Open Collections

BC Historical Books

BC Historical Books

BC Historical Books

Boundary between the Dominion of Canada and the territory of Alaska. Argument presented on the part of… Alaskan Boundary Tribunal; Great Britain 1903

Item Metadata

Download

Media
bcbooks-1.0348297.pdf
Metadata
JSON: bcbooks-1.0348297.json
JSON-LD: bcbooks-1.0348297-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): bcbooks-1.0348297-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: bcbooks-1.0348297-rdf.json
Turtle: bcbooks-1.0348297-turtle.txt
N-Triples: bcbooks-1.0348297-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: bcbooks-1.0348297-source.json
Full Text
bcbooks-1.0348297-fulltext.txt
Citation
bcbooks-1.0348297.ris

Full Text

Array  The University of British Columbia Library
THE
CHUNG
COLLECTION BOUNDARY BETWEEN THE DOMINION OF CANADA
AND THE TERRITORY OF ALASKA.
ARGUMENT
PRESENTED  ON  THE  PART 0E THE
GOVERNMENT OF HIS BRITANNIC MAJESTY
TRIBUNAL  CONSTITUTED UNDER ARTICLE I OF THE
CONVENTION
SIGNED AT WASHINGTON, JANUARY 24, 1903,
HIS BRITANNIC MAJESTY AND THE UNITED
STATES OP AMERICA.
PRINTED  AT   THE   FOREIGN   OFFICE,
BY  HARRISON AND SONS,  PRINTERS IN ORDINARY TO HIS* MAJESTY.  TABLE OF CONTENTS.
First Que
, Point of C
Second Question—What Channel is the Portland Channel ?   ..
British Contention
United States' Contention    .. .. .. .,
Vancouver's Narrative -. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
Maps used by Negotiators
Maps subsequent to the Treaty
Major Cameron's Report—Charge against Great Britain of suppressing Appendix favourable to
the United States
Alternative suggestion by Great Britain
Third Q
Tea
Bri1
of Boundary from point of i
lencement to entrance to Portland Channel
sv—Direct lme     ..
United States' Contention—lane due east from Cape Muzon
Clause of Treaty'securing whole of Prince of Wales Island to Russia
54° 40' Contention—Alternative suggested in United States' Counter-Case .
Treaty negotiations
Irrelevance of Argument based on Treaty of 1824
Facts subsequent to the Treaty
Fourth Question—Head of Portland Channel to 56th parallel
British Contention
United States' Contentions—
Contention put forward in Case of United States
Alternatives proposed in Counter-Case
Discontinuity involved in United States' proposals
Argument based on the word elle in the Treaty
Mr. Middleton's Report of conversation with Mr. S. Canning
Intersection of Behm Canal by British line
Evidence of Maps as to accepted interpretation of the Treaty
23
Fifth Questii
-Was i1
racteristic of the Lisiere that it was not to be traversed by
2'
'oast" as used in the Treaty ..        2-
..28,2i
Definition of " Coast," " Ocean," and " Sinuosities of the (
Head of Tide-water—United States' definition of " Coast
Verbal questions raised in United States' Counter-Case   .
Grant of Fishery and Trading Rights in Interior Waters by Treaties of 1824 and 1825
Line claimed by United States
Question raised in Behring Sea Arbitration as to meaning of phrase "North-west Coast of
America "
Negotiations preceding the Treaty of 1825
British Contention that the Boundary had never been located
United States' Contention that the subsequent action of the Parties to the Treaty had established
a Boundary    .. .. • • • • l
Mountain Boundary ignored by the United States
Revision of Treaty outside powers of Tribunal of 1903
Evidence adduced by United States in support of 10-marine league principle
Hudson's Bay Company lease of the Lisiere
Lynn Canal region Boundary question 	
Negotiations between 1871 and 1878
Mr. Bayard's despatch of November 1885
Earl Iddesleigh's repudiation of Boundary shown on Canadian Map supplied to Mr. Phelps     ..
[9811
28
B 2
J Fifth Question—continued—
Preliminary Survey provided for by Congress in 1891
Dr. Dawson's views officially noted by United States at the time of Convention of 189:
Attitude of Great Britain and Canada before and after 1885—Acquiescence in United States'
Claims alleged by United States
Dr. T. C. Mendenhall's official action
United States' Coast and Geodetic Survey Report, 1891
Conference at Washington, 1892
Congressional Records, Speeches of Mr. Squire and Mr. Pitney    ..
Lord Salisbury's despatch of the 19th July, 1898
United States' method of dealing with the action of the Parties to the Treaty of 1825
Statements by Canadian public men referred to by United States
Page
Sixth Question—Point from which to measure the width of the Lisiere, should the Tribunal answer
the  Fifth Question  in the negative, and should the mountains prove to be in places
more than 10 marine leagues from the Coast
Answer suggested by Great Britain   .. .. .. .. ..
•Seventh Question—Mountains referred to as situated parallel to the Coast
British Contention that such mountains exist
Mountain Boundary discarded by United States
Negotiations preceding Treaty of 1825
Inconsistency of United States' line with the terms of the Treaty of 1825
Area of Lisiere claimed by United States
Evidence adduced by United States of the recognition of a Mountain Boundary in Lynn Canal
region
Maps on which a Mountain Boundary is shown..
Maps published in support of United States' Case .'.
Vagueness and untrustworthiness of Maps drawn previous to any Survey
Actions constituting formal acknowledgments on part of both Powers that the location of the
Boundary was still open—Treaty of 1892, &c.
British Contention
Mr. King's Contour Maps
" Range " of Mountains not required by the terms of the Treaty of 1825
Maps known to Negotiators of Treaty of 1825
Negotiations preceding Treaty of 1825 prove that the Negotiators' did not assume the
existence of a " range " or " chain " of Mountains
Evidence presented by the United States a
the Convention of 1892
to the topographical results of the surveys made under BOUNDARY BETWEEN THE DOMINION OF CANADA
AND THE TERRITORY OF ALASKA.
ARGUMENT
PRESENTED ON THE PART OP THE GOVERNMENT OP HIS BRITANNIC
MAJESTY TO THE TRIBUNAL CONSTITUTED UNDER ARTICLE I
OP THE CONVENTION SIGNED AT WASHINGTON ON THE 24th
DAY OF JANUARY, 1903, BETWEEN HIS BRITANNIC MAJESTY
AND THE UNITED STATES OP AMERICA.
PIRST QUESTION.
" What is the Point op Commencement ? "
THE two Governments are agreed on the
answer to be given to this question. It is true
that they do not arrive at this result by the same
process of reasoning, but these different processes
of reasoning bear only on Question Three, and
will therefore be considered in the argument on
that question.
SECOND QUESTION.
" What Channel is the Portland Channel ? "
Great Britain's Contention. Great  Britain's  contention is  that it   is the
channel which Vancouver named Portland Canal,
and which enters the ocean between Tongass
Island and Kannaghunut Island, leaving Sitklan,
Wales and Pearse Islands Im the south and oast,
and extending northerly eighty-two miles to its
head. Great Britain suggests an alternative
answer, to which reference will be made later.
United States'Contention'in its Case. The   United    States    in   its   Case   contends
that Portland Channel passes from the north between   Ramsden   Point  on the mainland and United States' Alternative Contentions in its
Counter-Case.
What was Vancouver's Portland Channel ?
familiar with Vancouver's narrative.
Pearse Island, and thence southward of said
island and Wales Island, and enters Dixon
Entrance between the island last mentioned and
Compton Island (United States' Case, p. 104).
In its Counter-Case, pp. 14 and 15, it changes
its contention and suggests two alternatives:
either that Portland Channel is the whole estuary
from mainland to mainland, in which Pearse,
Wales, and other islands lie, and of which
Observatory Inlet is a branch, or that the estuary
as far inland as Point Ramsden is an unnamed arm
of the sea from which diverge two branches—
Portland Channel and Observatory Inlet.
Of these different answers, it is the one suggested by Great Britain that must be given if
Vancouver's narrative is to decide the question.
Portland Channel was named by him, and in his
narrative he clearly indicates that Portland
Channel enters the ocean between Tongass and
Kannaghunut Islands, and passes north of Wales
and Pearse Islands. That is fully proved in the
British Case, pp. 51-55.    It is not denied by the
United States. The United States only contends United States' Contention that the Negotia-
that Vancouver's narrative is immaterial, because tors, and specially Sir C. Bagot, were not
it is not shown that the negotiators knew of it,
and because it appears, on the contrary, that
Sir Charles Bagot was not familiar with it. To
show that Sir Charles Bagot was not familiar
with the narrative, two statements of his are
quoted to the effect that several of the bays and
inlets, between parallels of latitude 54° 45' and
56°, might communicate with the establishments
of the Hudson's Bay Company, and that the
head of Portland Channel might be the mouth
of a river flowing through the country occupied
by that Company. These statements, it is argued,
show that Sir Charles Bagot had not read Vancouver's narrative, in which the latter states that
the evidence of a navigable river flowing into the
archipelago existing between 47° and 57° of north
latitude is still wanting, and that the scrupulous
exactness with which his survey of the continental
shores has been made, within those limits, precludes the possibility of such a river having been
passed unnoticed by him as that described to be
Rio de los Reyes (a very large river spoken of by
a previous explorer).
Vancouver had been commissioned to search
for any considerable inlet of the sea, or even
large river in order to find a communication
between the Pacific and the Atlantic, or at least
Answer to that Contention. the Lake of the Woods. He reported that no such
inlet or river existed, but he was only looking for
very large rivers, likely to extend far inland, and
navigable all the way for big ships. With
smaller rivers, navigable for the Hudson's Bay
Company's small craft, he had nothing to do, and
his report does not show that there are none. In
fact, his examination was not sufficiently minute
to allow him to say so. (Vol. II, pp. 354 and
355.) He states that at the head of Portland
Canal the water was nearly fresh for upwards of
20 miles. At the heads of other inlets, between
54° 45' and 56° of north latitude, he also reports
having found fresh water. (Vol. II, pp. 340 and
354-356. British Case, Appendix, p. 143.) Those
statements were of a nature to convey the impression that there might be rivers communicating with the Hudson's Bay establishments,
which were not far inland. (United States'
Case, Appendix, p. 162.) The statement that
Portland Channel terminated in low marshy
land could not destroy that impression, it rather
confirmed it. As no other source can be given
from which Sir Charles Bagot could have got the
idea that there might be rivers flowing into
Portland Canal and the other inlets, it follows
that he had probably read the narrative, and his
statements above mentioned, far from proving
that he was not familiar with it, rather prove the
contrary.
Answer to the argument drawn from the fact The fact that Vancouver in his narrative
that the Negotiators give the longitude west g^ouid ffive the east longitude, while the negotia-
while Vancouver gives it east , * , . n tt -, ,
                                 tors give the west does not support the United
States' contention. As he was going around the
world from west to east, he followed his course
in his narrative in giving the longitudes. But
his maps give the longitude both east and west.
With them the conversion from east to west
could be instantaneously made. At all events,
in order to find the longitude of the few points
to which reference is made by the negotiators,
they must have gone to the maps where it could
easily be obtained, and not to the narrative where
it might not be given at all, and if given would
be difficult to find.
On this point it remains only to be said, in
answer to the arguments contained in the
American Counter-Case, p. 10, that the narrative
could not help the negotiators to give more
accurately the astronomical location of the
southern boundary than they have done; neither M. de Poletipa's statement.
Mr. Middleton's statement.
could they find, in Vancouver's narrative, landmarks which could have helped them to draw
more clearly than they have done the boundary
from the point of commencement to the head of
Portland Canal.
To  show that  the   negotiators   were familiar    Arguments to show that the Negotiators had
°                 .     .                                       read Vancouver s narrative,
with Vancouver's narrative, there is, in addition 	
to the statements of Sir Charles Bagot above
referred to, a statement of M. de Poletica to the
effect that Vancouver saw Russian establishments
in the Bay of Kinai (United States' Case,
Appendix, p. 33), and a statement about the
extent of the Russian establishments contained
in a confidential Memorandum delivered by
Mr. Middleton to the Emperor of Russia, which
shows that he had made a thorough search of
Vancouver's text, and which reads as follows:
| Vancouver learned, in 1794, from the Russians
themselves upon the spot, that their most
easterly establishment was then at Port Eches,
in Hinchin Brook island (Tchatcha island of the
Russians, and Magdalena of the Spaniards, in
latitude 60° 25'), where they were established
the preceding summer, and that the continent
in the vicinity of that place was barren
and uninhabited (United States' Case, Appendix,
p. 61; Vancouver's Narrative, 1st edition, vol.
Ill, p. 199). It seems reasonable to presume
that the correctness of this statement of Mr.
Middleton on such an important point was verified
by the Russian authorities. In fact, it seems
unreasonable to suppose that, when it was so
important for the Russian Government to prove
to the satisfaction of the British and American
Governments the number, importance, and
situation of the Russian establishments, and when
it was looking everywhere for information on
that point, it would not have looked into a book
of world-wide reputation, the most important and
reliable one on the question, and one, the
authority of which could not be contested by the
British. That supposition appears still more
unreasonable if we consider that the Russian
Government, having the maps in its possession,
must necessarily have had also the narrative, as the
maps were really published as part of the narrative.
The title page and the preliminary notice of the
Prench edition, as well as the list of plates at the
beginning of the English edition, establish that
fact.
At pp. 25 and following of the Appendix to Mr. Pelly's Memorandum.
The Maps were sold as published o
narrative. the British Case there appears a Memorandum of
Mr. Pelly, addressed to Mr. Canning, in answer to
the statement contained in M. de Poletica's letter
printed at p. 33 of the Appendix to the United
States' Case, and this Memorandum shows that a
careful examination of all the authorities on the
question had been made. Especially at pp. 27 and
28 there are three references to Vancouver*
which imply a very thorough study of his narrative. This Memorandum must have been used
by the British negotiators, and its statements
must, therefore, have been verified by both
Russian and British authorities.
So obvious did it appear to the United States'
officials that the negotiators must have had
Vancouver's narrative, that they' never thought
of denying it in all the discussions that preceded
the Treaty of 1903. They tried to meet the
difficulty in another way (British Case, pp. 54
and 55). .This argument was not even raised by
the United States in its Case where, under the
terms of the Treaty of 1903, it should at least
have been raised. It is mentioned for the first
time only in the Counter-Case.
It seems that both the Russian and British
Governments having designated the channel
which they took as the boundary by the name
which they knew had been given by Vancouver
to a certain channel, it is that channel, as named
by Vancouver, that they must have intended to
take as the boundary.
Baron Tuyll's letter and Sir C. Bagot's letter The British Case, at p. 56, quotes extracts
quoted in the British Case. from two documents which appear to be con
clusive in favour of the British contention.
The first is Baron Tuyll's suggestion to Count
Nesselrode, so early as the 21st October, 1822,
in which he says:—
" Mais dans la supposition que Ton ne put reussir a
etendre les frontieres de la Russie beaucoup plus vers
le sud, il serait, ce semble, indispensable de les voir au
moins fixees au 55e degre de latitude nord, ou, mieux
encore, a la pointe mdridionale de VArchipel du Prince de
Galles et V Observatory Inlet, situes a peu pres sous ce
parallele. Tout voisinage plus rapproche des etablisse-
ments Anglais ne pourrait mahquer d'etre prejudiciable
a celui de Novo-Archangelsk, qui se trouve sous les
57° 3'."
This shows that Russia knew that Observatory
Inlet entered the ocean at a point substantially
as far south as the southernmost point of Prince
of Wales Island, and thus that she read Van-
[981] C couver's book and charts in accordance with tht
present British contention.
Russia, however, did not at any time propose
Observatory Inlet.
And it cannot be supposed that when, later on,
after tedious negotiations, she proposed Portland
Channel, she meant the entrance of Observatory
Inlet.
The United States does not attempt even to
answer this argument. As to the second document, the argument based on it has apparently
been misunderstood, because the answer is no
answer at all. The argument is that by mentioning the parallel 54° 45' as the point north
of which Great Britain would lose the inlets
and bays if Russia's proposal was accepted,
Sir C. Bagot showed that he considered the
boundary, the Portland Canal, to be on that
parallel.
The maps will next require consideration.
According to the United States' Counter-Case,
the negotiators had before them Vancouver's
Maps, the Paden Map of 1823 (British Atlas,
No. 10), the Russian Map of 1802 (British Atlas,
No. 5), and one or more of Arrowsmith's Maps
(British Atlas, Nos. 8, 9, and 12; United States'
Case, Atlas, Nos. 8 and 10). They may possibly
have had also the Langdorff Map of 1803, but
that map need not be taken into account as it
can help neither side. Two other maps anterior
to the Treaty are published in the United States'
Case, Atlas, the Prench one of 1815 (No. 9), and
a German one of 1807 (No. 7). Even if there is
no positive evidence that those two maps were
before the negotiators, they may help in ascertaining what was the general understanding
at those times concerning Portland Canal and
Observatory Inlet.
Vancouver published a general map (British
Atlas, No. 1) and a sectional map (British Atlas,
No. 2). In the general map the channel north
of Wales, Pearse, Sitklan, and Kannaghunut
Islands is shown very clearly. It appears almost
as important as the channel to the south of these
islands. Between Ramsden Point and Pearse
Island hardly any channel can be seen. No one
looking at that map could believe that the
channel began between Ramsden Point and
Pearse Island. It obviously supports the British
contention, and shows two generally separate
channels coming down to the ocean.
Maps alleged to have been before the
Negotiators.
Vancouver's General Map. Vancouver's Sectional Map.
The Eussian Map of 1802.
The Faden Map.
The Arrowsmith Maps
Other Maps anterior to the Treaty.
Facts subsequent to the Treaty.
In the section map, which is on a larger scale,
the pass between Ramsden Point and Pearse
Island is clearly shown. The channel north of
Wales Island is also clearly shown. This section
map taken alone shows either that the two
inlets extended down to the ocean separated
from each other by the islands, as Great Britain
contends, or that both stopped before reaching
Pearse Island. The position of the names
cannot support the latter view for the reason
given in the British Case, and such view is
rendered improbable by the unlikelihood of an
important arm of the sea, in which lay Pearse
and Wales Islands, having been left unnamed by
Vancouver. The other view to. the effect that
Portland Canal extended at its mouth in the
ocean from mainland to mainland, and that
Observatory Inlet was an inlet diverging from
Portland Canal, is not supported at all by either
of those maps. In both of them the two inlets
are clearly shown to be independent of each
other. Both maps being bound up together in
the Atlas must have been seen by the negotiators.
The Russian Map contains no names, but the
two channels are shown clearly as distinct the
one from the other down to the ocean. The
north one appears almost as important as the
south one. The impression that this map gives
is exactly "fine same as the one created by Vancouver's general map. It, therefore, supports
exclusively the British contention.
The Paden Map has the words " Portland
Channel" written on the north side of the channel, down to the ocean, and it shows a clear
channel north of Pearse and Wales Islands.
Much the same observation applies to the Arrow-
smith maps, and it may be added that in some
of them the type in which the words 1 Observatory Inlet" are written make it impossible to
believe that that inlet is a branch of Portland
Canal.
The two other maps anterior to the Treaty,
the German one of 1807 and the Prench one of
1815, also clearly support the British view. The
first brings the words " Observatory Inlet" down
to the ocean, the second brings both the words
'Portland Canal" and "Observatory Inlet" down
to the ocean.
The facts subsequent to the Treaty will now
be considered. Great Britain contends that on
[981] C 2 this question the terms of the Treaty being clear,
no interpretation is required, and, therefore, the
subsequent facts cannot be taken into account.
However, as the United States strongly relies on
those facts, they must be alluded to.
The United States contends that all the maps
with scarcely any exception are favourable to
its view. Great Britain denies that statement.
Many of the maps support neither view, and
several support the British view. Special reference will be made here only to those particularly
relied upon in the American Counter-Case, and
to a few of those which support the British
view.
The Arrowsmith Map of 1833 (United States'
Case, Atlas, No. 12), supports the United States'
view in this sense, that the colouring gives Wales
and Pearse Islands to Russia. But the way in
which the names "Portland Channel" and " Observatory Inlet" are written shows as in several
of the previous Arrowsmith maps that Portland
Channel extends down to the ocean, and that
Observatory Inlet is not a dependency of Portland Channel. The designation of the geographical features, therefore, supports the British
view, and should be preferred to the designation
of the boundary-line which merely represents
the personal opinion of the map-maker on the
meaning of the Treaty of 1825, an opinion which
surely cannot help this Tribunal to decide the
question.
The Map of 1857 produced before the Select
Committee appointed to investigate the affairs of
the Hudson's Bay Company, and the British
Admiralty Map of 1866, do not support the
American view. The United States' Coast Survey Map of 1867 obviously cannot be invoked
against Great Britain, and only shows what the
American contention was.
The British Admiralty maps of 1868 do not
show a survey of the channel north of Pearse
and Wales Islands, because, being prepared only
for the use of navigators, they dealt only with,
the southern entrance, which was the one used
by ships. The insertion of the words | Portland
Canal" on one of those maps between Point
Ramsden and Pearse Island is the act of the
draftsmen, who, as shown by the hydrographer's
note placed upon this map in 1886 had no
authority to insert the same, and cannot
commit Great  Britain to any particular inter-
Arrowsmith's Map, 1833.
Hudson's Bay Company's Map, 1857.
Admiralty Map, 1866.
United States' Coast Survey Map, 1867
British Admiralty Maps, 1868. the British view.
pretation of the Treaty of 1825. As a matter
of fact, the insertion of " Portland Canal" at
that place on the map only shows that there were
people in 1868 who named the entrance between
Point Ramsden and Pearse Island Portland
Canal, and from whom the draftsman had obtained the information. It does not in any way
show, in the opinion of Great Britain, that in
1824 and 1825 the negotiators considered that
to be the entrance to Portland Channel,
subsequent to the Treaty supporting Among the maps which support the  British
view may be mentioned Greenhow's Map (United
States' Case, Atlas, No. 15), the official Prench
Map of 1844 (United States' Case, Atlas, No. 16),
Hebert's Map (British Atlas, No. 13), and specially
the Russian official Map of 1853, on which the
words | Portland Canal" extend down along
the channel north of Pearse Island (British
Atlas, No. 20).
Irrelevancy of the Maps. Great Britain, however, contends that even if
all the maps subsequent to the Treaty supported
the American view, they nevertheless would be
irrelevant. The United States attempts to show
by those maps either that it was generally understood by all map-makers that the boundary-line
and Portland Channel passed south of Pearse
and Wales Islands, or that Great Britain has
herself interpreted the Treaty of 1825 in that
sense.
The first of these alternative contentions is
not established. The general understanding at
the time of the Treaty would have to be shown ;
a large number of maps would have to be
produced, all agreeing with each other and free
from ambiguity. The maps produced were all
published long after the Treaty; they are not
very numerous, they do not agree, and several of
them are ambiguous. The second alternative
contention is not established either. No map
which marks the boundary-line, as contended by
the United States, is shown to have been approved
of by the British Government or by any one
authorized to bind the Government on this
question, and no map containing the United
States' view on the question is shown to have
been communicated to the British Government or
its authorized Representative in such circumstances that the failure of Great Britain to protest
could be held as implying that it accepted those
views.
Great Britain's arguments, based on the con- 10
struction of a fort on Tongass Island, and in
answer to the United States' argument based on
the construction of store-houses on Wales and
Pearse Islands, are fully given in the British
Case and Counter-Case. It is useless to repeat,
them here. The same remark applies to Great
Britain's argument to the effect that the United
States has admitted the British claim as to what
is Portland Channel in their Case.
■ Great Britain is charged in the United States'
Counter-Case with having printed Major
Cameron's Report of 1878 with all the Appendices
except one, which, it is stated, favours the United
States' contention. The whole of the charge
which is suggested is absolutely unfounded.
Great Britain, as appears in a note on p. 182 of
the British Appendix, did not print any of these
Appendices at all, and for the reason that they
have no bearing on the Case. The "Portland
Inlet" of the Journal of the Royal Geographical
Society, quoted by the United States, is clearly
the upper part of Portland Canal.
As stated at the beginning of the argument on
this question, Great Britain suggests an alternative answer in case Vancouver's Portland Channel
should be held not to be the negotiators' Portland
Channel. That alternative contention is that if
there is to be any departure from the nomenclature and descriptions of Vancouver as the
controlling element of decision, then the line
should be determined to run up Clarence Strait
and Ernest Sound, or up Behm's Canal on one
or other side of Re villa Gigedo. The argument
on that point contained in the British Case need
not be repeated.
Major Cameron's Beport.
Great Britain's Alternative Contention.
THIRD QUESTION.
The third question to be answered by the
Tribunal is:—
" What course should the line take prom
the point op commencement to the entrance
to Portland Channel?"
The words of" the Treaty are :—
"A partir du point le plus meridional de l'ile dite
Prince of Wales, lequel point se trouve sous la parallele
du 54° 40' de latitude nord, et entre le 131e et le 133«
degre de longitude ouest (meridien de Greenwich), la
dite ligne remontera au nord le long de la passe dite
Portland Channel," &c. 11
British Contention
United States' Contention.
British view supported by the Text of the
Treaty.
The British view is that the line must be drawn
following the most direct, and therefore the
shortest course, leaving to Russia the whole of
Prince of Wales Island in accordance with the
special stipulation of the Treaty to that effect.
The United States contends in its Case that
the line should be drawn from Cape Muzon
easterly until it intersects the centre of Portland
Canal. In its Counter-Case it abandons that
view, and suggest another one, to which reference
will be made later.
As pointed out in the British Counter-Case, it
is not very clear whether by this statement of its
view the United States means that, wherever may
be the entrance of Portland Canal, the line must
follow the parallel of latitude on which Cape
Muzon, the admitted point of commencement, is
. situated, or that it must be drawn easterly only
because the entrance to Portland Channel, as
suggested by the United States, is practically on
the same latitude as Cape Muzon. As the United
States in its Case merely states its view without
supporting it with arguments or explanations, its
real meaning cannot be discovered.
It will, however, be assumed that the first of
those two meanings correctly represents the
United States' view, as the second meaning would
be an implied admission that the line must be
drawn directly to the entrance to Portland
Channel, wherever that entrance may be.
The text of the Treaty conclusively supports
the British view. The degrees of latitude and
longitude are given in it only to identify the point
of commencement. The Treaty, therefore, merely
says that the line commencing at the southernmost point of Prince of Wales Island shall ascend
to the north by Portland Channel. No special
direction to be followed is given between the
point of commencement and the entrance to
Portland Channel. The most direct one must
therefore be chosen in accordance with the well
established rule and with common sense, as
otherwise there is nothing to show which of the
many indirect courses that may be imagined
should be selected. If the line was to go east,
regardless of the situation of Portland Channel,
the Treaty should have said so. If the argument
is that the fact of the line going due east shows
the entrance to Portland Channel to be due east,
it would be necessary, in order to maintain that
argument, that the Treaty should expressly say 12
that the line must go due east. It certainly
should not say, as it does, that the line is to go
northerly.
The clause to the effect that the whole of
Prince of Wales Island shall belong to Russia,
renders the question still clearer if that is possible.
That clause shows that the negotiators contemplated the possibility of the line crossing part
of Prince of Wales Island. If the line starting
from the southernmost point of that island is to
go due east, that cannot happen; while if it is
direct course towards the
el which is further north, it
clause, therefore, shows not
is not necessarily to go due
rtland Channel was supposed
;o take   the
most
entrance of a
cham
may happen,
only that the
line -w
also that
The conclusive nature of this argument
apparently struck the United States' Govemrr!
because in its Counter-Case it modifies its
has New Contention in the United States' Counter-
isterh
th
.e is no United States'
„ , Counter-Case,
allel on fir8t half of p-1
which lies Cape Muzon, but parallel 54° 40' is to
he absolutely the southern boundary. Consequently the line is to start from Cape Muzon,
ascend to the north along the eastern coast of the
Cape till it reaches parallel 54° 40', and then
follow that parallel easterly to the coast of the
continent. The view suggested in the Case is
apparently abandoned, and the whole argument
is directed towards establishing that the southern
boundary is parallel 54° 40', regardless of where
the southernmost point of Prince of Wales
Island and the entrance to Portland Channel
may be. The change is insignificant in its
result, because the southernmost point of Prince
of Wales' Island happens to be almost on parallel
54° 40'. But considered at the time of the
Treaty it might have been important, as the exact
situation of that point was unknown, and it is a
change in the principle suggested as controlling
the interpretation of the Treaty on that question.
The text of the Treaty evidently does not
support that view. Parallel 54° 40' is mentioned
only to identify the point of commencement.
Even if it could be considered as a boundary, it
would be restricted by the terms of the Treaty to
the distance between the 131st and 133rd degrees
of longitude. This unreasonable geodetic
boundary between the two degrees of longitude
The Text of the Treaty does not favo
view. 13
The negotiations previous to the Treaty of 1821
The negotiators had in view parallel 55°.
would not help the. American view, as Point
Wales is outside of those degrees. If parallel
54° 40' had been intended as the southern,
boundary, it would nave been very easy to say so,.
the designation of the boundary would have been
less complicated, and it seems incredible that any
man, especially the negotiators, with all the care
they took in drafting this Treaty, would not have
thought of expressing themselves clearly on that
point.
The Treaty being clear, it follows that it is
unnecessary to go beyond it. However, the
negotiations also support the British view. In
the first place, such a line as that suggested in
the United States' Counter-Case is unreasonable;
why should the line instead of following the
parallel on which the southernmost point of
Prince of Wales Island is situated, if a parallel
of latitude has to be followed, go from that point
to parallel 54° 40', and then follow that parallel ?
The answer cannot be that the negotiators
thought the southernmost point of Prince of
Wales Island to be on that parallel. They could
not believe that there was any certainty as to the
situation of that point. Its latitude had never
been determined, they did not know even which
of the south capes was the southernmost, and
they chose a degree in round figures only to give
the approximate situation. If the negotiators
had been convinced that parallel 54° 40' was
exactly the parallel of the southernmost point of
Prince of Wales Island, and had chosen it as the
boundary in consequence, they would not have
provided for the contingency of the line crossing
the island since they could not believe that such
a contingency could arise, and as the southernmost point of Prince of Wales Island is on
parallel 54° 39' 50", it is this parallel that would
have to be followed on this supposition.
The only parallel which the negotiators had
in view was parallel 55°. Prom the outset,
and throughout all the negotiations, Russia
recognized that her rights did not go further
south. Only so as not to cut Prince of Wales
Island in two, and so as to find a natural boundary
on the coast was this parallel departed from. It
follows that if any parallel is to, be considered, it
is parallel 55°.
As to parallel 54° 40' no reason can be given
for its adoption.    It is true that in two letters
[981] D
J addressed  to   Count Lieven, Count  Nesselrode Two letters of Count Nesselrode   to  Count
n   „,       „     , , , Lieven, mentioning 54° 40' as the southern
mentions parallel 54 40 as the boundary, when     DOun(jary.
giving the history of the then pending negotia- 	
tions, but such references by Russia's Minister,
in letters addressed to the Russian Ambassador,
even if shown to the British Minister, cannot
avail against the clear terms of the Treaty and of
all the previous drafts and proposals, and against
the obvious intention of the negotiators to take
parallel 55° as the boundary, and to depart from
it only for two special purposes. They cannot
lead to the adoption of a line which is utterly
unreasonable, as has already been shown. They
surely do not show a consent on the part of
Great Britain to accept a boundary different
from the one mentioned in the Treaty as signed.
Those two letters are easily explained.   Parallel Answers to the Argument based on those two
54° 40' was the degree of latitude of the southern- . '
most point of Prince of Wales Island, determined
approximately and in round figures. On the
mainland whether 54° 40' or 54° 45' was mentioned as the southern boundary, it came exactly
to the same result, because the maps show that the
mainland ceases at Cape Pox, and from that cape
to parallel 54° 40' there are only islands. If the
word M coast" used by Count Nesselrode in the
second of those letters is held to mean the coast
as contended by the United States in answer to
the Questions Pive and Six, his statement that
Russia owned the coast down to 54° 40' would be
inaccurate, as it would give to Russia part of the
southern shore of Observatory Inlet. If the
word " coast" means what Great Britain claims,
as already pointed out, whether 54° 40' or 54° 45'
was given as the southern boundary was
immaterial. On Prince of Wales Island it was
practically accurate to say that parallel 54° 40'
was the southern boundary. It is, therefore,
obvious that Count Nesselrode used the expression
54°40'to designate the southern boundary, because
it was the approximate southern boundary of
Prince of Wales Island, and also the approximate boundary on the mainland, the discrepancy
of about five minutes there being unimportant,
as it did not include any mainland. The expression was used to avoid repeating each time the
lengthy, but accurate description mentioned in
all the proposals and in the Treaty. It may be
noted also that Count Nesselrode in those letters
did not attempt to be very accurate, as there was
no reason for him to do so.   Thus he mentions
L 15
Negotiations leading to the Treaty of 1824
•between Russia and the United States.
