Open Collections

The Chung Collection

Chung Logo

The Chung Collection

Alaska boundary : Memorandum for Counsel, no. 2, various documents bearing on the question of Alaska… Great Britain 1903

Item Metadata

Download

Media
chungpub-1.0056222.pdf
Metadata
JSON: chungpub-1.0056222.json
JSON-LD: chungpub-1.0056222-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): chungpub-1.0056222-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: chungpub-1.0056222-rdf.json
Turtle: chungpub-1.0056222-turtle.txt
N-Triples: chungpub-1.0056222-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: chungpub-1.0056222-source.json
Full Text
chungpub-1.0056222-fulltext.txt
Citation
chungpub-1.0056222.ris

Full Text

  m    «gs TABLE   OF   CONTENTS.
Collection of Extracts from Appendix to U.S. Case, relating to
Russian Occupation of Lisiere up to 1867
Note on Accounts of Russian Occupation
Analysis of Evidence in United States Case on American Occupation
Effect of Occupation if Proved
Effect of Occupation in International Law
Analysis of Projets   and   Contre  Projets leading up to Treaty
between Great Britain and Russia, signed at St. Petersburg,
February 28th, 1825 ...
Vancouver's Text
Portland Canal.    Memorandum of References to Portland Canal in
the Negotiations of 1823-5
" La Passe dite Portland Channel"
Stickine  River,   1834.     From   Hudson's  Bay Company's Correspondence   ...
Analysis of Maps of A.tlas of United States Case as to Portland
Canal
United States Comparison of Canadian Maps
Notes on the Russian Version of the Treaty of 1825, and on the
Translation of Articles III. and IV. given on pages 7 and 8
of the Appendix to the United States Case
Translation made  by  Mr. Bosanquet,  British Consul at Odessa.
Articles III. and IV. of the Treaty
Translation made by Mr.  E.  G. Lister, Foreign Office.    Articles
III. and IV. of the Treaty
Definitions given by Dictionaries to certain French Words used in
the Treaty of 1825, and in the Correspondence preceding it...
Heads of Inlets and Tide Water in the United States Case
Meaning of the Word " Coast" in the Treaty of 1825 ...
The United States Line at the 56th Parallel ...
Mountain Range or Chain...
The Boundary Line as drawn by the United States west of Lynn
Canal ... ... ... ... ...
Note on the Boundary Line as drawn by the United States on
Map No. 2'...
As to the United States having Notice of our Claim    ...
From the Congressional Eecord of February 12th, 1896
Relating to Position of International  Boundary between  Canada
and Alaska
Relating to Barrier and Navigation  through Russian Strip.—Mr.
Collins to Mr. Seward
The British-Russian  Treaty of   1825.—Former    United   States
Contention as to Meaning of Article VI.
Extracts from Message on the  Acquisition  of Russian  America,.
including Sumner's Speech
Evidence presented by the United States as to the Topographical
Results of the Surveys made under the Convention of 1892
Extracts  from  Instructions  given  by  Dr.   Mendenhall   to   his
Assistants in 1894
Major-General Cameron's Report of February 18th, 1875
Surveyor-General Dennis's Map in U.S. Atlas to Counter Case ...
Description of Proposed Lease by the Russian Company to a U.S.
Company in 1867
Miscellaneous Notes
Notes on U.S. Counter Case
Extracts from Magazines
The Clarence Strait Boundary—A Possible Argument
PAGE
42
82
83
83
84
85
90
92
95
SSI *=* COLLECTION OF EXTRACTS FROM APPENDIX TO U. S.
CASE RELATING TO RUSSIAN OCCUPATION OF
LISIERE   UP   TO   1867.
Brief contents rdating to the annexation of American Lands—p. 252.
" On June 8th, continuing his way to the south-east, he saw a bay ;
sailing thereto, he perceived a band of natives, rowing towards his
galiot, in four boats (baidaries) adorned with beaver skins hanging on
posts; with the help of these natives—the wind having fallen—
Schelikov could enter the bay, dragging the galiot by tow, and laid her
on anchor. The natives were clad in beaver, sables, martens, glutton
and badger skin^. There Schelikov learned that this bay is called
Yakutat (No, 6), and the tribe living in that part of the land is called
Kolujees. They obey to a chief named Toune-ilkhan (meaning the
eldest, or ruler) ; he is living near a large river called Chilkate, southwards from the Bay Ltua ; this tribe is neighbouring to the south with
the tribe Ugalaitzy. Schelikov held trade there until the 12th of
June, on which day came the Toune-ilkhan, in several boats, with 170
men, of which many had white faces and light hair, which led to
suppose that they were descendants of the pilot Dimentiew, and 12
men of the crew left on shore by the captain, Chiricov, A. D. 1741.
The said Toune was received very friendly, entertained, presents were
given to him, and, after some conversation, he consented, with his
eldests, to become subjected to the Russian Crown ; on which decision
he was presented with the insign in copper of the Russian double-
headed eagle, to be worn on the breast."
Papers Relating to Russian Occupation up to 1867.
" The greater part of the inhabitants had quitted their winter
huts, and for the purpose of procuring provisions were gone ont in
canoes and boats, which resemble those used in Kamtchatka. These
people bear the name of Koliuski, and fix their dwellings on the banks
of the different rivers. Besides an inferior Toion,. they are all subject
to a superior Toion, who is called Ilchak. We were informed by the
natives that this Toion, with 150 of his subjects, exclusive of children,
visited this place in baidars, He has two sons, whose names are Nekchut
and Chink, and his principal residence is on the coast to the south-east,
much farther than the great river Tschitiscak. It borders on the
frontiers of the people called Tfchitskaes, who, like the Koliuski, are
at enmity among themselves, and often assault each other. This Toion
rules over all the Koliuski who inhabit the coast as-far as the Bay of
Yakutat, which is the last place in his dominions. This bay is frozen
later than the end of July."
"The unfinished buildings were left in the care of the toens, and as
a proof of their friendship to us one toen and the son of another, the
chief Toen, arrived here on board the Chichagoff.
I These guests were received by me in the best manner possible, and
will be taken to their homes on board the brig Chichagoff, which will
sail under command of Lieutenant Zarembo to the Straits and to
Stachin in May, for the purpose of completing the buildings, trading, and
awaiting to be relieved by schooner Chilkat, now in construction, and
which I intend to send under command of Second Lieutenant Kusnet-
soff to trade in Chilkat, and thence to Stachin, where she will have to
winter for the greater safety of the new redoubt."
I It is desirable that you should be able to find the Chilkat Kolosh
in their summer places before they leave for hunting expeditions in the
interior ; consequently, finding that it is useless to stay longer at Taku,
sail for Chilkat, and according to the promise given you last year,
trade furs with them, and remain as long as you deem necessary at the
gathering places. On your return trip, stop at such settlements where
you might find furs, also at Hootznoo, and return to Novo Archangelsk,
endeavouring to reach it in June. I beg of you to declare to the
Chilkat and Hootznoo elders, according to the conversation I had in
your presence with Toen Sheksh, that although he begged me that I
Memoranda on
Russian Marine
Map on file in the
Hydrographic
Department of
the Ministry of
Marine at
St. Petersburg,
p. 252.
Voyage of
Ismailof, p.
254.
Report of the
Governor to the
Board of
Directors of the
Russian-
American
Company, April
28th, 1834 (No.
190), p. 266.
The Governor of
the Russian-
American
Company to the
Commander of
the schooner
Chilkat, Second
Lieutenant
Kuznetsoff,
March 30th, 1835
(No. 28), p. 274. Baron Wrangell
to Board of
Directors of the
Russian-American
Company, April
30th, 1835 (No.
134), p. 276.
The Board of
Directors of the
Russian-
American
Company to the
Governor of the
Russian-American
Colonies, Ivan
Antanovich
Kupreyanoff,
March 12th, 1836
(No. 248), p. 291.
The Governor of
the Russian
Colonies in
America to the
Commander of
the bvigChichagoff
Lieut. Zarembo,
March 23rd, 1838
(No. 66), p. 302.
Report of
Governor of
Russian Colonies
in America to the
Board of Directors
of the Russian-
American
Company, April
20th, 1839 (No.
139), p. 312.
Extract from
Tithmeneif's
Historical Review
of the Russian-
American
Company, etc.,
part I., pp. 264-7,
and 313.
Translation of the
Russian
Memorandum
marked AA.,
p. 317;
would order you to take him to Chilkat and Hootznoo for interviews
with the Toens there, I refused his request, as I did not know if it
would be agreeable to those Toens on account of the well-known
quarrel between them and the Stachins."
11 sent with the whaleboat, at all events, for the reinforcement of
the complement of the brig Chichagoff, a six-oared boat with six men,
and to Second Lieutenant Kuznetsoff, commander of the schooner
Chilkat (who was then at Chilkat for trading purposes, and who was to
reconnoitre the mouth of the River Taku), I despatched a courier
with the order to sail immediately for Stakine, and to report to
Lieutenant Zarembo."
" From the report of your predecessor, Baron Wrangell, of April 30th,
No. 135, on the trade with the Kolosh in our Straits, and on the condition of the Dionysius redoubt, the Board of Directors noticed with
pleasure that the scope of our operations increases through acquaintance with Chilkat, and that there is hope of obtaining furs from the
natives of that bay, as well as from those of the Taku Canal discovered
by Mr. Kuznetsoff."
I The purpose of the navigation in the Straits of the brig entrusted
to you, and her stay at the redoubt, is the same as that of last year ;
therefore I will mention here : That in addition to your visit to Kaigan,
Tongas, and other harbours, where you may expect the putting in of
foreign merchantmen, manage so that you may be able this summer to
visit Chilkat and Taku for trading purposes with the inhabitants, and
for the survey and sounding in the proper manner of the mouths of these
rivers (similar to the survey of the River Stachin made last year), so
that it may be possible to judge of the possibility of navigating them, and
also to examine in detail localities worthy of notice for the advantages
of the Company and the navigation of its vessels.
" I do not deem it superfluous to add that, according to information
received by me, the Kolosh of the Kukhantan tribe from Chilkat intend
to come to Stakine this summer for the purpose of avenging the murder
of their tribesmen. Should this be true, I beg of you to take all possible
measures for the reconciliation of the warring parties ; in addition to
your mediation in regard to the establishment of peace, I recommend
that you should see that none of the Russians should in any way whatever take part in or meddle with the affairs of the Kolosh, under
strictest responsibility."
I During last year's stay of the brig Chichagoff at Chilkat, for
trading purposes with the Kolosh, according to my instruction, the
assistant commander of the vessel, pilot Lindenberg, made a survey of
the mouth of the River Chilkat. I have the honour of forwarding to
the Board of Directors the map of this survey and the original journal
kept by Lindenberg, as well as the promised partial map of the
territory occupied by us in the vicinity of the Bay of Bodega, now
called Klebnikof Plains (new ranch), and Chermykh Plains. I deem it
not superfluous for the Board of Directors to possess this map for
greater clearness with regard to this locality."
"For these reasons the fort was built in lat. 54° 40' N. and
long. 132° 10' E. from Greenwich, and was named Fort Dyonisius. In
order to carry on an uninterrupted trade in these regions, it was
necessary, in addition to the fort on the Stachin River, to construct
some fortifications northward to Chilkat Strait, named by Vancouver
Lynn Channel."
" The Russian American Company hardly ever penetrated into the
interior of the continent, and owing to the wild character of its
inhabitants, never established there any settlements ; only for trading
purposes small factories, called redoubts and ' odinotshkas,' were
established along the coast, preferably near the bays and the mouths of
large rivers. These factories generally consist of a roofed yard of
moderate size, in which live the clerk of the company, with a few
workmen out of the pacified natives, and where is stored a small
supply of dried fish and some manufactured goods, wanted for the use
of savages. Such is, in general features, the character of the Russian
American continent." I The greatest trouble I have now is the Hudson Bay Company,
which is allowed by the Convention to navigate freely on rivers falling
into the sea in our possessions, for it is the region neighbouring upon
the rivers which furnishes us with beavers, and not the coast, and
I beg of you that should any other Convention be signed (the term of
the old one having expired), you should solicit that free navigation on
the rivers should at least be limited by the condition that free navigation to the British from the interior to the sea should not be forbidden,
while free navigation from the sea up the rivers should be prohibited.
Of course it would be best not to allow any navigation whatever,
though I think that it will not be possible to manage it. However,
this circumstance will depend upon diplomatic transaction, and, until
further instructions, I will hinder the British by course from sailing up
the Stachin River."
I June 21st. I represented to him that the Treaty between Great
Britain and Russia gave us the right of navigation. To this he replied :
' My instructions are to prevent you, and by these, and not the Treaty,
shall I be guided.' He then remarked : jj In five days my express will
be here from Sitka, and I shall then have the decision of the governor.'
We then separated."
II hastened the more to put this into execution, as news had
reached me that the Hudson Bay Company had likewise the intention
of settling there, as, by the terms of the Convention, the British have
the right to settle on the Stakine River, at a distance of thirty Italian
miles from the sea, and to freely navigate on this river."
I The obvious meaning of the 6th Article of the Treaty is, that
British settlers should have the opportunity of conveying to the sea
the produce of their industry, notwithstanding that the coast itself is
in the possession of Russia; and the undersigned is convinced that the
Government of his Imperial Majesty will not be disposed to sanction,
in opposition to the clear stipulation of the Treaty, the argument put
forward by the Russian Authorities in justification of their conduct,
namely, that the formation of the intended British Establishment
might prove injurious to Russian commerce."
The Treaty recognises no such principle as is involved in that
argument. On the contrary, the 5th Article stipulates that 1 No
establishment shall be formed by either of the two parties within the
limits assigned by the two preceding articles to the possessions of the
other," and it therefore clearly implies that the respective Governments
contemplated the formation of new establishments within their
respective territories ; and the subsequent article secured to all British
Establishments then formed or thereafter to be formed, a free
communication with the ocean through the territories of Russia,"
I The Colonial authorities really never supposed that our protecting Government, in granting special privileges to the Russian
American Company for the assurance of its existence, had also granted
to foreigners such rights and privileges as would inevitably ruin the
Russian American Company and force the Russians out of all the places
on the American Continent. But observing that in the correspondence
with the British Embassy our Government has already acknowledged
the prohibition of entering the Stakine River to be a breach of Article
VI., it would be unreasonable to cite here the reasons which induced
the Colonial authorities to consider it their right to act upon Article
VI. in another than the strictly literal sense of the word."
Nevertheless the Board of Directors of the Russian American
Company is bound to draw attention to the following consideration :—
1. To the ruinous consequences, not only to the prosperity of the
colony, but to the integrity of our Dominions on the continent of
America, if the English be allowed to establish their factories on all the
water courses upon the boundary line, i.e., within ten miles from the
coast.
I This matter was in this state when Baron Wrangell, who had
returned to St. Petersburg from the colonies, undertook to settle it,
provided Mr. Simpson, one of the Directors of the Hudson Bay Company, were appointed a Plenipotentiary on the part of England.    The
Report of the
Governor to the
Board of
Directors of the
Russian American
Company, April
28th, 1834 (No.
190), p. 265.
Report of Chief
Trader P. S.
Ogden of
transactions at
Stakine, 1834,
p. 268.
Baron Wrangell
to the Board of
Directors of the
Russian American
Company, April
30th, 1835 (134),
p. 274.
Lord Durham to
Count Nesselrode,
November 29th &
December 11th,
1835, p. 286.
Board of
Directors of the
Russian American
Company to the
Department of
Trade and
Manufactures,
January 3rd,l 886,
p. 289-90.
The Dryad Affair
Extract from
Tikhmenief's
historical review
of the Russian
American
Company,
pp. 264-270,
p. 315. result of the negotiations, which took place at Hamburg in 1837, with
the Emperor's permission, justified Baron Wrangell's expectations, which
were based upon the belief that Mr. Simpson would be willing, for many
reasons, to any agreement rather than that there should be a rupture of
the friendly relations between the companies. He laboured in person
for many years in the territories of the Hudson Bay Company ; he well
knew how'great an advantage the Russian American Company possessed
over the English in the regions in dispute ; and consequently he could
not help fearing to give the Russians cause to act, in their turn, to the
injury of his own Company."
NOTE ON ACCOUNTS OF RUSSIAN OCCUPATION.
Pp. 251-6 OF U.S. APPENDIX.
U.S. Appendix,
pp. 251-253 : Annexation oe American
Lands by Schelikov.
And American Appendix, pp. 254-256: Voyage op Ismalof.
These two accounts evidently refer to the same voyage. The
second account is extracted from Cox's Russian Discoveries, which
seems to have been compiled from the original reports of the expedition,
and would probably be considered to be more accurate. Schelikov, it
appears, was the chief factor of the Russian American Company. A
Greek merchant, Delatof, was his manager. Delatof fitted out the
expedition, and appointed the pilots Ismailof and Betsharof to take
command of the vessels. In the first narrative, the voyage is attributed
to Schelikov, evidently for the reason that he was the chief factor, under
whose auspices the expedition was sent out ; but it appears that he did
not go himself. The two narratives agree closely as to dates, June,
1788, and as to incidents. The following important discrepancy
between the accounts is, however, noted. In the first account it is said
that the tribe which he met at Yakutat obey a chief who lives near a
large river called the Chilcate, southwards from the Bay Ltua. In the
second account it is said that this chief, named Ilchak, had his
principal residence on the coast to the south-east, much farther than
the great river Tschitiskat, and that it (the residence) borders on the
frontiers of the people called Tfchitskames. The word Tschitiskat
appears to be the same as Chilkat, and the name of the bordering
people, Pfschitskames,'the same as Stickeens. On the 15th of June it
is stated that this chief Ilchak arrived at Yakutat and visited the ship,
where he was presented with a Russian coat of arms.
On page 256 of the United States Appendix, Doctor Krause's
account states that chief Ilchak belonged at the great River Tschilkat,
but he had come to the Bay with a number of his tribe for the purpose
of trading. This differs from both of the preceding accounts. In
the first account he is said to live near a large river, Chilkate, and in
the second to live on the south-east, much farther than the great river
Tschitiskat.
The ceremony of the proffering of allegiance was as follows :—
Admitted into the cabin of the ship, he was shown the portraits of
the Empress, the Great Duke and the Great Duchess, and of others of
the royal family of Russia. Explanation was given of the vast extent
of the Russian Empire, which submitted to the power of these illustrious personages. The chief is said to have heard this explanation
with veneration and astonishment. After this one of the copper coats
of arms was given to the chief, who was requested to wear it upon the
forepart of his garment, as it would serve as a mark of fidelity, and
protect his subjects against all foreign ships. The chief received the
coat of arms with extreme joy, and returned home. On the following
day he returned to the ship, wearing the coat of arms on his mantle.
On this occasion, at his request, he was presented with  a portrait of the Great Duke, upon which was written a suitable inscription. The
chief is said to have received this portrait with extreme satisfaction and
with an ecstatic shriek. In return he gave, as a proof of his subjection
to Russia, an iron image of a crow's head and certain other curios.
SUMMARY OF CONTENTS
OF  PAPERS RELATING TO AMERICAN  OCCUPATION.
This  branch of the Appendix  is  opened  with a report of the Report of Adj.-
Adjutant-General, who states that the first troops that were ordered to Gen- Washington,
AIqoL-q  awisieWl nf 975 mpm   rank a.nrl fiW       A   nost. was Ps+.fl.Klishf.rl M March 31st, 1903,
Alaska consisted of 275 men, rank and file. A post was established at
Sitka, October 29th, 1867. During the next three years Forts Kenay,
Kodiak, Tongas and Wrangell were established. In the last two years
of the military occupation Sitka and Fort Wrangell only were
maintained. The troops were finally withdrawn from Alaskan
territory on June 14th, 1877. The reason for withdrawing them was
that order could be more economically and more efficiently exercised by
naval and revenue vessels. The troops were withdrawn under general
order, April 23rd, 1877.
