of Cap-
tarn F. J. Evans, R. N, Hydrographer, and
corrected to August ist, 1901 ....     Frontispiece
United States and English boundary claims   ... 7
Sir C. Bagot's Three Proposed Boundaries   .   . n
Vancouver's Chart, 1799  19
Russian Pilot Chart, 1802  20
Admiral de Krusenstern's Map, 1827  25
Functionary Piadischeff's Map, 1829  26
Map published by the Russian War Office, 1830-
1835  28
Bouchette's Canadian Map, 1831  29
Duflot de Mofras's Map, 1844  31
Sir George Simpson's Map, 1847  32
Captain Tebenkoff's Imperial Russian Naval Map,
1849  33
Hill's Map, 1854  34
Map shown in 1857 by Sir George Simpson ... 36
Imperial Russian Map, 1861  37
Arrowsmith's Map, 1864  38
Map Published by the State Department of the
United States, 1867  75
Berghaus's Chart of the World, 1871  78
Brue's Map of 1833  81
Bru6's Map of 1839  83
Map Published in Canadian Sessional Papers, 1878, . 87
British Admiralty Chart, No. 787, published June
21st, 1877, under the superintendence of Captain F. J. Evans, R. N,  Hydrographer,  and
corrected to April, 1898  105
No. 23. British Admiralty Chart, No. 2458, published December 15th, 1896, and corrected to March, 1900 116
22. 198 MAPS.
No. 24. Map in the Church Missionary Society Proceedings, 1901  145
No. 25. Canadian Government Map, 1877  147
No. 26. Official Canadian Map of British Columbia, 1884 . 149
No. 27. Canadian Government Map, 1884  150
No. 28. Map showing the Modus Vivendi, October 20th,
1899  171      


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items