Text of the Treaty of 1824.
Mr. Middleton's statement.
parallel 59° as the latitude above which no
nation ever challenged Russia's rights, while
in the British Appendix, page 30, it appears
that its rights were"challenged up to latitude 60°.
The negotiations preceding the Treaty with
the United States of 1824 are absolutely irrelevant. They do not show what the intention of
the British negotiators was, and it is the combined intention of both parties that must be
found. It is not even proved that those negotiations were shown to the British negotiators.
They do not even show what was the intention
of the Russian negotiators when dealing with
Great Britain. The Russian proposal to Great
Britain, which was maintained from beginning
to end, was made before latitude 54° 40' had ever
been mentioned to the United States, and Russia
by using terms which obviously had a different
meaning showed that her intention was different.
The same argument applies to the text of the
United States' Treaty with greater strength.
That Treaty was seen by the British negotiators,
and reproduced word for word in many respects.
The fact that they changed the terms of Article
III of the United States' Treaty when drafting
Articles III and V of the British Treaty shows
that they did not intend the same thing.
Without repeating the argument which appears in the British Case and Counter-Case, it
is to be noted that in the British Treaty a territorial question was involved, and the exact
location of the boundary-line was important.
Great Britain was insisting upon carrying it as
far north as possible. The United States' Treaty
was only concerned with navigation and commerce, and, as the United States, although
theoretically claiming to have rights far north,
was really insisting only upon a boundary-line
situated much further south, the exact location
of the line in its Treaty was a matter of indifference.
The reference by Sir Charles Bagot to parallel
54° 45', as being the limit above which England
would be deprived of all the bays and inlets under
the Russian proposal, also shows that 54° 40' was
not the southern boundary agreed upon.
It is unnecessary to comment on Mr. Middle-
ton's statement that the negotiations between
Russia and Great Britain broke off on the
question of parallel 54° 40'. We know that such
was not the case. The negotiations broke off
[981] D 2 16
because Russia wanted, the lisiere to extend
down to Portland Canal, while England did not
want it to go further south than the 56th degree.
Then how can Mr. Middleton's statement of
what he thought was the difficulty between
Russia and England be considered as "an act
of a Representative of either Government tending
to show the original and effective understanding
of the Parties " within the meaning of the Treaty
of 1903 ?
While speaking of Mr. Middleton, his report
on the Treaty of 1825, quoted at p. 62 of the
American Case, however incorrect it may be in
other respects, supports the British interpretation on this point.    It says—
"it [the line] begins at the southernmost point of Prince
of Wales' Island (about 54° 40'), leaving the whole of
that island to Russia. It follows the strait called
Portland Passage," &c.
It is useless to refer in detail to the other
arguments on this question which appear in the
British Case and Counter-Case.
Only a few remarks remain to be made on the Facts subsequent to the Treaty.
facts subsequent to the Treaty.    Great Britain 	
repeats that the Treaty being clear, the subsequent
facts are not to be considered ; in any case they
are insignificant. The United States' Counter-
• Case, at pp. 17, 18, and 19, quotes a certain
number of documents, in which expressions
similar to those used by Count Nesselrode in the
above-mentioned letters appear. What has been
said concerning Count Nesselrode's letters applies
here. Also none of these documents are proved
to have been issued by, or communicated to, the
British Government. They cannot, therefore,
show how it interpreted the Treaty. A few words
only need be added concerning the lease of the
lisiere by the Hudson's Bay Company. Great
Britain asserts that the Hudson's Bay Company
-was not entitled to commit the British Government to any particular interpretation of the
Treaty. Moreover, in the lease the Hudson's Bay
Company itself did not show that it interpreted
the Treaty in accordance with the United States'
view. It wanted to get rid by this lease of
competition, and was, therefore, not particular
whether the terms describing the area leased were
too broad or not; its only objection could have
been that they might not have been broad enough. 17
Pinally, the description in the lease adds after
the words " 54° 40' " the words " or thereabouts,"
and the same words are used in the renewal of
the lease in 1849; they are also used in the United
States' Census of 1&90. The description of the area
leased, as quoted at p. 19 of the United States'
Counter-Case, apart from all the other objections
to its relevancy, does not show that on the coast
the boundary was at 54° 40'. It only shows that
somewhere the boundary reaches 54° 40', which
is true.
It may be added that the Memorandum referred
to in the American Counter-Case assumes that
part of the River Mackenzie is in Russian
territory. The ignorance of those who drafted
the Memorandum, and the carelessness of the
Directors of the Company if they thought it
exact, is therefore so apparent that no importance
can be attached to this reference.
It is only necessary to remark that if it is
proved, as Great Britain contends, that the
entrance to Portland Channel is north of
Kannaghunut Island, the question whether the
line is to follow parallel 54° 40' or not is
immaterial, as if it does it will have to curve
northward, so as to reach the entrance to Portland Channel.
Great Britain's Contention.
The two Contentions of the United States.
United States'
Case, p. 104.
POURTH QUESTION.
Great Britain contends that the line from the
head of Portland Channel to the 56th parallel
should be drawn along the shortest possible line
to the point on that parallel which the Tribunal
may find to be the starting point of the eastern
boundary of the lisiere.
The United States has put forward two contentions.
In its Case it asks the Tribunal to decide—
"That the line should be drawn from the head of
Portland Channel north-easterly along the same course
on which said line touches the mainland at the head of
Portland Channel until it intersects the 56th parallel of
north latitude."
United States'
Counter-Case,
pp. 30, 31.
In its Counter-Case—
| The United States submits that the line between the
head  of   Portland  Canal and  56° of north latitude 18
should be drawn directly to that parallel along the axis
of the valley, which forms a continuation of Portland
Canal."
That the two courses proposed by the United
States cannot lead to the same result is shown by
Map No. 30 in the atlas accompanying their
Counter-Case. The direction of the canal and
that of the valley are different. That map again
suggests a third course for this part of the
boundary-line inconsistent with both the others.
Great Britain submits that this confusion has
resulted from overlooking the principle that, in
dealing with boundaries of lands, a break should
be filled in by the most direct line possible.
In the present case both Parties are agreed that
the head of Portland Channel is one point of the
line of demarcation. Both are also agreed that
the course of the line north of latitude 56 degrees
is to be determined by considerations depending
not at all upon the course of the line south of
the parallel, but solely relating to circumstances
existing north of that parallel.
The line drawn north of latitude 56 degrees,
whether along mountain summits, or along a
line determined under the alternative provision
of Article IV, must start from some point of the
parallel of 56 degrees.
This point of the 56th parallel, when its
position has been fixed by a determination of the
course of the line northerly, from thence becomes
a definite and fixed point of the line of demarcation.
Between it and the former point at the head
of Portland Channel there is a discontinuity in
the description contained in the Treaty of 1825.
In accordance with the rule above cited, these
two points must be joined by a direct line. The
difficulties which are occasioned by the contentions of the United States are illustrated by
the description of the boundary-line from the
head of Portland Canal in its "statement in
conclusion," which reads thus :—
"Thence upon the  same course continued   to   the  United States'
56th parallel of north latitude; thence northwesterly, 0ase> P- 103-
always 10 marine leagues from tide water "
The discontinuity in this description is apparent. The point attained at the 56th parallel
is not exactly 10 marine leagues from tide water,
or from any other predetermined topographical
feature. .
The two courses proposed by the United
States do not tend to the same result.
The correct principle stated.
Difficulties of the United States' Contention. 19
Discontinuity in United States' description.
Method adopted for covering the discontinuity.
Its magnitude.
Argument on word " elle."
United States'
Counter-Case,
Grammatical argument of minor importance.
If it was intended that the line should attain
latitude 56 degrees at the precise distance of
10 leagues from tide water the description should
have been framed accordingly.
Whether the line from the head of Portland
Canal is drawn " on the same course " or " along
the axis of the valley," there is a discontinuity at
the 56th parallel, which must be filled in either
by running the line the necessary distance along
the parallel, or by joining the point attained on
the 56th parallel by a straight line with some
point of the eastern boundary of the lisiere to the
northward.
The last appears to be the course adopted by
the United States. The line of its Map No. 2
is drawn straight from the point of the 56th
parallel to a point distant 10 leagues from the
head of Burroughs Bay, or thereabouts. The
length of the straight line is, as measured on the
map referred to, fully 9 marine leagues. The
United States thus, in filling up the first break,
has introduced a second break which it covers by
resort to the very principle which Great Britain
maintains should be applied to the first, and the
application of which leaves no subsequent discontinuity to be overcome.
The United States bases ah argument upon the
word " elle " in the Treaty, stating that it refers
to " la ligne," and that any other interpretation
" would violate the grammatical rules of the
Prench language." Reference is also made to a
Russian version of the Treaty to the same
effect.
The applicability to the determinations of the
questions at issue of the Russian version, so much
relied on by the United States. in this, as well as
in other parts of their argument cannot be admitted. The negotiations preceding the Treaty
were carried on in Prench, the Treaty was concluded in that language, and by the present
Treaty of 1903 the Prench text is submitted to
the Tribunal for interpretation. No evidence has
been offered that the Russian version was a translation made at the time of the Treaty, or if so,
that it was under such efficient direction of the
Treaty makers, as to preclude a minute grammatical error such as the literal translation of
the Prench " elle" by the Russian feminine
pronoun without care as to the context.
It is conceived that the point is of minor
importance, for whether the Une is carried along 20
United States adopts " ascend to the north "
as controlling words.
Portland Canal until the line strikes the 56th
degree, or until the Canal strikes the same
degree, the result is the same when the canal
along which the line is running is found to
terminate before the required latitude is reached.
The guiding channel ceasing, the direction in
which the line is to go to the point of the continent where "the line strikes the 56th degree"
still remains to be determined. It is admitted
by Great Britain that there is a point on the
continent where the line strikes the 56th degree,
but the immediate conclusion drawn from that
fact by the United States, that, therefore, no
change of direction can occur at the head of
Portland Channel, is not admitted.
The words relied upon by the United States to
substantiate this theory of no change of direction,
"ascend to the north," it has utterly discarded
in its answer to Question Three, by making the
boundary-line " ascend to the north " for more
than 70 miles on a due east course along a
parallel of latitude. Even here, in the argument
on Question Pour, in the attempt to make its
words "ascend to the north" control to the
disregard of the landmarks of the Treaty, they
are not given their full effect. The line, it
seems, is not to ascend due north, along a
meridian line, although that would be the
shortest course if the parallel of 56° were the
objective point, but may deflect to the east,
though on no account whatever to the west!
The United States, nevertheless, after reaching
this result from the discussion of the word
I elle," immediately throws away whatever
advantage has been gained by the proof that
it is the line, and not the canal, which reaches
the 56th parallel, by reverting to the " natural
boundary" of the | clearly defined valley"
beyond the head of Portland Canal—a course for
the boundary which derives its sole raison d'etre
from the fact that this valley is considered the
natural continuation of the canal to the
boundary.
It is submitted that neither of these two inconsistent alternatives put forward by the United
States can be accepted.
The position of Great Britain  on this  point Consistency between different   parts   of  the
rests upon an unstrained reading of the Treaty.      Treaty description secured by the principle
Immediately after the words, " To the point of
the continent where it strikes the 56th degree of
north latitude," come the words, " from this last-
United States'
Counter-Case,
Great Britain adopts. 21
mentioned point the line of demarcation shall
follow the summit of the mountains."
This identifies, without possibility of doubt'
the " point of the continent" with " the last-mentioned point" at which the line following the
summit of the mountains, or, in the alternative,
the line of Article IV was to besin.
This point once found, there is no other
rational course to follow than to join it with the
last described point of the boundary-line, the
head of Portland Canal, by a straight line.
That this straight line runs many miles to the
westward before it makes its northing to the
56th parallel is no more jn conflict with the
words, " ascend to the north " than the course of
the line to Cape Muzon, which must proceed
nearly 70 miles eastward in making 5 miles of
northing from 54° 40' to 54° 45' at the entrance
of Portland Channel.
Mr. Middleton's Report. A reference may be made here to Mr. Middle-
United States'       ton's Report of his conversation with Mr. Strat-
Case, pp. 62, 63,    ford Canning on the  day of signature  of the'
67. ° J °
Treaty of 1825.    Mr.  Middleton's Report was
that the line " turns eastward upon that latitude [56°] until it touches the highest ridge of
the chain of mountains lying contiguous to and
nearly parallel with the coast." To this Report
considerable importance is attached in the United
States' Case. Although, as has been shown in
the British Counter-Case, Mr. Middleton was
palpably mistaken in his use of the word | eastward," which, through some confusion of thought
or of language, he may have substituted for
"westward," no such explanation can be given
for his use of the word | turns." This word
indicates at least that Mr. Middleton carried
away from the conversation the impression that
a notable change of direction took place in the
locality indicated.
Objection that the British line cuts An objection is raised by the United States to
Behm Canal. the course of the line from Portland Channel to-
United States'       the 56th parallel, as drawn upon Map No. 87 of
Counter-Case,        ihe British Atlas, in that it intersects the northern
p. 29.
part of Behm Canal, and gives Great Britain an
outlet to the sea below the 56th parallel. This
is said to be at variance with the views of Sir
Charles Bagot, who, at a certain point in the
negotiations with Russia, raised the objection
that a line as proposed by the Russians through
the middle of Portland Channel and thence to
the mountains bordering the coast, would deprive
[981J E 22
Great Britain of the sovereignty of all the coves
and small bays lying between latitudes 56° and
54° 45'.
Sir Charles Bagot was contrasting the boundary
on the coast at the 56th degree, which he had
previously offered to agree to, with the boundary
at 54° 45', which the Russians were now proposing. His remarks had direct reference to the
coast merely; in his want of knowledge of the
topographical features inland, he was not in a
position to judge what the effect of "thence to
the mountains " might be. Nor does it appear
that the Russians would have vetoed such a line,
for the reason that it gave Great Britain an
outlet to the sea, for, as has been shown in the
British Case, it was no part of the intention of
the negotiators to bar Great Britain from access
to the sea: the provisions of the Treaty itself
show the contrary. This criticism by the United
States, however, does not touch the principle, as
set forth by Great Britain, upon which the
portion of the line now under consideration
should be drawn. Whatever force there may be
in the criticism is directed against the identification by Great Britain of the particular mountains
which the line should follow north of latitude 56°.
It is to be observed that even an affirmative
answer by the Tribunal to the Pifth Question
would not affect the course of the mountain
boundary proposed by Great Britain along the
ridge from the 56th degree as far as Bradfield
Canal, nor would such answer preclude the crossing of Behm Canal by the line, for the Pifth
Question refers solely to the lisiere north of 56°,
which will lie wholly to the west of the mountain
ridge referred to.
Similarly Staff-Commander Pender's naming of United
certain mountains merely indicates that he was Co"»tel
d p. 30.
not in possession of the facts by which the
boundary-line in that part was to be determined.
If indeed the names Johnson and Reverdy have
the nationality ascribed to them in the United
States' Counter-Case, it still does not appear that
Commander Pender's action in applying these
names was an action tending to show the "original
and effective " understanding of the Parties.
In concluding the argument on Question Pour,
attention is directed  to  the -statement in   the
United States'Counter-Case made "in connection Counte
with this portion of the boundary," i.e., from the P* 30*
head of Portland Canal to the 56th parallel, that
of the Maps "the universal understanding of the Treaty by
cartographers and by governments for seventy-
five years was the same as that now claimed by
United States."
In the atlases of the United States' Case and
Counter-Case are printed twenty-eight maps sub-"
sequent to the Treaty and which show the course ■
of the line near the head of Portland Canal.
(Por the present purpose omission is made of
several ma,ps of recent date printed by the United
States to illustrate their claims, the claims of
Great Britain, and those of various writers in the
present controversy.)
Of these twenty-eight maps, which are the work
of cartographers of many countries, two only
show the line proceeding according to the United
States on a north-easterly course in prolongation
of Portland Canal to latitude 56°, and these two
maps show it in very doubtful fashion.
United States' The two referred to are the Russian Map of;
Map No. 20. 1861, on which the line starting north-easterly
from Portland Canal curves back to the west and
reaches the 56th parallel almost due north of the
head of the canal, and the map of the Scottish
United States'       Geographical Magazine, 1898, on which the line'
Atl^Map56' (as we^ as can ^e seen 0n a maP °^ SUCk srnaH
"NTo. 46. scale) continues north-easterly along a river flow
ing into the head of Portland Canal to a point
considerably to the north of latitude 5b°.
United States' On the other maps, four, namely :—the Rus-
Maps^Nos. 11,14, gian Map of 1826; the Tanner Map of 183g5 tlie
Simpson Map of 1847 (very small scale), and the
Spanish Admiralty Map of 1857, show the line
as running due north from Portland Canal to the
United States'       56th degree. The Brue map of 1833 shows the line \
Map No 13. running along the west side of the canal as far;
as a point some distance below its head. It then
runs north, diverging from the course of the
canal, to about latitude 56°.
The other twenty-one maps show the line turning to the north-west from the head of Portland
Canal.    Among these last is the United States'"
United States'       Coast Survey Map of 1867, to which much im-
Map No. 24. portance is attached in the United States' Case.
Thus two maps only, out of the twenty-eight,
support, and they very imperfectly, what is
asserted to be the " universal understanding " of
seventy-five years.
[981] PIPTH QUESTION.
The Pifth Question is understood by Great
"Britain to mean that the Tribunal is to decide
whether it was an essential characteristic of the
lisiere that it was not to be traversed by inlets,
in other words, whether its eastern boundary
was necessarily to run round the heads of all the
inlets.
In the argument upon the answer to be given
to this question it is proposed in the first place
to examine the words of the Treaty in the light
of the charts existing at the time, and afterwards to consider the effect of the negotiations
and the subsequent action of the parties.
Dealing with the construction of the Treaty
apart from extraneous matter altogether, it is
«lear, in the first place, that it is impossible to
arrive at the intention and meaning of the
Treaty without first of all defining the meaning
of three terms, namely, coast, ocean, and windings
or sinuosities of the coast.
By Article III the boundaries follow the
summit of the mountains situated parallel to
the coast. By Article IV, if these mountains
prove to be more than 10 marine leagues from
the ocean, the boundary-line is to be parallel to
the windings of the coast, never exceeding the
distance of 10 marine leagues therefrom. At
every point, therefore, it is controlled by reference
to the ocean and the coast.
In the next place it is submitted as clear that
" ocean " and " coast " when used as indicating
the datum with reference to which the situation
of the boundary is to be ascertained refer to the
same thing; the coast being the line where the
ocean terminates, and the sinuosities or windings
of the coast being the sinuosities of that line.
If " coast " and | ocean " do not refer to the
same thing it must follow either (1) that the
ocean is regarded as capable of penetrating within
the line of coast, or (2) that the coast is regarded
as capable of retreating from the ocean.
The first alternative must clearly be put aside.
It is difficult to conceive that the term "ocean"
should be used of water coming within the line
described by the word "coast." If anything the
word "ocean" excludes the idea of inclosed
•waters more than the word coast does; but apart
from this the result of the construction in question
Meaning of the Fifth Question
" Coast" and " Ocean " r
the same line.
" cannot penetrate the 1
" Coast." The    Coast" cannot retreat from
of the "Ocean.'
The "• Sinuosities " of the " Coast" are those
of " the Coast of the Ocean."
is such as cannot be supposed to have been contemplated. If the "ocean" can penetrate within,
the " coast" the mountains might somewhere be.
found to be say 11 marine leagues from the.
"ocean" but 15 marine leagues from the "coast."
The line which would in that case be drawn with
reference to the '■' coast " would be only 6 marine
leagues from the " ocean." It cannot, however,
have been the intention that when the mountains
were more than 10 marine leagues from the ocean,
the lisiere should be narrower than it would have
been had the mountains been found exactly at
the 10 marine leagues. The "ocean," therefore,
cannot come within the " coast."
On the other hand it is still more extraordinary
to suppose that the coast was considered capable
of retreating from the line of the ocean by following the shores of waters not forming part of
the ocean. If this were so, it would follow that
where the mountains were found more than 10
marine leagues from the ocean the boundary,
which would in that case quit the mountains,
might be removed not nearer the sea, but further
inland. To take an example, if the waters of
any inlet were not "ocean," but the shore of the
inlet was " coast," mountains at the head of the
inlet might be more than 10 marine leagues from
the "ocean," but less than 10 marine leagues
from the "coast," and, therefore, the effect of
discarding the line of the mountains in order to
substitute a line drawn with reference to the
coast would be to place the line further inland
than the mountains. It is obvious, however,
that the line to be drawn with reference to the
coast was meant to limit and not to extend the
width of the lisiere.
Por the above reasons it is submitted that
'Aocean" and "coast," where these terms are
used to supply the datum from which the boundary
is to be ascertained, refer to the same thing.
It is also clear that the " sinuosities" or
" windings " of the " coast " are the sinuosities
or windings of the same coast as that above
referred to; that is to say, the coast which forms
the limit of the ocean.
According to Article IV, the line which is to be
drawn where the mountains are too remote is to
be parallel to the windings of the coast and never
more than 10 marine leagues distant therefrom.
It matters not whether the word " therefrom "
("en") refers to "sinuosities," to "coast," or 26
to "ocean." It is clear that the parallelism
and the distance must be with reference to the
same line. If it could be held that the shores of
an inlet, though not part of the coast were,
nevertheless, part of the sinuosities of the coast,
the line parallel to the sinuosity might be forced
inland more than 10 marine leagues from the
coast and from the ocean.
The question therefore is, what is the one line
which is referred to in the three expressions
" ocean," " coast," and " sinuosities of the
coast ? "
In the case for the United States it is through
out contended that this line must be found at
the head of the tide-water. It is to be observed,
however, that the expression " tide-water" is
itself one requiring further definition.
Assuming that it has reference to ordinary
tides, the question presents itself whether tidewater extends as far up a river as the level of
the stream is affected by the tides, even though
the downward flow of fresh water is not reversed,
or whether it only extends to the point where
the flow is so reversed. In other words, is the
limit to be taken that of the vertical or of the
horizontal action of the tide ?
It appears to be settled law in the United
States that the former is the correct view, and
it has been held by the Supreme Court that the
city of New Orleans, where the tides cause the
fresh water to swell in its downward flow without
affecting its current, is on tide water. (Peyroux
v. Howard (1833) 7 Peters, p. 343.) The same
view would probably prevail in England, though
the question is not perhaps quite settled (see the
authorities collected in Stuart Moore's History
and Law of Pisheries, pp. 98-107).
At any rate it was held in the eighteenth
century that the water of the Thames at Richmond
was tidal, and, whichever rule is taken, the
Thames is certainly tidal far above London. It
is submitted, however, that it is absolutely out of
the question to contend that the Mississippi at
New Orleans, or, on a smaller scale, the Thames
at or above London, could by any stretch of
language be called parts of the ocean, and the
absurdity would not, practically speaking, be less
glaring if the limit taken was the point where
the horizontal action of the tide ceases.
The theory that the ocean extends to all tidewaters must therefore be rejected, and there is
Answer to the United States' Contention that
the line dividing the "Coast" and the.
" Ocean " is at the head of Tide-water.
_ 27
no other limit which can be suggested except a
line drawn at the point where the open sea is-
reached.
It is no 'answer to say that in many cases the
inlets upon this part of the coast do not form the
estuaries of important rivers. Vancouver's charts
showed no rivers, and the negotiators of the Treaty
were entirely ignorant as to what the rivers were.
It is clear from Article VI that they were alive
to the possibility that they might be important.
It is, moreover, not practicable to treat as ocean
all the waters of those inlets which do not
terminate in a river, while applying some other
rule to those which do. The question would
arise in each case whether there was a river of
sufficient importance to lend the character of an
estuary to the inlet which received it.
Similar   considerations  show that   the  word
" coast" cannot be held to include the whole
margin of tide-water.    It is not consistent with
the ordinary use of language to hold that New
Orleans or London is on the coast, and as in the
case of ocean, so in the case of coast, if the limit
of tide-water cannot   be accepted, there is no
other alternative to fall back upon, except a line
following the general trend of the outer coast
which faces the open sea.
Consistency of the meaning assigned to   the      The meanings  assigned  above  to the  words
words "Ocean"  and   "Coast"   by   Great "ocean"   and   "coast"   are  not   only  natural
Britain. meanings  of  the terms  themselves,  but   they
harmonise perfectly with each other and with
the context in which they occur, and if there
had been no inlets penetrating the mountains or
extending to a depth of 10 marine leagues, the
suggestion that the line was to follow the limit
of tide-waters would probably never have been
heard of. In that case the line would have been
drawn in the absence of mountains at 10 marine
leagues from the general line of the outer coast,
and would have passed behind all the inlets,
though, of course, at a distance of less than 10
marine leagues from their heads. It would
never have occurred to anybody to contend that
an attempt should be made to reproduce in the
boundary-line the convolutions shown in the
inlets.
The circumstance, however, that some inlets
extend more than 10 marine leagues inland
cannot vary the construction, either by way of
making an exception in the case of such inlets
only or by treating every inlet as part of the 2S
ocean.    If the line of coast is not to be regarded
as broken by the mouth of an inlet extending
5 leagues inland it cannot be regarded as broken
by  the similar mouth of another inlet  which
happens to extend 20 leagues.
The   question of the  meaning   of the  words Argument   contained   in  the  United States
« ocean " and « coast " is not specifically argued     J°unter,-,Cas^ °* th« „m*»ning °f the words.
1               ^      °             ' Ocean   and   Coast,
in the United States' Case.    In the Counter-Case, 	
however, it is contended that each of these words
may be employed in three distinct ways—viz., in
a physical, political, or descriptive sense : and it United States'
is urged that they are here used in the physical p 31> '••
sense.    Great Britain does not admit that this
analysis   is   complete.     It   is    not,   however,
important to dwell upon merely verbal questions,
and the British contention may be broadly stated
as  being to the  effect that the word coast is
physically descriptive of the mainland frontage
over against the Prussian islands, and the word
ocean of the sea that washes such coast.
The Treaty itself shows that the Parties were Articles I and VII of the Treaty of 1825 and
using the word ocean in its popular sense, having I and IV of the Treaty of 1824. compared,
regard to the connection in which it occurs. In
Article I of the Treaty the term ocean appears
to have been used in a sense excluding the
interior waters, otherwise it would follow that
Article VII was either superfluous as conceding what was already given by Article I or
was contradictory to Article I as limiting to a
period of 10 years what was given in perpetuity
by Article I. And the same observation is to be
made with reference to Articles I and IV of the
Treaty of 1824.
The true view of Article VII of the British
and Article IV of the United States' Treaty with
Russia is that these Articles gave something in
addition to what was acknowledged by Article I,
that is to say, a right to frequent for trade and
fishery for ten years something which was not
ocean, namely, the interior waters. If this is not
so, the United States would have to admit that
the subjects of Great Britain have at the present
•day, under the Treaty of 1825, a right to frequent
for trade and fishery therein the interior waters
of the lisiere belonging to the United States.
It is hardly necessary to say that this is not, and
never has been, admitted by the United States
or contended for by Great Britain.
As was pointed out in the British Counter-Case, British Counter-
Mr. Middleton, during the whole course of his Case'pp* 35> 36*
negotiations with the Russian Government, was 29
United States'
App., p 79.
Other meanings of the words "
" Ocean "
United States'
Counter-Case,
pp. 33, 34.
" Political Coast."
careful to keep the provisions, which ultimately
were embodied in Article IV of the Treaty of
1824, distinct from those contained in Article I;
and in announcing the conclusion of the Treaty,
he observed that the specific and particular privileges granted by Article IV would be found to
contain an extension of the general privileges
embraced by the preceding Articles.
The United States' Case alleges quite clearly
that at the termination of the period of ten
years referred to in Article IV of the Treaty of
1824, and upon the refusal of Russia to renew
the provisions of that Article, the Government
of the United States accepted the position that
the right of United States' citizens to frequent
the interior waters for trade and fishery came to
an end, notwithstanding Article I of the Treaty.
It is quite true that persons travelling in the
interior of the country might speak of reaching
the coast Avhen they came to the shore of an
inlet, or that the terminus of a railway upon an
inlet might be described as an ocean terminus.
Such expressions, which are relied upon in the
Counter-Case for the United States, are sufficient to convey the meaning of those employing
them in that connection. It does not follow
that they would be accurate in other connections. It is conceived, for instance, that a ship
would be described as having sailed along the
coast without its suggesting to the hearer that
she had entered any of the inlets, and if her
course were described as parallel to the coast it
would undoubtedly mean parallel to the general
line of the coast.
In the same way it is not necessary to controvert
the allegation made on page 31 of the United
States' Counter-Case, that the "political coast"
in this region at the present time follows the
islands. This is so because the mainland facing
the islands is United States' territory also. At
the time, however, when this Treaty was being
negotiated, Russia had obtained, or at least
obtained very early in the negotiations, a recognition of her right to the islands. It remained
to consider the mainland opposite, and it is
submitted that, looked at for this purpose and
from this point of view, it might quite well be
regarded as having even a "political coast" of its
own. This verbal controversy seems, however,
hardly worth pursuing.
While offering the contentions above adverted
[981] P 30
of Atlas accompanying Case.    Eeasons why
it cannot be adopted.
to as to the meaning of the words " coast" and
■' ocean," the Counter-Case for the United States
does not explain how the physical coast to which
it refers is to be made to serve the purpose for
which the line, which the word coast is used to
describe, was introduced into the scheme for the
Treaty. No answer has as yet been given to the
argument that the British construction is the
only one which will enable effect to be given to
the requirements of Article IV, that the boundary,
in the absence of mountains, shall be a line
parallel to the windings of the coast, and which
shall never exceed a distance of 10 marine
leagues therefrom.
The United States'construction does not admit "Line indicated on United ^States'^MapjJToJJS
of this. If the map on page 25 of the atlas
delivered with the Case for the United States is
looked at, it will be seen at a glance that the line
there put forward does not conform to the
requirements of the Treaty. It is not a line
drawn parallel to the sinuosities of the coast if
the shores of the inlets are to be regarded as
part of the coast. It does exhibit certain curves
which in point of fact, except where a devour is
made to get round the head of Lynn Canal,
reproduce in a remarkable way the curves not
of the inlets, but of the general line of the coast,
and so far as that line can be said to be parallel
to anything at all, it is parallel, not to the
windings of the coast, as the United States must
define them, but to the windings of the coast in
the sense contended for by Great Britain.
The fault, however, of the line, as shown on
this map, is that it is more than 10 marine
leagues from the coast, being pushed back to
pass 10 marine leagues from the heads of the
inlets in succession. This can only be done upon
the theory that the heads of the inlets are coast,
and that sinuosities of the coast include the
detailed sinuosities formed by the inlets. But
if that position is taken, the line must be drawn
parallel to those sinuosities; which, however,
obviously cannot be done. The line suggested
by the United States is, in fact, a line which is
parallel to the coast, using that word in one
sense, and 10 marine leagues from the coast,
using that word in another. But the use of the
word "therefrom" clearly indicates that the
distance is to be measured from the same hue of
coast as that to which the boundary was to run
parallel. 31
By drawing the line in the way indicated the
United States deprives Great Britain not only of
the benefit of all peninsulas and projections
which, if their theory as to the meaning of
"coast" is correct, should affect the line, but
also of all the country between inlets.
If the southern end of the United States' line
is looked at, it will be observed that, starting at
the 56th parallel, its direction is determined in
the first place by the head of Burrough's Bay,
from which it keeps at a distance of 10 marine
leagues. Prom that point the course of the line
is governed by the head of the next inlet,
namely, Bradfield Canal, being drawn parallel to
an imaginary line joining those two points
without being in any way affected by the
occurrence of the Cleveland Peninsula. Great
Britain is entitled to ask what is the sinuosity
of the coast to which the line is at this point
drawn parallel. It is submitted that none can
be shown; and that this example demonstrates
conclusively the falsity of the principle adopted.
The same remark may be made as to the whole
course of the line which skips at a distance of
10 marine leagues from inlet to inlet along the
whole of its course to the 141st meridian.
It is submitted that the above argument shows
conclusively that the British interpretation is the
only one which the words of the Treaty will
bear, and that the application of the American
interpretation produces a result which is shown
by ocular demonstration to contradict its specific
provisions.