From the Secretary of War to General Sherman.
The revenue cutters afterwards sent were the Richard Rush and
Thomas Corwin, and, later on, the Oliver Wolcott. The report then
refers to the appended extracts and official correspondence of the
Adjutant-General's department relating to the operations of the military
authorities in the territory, and especially those connected with the
Indians on the mainland of south-eastern Alaska.
The first letter in the official correspondence is one from H. W.
Halleck, Major-General, commanding the military division of the
Pacific, to Colonel Scott, who is instructed to collect information in
regard to the tribe of Indians " on and near the boundary between
British Columbia and the Russian-American possessions." He is
instructed to show his information to Governor Seymour, British
Columbia, and to assure him of the earnest desire of the United States
to maintain peaceful relations " with the native tribes in his colony, as
well as in our own territory." He is asked to inquire into the matter
of establishing a military post within United States territory " on the
north side of Portland Canal," also to report on the advisability of
establishing a post on the Stikine River, and on the measures taken by
the British Columbia authorities to maintain peace between the Indians
and whites. Should time permit, he was to extend his investigations
" to the tribal Indians who occupy the islands and coast, east of
Sitka."
Colonel Scott reports that he visited Victoria, New Westminster,
and Fort Simpson in British Columbia, and afterwards extended his
journey "to the north side of Portland Channel—in our new
territory." He incloses exhibit "A" showing the numbers and location
of the Indians " on and near the boundary between British Columbia
and the Russian-American possessions," stating that for this information
he is mainly indebted to Mr. Cunningham, the Hudson Bay Company's
agent, on Naas River, whom he met at Fort Simpson. The total number
of British Indians on or near the boundary he estimates at 6,800—
United States tribes on and near the line 2,000.
These facts especially show that Colonel Scott made a census of
British as well as United States Indians, and that the census included
more than three times as many British as United States Indians.
He points out that the Kakes, Stikeens, Hydahs, Chimpsains,
Tongass, Cape Fox, and other tribes, congregate on Portland Channel
and the Naas River to trade with each other and the whites, and he
incidentally remarks that the liquor trade is generally carried on on the
United States side of the boundary.
345-6.
Instructions to
Lieut.-Col.
Robert N. Scott,
San Francisco,
Sept. 3rd, 1867,
pp 34S-7.
Colonel Scott's
report on the
Indians, San
Francisco,
November 12th,
1867, pp. 347-51. Inclosure («).
Indians living on
or near the
boundary between
British Columbia
and the Russian-
American
territory recently
ceded to the
United States.
General Davis's
instructions from
Major-General
Halleck, Sept.
6th, 1867, p. 353,
He incloses exhibit "B," showing the number and location of the
Indians on the islands east and south of Sitka, and on the mainland
from Cape Spencer to Portland Channel. These tribes, he remarks,
I live along the shores of the various bays, rivers, and inlets." He
recommends that a show of military power be made at the earliest
practicable moment to the Kakes, Hunnos, Chilcats, and Hoods na hoos.
He hesitates about expressing an opinion where the post should be
established, whether on or near the mouth of the Stikine. He remarks
I that it is an important channel of trade with the Indians in the
British possessions—through to the headwaters of the Naas and Skeena
Rivers." He incloses a sketch of a suitable site for a post, which sketch
is not published in the United States case. He again refers to the
Portland Channel as an important inlet for trade with the interior tribes,
and says, " I crossed over from Fort Simpson to our own territory in
search of a site suitable for a military station. I believe the most
suitable place to be Tongass Island." A sketch (Inclosure C) should
appear with this letter, but it is not printed. He mentions a letter from
Governor Seymour (Inclosure D), which is not printed with the case,
also the copy of a note written by him to Dr. Tohnie, which also is not
printed; also a letter to Mr. Duncan of Met-la-kaht-la. He analyses
at some length the causes of the great success attendant on the Indian
policy of the Hudson Bay Company and the British Government, and
adds, that as most of the United States trading with Alaska will be by
the inside passage along the coast of British Columbia, he has collected
information with regard to the Indians living on and near that route.
Information contained in Inclosure G is not printed in the United
States Appendix.
In footnote (a), Colonel Scott explains that in this he includes all
Indians who are within easy access to Portland Channel, or within an
area of 60 miles north and south of that inlet.
In paragraph 3 of the inclosure, he states that Mr. Cunningham,
the Naas trader for the Hudson Bay Company, was at Fort Simpson
while he was there, and " kindly furnished such information as I
possess with reference to tribes on that and the Skeena River." In the
last paragraph he gives the population of the Stikeens. He says, "I
cannot say how many of the river Stikeens are in our territory.
Captain Coffin reports, however, that there is a Russian boundary
monument on that river, about 135 miles from its mouth, marking a
point 10 marine leagues from the coast."
In an Inclosure or Schedule B, he says with regard to the
Chilcahs, " At the head of Lynn Canal and mouth of the Chilcah
River, number at least 1,200 souls. Thsy are proud and independent
in manner and are said to cherish peculiar hatred to Americans. About
70 of their forefathers were killed about 60 years ago by the crew of an
American brig, and a desire for revenge is still cherished by them."
All through this report and schedule the Indians are treated as
British and United States tribes, and it is not stated that any Indians
on the lisi&re are the United States Indians.
General Davis is notified of his appointment to the command of
the military district of Alaska, and instructed to assume control of the
two Companies about to embark for Sitka. The paragraphs of the
instructions from 2-16 are omitted. In paragraph 17 he is told,
in the absence of any organised civil territorial government, and so
far as our laws authorise or permit, to protect the aboriginal tribes from
abuse and regulate their trade with United States citizens. He is clearly
informed that he has no power to make treaties, and that he must
enter into no negotiations or attempt to bind the Government to any
contracts or agreements without special authority and special
instructions.
In paragraph 18 he is told to consult with the Russian Government
and officers in regard to regulating the intercourse of the Indians on
Barranoff and the." adjacent islands and coast" with the settlement of
Sitka, and to enforce, 1 both with regard to the whites and the natives,
such regulations as you may deem necessary to adopt with regard to
these Indians and their intercourse with our people."
^ In paragraph 18, therefore, with a view to the regulation of trade,
General Davis was given a free hand to adopt such regulations as he
thought advisable.
The rest of the instructions contained in this letter are omitted
from the United States case.
The opening portion of the letter is omitted. General Davis first
points out that he has been unable to visit any of the tribes for want
of transportation, but that many of the chiefs have been to see hiro,
and have expressed a desire that he ,should visit them | with a big
ship." He points out that the Chilcot chiefs from Chatham Straits,
visited Sitka about two weeks previous, and apologised for their past
conduct towards the whites. They insisted on his going to see themT
so that they might convince him of their sincere desire to cultivate
friendly relations. They hesitated about agreeing to his proposition
to establish a post of troops among them, but were to give a further
reply in a month. He adds, " they have thus far persistently resisted
all attempts of the whites to locate among them. I can learn of
no expeditions having been made up the Chilcot River by the whites,
yet it is the most direct, and I think the most practicable, route to the
Yukon." Should another company be sent, he recommends that a post
should be established on Lynn Canal. He also reports interviews
with Taku chiefs and a Stikeen chief. The first desire to trade and
cultivate peaceful relations with the United States. The Stikeen chief
expressed himself most satisfied with the presence of the United States
troops in his vicinity. His object in making a visit, however, was to
make peace with the Sitkas. General Davis appears to have made
some friendly intercession, " but the Sitkas were implacable." The rest
of the report is not printed in the United States Appendix.
All that appears from this report is that the Indians regarded
General Davis as a stranger with whom they desired to trade and cultivate peaceful relations.
This report simply points out that the General searched for a
vessel in Lynn Channel, and found the vessel wrecked, but the crew all
saved. He then proceeded to the mouth of the Chilcot River, and had
an interview with a number of sub-chiefe and others of the tribe, who
desired " to have us come among them and trade with them." He
expresses his belief that he could make arrangements with the Cbilkats
to send an exploring party up the Chilkat River to the Yukon, and
adds, I this country has never, to my knowledge, been explored.§
The first and latter portions of the report are omitted in the United
States Appendix.
This letter is immaterial, merely pointing out that Indian chiefs
from adjacent islands, as well as the Chilkat and Takus, have been on
trading expeditions to Sitka recently, and seemed well disposed
towards him.
The first and last portions of the report are omitted.
The first and last portions of the report are omitted. The report
recounts the visit of chief Cholckeka, the principal chief of the
Chilcots. I A very haughty and imperious man," he was confined in
the guard house for insubordination. The General remarks that "I
think I have got him in the right place, and will endeavour to bring
him to a proper understanding of the authority of the United
States."
The opening portion of the report is omitted. General Davis
simply states that the Chilkat chief appeared to be repenting, and
remarks that the Saginaw will leave for a cruise in Chatham Straits,
and, if necessary, will pay the Chilkat country a visit.
An immaterial extract, stating that the special commissioner ons
Indian affairs is making an extended visit among the Indians " in this
department."
The opening and closing portions of the report are omitted.
The opening and closing portions of the report are omitted.
Reports from
General Davis,
Sitka, Alaska,
May 27th, 1868,
pp. 354-5.
Second Report,
August 3rd, 1868,
p. 355.
No. 3, Sitka,
December 21st,
1868, pp. 355-6.
No. 4, Sitka,
January 5th,
1869, p. 356.
Na 5, Sitka,
January 10th,
1869, p. 356.
No. 6, Sitka,
October 25th,
1869, p. 357.
No. 7, Alaska,
August 20th,
1870, pp. 357-8 Report of
Maj or-General
George H.Thomas
San Francisco,
Sept. 27th, 1869,
pp. 358-9.
General Howard's
Tour in Alaska,
Portland, June
30th, 1875,
pp. 359-60.
General Davis reports that, within the past few months, he has
visited " most of the tribes living? on the islands forming; the Alexandrian
Archipelago, as well as the mainland east and north of them, from Fort
Tongass to the Taku and Chilcat Rivers," and other places. The United
States war sloop Cyane, he reports, " cannot cruise in our inland waters
where the Indians live." He alludes to revenue cutters which have
been of service in suppressing illicit trade and helping the military to
look after the Indians when called upon, and particularly mentions the
cutter Lincoln.
The rest of the report is omitted.
The opening portion is omitted. He mentions Fort Tongass as
being " on the boundary between Alaska and British Columbia." The
Stakeen River, he says, " is one of the channels of communication of
the Hudson Bay Company to their post in British Columbia, east of
Alaska.'
Instructions are given for punishing some Cape Fox Indians for
robbing a white trader, but the Cape Fox Indians are not within
Canadian territory except under the Behm Canal contention.
The first portion omitted. General Howard reports that the
Stickeen Indians came to complain of the death of their chief Fernan-
deste, who committed suicide on being imprisoned, and demanded a
settlement. The settlement was arranged by returning the body of
Fernandeste, and one hundred blankets.
Referring to the Stickeen River he says, " The next day * * *
I took our party up the Stickeen River as far as the boundary between
our territory and British Columbia," and adds, " the place for the
English Custom-house officers' tent is supposed to be selected within
the British line. Some of our shrewd frontiersmen say that it is not
within ten marine leagues from the sea, as it should be, there being
really doubt as to the summit of the coast range of mountains. I took
a copy of the statement of the boundary line as published in an English
journal (see paper attached, marked " A "). It seems now to an observer
of little consequence among these rough mountains where the exact
line of division really is ; but remembering the trouble the settlement of
the channel question gave us at Vancouver Island, I deem it of sufficient importance to recommend that the attention of the proper department be called to the existing doubt not plainly settled by the treaty,
that the line may be definitely fixed."
A portion of the report is then omitted. The General further
reports that on June 16th he anchored at the mouth of the Chilcat
River, and makes some observations on some Chilcats who were
paddling around the steamer ; he says he is informed by the Sitka-Jack
" that the main Chilcat ranches are some 15 or 16 miles further up."
The remainder of the report is omitted.
Acting Secretary
of the Navy,'to
the Secretary of
State, Washington
April 6th, 1903,
p. 361.
OPERATIONS   OF  THE  NAVY.
The Acting Secretary sends extracts from the official correspondence
and other records of the Navy Department relating to the operations of
naval officials and vessels of the CJnited States in Alaska, and
particularly the inlets of the mainland in south-eastern Alaska since
the, cession from Russia. He says the United States vessels were
% especially frequent in then visits to the mouth of the Stikine River,
to Taku Inlet and River, Lynn Canal, the inlets at the head of that
canal, and the streams emptying into those inlets."    *    *    *
In these services they frequently despatched armed parties up the
Chilcoot and Chilcat Rivers, and to the mountain passes beyond the
head of the inlets of Lynn Canal.
1 For some years it was the practice to have the naval vessels
stationed in Lynn Canal for the preservation of order, as indicated by
the vessels' logs inclosed, during which time they also maintained
stations on shore for practice, and made surveys of the inlets and
rivers."
■T Reports a difficulty on New Year's night with some Chilcat
Indians headed by their chief. The Chilcat chief was placed in the
guard-house. He points out that their villages are remote from the
sea, and men-of-war cannot get near enough to shell them. The
remaining portions of the report are omitted.
Briefly reports visits to islands and ports along north-west coast,
and a visit to Pyramid Harbour at the mouth of Schillcat River, and
states that plans were made of the places visited, except Souloy Bay.
The letter head reads, " Flag-ship Saranac, off Chilcat Village,
Headwaters of the Inland Navigation, Alaska." The writer states that
■en route he availed himself of every opportunity to have friendly talks
with the Alaskan Indians, so that they might be impressed with the
importance of being on good terms with the United States. Suggests
that a small steamer should be attached to the squadron which can
visit the inland waters frequently, keep the Indians quiet, and obtain
valuable hydrographic information.
States that he had been asked by the Stickine chief to bring about
a reconciliation with the Chilcats, and that on his recent visit he talked
the matter over with the chief of the Chilcats, and found him ready to
bury the hatchet, and that afterwards a delegation of the chiefs
requested the commander of the Saranac, on his return to the Stickines
at Etolin, to state that they were coming for the amicable settlement
of their difficulties.
First and latter part of the letter omitted.
Submits a report under orders of the department, dated
November 17th, 1879. Incloses a letter from the Secretary of the
Navy to himself, in which the former speaks of the " condition of the
people of all classes in that country, where no law existed," etc. Then
follows Captain Beardslee's report. He points out that at the time his
ship, the Jamestown, was placed in commission, May 8th, 1879, there
was 1 no governing power or code of laws in existence in the territory,"
and that he was to use his
might arise."
He points out too that he made no effort to enforce the revised
statutes bearing on Indian affairs, as they pre-supposed a different
condition of affairs from that prevailing in Alaska. The Indians, therefore, were not dealt with according to law.
He then deals with the opening of the Chilkat and Chilkoot
country to the whites, and refers to his former despatch of October 5th,
1879. In September news reached Sitka of a fight between two
families of the Chilcats, in wrhich Klotz-kutch, the chief of the tribe,
was wounded. He claims that the Indians in his employ prevented the
usual excitement and sprees following an event of this kind, and
organized an expedition to visit the Chilkat country, and that he helped
organize the expedition, and provisioned it, on condition that those
going were to do their best to prevent trouble. They were to report
to Klotz-kutch, and say they had been sent to "help him keep his
people in order," and that in return he would be expected to secure
good treatment for white men, and let miners go into the interior.
On the 12th February, 1880, they returned with an invitation
from Klotz-kutch for the white miners to go and promises of a welcome.
Afterwards a public meeting was held at Sitka, at which the expedition
was organized, and Commander Beardslee agreed to furnish letters of
introduction, and an escort. In his letter to the chief of the Chilcats,
Beardslee refers to their invitation as an invitation to the white men to
come and prospect your country. The expedition left with Lieutenant
McClellan on May 20th. They were to proceed to the Chilcat village,
and tell the chiefs that they had come in answer to the invitation, and
expected to be treated hospitably, and if the Indians were hostile, no
Indians would be " allowed to land at Sitka for trade or other purposes "
in the future, and that those in Sitka would not be given employment. He
was then to visit the Kootznoo settlement on Admiralty Island, who
recently fought with the Stickeens, and made it plain to them that
own discretion in all emergencies that
Richard W.Meade
to Rear-Admiral
T. T. Craven,
U.S. S. Saginaw,
Sitka, Jan. 7th,
1869, p. 362.
The same to the
same, Sitka. Feb.
1st, 1869, p. 362.
A. M. Pennock,
Rear-Admiral
commanding U.S.
Naval force on
North Pacific
Station, to the
Secretary of the
Navy, July 31st,
1873, pp. 362-377.
The same to the
same, Port
Townsend, Aug.
31st, 1873, p. 363.
Captain L. A.
Beardslee to the
Secretary of the
Navy, Washington, April 28th,
1881, p. 363. 10
Wrangell was a town belonging to the United States, and that no
fighting would be permitted in its vicinity. Should the Chilkhats not
prove friendly he was, " after exhausting all amicable means, to return";
in no case was he to make any promises.
The launch returned to the ship on June 5th, and reported that
the Chilcat country was open to the whites. On June 10th, 1880,
Commander Beardslee sent a present to Klotz-kutch, telling him that
the Great Father in "Washington was Father of the Alaskan Indians
and white men, and that the Indians should be friendly with the white
men, as they could make money out of them. The present was a pipe,
which the chief was asked to regard as a pipe of peace to be smoked at
pow-wows with his white friends. Lieutenant McClellan visited
Kootz-noo, and got the Indians to promise that they would not fight at
Wrangell; he gave them permission to whip the Stahkines if they came
to their neighbourhood.
He then proceeds to recount a visit made to the Chilcats in answer
to a message from Klotz-kutch, telling: him that some white men who-
had joined McClellan's expedition had broken through the undertaking
not to trade, and the Indians would probably kill them.
With Major Morris, representative of the Treasury, the trip was
made, and results reported to the Navy Department in a despatch
dated at Sitka, September 1st, 1880. This despatch states that the
objects of the trip were :—
(1) To visit the Hoonah villages in Cross Sound and prevent a
threatened war between the Hoonahs and the British Columbian
Indians of Fort Simpson.
(2) To visit the Kootznoos on Admiralty Island, and prevent
trouble between them and the Stickienes at Wrangell.
(3) To visit the Chilkhat country " for the purpose of strengthening
and encouraging that tribe and the Chilkhoots in their advanced step of
opening their country to miners and traders," and generally to interview
as many as possible of the leading tribes, and establish with them a
feeling which would cause them to receive the whites with favour and
treat them friendly.
The expedition proceeded up Lynn Canal for Chilkat, and arrived
there just in time to find hostilities commencing between the Chilkats
and Chilkoots. Steps were also taken to smooth over the difficulty
caused by Mr. Steele, who had joined McClellan's party, who was not
bound by the term not to trade, and who the Indians alleged was-
beginning to trade with the interior Indians. The difficulty between
Steele and the Indians was adjusted, but Captain Beardslee refused to-
discuss the war until the Chilkoots should be present.
On August 25th, a canoe came down from Chilkoot, with the
American flag flying, and in her were several Chilkat chiefs. A solemn
conference then took place at which Klotz-kutch and Colchica, chiefs
of the main Chilkhoot village, and Danawak, chief of the lower Chilkoot
village, Karskarz, chief of the Chilkhoot village, and Danawak's brother
were present. Commander Beardslee told the Indians that he had
come to protect the whites | and Indians who desired it," and pointed
out that he had settled the troubles between the Kootznoos and
Stickienes, the Hoonahs and Sim-Sims, and the Chilkhats and Chilkhoots,
but that unless the present war was stopped, they would return,,
and white men would no longer come past Cross Sound. The Indians
then asked Commander Beardslee and his party to act as arbitrators, but
they refused to do so, saying : " We know that you Indians have laws,,
and that by them this dispute can be settled better by your chiefs in
cool, deliberate council."