Argument based on Article VII of the Treaty.      As   pointed   out   in   the   British  Case   and
  Counter-Case,   the   provisions   of  Article  VII
strongly support the contention that the Treaty
contemplated the possibility that some part of
the inlets might be in British territory. There is
indeed no answer to this argument, if the effect
of that Article is to give to Russia a licence from
Great Britain in respect of waters situated between
Portland Canal and Mount St. Elias, for there
would be no use in Russia taking such a licence
if none of the waters to which it referred could
be British. The question Therefore is whether
there were any other waters in respect of which
Russia could take such a licence from Great
Britain.
In the Behring Sea Arbitration a question was
raised as to the meaning in this Treaty of the
phrase " North-West  Coast of   America,"  the
[981] P 2 British contention being that it included, and the
United States' contention that it did not include,
the coast of Behring Sea; and in the course of
this discussion Great Britain maintained, and the
United States at least as strenuously denied, that
Article VII applied as far north as Behring Sea.
The despatches and contentions in which these
positions were assumed by the parties respectively
are referred to in the British Counter-Case and British Counter-
the United States' Counter-Case in this present rjjfited States'
Arbitration.    It is not now necessary further to Counter-Case,
refer to the  contentions of the Parties in the     "    '
connection referred to.    If the present position
of the United States receives support from the
position assumed by Great Britain on the former
occasion, the converse is at least equally true.
It is submitted, however, that the point now
made is not really affected by the contentions
with reference to the scope of Article VII, put
forward in connection with the Pur Seal dispute.
The question now is not whether Russia gave a
licence to Great Britain in respect of waters
beyond the lisiere, but whether there were any
such waters in respect of which Russia could
be regarded as taking a licence from Great
Britain. Now Great Britain could in no view
possess any inland waters north of the lisiere.
The boundary following the 141st meridian put
that out of the question. On the other hand,
Russia could not be taking a licence south of the
lisiere, because all that territory had been already
relinquished by her to the United States, and
had never come into discussion between Great
Britain and Russia.
The result is that, by Article VII, Russia took
from Great Britain privileges in respect of waters
situated in that part of the continent which was
fringed by the lisiere ; and, therefore, that it
was contemplated that Great Britain might be
found entitled to inland waters in that region.
It is contended on behalf of Great Britain that
the course of the negotiations confirms the interpretation above set forth of the Treaty itself.
It is important, however, to bear in mind the
limitations which, upon well-known principles, are
universally held to govern the extent to which
previous negotiations can be looked at for the
purpose of construing a formal written contract.
Such negotiations can be looked at to identify i"vi-prif tn TO~ni*«v. r,™™,,* -\t„„^+- <-.- x.
° ■>   extent to wnicn previous .Negotiations can be
the subject-matter of the contract and to show     looked at for the purpose of interpreting the
what   the   Parties   used   particular   terms   to        ea ^* 33
Extent to which the'United States claims t
entitled to refer to the Negotiations.
United States'
Counter-Case,
p. 40.
describe. It is clear, therefore, that they can
be looked at to show what the words "ocean"
" coast" and " sinuosities of the coast" were
employed to designate; and for this purpose
Great Britain refers to the negotiations.
' The United States, however, claims to refer to
the negotiations as showing that the Parties
meant to make a bargain other than that which
they have expressed. The position is put very
frankly in the Counter-Case for the United
States in the following passage :—
" The United States asserts that the intention of the
parties to the treaty is vital to its true interpretation;
that such intention between nations is the very essence of
the agreement; and that any-material variance from the
intention must give place to an interpretation in accordance
with it."
Answers of Great Britain to that Contention.
The United States uses the liberty of interpretation so claimed to introduce the argument
which may be shortly described as " The
Barrier Theory," and to contend that the Treaty
must be read and applied in such a sense as to
give effect to such a barrier as it is asserted the
negotiators intended to erect.
Great Britain denies that this intention can be
discovered in the negotiations. But she also
submits that the negotiations cannot be referred
to for the purpose of controlling the construction
of the Treaty to this extent. If, on the true
construction of the Treaty itself, it is held that
the geographical principle adopted gives, when
worked out, a line which provides no such
barrier as that contended for, it is not open to
the United States to claim that the geographical
principle should be modified in order to correct
this result. On the contrary, the truer rule
would seem to be that the more clearly it appears
that any particular stipulation was insisted upon
by either side during the negotiations, the
stronger is the inference that it would have been
expressed in the Agreement if conceded, and
that, if not, it must have been abandoned.
'This is a rule of common sense, and is particularly applicable in the present case. This Treaty
was the result of negotiations extending over
about three years, several times broken off and
renewed between different Representatives of the
two nations, and relating to questions' both of
maritime jurisdiction and territorial limits.
It was natural, as is found to be the case, that with regard to such limits in a country then
wholly unknown and little thought of, various
proposals should from time to time have been
made on either side and rejected, conceded, or
more or less modified, until in the end an agreement was reached. It is eminently, therefore, a
case in which the agreement must govern, however inconsistent it may be with what the Parties
may have said or attempted to obtain at different
stages of the many protracted discussions. The
question of what either side was given or got by
the words of the Treaty can hardly, in any case,
be affected by showing what they were anxious
to get or willing to concede before it was concluded.-
Taking first the words " coast" and " ocean," it
will be found that from the time when the lisiere
was first suggested these terms were used con-
vertibly to indicate the line with reference to
which the lisiere was to be defined, the word
" coast" meaning broadly the coast of the mainland fronting the Pacific, and the word " ocean "
meaning the sea that extended to that line.
The idea of a lisiere was first put forward in
the " Contre-projet" suggested by the Russian
Plenipotentiaries in answer to the first proposal
of Sir C. Bagot in February 1824. The " Contre- British Case,
pro jet" commences by referring to a dividing P™' '
line " on the North-West Coast of America." It
then states the Russian desire to make the
boundary follow the Portland Canal as far as the
mountains "which run along the coast," from
which point it would ascend along these mountains "parallel to the sinuosities of the coast."
In his amended proposal, delivered on receipt
of this " Contre-projet," Sir Charles Bagot adopts
the phrase "mountains bordering the coast,"
and suggests in effect that the lisiere shall
commence further to the north, whence the line
" would follow a northerly and north-westerly
direction parallel to the sinuosities of the coast
and always at a distance of 10 marine leagues
from the shore [" rivage "]."
The word "rivage" here clearly means the
sam'e as " c6te," and is only used to avoid
repeating the same word. It cannot mean the
shore of the inlets, because in the first place a
fine parallel thereto is impossible, and, secondly,
because the inlets are so pronounced that such a
line could not be accurately described merely as
running " in a northerly or north-westerly direction."
Meaning in which the words " Coast" and
" Ocean " are used in the Negotiations.
Eussian " Contre-projet" in answer to Sir G.
Bagot's First Proposal of February 1824.
Sir C. Bagot's Amended Pro British
p. 71.
Sir C. Bagot's reply.
British Cas
Ap'p., p. 72
Eussia's Final Decision.
Sir C. Bagot's Et
App., p
sort to Mr. Cai
British Case,
App., p. 67.
Count Nesselrode's Letter to Count Lieven
giving an Account of the Negotiations.
British Case,
App., p. 75.
.British Case,
App., p. 78.
In
obser
atu
efe
their opening paragraph to the "North-West
Coast," and, after reiterating their proposal, point
out that it would leave to Great Britain " all that
part of the coast lying between the mouth of
Portland Channel and the 51st degree of latitude
north." Here they are clearly speaking of the
North-West Coast of America in its broad aspect,
and neglecting the inlets. Otherwise the coast
ie, App., left to Great Britain (and it would support the
Russian argument to make it appear as extensive
as possible) would have been described as running
from the head of Portland Canal. Independently
of this, it is clear that in this despatch the
" coast" was not regarded as including the head
of Portland Canal, because that inlet is in terms
described as having its " origine dans les terres."
In his reply Sir Charles Bagot repeats the
Russian phrase, "that part of the coast lying
between the mouth of Portland Canal and the
degree of latitude," &c.
In their final decision the Russians insist on
the possession of a "portion of territory on the
coast opposite " Prince of Wales Island.
The negotiations were then broken off, and, in
reporting to Mr. Canning what had taken place,
Sir C. Bagot describes the lisiere as "a line of
coast extending 10 marine leagues into the
interior of the continent."
Count Nesselrode, on his side, also wrote an
account of the negotiations to Count Lieven, in
which, after referring to " the North-West Coast
of America " and " the North-West Coast of the
American continent," he speaks of the frontier
proposed by him as running along " the mountains
which follow the windings of the coast." The
southern frontier, he said, would " end upon the
continent at the Portland Canal, the mouth of
which into the ocean [" l'embouchure dans
l'ocean "] lies in the latitude of Prince of Wales
Island and the head inland [" l'origine dans les
terres "] between the 55th and 56th degrees." He
explained that the proposal only secured to the
Russians " a narrow strip on—the coast itself; "
and he pointed out that England did not possess
any establishment " neither at the head of Portland Canal nor on the shore of the ocean."
It is contended that these documents show to
demonstration that the Parties in speaking of the
coast were referring to the general line of the L
36
North-West Coast of America, to which the
mountains on the chart appeared to run parallel
in a northerly or north-westerly direction; that
the word as they used it excluded the shores of
the inlets, and that the inlets were not regarded
as "ocean." The "narrow strip on the coast
itself," referred to by Count Nesselrode, would
not, therefore, be a strip at the head of an inlet
like Portland Canal.
Upon Sir Charles Bagot breaking off the
negotiations at this point, Mr. Canning communicated the position of affairs to the Hudson's Bay
Company, who, through Mr. Pelly, expressed
themselves as satisfied with the proposals of
Russia, subject to a better definition of the
mountains described as following the sinuosities
of the coast.    The language used by Mr. Pelly,       Mr. Pelly's Letter to Mr. Canning of the
and repeated by  Mr. Canning  to  Sir  Charles 26th ^ 1824
Bagot, shows that " the coast " and " the sea "
were regarded as denoting the same line. On the
26th May, 1824, Mr. Pelly wrote pointing out British Case, App.,
that it was possible "that those mountains
represented in the charts as closely bordering
on the sea, and described by the Russians as a
tres petite distance, may really be at a very considerable distance from the coast."
On the 12th July, 1824, Mr. Canning, writing     Mr. Canning's Letter to Sir C. Bagot of the
to Sir C. Bagot, spoke of the line " following the 12th ^Jb 1824-
sinuosities of the coast, along the base of the British Case, App.,
mountains nearest the sea." In the same des- P* 86*
patch he speaks of the necessity of a proviso,
| that the line shall in no case (i.e., not in that of
the mountains, which appear by the map almost
to border the coast, turning out to be far
removed from it) be carried further to the east
than a specified number of leagues from the
sea."
Meanwhile, on the 29th May, 1824, Mr. Can-   Mr. Canning's Letter of the 29th May, 1824,
ning had written to Count Lieven in terms which to Count Lieven.
point clearly to a distinction between inland British Case, App.,
waters and the ocean. He asks for " precise P* 81*
and positive stipulations for the free use of all
rivers which may be found to empty themselves
into the sea within the Russian frontier, and of
all seas, straits, and waters which the limits
assigned to Russia may comprehend." He adds,
later, that it was taken for granted that " the
exclusive claims of navigation and jurisdiction
over the North Pacific Ocean, which were put
forward in the Ukase of September, 1821, are to
be altogether withdrawn." >,App
37
Count Lieven's Letter to Count Nesselrode.        In repeating Mr.  Canning's  communication
British Case, App., Count Lieven drew Count Nesselrode's attention
P- 83- to these separate points as to the inland seas and
the Pacific Ocean.
)raft Conventions sent by Mr. Canning to Sir     In the draft Convention which Mr. Canning
Mr. Stratford Canning on the 8th December, Sent to Sir Cnaries Bagot on the 12th July, 1824,
1824. the line was described (Article II) as ascending
Portland Channel " till it strikes the coast of the
Continent," and the same phrase is used in the
draft sent to Mr. Stratford Canning on the 8th
December following. These two passages are the
only ones in which the word " coast" seems to
be capable of applying to the shore of an inlet.
It is, however, interesting to observe that in each
case the Russians altered the phrase. In the
Eussia's Counter-Draft. counter-dratt delivered to Sir C. Bagot the line
t, ... , ,,      .       was described as ascending   Portland  Channel
British Case, App.,      m °
p. 94. " jusqu'au point ou cette passe se termine dans
l'interieur de la terre ferme," and the same cor-
Matusevich's Corrections to the Draft sub-     rection was made by Matusevich  in the draft
mitted by Sir Stratford Canning. which   was   submitted   through   Sir   Stratford
British Case, App,, Canning.    This emendation thus repeated is most
P*126' pointed, and shows that the Russians noticed the
confusion which would be introduced by treating
the head of Portland Canal as " coast."    At any
rate, it shows that the Russians did not enter into
the Treaty relying on the word " coast'' having
any such significance.
British Case, App.,     This conclusion is  fortified if the terms  in
p' which the 10-marine-league limit is provided for
in   the   four   documents    last-mentioned    are
examined.    In the draft sent to Sir C. Bagot it
was stipulated that "the strip of coast should
not in any case extend more than 10 marine
leagues in breadth from the sea towards  the
interior."    In the Counter-Draft this phrase is
retained   side   by   side   with   the   substituted
phrase describing the head of Portland Canal as
" in the interior."    The Russians therefore were
clearly contemplating a breadth of 10 leagues,
to be measured  back   from  the sea to  "the
interior," the heads of the inlets being situated
in such " interior," and not, therefore, being part
of the sea.
In the draft sent to Mr. Stratford Canning by
Mr. George Canning the clause provided that "if
the summit of the aforesaid mountains shall turn
out to be in any part of their range at more than
thedistanceof lOmarine leagues from the Pacifick,
then that for that space the line of demarcation
shall be a line parallel to the coast, and its
[981] G 38
windings at the said distance of 10 marine
leagues therefrom, so that the said line of
demarcation shall never extend farther than
10 marine leagues from the coast." This clearly
treated the coast as being the coast of the
Pacific.
In the Russian Counter-Draft the language is :
" Partout oh la distance entre la Crete des mon-
tagnes et la mer se trouverait de plus de 10 lieues
marines, la limite de cette m&me lisiere sera
formed par une ligne parallele aux sinuosites
de la cdte et qui ne pourra jamais s'eloigner de la
mer que de 10 lieues marines."
Looking at these four versions of this proviso,
it is clear that the words Pacific, mer or sea, and
«6te or coast, all refer to the same datum line from
which the 10 marine leagues were to be measured
towards the interior, and that the Russians were
correct in altering the phrasing of the preceding
Article so as to make it clear that the head of
Portland Canal was not on the coast but in the
interior.
Por these reasons it is submitted that the
negotiations support the contention that the
words coast and ocean or sea, as used by the
negotiators, did not include the heads of the
inlets.
In the United States' Case it was, however, \
contended that the negotiations disclosed a
governing intention on the part of the two
Powers concerned to erect a barrier unbroken by
inlets between the British possessions and tidewater throughout the whole length of the lisiere.
It has already been submitted that the negotiations cannot be referred to for the purpose of
extracting from them a controlling principle of
this kind independent of and, indeed, over-riding
the provisions of the Treaty itself. In the British
Counter-Case it was shown, moreover, that the
negotiations do not, in fact, support any such
theory. It is not proposed here to repeat that
reasoning, especially as it is not part of the
affirmative argument of Great Britain. It is
sufficient to refer to the pages of the British
Counter-Case in which it is set forth. It is
contended, however, that if the negotiations are
examined not for the purpose of extracting a
principle at variance with the terms of the
Treaty, but for the more legitimate purpose of
ascertaining the sense in which the word lisiire
nited States' Contention that an " Unbroken
Barrier" was intended to be retained by
Eussia.
The British Contention. 39.
United Stai
Counter-Cai
p 40.
Course of Negotiations.
The " Seaward Base of the Mountains.
Eemoval of line from Seaward Ba
Summit.
was used, the British interpretation receives
material confirmation.
, As was pointed out in the British Case, the
lisiere was described as a " point d'appui," " une
portion de territoire sur la c6te," "une etroite
lisiere sur la c6te m6me," " une simple lisiere du
continent," " une mediocre espace de terre ferine,"
" uniquement un point d'appui."
In the Counter-Case for the United States it is
argued that the lisiere contended for by Great
Britain would not be an effective "point d'appui."
This is not admitted; but if it is to any extent
true, the answer is that the Russians were willing
to take their chance as to the real situation of
the mountains which were to determine, in the
first instance, the breadth of the lisiere.
The mountains were suggested as the eastern
boundary of the lisiere on the first occasion on
which the lisiere itself was proposed, namely, in the
Counter-Draft delivered by the Russian Plenipotentiaries to Sir Charles Bagot in Pebruary, 1824.
The amended proposal of Sir Charles Bagot
neglected the mountains and proposed a 10-
marine-league line.
The limiting line, where the mountains receded
more than 10 marine leagues from the Ocean, was
first suggested in the draft Convention sent by
Mr. Canning to Sir Charles Bagot in July, 1824,
in view of the proposed resumption of the
negotiations broken off earlier in the year. In
this draft the boundary was expressed to follow
the seaward base of the mountains.
The way in which this proposal was received
by the Russians shows that they were perfectly
alive to the possibility that the mountains would
be found far within the 10-marine-league limit.
In his Memorandum of the 24th July, 1824,
Count Lieven pointed out that it would not be
impossible, in view of the little exactness of the
geographical ideas which the Parties as yet possessed as to those regions, that the mountains
designated as the boundary should extend by an
insensible slope down to the very border of the
coast.
Sir Charles Bagot was instructed by Mr.
Carming to consent, if necessary, to the boundary
running along the summit instead of along the
base of the mountains. The Russians, however,
were not satisfied with this, and proposed in their
Counter-Draft the adoption of a 10-league line,,
without reference to mountains at all.
[981] G 2 The Mountain Boundary retained with s
limiting 10-league line.
40
The negotiations at this time failed upon other British refusal to discard Mountain Boundary,
points, but when Mr. Stratford Canning was
instructed to resume them in December, 1824,
Mr. George Canning informed him that the
British Government could not consent to discard the mountains altogether, and take the
distance as invariably the rule.
The alternative boundary was therefore adopted,
but it is quite clear that the Russians, while fully
appreciating that the mountains might be found British Caf
to run along the coast itself, were prepared to p*
take the chance of this, and would have preferred
to have had no reference to the 10-marine-league
limit at all. In his despatch of the 20th Pebruary
(3rd March), 1825, Count Nesselrode remarks to
Count Lieven that the natural frontier formed
by the mountains would have been preferable—
" England," he says, " would have gained thereby
wherever those mountains were found at less than
10 marine leagues from the sea; Russia, wherever this
distance was greater,and consideringthewant of precision
in the geographical notions then possessed concerning
these countries, such an arrangement would have
offered to the two Contracting Parties entirely equal
chances of advantage."
It is submitted that this shows the Parties
were not bargaining upon the basis that the
mountains would reproduce any such line as that
shown by the ridge conventionally depicted on
Vancouver's charts, but that they were willing to
take a line subject to all the variations which
proper application of the geography, when ascertained, would introduce.
Acts of the Parties—How to be considered.
As has already been pointed out in the British
Case and Counter-Case, preliminary or subsequent
action of the Parties can only be taken into consideration by the Tribunal by virtue of the concluding clause of Article III of the Treaty of
Arbitration.
The limits within which, and the purpose for
which, evidence of this kind is receivable under
this Article, have already had attention drawn to
them in the British Counter-Case. But it is also j
necessary to keep in view, while estimating the
bearing of this class of evidence, when admitted,'
what has been the position in reference to this
How evidence as to Acts of Parties is to be
considered. ry during the period to which this evidence
The Treaty provided a Paper Bou
merely.
Acts of Parties as Eevealing Intention.
The British view
The United States' view,
Resulting fallacious Argument by United
States,
The contention of Great Britain, which will be
more fully developed hereafter, is that the Treaty
of 1825 merely established a boundary on paper,
to be located when the time arrived which should
make that step necessary ; and further, that such
locating of the boundary would not merely consist
of an identification of points referred to (as in
the case of the water boundary), but w:ould
involve an ascertainment of facts and data.
The inquiry, for the purpose of which the
action of the Parties is to be looked at, is as to
the meaning and intention of the Treaty, and
not as to what are to be taken to be the facts
and data which would control its application.
Prom this standpoint, Great Britain submits
her view of the facts and data, and presents a
line which she says exhibits the result of the
application of the Treaty thereto. But, as was
British Case, p. 83. declared in the British Case, she does not present
it as in all respects the only possible application
of the Treaty, and action of the Parties pointing
to a different application from that shown by
such line is not to be mistaken for action
pointing to a different interpretation of the
Treaty itself. The application of the Treaty
has, as Great Britain contends, always been a
problem awaiting solution, and not one that was
in the process of receiving it; and this is the
answer, broadly stated, which she submits to the
United States' contention upon this part of the
Case.
The evidence, however, which is presented by
the United States upon this part of the inquiry
is directed substantially to establish the contention that the provisions of the Treaty have
received practical application by the action of
Russia and the United States (without protest,
it is said, on behalf of Great Britain) : and that
such application reveals a line coinciding substantially with the line shown on Map 2 in the
Atlas delivered with the United States' Case.
This being the point of view from which
this subject is approached, the.Case and Counter-
Case for the United States are found continually
commenting upon the action of the Parties
as if the issue were between two ascertained
lines, namely, a line such as that contended
for by the United States as above mentioned
and   the   line   shown   in   the   Atlas   delivered 42
with the British Case as giving  effect to  the
British application, on the ground, of the terms
of the  Treaty;   and the  action of the Parties
is examined with a view of showing that it is
inconsistent with the latter line.    One example
of this is   sufficient   for the present purpose.
In   the   Counter-Case  for   the   United   States United States'
reference is made to the narrative of the journey p 46 '
of  Governor  Simpson in 1847, and an extract
is  cited  and  printed in italics   in  which the
Governor says that the strip (the lisiere) rendered
the   interior country  comparatively useless   to
England.    The comment on this is as follows:
" If  Great Britain had possessed the heads of
the inlets, Governor Simpson would never have
written the last clause of the foregoing sentence."
The fundamental fallacy of the line of argument of which the above is an example, and
which is often repeated, is that it ignores the
fact that the boundary was, and still remains, an
unascertained line, not merely an un delimited
Une in the sense of unidentified upon the ground,
but a line unascertained in the sense that the
data upon which it depended had not been
agreed upon.
In answer to the Pifth Question, Great Britain
repudiates the contention of the United States
that it is a fundamental principle in the construction of the Treaty that she is to be entitled to
none of the inlets. And she is further contending,
in answer to the Seventh Question, that, in the
application of the provisions of the Treaty to the
topography, she ought, as a matter of fact, to
obtain the heads of all the important inlets.
But the Pifth Question may be answered
in accordance with the British view, that is to
say, in the negative, and yet, in the application
of the Treaty, so construed, to the topography, it
may still be undecided (and the solution would
depend on the answer to the Seventh Question),
how far she is to obtain the heads of the inlets.
There is a further general observation to be
made with reference to the United States'presentation of evidence in support of the authority of the
specific line for which that Power contends.
This line assumes two things, firstly, that the
boundary must, of necessity, run behind all the
inlets ; and, secondly, that the boundary is to be
traced throughout by reference to the 10-marine-
league Hmit, and not by reference to mountains.
As to the first point, Great Britain obiects that
Two false United States' assumptions. United States' line inconsistent with Treaty,
The Boundary was left to be determined 8
has never been determined.
it is not open to the United States to show, by
evidence of the action of the Parties, that the
boundary was assumed to run in the way described, unless they also prove that it can so run
consistently with the Treaty.
It is to be observed that the Tribunal is not
empowered to give any effect to such action as a
source of title independent of the Treaty of 1825.
That Treaty cannot be revised, nor, except so far
as is contemplated by the terms of the Seventh
Question, can a boundary be laid down by the
Tribunal. It has only to answer the questions
put. If, therefore, the action of the Parties were
to be held to point to the assumption of the
boundary-line contended for by the United
States, but such line cannot be made consistent
with the words of the Treaty, the Tribunal would
have no authority to give effect to it.
Is, therefore, the line contended for consistent
with the Treaty ? It cannot be so unless it is
the mountain line. There is no 10-marine-league
line. There is a 10-marine-league limit, but the
Treaty postulates the existence of mountains to
form the boundary, and the 10-marine-league
limit defines the position of the mountains and
the course of the line in places where the mountains fall outside the limit.
Great Britain has further to observe, with
reference to the evidence of the United. States on
this part of the Case, that, inasmuch as it is
adduced to establish that a 10-marine-league
boundary has been accepted, it misses the mark
by proving too much.
It cannot be denied that under the Treaty the
boundary was left to be ascertained in the future.
It was dependent on the ascertaining of the
position of the summits of the mountains within
the prescribed limit. It cannot be alleged that
the Parties have ever agreed upon the point so
left open; it is not submitted to the Tribunal to
say whether they have or not; and the Seventh
Question assumes that they have not.
Yet a large part of the Case and Counter-Case
of the United States is devoted to supporting by
reference to the action of the-Parties a line relied
upon as establishing the application of the
10-marine-league principle—a principle which
was repudiated by one of the Parties, and
regretfully allowed to drop by the other.
The first act referred to by the United States
subsequent to the making of the Treaty of 1825 is the publication of a Russian map described as United States'
laying   down  a   boundary  "at   a   distance   of
10 marine leagues around all the inlets of the
sea."    Subsequently there is a reference to " the United States'
universal method followed by cartographers in
drawing the boundary-line at 10 marine leagues
from the shore of the mainland."    An alleged
Russian boundary-mark on the  Stikeen   at 10 United States'
•      i /      ,, 1 •        v   , T,  •    Case, p. 88.
marine leagues from the coast is relied on.    It is
pointed out that the settlement proposed to be
made by those on board the " Dryad " was to be United States'
at more than 10 marine leagues from the coast.
There are numerous other references of the
same kind in connection with the Stikeen, and it
is also alleged that arrests were made up to a
distance of 10 marine leagues from the head of j
Lynn Canal, and that the census was taken, -
and the United States' authority acknowledged
for 30 miles up Taku River.
Great Britain contends that it is not competent
for one Party claiming under the Treaty of 1825
to set up against the other that any 10-marine-
league principle is to govern the boundary to the
exclusion of mountains, unless it shows that such
is the result of the Treaty stipulations and geographical conditions.
lited States'
II pp. 95, 96,
Summary of acts oe Parties.—Their Eepect.
It is not proposed on behalf of Great Britain
to go through the individual acts referred to in
the Case and Counter-Case of the United States,
either with a view to showing how far the evidence
must as a matter of detail be rejected, or only
accepted subject to qualification, or with a view
to classifying it in detail with reference to its
receivability, in accordance with the canons
hereinbefore submitted. It is sufficient here to
deal with it by way of summary.
As was shown in the British Case, the relations
of Russia with the territory now in dispute were
principally at the Stikeen. So far as there is
evidence that they penetrated to the head of
Lynn Canal, their action may have been taken at
the time of the affair of the " Dryad " as part of
an effort to thwart the operations of the Hudson's
Bay Company by all means in their power, whether
rightful or wrongful. In the Counter-Case for
the United States, however, there is a deposition
of an Indian named Ikee Shaw, said to be a . United States'
Counter-Case,
App., p. 214.
United States'
Case, App.,
pp. 308, 309.
"Effect of Lease to Hudson s Bay Company.
45
resident of Kluckwan, exhibiting medals which
he declares were given to his wife's ancestor as
a token of allegiance to Russia. The deponent
does not identify the date of this ceremony
beyond stating that it was three generations ago.
The medals themselves date back to the time
of Alexander I, and the mere statement of a
witness of this sort that they had been in the
possession of his wife's family for such a period
is not very conclusive evidence of the fact. It
is to be observed that the only records from
Russian sources which refer to ceremonies of
this kind chronicle presentations of medals on
the Stikeen or at Takutat Bay.
The Case and the Counter-Case of the United
States dwell at some length upon the lease
granted by the Russian Government to the
Hudson's Bay Company as showing a recognition of title inconsistent with the British interpretation of the Treaty.
It is submitted that the transaction, if looked
at fairly, does not support this inference. The
lease was accepted as a way out of the difficulty
created by the stoppage of the " Dryad." The fair
view of it is that it was accepted as a temporary
cession of the Russian territory, whatever it was.
The possession of the lisiere, however narrow it
may have been, had given rise to a difficulty
about the right of passage. It might give rise
to innumerable other difficulties at various points
along the coast, and it is perfectly intelligible
that the Hudson's Bay Company, which was, for
general reasons, anxious to come to an understanding with the Russian Company, should think
it good policy to anticipate all such questions up
to Cape Spencer by an arrangement of this kind.
After the arrangement was made they could and
did carry on their operations everywhere except
upon the islands,, and it is not reasonable to
suppose that they ever distinguished between
what they enjoyed under the lease and what they
enjoyed under the Treaty.
It was sufficient for the Hudson's Bay Company to know that they had got rid of the
Russian strip, which was -an inconvenience to
them; and this is the effect of the evidence
given by Sir George Simpson before the Select
Committee of the House of Commons in 1857.
What passed on that occasion has been submitted to a verbal scrutiny on the part of the
United States, which extracts more significance
[981] H
H United States'
Counter-Case,
pp. 43, 44.
46
from it than, on a reasonable consideration of the
circumstances, it is possible to do. Sir George
Simpson was dealing with a difficulty which, for
present purposes at any rate, had been overcome.
To read his statement as containing any admission as to what effect the strip would have if its
existence had been a practical matter is, as Great
Britain contends, highly unreasonable. The
Committee had a map before it, as to the
character and true meaning of which some
remarks will be made hereafter, and it was quite
sufficient for the purposes of the Committee,
which only required to refer to boundaries in the
most general way, to treat the lisiere as indicated
by such map.
The Counter-Case for the United States, however, puts forward the argument that one of the
objects of the Hudson's Bay Company in taking
the lease was to enable it to hunt the river
beaver in the rivers of the lisiere, and evidence
of a distinguished biologist is printed to show
that the river beaver is only found in fresh
water. There is no ground for the suggestion
that the lease was wanted to enable the Hudson's
Bay Company to hunt the river beaver. The
documents quoted on p. 44 of the United States'
Counter-Case, which state that the Russians
regarded the object of the Hudson's Bay Company as being to " occupy the region where the
natives living on the coast obtain river beavers,"
refer not to the territory ceded by the lease, but
to the intended site of the Stikeen post, to establish which the " Dryad" was fitted out. The
river beavers, though trapped in fresh water, were
traded for upon the coast. The American traders United States'
obtained these skins as easily as the British or ^^ ^ase'
Russians; and they at any rate had at this time
no access to fresh water in this region.
It is now necessary to refer to the alleged
action of the United States after that Power
succeeded to the Russian title in 1867. In the
Case and Counter-Case for the United States a
good deal of space is devoted to the consideration
of incidents that occurred upon or with reference
to the Stikeen. It is not perceived in what the
importance of these matters consists. They only
show the particular points at which on one side
or the other the boundary was, on the different
occasions alluded to, alleged to cross the river.
It was some times asserted that the mountain
boundary had been identified.   At other times
Acts of United States after 1867. 47
the suggestion was that the 10-marine-leagues
point was at such or such a point. These were
questions of the local application of the Treaty
only, not supporting the United States' construction of the Treaty. If the United States
could point to any instance in which a measurement was taken advisedly from the head of tidewater, in order to ascertain the boundary point,
it would be of importance. In point of fact.,
however, the only occasion on which a measurement was taken on accurate lines was when
Mr. Hunter made his survey : and he measured
from the general trend of the coast.
With regard to Lynn Canal, the evidence
is summarized at pp. 75-78 of the British
Counter-Case, to which Great Britain requests
the Tribunal to refer. The time which it covers
may be divided into three periods—1867-1880,
1880-1885, and 1885-1903.
1867-1880. During the first period there is no evidence of
any action of the United States except on certain
occasions when their ships visited those waters.
The country itself was barred to white men by
the local Indians, and no  laws of the United
United States'       States relating to Indians were applied or, indeed,
Case, App., p. 365. & **
deemed applicable.
1880-1885 During the period from 1880 to 1885, though
access to the country had been obtained by the
whites, the effect was small. A trading station,
two or three canneries, and a mission school
represented the settlement. There was no
effective system in operation for obtaining title
to land, and no administration of affairs. Nothing
can be pointed to as having occurred to direct
the attention of Great Britain to this incipient
settlement.
1885-1903. During the last period, from 1885 to 1903,
events of more importance occurred, the effect of
which was gradually to bring into prominence
the questions involved in the application of the
Treaty of 1825 now before this Tribunal. In
order, however, to assign its proper degree of
significance, with reference to the purpose for
which it is adduced, to the evidence of what
occurred locally, such evidence must always be
considered in connection with the position of the
two Governments concerned.