Commander Beardslee then refers to the reports of his successor,.
Commander Glass. From these it appears that in September, 1879,
Lieutenant Symonds continued the system of survey begun by Mr.
Hanus, and that he visited the Chilkat village and found that Klotz-
kutch   had  paid  the  blankets   promised.    He  adds:   " Among  the
■F 11
important results of this second trip in the Favorite was the hydro-
graphic work embodied in Chart and Hydrographic Notice 98, and the
locating of the Chilkat villages, which he finds are beyond doubt in
the United States territory; he also obtained a census of the Chilkhats
and Chilkhoots, which shows that their numbers have been overestimated."
A hydrographic Notice No. 98, of 1880, is appended, and gives a
detailed description of Chilcat inlet and river, Chilcoot Inlet and the
Chilcat, Chilcoot and interior tribes.
At the end of this report, Lieutenant Symonds points out that the
N. W. T. Company has established a trading post at Portage
Bay, Chilcoot Inlet, and the Presbyterian Mission has taken steps
to build a Church school and mission.
A great many portions of the report are omitted.
This letter deals with some efforts to bring about peace between
the Stickines and Hoochenoos.
Several portions of it are omitted.
Reports having made, treaties between the Stickeens and Hoochenoo
tribes, and Stickeens and Sitkas, and extracts from copies of the treaties
are inclosed. In both treaties the tribes agree that in case of disputes
which they cannot settle, to refer them to arbitration of the Senior
Officer of the United States in the territory.
This letter is simply formal, acknowledging the receipt' of the
former, stating that it has been forwarded to the Secretary of the
Interior.
States that he sent letters to the leading chiefs of the tribes in southeastern Alaska directing them to set free their slaves, and that on a
recent visit to the mining region he saw the chiefs of two of the tribes
and was assured of compliance with his order.
Reports that on the 14th June having heard of an outbreak among
the Chilkats, in which several Indians were killed, he sent to the principal
village an officer with a party of marines to investigate and take action
to stop the fighting if possible, and invite the leading men to Sitka to
make some sort of terms. This is followed by a report of the officer,
Master G. C. Hanus. This party proceeded 25 miles up the Chilcat
River to the lower village, to reconcile the two tribes, the Crows and the
Whales, and he effected a settlement between them on a financial
basis.
This letter tells of an occasion on which Commander Lull brought
about a settlement between the Whales and Crows of the Chilcat tribe,
and refers to the settlement between the Kootznoos and Auks by the
voluntary act of the former. He also points out that the villages of
the Chilcats are about 25 miles beyond the reach of ship up rapid and
shallow river.
Several portions of the letter are omitted.
Refers to a murder by a Stickene Indian at Juneau of his wife, who is
one of the Chilcats. The Chilcats were furious for revenge, but had
consented to await his action.
The commander declared his intention of having the defendant
tried by the Alaskan Court or the Court of Oregon.
There are several omissions from this letter. As the crime seems
to have been committed at Juneau, the letter would appear to be
immaterial.
Reports turning over the above prisoner to the United States
marshal. He is subsequently returned to the marine guard at the
request of the governor.
Other portions of letter left out.
From this letter and note (6) it appears that the Pinta was
stationed at Chilcoot Inlet, at head of Lynn Canal, from April 27th to
June 18th, 1886, to prevent trouble between the miners and the
Indians.
Mr. Woodworth
to Commander
Glass, U.S.S.
Jamestown, Sitka,
March 3rd, 1881,
p. 377.
Commander Glass
to the Secretary
of the Navy,
U.S.S. Ja/mestown,
Sitka, April 6 th,
1881, p. 378.
The Secretary of
the Navy to
Commander Glass,
May 6th, 1881, p.
378.
Commander Glass
to the Secretary
of the Navy,
U. S. S. Ja/mestown,
Sitka. May 9th,
1881, p. 379.
The same to the
same, Sitka, July
9th, 1881, pp.
379-382.
Commander Lull
to the Secretary
of the Navy,
U.S.S.  Waohusett,
September 8th,
1881, p. 382-3.
Commander
Coghlan to the
Secretary of the
Navy, U.S.S.
Adams, Sitka,
July 11th, 1884,
pp. 382-3.
Commander
Nichols to the
Secretary of the
Navy, U.S.S.
Pinta, Sitka, Sep.
20th, 1884, p.
383.
The same to the
officer of Detail
U.S.S. Pinta,
Juneau, June 8th,
1886, p. 383. 12
Mr. Hahn and
others to Governor
Swineford,
December 21st,
1886, p. 384.
Lieutenant
Commander
Newell to the
Secretary of the
Navy, U.S.S.
Pinta, Juneau,
May 18th, 1887,
p. 384.
The same to
Governor
Swineford, Pinta,
Juneau,
May 23rd, 1887,
pp. 387-8.
The same to the
Secretary of the
Navy, Juneau,
May 24th, 1887,
p. 388.
Governor
Swineford to
Lieutenant
Commander
Newell, Sitka,
June 1st, 1887,
p. 388.
Requests that the Pinta be stationed at Chilcoot to prevent
trouble with Chilcoot or other Indians, and avoid " such trouble as we
had last season."
Points out that on the 22nd of April he anchored in Portage
Cove, Chilcoot Inlet, where he remained till the 2nd of May, when he
took the vessel to the head of Taiya Inlet for the day. On the 9th of
May he left Portage Cove and anchored in Pyramid Harbour, Chilkat
Inlet. Mentions having visited nearly all the anchorages between
Sitka, Chilcoot and Juneau " to show the vessel at all Indian settlements, also for the information of the officers and nvyself."
Reports that on April 29th, a large party of Chilkat Indians
proceeded from Portage Cove to their village, about 40 miles up the
Chilkat River, on a trading expedition to the interior, and that he had
heard that the Chilcoots refused to allow them to pack.
On May 1st a party of Chilcoot Indians came down from the head
of the inlet to Portage Cove, and interviewed him, thinking that he
intended to arrest them. He assured them that this was not the case,
and took them up in his vessel to the head of the inlet. He points out
that the Pinta was the largest vessel, and the first man-of-war that
ever ascended the inlet, which is navigable for about 13 miles. He
informed the Indians that the vessel was there in the interest of both
Indians and Whites, to maintain order, so that anyone could work who
wanted.
Reports a dispute between the Indians and the white men as to
the right of the latter to use the Chilcoot trail without pay, and states
that it is his intention to examine into the question, and submit a
report from officers and statement of Indians to the Court. He
remarks, " there being no civil officers of the Government within
100 miles of Chilcoot, and the knowledge of the civil government, I
have informed the Indians that I would submit the question for them."
Reports a visit by Lieut. Emmons and a party to Klokwan, the
head village of the Chilkat Indians, " the largest and most powerful
tribe in that part of Alaska," that point not having been visited by any
naval officers for seven years, and very seldom by white people.
Refers to extract from this report, Appendix, page 406. Emmons'
expedition was a failure. On May 1st they met a summer village of
Indians, " who, though not opposing their advance, discouraged their
proceeding farther, and strongly manifested a feeling against their
advancing.   They would not in any way assist them."
Upon the return of the vessel from the head of Taiya Inlet, the son
of the Chilkat chief came and apologized for the action of the Indians
at the summer village. The party left again on May 3rd, and returned
on the 6th, having been cordially received and treated; they were
accompanied by the members of the family of the chief Chartrich.
Chartrich objected to the Indians being paid at the fish cannery by
traders' tickets, and wanted coin instead. Lieutenant Newell interviewed the former, and found out that this was going to be done. He
reports that about 200 miners had crossed the trail into the Yukon.
A good many portions of the report are omitted.
Reports Chartrich's wish that the sale of molasses by the traders at
Juneau to the Indians should be stopped.
Encloses report of Emmons' visit to Klakwan, and states that the
village is not fortified, and is accessible by water ; also mentions desires
of Chartrich as to sale of molasses.
Remainder of letter omitted.
Points out that he has no power under
sale of molasses, but that he will request the
from the sale, and leave them to heed the
may see fit.
The rest of the letter omitted.
the law to prevent the
Juneau traders to desist
request or not as they 13
The opening and closing portions of the letter omitted. Refers to
a report that trouble is brewing with the natives at the mouth of the
Junoc (Unuk) River, which he believes empties into Behm's Canal,
.about 40 miles above Loring, and expresses his opinion that the miners
are in need of protection.
Incloses a letter from Max Pracht, Superintendent Alaska Salmon
Packing and Fur Company, Loring, May 27th, 1887, on behalf of two
citizens of Burrough's Bay, mouth of Juneau River, complaining that
the miners and prospectors for the last few years have been prevented
from opening up the rich placer diggings of Juneau River (Junoc or
Unuk) by a self styled local Tyee, a Siwash called " Johnson Old Man,"
who prevented the ascent of the stream by miners, and threatened to
clean out all those living on the territory including Burrough's Bay,
and all that portion of the Juneau River within the boundary of Alaska,
and that portion of Behm's Channel bounding Revilla Gigedo Island
upon the east, and extending from the southern extremity of Hassler
Island to the northern extremity of Revilla Gigedo Island, a distance of
about eighty miles. He further points out that the Johnsons do not
live on this vast stretch of country, but at Cape Fox Town ; he claims it
as hunting grounds, and asks that a warship be sent to intimidate the
Indians.
Acknowledges receipt of Governor's letter re Max Pracht, and offers
him passage on his vessel to visit settlements in south-eastern Alaska.
Rest of letter omitted.
Reports that the Pinta left Juneau May 26th, and proceeded to
Portage Cove, Chilcoot Inlet, and then to Taiya Inlet, where she
remained till June 8th, and, " while at the head of Taiya Inlet a party
was sent over the trail leading into the Yukon valley as far as the
summit, the boundary between Alaska and British America," and incloses
a report of the senior officer, Lieut. A. McCrackin. Refers to page 399
of Appendix, says that from Portage Cove to the head of Taiya Inlet, he
gave passage to Mr. S. Ripinsky, a Government school teacher at Haines,
and from the head of Taiya Inlet to Portage Cove he carried Ripinsky
and the family of George Dickinson. At Portage Cove he met the
American Survey Company, under W. Ogilvie, and towed their baggage
to the head of Taiya Inlet. The Dawson branch of the Ogilvie party
was to proceed up the Stikeen River, and cross to one of the branches
of the Yukon. The Ogilvie party started from Pyramid Island, Chilcat
Inlet—the astronomical position of this island having been determined
by the Coast Survey in 1869, "having previously asked authority from
me to begin these, which request I cheerfully granted—and worked
across the portage to Portage Cove ; thence up Taiya Inlet, intending
to follow the Indian trail over the mountains to Yukon."
The same to the
same, Sitka,
June 1st, 1887,
p. 389.
The same to the
same, June 21st,
1887, p. 390.
is here omitted,
a British subject,
The writer then points
is prospecting over the
A portion of the letter
out I that William Moore,
Indian trails with a view to making: a better road to the interior : he
informs me that he has a concession from the Canadian Government to
build one." He further points out that the Stick Indians, inhabiting
the interior, are British subjects, and that they want to " come over
into this territory and want to pack over the trails. It would be better
if they confined themselves to their own territory, which begins at the
summit of the divide."
The remainder of the letter omitted.
Encloses a report of Lieut. A. McCrackin upon the Indian trail from
tide water at the head of Taiya Inlet into the interior, and states that
it is his intention to present this report and Claanot's statement to the
civil authorities to obtain information on the claims of the Indians
over the trail.
Remarks that the Schulze Cove is about one mile from head water of
the Taiya River, and is inhabited during the packing season by the
Chilkots, but that there are now in the village a few Stick Indians,
who have come out from the interior.
Lieutenant
Commander
Newell to
Governor
Swineford, Pinta,
Sitka, June 23rd,
1887, p. 390.
Lieutenant
Commander
Newell to the
Secretary of the
Navy, Pinta,
Sitka, June 16th,
1887, pp. 391-2.
The same to the
same, Pinta,
Sitka, June 16th,
1887, p. 392.
Report of
Lieutenant
McCrackin's trip
over the Chilkoot
Trail, Schulze
Cove, June 11th,
1887, pp. 392-5. 14
Lieutenant
Commander
Newell to
Governor
Swineford, Pinta,
Sitka, June 20th,
1887, p. 395.
Mr. Grant to
lieutenant
Commander
Newell, Sitka,
March 1st, 1888,
pp. 395-6.
Extracts from
logs of United
States naval
vessels on duty in
Alaskan waters,
from July 31st,
1873, to July
18th, 1891,
pp. 396-9.
They find that although formerly the Chilkoots did not permit
any others to use the trail, now the Stick Indians are allowed to
bring their furs over. Could not find that Claanot had charged toll in
any case for which work had been done on the trail. " Told me that
the Chilkoots did not interfere with their trading with the white men,
but he said that the Sticks did not feel free to pack over the trail
without the permission of the Chilkoots." Remarks that a vessel
stationed in Taiya Inlet, or a company in the village, would keep the
trail and the Chilkoots in subjection.
Remarks that the summit is the highest land on the trail, and is
| probably on the boundary line between Alaska and British America,"
and for that reason his party did not go beyond it except to look at
Crater Lake.
Incloses " Exhibit A," his instructions, which required that his trip
should not extend beyond the boundary line between Alaska and
British America.
Incloses "Exhibit B," Claanot's protest against Mr. J. Haley's
attempt to monopolise the packing over the trail, and adds, " my tribe
claims the winter trail over the River ' Schkat-Quay' [Skagway].
We have three trails to the Yukon, and we claim all of them."
States that he has never asked toll from any person.
Incloses Claanot's protest and McCrackin's report.
This is an opinion by the District Attorney on the rights of the
Indians with regard to the Chilkoot trail. Mr. Grant seems to think
that the Indians have some equitable right for protection. It is
impossible to tell what his opinion is, in any case it seems to be of no
relevancy.
From this it appears that on July 31st, 1873, a chief of the
Chilcat tribe of Indians visited the Saranac on Augfust 23rd, 1881,
one of the principal chiefs of the Chilcats visited the Wachusetts,
and later a Chilkat chief, with several sub-chiefs, went on board the
same vessel. On August 25th, 1881, two chiefs from Chilcat went
aboard the same vessel, taking passage to Sitka. On August 29th, at
anchor, off Sitka, a conference was held between Chilcat and Sitka
chiefs. At the same anchorage, on August 30th, the same delegation
met on board to stop troubles arising between them, and to receive
from the Commanding Officer his decision as to the terms of settlement.
On April 22nd, 1884, the boats of the Adams were surveying Bartlett's
Cove, Glacier Bay, which is outside the boundary claimed by Canada.
The Adams made passage to Barton Cove, stood down Chilcoot Inlet, out
of Chilcoot Harbour. Engaged in taking bearings for survey of Lynn
Canal. On May 20th, 1885, when the Pinta was at anchor at Portage
Cove in Chilcoot Inlet, on the way to Juneau, the first and second chiefs
of the Chilcat tribe having been sent over by the commanding officer,
came aboard ship for the purpose of explaining the late trouble between
Indians and miners. Mr. Willard, missionary at Haines, also came,
and an amicable settlement was arranged. On December 24th, 1885,
a party of United States officials boarded the Pinta for a trip to
Shakan and return. On April 25th, 1886, while the Pinta was anchored
at Juneau, she took aboard some mining outfits for transportation to
Chilcoot. On April 26th, 1886, the Pinta took passengers for Chilcoot.
The next day passengers, with their outfits, were landed at Portage
Harbour. On May 3rd, 1886, the Ensign of the Pinta proceeded to
the head waters of the Taiya Inlet to inquire as to the relations
existing between the Indians and miners. On May 7th, 1886, Lieut.
Stewart took the steam launch of the Pinta to make general and detailed
observations at the head of Taiya Inlet. On May 16th, 18th, and 31st, this
expedition was continued. On June 4th, 1886, the Pinta stood in for Portage Bay, and dropped dinghy with Lieut. Stewart for the purpose of
occupying shore station, while swinging ship. On June 18th, 1886, the
Ensign of the Pinta went to the head of Taiya Inlet and returned. On
May 31st, 1887, the Pinta, at Portage Cove, took the Canadian survey
w 15
party in tow. A portion of the log is omitted, and it is then stated
that a party under Lieut. A. McCrackin left the ship from the same
place to examine the Chilcoot trail across the Divide. On July 4th,
1888, Chief Donawauk went on board the Pinta at Portage Cove, to
hold a conference with the commanding officer. On the same day
Lieut. McCrackin and the Ensign left the ship in a whale boat with an
armed crew, and stood up for Tananei to arrest an Indian doctor. On
April 28th, 1890, at Pyramid Harbour, some United States officials
left the Pinta in a canoe for the Chilcat village on the Chilcat River.'
On April 30th, at the same place, the commanding officer and officials
left the ship to visit the village at the head of the inlet. On July 18 th,
1891, the commanding officer and officials, four, marines and six blue-
iackets went on shore to visit the Chilcat Indians.
Letters from Naval Officers.
Attached to U.S.S. Pinta in 1883, and relieved the Adams at
Sitka, August, 1884. The arrival of the civil governor ; the commanding
officer of the Pinta exercised the function of governor, and his authority
was recognised from Port Simpson to the head of Dyea Inlet. The
Pinta visited Chilkat and Portage Bays, and the leading men of the
villages came on board and paid their respects to the captain. The
regulations of the commanding officer of the Adams were confirmed,
and the Indians informed that murder and drunkenness and the
manufacture of hootchinoo would be punished. In 1885 the Pinta
visited nearly all the chief harbours in south-eastern Alaska from Port
Simpson to Port Etches. In 1886 she went to Portage Harbour to
settle difficulties between the Chilkat Indians and miners at Dyea ; he
took eight men and a Gatling gun to the head of Dyea Inlet to settle
these difficulties, to prohibit the sale of liquor, and to arrest any
drunken Indians. He ordered the Chilkoots to allow any Indians to
pack over the pass.
Was on duty on the Pinta from September, 1884, to October, 1886.
Says that for one month of that period the Commander of the Pinta
exercised control of the district; he " only carried out the previous
custom in having the Indian quarters inspected once a week by the
lieutenant in command of the marine guard—this at Sitka." After
that civil government came in, and then the commanding officer acted
on matters concerning the Indians on the advice of the civil authorities.
He was personally sent to Dyea several times to preserve order among
the Indians and miners, and to search for illicit stills. (See logs United
States Pinta, May 7th, 16th, 31st and June 4th, 1886, p. 398.) A few
arrests of Indians were made for witchcraft and illicit distilling.
Visited both heads of the Lynn Canal once. Placed buoy on shoal at
the Haines Mission. Indians called themselves Boston Indians, and
recognised United States authority. British Indians southward called
themselves King George Indians.
Served 20 years from 1882 to 1903 in south-eastern Alaska. Attached
to U.S.S. Adams and Pinta at various times. During this period cruised
continually from Portland Canal to head of Lynn Canal and other places,
visiting settlements " to enforce the statutory laws of the United
States at the discretion of the commanding officer." Says that Chilcats
and Chilcoots displayed the United States flag over their houses and in
their canoes, and that in the village of Kluckwan is preserved an
English flag captured at Fort Selkirk in 1852, when a Chilcat war
party destroyed the Hudson Bay Company's post.
In the spring of 1884, when the U.S.A. Adams was surveying
Lynn Canal, a buoy was planted to the northward of Vanderbilt Reef,
In the winter of 1887 or early in 1888, the Governor arrested Claanot,
second chief of the Chilkoots, at the head of Lynn Canal, on board ship,
and brought him to Sitka in custody for an alleged offence on the
Chilkoot Pass, but there was no evidence to convict him.
H. M. Dombaugh,
lat.-Commander
U.S. Navy, to the
Chief of Bureau
of Navigation,
March 13th, 1903,
pp. 399-400.
J.W. Stewart, Lt.
U.S. Navy, to the
same, March 14th,
1903, p. 401.