How evidence of Maps to be regarded. This important topic will be dealt with here-
  after,  but, before  doing so, it is necessary to
consider the true bearing in this controversy, and
in connection with the action of the Parties, of
[981] H 2 48
the maps relied upon on behalf of the United
States.
The publication of the Russian map of 1826,
which was followed by others having, so far as
material, the same characteristics, is referred to
in the United States' Case as the first incident in
the chain of events relied upon. Now the line
which was drawn on the Russian map of 1826
was not, and could not have been, intended to be
a line showing the actual result on the ground of
applying the principles of the Treaty of 1825.
On the contrary, it is a line which is obviously
drawn in a manner inconsistent with the Treaty.
The Treaty provided that the mountains near the
coast were to furnish the boundary, and that it
was only in the event of there being no such
mountains within 30 miles of the coast that a
line was to be traced parallel to the coast within
that limit. This map shows at several points
ranges of mountains much nearer the coast than
the line which is traced as the boundary. It is
obvious that the map-maker adopted the simple
plan of tracing a boundary-line at some distance
from the sea, irrespective alike of the physical
features of the country and of the provisions of
the Treaty. Indeed, in one point of some
importance this map is quite inconsistent with
the argument for the United States. According
to that argument, the head of such an inlet as the
Lynn Canal is to be treated as part of the coast,
and the boundary should be set back from it as
far as from the general fine of the coast proper.
An examination of this Map of 1826 shows that
the line traced as that of the boundary is
separated from the head of Lynn Canal by a
distance much shorter than that which separates
it from the general line of the coast at other
points. It would therefore appear that the map-
maker considered that the width of the lisiere at
this point was to be measured from some point
on the Lynn Canal far removed from its head.
The map is, however, of no authority, and little
can be based upon it on either side.
It is not proposed in the written argument in
answer to this question to examine in detail the
maps relied upon by the United States. They
are all open to the observation that the map-
makers have not been guided by the physical
features of the country and have not attempted
to apply to them the provisions of the Treaty.
The Eussian Map of 1826.
The Treaty disregarded.
This line of the Maps geaerally. The Diplomatic Situation as Affecting Actions
of Parties and Evidence of Maps.
It is now necessary to present the British view
of the diplomatic correspondence between the
Maps and Actions of  the Parties must be Parties, with reference to which the action locally
considered   in   relation to the Diplomatic of the United States and the evidence afforded
  by the maps must be considered.
1871-1878. Between 1871  and  1878 there were various
communications between the Parties with
reference to a demarcation of the boundary,
and stress is laid in the Counter-Case of the
United States upon the circumstance that the
boundary to be marked out was on one or ttwo
occasions mentioned as crossing the Rivers
Stikeen, Taku, and Chilcat. It will be found
that the point to which the Parties were primarily
directing their attention was the feasibility of
saving the expense of a general demarcation by
selecting a few points which should alone be
dealt with. It is not unreasonable to suppose
that those to whom this suggestion occurred
simply referred to one of the maps drawn in the
way which has above been referred to, and considered the financial problems involved in tracing
such a line as that. The only occasion on which
any measurement was actually made was when
Mr. Hunter laid off the boundary, as he estimated
it, upon the Stikeen. He measured it from the
general trend of the coast, adopting a principle
which is inconsistent with the theory that it
would be an essential characteristic of the line
that it should cut the rivers referred to; and,
looking at the slight degree of attention which
the problems presented by the Treaty had at that
time aroused, it is submitted that the expressions
referred to as to the line crossing these rivers are
not of great importance.
Mr. Bayard's despatch of November, 1885. But whatever might have been the significance
  of these matters, if the case had rested there,
it disappears  in the  light   of  the  subsequent
correspondence,   which   commenced   with   Mr.
Bayard's despatch of November, 1885.    In that
British Case, App., despatch Mr. Bayard, referring to 1867, writes as
pp. 249, 252. follows :—
" The boundary was then, as it is still, a theoretical
one, based, as it is fair to be presumed, on the charts
which the negotiators had before them in 1825, and
-which they doubtles« assumed to be a substantially
correct expression of geographical facts." 50
He quotes Mr. Dall's report as showing that a
line following the shore of the inlets would be
impossible to locate, inasmuch as it would "cross
itself in many places and indulge in myriads of
knots and tangles," and as establishing "the
false geographical assumptions on which the
language of the Treaty was based."
Mr. Bayard further states that:—
"The line traced upon the Coast Survey Map of
Alaska, No. 960, is as evidently conjectural and theoretical as was the mountain summit fine traced by
Vancouver."
In the Counter-Case for the United States United States'
this despatch of Mr. Bayard is treated as merely p_°^ter"Gase'
showing that Mr. Bayard, having regard to the
difficulties of demarcation, seemed to favour a
conventional line. As the proposal was not
acted upon, the Counter-Case continues, the
correspondence has little present application, and
its chief value lies in showing that no question
concerning the true location of the line had
arisen between Great Britain and Russia or
Great Britain and the United States.
This in no way meets the argument which
Great Britain founds on this despatch. Great
Britain does not refer to it merely for the
purpose of extracting verbal admissions. The
point is that this document shows that the line
shown on the maps, which is now alleged to have
received binding force as the Treaty line from
the action of the Parties, much of it before 1885,
was in 1885 not treated by the United States as
the Treaty line.
Mr. Bayard clearly states that the line shown
on the maps was not a line in accordance with
the Treaty. It was conjectural and hypothetical,
based on false geographical assumptions.
The United States now contends that a line
substantially the same as that referred to by
Mr. Bayard gives effect to the Treaty. Whether
this is so upon the construction of the Treaty is
a question upon which Great Britain has already
put forward her argument. But the United
States insists that the action of the Parties has at
any rate established that line, and established it
on the principle of the 10-marine-league boundary.
This is absolutely negatived by the attitude of
Mr. Bayard.
It is obvious that no action of the Parties can
have the effect of interpreting the Treaty, unless
Mr. Bayard's total refutation of the Maps. United States' line not sanctioned by the
Acts of the Parties.
United States'
Connter-Case,
p. 70.
appi
s that
51
it was taken avowedly as embodyii
cation of the Treaty provisions.
Mr. Bayard's declaration is conclusive evi
against the United States of the attitude <
Government upon this question.
Under these circumstances the position iJ
the United States is now contending that the
line shown on the maps embodied its interpretation of the Treaty, whereas in 1885 it
treated that line as conjectural and hypothetical
only; and, further, that it now contends that
the line fulfilled the requirement of the Treaty
that it should follow the sinuosities of the coast,
whereas in 1885 it asserted that this requirement was impossible of fulfilment.
It is to be observed that the object of these
observations is not to forward the conclusion
that any particular contention of the United
States upon the construction of the Treaty may
be rejected as wrong in itself, because contrary to
a view formerly expressed on behalf of that
Power. As the matter is before the Tribunal
upon its merits, such an argument would be of
secondary importance. The point made is that
the suggestion of the United States to the effect
that the line propounded by it has received
the sanction of the Parties is absolutely disproved
by the position taken by its Government with
respect to it.
Before leaving the subject of Mr. Bayard's
despatch, it is necessary to advert to the statement upon which the United States lays so much
stress,—that no question as to the location of the
boundary had, as Mr. Bayard believed, arisen
between Great Britain and Russia, and that certainly none had arisen between Great Britain and
the United States. The whole scope of the
despatch shows that this means merely that no
question had been in fact agitated. It cannot
mean that any matter on which there might be a
question had been settled in advance. This
entirely accords with the British contention. It
may be mentioned, in order to deal once for all
with this point, that the Counter-Case for the
United States, in the same wayTrefers to a speech
by Hon. R. W. Scott in the Canadian Parliament,
in which he is reported as saying : " There was no
dispute as to the boundary of Alaska." The
sentence next quoted is : "It was settled in the
Treaty of 1825." The sentence preceding is:
" The question has been discussed in despatches 52
for twenty years." The meaning of the speaker
is clearly that the boundary was one provided for
by Treaty. It is out of the question to argue
that the use of such language, either on the
British or the American side, establishes that the
action of the Parties had left no room for such
controversies as those now before this Tribunal.
It is not possible for the United States now to Eepudiated by the United States in 1885, and
maintain that a line, which in 1885 Mr. Bayard, not sancfcioned since*
speaking officially for the United States to Great
Britain,repudiated,had been,by the action of these
two Powers, at any rate, before 1885, accepted as
giving effect to it. Nor, in the face of that
despatch, can the United States maintain that
such has been the result of action since 1885.
Mr. Bayard stated, as clearly' as words could
convey it, that the boundary shown on the maps,
which is the boundary alleged to have been acted
on, did not carry out the Treaty, and that the
working out of the line was still to be undertaken.
This was the statement of the United States in
view of anything that might have happened in
the past, and Great Britain was entitled to rest
upon it as applicable to anything that might
happen in the future till the solution of the
problem should have been undertaken.
It is shown by what subsequently took place
that the view put forward by Mr. Bayard, that
the line was conjectural and hypothetical, was
that which the Parties accepted.
In  forwarding   Mr.   Bayard's   despatch,   Mr. Mr. Phelps' request for a certain Canadian
Phelps had asked to be supplied with a certain     ^ap; the Earl of Iddesleigh's remark when
1                                   .                    .                                 delivering it.
Canadian   map,   and,  in   complying with  this 	
request, the Earl of Iddesleigh expressly pointed
out, with reference to the line denoted thereon,
that no weight was to be attached to the location
assigned to it, inasmuch as the Treaty made the
line dependent on alternative circumstances, the
occurrence or non-occurrence of mountains.
The comment passed upon this in the Counter- United States
Case of the United States is that the note had no £ounter-Case,
reference to the previous correspondence and did
not in any way qualify or dissent from it. The
contention of Great Britain is that this communication shows that the British Government was
in exact accord with that of the United States in
holding the view that the line referred to was not
to be regarded as the Treaty line, and this not
only on the ground that the line had never been
delimited, but on the ground that the facts which
would govern its character had not been ascer- Eeport of the Director of the United States'
Coast and Geodetic Survey of 1891.
Gra
Convention of 1892.
i Britain's view as to the effect of this
Convention.
53
tained. If, as now contended by the United
States, that Government had been acting on the
assumption that the line was, in substance, justifiable as the 10-marine-league line, it was to be
expected that it would have been pointed out to
Lord Iddesleigh that the question whether there
were or were not mountains to carry the line was
no longer regarded as open.
In 1891 Congress provided for a preliminary
survey of the Alaskan frontier, and, in a Report
British Case App., by the Director of the United States' Coast and
Geodetic Survey, it was stated that such survey
would have to be carried "from Cape Muzon
through the Portland Canal to the 56th degree of
north latitude, thence north-westerly, following
as nearly as practicable the general trend of the
coast."
In 1892 the two Governments signed a Convention for the appointment of a Commission to
ascertain facts and data necessary for the permanent delimitation of the boundary-line in accordance with the spirit and intent of the Treaties.
As has already been pointed out in the Case and
Counter-Case, Great Britain contends that the
making of this Convention absolutely negatives
the idea that the course of the line which was to be
run had in any way been settled by the action of
the Parties. At the time that Convention was
entered into the United States was aware of the
interpretation of the Treaty put forward by
Dr. Dawson in 1887, that the line might turn out
to cross the inlets. Although that view had
been informally put forward by Dr. Dawson, it
had been officially noted by the United States.
Communication by Mr. Bayard to Congress of It was clearly stated in a letter to Sir Charles
Tupper dated the 7th Pebruary, 1888. This
letter was communicated by Sir Charles Tupper
to Mr. Bayard, who caused it to be tran'smitted to
Congress. This would surely not have been done
had not Mr. Bayard regarded the communication
as the expression of a view which the United
States' Government was asked to consider.
Indeed, in transmitting to Congress the documents of which this letter is one, the President
described them as considered of value as bearing
upon a subject of great international importance
which should be put in shape for public information. The importance of Dr. Dawson's suggestion
does not appear to be fully appreciated in the
Counter-Case of the United States, where it is
dismissed with the remark that it cannot be
[981] I
Dr. Dawson's view.
British Case App.,
p. 259. Importance of the preceding Point.
54
seriously claimed as official, or that any Government would adopt such a method of making its
position known on such a question.    Even if this United States'
j.   n i     n,      2 -r, .-   •      -i    j.  Counter-Case,
were so, it is not suggested by Great Britain that p, 69.
the United States  acquiesced in Dr. Dawson's
views.    The point is that Dr. Dawson's theory
was not treated as putting forward a construction
which Great Britain was estopped from asserting.
Its importance arises in view of the generality
of the provisions of the Convention of 1892. If
the position of the United States had been that
the action of the Parties had determined substantially the course of the line, it is not conceivable that being in possession of views, which
might be put forward, so much at variance with
the principle which is supposed to have been
established, that having treated the expression of
those views as of sufficient importance to be embodied in a report laid before Congress, the
Government of the United States would have
entered into a Convention for the ascertainment
of the boundary merely in accordance with the
spirit and intent of the existing Treaties.
Great Britain contends that the Convention
of 1892 recognized the question of the proper
location of the boundary as absolutely open in
every respect, to be determined according to the
spirit and intent of the Treaties when the
necessary data had been obtained.
It has apparently been thought worth while to Statement in the United States' Counter-Case
devote some eight pages of the United States'   of the different views put forward in Canada.
Counter-Case to setting forth the different views United States'
which have at different times been put forward Countw-Case,
in Canada as to the position which the line would
occupy when laid down, and to point out that they
do not accord with one another or with the line
submitted in the British Case as that which the
Tribunal should adopt in answering the Seventh
Question.
It is sufficient to point out that the question
before the Tribunal is not whether Canada has
called for the recognition of any particular line.
Great Britain submits no such contention. The
United States on its side does contend that the
action of the Parties has given authority to a
particular line as the Treaty boundary, but it
cannot force upon Great Britain the adoption of
a competing theory of the same kind. The contention of Great Britain is simply that after all
the views and arguments put forward, and all the
opinions expressed upon the subject, the questions
Difference between the British and
ie American Contentions on this Point. What the Publication
put forward in
Inconsistency of the Posi
United States.
Dr. Mendenhall's Instructions.
Answer of the United States to the Arj
based on those Instructions.
dted States'
unter-Case,
, 34-36.
The real Point made by Great Bri
the above Answer does not *
App. pp. 269-276.
put to the Tribunal are put to it for the purpose
of obtaining an answer upon the true meaning of
the Treaty.
The United States' Counter-Case dates the
commencement of this publication of the divergent views referred to as far back as 1885.
This is seven years before the Convention of 1892,
and approximately contemporaneous with the
despatch of Mr. Bayard. If the fact that these
views were expressed is in any way material to •
the questions asked of this Tribunal, it is as
negativing the contention of the United States
that the line contended for by that Power received the assent of Great Britain or of Canada,
It is at any rate impossible for the United States
to insist that since 1885 its own application of
the Treaty has been acquiesced in, and at the
same time use against Great Britain, as affecting
the position of her Government in this controversy, the variety and inconsistency of the
suggestions put forward by those espousing her
cause. As to the attitude adopted before 1885,
it has already been shown in the despatch of
Mr. Bayard in what position the boundary
question stood at that date.
The work of the Commission appointed under
the Convention of 1892 was done on the side of
the United States under the direction of Dr. T. C.
Mendenhall. As was pointed out in the British
Case, his instructions to his subordinates clearly
contemplated, at least in the case of the Stikeen
and the Taku, a measurement from the general
trend of the coast, and the points marked as the
30-mile limit are not 30 miles from the upper
extremity of salt or tidal water. In the United
States' Counter-Case this circumstance is treated
as if Great Britain were founding an argument
on "an expression" of Dr. Mendenhall's, "which
might be construed into an admission," and it is
thought worth while to explain that he carried
his survey inland from the head of Lynn Canal,
and even to print a magazine article from
his pen to show that his personal view of the
question was not in accordance with the British
contention. This does not meet the point
made by Great Britain. No appeal is made to
Dr. Mendenhall's private convictions. The point
made upon the Convention of 1892 and Dr.
Mendenhall's official action under it is
that the British contention had not been
negatived by the action of  the Parties.   It  is
[981]
I 2
Tl 56
insisted by the United States that the word
"coast" had long before 1892 been construed
by the acts of the Parties to mean the shore of
the inlets; and that the contention that it must
be confined to the general trend of the outer
face of the coast was not open to Great Britain.
The latter Power maintains that the Convention
of 1892 shows that this and every other contention was admittedly open, and in proof of this
' she points to the action of the United States'
Commissioner, who was there to apply the
provisions of the Convention of 1892, taking
measurements which would not be material
unless the British contention was open.
The fact that Dr. Mendenhall, who was a
practical surveyor of the highest distinction and
the Representative of the United States, seems
naturally to have discarded the Une of salt or
tidal water as the " coast" from which he was
to measure, is, of course, referred to by Great
Britain as showing that that line must have been
treated as incapable of fulfilling the requirements of the Treaty, and that it is necessary, in
order to make the Treaty work, to contemplate
the possibility that waters of inlets may have to
be regarded, as Dr. Mendenhall regarded part of
the Taku inlet, as within and not outside the line
of coast. It is not assumed that Dr. Mendenhall realized that the consequence of the principle
he adopted would be to give to Great Britain
the head of every inlet more than 30 miles long
or penetrating the mountains. But the principle
must not be tested by the acceptability of the
result. Por the present, however, it is enough to
refer to this incident as showing that the principle
contended for by Great Britain, which leads to
the results so strongly resisted by the United
States, was clearly not regarded at any rate as
necessarily wrong.
The United States' Counter- Case further, points Survey by Dr. Mendenhall of the country at
out that Dr. Meadenhall, with the asaent of tho     *^jj «$£<*£   ™" "" °""
Canadians, surveyed the country at the head of 	
Lynn Canal. It would have been very strange if
this had not been done. Great Britain, though
she contests its correctness, has never contended
that the United States is precluded from urging
its claim to a boundary in that region.
That Dr. Mendenhall's opinion was not an
unnatural or unusual one from the United States'
point of view is evidenced by the fact that it "View of the United States' Coast and Geodetic
coincided precisely with that of the United States' Surveyor, Mr. Thorn. 57
British Case,App., Coast a
Sir Ju
the 5t
Mr. Foster's Statement as to what was said
about the Alaska Boundary at the Conferences of 1892.
I Geodetic Surveyor, Mr. P. M. Thorn.
m Pauncefote, writing to Mr. Blaine
June, 1891, inclosed the. following
passage from the last published report of the
United States' Coast and Geodetic Survey,
written by Mr. Thorn:—
" By recent Congressional enactments a prehminary
survey of the frontier Une between Alaska and British
Columbia, in accordance with plans or projects approved
by the Secretary of State, has been placed in charge of
this Bureau. Such a prehminary survey, involving the
determination of a number of points in geographical
position and their complete marking by permanent
monuments, will have to be carried from Cape Muzon
through the Portland Canal to the 50th degree of north
latitude, thence north-westwardly, following, as nearly
as practicable, the general trend of the coast, at a
distance of about 35 miles from it, to the 141st degree of
west longitude, and thence due north to the Arctic
Ocean, a total distance of about 1,400 miles."
It is clear, therefore, that Mr. Thorn entertained precisely the same view as Dr. Mendenhall, and that, in his opinion, the measurements
necessary to fix the limiting 10-marine-league
line should be made from " the general trend of
the coast."
In the Appendix to the United States' Counter-
Case some correspondence is published between
the Secretary of State of the United States and the
Honorable John Foster with reference to what
Sir Mackenzie Bowell's Statement o
same Point.
Congressional Eecords of the 3rd January, 1896
United States'
Counter-Case,
App., pp. 121-123. took place at the Conferences between the British
and the United States' Delegates at the State Department, in "Washington, in Pebruary, 1892. According to Honourable Mr. Poster, "thediscussion
was of very brief duration and relating merely to
the questions which had arisen as to the point
where the line crossed the Stickeen River, and
the inconvenience occasioned by this existing
uncertainty. No assertion was hinted at of
' British claim to the heads of inlets or of any
rights on Lynn Canal.'" The Tribunal will be
asked to consider, in answer to this statement,
certain other correspondence which has recently
passed between the British Agent before the
Tribunal and the Honorable Sir Mackenzie
Bowell, K.C.M.G., formerly Prime Minister of
Canada, and the present Leader of the Opposition
in the Senate of the Dominion, who was one of
the British Delegates present at the Conferences.
It appears from the Congressional records of
the 3rd January, 1896, that the Alaskan boundary 58
question was on that day brought before the
Senate by Senator Squire, who read a Report
from a Committee of the Chamber of Commerce
at Seattle. That Report puts forward arguments
against " the pretensions of Canada to any of the
canals, bays, or inlets to which claims are now
being set up." It also specifies the Canadian
claims, one of which was as follows:—
"That the eastern boundary-line in its extension
from the point where it strikes the 56 th degree of north
latitude shall follow an alleged range of mountains
arbitrarily crossing and cutting off the heads of bays
and inlets, the ownership of which by the United States
has hitherto been unquestionable."
The Congressional record of the 12th February, Congressional Eecord of the 12th February,
in the same year, shows that on that day the
subject was again discussed, this time in the
House of Representatives. On that occasion
Mr. Pitney, Member for New Jersey, drew
attention to the Canadian claims.
" On the Canadian side of the question," he said, " two
claims are made. In the first place they claim that
while there is no range of mountains distant 10 marine
leagues from the coast or thereabouts, there is a range
of mountains very near to the coast of the mainland,
and that a line should be run there near the coast,
which would leave iu British territory a large part of
Taku Inlet, and a large part of Lynn Canal, two great
estuaries which extend into the interior. This would
bring the British possessions down very close to the
ocean, and at the same time the American territory of
Alaska would be dismembered, &c."
It is clear, therefore, that in 1896 both Houses
of Congress were in possession of the Canadian
contention as now put forward in this arbitration.
It is interesting to note that Mr. Pitney, speaking
descriptively of the region in question, describes
the inlets as penetrating into the interior, and
describes the line which cut those inlets as " near
to the ocean."
Immediately before the Joint High Commis- Communication to the United States' Govern-
sion met at Washington in 1898 the United ™en;t of, * ™ty of Lord Salisbury's despatch
cd>, . , >, ,     b ,.   ,     .^ of the 19th July, 1898, and Answer of that
States Government was supplied with a copy of     Government.
Lord Salisbury's despatch of the 19th July, 1898,
setting forth the views of Her Majesty's Government upon the boundary question. This despatch
described the provisional boundary which had
been agreed upon at the head of Lynn Canal as
being more than 100 miles from the Ocean.
Inasmuch as the line is  not to  be more than
British Case, App.,
p. 297. Manner in which the action of the Parties he
been dealt with in the United States' Case.
How such action should be considered.
30 miles from the ocean, this passage was
inconsistent with the view that the line was
to pass round the head of Lynn Canal. But
in the Memorandum delivered by the Government of the United States in answer to this
despatch it was merely stated that the Report
of the Joint Commission had made it possible,
in accordance with the stipulations contained
in the Treaty of the 22nd July, 1892, to proceed to consider and establish the boundary,
and that the Government of the United States
would expect the Joint High Commission to seek
to execute this stipulation by an agreement as to
the boundary as fixed by the Anglo-Russian
Treaty of 1825, and the American-Russian Treaty
of 1867. It appears, therefore, that the location
of the line was accepted as being an entirely open
question upon the true interpretation of the
boundary Treaty.
Por these reasons Great Britain submits that
none of the actions of the Parties alleged by the
United States was accepted as taking place with
reference to any line as a true application of the
Treaty, but that the line with reference to which
it is contended such action has occurred has been
throughout regarded as theoretical and conjectural, awaiting for its true location the solution
of the geographical problems involved.
■ One further observation has to be made with
reference to the manner in which the action of
the Parties has been dealt with in the Case and
Counter-Case of the United States. The matters
relied upon by the United States have been put
forward individually instead of being looked at as
a whole. The maps showing the line so often
referred to are pointed to as showing that the
United States is entitled to the inlets. Various
incidents and expressions are collected as showing
that the United States is entitled to the 10-marine-
league limit on the Stikeen. A number of
acts are alleged as proof that the headwaters of
Lynn Canal and the land adjacent are in United
States' territory.
Such points cannot be appreciated except by
the light of the Treaty and of the diplomatic
action of the two Powers interested.
If, as contended by Great Britain, the working
out of the Treaty was regarded as between the
two Governments as an open question in all its
aspects, it is impossible to attribute to any particular action  or  course  of action in or with 60
reference to any particular place, the effect of
showing an interpretation of the Treaty prejudging or limiting the questions to be solved.
In the British Counter-Case the action alleged
by the United States in the region in dispute was
examined concurrently with the diplomatic correspondence, and that correspondence has been
further examined in this argument.
In the Counter-Case of the United States,
however, reference is made to statements by
public men in Canada, which are alleged to
throw light upon the position taken by Great
Britain. A statement made by the Hon. Mr.
Scott has already been referred to in another
connection, but there are also statements by
the Hon. Clifford Sifton, Minister of the Interior,
and Sir Wilfrid Laurier, the Prime Minister.
The point for which these statements are
referred to by the United States is that the possession by the United States of Dyea and Skagway
is described as undisputed.
If the text of these statements is referred to, it
will be seen that the Ministers in question were
merely pointing out that the possession by the
United States was, in fact, complete at the
moment, and that it was impossible for Great
Britain to take possession. It is impossible to
read into these statements an admission that the
possession was regarded as precluding the question of right.
The Minister of the Interior says :—
j such action is considered in the British
Counter-Case.
Statements of Canadian Ministers and
Public Men.
" I believe our contention is that Skagway and Dyea
are really in Canadian territory, but as the United
States has had undisputed possession of these for some
time past, we are precluded from attempting to take
possession of that territory."
The two statements of the Prime Minister
referred to must be read together; and in his
first statement the Prime Minister said:—
"The advantages of the route by the Lyun Canal
were that it was shorter and more direct than the route
by the Stikeen Eiver. But if we had adopted the route
by the Lynn Canal, that is to say, had chosen to build
a railway from Dyea by the Chilkat Pass up to the
waters of the Yukon, we would have to place the
ocean terminus of the railway upon what. is now
American territory. I agree with the statement
which has been made on the floor of this house on
more than one occasion, that Dyea, if the Treaty is
correctly interpreted, is in Canadian territory.    It ought
L well, even tnose
who do not belong to the legal pro-
fession. that poa
ession is nine points of the law; and
even though by
the letter of the Treaty Dyea is in
Canadian  territo
immemorial Dye
ry, the  fact remains that from  time
a was in possession of the Russians,
and in 1867 it pa
ssed into the hands of the Americans,
3$l
and it has been ]
eld in their hands ever since."
In his second statement the Prime Minister
pointed out that when the American authorities
were in possession it became manifest to everybody that at that moment Canada could not
dispute their possession, and that before their
-possession could be disputed the question must
be determined by a settlement of the question
involved in the Treaty. |
Upon the whole of the materials now before
the Tribunal Great Britain submits that when
the action of the parties is looked at in the light
of the diplomatic communications, and regard is
had to the character of the line depicted on the
maps with which such action is alleged to have
corresponded, it cannot be said that any effective
understanding has been proved which would leave
the Tribunal to give any other construction to
the Treaty than that which most naturally flows
from the language employed.
SIXTH QUESTION.
The Sixth Question put to the Tribunal is
somewhat difficult to construe. It is in the
following terms :—
" If   the   foregoing   question   should   be.
ANSWEEED IN THE NEGATIVE, AND IN THE EVENT
OF THE SUMMIT OF SUCH MOUNTAINS PEOVING TO
BE IN PLACES MOEE THAN 10 MAEINE LEAGUES
FROM   THE   COAST,    SHOULD   THE    WIDTH   OF   THE
lisiere which was to belong to Russia be
measueed (l) feom the mainland coast of the
Ocean, strictly so-called, along a line
peependiculae theeeto, oe (2) was it the
intention and meaning of the satd convention
that where the mainland coast is indented
by deep inlets foeming part of the tebbi-
toeial watees of russia, the width of the'
lisiere WAS TO BE MEASUEED (a) FEOM THE LINE OP"
[981] K
I THE GENERAL DIEECTION OF THE MAINLAND COAST,
OE (b) FeWtHE LINE SEP ABATING THE WATEES OF
the Ocean feom the teeeitoeial waters of
Russia, or'(c) from the heads of the aforesaid
inlets ?"
The question only arises if Question Five is
answered in the negative, that is to say, in accordance with the British contention, and it only
prises Avith reference to the 10-marine-league
limit. Under these circumstances the question
.requires the Tribunal to decide in the first
qilace whether the width of the lisiere is to be
measured from the mainland coast of the ocean,
.strictly so-called, along a line perpendicular
thereto. In answer to this, Great Britain contends that the width of the lisiere should be
:measured from the line of the general trend of
the coast of the ocean, strictly so-called, along a
.line perpendicular to such general trend, reproducing such windings of the coast as may be
fairly said to modify the general trend and are of
such dimensions as admit of being reproduced
by a line drawn 10 marine leagues inland as
.contemplated by the Treaty.
The arguments in support of this view are
those which have been put forward in answer to
Question Pive, from which the conclusion above
stated naturally follows.
The second branch of the Sixth Question contemplates the Case in which the mainland coast
is indented by deep inlets forming part of the
territorial waters of Russia, and specifically asks
the Tribunal how the line is to be measured
where such inlets occur. But this branch of the
question, like the other, only arises if Question
Pive is answered in the negative and in the
event of mountains failing to afford a boundary.
The answer suggested by Great Britain is that,
where inlets occur, forming part of the territorial
waters of the Power owning the shores on either
side (which Power at the mouth of the inlet upon
the coast would be Russia, but may be either
Russia or Great Britain higher up the inlet), the
width of the lisiere is to be ascertained from the
course which a line giving effect to the general
trend of the mainland coast would follow in
•crossing the inlet; the coast-line being regarded
as carried across the mouth of the inlet from
headland to headland, and the 10 marine leagues
inward being measured on the same principle as
British view on the first part of the
Question
Second part of the Question. (53
the 3 marine leagues of territorial water is
measured outwards.
The authorities to which Great Britain refers,,
in support of this view, are set forth at some
length in the British Counter-Case, and it is not
proposed to reproduce them here, especially as
it is not anticipated that the general doctrine of
international law, as there stated, is disputed by
the United States.
Three Alternatives suggested by this Question.      The Sixth Question suggests three alternative
systems of measuring the line in the events presupposed, viz., (a) from the line of the general
direction of mainland coast; (6) from the line
separating the waters of the ocean from the
territorial waters of Russia; (c) from the heads
of the inlets.
The last one contradicts the hypothesis on With regard to the last alternative, this seems
which the Question is put. to Great Britam to COntradict the hypothesis on
which the question itself is put, namely, that the
Pifth Question is answered in the negative. As
revealed by the argument already adduced in
answer to Question Pive, Great Britain contends
" that the line is not to be measured from the
heads of the inlets, because they are not upon the
coast or upon the ocean.
The two other Alternatives are substantially        With regard to the other two lines indicated in
the same. ^e question, namely, the line  of  the general
direction of the mainland coast and the line
separating the waters of the ocean from the territorial waters of Russia, Great Britain conceives
that these are substantially the same, the territorial waters referred to being such as break
through the line of the coast. The Treaty, however, refers to the coast and in the supposed case
of waters inside the general line of the coast, but
not territorial, the line from which the width of
the lisi&re would have to be measured would be the
coast-line and not the. limit of territorial, waters.
SEVENTH QUESTION.
The Seventh Question is—
(i What, if any exist, aee the mountains
eefebeed to as situated paeallel to. the
coast, which mountains, when within 10
maeine leagues of the coast, aee declaeed
to foem the eastern boundaey " ?
[981] K  2
1 As already pointed out in the British Counter- British Counter-
_ x . , ,   .       Case, p. 56.
Case, the British case is that such mountains
exist, and that the description is satisfied by those
indicated on the map, and referred   to and set Bn^h Case*
forth   in   the   declaration   and    statement    of ibid., p. 83,'Briti:
Mr. W. P. King, British Commissioner on the ^PP*'*1, Map
International  Survey under the Convention of Bri'tisll App- j)
1892,   subject   to   the   reservation    that   this p. 307. et seq.
suggested  line is not put forward as showing
throughout   the  only   possible  way  of giving
effect to the British contentions, but that it is
susceptible of any variations in detail which may
commend  themselves   to the  Tribunal  on  examining the topographical conditions met with
in tracing the line.
THE UNITED STATES' CONTENTION.