Coghlan,
Commander of
Caribbean
Squadron, to the
same, March 16th,
1903, pp. 401-2.
G. T. Emmons,
Lieutenant US.
Navy, retired, to
the same, March
28th, 1903, pp.
402-6. H. C. Taylor,
Rear-Admiral,
U.S. Navy, to the
same, April 6th,
1903, p. 407.
In the winter of 1888 a party was sent from Juneau to arrest
Coudewot, a Chilkat chief at Klokwan, but were prevented by George
Shartrich and other Chilkats. Some months later Coudewot was
arrested and imprisoned in California for several' years. (It is not
stated here what he was arrested for or where). In 1891 Shartrich
was arrested by Healey and sent to Sitka, and afterwards sentenced to
imprisonment. (Here again it was not stated what the offence was, or
where the arrest was made.) Says that during the spring and summer
of each year of his services from 1882 to 1896, it was customary for the
naval vessel to visit the head of Lynn Canal and anchor in Portage
Bay, Pyramid Harbour, and Taiya Inlet, to prevent trouble between
Indians and miners. On May 22nd, 1886, while serving on the Pinta,
he proceeded with an armed party in a steam launch to the village of
Tananei, and destroyed a whisky still,
Incloses memorandum of his instructions for similar duty,
May 24th, 1886 ; also extracts from log for that and following dates.
On June 2nd, 1886, he received instructions for similar service,
which were inclosed with extract from a log. June 4th, same thing.
On April 29th, 1887, he was ordered to go to Klokwan, and make
reports upon conditions there. On May 13th following, he reported a
visit to Klo-kutch ■ he desired that the sale of molasses to his tribe by
Juneau traders should be stopped, and that a school should be
established.
On July 31st, 1873, while attached to the Saranac, anchored at
the head of Lynn Canal, Klo-klutch, chief of the Chilkat tribe, visited
the ship with sub-chiefs to arrange a peace with the Stickheen tribe, and
accept the authority of the Commander-in-Chief, and agree to the terms
which he proposed.
The Attorney-
General to the
Secretary of State,
April 13th, 1903,
pp. 407-10.
Examiner
Dougall to the
Attorney-
General, Sitka,
July 25th, 1892,
pp. 410-13.
Deposition of
William Moore,
March 23rd, 1903,
pp. 413-417.3i^
Exercise of Jurisdiction in Alaska by Judicial Authorities.
Inclosing memoranda of cases tried at Juneau and Sitka from
1887-1894. These cases are summarised on pages 407-409 of the
Appendix.
Reports on a double murder at Chilcat, the victims being Frank
Marx and an Indian. Two others were seriously injured. Coroner's
jury sat at Chilcat to make inquiry. The Pinta assisted in the
capture of Indian Tom. Concludes that the trouble arose from the
sale of whisky to the Indians on the 4th of July. It appears that in
a drunken row, Jack Wade shot an Indian, whose wife called upon
Indian Tom to avenge her, whereupon Tom shot the first white man he
saw, whose name was Fran Marx. Twelve arrests were made, as set
out on page 412. The Examiner speaks of a suggestion that a jail
should be established at Chilcat. He thinks if the officials would close
the saloons this would not be necessary.
Reports that the United States District Attorney has concluded
to enforce the laws of the United States regarding the liquor traffic,
and the "Executive Order" of March 12tb, 1892, at Chilcat. The
plan adopted was to make as many charges as possible against illicit
dealers, so as to exhaust their power to give bail, and land them in
jail. The Examiner points out that indictments could be obtained
against them, as they paid the special tax required by the internal
revenue laws.
Since 1861 has spent a number of years navigating on northwest coast. In 1887 became member of the Ogilvie expedition, and
went over the White Pass, and on to Fort Selkirk. On Skagway he
took soundings of the bay to ascertain its suitability for ocean-going
vessels. At Dyea he found Healy and Wilson's store, which had been
there since 1885. The Pinta accompanied the Ogilvie expedition from
Haines Mission to Lynn Canal, and remained there until it had passed
the summit of Chilkoot Pass. This was done "under instructions from
the Navy Department of the United States, for the purpose of assisting 17
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." Al!
arrangements for the entry and passage of goods and provisions, he
says, were formally attended to by Mr. Ogilvie at Juneau. On his
return he remained at Skagway, and commenced preparing for a wharf
site at or near where Moore's wharf now is at Skagway. In 1888, with
his son. J. B. Moore, who then became a subject of the United States
in order to acquire land in Skagway, he returned to Skagway. Next
year William Moore took out United States papers at Juneau for the
same purpose. In 1888 J. B. Moore located 160 acres on the shore of
Skagway Bay, and thereafter all papers and proceedings were made
according to the law of the United States by both the Moores. Since
then William Moore has almost continuously resided at Skagway.
He remembers, in 1888, seeing a steamer going up Lynn Canal,
and afterwards ascertained that it contained twenty special deputies to
make arrests and quench the Indian outbreak among the Chilkats.
Arrests were made and prisoners taken to Juneau; also remembers boats
of the Revenue and Navy Departments and Geodetic Survey performing .
official duties in Lynn Canal; also remembers United States Customs
officials prior to the rush of 1897 confiscating liquors near summit of
Chilkoot Pass. During all his residence in Skagway, all property has
been treated as under United States jurisdiction, and as far as the
passes in the mountains, they are also controlled by United States
Courts. The criminal and civil process of the courts has been exercised
in the country adjacent to Lynn Canal. Customs officials of the
United States have always carried their jurisdiction to the passes and
further. The United States Army has occupied the shores at Skagway
and Dyea. and exercised authority as far as the passes. At no time
has he ever heard of a British officer or subject attempting to exercise
any authority on Lynn Canal or south of the passes.
Has resided at Skagway for seven years and been interested in Deposition of
property there since 1888. He describes a trip down the Yukon to St. J- Bernard
Michaels, and his return to Dyea about September 7th, 1887. From Dyea
he went to Juneau, returning within a few weeks with his father, William
Moore, to Skagway. Made claim there, and cut piling for wharf, and
made soundings of bay and cleared a small plot of ground near the
shores of Skagway Bay. Remained there two months, and then went
to Juneau and declared his intention of becoming a citizen of the
United States to locate the ground at Skagway Bay. Says his citizenship papers are in the Land Department of the Interior, United States
Survey, No. 13, Skagway.
During the spring of 1888 he went to Skagway with his father,
and about June 13th, 1888, located 160 acres, a portion of which is in
Survey 13.
I ncloses copy notice of the location made and signed at the time.
During 1888 began constructing wharf and log cabin ; that about June
9th, 1888, a steamer Lucy, with 22 special deputies, came to suppress
trouble among the Indians at Dyea, and took into custody a number of
Indians. Says that to his knowledge the United States authorities
have made numerous arrests among the Indians at Chilkat, at Haines,
and at Dyea during 1888, and for several years afterwards. At about
August 17th, 1888, he left for Pyramid Harbour, and with him was
Max Endelman, United States marshal, who was going to make arrests
among the Indians at Klukwan on the Chilkat River, about 30 miles
inland from Pyramid Harbour, and that Endelman and his party made
several arrests, including Indian Tom. That during 1887 and 1888
United States gun boats, revenue cutters and survey boats anchored
at the head of Lynn Canal, and that in addition thereto United States
Government boatsgave assistance to settlers and enforced order. That
the property at Chilkat Inlet and Lynn Canal, so fur as " taken by
course of law," was done under United States laws, and recording was
subject to United States laws and the customs of Alaska, and all
Moore,
March 23rd,
1903, pp. 417- Deposition of
Robert Wright,
March 24th,
1903, pp. 422-425.
Deposition of
Joseph Oarr,
March 25th,
1903, pp. 425-7.
Deposition of
Don-a-wak,
March 27th,
1903, pp.
427-430.
property rights in dispute were settled under United States jurisdiction. That one Poindexter was United States Commissioner at Chilkat
acting as J.P., and was appointed in 1889 or 1890 ; Healy was deputy
marshal, and made several arrests at Chilkat Inlet. In 1895, February
2nd, he again went to Skagway, and improved the property there, and
since the fall of 1896 has lived all the time at Skagway. In the
summer of 1896 he had his claim surveyed and filed with the United
States Surveyor-General at Sitka, and that after contest and full
hearing he received title from the United States for 60 acres of the
land embraced in survey. That there was a good deal of litigation over
the land, but it was all in United States jurisdiction, and that Indian
Tom, before referred to, was tried for the crime alleged, and served
time at San Quentin. He also remembers that about the year 1895
Skundu was sentenced for punishing Indians for witchcraft, and served
time
Has resided in Dyea more than 10 years, and was in Alaska since
1879. Remembers the Jack Wade case in 1892, and the arrests in
connection with it, some of which were made at Kluekwan. Remembers
Poindexter at Pyramid Harbour discharging judicial duties and
arresting people on the shores of Chilkat Inlet. Went to Dyea in 1893
and settled there. Remembers Watt, a deputy United States marshal,
trying to stop landing liquor near Dyea. Remembers Hoffstad, of
United States Customs, spilling liquor at Stonehouse on Dyea trail in
1895, also in 1897 Customs officials seizing boat belonging to a citizen of
Douglas Island, and on way to Skagway boat was held in custody for
some time Remembers Watt in 1895 pursuing William Leak to the
summit of the pass to confiscate liquor, but retiring after the summit
was reached, and spilling liquor at Sheep Camp, 15 miles north of Dyea.
States that about 1397 J. V. Smith came to Dyea as United States
Commissioner, and that since then there has been a Commissioner at
either Skagway or Dyea continuously, also deputy marshals, and that
the United States Commissioners' Court has exercised jurisdiction over
persons and property and in criminal matters to the summit of the pass.
That all matters of title to property have been subject to the laws of
the United States, and all litigation has been conducted under United
States laws, antl that prior to 3897 he had never seen or heard of an
official of the Canadian Government attempting any official authority
north of Lynn Canal.
Resided in Alaska for 20 years, and at Chilkat for 12 years.
Mentions the case of Al. Martin, convicted in Poindexter Court for
beating an Indian woman. Remembers also the William Leak case of
1892, the .Tack Wade case of 1893, the | Blanket Susie" case of the
same year, and states that from 1891 to 1903 the Revenue and Navy
officials of the United States aided the natives and enforced order.
Adds that never heard of a Canadian official claiming jurisdiction
nearer to tide water than the summit of the passes.
Lives at Haines; has been chief of Chilkats since the cession, and
before cession a man-of-war came to Haines after the troops came to
Sitka, and he had a conversation with the officers, since which time he
and his people have recognised United States authority " as far as the
summits of the mountains from the heads of the various inlets." That
about 1892 he is made an Indian policeman, and has caused arrests to
be made and enforced peace since.
Remembers Captain Glass coming to Haines, and with him
Edward Armstrong, then a boy, but since then an Indian policeman
and interpreter. Was invited on board the boat, and saw the cannons
shoot. Was at Dyea when Klanot was taken f»om Haines to Siitka.
Was at Dyea when Klanot was killed by Sitka Jim. Was at Haines
when Indian Johnson was pursued and killed, and remembers the
arrests. Was at Dyea when Skundoo was -arrested for punishing
witchcraft, and taken to Juneau amd tried. Remembers the Jack
Wade  trouble  and the man-of-war coming to Haines.    Remembers
5B— 19
hearing of customs officers spilling liquor on the Chilkat Pass prior to
the Klondike rush. Incloses several papers referring to these
•visits, etc.
Is a Chilcat, and was born near Haines. Was present when
Klanot and Sitka Jim were killed. Remembers the coroner's inquest.
Remembers previously Klanot being arrested for striking Bishop
•Sagers. Remembers the death of Indian Johnson and the arrests
following; also the Jack Wade case and arrests, and also other cases
-and arrests ; also remembers the spilling of liquor on Chilkoot Pass.
Born near Wrangell in 1869 ; since 1882 has been an Indian police
officer and interpreter for United States Government. In the fall of
1882 the Massachusetts visited the shores of Lynn Canal, and suppressed
trouble anions: the Indians. That in 1888 and 1889 he was guard in
•the United States jail at Juneau, and several times went to Haines and
Chilkat as interpreter to serve papers on Indian chief. In 1890, for
five months, assisted in taking census from Cape Fanshaw to Yakutat,
which included the Lynn Canal and up to Klukwan on the Chilkat
River ; also 30 miles up Taku River, including a village about 30 miles
up the river. In 1891 accompanied Endelman to make the arrests in
the Jack Wade case. The arrests were made up the Chilkat River, a
few hundred yards distance from Oolachan Patch. The man-of-war
Pinta carried Endelman to Haines, and with 20 marines they proceeded
from the ship to make the arrests. In August, 1894, went with United
.States Deputy Marshal to the vicinity of Chilkoot to arrest seven
Indians, who had threatened to murder Indian Joe ; arrested them in
the vicinity of Davidson's Glacier, about the same time as special
Deputy Marshal at Dyea arrested Skundoo, who had murdered Indians
for witchcraft; also served subpoenas on a number of Indians at
Klukwan. In 1900 or 1901, after fixing the temporary boundary, the
N. W. M. P. moved their posts down the Klahena River 17 miles to
Wells, about 2 miles from Klukwan. Numerous other incidents of
jurisdiction by the United States Court, but these he cannot specifically
remember.
Resides near the mouth of Chilkat River ; spent a month in 1889
in and about Chilkat River, and resided there ever since; his knowledge
of many cases in which the United States departments of Government
have exercised their jurisdiction. Poindexter was J.P. there after
■Clarke's arrival
Remembers the seizure of liquors by Healy between 1890 and 1892
at Chilcat; also the "Blanket Susie" ease; also the seizure of liquor
by Healy from Gibson; also the theft of a side of beef; also the Jack
Wade case and the Skundoo case ; also remembers Armstrong coming
up as . interpreter when arrests were made; also the taking of the
Census in 1890 by United States officers ; also the arrest in 1894 of
Indian Tom and other Indians. Says that Healy and Wilson established
their posts in 1890 and claimed title under United States laws. Prior
to the Klondike rush of 1897, and before his arrival in the vicinity of
•Chilkat Inlet, two cannery sites and a number of claims had been taken
by the white people. During all his residence United States jurisdiction
was exercised as far north of Chilkat Inlet as points on the Porcupine
and Klagena Rivers.
Is general superintendent of missions in the Presbyterian Church
in the District -of Alaska. First went there in July, 1878 ; has resided
in Alaska, for more than 15 years. In 1880 visited Haines Mission a
second time, and stepped off a site for the Presbyterian Mission. In
1884 the site was surveyed and location recorded: at Juneau. The
Presbyterian Mission is a private corporation under the laws of the
State of New York. As early as 1880 it was an possession and control
of a Mission Site at Klukwan tflarough its missionary there, .and maintained possession to the present time, and added improvements; aJlso
visited Dyea in 1880, and found Healy and Wilson there During his
travels in about Lynn Canal, saw the vessels >of the Navy and Revenue
Deposition of
John Don-a-wak,
March 27th,
1903, p. 431.
Deposition of
Edward
Armstrong,
March 27 th,
1903, pp.
432-434.
Deposition of E.
B. Clark, March
27th, 1903, pp.
434-6.
Deposition .of S,
Hall Young,
March 26th,
1903, pp. 436-7. Deposition of
Lewis L.
Williams,
March 26th, 1903,
pp. 438-9.
Exhibits,
pp. 439-41.
Deposition of
In-da-Yonk,
March 26th, 1903.
pp. 441-2
Deposition of
George
Kostrom etinoff,
March 27th, 1903,
p. 443.
Deposition of
George
Shortridge,
March 27th, 1903
pp. 444-5.
Deposition of
Klanot,
March 27th, 1903,
p. 445.
Deposition of
Stephen E. York,
March 27th, 1903,
p. 446.
department enforce order, and assist the inhabitants. In 1896 the-
Mission site at Haines was surveyed by a deputy United States
surveyor, and the survey and application for patent were filed with the
Land Department of the United States, and application is now being
considered by that department.
Has been resident of Alaska since 1886. Held position of United
States Commissioner at Juneau from 1886 to 1890. During that time
many prisoners were brought before him for trial, and many tried,
convicted and sentenced in his court. Many were tried and convicted
for offences in the Porcupine mining district at north of Klukwan ; his
jurisdiction was never questioned. All the Indians of the region
bordering on the Chilkat north of Klukwan recognized jurisdiction of
United States Government. While such commissioner, he went to
Chilkat to conduct a coroner's inquest over a deceased. Indian. Jurisdiction not questioned, expenses paid by United States. Was United
States Marshal from February, 1894, to August, 1897. Directed
deputies at various times to arrest parties accused of crime in the
Porcupine district and north of the village of Klukwan. Jurisdiction
never questioned. ScumDoo was arrested under his orders while marshal,,
and tried at the United States District Court of Alaska and sentenced
to penitentiary at San Quentin. The indictment charged the defendant
with the commission of the offence at Chilkat, but it was considerably
north of Chilkat, near Klukwan.
Attached to the deposition are surveyed copies of the indictment
and other papers ;  portions of the record in the Scum Doo case.
Was Schwatka's guide down the Yukon to St. Michaels. Remembers
the transfer of Alaska to the United States, and says, " prior to such
transfer the Indians, anions' whom I was raised and lived, considered the
Russians merely as traders temporarily in our country, and it was not
common talk among the Indians that any other persons or nations
claimed the country known as Alaska until the time of the transfer,
when it became known to us that Russia had left the country and sold
it." Remembers about 20 years ago when a ship of the United States
Navy came to Haines, and some Indians went aboard, and the cannon
were fired. Another large ship had visited previously; arrests were
made by officers of the United States at Lynn Canal and Chilkat Inlet.
Remembers the Klanot case ; remembers his brother Skundoo being
arrested, also the arrest of Indians for assaulting Hugh Murray at
Pyramid Harbour. Shortly after the Russians turned over the
country to the United States, a flag was given to Chief Shortridge; the
flag was put on a flagstaff at Klukwan, and raised every Sunday for
a year.
Been in the employ of the United States Government since
July 11th, 1876, as official interpreter. Was at Klukwan once with
ex-Governor Lyman E. Knapp. Made several trips up the Chilkat,
once with Judge Johnson and Lawyer Cobb to Juneau, as far as a
summer village, about half toay to Klukwan, to investigate the trouble
between the Indians and white men about the trail from Haines.
His father was chief of the Chilkat tribe. At the time of the
transfer a vessel of the United States came into Pyramid Harbour, and
an officer gave a United States' flag to his father, also a uniform, which
his father afterwards presented to him. Shortridge still has the flag at
Klukwan. Remembers the Klanot case ; also the killing of Klanot by
Sitka Jim; also the arrival of a United States ship at Haines, when
the Indians were shown how the cannon worked ; remembers also the
•lack Wade case; the actions of Poindexter as J. P.; the Skundoo
incident; surrender of Kodowat; also the " Blanket Susie " case.
Was one of the Indians arrested near Davidson's Glacier by
Edward Armstrong and others for pursuing On-tee-Ateley for killing a
relative. !'??■■&■
Has been a resident of Alaska since 1886. In 1888 was commis.-
sioned by the United States Marshal to lead a party of 9 men to
Klukwan to capture Koo-to-wat, and went from Juneau to Klukwan to
do so. 21
Enforcement of Revenue Laws and 'Exercise of Authority of
Treasury Officials.
Customs Office was established at Tongass, March 15th, 1869 ; at ^S^ur^to*
Chilcot,  August,   1890; at  Dyea,  with  a  Customs  Station  at  the the Secretary of
international boundary; date not given;   says  also that since 1867 State, Sept. 15th,
steamer of revenue service has made annual visits to all inlets to the 1898, p. 447.
head of navigation for the purpose of protecting the revenue, enforcing
United States laws, and preserving peace and order among the natives.
The memorandum appended shows subordinate Customs Officers first
appointed as follows :—
DATE.
Aug. 19th, 1890.
Jan. 5th, 1900.
Aug. 3rd, 1899.
June 8th, 1898.
NAME. GRADE. OFFICE.
J. J. Healy      ... Inspector  ...        ... ...        ... Chilcat ..
G. A. "Waggoner   Deputy Collector and Inspector ... White Pass
Albert E. Maltby Deputy Collector and Inspector ... Skagway
J. R. Beegle     ... Deputy Collector and Inspector ... Dyea   ...
Incloses letter from chief factor of Hudson Bay Company, as to
transportation of their trading goods up Stickine. Says " they have one
post within a few miles of the supposed line of our territory." Hudson
Bay steamer arrived there 8th February and 31st March. He permitted
them to land their goods, but refused to authorise transit until
department heard from. Says Mr. Roderick Finlayson has asked
to land at mouth of Stickine direct, instead of clearing at Sitka, as this
would avoid a detour of 500 miles; advises against this for the
present.
Incloses letter from W. F. Tolmie, Hudson Bay House, November
20th, 1868, asking leave to place an agent at their house on Point
Highfield to forward goods to the British territory inland, and also to
trade with the Indians of the coast. This letter had been sent to the
general commanding the department of Alaska ; in reply, Mr. Ketchum
cites Section I of Act of Congress, April 29th, 1816 (since repealed)
and Section Y of Act of Congress, June 30th, 1834 (still in force),
providing that no license to trade with the Indians shall be granted to
any persons except citizens of the United States, and reports against the
Hudson Bay Company being allowed to have a trading agent at Point
Highfield.
Portion of letter after signature omitted.
These reports relate to the appointment of an inspector of Customs
for temporary duty to prevent smuggling in the Chilcat country.
Morris points out that a large fleet of canoes manned by Indians
from Vancouver contemplate visiting the Chilcat country during April
and May to trade with the Indians, and says," It occurs to me that the
opportunity is now presented for the United States to exercise her
sovereignty in those waters, which to the present time have been
neglected and open to wholesale smuggling;" for this purpose he recommends having an inspector afloat during the trading season. The
collector of Sitka in inclosing this letter to the Secretary of the
Treasury says, " I desire it to be understood that I do not advise that any
British or other foreign goods found in the Alaskan waters, in canoes,
being transported to meet the trade spoken of, or not properly cleared
upon manifests, be allowed to be landed and held upon payment of
duties. All such goods so found will be intended for an entirely contraband trade and entitled to no redemption from absolute forfeiture."
Then follows the letter from the Acting Secretary of the Treasury
Department, authorising the collector of customs at Sitka to nominate
a suitable person for the appointment. It does not appear whether
the appointment ever was made or not.
This letter allows foreign vessels to enter and pay duty at
Wrangel and Tongass, to prohibit unlanding in Chilcat country. This
letter is in relation to one of Special Agent Morris in which he refers
to stampede of miners to the Chilcat country, and asks whether British
vessels will be allowed to enter at Wraneel and unload at Chilcat.
The letter points out that vessels from foreign ports can only enter at a
port of entry like Wrangel, but not at Chilcat.
Report of acting
collector Dodge as
to operations of
customs officers
on the Stickine
River, April 8th,
1868, pp. 448-52.
Extract from
letter of Collector
Ketchum to
Secretary of
Treasury, Sitka,
Dec. 15th, 1868,
pp. 452-3.
Reports of special
agent W. G.
Morris, March
12th, 1880, to
collector at
Sitka, March
27th, 1880, and
department's
letter, April 2nd,
1880, pp. 453-5.
Copy
department's
letter, April 7th,
1880, to collector
at Sitka,
published in
synopsis of the
department,
p. 445. Department's
letters of January
1st and February
19th, 1881, to
Collector at Sitka,
and the latter's
Reports of
November 5th,
1881, and August
9th, 1882, p. 456.
Reports of July
12th, 1890, from
Collector at Sitka,
and Department's
letter of August
12th, 1890, to the
Collector,
pp. 457-8.
Letter from J. J.
Healy, inspector
for the Chilcat
country, to the
Governor of
Alaska, Oct. 23rd,
1891, pp. 458-9.
The Collector at Sitka *teays that gold-bearing quartz has been
discovered in the Takoo country, and there will be a large trading
settlement at Harrisburg, and asked for authority to send a special
inspector there, especially as the place is near the seal and other fishing
grounds habitually trespassed on by British Columbian traders and
Indians. In reply the Secretary approved of the appointment of an
inspector.
The reports of November 5th, 1881, and August 9th, 1882, are
omitted.
These documents relate to the employment of an inspector of
customs, without compensation, for duty at Chilcat, to prevent smuggling.
Collector Max Pradt says that on his recent tour of inspection he
arrived at Chilcat just after a party of British Columbia Indians had
sold a lot of goods to the natives, and that the best efforts of his
deputy at Juneau, 80 miles distant, have resulted in the capture of no
In a letter following:, he nominates Mr.  J.  J. Healy to serve as
one.
Letter from
Collector of
Customs at Sitka,
February 23rd,
1894, and reply of
the department,
March 8th, 1894,
p. 460.
Letter from
Collector at Sitka,
March 29th,
1895, and
department's
letter of April
12th, 1895.
Extracts from
report of W. G.
Morris, special
Treasury Agent,
to the Secretary
of the Treasury,
dated December
7th, 1881,
pp. 461-70.
inspector, receiving half the sale of the contraband goods for his services.
On August 19th, 1890, the Acting Secretary authorises the appointment of Mr. Healy on the terms named.
This letter refers among other things to the boundary line in the
Chilcat country. Mr. Healy recommends a fishing reservation for
the Chilcats. He says, 1 The resident native population of Chilkat and
Chilkoot number about 800. " They are confined to a narrow strip of
country extending from Point Sherman in Lynn Canal, to the boundary
line, about 10 miles north-west of Klaw-kwan, the upper Chilkat village."
The Indian trade with the interior had fallen off by the estabHshment
of a British post at Pelly; they then had to depend on the salmon, but
they were now deprived of this industry by fishermen who enter their
river with nets, and stop the salmon run. They also object to intoxicating liquors being sold to them. Mr. Healy adds, " there should be
some means here of enforcing law and order. A prison of some kind is
needed here. The Indians ask for one. They need it to put a troublesome
subject in, and with a few marines stationed here during winter months,
we would feel comparatively safe. You know the importance of this
place as a fishing station, and it would be deplorable to have the entire
plants of these cannery men destroyed by the action of a few drunken
Indians."
This letter relates to the appointment of two temporary inspectors
for duty at Chilkat and their operations.    They relate to preparations -
being made to prevent miners smuggling whisky into the Yukon from
British Columbia.
These letters relate to the appointment of an inspector for duty
for suppressing smuggling at Dyea and Sheep Camp. They are
followed by a newspaper clipping of April 13th, 1895, as to the seizure
of whisky on the summit of the Chilcoot and the refusal of the Indians
to pack it down to the ship, the Corwin. This led to the spilling of
the whisky, with the exception of some samples which the officers
prudently retained.
This report refers to the voyage of Mr. Morris with Commander
Beardslee on the Jamestown in 1880. It begins with a letter from
Beardslee, August 10th, 1880. with regard to trouble between the
Alaska Indians and Hoonah and the British Columbia Indians at Fort
Simpson, as the latter were killing sea otter on the hunting grounds
of the Hoonahs. Also refers to the miners who joined the prospecting
party sent over the trail by Emmons. He also regards it as good
policy to encourage the Indians in submitting their wrongs to the
Government, and recommends a ceremonial visit, accompanied »by an
armed force. Mr. Morris, in reply, says, that he has engaged the
Favourite steamer of the N. W.T. Co., and asks Beardslee to go with them.
Morris also wrote on August 11th, 1880, to the Indian superintendent,
Victoria, British Columbia, asking him to join the expedition. They
first visited the Kootznoos on Admiralty  Island.   They  next  visited
—- 23
the Hoonahs, who owned the sea otter grounds, upon which the
British Indians infringed. Their villages are scattered around Cross
Sound. The Indians were told, " that if hereafter they traded for British
goods, that when next I (Beardslee) came along in a gunboat, I would seize
every article of foreign merchandise that could be found and confiscate
it." A great deal of detail with regard to these two visits is given, but
as both localities were in United States territory, it is not necessary to
refer to it. Then they went to the Chilcat country, where the
rendezvous was Portage Bay. They found a school organization there
by Mrs. Dickenson, wife of the agent of the N.W.T. Co. Commander Beardslee remarks : § One year since, and there was not the
most remote sign of a settlement or living thing .at Portage Bay ; now
everything is changed. It is actually the headquarters of the two
powerful chiefs of their respective tribes." The Presbyterian Mission is
also situated there.
At the time of their visit a war was raging between Chilcats and
Chilcoots. They were anxious to see Klotz Klotz, the chief of the
Chilcats; he was blockaded in his principal village. He incorporates a
report of Captain Howard, who visited Klotz Klotz in 1867.
At that time, five large war canoes came alongside the ship, one
with the Hudson Bay Company's flag flying and with the pilot and
interpreter in the full uniform of an English Naval officer. The chief
of the Stikine Indians came on board with the rest but refused to talk
without whisky and presents. He was finally convinced that presents
would be made to him provided he was true to the new flag and
treaties came at the proper time. There was a war alarm between the
Chilkats and Chilcoots, and Beardslee and Howard arranged an
interview with the Indians, and finally they arrived. " one chief being
arrayed in the full undress uniform of a post Captain in the English
Navy." Later on, he remarks, | One great trouble which we have
experienced heretofore in dealing with the Chilcats has been the
proximity to the boundary line of British Columbia." He incloses a
chart by Lieut. Symonds, of the Jamestown, of the Chilcat and Chilcoot
rivers. (This is not reproduced in the Appendix.) According to
Symonds, there are about 889 Indians in the Chilcat tribe, and not
from 2,000 to 4,000. Of these 558 reside at Kluk-quan. The Chilcoots
reside on the Dyea River in 8 houses, in all 127 Indians. Of the
Chilcat River, he says, " Its trend is to the west by north, so no question
can be raised as to whether it is or is not in our own territory. It was
formerly supposed that it came from the northward, but the compass of
Lieut. Symonds clearly demonstrated otherwise. This is very satisfactory to have so accurately determined, for the reason that heretofore
a portion of the Chilcat tribe have been supposed to live under British
jurisdiction, and as the only method of communicating with them is
through our country, Colonel Powell, the Indian Commissioner for
British Columbia, has frequently told me he wished that they were all
under our jurisdiction. This will also interfere with the whisky traders
going there and selling smuggled goods from Yancouver Island, telling
the Chilcats that they are ' King George' Indians and not ' Bostons.'':
Reports of Officers of the United States Revenue Marine.
On May 13th, 1868, Captain White reached Fort Simpson.    On Report of Captain
the 12th of June following, he proceeded to Chilkhat, and on the next J. W.White,
day he visited the village.    He reports having more than one pleasant Commander of the
visit with the Indians.    On the 17th he went to Tako, and was visited £eSa^V^Mr^
by one of the chiefs, who told him of the trouble between the Indians
and the traders.    The traders had refused to give the Indians the old
prices for furs which they had received from the Hudson's Bay Company.
The Indians removed part of the cargo from the vessel, but afterwards
returned it in good order.    Captain White assured the chief that the
Government would act promptly in  such matters, and obtained from 24
J. W. White,
U.S.R.M.S.
Oorwin, Alaska,
August 12th,
1877.
Captain Selden,
U.S.RM.S.
Wolcott, Port
Townsend,
November 12th,
1877.
J. A. Doyle, Chief
Engineer,
TJ.S.R.C. Service,
to the Secretary
of the Treasury,
March 31st, 1903.
Captain Healy
Commanding R.C
Service to the
Secretary of the
Treasury, March
30th, 1903.
them a promise of future good conduct. He thinks that the occasional
visit of steamers to the villages will do more to reconcile disputes and
bring about a satisfactory state of things than anything else. (A great
many portions of the report are left out.)
For full report, see Senate Ex.  Doc. No.   8.    40th Congress,
3rd  Session, and  Senate Ex.   Doc. No. 1.    46th Congress, 2nd
Session.
Says that the great desire at Sitka is that the Indians should be
made to understand that the Government has not entirely abandoned
the country to them, and advises that an armed vessel visit Sitka and
the chief Indian villages of the Archipelago every two or three months
(portions of letter left out).
At a conference with the Chilcat Chiefs at Sitka to learn the
truth about reports against the Indians, for pulling down the stockade,
etc., told them that they would be punished for destroying property ;
the Indians replied that | the white man sell Indian rum, and then
abuse him if he acts foolish," and also that the Russians had
pulled down the stockade.    (Portions of the letter left out.)
Letters From Officers of the Revenue Cutter Service.
Says that the most extensive of the early cruises was made by the
Wayanda under Captain J. W. White, in 1868. They left San Francisco in May. At Sitka they took on board a. Russian pilot, Mr. Cadin,
"As Mr. Ainsley, the pilot taken on board at Yictoria, B.C., was not
acquainted with the northern inland waters of Lynn Canal, Glacier Bay,
and that vicinity, he having been formerly employed on vessels of the
Hudson Bay Company, which the Russians prohibited from trading in
that part of the country while in their possession. Those vessels, the
steamers Beaver and Lavishire, of the Hudson Bay Company, as stated
by Pilot Ainsley, although allowed to go as far as Sitka, were permitted
(sic) to trade anywhere within the Russian possessions." From Sitka,
they cruised up the Lynn Canal, stopped at all the Indian settlements,
including Dyea, Skagway, Chilkat Inlet, etc. At all the Indian villages
and settlements where they stopped they communicated with the natives^
and at a number of places they held council with the Indian chiefs. He
adds, "The Indians desired to know all about our visit in their waters,"
and the commander replied that we were there " for the purpose of
examining into their condition, and explaining to them that they were
then under the jurisdiction of the United States." In some of the
settlements the head men said that they had heard that the Boston men
had purchased the country. The ship's surgeon visited the people ; in
some cases prescribed for them and performed operations.
In some of the settlements the people complained of their chiefs.
In such cases the commander called the people together, and after
inquiring what the chief had done, took a vote, and if it was averse,
the chief was deposed and a new one. appointed, and given a United
States uniform cap. ' In 1869 Captain Doyle made a six months'
cruise in the Lincoln. The Indians had heard of the visit of Secretary
Seward, and were making great preparations to meet them. The
Lincoln made the cruise to the Northern inland waters over much the
same ground covered by the Wayanda the previous year. Several of
the United States army officers were on board, and during the cruise
the army officers and officers of the vessel visited the various settlements, and held councils with the Indians. Three of the principal
Indian chiefs and their wives from the villages on the Lynn Canal and
Glacier Bay were taken along to Sitka, and attended a grand dinner
given by the army officers and citizens at the Castle. During both
these voyages, steamers, schooners and canoes were searched for
contraband goods.
First visited Alaska on revenue cutter Reliance in November,
1868. " From that time on, while cruising in that country, we exercised
the right of search on all vessels as far as regards domestic trade, in all 25
waters, bays and rivers north of Cape Fox to the head of Lynn Canal."
First seized a vessel at Sitka, afterwards seized some liquor at Wrangell.
Afterwards the H. B. steamer, he thinks the Otter, was prevented
from carrying army stores from Sitka to Wrangell. Next refers to an
outbreak of the Indians at Killisnoo Inlet. This is an inlet on
Admiralty Island.
All the above places are in the United States, and therefore the
report is irrelevant. Says, in going to Alaska and returning by the
inland passages, " it was almost the universal custom to make Port
Townsend the port of departure, and to fly the revenue ensign until
the border line was reached, then the national ensign to the southern
boundary of Alaska, as shown on the chart, and from there to the
head waters of the Lynn Canal the revenue ensign was used, and all the
duty and functions pertaining to our service were exercised."
Reports Relative to Schools, Census, and Control of the Indians
and Mining Locations on the Mainland of South-Eastern
Alaska.
This is a transmitting letter, and refers to accompanying maps and
memoranda which are not published in the Appendix.
Refers to the Organic Act created in the district of Alaska, 1884,
providing for the education of children, without distinction of race. Says
that on March 2nd, 1885, Dr. Sheldon Jackson was appointed general
Agent of the Bureau for this work. Schools were at once established
at various places, including Haines. This school is on Portage Bay, at
the head of Lynn Canal, and is in operation at the present time. Any
of the other schools mentioned are not in Canadian territory, excepting
in the Clarence Strait contention.
Says that in 1881 he established a Presbyterian Mission station at
Haines, and that in the same year the United States Naval Commander
sent for Shateritch, Donawok, and other Chilcat chiefs, and explained
to them the objects of the missionaries locating among them, and that
annually thereafter this ceremony was repeated up to 1885 and later.
Also says that from the withdrawal of the military in 1887, a naval
vessel was stationed at Sitka to cruise and to preserve order among the
natives from Fort Tongas in all the inlets to the head of Lynn Canal.
Secretary of the
•Interior to the
Secretary of
State, September
16th, 1898, p.479.
The Commissioner
of Education to
the Secretary of
the Interior,
Sept. 15th, 1898,
pp. 480-1.
Rev. Sheldon
Jackson to the
Secretary of
State, Sept. 15th,
1898, pp. 481-2.
Extracts   from   the   Annual   Reports  of   the   Governors  of
Alaska.
Relates to the assault on Bishop Segers by a Chilcat chief, " who
claimed the right of levying tribute upon all who passed through that
part of the territory occupied by him and his people." In this case the
Governor decided to act without legal process, and proceeded to Chilcat
with the Deputy Marshal and 11 men. The chief came on board, and
I boldly asserted the right to exact payment for the privilege of passing
through the country he claimed as belonging to him and his people."
The Governor went ashore, and discussed the matter with the Indians,
and received from them a promise of future good behaviour. He took
the chief along to Juneau as a prisoner, "well aware that there
would be no evidence here upon which to hold him for trial." He had
conference with them at Juneau, and also got the principal chief of the
Sitkas to confer with him, with the result that on his return home he
told his people that they had everything to gain and nothing to lose
by allowing the whites to pass unmolested through their country.
(Remainder of the report left out.)
Gives a list of the public schools in the territory, including one
at Chilkat, and apprehends trouble with the Chilkats, of whom he
says : " They claim the exclusive ownership of the trail over wrhich the
miners are wont to pass from tide water to the headwaters of the
Yukon River, and it is an open question whether the claim be not a
A. P. Swineford
to the President,
Oct. 1st, 1886, pp.
482-4.
The same to the
same Oct. 1st,
1888, p. 484. 26
N. 0. Murphy,
acting Governor,
to the Secretary
of the Interior,
Sitka, Oct. 1st,
1890, p. 485.
Gov. Knapp to
the Secretary of
the Interior, pp.
485-7.
Report of the
Rev. Jackson on
the condition of
Education in
Alaska, 1881, pp.
488-9.
Census of
Alaskan Indians,
1880, from the
10th Census of
the U.S., vol. 8,
Report on Alaska,
pp. 489-90.
Census of
Alaskan Indians,
1890, from the
11th Census of
the U.S., Alaska,
chap 1, page 3,
pp. No. 490-2.
Statement from
the Commissioner
of the General
Land Office, pp.
492-6.
Abstract of
Mineral Locations
in the vicinity of
Lynn Canal,
1885 to 1895,
pp. 494-5.
Rev. Sheldon
Jackson,
April 17th, 1903,
p. 495.
just one."    Thinks that a military post should be established among
the Chilkats.    (Portions of report left out,)
Says that quartz lodes are worked in ten or more districts, and
among others, Berners Bay and Lynn Canal. None of the rest of the
districts come within Canadian territory unless Clarence Strait is taken
as a boundary.
Says that under the Act of Appropriation, March 3rd, 1891, the
Corps of Indian Police was increased to 18, three of whom were at Chilkat.