The United States' Case, on the contrary, United States'
contends:—" That there is not at any point ' p*
within 10 marine leagues of tide water, between
the head of Portland Canal and the 141st degree
of longitude west of Greenwich, the whole or any
part of a continuous range of mountains parallel
with the sinuosities of the coast and extending
from Portland Canal to the said 141st degree of
longitude ; and therefore the width of the lisiere,
above described, is not limited by a boundary
line along the summit of such range, but solely by
the agreed distance of 10 marine leagues from tide
water," and"requests the Tribunal to answer and
decide that such mountains do not exist within n ., , Q, ,   ,
United states
10 marine leagues from the coast." Case, p. 106.
The line of demarcation is accordingly drawn
from the point situated on " the 56th parallel of
north   latitude;   thence   northwesterly,  always United States'
10 marine leagues, from tide water, around the       e' p*103'
head of   Lynn   Canal;   thence   westerly,  still
following the sinuosities of the coast at a distance Atlas of United
therefrom of 10 marine leagues, until the line §rtate,s' Case* MaP
.  . No. 2.
intersected the 141st meridian of longitude west
of Greenwich."
The   United    States,   therefore,   discards   the       The United States discards the mountain
mountain boundary altogether, and draws a line boundary.
of demarcation in the interior of the continent
at a distance of 10 marine leagues from tidewater at the heads of inlets, and at no point
influenced by the existence of mountains.
Before again discussing the British contention
and the line drawn in accordance with it, it may 65
The Negotiations and the 10-league limit.
British Casi
p. 113
Ibid., p. 131.
The mountain boundary and the hmiting lir
Emasculating the Treaty.
be well to compare the line as drawn by the
United States with the intentions of the negotiators, as expressed in the correspondence and finally
in the ;Treaty, to show in how many ways it conflicts with the Treaty requirements, and to indicate some consequences necessarily involved in
the repudiation of the possibility of a mountain
boundary.
The negotiations on this point are absolutely
clear. Mr. G. Canning's letter of the 8th December to Mr. Stratford Canning, and Count Nesselrode 's letter to Count Lieven, inclosing the Treaty,
after it had been signed, are all the evidence that
is necessary. "The Russian Plenipotentiaries,"
wrote Mr. Canning, "propose to withdraw entirely
the limit of the lisiere on the coast which they
themselves were the first to propose, viz., the
summit of the mountains which run parallel to
the coast, and which appear, according to the
map, to follow all its sinuosities, and to substitute
generally that which we only suggested as a
corrective of their first proposition. We cannot
agree to this change." "The Emperor," wrote
Count Nesselrode, "would have found it more
mutually just, more equally advantageous, if the
natural frontier formed by the mountains bordering the coast were adopted by both parties as the
invariable line of demarcation. England would
have gained thereby wherever those mountains
were less than 10 marine leagues from the sea;
Russia, wherever that distance was greater. . . .
However, Mr. Stratford Canning having declared
that his instructions did not permit him to
entertain the wishes which we had expressed to
him on this point, the Emperor, in order to give
His Britannic Majesty a last proof of his friendly
feelings, authorized us to sign the act in question,
such as I have the honour to transmit it to your
Excellency."
It is clear then, not only that the mountains
were to constitute the boundary within the 10-
league distance from the coast, but also that the
10-league limit was employed not as a boundary
generally, but as indicating the extreme distance
beyond which the mountain boundary should not
be followed.
The very concession, therefore, which England
stood out for, which Russia regretfully conceded,
and which was finally embodied in all solemnity
in the Treaty itself, vanishes into thin air under
the United States' method of drawing the line 66
of demarcation. It has renewed the attempt,
abortive in the Russian case, " to substitute
generally that which we only suggested as a
corrective of their first proposition," and has
put forward a contention, which is not only
opposed to the terms used by the negotiators,
but which, if successful, would effectually wipe
out one of the most important stipulations of the
Treaty. ^^
The repudiation of the  mountain  boundary, Drawing the 10-
and consequent obliteration of a most important
portion of the Treaty, does not get rid of the
stipulation as to the manner in which the line of
demarcation must necessarily be drawn. Whenever recourse is to be had to the 10-marine-
league line as constituting the boundary or
any portion of it, it is to be " a line parallel
to the windings of the coast, and which shall
never exceed the distance of 10 marine leagues
therefrom." This is an unambiguous and imperative demand made by the Treaty, a condition
from which escape is impossible so long as the
Treaty continues to exist.
In the United States' Case, the line is stated        How the United Stat
to be drawn at a distance of 10 marine leagues
from tide-water at the heads of inlets, and at the
■same time  " northwesterly, always  10 marine United States'
leagues from  tide  water, around the  head of    ase'p'
Lynn Canal; thence westerly, still following the
sinuosities of the coast at a distance therefrom of
10 marine leagues, until the line intersected the
141st meridian of longitude west of Greenwich."
As a matter of fact, the line is not so drawn, and
could not by any possibility be drawn 10 marine
leagues from tide-water at the head of Lynn
Canal, and at the same time at an equal distance
from the sinuosities of the coast.
This   proposition   can   be   discussed  without What are Sin
entering upon a minute consideration of what is
and what is not " coast" within the meaning of
the Treaty. If Lynn Canal, which penetrates
the Continent a distance of 75 nautical miles,
is a sinuosity of the coast, the windings
in the great general trend of the coast of
the ocean are sinuosities also. The provision of the Treaty is that the line of demarcation shall be parallel to and at no greater
distance than 10 marine leagues from all the
sinuosities of the coast. In other words, it is not
to run parallel to and at a distance of 10 marine
leagues from such sinuosities only as the United
L MMfe*
67
Inconsistency shown in drawing United       States ■ chooses to select.    How can a line drawn.
    * 10 marine leagues inland from tide-water at the
head of Lynn Canal be just 10 marine leagues
distant from the sinuosities of the Ocean coast
itself, which is confessedly 35 leagues distant
from the line in question? And how can it
be claimed that a line parallel to the east coast of
Lynn Canal is also parallel to the Ocean coast,
between Lynn Canal and Taku Inlet, a coast extending in a direction almost at right angles to it ?
How it has been drawn. : How impossible it would be to draw such a line
is well exemplified by the hue on Map 2 of the
Atlas accompanying the United States' Case,
Throughout the whole length of the line there
drawn it is possible to find only one or two points-,
which are not more than 10 marine leagues from
the windings of the ocean. A line drawn from
Juneau perpendicular to the shore line to the
United States' line of demarcation measures
17 marine leagues in length; the shortest line is
15 leagues. Stephens Passage, at Taku Harbour,.
The conditions not observed. is 16£ leagues from the line; Cape Panshaw is at
the same distance; and a line from the coast of
the continent at 56° north latitude, by its shortest
course, must be carried 16^ leagues inland to the
boundary-line. Cape Spencer, at its nearest
point, is 26 leagues away; along a line at right:
angles to the ocean coast north-westerly from the
No attempt to parallel coast of Ocean. Cape, it is distant 31 leagues; while a line drawn
midway between the two directions measures
39 leagues. Similarly a Hue drawn fromPoint Cou-^
verden at the south-west entrance of Lynn Canal
to the line of demarcation measures 36 leagues. [
Scaled with a rotameter on the map, the
United States' line from the point on the 56° of
north latitude to the 141° of longitude is about
540 miles in length, and yet throughout this
whole distance it comes within 10 marine leagues
of the coast of the great ocean at no more than
three points.
It cannot be pretended that such a line is at
all points 10 marine leagues distant from the-
windings of the coast.
No attempt to parallel shores of Inlets. If the sinuosities of the coast generally were
to be disregarded, and the direction and distance
of the line were to be determined only with
regard to the shores of Lynn Canal and other
fjords penetrating the interior, this even has not
been done. It has been drawn at a distance of
10 marine leagues from tide-water at the head
of Lynn Canal, but while a line can be drawn at a distance from a point it cannot be drawn
parallel to a point. And yet, if the shores of
inlets are in reality, as is contended in the
United States' Case, the coast of the ocean, why
is not the 10-marine-league line drawn at that
distance from, and parallel to, the east and west
shores of Lynn Canal, and parallel to the
shores of the other inlets ? At no point of its
course is this done. The windings of the shores
of the inlets equally with the windings of the
coast of the ocean are completely ignored, and a
boundary flung far inland, parallel to nothing,
and at 10 marine leagues distant from " tidewater," although tide-water is not mentioned in
any part of the Treaty, from beginning to end.
It is not surprising that, pursuing such methods,
the United States is able to lay claim to a
I uniform " lisiere, 32,000 square miles in area,
whereas even in the absence of a mountain
boundary no such area could be contended for.
This can easily be made plain. The line of rear
boundary, even as drawn by the United States,
has been shown to be about 540 nautical miles,
or rather less than 630 statute miles in length.
The utmost width of the lisiere in the absence of
a mountain boundary would be rather less than
35 statute miles. The total area, therefore,
would not exceed 22,050 square miles. Yet in
the Counter-Case of the United States the
acknowledgment is made that the line of
demarcation has been so drawn as to allow a
lisiire of about 32,000 square miles, that is, nearly United States'
10,000 square miles, or 50 per cent., more than Counter-Case,
would belong to them on the basis of a line drawn
parallel to, and at a distance of 10 marine leagues
from the rear boundary.
Strangely enough, in complete opposition to the Inconsiaten
contentions now put forward, the United States, Contenti
throughout its Case and Counter-Case, has made
every possible effort to establish a mountain
boundary as the real line of demarcation. How
absolute is the inconsistency between the United
States' contention and the evidence offered in the
Case and Counter-Case, will appear from the following references:—
Lieutenant  Schwatka,  United   States'  army,       Lieuten
United States' present
evidence in favour of a.
trmy,
whose military reconnaissance, made in 1883, is Tjnited states'
published as part of the United States' Counter- Counter-Case,
Case, says—
int Schwatka's reconnaissance.
App., p. 89. 69
" The fact that the country beyond Perrier Pass"
(Chilcoot Pass) "in the Kotusk Mountains, lies in
British territory (as shown by our astronomical observations "and other geographical determinations when
brought back and worked out) lessens the interest of
this trail beyond the pass to the military authorities of
our Government."
Brigadier-General Howard's Eeport.
United States'
Case, App., p. 3
Brigadier-General Howard in his  Report to
the Assistant Adjutant-General, Head-quarters
• Military Division of the Pacific, on his tour in
Alaska in 1875, says  of the boundary on the
Stikeen—
" Some of our shrewd frontiersmen say that it is not
10 marine leagues from the sea, as it should be, there
being really doubt as to the summit of the coast range
of mountains."
Eeport of Acting Secretary of the Navy,
April 6, 1903.
United States'
Case, App., p. 361.
The Acting Secretary of the Navy in his Report
to the Secretary of State, the 6th April, 1903,
states that the naval officials —
" Frequently dispatched armed parties up the Chilcoot
and Chilcat rivers and to the mountain passes beyond
the head of the inlets of Lynn Canal."
Mr. Dall's Eeport to Mr.,Bayard.
United States'
Counter-Case,
App., p. 95.
Mr.  W.  H.   Dall,  A.M., in  his   Eeport   to
the 13th February, 1*88,  speaks
Mr. Bayard,
of—
e transit of British miners fr
tance, the Chilkoot portage
in British territory."
the coast over,
■ the purpose of
Tieutenant-Commander Newe]
United States'
Case, App.,
p. 392.
Lieutenant MeCrackin's Eepo
On the 16th June, 1887, Lieutenant-Commander Newell complained to the Secretary of
the Navy of the Stick Indians, inhabiting the
interior, who " are British subjects," coming into
United States' territory for the purpose of packing
over the trails. " It would be better," he writes,
" if they confined themselves to their own territory which begins at the summit of the divide."
Lieutenant McCrackin on board the " Pinta "
twice refers to the same boundary in his Report
to Lieutenant-Commander Newell in describing
his trip over the Chilcoot trails.    Of the summit
United States'        of
Case, App., p. 393.
the Chilcoot Pass, he says—
"As  this  summit is the highest land on the
;  trail
be
tween the Taiya Inlet and the Yukon Eiver
it is
pr
Br
frc
obably  on  the  boundary-line between Alask
itish America, so the party did not go beyc
cept to look at Crater Lake, which is not all
m the very summit."
a. and
nd it,
visible
[981] Later in the same Report he says—
" The Chilkoots do not appear to be anxious to pack
beyond the summit, and it would seem proper for the
Stick Indians, who are British subjects, to do the
packing on their own territory, and confine themselves
to their own side of the mountains."
I
An affidavit is printed from William Moore
with reference to the Ogilvie expedition, in
which he states that—
" By orders of the Navy Department at Washington,
the United States' gunboat ' Pinta' accompanied the
expedition from Haines Mission on Lynn Canal to the
head of Lynn Canal, and there remained until the
Ogilvie expedition had safely passed over the summit of
Chilkoot Pass," and that the commander of the "Pinta"
accompanied said expedition to the head of Lynn Canal
" under instructions from the Navy Department of the
United States, for the purpose of assisting said expedition
from the shores of the head of Lynn Canal past a point
on the crest of the mountains north of the head of Lynn
Canal."
Mr. Moore's depositions.
United States'
Case, App.,
pp. 414, 415.
He further alleges, on oath, that during all the United States'
time of his residence at Skagway all property Case, App., p. 416,
rights had been treated as subject to United
States' jurisdiction^ as far " as the passes of the
mountains," and that all litigation had been
determined by United States' Courts " on the
shore of Lynn Canal or north as far as the passes
of the mountains."
Similar statements are made in his formal Ibid., p. 417.
deposition with regard to the exercise of authority =
by the officials of the United States' army, " as
far as the passes north of Skagway and Dyea,"
and it is averred that British officials at no time
attempted to assert jurisdiction "at any point
south of the passes in the mountains north of
Dyea and Skagway Bay."
Robert Wright, a citizen of the United States,
resident at Dyea, makes similar and even more
detailed statements on oath with regard to the United Stales'
exercise of all branches of jurisdiction by the Gas^'0"fPpnC
J * pp. 424,425.
United States, " as far north as the summit of
the mountains north of Skagway Bay and Dyea,"
and points out that the pursuit of William Leak
up the Chilcoot Pass was abandoned at the
summit. He adds that he had never known of
the exercise of British authority nearer " than a
point inland beyond the summit of the mountains."
ie of Eobert "Wright, Joseph Carr,
•a-wak, Armstrong, and Clarice. 71
United States'
Case, App.,
pp. 426, 427.
Similar evidence in United States'
Counter-Case, p. 219.
Joseph Carr's affidavit is printed to prove a
similar series of facts, care being taken to again
draw the line of jurisdiction "at the summit of
the passes of the mountains north of Dyea and
Skagway, Alaska."
Ibid., p. 427. It is thought necessary by the United States
to publish an affidavit by Don-a-wak, a Chief of
the Chilkats, to prove that he and his people
from 1867 onwards had recognized the authority
of the United States "at least as far as the
summit of the mountains from the heads of the
various inlets."
Ibid., pp. 432-436. Edward Armstrong and E. B. Clark relate on
oath and with great detail similar acts of jurisdiction 1 as far inland therefrom as the summits
of the passes of the mountains."
In the United States' Counter-Case, even as
late as the 27th March, 1903, Mr. Sol Ripinski,
United States' Commissioner at Haines, is called
to give evidence on oath to the same effect:—
I During all my residence in Alaska," he says, " all
notices of location, evidences of title, and the means of
enjoyment of rights have been evidenced, claimed, and
protected under and by virtue of the laws of the
United States ; and all records in reference to titles or
interests in lands or other property have been made in
accordance with and under the jurisdiction of the laws
of the United States in the country adjacent to said
bodies of water as far as the summit of the passes
adjacent to said bodies of water."
The resulting inconsistency.
It is, therefore, evident that throughout the
United States' Case and Counter-Case every effort
possible has been made to prove that British
jurisdiction began, and United States' jurisdiction
ended at the summit of the Chilcoot Pass, the
f cr6te " of the mountain boundary. To accomplish this, reports of officers of the army and
navy, letters and affidavits of officials of the
various branches of the public service, and of
citizens who have lived for varying periods in
the neighbourhood of Lynn Canal, and depositions
of Indian Chiefs even, have been collected with
great care, and printed as a substantive part of
the United States' Case for the consideration of
the Tribunal. The material in many cases has
been put in the solemn f orrnof sworn depositions.
Indeed it is safe to say that more industry has
been evinced in the attempt to show that a
mountain boundary forms the division between
British and United States' territory than to establish any other branch of the United States' Case.
[981] L 2 72
Consequent repudiation of United States'
testimony.
Repeated appeals are made to the line of demarcation as fixed by the practice of United States'
officers, officials, and citizens, and, on examination,
that line proves to be the mountain boundary.
The Tribunal is now asked to answer Question
Seven by deciding that | such mountains do not
exist within 10 marine leagues from the coast."
The mountain boundary is rejected, and   it  is
sought to draw the line of demarcation 10 marine
leagues from the head   of  Lynn Canal, many
leagues in the interior beyond the summit of the
Chilcoot and White Passes.    The rejection of the
mountain boundary, therefore, involves the repudiation of all the reports and depositions above
referred to, and of a great portion of the evidence
put forward of alleged United States' occupation.
Not  only  has a  great mass of the evidence And necessary repudiation of United- States'
of American occupation to be discarded to make evidence afforded by Maps,
way for the novel contention now put forward by
the United States, but mOst of the cartographical
evidence, upon which so much stress is laid, has,
for this purpose, to be discarded as well. Throughout the United States' Case and Counter-Case
repeated appeals are made to the testimony of the
maps, and great weight is sought to be attached to
the so-called evidence which they afford. " The
boundary of the ceded territory as claimed by
Russia, and accepted by the United States,", it United States'
is said, " was recognized by all cartographers and ' p* 85*
geographical writers." "The universal method
followed by cartographers in drawing the
boundary line at 10 marine leagues from the
shore of the mainland shows," it is said, " that
it was their opinion that no dominant range
existed between that line and the sea." And in
the Counter-Case vigorous reference is made " to
the universal understanding by cartographers
and by Governments for 75 years."
An examination of the various maps cannot
fail to  show that no   such  unanimity   exists.
Brum's Map, published at Paris in 1833, shows Atlas, United
the boundary-line following  the  crest   of  the States'Case,
J ° Map No. 13.
mountains all the way  from Portland Canal to
Mount St. Elias, with the exception of a short
break from Mount Pairweather north.
Greenhow's  Map, published in Philadelphia, Ibid., Map No. 15.
1844, makes the boundary-line follow mountains
the whole way from Portland Canal, past Mount
St. Elias, to the 141st meridian.
In De Mofras' Map, Paris, 1844, the boundary IbJd   M   No 16
is made to  extend  along  a  line of mountain Atlas, Map No. 28.
73
summits for the whole length of the lisiere, except
between Portland Canal and Stikine River.
Part of Map of Manitoba, Keewatin, British
Columbia, &c, Montreal, 1880, shows a continuous moxrntain boundary, and a fine drawn
along its crest from Portland Canal until the
line leaves the map.
Map of Alaska accompanying report of Ivan
Petroof,  United   States'  Special Agent,  Tenth
Census, 1880, shows the line following mountain
summits all the way.
Ibid., Maps The Petroof maps of 1882 also show the line
Nos. 29 and 30. ,.      . r
following  mountains, except where   it   crosses
Lynn Canal.
Atlas, United Part of Map of British Columbia,  plate 72,
Case Map No. 44. Stanford's Atlas, 1887, shows a line drawn along
the crest of a mountain boundary  through a
considerable portion of the lisiere.
Ibid., Map No. 45.     The Map from Keith Johnston's Royal Atlas,
1894,  also  has  a  mountain boundary along a
great part of the lisiere.
Ibid., Map No. 47.      in part of Map of British Columbia, plate 39 E
of Black's General Atlas, 1898, the boundary-
line is again drawn along the crests of mountain
chains and masses nearly all the way.
United States' In the Appendix to the United States' Counter-
App., p. 248.' Case, a list is printed of maps which are to be
produced before the Tribunal. On Philips'
Imperial Atlas of the World, London, 1890,
" the line is drawn quite close to Lynn Canal,
apparently upon the summits of the mountains
rising directly from the sea."
In a very large proportion of the Maps published in support of the United States' Case, only
one or two mountains are represented as accurately located. And in these cases the line is
almost invariably deflected to pass through them.
The United States' line as now drawn passes
10J marine leagues to the rear of Mount Fair-
weather. A reference to the maps which are said
to support this method of demarcation will show
the boundary deflected to Mount Pairweather,
10|- leagues nearer the coast, on the following:—
Atlas, United 12. part  of A. Arrowsmith's Map of North
MapNo. 12.' America, published in 1795, and revised in 1833.
14. Part of " A Map of North America," constructed, according to the latest information, by
United States, Tanner, 1839.
15. Greenhow, before referred to.
16. De Mofras', before referred to.
17. Bouchette, 1853. 74
21. Part of Perthes' Map of the World, 1863.
23. Part of the British Admiralty Chart
No. 2461, corrected to 1866.
24. Part of the Map of North-West America,
prepared for the Department of State, at the
Office of the United States' Coast Survey, in 1867.
35. Map of British North America, from the
Report of the Select Committee of the House of
Commons on the Hudson's Bay Company, 1857.
(Arrowsmith's.)
37. Part of Imray's Chart of the North Pacific
Ocean, London, 1869.
38. Part of British Admiralty Chart No. 787,
1877 ; and several others.
It is evident, therefore, that cartographers are
by no means agreed in discarding a mountain
boundary; but, on the contrary, on many maps
where mountains have been shown, a mountain
boundary has been followed, and that on a very
large number of maps, where only one or two
individual mountains have been drawn, the
mountain boundary has been deflected to run
through them in its course, thus showing the
influence of the presence of mountains upon the
drawing of the international fine.
There are differences also in drawing the line
at the head of Lynn Canal, along Portland Canal .
and elsewhere.   " If we look to maps for information," said Senator Sumner, while the Treaty of 40th.Con^ress,
J        Ex. Doc, No. 177,
cession of Alaska was under consideration in the p. 147.
United States' Senate in 1867, " we find ourselves
disappointed. Latterly the coast is outlined and
described with reasonable completeness; so also
are the islands. This is the contribution of
navigators and of recent Russian charts. But
the interior is little more than a blank, calling in
mind the ' pathless downs' where, according to
Prior, the old geographers ' place elephants instead of towns.' "
In the United States' Case it is stated that the United States'
map used on that occasion by Senator Sumner ^tlas PUniti "
ull
Senator Suj
House of
jpresentatives,
i map evidence.
knowledge,    diplomatic, States Gas .
n.^.r, MaP No. 24.
otherwise.     Senator   Sumner,
based
historical, and
however, described it as "only the harbinger
of the maturer labours of our accomplished
bureau when the coasts of this region are under
the jurisdiction of the United States." By comparing the Une on this map with that now
contended for, it will be seen that these
"maturer labours of our accomplished bureau"
have altered its course so as to take in an addi- 75
The interior a " blai
nowledge was conc<
graphical
Hoi
eof
Representatives,
40th Congress.
Ex. Doc, No. 177
p. 147.
Mr. Bayard's opinion on the folly of trusting
the evidence of Maps.
British Case,
App., p. 252.
; United States discards the
evidence of Maps.
tional coast strip lO^ leagues wide to the rear of
Mount Pairweather, and to add very considerably
to its width at the head of Lynn Canal and Taku
Inlet.   "
The truth is that the maps drawn previous to
the making of any survey cannot be put forward
as evidence of the course which the international boundary-line should follow. In the
words of Senator Sumner, the interior remained
"a blank" so far as geographical knowledge was
concerned. Many of the cartographers seem to
have put mountains into their maps merely out of
deference to the terms of the Treaty, and to have
drawn a line of demarcation along their summits.
Others depicted only mountains such as Mount
Pairweather, Lions Head, and St. Elias, running
the line through them in compliance with
the requirements of the Treaty. Others, in the
absence of accurate knowledge as to the mountains
of the interior, simply flung conjectural dotted
hues at various distances inland. In the
absence of knowledge as to limiting mountains,
the maximum distance inland was often drawn
to indicate not a survey, but merely a claim
awaiting adjustment. Senator Sumner's words
with reference to Captain Cook's charts can be
applied with equal truth to the maps of this coast
generally:—
n St. Petersburgh, and the
duced in London; so that
very little advanced."
" These were reproduced :
Eussian copy was then reprc
, geographical knowledge wai
A reasonable view of the evidence of the maps
was taken by Mr. Bayard in 1885, who, in
instructing Mr. Phelps to urge upon the British
Government action towards fixing upon a conventional boundary-line, pointed out that:—
" The line traced upon the Coast Survey Map of
Alaska, No. 960, of which copies are sent to you herewith, is as evidently conjectural and theoretical as was
the mountain summit line traced by Vancouver."
The United States, therefore, in 1885, officially
discarded, through its Secretary of State, the
evidence of " all cartographers and geographical
writers." Subsequent action, such as the conference between Messrs. Dall and Dawson, and
the various diplomatic communications between
the Governments, showed no reversal on the part
of the United States of its views as expressed
by Mr. Bayard.    In 1892 the two Governments 76
formally agreed, by Treaty, to have a survey
made of the territory adjacent, with a view to
the permanent delimitation of the boundary-line
in accordance with the existing Treaties with
regard to it.
As has been shown in the British Case and The Treaty of 1892 an acWedgment that
the question of the boundary is still open.
Counter-Case, and earlier in this argument, the 	
Treaty of 1892 is in itself a formal acknowledgment by both Powers that the question of the
location of the boundary, as it depended upon the
topographical facts and data, was still open, and
this state of things has been continued by the
action of the two Governments in the appointment of the Joint High Commission, and by the
present Treaty of 1903.
THE   BRITISH   CONTENTION.
The British contention is that the Contour Maps
show that mountains answering the description
of the Treaty do exist, and that their situation is
as indicated on the declaration of Mr. Xing,
printed in the Appendix to the British Case at
p. 307, and referred to in the British Case at
p. 83, and the British Counter-Case at p. 56.
This is a simple question of physical fact. It
cannot be decided by any such processes of
reasoning as are exemplified in the Case and
Counter-Case of the Ported States. The Contour
Maps exhibit the results of an elaborate examination of the country in question. It is not proposed in this argument to repeat the results of
an examination of these maps as stated in
Mr. King's declaration, and indeed, any such
statement can be made only by constant reference
to the Contour Maps which will be made at
hearing of the oral argument.
The United States' Case alleges that " there United State*
is not at any point within 10 marine leagues of Case* P*103*
tide water, between the head of Portland Canal
and the 141st degree of longitude west of Greenwich, the whole or any part of a continuous
range of mountains parallel with the sinuosities
of the coast and extending from Portland Canal
to the said 141st degree of longitude."
It is submitted that this statement affords
no answer to Question Seven. The expression
"within 10 marine leagues of tide water " does
not occur in the Treaty.    The word " range " is 77
Maps before the Negol
United States'
Case, p. 44.
United States'
Counter-Case,
pp. 7, 8, 38.
Ibid., p. 8.
not to be found in any of its Articles, and the
word " continuous " has been gratuitously added,
evidently for the purpose of making the terms
of the Treaty appear much more exacting than
they are. All that is required by the Treaty is
that from the point of intersection at the 56th
degree of north latitude, "la ligne de demarcation
suivra la crete des montagnes situees parallele-
ment a la cdte," to the point of intersection of
the 141st degree of west longitude. Even
should the United States succeed in proving its
allegations, it would not be in a position to ask
the Tribunal to decide that | such mountains "
(as are contemplated by the Treaty) "do not
exist within 10 marine leagues from the coast."
The maps before the negotiators of the Treaty,
according to the United States' Case, were the
charts of Vancouver, " probably " (Atlas, United
States' Case, Maps Nos. 4 and 5), and, y undoubtedly," the Russian Map, prepared by the
Quartermaster-General's Department and published in 1802 (Map No. 6, Atlas, United States'
Case), which is described as " to all intents a
copy of the Vancouver charts, with a few names
added and changed to correspond with the
Russian nomenclature." It is possible also, says
the United States' Case, that the Russian navigators had the Prench, edition of the Vancouver
Atlas. In any case the maps used by. the
Russian officials were "the Vancouver maps or
those which were reproductions of them."
In the Counter-Case this list is expanded to
include the Paden Map of 1823 (Atlas, British
Case, Map 10), one or more maps by Arrowsmith
(Atlas, United States' Case, Nos. 8 and 10), and
possibly the Langsdorff Map of 1803-1805
(British Case, Atlas, No. 7). " Other than these
publications," says the United States' Counter-
Case, "there is no evidence that any were
consulted or examined during the negotiations."
The Arrowsmith Map, so-called (Map 8, Atlas,
United States' Case), is described in the List of
Maps preceding the Atlas as " the northward
part" of a " map of British North America, after
Mr. Arrowsmith," from Pinkerton's Modern
Atlas, published at Philadelphia in 1818 ; reproduced on original scale. On the face of the
map it is described as "from Mr. Arrowsmith's
Map of North America, &c, &c." It cannot
therefore be claimed among " one or more maps
by Mr. Arrowsmith," as it is in the United States'
[981] M British Case,
pp. 54, 55.
78
Counter-Case, nor is there the slightest evidence
given to show that it was known to the negotiators on one side or the other.
It is not, therefore, admitted to be one of the
maps to be considered by the Tribunal.
In the British Case it is pointed out that,
besides the Vancouver Charts mentioned in the
United States' Case, there are, however, some
other maps which appear to have been used
by the negotiators on one or both sides, notably
Vancouver's large Chart, and mention is made of
the Paden Map and Arrowsmith Maps, and the
Russian Chart of 1802.
Whether all or only several of the maps
claimed by the United States were used by the
negotiators, can make very little difference in the
conclusion which must be reached from an
examination of them. Certain it is that neither
Sir Charles Bagot, Mr. Stratford Canning, M.
Poletica, Count Nesselrode, or any one else, after
even a cursory glance at the maps, would have
selected as a boundary "a continuous range of
mountains parallel with the coast and extending
from Portland Canal to the said 141st degree of
longitude." To begin with Vancouver's large
Chart (British Case, Atlas, Map 1)—the only
Vancouver Chart which shows the whole coast
from Dixon Entrance to Mount St. Elias on one
sheet—it will be found that a number of different
ranges have to be combined to complete a mountain boundary. A range is shown bordering
Observatory Inlet, Portland Canal, and Behm
Canal, and then turning west to the Cleveland
Peninsula. Another, lying further back, and
sweeping around the head of Portland Canal at
a considerable distance, passes the first and
terminates nearly opposite Cape Panshaw. A
third rises behind the second, continues around
the head of Taku Inlet, and terminates there.
A fourth runs from near the mouth of Taku Inlet
to the head of Lynn Canal, terminating just
beyond the head of the Canal. A fifth runs
down the west side of the Canal to Point
Couverden, turns sharply north-west, and ends at
Taylor Bay. A sixth begins just north of Cape
Spencer and continues unbroken to St. Elias.
This map was prepared by Lieutenant Roberts.
The second Vancouver Chart shows Prince of Atlas, British
Wales Island and   extends to  Prince Prederic 9a?e* ^a? ®0'
Atlas, United
Sound in the north.    On this chart is depicted a States' Case,
single range sweeping round the head of Obser-      p No' 4*
Maps do not show " continuous range of
mountains."
--k Atlas, British
Case, Map No. J
Atlas, United
States' Case,
Map No. 5
Atlas, British
Case, Map No. 5
Atlas, United
States' Case,
Map No. 6.
Atlas, British
Case, Map No.
vatory Inlet and Portland Canal at some distance,
thence running generally parallel to the coast.
A second range closely borders the general coast
and the shores of the penetrating inlets. The
space between the two ranges is filled in with a
conventional representation of mountains not
drawn in range form.
This chart was drawn by Lieutenant Joseph
Baker.
The third Vancouver Chart shows the coast
from Cape Panshaw north-westerly to Mount
St. Elias. A range is drawn parallel to the
coast, to some extent following its sinuosities.
It is also carried around Taku Inlet and Lynn
Canal. It, too, is drawn by Lieutenant Joseph
Baker, but the range is quite differently placed.
The distance from Cape Panshaw back to the
mountains in this map is 8 miles, while in the
other (British No. 2, United States No. 4), it is
25 miles. This comparison of the two charts is
limited to the extent of their overlapping (see
Atlas, British Case, Map No. 4). The average
distance of the mountains from the coast in this
third chart is about 9 miles.
The Russian Map of 1802 (British Case) shows
a range east of Observatory Inlet, and a mountain
north of Observatory Inlet and east of the head
of Portland Canal. A range then begins west of
the head of Portland Canal and runs north-west
unbroken, and parallel with the coast to the head
of Taku Inlet. East of the head of Taku Inlet
another raage takes its inception, running parallel
to Lynn Canal, around its head and part of the
way down its west shore. There is then a considerable break till another range begins at Lituya
Bay. The average distance of these ranges
from the coast would appear to be about 15 miles
by scale.