On account of a drunken row at Chilkat on July 4th, 1892, he organized
a force of Indian Police, who, under Deputy Marshal Healy, did good
work in destroy iug hoochenoo, then gives details of the Jack Wade case,
in which Frank Marx was killed, and of the action taken by Dalton
and the United States Commissioner at Juneau.
Mentions the opening of the school by Mrs. Dickinson amongst
the Chilcats at the head of the Lynn Canal in the Summer of 1880.
Says that at a council held by Lieutenant Hanus, of the U.S.S.
Jamestown, the Chilcats said to the teacher who was sent to them,
I they would look up to him as they did to the sun." Incloses a letter
dated 15th October, 1879, to the Secretary of the Interior from himself
and one Kendall, in which they speak of being about to establish
schools in the Chilcats.    (Portions of the report omitted.)
This census gives the various divisions of the Chilkhat, Takoo and
Stakhin tribes, with their various populations.
This census gives the divisions of the tribes and populations, also
total white and Indian populations. Speaking of the fishing industries,
it is stated that the fish are taken in Chilkat Inlet chiefly and in
Chilkoot River. It is added : " The natives do not permit the whites
to fish in the streams. From 10,000 dols. to 15,000 dols. is paid
to natives each season, nearly all of which is for fish at 10 cents
each." A list of the Chilkat villages is given, and they are stated to
be prosperous, enterprising and independent. (A portion of the report
is left out.)
In his Annual Report for 1869, the Commissioner of the General
Land Office recommended that the United States Public Land System
be extended to Alaska. Pointed out that on May 17th, 1884, Alaska
was created a land district, and a United States Land Office was
located at Sitka, and that on July 28th, 1885, mining regulations were
made for the district. On February 7th, 1885, the local bye-laws of
the Harris mining district were filed. These bye-laws were enacted at
a meeting held by miners, October 4th, 1880. The Harris district was
described as from the mouth of the River Taco, on salt water, to a
river named Salmon River, north, and " then running inland 15 miles
along the coast range," etc. At a meeting held on February 9th, 1881,
it was described as " commencing at Auk Indian village and running
north-east ' true' to the boundary line of Alaska and British Columbia,
thence along the said boundary line to the Taku River,"* etc.
Seven locations are given, The first is hardly clearly enough
described to say whether it is in Canadian territory or not, but all the
rest are along the Lynn Canal and inside territory claimed by Canada.
It will be noted, however, that no patent was issued before
February 16th, 1900. The second was patented December 10th, 1902, the
third, March 15th, 1895, and fourth, fifth, and sixth, August 1st, 1894,
and the last has not yet been patented.
Says that immediately after the passage of the General Act of
1884, establishing civil government in Alaska, the Presbyterian
missionary at Haines made a survey of the Mission Reservation of
640 acres, in accordance with section 8 of the Act; that the papers
were sent to the deponent, and deposited by him with the Acting
Recorder at Sitka, who gave him a certificate of the records, which he
forwarded to the missionary, and that in 1894 the land office was
burned. A list of post-offices is given, with the dates of establishment:—
Haines...
Porcupine
Skagway
Ketchikan
Loring
Metlakahtla
July 22nd, 1882
June 12th, 1901
November I Oth, 1897
March 4th, 1892
September 10th, 1885
April 20th, 1888.
List of Post -offices
in S.E. Alaska.
Postmaster
General to the
Secretary of State,
April 8th, 1903,
p. 496.
The first three are the only post-offices in the list which come within the
boundaries claimed by Canada. The last three would be Canadian
according to the Clarence Strait contention.
This chapter gives an account of the visit by Mr. Seward to the
Chilcat River. The Indians had had trouble with the troops, and had
expressed a desire for peace and friendship, and the visit of the Active
afforded an opportunity to reciprocate the wishes of the Indians. It
was also desirable to communicate with Mr. Davidson, who was in
charge of a Coast Survey party, and had established his camp up the
Chilcat River for the purpose of observing the eclipse of the sun. Mr.
Seward and Gen. Davis sent a message to Mr. Davidson through the
Indians, and afterwards proceeded up the river to Mr. Davidson's camp.
Before the party returned on board, the Chilcat chiefs invited them to
meet the principal people of their tribe, and there were about two or
three hundred present. Klakautch announced that the Kalosh or
Sitka Indians had killed three Chilcats, and wanted to know what the
Great Tyee was going to do about it. They wanted to have permission
to kill nine Sitkas to avenge the death of the three chiefs. This was
refused by Seward, and the matter was settled by giving them 36
blankets. Afterwards the chiefs dined with the officials on board the
Active. At the Stakeen, Seward and some of the officers proceeded on
a two days' trip " up the river as far as the boundary line between
Alaska and the British dominions."
Portion of the report is omitted.
He remarks " Whether the endeavours of the Presbyterian
societies to civilise the Tlinkit and to prevent them from going down—
demonstrations of force having had the opposite effect—is decidedly
doubtful.'' He speaks of Lynn Canal as a continuance of Clarence
(p. 502).
The most northerly is the Jakutat-kon. "It was never very
numerous, though Chliebnikow reports that in 1805 it numered 200
warriors. The tribe seems to have lived in a sort of dependence on the
Tschilkat tribe. Russian seafearing men, Ismailow and Bolscharow,
met here the chief of the tribe, Ilchak, whose headquarters were said to
be on the large River Tscitsch&t, but who with his retinue came to
Yacutat Bay every spring in boats, partly for the purpose of trading
and partly in order to see his subjects.    *    *    *
" Lately the Yautats along the coast appear to have pushed on in a
westerly direction, or to have united with another tribe closely related
and allied to them, the Ugalentse. Petroff and Jacobson found Tlinkit
at the mouth of the Copper Eiver. According to an oral report made
by Jacobson, there are two villages, Tschilkat and Allaganak, inhabited
by Tlinkit, who are dependent upon the chiefs in the Yukatat Bay
territory and in winter usually return thither."
" The system of missions and schools which had been steadily
flourishing in Alaska among the Tlinkit and other Indian tribes, received
a serious check when, in 1867, that country passed into the hands of the
United States. The Russian schools at Sitka were closed and nothing
was done by the American Government for the establishment and
maintenance of new ones. Not until ten years afterwards was there a
reawakening of missionary activity, the Board of Home Missions of the
Presbyterian Church having taken the initiative in this matter."
" Simpson reports, in regard to the Secatquonays, a Tlinkit tribe
settled near the mouth of the Stakhin River, that they made trips into
Visit of Secretary
Seward to Alaska.
(From Life of
W. H. Seward, by
F. W. Seward,
New York, 1891,
Chap. 64),
pp. 497-501.
Tlinkit Indians
of S.E. Alaska.
Translation from
Dr. Aurel
Krause;  Jena,
1885, p. 70.
(Pages of the
Appendix, 501-6.)
Tribes of the
Tlinkit, p. 503.
As to Mission
Schools, p. 504.
Trading
p. 504.
Habits. 28
From the Chilkat
territory in
Alaska, by Dr. A.
Krause, 1882 (p.
345), pp. 506-8.
Appropriation for
Cession of Alaska
to the United
States, 1868, p.
509.
Provisions
relating to the
unorganised
territory of
Alaska, p. 509.
the interior to obtain furs for trading. Three or four times a year, it is
said, they would go to some place in the interior that had been designated as a market place and was about 60 miles (English) from
Lake Dease and 150 miles from the sea-coast, and was inhabited
by Niharnie Indians. These were under a female chieftain, who, in
the winter of 1838-9, kindly received the trader Campbell, who had
probably been expelled from the newly established trading post by the
Indians on the sea coast. The same female chief occasionally journeyed
to the seashore, and on such occasions was, quite as much as Campbell
had been, an object of great jealousy on the part of the Secatquonays.
I The Taku Indians likewise carried on in Simpson's time quite a
profitable trade as middlemen with the inhabitants of the interior by
ascending the river in canoes for 100 miles (English), in spite of the
strong currents, and then by travelling on foot a similar distance to a
market place in the interior."
I As every tribe has its own hunting and fishing grounds, so has
each tribe its own commercial roads, so to speak. The Tschilkats go
up the Tschilkat River, the Tschilkuts by way of the Deje Pass, and
only by long negotiations can the itinerary be changed."
As regards the survey of the Lynn Canal, he says : " In 1880 a
new survey was made of the Lynn Canal by Lieutenant Symonds, of
the U.S.S. Jamestown, during his expedition to the Upper Chilcat
village Kloquan. The chart embodying his observations and inquiries
(225 United States Hydrographic Office, 1882) shows a number of
valuable details regarding the northern part of the Lynn Canal,
especially as regards the location of Indian villages, number of
inhabitants, the existence and location of two large fresh water lakes and
of the narrow Dejah Fiord in the north-east (Tyya Inlet on the map).
As for the rest, the map merely represents a preliminary investigation,
rendering it difficult at times to identify some of the numerous places
only recently become known.
I The mapping out of the Chilkat River, which on this occasion was
navigated for 30 miles above its mouth, is little to be relied on, and so
far as that part is concerned, which he himself did not see, but which
was drawn in accordance with information furnished by natives—
namely, its upper course and connection with the Kussooa Biver—it is
totally incorrect."
This was simply a copy of the Appropriation to Purchase ; price
approved July 27th, 1868.
This simply gives a summary of the provisions of the United
States, 1875, chapter 3. Section 1954 of the Act from July 27th,
1868, is also given. Also a short summary of the Act providing a
Civil Government for Alaska, approved-May 17th, 1884.
AS TO THE EFFECT OF UNITED STATES ASSERTIONS AS
TO OCCUPATION, ACQUIESCENCE, MAPS, ETC., IF
PROVED.
So far we have only denied the proof, not the effect of it, which is
all right for Case and Counter Case. But should we not in argument
go further ?
Is there any difference as to such a claim between nations and
individuals, except considerations arising from occupation by troops
and administration generally ?    If so, to what extent ?
If not, take the maps. Suppose some of them were official and
that they were uniform. How can this give title except in favour of,
and in so far as some one has been misled by them, to his prejudice ? A and B own large estates separated by a moor. The line has
never been accurately surveyed, and there has been no occupation or
enclosure to specify any statute of limitations, but A has published
plans showing a supposed boundary on the moor. When a survey is
made, it turns out than the plan gives him too little. How can B
claim under it ?
Then as to occupation, on their own assertions, this being a
territory six hundred miles long, they have occupied four or five places
at the head of Lynn Inlet. If these are outside of the Treaty, how can
this give them a claim to anything; more 1 And even as to these places
they have acquired no title to specify any statute of limitations. Their
title by occupation must be distinguished from one under the Treaty.
It can give them no claim to more than has been actually occupied, on
the plea that they so occupied because they so construed the Treaty,
unless their construction was right.
As to acquiescence, which is constantly asserted, it implies knowledge which they hardly attempt to prove, and which until recently—
after 1896—did not exist.
The country was remote, and until 1897 hardly thought of or
inhabited by whites. Until then there was little or nothing done
which we could be expected to be aware of. They had a right up to
the 10 league limit, which was not in any way defined, and which by
their asserted occupation consisted in visits of ships which we could not
be expected to know of, more with a view of keeping peace among the
Indians, than to take possession of the country, and for the purpose of
their trade in an unoccupied country. Whether we should have
objected to this had we known it seems doubtful.
As to occupation, see British Case, p. 28 et seq. The President's
message, 2nd December, 1872, B. A. 165, seems to show that he
thought that there had then been no occupation or settlement of any
. kind.
See Judge Gray's report, p. 191, and Alexander Mackenzie's
minute, p. 188.
Also see Fisher's despatch, January 10th, 1877, p. 198, as to the
boundary being where the Treaty makes it.
Sir Edward Thornton's, of January 15th.
Page 248, Dall's letter to Dawson, April, 1884, stating the great
discrepancy between the maps.
See Bayard's letter to Phelps, November, 1885, p. 250. He is
clearly mistaken as to Prince of Wales Island.
See also King's memorandum, "Various Documents," p. 75. Colonel
Cameron's memo, report, pp. 38-9.
See Pope's article in E. Revue, p. 290. Not a white settler at the
head of Lynn Canal in 1880, and in 1897 only a single log cabin at
Dyea and Skagway.
EFFECT OF OCCUPATION IN INTERNATIONAL LAW.
" At the time of Great Britain's acquisition of the " Establishment From " The
of Essiquibo," a line existed as of right which formed the boundary PrintedAigument
between it and the adjoining territory of Spain, although the line had S? ^g*?/ th!
never been traced, and was the subject of controversy.    It was plainly Venezuela "
the intention of the Treaty that the determination of this line should pp. 24-5.
settle the boundary dispute.     It was not, and could not have been, its
intention to allow one of the parties to it to set up a title founded upon 30
After title has
once been fully
acquired, no
obligation rests
upon its holder, in
order to maintain
it, of showing a
continuous
succession of
affirmative acts of
occupation.
Pp. 358-9.
Bliss v. Johnson,
94, New Yorks
Reports, 235,
242 (1883).
its own encroachments upon the territory whose boundary at the outset
of its acquisition might thus be fixed as of right, and so take advantage
of its own wrong committed while the controversy was pending. It
was not, and could not have been, the intention of the Treaty to fix
such a date for the ascertainment of the true line as to include in its
consideration every act of trespass which one party had been enabled
by the simple operation of vis major to commit, and to make these very
trespasses the foundation of title. Especially was this true when the
parties had made a solemn agreement in 1850, which both repeatedly
recognized and appealed to,— Her Majesty's Government, in one case
at least as late as 1887,—and which never has been abrogated, that
neither should extend its occupation on the territory in dispute—an
agreement which by its very date precluded any fifty years' adverse
holding subsequent to the date of the British acquisition.
" In the nineteenth century the period was long since past when
any territory could be acquired in South America by mere encroachment. Modification of frontiers might still be accomplished by means
of conquest and cession, but the advancement of a boundary line by
simple appropriation of territory of a neighbour was no more possible at
that date in South America than it would be possible to-day in Europe
or in North America. It was doubtless for this reason that the Treaty
fixed the date of the acquisition by Great Britain of its colony of
British Guiana as the date to which the boundary question should be
referred and which should mark the epoch whose conditions should
determine its ascertainment. The reason for the provision, however, is
purely a philosophical discussion. Directions to the arbitrators are
stated plainly in the Treaty, and whatever may have been the reason
for the Treaty, the fact that the date was fixed by the Treaty is
sufficient to dispose of the question."
I On the other hand, the holder of the prior title, holding the
property as owner by a right which, except for this claim of adverse
holding, is good against all the world, is under no necessity of setting
up or proving the continuance of actual occupation. His title is an
established fact, and all the presumptions are in his favour. Whatever
may be the conditions required to establish prescription, the holder of
the original title is not affected by these requirements. He is not
called upon to show either actual settlement or political control.
Having established his prior title, all that is necessary to continue
ownership is presumed in the holder of the title. There is no duty
upon the holder of the title to wild land to settle upon his land in order
to maintain his title, or even to enclose it, or to perform any act upon
it or in reference to it of any kind whatever.
§ Still less is there any obligation upon States, in order to
maintain their public title, once acquired, of sovereignty or dominion to
territory, actually to people the territory, or to assert an active political
control by the performance of specific acts, for which no occasion may
arise. Even authors who admit the principle of voluntary dereliction
insist that the abandonment certainly cannot be shown by absence of.
settlement, or by the absence of affirmative acts of jurisdiction. If it
could, a large part of the territories held to-day by civilised States'
under unimpeachable titles would be considered as in a condition of
abandonment, open to the first comer.
" As well said by the Court of Appeals of the State of New
York—
I' The settled principles of law require courts to consider the
true owner as constructively in possession of the lands to which he
holds the title, unless they are in the actual hostile occupation of
another under a claim of title ; and this rule is still more imperative in the case of wild and uncultivated tracts of lands, which are
not susceptible of actual occupation and cultivation.'" 31
The contention in the case of the Maine Boundary also raised the See P-13 °*
question as to whether the Bay of Fundy and the Bay of Chaleurs ^£m*pl ers
were part of the ocean. on North
The decision of the arbitrator, in effect, was that they were not part American
of the ocean. Boundary.
I The territorial limits of the Commonwealth extend one marine
league from its sea shore at low water mark. When an inlet or arm
of the sea does not exceed two marine leagues in width between its
headlands, a straight line drawn from one headland to the other is
equivalent to the shore line."—Quoted in Sir E. Thornton's despatch,
2nd December, 1870.
From the Appendix to the first American statement in the North-
Western Boundary matter, dated 1st June, 1829, and signed by Albert
Gallatin and William P. Preble.
Extract (p. 46 of American Statements, F. 0. Library).
This is not the place to discuss how far the evidence which has
been adduced may prove that the Madawaska settlement has been
subject to the jurisdiction of Great Britain, from its establishment in
1783 to the present day. The jurisdiction exercised by the Government
of New Brunswick over that settlement, at least, since it was
ascertained that it lay west of the line drawn due north from the
source of the River St. Croix, has been considered by the Government
of the United States as an unwarrantable encroachment on their rights.
It was not to be expected that their long forbearance on that subject,
the motive for which could not be mistaken, and their not opposing the
transmission of the British mail alone: the valley of the River St. John,
would be alluded to as tending to strengthen the pretended British
claim.
Laws of the State
of Mass., Part I.,
Tit. I., Cap. I.,
Sec. I., of the
Revised Laws of
Mass.
From Canada,
1870.    Vol. IX,
Public Offices,
Part III., in F.O.
Library.
ANALYSIS OF PROJETS AND CONTRE PROJETS LEADING
UP TO TREATY BETWEEN GREAT BRITAIN AND
RUSSIA, SIGNED AT ST. PETERSBURG, FEBRUARY
28th, 1825.
Preamble.
The preamble of the Draft Convention, inclosure in No. 50,
Mr. C. Canning's letter to Sir C. Bagot, July 12th, 1824, recited
that the various matters were to be settled upon the basis of reciprocal
convenience.    The subjects to be dealt with were :—
1. " The commerce, navigation and fisheries of their subjects on
the Pacific Ocean."
2. " The limits of their possessions and establishments on the
north-west coast of America."
The counter draft of the Russian plenipotentiaries, inclosure in
No. 54, Sir C. Bagot's letter to Mr. C. Canning, August 12th, 1824,
British Case, Appendix 94, was precisely the same as the former,
with this difference, that the order of the subjects to be dealt with
was reversed; commerce, navigation and fisheries coming last instead
of first.
The preamble Draft Convention with Russia, embodying Mr. C.
Canning's final instructions to Stratford Canning (enclosed in Mr.
Canning's letter of 9th December, 1 824) was the same as that of the
original preamble, with the exception that the words " and establishments " were struck out. 32
-,"        ill'
The preamble in the Contre Projet submitted by Stratford Canning, February 1st (13), 1825 (published in Foster), differed from the
last preceding preamble only in changing the words " the limits " to
"the boundaries."
The preamble to No. 51 Stratford Canning's Contre Projet as
altered and corrected by Matusevich (published in Foster), is the same
as the last previous preamble.
No importance attaches to the use of limits in one preamble and
boundaries in the other, as the French word in each case is | les
limites."
In the preamble to the Treaty as finally ratified, no further change
occurs.
Article I.
Article I of the Treaty was Article I of the Draft Convention, and
enclosed by Mr. C. Canning to Sir C. Bagot, July 12th, 1824.
In the first instance it provided that the subjects of the two
Powers should enjoy the right of free navigation along the whole
extent of the Pacific Ocean, " comprehending the sea within Behring
Straits," and " should neither be troubled nor molested in carrying on
their trade and fisheries, in all parts of the said Ocean either to the
north or southward thereof.
"It being well understood that the said right of fishery should not
be exercised by the subjects of either of the two Powers nearer than
two marine leagues from the respective possessions of the other."
In the original Contre Projet sent by Sir C. Bagot to Mr. C.
Canning, August 12th, 1824, Article I was made Article V, and was
made to read :—
I Their respective subjects shall freely navigate over the whole of
the Pacific Ocean, north and south, without any hindrance whatever,
and that they shall enjoy the right of fishing in the deep sea, but that
the privilege will be valid only outside of the distance of two marine
leagues from Russian or British coasts."
In his annotation on Article I, referred to in his letter to Count
Lieven of 4th September, 1824, Count Nesselrode explained "Dans
l'Article correspondant les Plenipotentiaires de Russie ont suprime" les
mots en exercant leur commerce, parce qu'il leur a paru que cet Article
se rapporterait principalement a la navigation en haute mer, et qu'en
haute mer il n'y a pas de commerce possible.
D'ailleurs tout ce qui concerne les relations commerciales se trouve
regie par d'autres Articles.
In the Draft Convention with Russia embodying Mr. C. Canning's
final instructions to Stratford Canning (enclosed in Mr. Canning's
letter of 8th December, 1824), the Article was changed to read:
" Shall not be troubled or molested in any part of the Great Ocean,
commonly called the Pacific Ocean, either in navigating the same, in
fishing there, or in landing in such parts of the coast as shall not have
been already occupied, in order to trade with the natives under certain
conditions and restrictions specified."
In the Contre Projet submitted by Stratford Canning, February 1
(13), 1825, the Article was made to read precisely as in the final
instructions.
In the Contre Projet as altered and corrected by Matusevich, the
same wording was adhered to.
In Article I of the Treaty as finally ratified, the same wording
was adhered to.
It is clear that it was the intention of the parties that the subjects
of either power should be enabled to land at such parts of the coast as
shall not have been already occupied in order to trade with the natives,
subject to certain restrictions. 33
Article II.
Article II of the Treaty was originally section 2 of Article V of
the Draft Projet of Convention, sent by George Canning to Sir C.
Bagot, July 12th, 1824, which provided, " that the subjects of either of
the High Contracting Parties shall not land at any spot where there
may be an establishment of the other, without the permission of the
Governor, or authority of the place, unless they should be driven thither
by stress of weather or other accident."
In the Russian Contre Projet sent by Sir C. Bagot to Mr. C.
Canning, August 12th, 1824, Article V, section 2, became Article III.
In the Draft Convention with Russia embodying.Mr. Stratford
Canning's final instructions (December 8th, 1824), Article ni, section 2
became Article II, and remained Article II through the subsequent
negotiations. Throughout the negotiations the provisions of the
Article remained practically the same, and were incorporated in
Article II of the Treaty.
Article III.
This was Article II of the draft of July 12th. In that Article the
line of demarcation was described as " commencing from the two points
of the island called Prince of Wales' Island, which form the southern
extremity thereof, which points lie in the parallel of 54° -40', and
between the 131st and 132nd degree of west longitude," it was then
made to " ascend northerly along the channel called Portland Channel
till it strikes the coast of the continent lying in the 56th degree of
north latitude" (au 56° degre de latitude nord").
From this point it was to be carried along that coast "in a
direction parallel to its windings, and at or within the seaward base of
the mountains by which it is bounded " (" et sous ou dans la base vers
la mer de montagnes, qui la bordent ") | as far as the 139th degree of
longitude west of the said meridian," and thence to the Frozen Ocean.
In Canning's Contre Projet of August 12th, the beginning was made
again at the " two points" ("situees sous la parallele du 54° 40' de
latitude nord"), and "between the 131st and 133rd degree of west
longitude." It was then to " ascend northerly along the channel called
Portland Channel until said pass comes to an end in the interior of the
mainland situated on the 56th degree of north latitude." From that
point it was to be " carried along the coast, in a direction parallel to its
windings, as far as the 139th degree of longitude west" (same
meridian), and thence along that degree of longitude to the Frozen
Ocean.
The French words are :—
" Au nord par la passe dite Portland Channel, jusqu'au point ou
cette passe se termine dans l'interieur de la terre ferme au 56° de
latitude nord. De ce point elle suivra cette c6te parallelement k ses
sinuosites jusqu'au 139th degre de longitude ouest (meme meridien), et
de Ik," etc., etc.
In this draft Article II of July 12th became Article I for the
reason given in Count Nesselrode's letter to Count Lieven, September 4th,
1824, that is, because the question of ocean jurisdiction had been
disposed of, and a division of territory became of first importance.
In Mr. Canning's draft of December 8th, the line of demarcation
•commences " from the southernmost point of the island called Prince of
Wales' Island, which point lies in the parallel of 54° 40', and between
the 131st and 133rd degree of west longitude," etc., and ascends
northerly along the channel called Portland Channel, " till it strikes
the coast of the continent on the 55th degree of north latitude. From
the point where the line of demarcation strikes this degree it shall be
carried along the summit of the mountains parallel to the coast, as far
as the 140th degree of longitude west of the said meridian, thence
along that degree to the Frozen Ocean." 34
In Canning's Contre Projet of February 1 (13), 1825, the line of
commencement is described as under the parallel of 54° 40' (sous le
parallele). It then ascends '' along the passage called Portland
Channel until it touches the coast of the mainland at the 56th degree
of north latitude." From that point " it shall follow the crest of the
mountains, in a direction parallel to the coast, to the 141st degree of
west longitude, same meridian, and thence the meridian line of the
141st degree of west longitude in its prolongation to the Arctic Ocean
(mer Glaciale), shall form the frontier between the respective possessions
of the two Powers."
The most important French words are :—
I Le long de la passe, dite Portland Channel, jusqu'a ce qu'elle
touche a la cote de terre ferme au 56me de latitude nord, depuis ce
point ci, ou la ligne de demarcation touche au 56me degre, elle suivra la
crete de montagnes dans une direction parallele a la cote jusqu'au
141me degre," etc. In the corrections of Matusevitch the point of
commencement is the same, and the line ascends " to the north along
the passage called Portland Channel to the place where that passage
ends in the interior of the mainland, at the 56th degree of north
latitude. From this last point the line of demarcation shall follow the
crest of the mountains, in a direction parallel to the coast to the point
of intersection of the 141st degree of west longitude (same meridian).
In the Treaty the point remained the same, the line ascending " to
the north along the channel called Portland Channel, as far as the point
of the continent where it strikes the 56th degree of north latitude ;
from this last-mentioned point the line of demarcation shall follow the
summit of the mountains situated parallel to the coast, as far as the
point of intersection of the 141st degree," etc.
Article IV.
The portion of this Article dealing with the width of the lisiere
was paragraph 1 of Article III of the Draft of July 12th, which provided " that the said strip of coast on the continent of America, which
forms the boundary of the Russian possessions, shall not in any case
extend more than 10 marine leagues in breadth from the ocean towards
the interior at whatever distance the aforesaid mountains may be."
The French words are :—
I Que la susdite lisiere de cote sur le continent de l'Amerique,
formant la limite des possessions Russes, ne doit, en aucun cas, s'etendre
en largeur depuis la mer vers l'interieur, au dela de la distance des 10
lieues maritimes, a quelque distance que seront les susdites montagnes."
In the Russian Contre Projet this became Article II, and provided
that the " strip of the north-west coast belonging to Russia, from the
Portland Channel up to the point of intersection of the 139th degree
of west longitude (meridian of Greenwich) shall not have in width,
upon the continent, more than 10 marine leagues measured from the
shore of the sea."
The French words are :—
N'aura point en largeur sur le continent plus de 10 lieues marines
a partir du bord de la mer."
In Count Nesselrode's annotation of September 4th, on the first
paragraph of Article III of the Draft of July 12th, he says, "We have
suppressed all mention of mountains which follow the winding of the
coast. That mention became useless the moment the width of the strip
of the mainland which would belong to Russia was determined in
marine leagues."
In  the  draft of final instructions of 8th December,
Article II becomes paragraph 3 of Article III, and reads as follows :—
| Provided, nevertheless, that if the summit of the aforesaid mountains shall turn out to be, in any part of their range, at more than the 35
distance of 10 marine leagues from the Pacific, then that, for that space,
the line of demarcation shall be a line parallel to the coast and its
windings, at the said distance of 10 marine leagues therefrom, so that
the said line of demarcation shall never extend further than 10 marine
leagues from the coast." In the Contre Projet submitted by Stratford
Canning, February 1st (13), the Article becomes a proviso to paragraph
2 of Article III, and reads as follows :—
"Provided, however, that if the crest of the said mountain, in any
part whatever of their extent, shall be found to be more than 10 marine
leagues from the Pacific Sea, the line of demarcation for that space
shall be a line parallel to the sinuosities of the coast, so that the line of
demarcation shall not be anywhere more than 10 leagues from the
coast.   The French words are :—
I Pourvu, n^anmoins, qui si la crete des susdites montagnes, dans
quelque partie que se soit, de leur etendue, se trouvera situees k plus
de dix lieues maritimes de la mer Pacifique, la ligne de demarcation
pour cet espace, sera une ligne parallele aux sinuosites de la c6te, de
maniere que la dite ligne de demarcation ne sera en aucune partie k plus
de dix lieues de la c6te."
In Matusevich's corrections it is provided that the line " shall
have as its boundary the crest of the mountains, as has been said above,
but that, wherever the distance between the crest of the mountains and
the sea shall be more than 10 marine leagues, the boundary of this-
same strip shall be formed by a line parallel to the sinuosities of the
coast, and it shall nowhere be more than 10 marine leagues from the
sea.
The French words are :—
" Aura pour limites la crete des montagnes ainsi qu'il a 6te dit
plus haute, mais que partout ou la distance entre la crete des
montagnes et la mer se trouverait de plus de dix lieues marines la
limite de cette meme lisiere sera formee par une ligne parallele aux
sinuosites de la c6te, et qui ne pourra jamais s'eloigner de la mer que
de dix lieues marines."
The provision becomes paragraph 2 of Article IV, and retains this:
position in the Treaty. The French provision in the Treaty is as
follows :—
" Que partout ou la crete des montagnes qui s'etendent dans une
direction parallele k la c6te depuis le 56° degre de latitude nord au
point d'intersection de 141° ddgre" de longitude ouest, se trouverait k
la distance de plus de 10 lieues marines de l'Oc^an, la limite entre les
possessions Britanniques et la lisiere de c6te mentioned ci-dessus comme
devant appartenir k la Russie sera formed par une ligne parallele ou
sinuosites de la c6te, et qui ne pourra jamais en entre eloignee que de
10 lieues marines."
The English equivalent is as follows :—
I That whenever the summit of the mountains, which extend in a
direction parallel to the coast, from the 56th degree of north latitude
to the point of intersection of the 141st degree of west longitude, shall
prove to be at the distance of more than 10 marine leagues from the
ocean, the limit between the British possessions and the line of coast
which is to belong to Russia, as above mentioned, shall be formed by a
line parallel to the windings of the coast, and which shall never exceed
the distance of 10 marine leagues therefrom."
Article V.
This was Article VI in the Draft of July 12th, 1824, and provided
as follows:—
" No establishment shall in future be formed by British subjects
either upon the coast or upon the parts of the continent comprised
within the limits of the Russian possessions designated in Article II,
and in like manner no such establishment shall be formed by Russian
subjects beyond the said limits. 36
In the Russian Projet August 12th, 1824, Article VI of the first
Draft, or V of the Treaty, became Article IX, with the difference that
the territory was described as the possessions designated in Article I
and II of that Draft; Article II, however, of the Draft does not add to
the extent of territory. Article IV becomes the last two sections of
Article III; the provisions remain the same, and the territory is
described " as the limits of the Russian possessions designated in this
Article." The limits described in the Article are the same as those set
out in Articles III and IV of the Treaty.
In the Contre Projet submitted by Stratford Canning, February 1st
(13), 1825, the last two sections of Article III become the last section
of Article III, and provides that " British subjects shall not form any
establishment, either on the coast or on the strip of mainland included
in the limits of the Russian possessions as they are described in this
Article, and in the same way no such establishment shall be formed by
Russian subjects beyond the said limits."
In the corrections of Matusevich, the provisions of the Article
remain the same, but it becomes Article Y instead of a section of
Article HI.
It continues as Article V in the Treaty, the provisions remaining
the same.
Article VI.
Article VI of the Treaty was originally contained in Sections II
and III of Article III of the Draft Convention of July 12th, 1824.
Those sections provided as follows :
2. I That British subjects shall for ever freely navigate and trade
along the said line of coast, and along the neighbouring islands.
3. 1 That the navigation and commerce of those rivers of the
continent which cross this line of coast shall be open to British subjects, as well as to those neighbouring or visiting the interior of this
continent, as to those coming from the Pacific Ocean who shall touch
on these latitudes."
In the Russian Contre Projet, August 12th, 1824, this provision
became Section IV of Article III, and provided as follows :—
4. | That in the strip of coast described by Article II of the
present Convention as belonging to Russia the subjects of His Britannic.
Majesty shall for ever freely navigate the rivers where they neighbour
the interior of the continent, or where they intend to reach there from
the Pacific Ocean from the said rivers."
The strip of coast mentioned in Article II of the Contre Projet
extended " from the Portland Channel up to the point of intersection
from the 139th degree of west longitude, meridian of Greenwich."
In the final Draft of December 8th, 1824, Section IV of
Article III became Article IV, and provided as follows :—
" It is understood that the subjects of His Britannic Majesty as
well as those who may come from the interior of the continent, as those
who may come from the Pacific Ocean, shall enjoy for ever the free and
unmolested navigation of all rivers or streams, which in their course
to the Pacific may be found to cross the line of demarcation on the
border of coast described in the foregoing Article."
It will be noticed that in this draft the word " streams" was
added.
In the Contre Projet submitted by Stratford Canning, February
1st (13th), 1825 (Foster), the words "ou fleuves" are left out, but the
numbering of the Article is the same.
In the corrections by Matusevich the provisions remain the same,
but that the navigation provided for is that of the fleuves et rivieres
crossing the lisiere.
In Article VI of the Treaty, the reference is to the rivers and
streams which "may cross the line of demarcation upon the line of
coast described in Article III of the present Convention." 37
Article VII.
Article VII of the Treaty first appears as Article V of the Draft
of July 12th, 1824, which provides as follows:—
With regard to the other parts of the north-west coast of America,
and of the islands adjacent thereto belonging to either of the two High
Contracting Parties, it is agreed that for the space of 10 years from the
April, 1824, their respective vessels, and those of their subjects,
shall reciprocally enjoy the liberty of visiting without hindrance the
gulfs, havens and creeks of the said coast, in places not already
occupied, for the purpose of fishing, and of commerce with the natives
of the country.
The only part of the coast previously mentioned is referred to in
the sentence, " The line which separates the possessions of the two
High Contracting Parties upon the continent and the islands of
America to the north west," etc.
It was also provided by Article IV that the port of Sitka should
for ever remain open to the commerce of the British. The " other
parts" of the north-west coast of America would therefore seem to
mean those portions south of the Portland Channel.
In the Russian Contre Projet of August 12tb, 1824, Article V of
the above Draft became Article III, and provided for the same
reciprocal rights " within the possessions of the two powers as they are
described in the preceding Articles, and especially up to the line of
59° 30' north latitude, but not beyond," and the rights were made to
extend for 10 years from 5th (17) April, 1824.
The description of the possessions of the two Powers in the
preceding articles covers the extent " from the two points which form
the southernmost extremity of the island called Prince of Wales'
Island," to the 56th degree of north latitude, and from there to the
intersection of the line with the 139th degree of longitude west, and
then along the 139th degree of longitude to the Frozen Ocean.
According, therefore, to the Russian Contre Projet, these
reciprocal rights were to be limited to the coast between Portland
Channel and 59° 30' north latitude.
In the Draft Convention of 8th December, 1824, embodying Mr.
C. Canning's final instructions to Mr. Stratford Canning, the provisions
of Article III became Article V, and provided for the same rights for
the same length of time, but changed the description of the territory in
which they were to exist to read " on the coast mentioned in
Article III."
The coast mentioned in Article III in this Draft is along the line
of demarcation from Portland Channel to the 140th degree of longitude,
and thence along that degree to the Frozen Ocean.
In the Contre Projet submitted by Stratford Canning, February 1st
(13), 1825 (Foster), the article is numbered as before, and the only
difference is in the reference to the territory as Dans les parties de la
c6te mentionees dans l'Article III, translated " In the parts of the coast
mentioned in Article III."
The coast mentioned in Article III is the same as that mentioned
in Article III of the draft of December 8th.
No alteration is made by Matusevitch.
In the Treaty Article V becomes Article VII. The 10 years is to
begin from the signature of the Convention and the rights preserved,
and territory over which they extend remain the same. The territory
is described as " the coast mentioned in Article III" which is referred
to in the words " the Hne of demarcation between the possessions of the
High Contracting Powers upon the coast of the continent and the
islands of America to the north-west," etc., etc. (The French is " les
lies de l'Amerique nord-ouest.") Article VIII.
Article VIII of the Treaty was Article IX of the Draft of July
12th, 1824, as in that Draft it provided that Sitka should " for ever "
remain open to the commerce of the British.
In the Russian Counter Draft, August 12th, 1824, this was
changed, and it was provided that the port should remain open " during
10 years " to | foreign trade," and at the end of that time " this privilege shall be renewed according to the wishes of Russia."
In Canning's Draft of December 8th, the port was to remain open
to the commerce and vessels of the British for 10 years for the exchange
of ratifications in case of a further extension of the time to any other
power, the like extension was to " be granted also to Great Britain."
Li this Draft Article IV became Article VJ.
In Canning's Contre Projet of February 1st (13), 1825, the numbering of the Article and its provisions remain the same.
In the corrections of Matusevich the provisions remain the same,
but the Article became No. VIII as in the Treaty.
No change was made in the wording of this Article in the Treaty.
Article IX.
The provisions of this Article remain practically uniform
throughout the draft of Projets and Contre Projets. It was
paragraph 2 of Article V of the Draft of July 12th, paragraph 3 of
Article III of August 12th, Article VII of December 8th and February
1st, and Article IX in Matusevich's corrections.
It remained Article IX in the Treaty.
Article X.
Also this Article remained practically the same throughout the
drafting of the Projets and Contre Projets. It was Article VII of
July 12th and August 12th; Article VIII of December 8th and
February 1st (13); and Article X in the draft corrected by Matuse-
vitch ; it then became Article X of the Treaty.
Article XL
This Article also remained practically the same in the various
drafts. It was Article VIII of July 12th and August 12th ; Article IX
of December 8th and February 1st (13), and Article XI in the corrections.    It then remained Arcticle XI in the Treaty.
VANCOUVER'S TEXT.
The United States denies (Counter Case, p. 8) that there is any
evidence that the negotiators had read Vancouver's " Voyages." On the
contrary, they say there • is proof that Sir Charles Bagot was not
familiar with the Yancouver narrative..
To establish this they quote from the letters of Sir Charles Bagot
to show that he thought that the head of Portland Channel might be
the mouth of some river communicating with the inland territories of
the Hudson Bay Company, and also thought that several like rivers
might be found whose mouths lay between latitude 54° 40' and
latitude 56°.
W 39
This, they say, shows that Sir Charles Bagot had never read
Vancouver's " Voyages," for in the dedication of his published narrative,
it is announced that within the limits of his researches there was no
" navigable communication with the Atlantic Seaboard," and at the
close of his narrative he criticises the story of De Fontas's alleged
discovery of a great river, up which he sailed for 60 leagues, after
passing for 200 leagues through the channels of a vast archipelago.
Commenting on this, Vancouver said the archipelago did exist, but
that the evidence of a navigable river flowing into it was still wanting.
Further, it is said, the scrupulous exactness of his survey of the shores
precluded the possibility of there being such a river as that described
on the account of De Fontas's voyage.
The force of this as applied to the question now at issue depends
upon Vancouver's meaning of " navigable." He clearly meant a river
navigable for ships of considerable size, like that up which De Fontas
is said to have sailed. It was a river or strait which would serve
as a communication with the Atlantic Ocean that Vancouver was
looking for. He took no account of streams which might be navigable
for such small craft as were used by the Hudson's Bay Company in
their trade, and for transport of supplies.