The Paden Map of 1823, published by Wyld,
shows a heavy mountain ridge east and north of
Observatory Inlet and Portland Canal, thence
parallel to the coast to near Point Houghton, at
an average distance of 30 miles from the
general coast line. Hachures showing elongated
mountain masses also f ollow^along the sinuosities
of the coast to Point Houghton, where the two
formations  joii
20 miles from
i an
the
a contn
coast.
me to run at aDout
There are noticeable
breaks at Taku
Ber
aer's Ba
y, and a
little
below
Chilkat.
The Arrowsmith
Maps,
said b\
the United
L981]
M 80
States' Case to be before the negotiators, are
Maps 8 and 10 in the Atlas to the United States'
Case. No. 8 is the Pinkerton Map, to which
reference has been made. It is not an Arrow-
smith Map, nor is there any reason for believing
that it was before the negotiators. Map 10,
the Arrowsmith Map of 1823, shows no mountains whatever. The Langsdorff Map (British
Case, Atlas No. 7) also " possibly " used according
to the United States' Case, like the Arrowsmith
Map last referred to, shows no trace of mountains.
The Arrowsmith Maps mentioned in the British British Case,
Case are those of 1822 and 1824 (Atlas British P- 55'
Case, Maps Nos. 9, 8 and 12). In the former the
mountains stand in isolated masses. They follow
the shores of Portland Canal and the inlets,
roughly speaking. Another mass appears at the
head of Lynn Canal. North of Cape Spencer
another elongated mountain mass is shown extending to Mount Pairweather. Another mass
extends to Port Mulgrave. At the angle between
this mass and the other, " Mount Pairweather "
is printed, but without any representation of a
mountain. Then comes a short mass to the east
of Admiralty Bay. Then another some distance
inland, with Mount St. Elias represented to the
north.
The Arrowsmith Maps of 1824 show mountains hachured in along the coast and shores,
including Portland Canal. They are hachured as
isolated masses. They appear to cease near the
head of Lynn Canal, and begin again north of
Icy Strait and Cross Sound. They continue to
Port Mulgrave. There is then a break, after
which they continue along the west side of
Takutat Bay. Pairweather and St. Elias are
shown as complete mountains behind the range.
The   United   States'   Counter-Case  cites  the United States'
following statement from the Memorandum of Co™ter-Case>
... P- '■
the Russian Plenipotentiaries upon the amended
proposal of  Sir  Charles  Bagot:—
"According to the most recent and best maps published inEngland the establishments of the Hudson's Bay United States'
Company approach the coast only along the fifty-third Case, App., p. 161.
and fifty-fourth degrees, and it can not be proved that
they reach the Great Ocean at any point."
The map referred to here, according to the
United States' Counter-Case, must have been the Atlas, British
PadenMap.   As the Paden Map shows a post Case, Map No. 10. 1
3d 1
Atlas, British
Case, Map 1.
The Hudson's Bay Company's warning as to the
inaccuracy of Geographical information—
" the supposed Chain of Mountains."
British Case,
App., p. 78.
Effect of the warning on the Negotiators.
es. In all pro!
Arrowsmith M«
mong   the   " m
near McLeod's Lake, north of I
it clearly could not have been t
by the Russian Plenipotentiary
bility they referred to the two
just described.     They   are
recent," and it would not be out of the way to
describe the Maps of Arrowsmith at that time as
the "best."
Taking all or any set of these maps together,
the negotiators could not but conclude that such
a physical fact as an absolutely continuous
mountain range could not be assumed to exist
along the lisidre. The large Vancouver Chart,
which is the only one showing the whole coast
from Dixon Entrance to Mount St. Elias on one
sheet, is omitted from the Atlases accompanying
the United States' Case and Counter-Case; it
shows no less'than six separate mountain ranges.
The second Vancouver Chart shows two ranges.
The third is entirely different from the second,
though drawn by the same hand. The Russian
Map differs from all the foregoing in the distance
of the mountains from the sea, and in the number
of ranges and breaks. The Paden Map alters the
distance of the mountains from the coast, and
shows noticeable breaks. The Arrowsmith Map
of 1823 and the Langsdorff Map, claimed by the
Uuited States to have been before the negotiators,
show no mountains at all. The Paden Map and
the Arrowsmith Maps of 1822 and 1824 are alike
in representing the mountain topography by a
series of isolated and elongated mountain masses.
There was, therefore, abundant notice before the
negotiators, furnished by the maps themselves,
showing that the existence of a continuous
mountain chain must not be relied upon.
Ordinary experience of physical facts would have
pointed to the same conclusion.
At an early stage of the negotiations the
Hudson's Bay Company sounded a warning note,
suggesting some more definite demarcation on
the coast than "the supposed chain of mountains," and pointing out that " neither party have
any very accurate geographical information with
respect to the country in the_ immediate neighbourhood of the sea." The effect of this
warning appears in all the subsequent negotiations. Count Lieven, writing to Count Nesselrode, May 20/June 1, 1824, informs him
that the British consider the charts imperfect,
and insist that the line of boundary should be " plus pr6cis6ment d6sign£e."    Mr. G. Canning, British Case,
on the 12th July following, instructs Sir Charles    pp'' p'
Bagot as follows:—
" In fixing the course of the eastern boundary of the
strip of land to be occupied by Eussia on the coast, the
seaward base of the mountains is assumed as that
limit; but we have experience that other mountains on
the other side of the American Continent, which have
been assumed in former Treaties as fines of boundary,
are incorrectly laid down in the maps; and this inaccuracy has given rise to very troublesome discussions.
It is therefore necessary that some other security should
be taken that the line of demarcation to be drawn
parallel with the coast, as far as Mount St. Elias, is not
carried too far inland."
Count Lieven,  in  his Memorandum on
North-West Coast Convention, speaks of :—
the
The Eussian Negotiators on the necessity of
Geographical information.
British Case,
App., p. 91.
I
" Le peu de certitude des notions geographiques que
Ton possede encore sur ces parages."
Mr. G. Canning writes Mr. S. Canning on the
8th December, 1824 :—
•' It is quite obvious that the boundary of mountains, Ibid., pp. 113,114.
where they exist, is the most natural and effective
boundary. The inconvenience against which we wished
to guard was that which you know and can thoroughly
explain to the Plenipotentiaries to have existed on the
other side of the American Continent, when mountains
laid down in a map as in a certain given, position, and
assumed in faith of the accuracy of that map as a
boundary between the possessions of England and the
United States, turned out to be quite differently
situated, a discovery which has given rise to the most
perplexing discussions. Should the maps be no more
accurate as to the western than as to the eastern
: mountains, we might be assigning to Eussia immense
tracts of inland territory, where we only intended to
give and she only intended to ask, a strip of sea-coast."
Count Nesselrode, on the 20th February, 1825, ibid., p. 131.
in a letter to Count Lieven, speaks of:—
" Le peu de precision des notions geographiques qu'on
possede sur ces contrees."
Finally, in his letter of the 13th March, 1825, Ibid., p. 132.
to Count Lieven, he remarks again on :—
On both sides therefore the negotiators, having
been warned by the Hudson's Bay Company, were
3 considered the Maps unreliable. 83
In Dr. Mendenhall's opinion, the Negotiators
doubted the existence of a continuous range,
thoroughly imbued with the idea that the maps
could not be implicitly relied upon. It could
not be assumed that the mountains would be
found just where they were depicted on the map.
Although the mountains nearest the coast are
referred to, it was possible that, at some points,
they might sweep inland 30 miles or more.
Their attitude was one of complete uncertainty,
and consequent caution. The British therefore
insisted on the 10-league limit of the lisiere in
any case, and the Russians, yielding unwillingly
enough to the force of the British Argument, saw
fit to concede the point. And yet it is argued by
the United States' Case that the same negotiators
who refused to locate these mountains in any
longitude or longitudes intended that they should
constitute an uninterrupted chain along the
boundary of a lisiere 540 miles long I
The contention needs only to be put forward
in its true light to be defeated. Dr. T. C.
Mendenhall, who was for some years Superintendent of the United States' Coast Survey,
and who, as Commissioner for the United States
under the Convention of 1892, conducted the
United States' survey of the territory adjacent to
the disputed boundary-line, is quoted in the
United States' Counter-Case as saying that at
the time when the Treaty was being negotiated
there was " a doubt as to the position if not the
existence of such a range." This does not mean
that there was any doubt as to the existence
of mountains; there could be none; all the
negotiators admitted their existence. The Treaty
contains no alternative provision in the case of
their absence. The doubt Dr. Mendenhall refers
to is as to the existence of a continuous range.
Will it be contended that negotiators who doubted
the existence of a range would have assumed its
existence for' the purposes of the Treaty ?
If the negotiators had persisted in retaining in
plated a continuous range as defined   by ^e Treaty itself the words "chain" or "range,"
United States. , . , ,      , , P    ,.
                                 which   were   used   at   various   stages   ot    the
negotiations, it would be necessary to examine
into their meaning as supporting, or failing to
support, the United States' demand for a " continuous chain," but it will be observed that the
same caution which dictated the naming of a
limit beyond which the mountains must not be
followed led to the exclusion of all such words
from the Treaty. In the first draft Convention
submitted, contained in Mr. Canning's letter to
United States'
Counter-Case,
App., p. 271.
Absurd to suppose that Negotiators contem- Sir Charles Bagot of the 12th July, 1824, the line
was thus described:—
" De ce point elle suivra cette c6te, parallelement a British Counter-
ses sinuosites, et sous ou dans la base vers la mer des Case' APP*' P* 87*
montagnes  qui la bordent, jusqu'au  139°   degre   de
longitude ouest du dit meridiem"
, App., p. 91.
British Case,
App., p. 90.
It is obvious that these words do not involve    Uninterrupted chain not required by Treaty,
the assumption of  any uninterrupted chain of
mountains.   They are satisfied by the existence
of mountains near the  coast, whether in  continuous chain or not.
The Russians objected that such a boundary British Counter-
might in some cases extend to the very edge of
the water of the ocean itself, and suggested the
use of the word "clme" instead of base. Mr
Canning, therefore, instructed Sir Charles Bagot
to consent, if pressed for the alteration, to the
use of the word " summit" of the mountains
instead of the " seaward base." Mr. Stratford
Canning's Contre-Projet of the 1st February (13), 1
1825, described the line as following the crest of
the mountains in a "direction parallele a la c6te;"
and the Treaty finally provided that " la ligne
de demarcation suivra la cr£te des montagnes
situees parallelement a la c6te." There is nothing
here about " chain " or " range " of mountains,
or about a " chain " or " range " parallel to the
coast. The controlling principle is that the line
of demarcation must follow in a " direction
parallele a la c6te," and to do so it must follow
mountains " situees parallelement a la c6te.'' In
doing so, the line is to be drawn along the top
instead of at or within the seaward base. The
extension of the boundary up to the Ocean itself
would thereby be avoided.
It is submitted that inspection of the
Contour Maps shows the existence of mountains near the coast, along the summits of
which the line must be drawn in accordance
with the terms of the Treaty. The Treaty does
not require that such mountains should form a
continuous range, and the gaps which do exist
afford no reason for discarding the plain words
of the Treaty in favour of a line which was
declared to be the limit within which the
boundary was to run, not the boundary itself.
The mountain boundary contemplated by the
Treaty does exist. Statement in United States' Case as to topographical features of the mainland.
Evidence presented by the United States
as to the Topographical Results op the
Surveys made under the Convention of
1892.
In the Case of the United States (p. 85)
reference is made to the Joint International
Survey of the coast of the mainland which was
made under the provisions of the Convention of
July, 1892.    It is there said that—
" The American officers sent out in company with the
Canadians examined the shores, and penetrated inland
at several points for the special purpose of determining
the character of the country. From their observations
the following facts were established: That the mountains have a tendency to increase in altitude the farther
they are situated from the shore; that throughout the
lisiere the mountains are composed of numerous isolated
peaks and short ridges running in different directions,
and that within 10 marine leagues of tide water there
is no defined and continuous range such as appears
upon the early maps and charts following the sinuosities
of the coast."
The United States presents personal testimony
to the neglect of the documentary evidence
of Maps, &c.
For the observations from which these conclusions are deduced, reference is given to
pp. 529 to 538 of the Appendix. Here are found
a statement by Mr. Tittmann and affidavits from
Messrs. Ogden, Hodgkins, Baldwin, and Flemer,
who were officers of the joint survey made by
the Commissioners in pursuance of the Convention of 1892.
The maps and other material submitted by the
Commissioners with their Report of the 31st
December, 1895, purport to exhibit the results of
all the observations, of sufficient precision to be
capable of representation in that way, which
were made not only by the five officers who now
give testimony, but also by some thirteen other
United States' and nine Canadian surveyors
named in the Report.
The best method of arriving at just conclusions
from the survey would apparently be to analyse
the maps of the Commission, as is done in the
declaration of Mr. King, printed in the Appendix
to the British Case ; but no attempt to do this is
made in the Case of the United States. The five
officers who state their conclusions (with but one
exception) do not so much as mention the fact
[981] N
J 86
that such maps were made, or base their conclusions in any way upon this primary evidence.
The  opinions  they  express  are  based   upon Opinions of United States' Officers based upon
surveys which' the deponents individually made limited observation,
in certain restricted localities, and upon general
views of the mountain scenery, which they had
in common with all travellers along the coastal
steam-boat routes. They are unsupported by
anything of the nature of an observation properly
so called.
The description of the coast, moreover, appears
to be given mainly from memory, and this may
account for some of the discrepancies in the
affidavits which it is now proposed to examine.
Mr.   Tittmann   surveyed   a   portion   of   the Mr. Tittmann's Statement.
Stikine  River,  extending from  a  point   about Tjn;ted gtat  ,
10 leagues from Rothesay Point down the river Case, App.,
towards the coast.    He— p' °
" Determined the position and altitude of mountain
peaks which could be seen from various points on the
river, including several peaks about 8 miles distant
from the river and approximately 10 marine leagues
from the coast. These peaks were Kate's Needle on
the west, and Big Mountain on the east."
Thus his view was limited to 8 miles on either
side, and only extended so far in the case of
three specially high peaks, namely, the two
already referred to and Pinnacle Mountain,
which is mentioned afterwards. Otherwise it
does not appear from either his or Mr. Baldwin's
statement, or from the Commission maps, that
his surveys extended out of the immediate valley
of the Stikine, or that any mountain was
ascended by himself or any of his party. Yet,
he says, he " paid special attention to identifying
and locating the crest of the mountains." He
also found that "within the 10-marine-league
limit there is a total absence of that continuity
and system which would constitute a mountain
range parallel to the coast."
He does not state what is the criterion as to
continuity and system of a mountain range, nor
how he could determine the fact by observations
which, at most, extended 8 miles.
In 1900, Mr. Tittmann was engaged in
delimitating the provisional boundary about the
head of Lynn Canal. Be says that from the
examination which he made there, and a study
of the maps of the Commissioners, he has reached
the conclusion— 87
" That there does not exist any defined or continuous
mountain range or chain running generally parallel to
the coast, and situated anywhere oceanward from a
h'ne projected from the head of Lynn Canal southward and drawn to the 56th parallel at a point near
the head of Portland Canal, such line being parallel to
the sinuosities of the coast-line, which proceeds around
the bays and inlets, and not more than 10 marine
leagues therefrom."
The language of this is somewhat confused.
Is the limiting line of which he speaks to start
from the head of Lynn Canal, or from a point
10 leagues from the head ?
Probably the latter is meant, for presumably
he considers Lynn Canal as one of the bays or
inlets around which the " coast line " proceeds.
Now he says that "oceanward" from his
limiting line there does not exist " any defined
or continued mountain range or chain running
generally parallel to the coast."
Yet as he visited Chilkoot and White Passes,
which are less than 10 leagues from the head of
Lynn Canal, he must know that at those points
there is a well-defined watershed dividing the
waters flowing into Lynn Canal from those
flowing into the Yukon. He should also know
that streams flowing from the east into Skagway
River lead, by rapid ascents, to the same watershed within a few miles. Again, he would find
by a study of Maps Nos. 1, 2, and 3 of the Atlas
accompanying the United States' Case (which
maps were prepared in the office of the United
States' Coast and Geodetic Survey, apparently from
modern data), that there is every indication of a
continuous watershed or divide within 10 leagues
from the shores of Lynn Canal and of connecting channels of the sea, in which the rivers
flowing into these waters take their rise, and
extending from Chilkoot and White Passes to
near the Taku Inlet or River.
Here, at least, is a defined and continued
watershed, 90 or 100 miles long. It is within
10 leagues from the shores of Lynn Canal,
Stephens Passage, &c.
Mr. Tittmann demands a "defined and continuous range or chain Tunning generally
parallel to the coast," within 10 leagues of the
heads of the inlets. It is difficult to see in what
way such a well-defined ridge as this fails to
comply with Mr. Tittmann's definition, even if
we add to it the further qualification, which
[981] N 2     '
il
I
I
1 -
is used by Mr. Ogden, and suggested by Mr.
Hodgkins, in their depositions, of a " summit"
mountain range.
Mr. Tittmann also states that the "group of
mountains to the westward of the Stikine, of
which Kate's Needle appears to be the highest,
overtops the mountains between it and the
coast." Here we have a " group " of mountains,
a "summit" group, separated from the mountains
of the interior by the Valley of the Stikine.
The " group " appears to lie within 10 leagues
from the coast. By measurement on Sheet No. 13
of the Surveys by the United States' Commission,
it appears that Kate's Needle, said to be the
highest mountain of this group, is distant about
20 nautical miles from the head of Le Comte
Bay, or 25 miles from the general line of the
coast at the mouth of the same bay.
It is not stated, nevertheless, by what process
this mountain, which was not climbed, and only
seen from a long distance and from below, was
determined to overtop everything between it and
the coast.
The  surveys on which Mr.  Ogden was per- Mr. Ogden's Deposition
sonally engaged were confined to the valleys of A     t0 United
the Taku and the Stikine River.    He also saw States' Case,
the coast from, the deck  (or rigging)   of the
steam-boat, while passing along the usual routes
of navigation.
Of the Taku River he says :—
" A careful survey was made of the Taku River by
a small triangulation as a base for it, which was a continuation of the scheme of triangulation extending
along the coast of Alaska. On this work I determined
the contour and height of all the mountains that were
visible from the bed of the river."
p. 530.
These determinations of the " contour'
appear British Case,
from Card No. 4 of the United States' Commis- £gjfjJJ;
sion, which, with the plan of triangulation on
Sheet No. 13 of the same Commission, presumably represents all the actual surveys made
in this region by Mr. Ogden and the officers
under his direction, to have been confined to the
determination of the form of the river-facing
slopes of the immediately adjacent mountains,
these determinations, in some instances, though
not in all, extending as far up as the nearest
summits. The contours of the mountains beyond
their summit, or their connection with the summit further back, is not shown. His statement, therefore, that he determined
the heights and contours of "all the mountains
that were visible from the bed of the river,"
must be taken with some important qualifications.
Indeed, so far as the evidence of the Commif sion
maps and cards is concerned, it would be more
correct to say that he did not completely determine the contour of a single one of the mountains
visible from the river valley.
Mr. Ogden states that his assistants, Messrs.
Hodgkins and Welker, who were attached to
parties of the British Commission, made all the
ascents with those parties. In this he is rather
at variance with Mr. Hodgkins, who swears that
he did not make all the ascents with Mr. Ogilvie.
British Counter- The affidavit by Mr. McArthur, the Canadian
Gat*o App' }'' surveyor whom Mr. Welker accompanied, shows
that of twenty mountain triangulation and
camera stations occupied by him, Mr. Welker
occupied only ten, besides one independent
ascent.
Messrs. Hodgkins and Welker, it appears,
assured Mr. Ogden that there was no well-defined
range of mountains passing through that region.
This evidence, though of little value, as of a
hearsay character, is yet worthy of notice in that
the qualification "well-defined" is applied to
"range," leaving it open to inquiry whether
there might not still be a range. This is but
another instance of the use, throughout these
depositions, of every possible qualification of
" mountains," whereby the expression " mountains situated parallel to the coast," may be
deprived of its meaning.
It is stated that Mr. Welker's sketch accompanying his report on the results of his work
showed a very decided jumble, and nothing that
could be construed into a range. This sketch
does not appear to be included or incorporated in
the maps and sketches accompanying the Report
of the Commissioners. There is, therefore, no
opportunity to compare this | jumble " with the
very.complete maps furnished by Mr. McArthur's
survey.
Mr. Ogden proceeded from Taku Inlet by
steamer to Fort Wrangell.- During this journey
he observed the character of the country in the
light of the information that had already been
gathered. Such observations made from the
deck of a steamer must necessarily be of the
slightest imaginable weight, and it can hardly [
il
90
be conceived possible that any one should expect
them to overpower the evidence of those who
climbed the mountains in the region in question,
fortified as this evidence is by photographs and
topographical maps derived therefrom. Yet in
part upon the information acquired on this
journey, " from my observations made in Taku
Inlet and on Stikine River and in running along
the coast, and from all information that I
gained," Mr. Ogden expresses himself satisfied
that there is not, within 10 marine leagues
from the coast, "any continuous chain of
mountains/' &c.
The scanty nature of his observations in Taku
Inlet has already been referred to. Those on the
Stikine will be dealt with afterwards. As to
the value of his observations from the steamer,
the evidence of Mr. Baldwin, in his deposition
(pp. 535-537 of the Appendix to the United
States' Case), may be referred to. Mr. Baldwin,
who travelled along the same steamer passages
as Mr. Ogden, repeatedly refers to the difficulty
of seeing anything of the interior from these
passages :—
" Wherever we followed the continental shore, as we
did from the junction of Clarence Strait and Behm
Canal to Burroughs Bay, the same topography was
observed, the mountains rising precipitously from the
water's edge."
" On account of the height of the mountains close to
the shore, I could not see far into the interior."
Other passages might be cited f j om Mr. Baldwin's deposition to show the difficulty of determining from the water the relations of the
mountains beyond the " high coast line," beyond
the " main shore," which is " very abrupt and
very high, the mountains rising from 3,000 to
4,000 feet."
It would not seem possible for any one on a
steamer not more than 2 or 3 miles from such a
shore to see very much of the interior, even if,
as Mr. Ogden did, he ascended the rigging to get
a better view. An ascent of 50 feet, let us say,
above the deck, to look over the top of a mountain
3 miles away, would enable him to see 50 feet
more of the top of a mountain 3 miles beyond
that, and no more.
Referring to Mr. Ogden's observations on the
Stikine, it appears that his survey extended
up it for about 12 miles from its mouth, but he says that his personal observation extended
further, for he ascended the river to Mr. Titt-
of the country back from the shore connected with the
region I had been studying."
In this he appears at variance again with
Mr. Baldwin, who says of the Stikine:—
" There was no extent of view, except between
mountain peaks, which rose up abruptly from the valley
in irregular order and continued in this way all the
way up the river."
Mr. Ogden, however, appears to have seen
enough from the Stikine of the region he had
been studying from the steamer to give confirmation of the opinion he had formed, that there
was no well-defined range of mountains. In
the light of this preconceived opinion it was of
little consequence that the group of mountains
behind which Mr. Tittmann's camp lay (see
Mr. Tittmann's statement) completely overtopped,
and therefore hid from his view, in ascending the
Stikine, the mountains lying nearer the coast
which he had previously seen.
He admits, however, that he saw on the shores
of the inlets " groups "of " hills and peaks"
which were detached from the mountains behind
them. This is not contrary to the evidence of
the maps nor to the contention, based upon that
evidence, of His Majesty's Government. Mr.
Ogden, indeed, suggests that these hills and
peaks might be called | foot-hills." There seems
to be no reason, however, why a "hill" or
"peak" rising above the timber line should not
be called a " mountain."
British Counter- The nature of these " foot-hills," as they appear
to the eye, may be gathered from the magazine
articles descriptive of the coastal topography
reprinted in the Appendix to the British Counter-
Case. These articles were written without any
special object and merely to give the impression
produced on an observer. It is clear that the
appearance is that of a mountain range facing
the ocean.
Mr. Ogden's conclusion is that " there is not
within 10 marine leagues from the coast any
continuous chain of mountains in the form of a
summit range  running from  the  56th degree
Case, App. I,
pp. 57-62.
J II
m
il
92
of latitude until it intersects in the northern
direction with the 141st degree of longitude."
This opinion, however true it may be, and
however complete the observations and cogent
the other information upon which it is based,
can hardly be of much service in interpreting
the physical meaning of "the summit of the
mountains situated parallel to the coast," for it
greatly expands the requirement of Article III
of the Convention of 1825.
"Summit of the mountains " becomes "summit mountains," "mountains" becomes a
" range " of mountains.
Thus we have a " summit range." This must
further be " continuous," and we now get a
" continuous chain of mountains in the form
of a summit range."
Even this is not sufficient. This continuous
chain of mountains in the form of a summit
range must extend without any break all the
way between the 56th parallel and the 141st
degree. Also it must always be within 10
marine leagues from the coast.
Such a range he says does not exist. It was
indeed hardly worth while to make a deposition
to establish such a conclusion. ,That a range
absolutely continuous, without any break, does
not exist along this whole extent of coast is a
fact which was as well known in 1825 as it is
to-day. This is shown by the provisions of the
Treaty which contemplated that the mountains
might be crossed by " rivers and streams." Probably Mr. Ogden's words were not intended to
lead to such a self-evident conclusion. Doubtless he intended to say that there was not anywhere along that extent of coast from the 56th
parallel to the 141 st meridian a " continuous chain
of mountains," &c.
If this was his meaning, whence did he derive
his information ?
It does not appear, either from the records of
the surveys of the Commissions or from Mr.
Ogden's own deposition, that he ever saw the
region between Taku Inlet and the 141st meridian, comprising almost one-half of the whole
length of coast concerning which he made his
deposition. His knowledge of it must therefore
have been obtained elsewhere.
Not, presumably, from the "Pacific Coast
Pilot, Alaska, Part I" (Washington, Government
Printing  Office, 1891), which was compiled in 93
the office of the United States' Coast and Geodetic
Survey (of which Bureau he is an officer), for
that work says (p. 204), speaking of Icy Point,
on the coast west of Cross Sound:—
tains, and which extends nearly to the Copper River,
and includes the highest mountain peaks yet known on
the Forth American continent. This eastern portion ot
the range is sometimes known as the Fairweather
Range."
See also " Geographical Dictionary of Alaska,"
by Marcus Baker, published by the United States*
Geological Survey.
Thus there is a "range" along this part of the
coast, at least.
Mr. Hodgkins' Deposition. Mr. Hodgkins was appointed by the United
OS C s States' Commissioner as attache'on the party of
App., p. 532. Mr. William  Ogilvie, one  of the  surveyors  of
the British Commission. He says he accompanied Mr. Ogilvie in his surveys of the
mountains from Taku Inlet northward along
Lynn Canal.
His conclusions are based upon what he saw
while engaged in this work, and also while
travelling along the coast to the point where
that work began. On this journey he passed
along Behm Canal and Clarence Strait, saw the
continental shore at Wrangell, and again along
Frederick Sound and Stephens Passage and as
far as Juneau.
Speaking generally of what he saw on this
steam-boat trip, he says that, according to his
recollection of the shore of the continent northward from Dickson's Entrance, " in general the
land rose abruptly and sometimes precipitously
from the water's edge," and that although there
were occasional breaks through which glimpses
could be obtained.of higher mountains further
back, " the mountains immediately bordering the
coast generally served to prevent any extensive
inspection of the interior."
This testimony as to the prominence of the
mountains immediately adjoining the coast
agrees with that of Mr. Baldwin, and the
reasonable inference is that Mr. Hodgkins got
very little of his information as to the character
of the mountains of the interior through what
he saw while on the steamer. Apart from this,
his onlv source of personal information would be
[981] ° his observations while working with Mr. Ogilvie
on the mountains near Taku Inlet and Gastineau
Channel.
Mr. Hodgkins' observations in this region do
not seem to have been very accurate or certain.
As to the height of the mountains he ascended,
he makes in his deposition two statements differing from one another. He first makes a substantive statement that, | on the part of the coast near
Juneau, the summits are from 2,000 to 3,500
feet in height." Then he quotes a report which
he made to the Superintendent of the Coast and
Geodetic Survey, in which he says, speaking of
the area covered by his work in 1893, which included the mountains on the part of the coast
near Juneau, "The mountain peaks are from
3,000 to 5,000 feet in height." Of these two
statements, that made in the report to his superior officer is the more nearly correct. That
which he makes in the present affidavit is
wrong.
A glance at the map, sheet No. 13 of the
British Commission (forming part of section 3
of British Commission map in the Portfolio, Appendix III to the British Case), will show that
along Gastineau Channel all the mountains rise
steeply from the water's edge to the 3,000 feet
contour, and their peaks are still higher—in
several instances above 4,000 feet. None of
these mountains can be described as 2,000 feet
in height.    They are not less than 3,000 feet.
The mountain immediately north of Juneau is
3,500 feet high. That immediately to the east
of Juneau has a summit ridge of 3,500 feet,
with peaks rising to 3,750 feet and more. The
peak behind Sheep Creek is 3,630 feet. The next
peak (proceeding south-easterly parallel to the
channel) is 4,175 feet. The next two peaks, which
overlook Gastineau Channel and Stephens Passage
on the one side, and Taku Inlet on the other, are
3,300 and 3,441 feet in height. Thus it would
have been nearer the truth to give 3,500 feet as
the minimum instead of the maximum height.
Mr. Hodgkins arrives at the conclusion—
" From all the observations which I made while in
Alaska, and from all my knowledge of the region
gathered not only from the ascent of mountains but
from other investigations."
His knowledge gathered from the "ascent of
mountains"  has   been  shown  to   be uncertain 95
Mr. Baldwin's Deposition.
U.S. Case, App.,
p. 535.
in an essential point—the height of those mountains.
The other observations which he " made while
in Alaska " must be derived from his views of
the mountain landscape while travelling on the
steamer. He admits, however, that " the mountains immediately bordering the coast generally
served to prevent any extensive inspection of
the interior," and in this he is confirmed by
Mr. Baldwin.
So the accurate part of his information must
have been derived from the " other investigations." What the nature of these investigations
may have been he does not state. They are
evidently not examinations of the Commission
maps, for, as has been shown, his statement—that
is, his later statement—revised between the
24th February, 1894, and the 16th April, 1903,
in the light of his "other investigations," is at
variance with those maps.
His conclusion is framed with the usual qualifications in speaking of the mountains, that is to
say, he contends that there is " no continuous
chain," with the addition of the further qualification " such as seems to be contemplated in the
language of the Anglo-Russian Convention of
1825." He defines | coast" as " the heads of
the inlets and bays."
It may be noticed, nevertheless, that Mr.
Hodgkins in a certain place saw mountains
" which assumed somewhat the appearance of a
range." He thinks, however, that this was an
optical illusion. He evidently took no pains to
verify or disprove his observation, which had
the most important bearing upon the subject
which he was sent to Alaska to investigate.
Mr. Baldwin's testimony as to the high and
commanding character of the mountains immediately bordering the coast has already been referred to. It accords with the experience of
every traveller from the time of Vancouver, and
with the Commission maps.
With respect, however, to his observations on
the Stikine he is not quite so closely in agreement with outside evidence. He says " there
was no extent of view," when passing up the
Stikine, " except between mountain peaks which
rose up abruptly from the valley in irregular
order, and continued in this way all the way up
the river."
The statement is here made that there is no
[981] O 2 regularity in the arrangement of the mountains
on either side of the Stikine River.
In 1869 appeared the first edition of the
" Pacific Coast Pilot, Alaska," published by the
United States' Coast Survey. The work bears on
its title page the name of George Davidson as
author, and appears from the introduction to be
essentially a reproduction of his Report of 1867
(extracts from which are printed in the United
States' Appendix, pp. 341-344), revised, and in
some parts amplified.
On p. 83 of this work, Mr. Davidson, speaking
of the Stikine River, says :—
" It rises by two branches, one to the north-east and
one to the south-east, and from their junction near the
latitude of 57° 30' it flows almost south 30', then west
and south-west with a general antagonism to the coast
ranges near the Archipelago Alexander.
| The interior of the country appears to be broken
into a succession of sharply defined mountain ranges
separated by narrow and deep valleys, similar to those
between the islands of the coast. In fact, the topography of the Alexander Archipelago is a type of that
in the interior. A submergence of the mountain region
of the mainland would give a similar succession of
islands separated by deep and narrow fiords."
Another edition of the " Pacific Coast Pilot,
Alaska" was published in 1883. This edition
was compiled by Mr. W. H. Dall, assisted by
Mr. Marcus Baker. The Superintendent of the
Coast Survey, in the preface, refers to the work
as " a new work, exhaustive of all known sources
of information." In it more than three pages
(109 to 112) are devoted to the description of
the Stikine River.    On p. 109 we find :—
" The topography in the vicinity of the river is mostly
mountainous, with some broad valleys, but more numerous narrow ones. Most of these have a certain
parallelism with the coast, while some of those through
which the Stikine, Naas, and Taku Rivers reach the sea
cut across the ranges nearly at right angles."
In a foot-note on p. 109 it is said:—
" In fact, the same type of topography prevails upon
the continental border as that exhibited in a half-
submerged condition in the Columbian and Alexander
Archipelago. If the latter were entirely elevated above
the sea level, they would in essential features resemble
the present continental border, and were the valleys of
the last depressed below the sea level a similar extension of the archipelago, without changes of character, would be the result. Sumner Strait appears to be
merely the prolongation seaward of the valley of the
lower Stikine."
" Alexander Archipelago " is the name applied
by the Coast Survey to the whole group of islands
lying off the mainland coast from Dixon's
Entrance to Cross Sound. " Columbian Archipelago " is that applied to the islands south of
Dixon's Entrance, lying off the coast of British
Columbia.
Again, on p. Ill, referring more particularly
to the locality where Mr. Baldwin says the
mountain peaks rose up abruptly from the valley
in "irregular order," the " Coast Pilot" says:—
" About 5 miles above the delta islands the valley
narrows and the river appears only 200 or 300 feet in
width. The depth in the channel is nowhere less than
7 feet, and will average over 12 feet. The appearance
of the high land on either side is as if ranges trending
north-west and south-east were abutting obliquely upon
the river."
This testimony as to the regularity of the
mountain topography along the coast, the | coast
ranges," the " parallelism" of the valleys with
the coast, &c, it will be seen, differs materially
from that of the gentlemen who have made
affidavits in support of the United States' Case.
Reference may also be made to an article on
" The General Geography of Alaska," by Henry
Gannett, Chief Geographer, United States' Geological Survey, in the " National Geographic
Magazine" (Washington, May 1901). Mr.
Gannett, in this article, gives a close geographical
and topographical analysis of the region bordering the coast.    An extract may be made :—
"Although the coast of the mainland and of the
islands is altogether several thousand miles in length,
yet for the entire distance there are very few square
miles of level ground. The land rises from the water
almost everywhere at steep angles, without a sign of
beach, to altitudes of thousands of feet. It is a fiord
coast." The islands are separated from one another and
from the mainland by fiords, deep gorges, whose
bottoms are in some cases thousands of feet below the
surface of the water. These fiords extend far up into
the mainland and into the islands in deep, narrow,
U-shaped inlets.
" The relief features of this region, its mountains and
its gorges, partly filled by the sea, are all of glacial
origin, presenting everywhere the familiar handwriting of ice. Every cafion, every water passage, whether
called strait, canal, or bay, is a U-shaped gorge, and
its branches are similar gorges, commonly at higher
levels—' hanging valleys' they have been called.
Above the cliffs of the gorges the mountains rise by
gentle slopes to the base of the peaks. The cross
profile of each gorge, and its surroundings, is that of
ice, not of water, carving. It is the work of channel
erosion, not of valley erosion, and the channels were
filled with ice. It is a colossal exhibition of the eroding
power of water in solid form."
Mr. Baldwin states that at " no point between
our camp " (up the river near the 10-league limit)
"was there a continuous or homogeneous range
of mountains extending parallel with the coast,
and which stood out and could be distinguished
from the collection of mountain peaks as a continuous mountain range." He could see, however, up the Rivers Iskoot and Katete " for a
number of miles." As will be seen from the
map, these rivers, as far as their course has been
laid down by the surveys, run nearly parallel to
one another, and nearly parallel to the general
line of the coast. Between them, therefore, the
mountains must form a range of some kind,
which surely " could be distinguished " from the
other mountains which were separated from them
by. the valleys of these rivers. Whether this
range possesses all the properties required by
Mr. Baldwin, homogeneity, &c, is hard to say.
The survey of these interior regions along the
rivers was committed, under the arrangement
between the Commissioners under the Convention
of 1892, to the officers of the United States'
Commission, and the surveys of the British
Commission, with their accurate delineation of
the mountains, were allowed to remain, at this
point, incomplete.
The " Alaska Coast Pilot" of 1883, indeed,
suggests that there is something like a range
here, distinguishable from the mountains of the
interior, for it says of the " Skoot or Iskoot
River " (p. Ill) :—
" The Skoot extends to the eastward about 55 miles,
where it bends to the northward, receiving at the
angle thus formed a tributary, the Nin-kun-saw, which
flows from the southward and eastward a distance of
over 20 miles. At the summit, where the head-waters
of this branch are intimately associated with those of
the Naas River, the elevation attained is 2,600 feet. By
ascending   the  Skoot  and  making the  portage,  the
L Stikine Indians can descend the NaaB River and reach
Fort Simpson in six days after setting out."
In 1894 Mr. Baldwin went up to the head of
Chilkoot Pass, where he found a distinct watershed. Until his "arrival at this point it was a
detached mass of heterogeneous mountains." The
meaning of this is not very clear, but the word
" it" probably refers to the mountains at the
head of Chilkoot Pass, which appeared to be
detached from one another, and heterogeneous
or confused as to arrangement. When he
reached the summit of the pass, however, he
found the arrangement of the mountains was
quite regular, forming a distinct watershed.
Might not his other views of distant mountains
from which he has reached rather sweeping conclusions have been subject to similar correction
if he had gone nearer to them ?
He says, however, that his opportunities for
seeing the mountain formations along the coast
and in the interior were sufficient to enable him
to say that there is not anything like a defined
mountain range.
This defined mountain range, he says, does not
exist to the west of a certain line, drawn much
the same as that drawn by Mr. Tittmann.
Mr. Baldwin, as well as Mr. Tittmann, has over
looked the possible existence of a " distinct watershed " extending for 100 miles, perhaps, from
Chilkoot Pass, a pass which they both personally
visited.
Mr. Flemer's Deposition. Mr. Plemer, in 1893, was attached to the party
  _ . of the British Commission under Mr. Talbot, and
App. to United * ,
States' Case, his surveys of that season were made over the
p. 537. mountain area south of the Stikine River.
Mr. Flemer's own surveys in this region are
shown in two sheets on Card No. 2 (Portfolio,
Appendix III to the British Case).
With respect to the region south of the Stikine
River, he remarks :—
" The terrene of this Section is very rugged and bold,
the numerous crags and peaks, with their underlying
mountain formation, forming irregular masses with no
indication of any range formation. The altitudes of
the peaks in this section gradually increase from the
coast inland."
Yet his maps on Card No. 2 show distinctly
the general arrangement of the mountain
summits and slopes, with the intervening depres- ill'
sions, as parallel to the coast. One of the mountain ridges is shown on the sheet on the left-hand
side of the Card, extending in a direction south 25°
east or thereabouts from a point of the Stikine south
of the large island. This ridge is separated from
the mountains to the east of it by a well-defined
valley, and forms the summit which Great
Britain claims that the boundary line should
follow.
On the same Card, to the south-west of this
range, appear other mountains close to the shore,
extending south from near Rothesay Point at the
mouth of the Stikine to Wrangell Peak. This
series of mountains, although of short extent
compared with the next inner range just mentioned, may yet, as it seems, be properly called a
" range "—the " Cannery Range "—see sheet
No. 4 of the United States' Commission. Mr.
Plemer, however, says that there are " no indications of any range formation" in the region he
surveyed during the year 1893. Immediately
across the Stikine River, indeed, and in his full
sight when he was on the mountain tops, is the
" Wilkes Range" of the United States' Coast
and Geodetic Survey Chart, No. 8,200, and of
the sheet No. 4 of the United States' Commission.
See also " Pacific Coast Pilot, Alaska," 3rd
edition, 1891, p. 115.
Mr. Flemer's other surveys in Alaska were in
the region about the head of Lynn Canal, and a
long distance north of the point where His
Majesty's Government claims that the boundary
line should cross the canal. The absence of
" mountain formations strung out north and
south," along Lynn Canal, if such absence were
a fact, would not therefore be in conflict with
that claim.
His remarks, however, as to the abruptness of
the mountains along the upper part of Lynn
Canal, and the narrow valley bottoms of the
rivers Katzehin, Skagway, &c, might seem to
indicate a " coastal mountain range" (if the
shores of Lynn Canal are the | coast"). He
denies, hdwever, that the mountains ever run " in
a continuous range or chain."
He, indeed, recognises the existence of a
divide between Lynn Canal and the Yukon and
Taku Rivers, which appears from the most recent
maps to lie within 10 leagues of the coast (see
remarks upon Mr. Tittmann's statement). The
evidence  of   the maps   in  the  United   States' 101
Appendix seems to show that this " divide " runs
nearly north and south, and it must be a
" mountain formation." Mr. Plemer tells us,
however, that the mountain formations do not
run north and south, though without stating
upon what evidence he bases this statement.
Mr. Plemer says that in 1898 he was ordered
to Alaska " to extend the surveys of the Tlaheena,
Chilkat, Chilkoot, Skagway, and Dyea Rivers,
including the passes at their heads leading into
the interior, going inland as far as 30 miles from
the coast."
From this sentence it might be inferred that
the passes at the heads of the rivers named are
30 miles inland from tide-water. In correction
of such possible inference, it may be explained
that only two of these rivers, the Tlaheena
(Klehini) and Chilkat, rise at a greater distance
from tide-water than 10 leagues. The other
rivers take their rise much nearer the shore.
Messrs. Hodgkins, Baldwin, and Plemer all
refer to the general formation of the interior
country as " plateau." Their descriptions do not
entirely agree with one another, for Mr. Baldwin's
language conveys the impression of an existing
plateau, that is, " a broad flat area of land in an
elevated position; a table land; an elevated
plain " (" Imperial Dictionary ")—this plateau
having mountain peaks standing above its level
surface.
Mr. Plemer seems to speak rather of the
** plateau " as the original formation, which has
now been so roughly eroded as to lose that
character. Mr. Hodgkins' description seems
confused. His plateau is of ice and snow, yet
the valleys which have been carved out of it are
"frequently occupied by glaciers."
The general impression conveyed by these
expressions is, however, that of an elevated
region lying behind " the mountains bordering
the coast," which generally serve " to prevent
any extensive inspection of the interior" ; behind the "coastal barrier"; "the mountains
rising sheer from the water's edge"; " the
abrupt shore formation."
Without further discussing the question
whether a "plateau" is a proper description of
the character of the interior, it may be pointed
out that it is along this " coastal barrier" that
His Majesty's Government claims that the
[981] P 102
*|
boundary line should be drawn. Its character is
shown by the photographs reproduced in the
album accompanying the Counter Case, and
described by Mr. J. J. McArthur in the exhibit
accompanying his declaration.
It is submitted that the existence of a plateau
or elevated region on one side of a range of
mountains does not alter their character. It
is a general rule in nature that the land on
opposite sides of mountains is not of equal
elevation.
In the Counter-Case of the United States
(p. 39) the interpretation placed upon " crete des
montagnes situees parallelement a la cote," as
involving a " continuous range of mountains
parallel to the coast," has been modified into "a United States
continuous dominating range of mountains °gg r" ase'
approximately paralleling the physical coast of
the continent."
The statement is made that " the proof that no
such range exists is conclusive."
For proof of this statement reference is made
to pp. 529-38 of the Appendix to its Case,
and to pp. 257 and 262-65 of the Appendix to
its Counter-Case.
Pp. 529-3S of the Appendix to Case contain
the declaration of Mr. Tittmann, and the affidavits of four officers of the Coast and Geodetic
Survey. These statements have already been
dealt with in this argument and in the British
Counter-Case.
The references to the Appendix to Counter-
Case are to a Report of the Geological Survey of
Canada upon the area covered by the " Kamloops
Sheet," and to affidavits of four more Coast and
Geodetic Survey officers—Messrs. Ritter, Pratt,
Welker, and Nelson.
The quoted extract from the Geological Survey
Report is confined to a description of the formation of the region adjacent to the Fraser River,
far to the south of the locality now under discussion. The only references in the extract which
can have any bearing upon that locality appear
to be—
1. The statement that the Coast Ranges (of
which a narrow selvage of the inland side alone
purports to be described) form a wide belt of
mountainous country, which runs parallel to the
coast for the entire length of the Province of
British Columbia; and
Modified interpretation of Article III in
United States' Counter-Case.
Evidence presented in United States'
Counter-Case.
Report of Geological Survey of Canada.
United States'
Counter-Case,
App., p. 257. 103
British Counter-
Case, App. I,
p. 60.*
Mr. Ritter's Deposition,
United States'
Counter-Case,
App., p. 262.
2. The inferred statement that at certain points
of the Fraser Valley the mountains form a
" complex."
Prqm Mr. W. H. Dall, however, we learn
that this complex does not exist further north.
" Advancing north ward," he says, " the valleys
gradually widen, at the expense of the mountainous area; the latter assuming a greater
regularity of trend, and forming more continuous
ranges. The axis of elevation comes nearer the
coast."
Of the four new affidavits, three were made on
or before the 7th May, i.e., before the British
Case, filed in London on the 2nd, could have
reached Washington. They would, therefore,
more properly have been presented with the
Case.
They are of the same general character as the
former affidavits, being devoted to the assumption
that a more or less physically impossible range
of mountains was intended by the Treaty, and
denials of the existence of such range. Their
evidence is wholly of this negative character,
and there seems to be nothing in them controverting or modifying anything in the British
Case.
Mr. Ritter, from certain mountains between
the entrance to Holkham Bay and Port Houghton,
saw, as he says :—
" A great mountain system, the culminating peaks of
which were beyond the limits of the topography
delineated by us. The mountain masses are so distributed that no defined mountain range trending north
and south can be said to exist within the area described
by me. Within the range of vision the altitudes of
numerous crags and peaks which I saw gradually
increase from the coast inland."
The mountains which formed his view points
were apparently some of those which the line as
described by Great Britain follows, and which,
from the Commission maps, seem to form a well-
defined range. Mr. Ritter, however, says nothing
whatever about these, but only of some mountains
which were beyond the limits of his survey.
Although beyond these limits, and therefore not
accurately determined by "him, he thinks they
are so distributed that no defined mountain range,
&c, exists.
He, as well as most of the others, says the
mountain heights gradually increase from the
coast inland. This itself would point to a certain
[981] P 2 regularity of arrangement, and suggest that
ranges might be found to exist parallel to the
coast. However, none of them give exact
measurements of heights or precise positions,
whereby the fact of the arrangement in ranges
or otherwise could be tested.
Mr.   Pratt   was  " attached to the   party  of Mr. ]
Mr. O. H. Tittmann."    From this it must not „ ., , Stateg»
be   understood   that   Mr.   Pratt   accompanied Counter-Case,
Mr. Tittmann during any of the surveys described    pp'' p'
by Mr. Tittmann in his statement.    Mr. Pratt
was attached to the party of one of the Canadian
surveyors, and worked with him.
Mr. Pratt says he ascended ten or more
mountains between Thomas Bay and the Stikine,
and also a peak 4,800 feet high near the Great
Glacier of the Stikine. This peak seems to be
the triangulation station No. 61 of the British
Commission map.
Prom this last point he says he obtained a
good view of the mountains towards the interior
" which are much higher than those towards
the coast." He does not say that from this
point he obtained a good view of the mountains
nearer the coast.
The Commission maps show pretty certainly
that he could not, on account of the height of
the mountains lying close to the westward and
south-westward of his view point.
These last-mentioned mountains form the range
considered by Mr. Joseph Hunter, in 1877, to be
the axis of the coast range. As to Hunter's
range south of the Stikine River at this point, it
maybe convenient hereto point out that Hunter's
conception of a definite range in this locality is
supported by the evidence of Mr. Baldwin that United States'
he could see up the valley of the Katete River Case' APP*' P*535*
for a number of miles. Hunter's mountain range
lies to the south-west of this valley.
Reference has already been made in dealing
with Mr. Baldwin's evidence, to the fair inference
which may be drawn therefrom, that a mountain
range parallel to the ccast lies between the Katete
and Iskoot Rivers.
All these facts go to show that the mountains
lie in ranges parallel to the coast. Yet Mr. Pratt,
like the other deponents, is content to pass by
these facts, proved by maps, Coast Pilots, and
other official works, and by the evidence of unprejudiced travellers, without any mention, much
less explanation, of their  non-accord with  the 105
theory of irregular arrangement of isolated peaks,
and to rest upon the bare statement of the theory
that there is no " defined " mountain range.
The jphrase he uses is, " no defined mountain
range within this region described by me." It
is not clear what region he has described. The
only description refers to the country to the east
of the Stikine.
He further makes the remarkable statement
that the great field of glacier ice, with which a
large portion of the country " described " by him
is covered, " slopes gently to the coast, and if not
interrupted by the Stikine River, would be continually higher as you recede from the coast."
In other words, if the topographical features
were different, the topography would not be the
same as it is.
However, the statement that the glacier ice
rises continually from the coast to the Stikine is
incorrect. The proof is the Great Glacier, which
is quite close to one of his points of observation,
the peak 4,800 feet high. This glacier slopes
down to the Stikine, indicating that there is a
sun
im
t bet
ween th
e Sti
Irine
and the coast.
It
iss
ser
froc
i the Co
mmis
sion
maps that the o
ther
mo
ains
which I
'ratt
in company  i
vith
Mr
G
ibbor
l, ascend
ed, li
e on
the coastal sid
3 of
the
gl
icier
field.
I
rom these he (
ould
see
only the edge
and
low
er
slop*
js of the
ice
field
To determine
the
fad
0
f   CO
itinual rise, it wo
aid be necessar
f to
obt
ain
a vi
3w point
near
the
top.    His only ^
new
poi
at
was
the pea
k   near
the  Great   Gla
3ier.
Wl
at
he
>aw, or c
ould
see,
from this place
, as
has been shown, is adverse to his deduction.
His statement as to the slope of the ice is,
therefore, merely, another instance of unsupported generalization.
Mr. Pratt also says :—
I down Lynn Canal, I was
phy on each side. In general
lptly from the sea, but the
ration from the south towards
west from the shores of the
It is evident from the maps, which give the
heights of the mountains bordering Lynn Canal,
that it is impossible from the water, while travelling up and down Lynn Canal, to see over
the immediately bordering range.    See also the
"In
impress
my   trips up  anc
ed by the topogra
the  mc
rantains  rise   abru
mounta
ins increase in ele-*
the pas
canal." photographs in the album of the British Counter-
Case, especially those taken from station 169, on
p. 33 of ,the album, and those from station 170,
on p. 35. These views were taken not from the
water, but from mountain summits high up on
the west side of the canal.
Mr. Pratt cannot, therefore, have ascertained
from his observations while on his trips that the
mountains increase in elevation in the way he
says they do.
The facts as to these mountains bordering Lynn
Canal, attested by the maps and photographs, as
well as by Mr. Flemer's account of them (referred to ante, p. 100), are sufficient to contradict
the statement in the last sentence of Mr. Pratt's
affidavit.
Mr. Welker accompanied Mr. Mc Arthur in the m Welker's Deposition.
ascent of some mountain peaks with him.   For a 	
list of Mr.  Welker's  ascents  see  affidavit  by United States'
"   Counter-Case,
Mr.   McArthur   in   the   Appendix   to   British App., p. 263.
Counter-Case,, p. 73.
As Mr. Welker says, the peak most remote
from the shore, which he personally ascended,
was about 5  miles from the mouth of  Speel
River.   With the aid of Mr. McArthur's state-
ment, this peak is
iden
tin*
ed wit]
i IS
m. of the
British
Commissio
n ma
P-
This]
3eak
is between
2,000 a
nd 2,250 f
set h
gh
on a
rid
je standing
isolatec
I  in the v
alley
of
Speel
River.    Being
closed
n by moui
itains
on
each
side
upwards of
4,000 f
eet high, it
was
not
a suit
able
view point
for ex£
imination c
f the
g
Emeral
feat
ures of the
countr*
As Mr. McArth
ur as
cen
dednu
peaks much
higher and much further inland, took photographs, and made a topographical map of the
region (which forms part of the British Commission map), while Mr. Welker has not even furnished a sketch, Mr. Welker's vague descriptions
can be of little service.
Mr. Welker speaks of high peaks from 20 to
30 miles further inland than the inner limits of
the explored region, and then goes on to say that
one of these inner peaks, which he called Tent
Mountain, was distinctly higher than any peak
on Holkham Bay or Tracy Arm, he " determined " to lie nearly in the axis of Tracy Arm
and about 2 miles from its head.
The word " determined " would indicate that he
had accurately placed the mountain by means of
surveying instruments.    The maps show that a 107
Mr. Nelson's Deposition.
mountain 2 miles beyond the head of Tracy Arm,
far from being 20 or 30 miles inland from the
inner limits of the country explored, would be
only 21 miles from the shore of Stephens Passage,
i.e., from the ocean coast of the continent.
If he had accurately determined this peak, it
is strange that he did not report the determination at the time, and have it laid down on the
App. in to British United States' Commission map.   Perhaps it mav
Case, Unitedi ,""",, | . -,,,,,
States' be the same as the peak marked on that map, at
Commission map   the head of Tracy Arm.    That peak, however,
is given an altitude of only 4,415 feet, an elevation
far surpassed by a multitude of peaks nearer the
coast.
It is unnecessary to devote further space to
the usual formula respecting a defined mountain
range, but it may be pointed out, with reference
to the statement in the last sentence of the affidavit, that the maps and the photographs show a
most clearly-defined mountain range lying to west
of Pndicott Arm, west of the upper part of
Holkham Bay and west of Port Snettisham.
This range is completely separated from the
inner mountains by the depression of Endicott
Arm and Holkham Bay, and by that of Port
Snettisham and the valley between Snettisham
and Holkham Bay. This valley comes down
almost to the sea level. The axis of this range,
as nearly as possible, lies in a straight line, and is
broken only by the outlets of Holkham Bay and
Port Snettisham, which are comparatively narrow.
The last affidavit furnished is that of Mr. Nelson.
He does not appear to have been employed on the
surveys of the Commission, but later, in his
capacity as an officer of the Coast and Geodetic
Survey, he made a survey of the region about the
Katzehin Biver, near the head of Lynn Canal.
As has already been mentioned, this is the only
one of the four affidavits of surveyors presented
with the United States' Counter-Case, whose date
indicates it to be a " reply to the Case, documents,
correspondence and evidence " presented by Great
Britain.
This affidavit itself does not seem to be a reply
to anything in the British Case or the Appendices
thereto. It deals solely with the region adjacent
to the Katzehin River, a tributary of Lynn Canal,
at a point far inland (some 30 miles) from any
mountains described or referred to in the British
Case as defining the line of demarcation.
The  affidavit is inconsistent with  the maps
United States'
Counter-Case,
App., p. 265. prepared in 1903 in the office of the Coast and
Geodetic Survey for the Case and Counter-Case
of the United States, that is to say, United States'
Maps Nos. 1, 2, 3, 25, and 26.
These maps all show the watershed between
Lynn Canal and the interior to He far to the seaward from the line claimed by the United States.
It has already been noticed that these maps disagree with the testimony of Mr. Tittmann and
others.
It is strange that the results of Mr. Nelson's
"topographical survey" of 1898, by which it
appears that he made the drainage for 30 miles
back from Lynn Canal all flow into it, had not
been incorporated into the maps of the Coast
and Geodetic Survey, confessedly the most
accurate bureau as regards actual surveys in the
United States, before 1903.
It is noticed that Map 26, accompanying the
Counter-Case, agrees with the Maps 1, 2, 3, and
25, accompanying the Case.
As to the intrinsic value of Mr. Nelson's
statement, he says he ascended the Katzehin
Valley for about 15 miles. The maps show that
the whole length of the river from its mouth to
its source in the glaciers is not more than 10
miles. He could see to a distance 30 miles from
the coast, i.e., 20 miles beyond his farthest point.
As he says the mountains continue to increase in
height the further back from the coast they are,
it is difficult to see how he could see enough of
the dividing valleys to determine with certainty
that all the drainage of this region flowed into
Lynn Canal.
His observation of this region was "at the
head of the Katzehin River." The drainage of
this 20 miles of "snow-capped peaks" flowing
towards Lynn Canal would make a very fair-
sized river. Where does this river flow into
Lynn Canal ? Not past his observation station,
for he was at the " head " of Katzehin River.
In contradiction to the oft-repeated statement
in all the affidavits of the absence of mountain
formations parallel to the coast, reference may be
had to the maps of the United States' Commission, where the mountain peaks delineated
in a different manner from that adopted for the
British Commission maps, without the detail of
the connecting ridges, &c, show in a way better
appreciated at a glance than do the latter maps,
the universal arrangement of the mountains in
ranges parallel to the coast. 109
In offering the above examination of the
evidence presented by the United States with
reference to the topographical features of the
region in question, Great Britain expressly
reserves her right to contend, as she does, that
the materials upon which the Tribunal must
proceed are those collected by the Commission
under the Convention of 1892. These materials,
and especially the maps, reveal the actual
features of the country, and from them the
Tribunal has to decide which are the mountains
which satisfy the requirements of the Treaty.
[981]  ( 111 )
INDEX.
Access to the Sea for Great Britain—
Intention of Negotiators of Treaty of 1825, see "Barrier Theory."
Admiralty Maps and Charts—
Chart No. 2461 corrected to 1861—Evidence as to Mountain Boundary, 73.
Chart No. 787, 1877, 74.
Maps of 1865 and 1868—Portland Channel Entrance shewn on, 8.
Armstrong, Edward—
Mountain Boundary in Lynn Canal Region, Evidence as to Recognition of, 71.
Arrowsmith's Maps—
Arrowsmith's, A., Map  of North America 1795, Revised 1833—Evidence  as tolMountain
Boundary, 73.
Map of 1833—Evidence as to Portland Channel Entrance, 8.
Treaty of 1825, Maps used by Negotiators—
Maps of 1822 and 1824, Mountains shown on, 79, 80, 81.
Russian Negotiators' Memorandum on Sir C. Bagot's Amended Proposal, probable
reference to Maps of 1822 and 1824, 80.
Map of 1823, Absence of Mountains, 79, 81.
One  or  more Arrowsmith Maps used by Negotiators—United  States' Counter-Case
Contention, 6, 78.
Pinkerton's Modern Atlas, Philadelphia, 1818, Map from—Not an Arrowsmith Map
and not used by Negotiators, 78, 80.
Portland Channel Entrance, Evidence as to, 7.
got, Sir C.—
Treaty of 1825 Negotiations—
Amended Proposal delivered on receipt of Russian " Contre-projet" to first Proposal.
" Mountains bordering the Coast," phrase used by Sir C. Bagot, 34.
Reply to Russian Observations on amended Proposal, 35.
Report to Mr. Canning—Description of the lisiere, 35.
Ten-Marine League Line without reference to Mountains, proposed, 39.
Line through middle of Portland Channel, thence to Mountains bordering the Coast,
Russian Proposal—Sir C. Bagot's objection that England would lose Bays and
Inlets North of 54° 45'.
54° 40' Contention, Evidence as to, 15.
Portland Channel Entrance, Latitude of—United States' Argument based on
Sir C. Bagot's mention of 5.4° 45', 6.
Portland Channel Head *
British Line intersect
Vancouver's Nar
[981]
5th parallel—United States' objections to proposed
Q2 Baker, Lieut. Joseph—
Vancouver's Second and Third Charts prepared by, 79.
" Barrier Theory "—
Intention of Negotiators of Treaty of 1825 was to cut off Great Britain from access to the
Sea—United States' Contention, 22, 33.
Negotiations failing to support United States' view, 38, 39.
Repudiation of by Great Britain, 42.
refer also to title Inlets question.
Bayard, Mr.—
Despatch of November 1885—Evidence against United States' Assumption that the location
of the Boundary was no longer an open question, 49, 50, 51, 55.
Maps, Evidence of—Mr. Bayard's Comment on Boundary shown on United States' Coast
Survey of Alaska, No. 960, 75.
Beavers, River Beavers—
Hudson's Bay Company's Lease of the lisiere obtained to enable the Company to hunt river
beavers, alleged—Groundlessness of United States' Contention, 46.
Behm Canal—
Portland Channel Head to 56th parallel—United States' objections to Intersection of Behm
Canal by British Line, 21.
Substitution for Portland Channel—Alternative proposed by Great Britain in the event of
decision that Vancouver's Portland Channel was not the Portland Channel of the
Negotiators, 10.
Behring Sea Arbitration—
" North-West Coast of America "—Interpretations of phrase contended for by Great Britain
and United States, 31.
Black's General Atlas, 1898—Part of Map of British Columbia, plate, 39e.
jj   Mountain Boundary shown on, 73.
Bouchette's Map, 1853—
Mountain Boundary, Evidence as to, 73.
Brule's Map, Paris 1833—
Mountain Boundary shown on, 72.
Cameron's, Major, Report of 1878—
Great Britain charged with omitting to print Appendix favouring United States' Contention
as to Portland Channel Entrance, 10.
Canadian Map—
Phelps, Mr., Request for—British Government Repudiation of Boundary shown on Map, 52.
Absence of Comment by United States, 53.
Canning, Mr. G.—
Treaty of 1825 Negotiations—
Draft Convention sent to Sir C. Bagot, 12th July, 1824—"Coast" applied to shore of
Portland Channel, Alteration of phrase by Russian Negotiators, 37.
Mountain Boundary—
Base of Mountains nearest the Sea, &c.—Instructions to Sir C. Bagot, 29th May
1824, 36.
Geography of Territory in question, Uncertainty as  to—Need for Alternative to
Mountain Boundary.
Instructions to Sir C. Bagot, 12th July, 1824, 82.
Letter to Mr. S. Canning, 8th December, 1824, 82.
Refusal to eliminate—Instructions to Mr. S. Canning, December 1824, 40, 65.
Summit of Mountains—Instructions to Sir C. Bagot, 1824, 39. Carr, Joseph—
Mountain Boundary in Lynn Canal Region, Evidence as to Recognition of, 71.
Chilcat River—
Boundary, determination of—Proposals between 1871 and 1878, Evidence as to accepted
Interpretation of the Treaty on the Inlets Question, 49.
Chilcoot Pass (Perrier Pass)—
Recognition of, as part of International Boundary—Evidence adduced by United States,
69, 70, 71. J
Clarence Strait and Ernest Sound—
Substitution for Portland Channel—Alternative proposed by Great Britain in the event of
decision that Vancouver's Portland Channel was not the Portland Channel of the
Negotiators, 10.
Clarke, E. B.—
Mountain Boundary in Lynn Canal Region, Evidence as to Recognition of, 71.
Coast Survey of United States—
Map of 1867—
Mountain Boundary, Evidence as to, 74.
Portland Channel Entrance, Evidence as to Position of, 8.
Portland Channel Head to 56th parallel, Course of Boundary, 23.
Report, 1891, 53, 57.
Coast—What constitutes the Coast Line ?—
see Inlets Question.
Commencement of Boundary Line, Point of—First question—
Agreement of the two Governments, 1.
Commencement, Point of, to Entrance of Portland Channel—
see Southern (Water) Boundary.
Conference at Washington (1892)—
Inlets Question—No claim to heads of Inlets or Rights on Lynn Canal advanced by Great
Britain, Mr. Foster's Statement, 57.
Congressional Records—
Speeches by Mr. Squire and Mr. Pitney
i Canadian Claims, 57, 58.
Dall, Mr.—
Chilkoot Portage, Reference to, as part of Boundary in 1883, 69.
Impossibility of locating a line following shores of Inlets—Mr. Dall's Report quoted by
Mr. Bayard in 1885, 50.
Dawson, Dr.—
Inlets Question View put forward to by Dr. Dawson in 1887 that Boundary might cross the
Inlets, Importance of—View officially noted by United States, &c, 53.
De Mofras' Map (Official French Map), Paris, 1844.
Mountain Boundary, Evidence as to, 72, 73.
Portland Channel entrance, Support given to British Contention, 9. —
Direct Line—
In dealing with   boundaries of lands a break should be filled in by most direct fine possible,
11, 17, 21.
refer also to titles Southern Boundary and Portland Channel Head to 56th parallel. Don-a-wak. Chilkat Chief-
Mountain Boundary in Lynn Canal region, Evidence as to recognition of, 71.
" Dryad " Expedition—
Purpose of, 46.
Settlement proposed by those on board to be at more than 10 marine leagues from the
coast, 44.
Dyea and Skagway—
Nationality of—Speeches by Mr. Sifton and Sh- W. Lai
States, 60, 61.
admitting possession by United
Eastern Boundary of the Lisiere—
refer to titles Inlets Question, Mountain Boundary, and Ten-Marine-Leagues Boundary.
Facts subsequent to Treaty of 1825—
see Subsequent action of Parties to Treaty of 1825.
Faden Map, 1823—
Mountains shown on, 79, 81.
Portland Channel Entrance, Evidence as to position, 7.
Russian Negotiators' Memorandum on Sir C. Bagot's Amended Proposal could not have
referred to Faden Map, 80.
Treaty of 1825 Negotiations, Use in—United States' Counter-Case Contention, 6, 78.
Fairweather, Mt.—
Position 10^ marine leagues within Boundary claimed by United States, 73.
Fifth Question—Was it an essential characteristic of the lisiere that it was not to be traversed by
Inlets, 24.
Limited to lisiere north of 56°, 22.
Fifty-four forty (54° 40';—
Course to be followed by Boundary from point of commencement to entrance of Portland
Channel, see title Southern (Water) Boundary.
Fishing and Trading Rights in Interior Waters of the Lisiere—
Grant of, in Article VII of Treaty of 1825 and Article IV of Treaty of 1824—Evidence on the
Inlets Question.
" Ocean " in Article I of both Treaties could not refer to Interior Waters, 28.
Treaty Negotiators contemplated possibility that part of the Inlets might be in British
Territory, 31.
Foster, Hon. Mr. F.—
Conference at Washington (1892)—No claim to heads of Inlets or rights on Lynn Canal
advanced by Great Britain—Mr. Foster's Statement, 57.
Fourth Question—Portland Channel Head to 56th parallel, 17,
First Question—What is the Point of Commencement? 1.
French Maps-
Map of 1815-Evidei
Official French Map,
>. on Portland Channel Entrance Question, 1
44, see De Mofras' Map.
German Map of 1807—
Evidence on the Portland ( 115
Greenhow's Map, 1844—
Mountain Boundary, Evidence as to 72   73.
Portland Channel Entrance, Support given to British Contention. 9.
Herbert's Map—
Portland Channel Entrance, Support given to British Contention, 9.
Howard, Brigadier-General—
Stickeen River Boundary—Reference to Mountain Boundary, 69.
Hudson's Bay Company—
Lease of the lisiere—
Description of area leased, mention of 54° 40'—Hudson's Bay Company had no power to
commit the British Government to their interpretation of the Treaty, which, moreover, was not in accordance with United States' view, 16.
Evidence as to 54° 40' Contention, 16.
Purpose of the Company in obtaining lease—No ground for United States' suggestion
that lease was needed to enable the Company to hunt the River Beaver, 45, 46.
Map of 1857 produced before Select Committee on Hudson's Bay Company's Affairs—
Mountain Boundary, Evidence as to, 74.
Portland Channel Entrance, Evidence as to Position of, 8.
Memorandum referred to in United States' Counter-Case, Inaccuracy of, 17.
Treaty of 1825—Negotiations—
| Coast" and " Sea," Meaning of, as used by Mr. Pelly, 36.
Establishment near the Coast—Russian Memorandum on Sir C. Bagot's Amended
Proposal, 80.
Mountain Boundary—Desire for a better Definition of Mountains following Sinuosities of
Coast, 36. 81.
Hunter's, Mr., Survey of Stikeen River Boundary—
Measurements taken from general trend of Coast, 48, 50.
Iddesleigh, Earl of—
Canadian Map supplied to Mr. Phelps, Repudiation of Boundary shown on, 52.
Ikee Shaw, Indian of Kluckwan—
Russian Medals exhibited by, as having been in  his wife's family for three generations,
&c, 44.
Imray's Chart of North Pacific Ocean, Part of—London, 1869—
Mountain Boundary, Evidence as to, 74.
Indians—^
Don-a-Wak, Chilkat Chief—Evidence as to Recognition of Mountain Boundary in Lynn Canal
Region, 70.
Ikee Shaw, Kluckwan Indian—Russian Medals exhibited by, as given in token of allegiance
to Russia, &c, 44.
Stick Indians—Complaints as to British subjects packing in United States' territory, 69.
Inlets Question—Was it an essential characteristic. of the listtre that it was not to be traversed
by Inlets ?—Fifth Question, 24—
Coast, " Ocean," " Sinuosities of the Coast "—Meaning of terms as used in Treaty of 1825—
Estuaries of important Rivers, Inlets not forming—Impracticability: of applying different
rules to Inlets which terminate in a River and Inlets which do not, 27.
Fishing and Trading Rights in interior waters of the lisiere granted by Article VII of
Treaty of 1825 and Article IV of Treaty of 1824—
" Ocean'' in Article I of both Treaties could not have been used to include interior
waters, 28.
Treaty of 1825 must have contemplated possibility that part of the Inlets might be
in British Territory, 31, 32. 116
Inlets Question—{continued)—
Coast, " Ocean," " Sinuosities of the Coast," etc.—continued—
General trend of outer Coast facing the open Sea—
British Contention in accordance with terms of Treaty of 1825
usage, 27, 28, 29, 31.
United States' proposed Boundary parallel to, but distant 10 i
heads of Inlets, 30, 31, 43.
nd with ordinary
rine leagues from
Impossibility of a fine parallel to the Sinuosities of the Coast where the Coast is taken to
mean the Shore of the Inlets, 30, 34, 66.
Bayard's,   Mr., Despatch   of November   1885—United  States'  present  contention
inconsistent with, 50, 51.
—Impossibility of apply-
Inlets which penetrate farther or less far than 10 marine I
ing different Rules to, 22.
Interchangeability of terms, " Coast" the line where the ocean terminates, 24, 25.
Line contended for by United States inconsistent with United States' or British definition of " Coast," 43.
Negotiations previous to Treaty of 1825, Evidence of, 33, 34.
Bagot, Sir C.—
Description of the lisiere, 35.
Rivage, Meaning of, as used by Sir C. Bagot. 34.
Canning, Mr. G.—
Distinction between Inland  Seas  and  North  Pacific  Ocean—Instructions to
Sir C. Bagot and Letter to Count Lieven, 36.
Draft Convention of the 12th July, 1824—"Coast" applied to shore of Portland
Channel, alteration of phrase by Russian negotiators, 37.
Hudson's Bay Company's Letters—Meaning of " Coast " and " Sea " as used by Mr.
Pelly, 36.
Nesselrode's, Count, use of word | Coast"—Distinction between head of Portland
Channel and shore of the Ocean, &c, 35.
Russian Negotiators—Portland Channel head not included in " Coast" as used by
Negotiators, 35. --
Pitney's, Mr., use of words « Coast " and '■ Ocean "
"Political Coast" following Islands—Futility of
United States' contention, 29.
in Congress, 1896, 58.
verbal controversy arising out of
Tide water, head of, as limit of the Ocean—
Absurdity of accepting according to definition of Tide water accepted in United
States' Law, 26.
Tide water not mentioned in Treaty, 68.
Subsequent Action of Parties to Treaty of 1825—United States' contention that
possession of Inlets had never been disputed by Great Britain or Canada, &
Bayard's, Mr., Despatch of N
tention, 49, 50, 51, 52.
:, by United Stat.
jar, 1885—Evidence against United States' con-
Speeches in Congress in January
Canadian Claims, Cognisano
and February, 1896, 57,
Canadian Public Men, Statements by, 60.
Commission appointed under Convention of 1892—Dr. T. C. Mendenhall's official
action, 55, 56. 117
Inlets Question—continued—
Subsequent Action of Parties to Treaty of 1825—continued—
Preliminary Survey provided for by Congress in 1891 to follow general trend of Coast-
United States' Coast Survey Report, 53, 57.
Rivers of the lisiere, Line crossing—Negotiations between 1871 and 1878, 49.
Summary of Evidence advanced by United States, 44.
refer also to title Ten Marine Leagues Boundary—Point from which 10 Marine Leagues weri
to be measured.
Johnston's, Keith, Royal Atlas, Map from—
Mountain Boundary shown on, 73.
Joint High Commission, 1898—
Appointment a formal acknowledgment that the Location of the Boundary was still an open
Kannaghunut Island—
refer to title Portland Chan
King, Mr. W. F.—British Commissioner on International Survey under Convention of 1892.
Mountain Boundary shewn on Maps and described in Statement, 64.
Langdorf (Langsdorff) Map of 1803.
Absence of Mountains, 79, 81.
Treaty of 1825 Negotiations, Possible use in, 6, 77.
Latitude—Degrees of North Latitude mentioned.
54° 39' 30", 13.
54° 40', 11, 21.
54° 45', 5, 15, 21, 22.
55°, 13.
59°, 15.
60°, 15.,
Laurier, Sh- W.
Dyea, Nationality of—Possession of Dyea by Russians and then by United States, 60, 61.
Lieven, Count.
Treaty of 1825 Negotiations.
Geography of Territories in question, Uncertainty as to, 81, 82.
Memorandum of July 24, 1824—Objections to seaward base of Mountains as Boundary, 39.
Longitude.
Longitudes mentioned, 130° and 133°, 12.
Treaty of 1825—West Longitude given by negotiators, 3.
Vancouver's Narrative, Longitudes in—Reason for giving East Longitude, 3.
Lynn Canal Region Boundary Question.
Dyea and Skagway, Nationality of—Speeches by Mr. Sifton and Sir W. Laurier admitting
possession by United States, 60, 61.
Maps, Evidence of,
Mountain Boundai
68, 69, 70, 71.
[981]
of  United States' Officials, Citizens, &c.
B 118
Lynn Canal Region Boundary Question—continued—
Provisional Boundary agreed on—Lord Salisbury's Despatch of July 19, 1898, describing
Provisional Boundary as  more than 100 miles from  the  Ocean,   57—United  States'
Memorandum in Reply, 59.
Settlements, Extent of, up to 1885, 47.
Survey by Dr. T. C. Mendenhall under Convention of 1892, 55, 56.
United States' Authority, Extent of—Arrests made up to 10 Marine Leagues from head
of Canal, 44.
McCrackin, Lieutenant.
Chilcoot Pass, Recognition as on the Boundary Line, 69.
Mackenzie River.
Memorandum assuming River to be in Russian Territory referred to in United States' Counter-
Case, 17.
Manitoba, Keewatin, British Columbia, &c, part of Map of, Montreal, 1880.
Mountain Boundary shewn on, 73.
Maps.
Bayard's, Mr., Comment on Boundary shewn on Coast Survey Map of Alaska, No. 960, 75.
Lynn Canal Region Boundary.Question, Evidence on, 48.
Mountain Boundary, Evidence as to.
Contour Maps, Evidence as to existence of Mountains, 76.
Maps published in support of United States' Case, Evidence of, 73.
Recognition of, 72.
Treaty of 1825 Negotiations, Maps used in—Evidence as to Existence of continuous or
any Mountains, 77, 78, 79, 80.
Vagueness and variety of Maps.
Mountains introduced by Cartographers in deference to terms of Treaty, &c, 74, 75.
Sumner's, Senator, Remarks in 1867, &o, 74.
Portland Channel Entrance, Position' of—Evidence of Maps, 6, 7, 8, 9.
Portland Channel Head to 56th Parallel—Two only out of 28 supporting United States'
contention, 23.
Subsequent Action of the Parties, Boundary Established by—United States' contention.
menl
i,53.
Canadian Man supplied to Mr. Phelps at his request, British Government Repudiation
of Boundary shewn on, 52—Absence of Comment by United States, 53.
Objections to Maps relied on by United States, 48.
Treaty of 1825, Maps used by Negotiators, 6, 77.
far particular Maps, see their Names.
Matusevich.
Correction made in Mr. G. Canning's Draft Convention of 1824, 33.
Mendenhall, Dr. T. C.— United States' Commissioner under Convention o/1892.
Survey of 1892, Measurements taken from general trend of Coast, &c, 55, 56.
Middleton, Mr.—
Portland Channel Head to 56th parallel—Change of Direction implied in Mr. Middleton's
Report of Conversation with Mr. S. Canning on the day of Signature of Treatv of
1825, 2 . *
Treaty of 1824, Meaning attached to " Ocean" in Article I—Mr. Middleton's care in distinguishing between provisions contained in Articles I and IV, 28. Middleton, Mr.—continued—
Treaty of 1825, Report on—
54° 40' Question, Negotiations broken off on—Inaccuracy of Mr. Middleton's Statement, 15.
Support given to British Contention as to boundary from starting-point to  Portland
Channel, 16.
Vancouver's Narrative, Memorandum to Emperor of Russia showing knowledge of, 4.
Moore, William-
Mountain Boundary in Lynn Canal Region, Evidence as to Recognition of, 70.
Mountain Boundary—What, ifany exist, are the Mountains referred to as situated parallel to the
Coast, &c.—Seventh Question, 63—
Existence of Mountains—Evidence of Contour Maps, 76.
Misapprehension of Terms shown in United States' Answer to Seventh Question, 76.
Range, Continuous Range of Mountains, Existence of denied by United States, 64.
Mendenhall's, Dr. T. C, Remark quoted in United States' Counter-Case, 83.
No such Range exacted by terms of Treaty of 1825, 77, 84.
Recognition of—
Lynn  Canal  Region,  Recognition  of Mountain  Boundary in—Evidence  of Officers,
Officials and Citizens adduced by United States, 68, 69, 70.
Maps, Evidence as to Recognition of Mountain Boundary, 72, 73, 74.
Repudiation of, by United States, 42, 64.
Treaty of 1825 Negotiations-
Canning's,  Mr.   S.,  " Contre-Projet" of 1st February, 1825, Description   of Mountain
Boundary, 84.
First Suggestion, Russian Counter-Draft of February 1824, 39.
Hudson's  Bay  Company's  Desire for  a better  Definition of Mountains described as
following Sinuosities of the Coast, 36, 81.
Maps used—
Evidence as to Existence of any or continuous Mountains, 78, 79, 80.
Uncertainty and Vagueness of Geographical Knowledge necessitating Introduction
of 10-Marine League Alternative, 82.
" Mountains bordering the Coast"—Sir C. Bagot's use of phrase, 34.
Mountains   near   the   Coast,  Canadian   Claim—Speeches in  Congress,   January   and
February 1896, 57, 58.
Omission of Mountain Boundary from Sir C. Bagot's Amended Proposal of 1824, 39.
Russian Preference  for  Mountain Boundarv in spite of admitted uncertainty as  to
Situation of Mountains—Count Nesselrode's remarks (20th February, 1825), 40, 65.
Russian Proposal to substitute 10-Marine League Line, 39.
Canning's, Mr., refusal to agree to, 65.
Seaward Base of Mountains—Mr. G. Canning's Proposal of 12th July, 1824, 36, 39, 82,J84.
Russian objections to, 39, 84.
Summit of Mountains Proposed, 39.
British Government Consent—Mr. Canning's Instructions to Sh C. Bagot, 84.
Muzon, Cape—
Admitted Starting Point of Boundary Line, 11.
Navy, United States—Acting Secretary's Report, 1903.
Mountain Boundary in Lynn Canal Region, Reference to, 69.
[981] R 2 —Letters to  Count Lieven
120
Nesselrode, Count—
Treaty of 1825 Negotiations—
" Coast," Meaning of as used by Count Nesselrode, 35.
Geography of Territory in  Question,  Uncertainty  as
(February and March 1825), 82.
Mountain Boundary, Advantages of—Letter to Count Lieven (20th February, 1825),
40, 65.
Newell, Lieut.-Com.—
. Mountain Boundary in Lynn Canal Region, Reference to, 69.
North-West Coast of America—
Behring Sea Arbitration—Interpretations of phrase " North-West Coast" contended for by
. Great Britain and United States, 31, 32.
Russian Negotiators of Treaty of 1825, Meaning attributed to phrase by, 34, 35.
Observatory Inlet—
refer to title Portland Channel.
Meaning of, as used in Treaty of 1825—
refer to title Inlets Question.
Open Question—
Location of Boundary had ceased to be an Open Question—United States' contentioi
refer to title Subsequent Action of the Parties to the Treaty of 1825.
Pearse Island—
refer to title Portland Channel.
Pelly, Mr.—
" Coast"
' Meaning attached to words in negotiations prior to Treaty of 1825. 36.
ider, Staff Commander-
Naming of Mountains between Portland Channel Head and 56th Parallel, 22.
Perthes' Map of the World, Part of—
Mountain Boundary, Evidence as to, 74.
Phelps, Mr.—
Canadian Map, Request for, 52.
Pitney, Mr.—
Canadian Claims, Speech in Congress (12th February, 1896)—Mr. Pitney's use of words
" Coast" and " Ocean," &c, 58.
Poletica, M. de-
Vancouver's Narrative, Knowledge of, 4.
Portland Channel—What Channel is the Portland Channel—Second question-
Clarence Strait and Ernest  Sound or   Behm Canal, Substitution for, Portland Channel-
Alternative proposed by Great Britain in the event of decision that Vancouver's Portland
Channel was not the Portland Channel of the negotiators, 10.
Entrance to Portland Channel-
Cameron's Major, Report of 1878-Charge agaiust Great Britain of omitting to print
Appendix favouring United States' contention, 10. * 121
Portland Channel—continued—
Entrance to Portland Channel—continued—
Latitude of— 54° 40' Contention, &c.—
Bagot's, Sir C, Mention of 54° 45', 6.
Nesselrode's, Count, Letter to Count Lieven, 35.
Treaty of 1825—Evidence that Entrance was further north than southernmost point
of Prince of Wales Island, 12.
Maps subsequent to Treaty of 1825, Evidence of, 8, 9.
Maps used by Negotiators of Treaty of 1825, Evidence of, 6, 7.
Observatory Inlet an Inlet diverging from Portland Channel—Alternative suggestion in
United States' Counter-Case, 2.
Maps, Evidence of, 7, 8.
Portland Channel unnamed as far as Ramsden Point in 1825—United States' Counter-
Vancouver's Maps, Evidence of, 7.
Ramsden Point and Pearse Island, Entrance between—United States' Contention, 1, 2.
Maps, Evidence of, 6, 8, 9.
Tongass and Kannaghunut Islands, Entrance between, British Contention, 1, 2.
Vancouver, Position assigned to Portland Channel by, 1, 2, 6, 7.
Vancouver's Portland Channel, Channel intended by Treaty of 1825—British Contention, 1.
Portland Channel Head to the 56th Parallel—Fourth Question, 17.
" Ascend to the N orth "—Inconsistent interpretations by United States in respect of Questions 3 and 4, 20.
;—United States' Objections, 21, 22.
on applicable solely to Inlets north of the 56th
Inters
action of,
by Briti
of Ti
llel, 2i
from I
point l
ortland
f Easten
Channel
i boundc
id to point on 56th parallel found by Tribunal to be
of lisiere—British Contention, 17.
Head of Channel-
Latitude as given by Count Nesselrode, 35.
Non-inclusion in " Coast" as used by Negotiators of Treaty of 1825, 35, 37, 38.
Line North-East along same course on which said line touches Mainland till it intersects,
56th parallel, or line drawn directly to 56th parallel along axis of valley forming continuation of the Channel—United States' Contention, 17.
Difficulties occasioned by United States' Contentions—Discontinuity apparent "in
Statement in conclusion, &c, 18, 19.
Maps, Evidence of—Two only out of 28 Maps supporting United States' Contention, 23.
Middleton's, Mr., Report of Conversation with Mr. Stratford Canning on day of signature of
Treaty of 1825 Change of direction indicated by use of the word "turns," 21.
Pender's Staff-Commander's, Action in naming Mounts Johnson and Reverdy, Irrelevance of
Treaty of 1825, Interpretation of French Text—Importance attached to Russian -version by
United States, 19.
Change of Direction at the head of Portland Channel not precluded by wording of the
Treaty, however interpreted, 20.
Westward Course of Line proposed by Great Britain no more inconsistent with fording of
Treaty than the Eastward  Course  of Line from Cape Muzon  to  Portland  Channel
Entrance, 21. 122
Prehminary Action of the Parties to Treaty of 1825—
Admission as Evidence, Limits and purpose of—Article III of Treaty of 1903, 40.
Principles governing extent to which prior negotiations can be used for purpose of construing
a written contract, 32, 33, 38.
United States' Contention that the intention of the Parties must control the interpretation of
the Treaty, 33, 38.
Prince of Wales Island—
Southernmost point, Latitude of—Uncertainty of negotiators of Treaty of 1825, &c, 13.
Treaty of 1825, Clause securing whole Island to Russia a proof that the negotiators did not
contemplate a boundary due East from Cape Muzon to Entrance of Portland Channel,
12, 13.
Ripinski, Mr. Sol.—United States' Commissioner at Haines—
Mountain Boundary in Lynn Canal Region, Evidence as to Recognition of, 71.
Rivets of the Lisiere, Boundary crossing—
Negotiations between 1871 and 1878—Unimportance of expressions used as to line crossing
Rivers Stikine, Taku, and Chilcat, 49.
Roberts, Lieutenant-
Vancouver's Large Chart prepared by, 78.
Russia-
Claims of, in 1825—
55th parallel, Recognition as Limit of Russian Rights, 13.
Latitude above which Russian Rights had  not been  challenged—Count Nesselrode's
inaccurate statement, 15.
Relations with disputed Territory principally at the Stikine, 44.
Russian Maps—
Map of 1802—
Mountains shown on, 79, 81,
Portland Channel Entrance, Evidence as to Position of, 7.
Reproduction of Vancouver's Charts, 78.
Treaty of 1825 Negotiations, Use in, 6, 78.
Map of 1826—
Inconsistency with Terms of Treaty—Map of no authority, 48.
Portland Channel Head to 56th parallel—Course of Boundary, 23.
Official Map of 1853—Portland Channel Entrance, Support given to British Contention, 9.
Map of 1861—Portland Channel Head to 56th parallel, Course of Boundary, 23.
of 1821-
l of excl
forward by Ukase—Mr. G. Canning's Letter to Count Lieven, 36.
Suspension of exclusive claims of Navigation and Jurisdiction over North Pacific Ocean put
Ukase—Mr. G. Canning's Letter to Count Lieven. 36.
Salisbury, Marquis of—
Despatch   of 19th July, 1898—Lynn   Canal   Region   Provisional   Boundary  described  as
more than 100 miles from the Ocean, 58—United States' Memorandum in Reply, 59.
Schwatka, Lieutenant—
Military Reconnaissance of 1883—Perrier Pass referred to as on International Boundary, 68.
Scott, Hon. R. W.—
Speech in Canadian Parliament on Boundary Question, 51.
Scottish Geographical Magazine, 1898, Map of Portland Channel Head to 56th parallel—Course of
Boundary, 2& 123
Seattle Chamber of Commerce Report, 58.
Second Question—What Channel is the Portland Channel | 1.
Seventh Question—What, if any exist, are the Mountains referred to as situated parallel to the
Coast, &c. 1 63. *
Sifton, Hon. Clifford—
Dyea and Skagway, Nationality of, 60.
Simpson, Governor—
Journey in 1847—Remarks that the strip ceded to Russia rendered the interior countrv comparatively useless to Great Britain, 42.
Simpson Map of 1847—
Portland Channel Head to 56th parallel—Course of Boundary, 23.
Sinuosities of the Coast..
refer to title Inlets Question.
Sixth Question—Point from which 10-Marine League Boundary should be measured if the Fifth
Question should be answered in the negative, 61.
Skagway and Dyea.
Nationality of—Speeches by Mr. Sifton and Sir W. Laurier admitting Pi
States, 60, 61.
by United
Southern (Water) Boundary—What course should the line take from the point of Commencement
to the Entrance to Portland Channel ?—Third Question, 10.
" Ascend to the North "—Direction of Treaty of 1825 discarded for Question Three and relied
on for Question Four by United States, 20.
Direct Line—British Contention, 11.
Middleton's, Mr., Report on Treaty of 1825—Support given to British Contention, 16.
Facts subsequent to Treaty, Irrelevance and Insignificance of, 16.
54° 40'—United States' Counter-Case Contention.
Hudson's Bay Company Lease of the lisiere, Evidence of, 16.
Negotiations preceding Treaty, Evidence of, 13.
' Bagot's, Sir C, reference to 54° 45' as limit above which England would lose bays,
and. inlets under Russian Proposal, Evidence against United States' Contention,
6, 15.
Middleton's, Mr., Statement that Negotiations were broken off on 54° 40' question,
Inaccuracy of, 15.
Nesselrode's, Count, Letters to  Count Lieven  mentioning 54° 40' as boundary,
Explanation of, 14.
Treaty of 1825—Contention not supported by Text of Treaty, 12, 13.
Fifty-fifth parallel, Recognition by Russia as Southern Limit of Rights, 13.
*   Line drawn  easterly from  Cape Muzon  to  centre   of Portland  Channel—United  States'
Contention, 11.
Clause securing Prince of Wales Island to Russia plainly showed that the Negotiators
did not intend the line to go due east from Cape Muzon, 12, 13.
Treaty of 1824—Irrelevance of Treaty and preceding Negotiations, 15.
Squire, Senator—
Speech in Congress, January 3, 1896, 57, 58.
Spanish Admiralty Map of 1857—
Portland Channel Head to 56th parallel—Course of Boundary, 23. Stanford's Atlas, 1887—Part of Map of British Columbia, plate 7
Mountain Boundarv shewn on, 73.
Stick Indians-
British Subjects—Complaints
j Stick Indians packing in United States' Territory, 69.
Stickeen River-
Boundary Question—
Howard's, Brigadier-General, Reference to Mountain Boundary, 68, 69.
Hunter, Mr., Boundary laid down by—Measurement from general trend of Coast, 47, 49.
Irrelevance of Evidence adduced by United States to  show  that Boundary was at
10 marine leagues from head of tide water, 46, 47.
Negotiations between 1871 and 1878—Evidence as to accepted Interpretation of the
Treaty on the Inlets Question, 49.
Russian Boundary Mark 10 marine leagues from Coast, alleged, 44.
Russian Relations with disputed Territory principally at the Stikeen, 44.
Sumner, Senator—
Maps existing in 1867, Vagu<
Subsequent Action of the Parties to the Treaty of 1825.
Admission as Evidence, Limits and Purpose of—Article III of Treaty of 1903, 40, 41.
Irrelevance of subsequent facts where Terms of Treaty were clear, 8, 9, 16, 43.
Method of putting forward such Evidence—Matters relied on  by United States put
forward individually, not looked at as a whole, 59.
Such action could only be appreciated by the light of the Treaty and of the diplomatic
action of both Powers interested, 59, 61.
Location of Boundary had been decided by subsequent action and could not therefore be held
to be an open question—United States Contention, 42, 54.
Bayard's, Mr., Despatch of November, 1885, Evidence of, 49, 50, 51, 52, 55, 75.
Canada, Lines proposed by—No particular line contended for by Great Britain, 54.
Convention of 1892—Location of Boundary recognized as an open question,  United
States cognizance of Dr. Dawson's views, &c, 53, 54.
Commission appointed under Convention, Official action of Dr. T. C. Mendenhall, &c,
55, 56.
Inconsistency of United States' arguments, 55.
Joint High Commission, Appointment of, an acknowledgment that the Boundary Question
was still open, 75.
Maps relied on by United States, Objections t
Canadian Map supplied to Mr. Phelps at '.
tion of Boundary shown on, 52.
Prehminary Survey provided for by Congress
Scott's, Hon. R. W., Speech in Canadian Parli-
Treaty of 1892, Evidence of, 53, 54, 76.
Treaty of 1903, Evidence of, 76.
e also titles Inlets Questions, Ten-Marine Leagues
nt repudia
1891, Mr. F. M. Thorn's Re]
ent, 51.
s Boundary, &c,
Taku River Boundary-
the Inlets Questior
nd 1878,
icknowle<
I Interpretatioi 125
Tanner Map of 1839—
Mountain Boundary, Evidence as to, 73.
Portland Channel Head to 56th parallel—Course of Boundary, 23.
Ten-Marine Leagues Boundary—
Article III of Treaty of 1825, Terms of, 24.
Point from which 10- Marine Leagues were to be measured.
Parallelism and Distance must refer to same line, that is, the line referred to by the three
expressions " Ocean," " Coast," and " Sinuosities of the Coast," 25, 26, 66.
Impracticability of  a fine foil owing the sinuosities formed by the Inlets—Line
suggested by United States parallel to the Coast used in British sense, distant
10 marine leagues or more from Coast used in United States sense, 30, 43, 66, 67.
Sixth Question, Alternatives proposed by, &c, 61.
First and Second Alternative, Lines indicated by substantially the same, 63.
Third Alternative, Hypothesis on which question was put contradicted by, 63.
Territorial Waters, Point from which 10 leagues shoxdd be measured where Inlets form
territorial Waters, 61.
Treaty  of 1825, 10 league Boundary measured from
ntion, 43, 44.
e of, 50, 51.
Dvernment Repudiation of Boundary
Bayard's, Mr., Despatch of November 1885, "
Canadian Map supplied to Mr. Phelps—Br
shewn on Map, Ahse-
■ Treaty of 1825 Nego
of Mountaii
Marine. Leagues  Boundary with Alternate
Bo
Bagot's, Sir C, Amended Pr
British Refusal to agree to, ■
Russian Counter-Draft of 18
extreme distan
nd which Mountain Boi
»y United States, Area ,
Territorial Waters, Inlets forming—
Ten-Marine  League   Boundary,   Measurement from  point where Inlets formed Territorial
Third Question—What course shoidd the fine tak
Entrance to Portland Channel ? 10.
the Point of Commei
Thorn, Mr. F. M.— United States' Coast and Geodetic Surveyor—
Report, 1891, 53, 57.
Tide water-
Definition accepted in United States, &c, 26.
Not mentioned in Treaty of 1825, 68.
Trading and Fishing Rights in Interior Waters, see Fishing and Trading Rights.
Treaty of 1824—
Boundary from Point of Coi
and preceding Negotiatic
[981]
cement to Entrance to Portland Channel-Treaty of 1824
•elevant to interpretation of Treaty of 1825, 15.
S Treaty of 1825-
Application of Provisions—Boundary established still not merely unidentified, but unas
tained in the sense that the data on which it depended we
ot ascertained, 41, 42.
Article III, Interpretation of—Russian version relied on by United States, Lack of Authority,
&c, 19.
Negotiations—
Admission of, as Evidence before Tribunal of 1903, see title Preliminary Action of the
Parties to the Treaty of 1825.
Draft Convention sent by Mr. Canning to Sh- C. Bagot, July 12, 1824, 37.
■First Negotiations—
Negotiations broken off, 35.
Russian " Contre-projet" to Sir C. Bagot's first proposal—Sir C. Bagot's amended
Proposal, 34.
Russian Observations on amended proposal and Sir C. Ba.got's Reply, 35, 80.
Geography of Territories in Question, Uncertainty as to, 13, 22, 27, 34, 39, 40, 65.
Maps used by Negotiators, 6, 77, 78.
Vancouver's Maps and Narrative, Negotiators Knowledge of, Questioned by United
States, 2, 3, 4.
Preliminary Action of the Parties, see that title.
Subsequent Action of the Parties, see that title.
refer also to titles Inlets Question, Mountain Boundary, Portland Channel, &c.
Treaty of 1892—
Commission appointed under—Dr. T. C. Mendenhall's Action confirming British Definition of
" Coast," 55.
Location of Boundary, Recognitic
, as an open Question—British Contention, 53, 54, 76.
Treaty of Arbitration, 1903—
Article III—Preliminary and Subsequent Action of the Parties, Admission as Evidence, 40.
Formal Acknowledgment that Location of the Boundary was still* an open question, 76.
Functions of Tribunal appointed under Treaty—
Meaning and Intention of Treaty of 1825, not facts and data controlling its application
to be decided on, 41, 54.
Revision of Treaty and Laying down of Boundary outside Po
s of Tribunal, 43.
Tupper, Sir C.—
Dawson's, Dr., Statement of view that Boundary might c
Mr. Bayard, 53.
the Inlets, Communication to
Tuyll, Baron—
Southern Boundary—Suggestion to Count Nesselrode, October 21, 1822, 5.
Vancouver's Maps and Narrative—
Longitudes given in—Reason for giving east Longitude in narrative, &c, 3.
Portland Channel, Position assigned to, by Vancouver, 2, 6, 7.
Treaty of 1825 Negotiations-
Maps used in, 78.
Large Chart omitted from United States' Case and Counter-Case, 81.
Mountains shown on, 78, 81.
Narrative, Negotiators' knowledge of, Questioned by United States, 2.
Possession of Maps implying possession of Narrative, 4. Washington Conference, 1892—
Inlets Question—No claim to heads of Inlets or Rights on Lynn Canal advanced by Gi
Britain, Mr. Foster's Statement, 57.
Wright, Robert-
Mountain Boundary in Lynn Canal Region, Evidence as to Recognition of, 70-    ^CHC
Mc/liz 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

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"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/cdm.bcbooks.1-0348297/manifest

Comment

Related Items