These general statements of Vancouver are therefore inconclusive as
to the point in discussion.
But the question remains, Whence did Sir Charles Bagot get the
impression that the rivers of large size entered Portland and Behm
Canals ? No map is known to have been before the negotiators on
which such rivers were shown, and there is no record of any information to that effect having been received from the Hudson's Bay Company or others.
The question may be answered by a reference to Vancouver's
text.
Describing his explanation of Portland Canal he says that it was
"found to terminate in low marshy land." ("Voyages," first edition,
vol. ii., p. 340 ; App. to British Case, p. 143.) After leaving the head
of the canal, he says I As we pursued this branch, salmon in great
plenty were leaping in all directions. Seals and sea otters were also
seen in great numbers, even when the water was nearly fresh, and
which was the case upwards of twenty miles from its termination."
Again, when going up Behm Canal, he remarks more than once
upon the relative freshness of the -water. ("Voyages," vol. ii., pp. 354-6).
He found the inlets generally terminating in marshy land, frequently
with streams flowing through it.
To a reader of the narrative, the existence of the marshy land and
the fact that the flow of fresh water was sufficient to mask the saltness
of the sea water for. such considerable distances would suggest the
existence of rivers, sufficient at least for the Hudson Bay Company's
purposes, which Vancouver had overlooked as unimportant in his
search for a passage for his ships.
The passages quoted in the United States Counter Case can
suggest, therefore, that Sir C. Bagot had read Vancouver's narrative
rather than the contrarv.
PORTLAND CANAL.
Memorandum of References to Portland Canal in the
Negotiations of 1823-5.
The   first   reference   to   Portland    Canal   in   the    Diplomatic See Br. Ca.,
Correspondence  of 1823-5,  occurs  in  the  counter  proposal  by  the App. I., p. 70,
Russian  Plenipotentiaries to Sir   Charles Bagot's proposals made in
February, 1824 :—-
" Pour  completer  la  ligne  de  demarcation  et  la  rendre   aussi 40
See Br. Ca.,
App. I., p. 71.
lb., p. 73.
lb., p. 73.
lb., p. 76.
lb., p. 77, at foot.
lb., p. 85.
lb., p. 87.
distincte que possible, les plenipotentiaires de Russie ont exprime" le
desir de lui faire suivre le Portland Canal jusqu'aux montagnes qui
bordent la c6te."
Sir Charles Bagot then made an alternative proposal. In the
course of their  observations  thereon,  the  Russian  Plenipotentiaries
" C'est par ces raisons que les Plenipotentiaires de Russie ont
propose pour iimites sur la c6te du continent au sud, le Portland Canal,
dont l'origine dans les terres est par le 56e degre de latitude nord, et,
k Test, la chaine de montagnes, qui suit k une tres petite distance les
sinuosites de la cdte."
In Sir Charles Bagot's reply thereto, he says :—
I Mais le Plenipotentiaire de Sa Majeste Britannique ne peut pas
admettre que la Russie accorderoit ou assureroit k Sa Majeste
Britannique un nouvel avantage par sa renonciation k la partie de la
c6te situee entre l'embouchure du Portland Canal et le degre de
latitude envisage" comme limite des possessions Busses dans l'Oukase de
1821, ni meme par sa renonciation k toute partie du continent au midi
des Etablissemens qui y ont ete dejk formes ; car, quand meme Sa
Majeste Britannique eut jamais reconnu ce degre de latitude comme
formant la ligne de demarcation en autant qu'il regarde les lies, elle ne
pourroit, d'apres le principe £nonce" plus haut, l'avoir reconnu comme
limite sur le continent voisin, sur lequel la Compagnie de la Baie de
Hudson avoit dejk etabli plusieurs de ses postes les plus importants."
#    #    #
" L'origine du Portland Canal peut etre, comme il y a lieu de
croire, l'embouchure de quelque fleuve qui coule par le milieu du pays
occupe" par la Compagnie de la Baie de Hudson, et il est par consequent
d'une importance majeure k la Grande-Bretagne d'en posseder la souve-
rainte des deux rives."
Subsequently Nesselrode, writing to Lieven 17th April, 1824,
says : " Afin de ne pas couper I'lle du Prince de Galles, qui selon cet
arrangement devoit rester k la Russie, nous proposons de porter la
frontiere m^ridionale de nos domaines aU 54° 40' de latitude et de la
faire aboutir sur le Continent au Portland Canal, dont I'embouchure
dans l'Ocean est a la hauteur de ITle du Prince de Galles et I'o'rigine
dans les terres entre le 55° et 56° de latitude."
And again in the same letter :—
" On ne peut effectivement assez le repeter, d'apres le temoignage
des Cartes les plus tecentes, l'Angleterre ne possede aucun Etablisse-
ment, ni a la hauteur du Portland Canal, ni au bord meme de I'Ocean,
et la Russie, quand elle insiste sur la conservation d'un mediocre espace
de terre ferme, n'insiste au fond que sur le moyen de faire valoir, nous
dirons plus, de ne pas perdre les lies environnantes."
George Canning writing to Sir C. Bagot,  12 July, 1824, says :—
" After full consideration of the motives which are alleged by the
Russian Government for adhering to their last propositions respecting
the line of demarcation to be drawn between British and Russian
occupancy on the north-west cost of America, and of the comparative
inconvenience of admitting some relaxation in the terms of Your
Excellency's last instructions, or of having the question between the
two Governments unsettled for an indefinite time, His Majesty's
Government have resolved to authorise Your Excellency to consent to
include the south points of Prince of Wales Island within the Russian
frontiers, and to take as the line of demarcation a line drawn from the
southernmost point of Prince of Wales Island from south to north
through Portland Channel, till it strikes the mainland in latitude 56 ;
thence following the sinuosities of the coast, along the base of the
mountains nearest the sea to Mount Elias, and thence along the
139th degree of longitude to the Polar Sea."
And in the draft treaty enclosed in the same letter :—
« # # # .j-j^e }jne 0f frontier between the British and Russian
possessions shall ascend northerly along the Channel  called Portland 41
Channel till it strikes the coast of the continent lying  in the 56th
degree of north latitude."
Sir Charles Bagot, writing George Canning under the 12th August,
1824, in recounting the objections of the Russians to the above draft,
says:—
| As to the liberty  to be granted to British subjects to navigate See Br. Ca.,
and trade for ever along the coast of the lisiere which it is proposed to •^•PP- r-t P- 92-
cede to Russia, from the Portland Channel to the 60th degree of north
latitude, and the islands adjacent."
Commenting on this, Bagot says in the same letter :—
1 As to the second point:—The Russian Plenipotentiaries declare lb., p. 93.
that they are ready to grant to  His Majesty's subjects  for ten years,
but for no longer period, the  liberty  to navigate  and trade along the
coast of the lisiere proposed to be  ceded to Russia, from the Portland
Caned to the 60th degree of north latitude, and the islands adjacent."
J. H. Pelly (Hudson's Bay Company), writing to the Foreign
Office, 20th October, 1824, says:—
"I duly received Lord Francis Conyngham's letter of the 19th lb., p. 110.
instant, with its enclosures, and it does not appear to me that the
counter-project of Russia is so essentially different from the one which
His Majesty's Ministers have considered it advisable to propose to
Russia as far as the Hudson's Bay Company are concerned, to reject it,
except in the 2nd Article, which should more accurately define the
eastern boundary from the Portland Canal to the 61st degree of north
latitude to be the chain of mountains at a j tres-petite distance de la
c6te,' but that if the summit of these mountains exceed 10 leagues,
that the said distance be substituted instead of the mountains."
And in the final draft Convention enclosed in Canning's letter of
the 8th December, 1824, there occurs :—
" *    *    *    the line of frontier between the British and Russian lb., p. 115.
possessions shall ascend northerly (the whole of Prince of Wales Island
belonging to Russia) along the channel called | Portland Channel" till
it  strikes  the coast  of the  continent  in  the  56th degree  of north
latitude."
According to Foster, Stratford Canning submitted a further draft
Projet 1st (13th) February, 1825, enclosed in G. Canning's letter to
Stratford Canning. Article III. of that Projet has (p. 77) "le long de
lax passe dite Portland Channel" as in the Treaty itself. Foster, Foster, p. 79.
however, translates this " along the passage called Portland Channel,"
and the same word passage is used by Foster in the translation of what
he calls S. Canning's Contre-Projet as altered and corrected by lb., p. 84.
Matusevich.
LA PASSE DITE PORTLAND CHANNEL."
In the British Case (p. 57) it is pointed out that the word "passe"
is indicative of a narrow channel,,and fits the true Portland Canal far
better than it does the broad waters suggested in substitution.
The United States in their Counter Case (pp. 23 and 24) endeavour
to break the force of this by printing out that "on the previous page
of the British Case," Sir Charles Bagot is quoted as using the expression,
referring to Portland Canal, " de la par le milieu de ce canal."
Reference to the context (see page 56 of the British Case) will
show that there was a certain grammatical reason for Sir Charles
Bagot's use of the word " canal." The point he was dealing with did
not demand further precision in description than his statement of the
latitude of its mouth 54° 45'.
Even if he used the word "canal" advisedly as a descriptive
designation  of this channel, such  use  would  merely  show  that  he 42
considered it a wider channel than it actually is, or was afterwards
fouod to be by the negotiators, who used " passe " in their final draft,
as being a more appropriate word.
Although the quotation from Sir Charles Bagot's letter and the
paragraph pointing out the use of " passe" in the Treaty are to be
found on consecutive pages in the British Case, it may be pointed
out that a full year elapsed between the letter and the Treaty.
FROM HUDSON'S  BAY CO.  CORRESPONDENCE.
Stickine River—1834.
24th Oct., 1835.
U.S. App., p. 978.
13th Nov., 1835.
H. B. Corr.,
Pt. II., p. 12.
Ibid.,
Pt. V., p. 3.
6th Jan., 1836.
Part II., p. 13.
14th Jan., 1836.
Ibid.
In August, 1833, the Hudson's Bay schooner Vancouver (Captain
Alexander Duncan) and brig Lama (Captain McNeil) sailed from Nass
to Stickine.    P.S. Ogden ; C. Factor in charge of expedition.
Object of expedition to explore Stickine for a trading post. This
they did ascending the river in boats and choosing a place for a post
miles from the mouth of the river.
On 15th June, 1834, Hudson's Bay Company's brig Dryad
(Captain Charles Kipling) left Naas with provisions and goods for said
settlement.
On 18th June, when in sight of Point Highfield, the brig was
boarded by a Russian officer, who ordered them to return. A Russian
brig of 14 guns, Captain Zarembo, was lying in harbour. Captain
Zarembo stated his orders were not to permit expedition to ascend
Stickine without orders from Baron Wrangell (Commandant of Russian
establishments on the Pacific).
A letter having been sent to Baron Wrangell, a reply was received
from Lieutenant Etolin (in the absence of Baron Wrangell) declining to
countermand Wrangell's orders.
The expedition then returned to the Nass.
Above facts taken from Captain Duncan's affidavit, dated London,
November 17 th, 1836.
J. H. Pelly (Governor H.B.C.) to Lord Palmerston complains of
the infraction of the Convention of 1825 (6th Article, also 7th Article).
Encloses document claiming damages £22,150 10s. lid.
W. Fox-Strangways (F.O.) "to J. H. Pelly, directed by Lord
Palmerston to say that the papers transmitted by him will be forwarded
to H.M. Ambassador at St. Petersburg.
F. 0. to Ambassador. States complaint. Refers to a declaration
by Russian Captain Zarembo that his instructions were to prevent the
expedition and that by those, and not by the Treaty, he would be
guided.
Instructs that the matter be brought to the notice of Russia, to
claim redress and compensation, and express expectation that such orders
will be given as may prevent similar violation of the Treaty in future.
J. Backhouse to J. H. Pelly :—
That matter of his letter of 24th October, 1835, had been brought
to the notice of the Russian Government by H. M. Ambassador.
That Count Nesselrode has stated that he has no official information on the subject, but will make enquiries. Emperor would regret
any violation of the Treaty.
J. H. Pelly to Lord Palmerston :—
Regrets that sentiments of Russian Government have not been
expressed in more formal shape with  specific  instructions  to Baron
Wrangell
Asks for some official statement at an early date which
forwarded to the north-west coast.
might
be 43
That if an extension of the ten years term be granted to the
United States or any other Power, Great Britain should get a similar
extension.
J. Backhouse (F.O.) to J. H. Pelly (H.B.C.) :—
That the Russian Government disavow, etc., and promise to convey
His Imperial Majesty's disapprobation, etc. Russians deny the charge
that offensive language was used. Say that expedition was not stopped
by any insurmountable danger or actual danger, but rather from an
excess of caution on part of persons in charge of it.
J. H. Pelly to Lord Palmerston :—
Replying to Mr. Backhouse's letter, transmits evidence as to the
facts, including the declaration of Captain Duncan's (referred to in
the beginning of this abridgment). This evidence was to prove that the
Russians did really use menaces and unbecoming language.
George Simpson to J. H. Pelly :—
That he has examined the accounts of expenses upon which the
claims against the Russians were based, and asserts that the pecuniary
loss to the Company far exceeds the amount claimed. Yet on account
of procuring authenticated accounts which will satisfy the Russian
Government, suggests a compromise of the claim be proposed through
H.M. Government.
J. H. Pelly to Lord Palmerston :—■
Transmits substance of Mr. Simpson's letter.
J. H. Pelly to Lord Glenelg (extract):—
Refers to the trade, etc., of the Company ; also to their claim
against Russian Government with " the firmest reliance on the further
efforts of the Government,'' etc.
States that the Company has six permanent establishments on the
coast, 16 in the interior, besides several migratory and hunting parties
and six armed vessels, one of them a steam vessel, on the coast.
Lord Durham to Count Nesselrode, dated St. Petersburg:—
Transmits several enclosures (including Duncan's declaration).
Calls attention to the fact that in the year previous to the stoppage of
the Expedition. 1833, the company had gone up the Stickine, and
marked out a place for the establishment, and made arrangements with
the Indians. On this occasion the expedition encountered no opposition
or hindrance, and no Russian establishment then existed.
Count Nesselrode to Lord Durham :—
Points out that, according to the declaration of Duncan, which
Lord Durham had sent to him, the company had traded gunpowder to
the Indians, contrary to Article 9 of the Convention of 1825, and this
fact would explain the refusal of the Russian authorities to allow
Mr. Ogden to return the next year.
Memorandum (from H. B. House) left with Lord Melbourne and
the Right Hon. Chas. P. Thompson. The Russian Fur Company's
principal establishment is at New Archangel or Sitka. They have
other establishments on the coast and islands to the northward of Sitka,
and one " Fort Ross," in the Bay of Bodega, on the coast of California.
Also 12 vessels, each armed with 10 guns. Adds a list of principal
H. B. Co.'s establishment, including Fort McLoughlin and Fort
Simpson (apparently the only ones on the coast north of Puget Sound).
J. H. Pelly to Lord Palmerston :—
Gives information relative to early exploration of the coast and
interior of " Oregon Territory."
James Douglas, Fort Vancouver, to George Simpson (Extract) ;—
That the visits of the inhabitants of Kyarney, Tomgass, Port
Stewart, Stickine, and other Russian settlements, have increased the
trade.
James Douglas to Governor, Deputy Governor, and Committee of
H.B.C.    (Extract) :—
Refers to trade of Russian Indians with Port Simpson. Rumour
current among the natives that the Russians intend to abandon
Stickine. This may be meant by the Russians as a threat, merely, ta
prevent Indians from bringing furs into British territory.
28th Jan., 1836.
H. B. Corr.,
Part II., p. 15.
4th Feb., 1836.
lb., p. 16.
29th Nov., 1836.
lb., p. 21.
10th Dec, 1836.
lb., p. 22.
10th Feb., 1837.
lb., p. 24.
5-17th Feb., 1837.
lb., p. 25.
10-22nd March,
1837.
lb., p. 26.
20th Dec, 1837.
lb., p. 27.
9th March,  1838.
lb., p. 28.
18th March, 1838.
lb., p. 30.
18th Oct., 1839.
lb., p. 30. 20th Oct., 1828.
H. B. Corr.,
Part II., p. 31.
James Douglas to John Work (extract):—
Last year and this, a Russian vessel as usual frequently Tongass
and Kygamey watching their lines.
Reference to Fort Simpson as in the " vicinity of the Russians."
Trade on the coast not likely to increase to any extent, so long as
we are excluded from the northward as at present.
Suggests, beside Stickine, a post near St. Elias wherever suitable
water communication through the Russian strip of territory can be
secured.
21st Oct., 1838.
lb., p. 32.
27th Nov., 1838.
lb., p. 33.
6th Feb., 1839.
lb., p. 35.
15th Feb., 1839.
lb., p. 39.
5th March, 1839.
lb., p. 40.
26th Feb., 1840.
Ibid.
22nd April, 1840.
lb., p. 41.
1st Oct., 1840.
lb., p. 43.
Campbell exploring in the interior.
etc., H.B.C. :—
informed  by His Excellency Kan-
Received notes from Mr. Robt,
James Douglas to Government,
That  Mr.   McLeod  had  been
pryanoff that he has received orders to open the "Stickine River.
George Simpson to Baron Wrangell :—
Proposed articles of agreement.
(a) That Russia-American Co. for 20 years abandoned all
forts, etc., on the coasts and islands to the southward of Mount
St. Elias, and confine themselves wholly to the country west of
141st meridian. Russian Government to protect the H.B.C. in
the enjoyment of their trade.
(6) H.B.C. to pay annual rent of £4,000.
(c) Three thousand otter skins to be furnished by H.B.C. to
Russia-American Co. on certain terms.
(d) Similar provisions as to grain, goods, etc.
(e) To compromise the Stickine affair, the H.B.C. to pay no
rent for three years.
He explains position of H. B. C. in regard to their claim.
Lease from Russian American Company to H.B.C. for 10 years.
J. H. Pelly to Lord Palmerston :'—
Informing him that in accordance with his wish that Mr. Simpson
should settle the matter with Baron Wrangell, such has been done.
James Douglas to George Simpson :—
Relating to trade matters.
J. H. Pelly to Lord Palmerston :—
Relating to matters in Oregon Territory.
J. H. Pelly to Lord John Russell:—
Relating to North-West Passage.
James Douglas to John McLoughlin :—
Relating to establishment of fort at Taku Harbour, visit to Chilkat
Indians, etc.    Census of Indian tribes.
ANALYSIS OF MAPS OF ATLAS OF UNITED STATES CASE
AS TO PORTLAND CANAL.
Maps 1, 2 & 3.
Map 4.
Map 5.
Map 6.
Recent maps of the United States Coast Survey show line
according to United States Contention.
Vancouver. Portland Canal printed along the western border of
the upper part of the canal, the " P " being placed well to the north of
the northern point of Pearse Island. Observatory Inlet likewise
printed along the western margin of the upper part of the Inlet to the
north of Point Ramsden. No name applied to either channel below
Point Ramsden. j  Points Wales and Maskelyne named.
Vancouver Chart covers northern part of the coast. Portland
Channel region not included.
Russian Map, 1802. No name applied to either Portland Canal
or Observatory Inlet. Pearse and Wales Islands shown well away
from the shore, leaving the Northern Channel of a good width. The
dotted line shown on this map as running inland from a point on Behm's
canal is intended to indicate the southern boundary of the Kolosh tribe
of Indians. 45
German Map of 1807.    Portland Canal and Observatory Inlet Map 7.
are  shown   as   distinct  channels separated "by* islands.    The  name
Observatory Inlet is printed along the shore beginning from the ocean.
" Portland Canal" is placed at the head of the canal.
Pinkerton's Modern Atlas, 1818.     "Portland Canal" is printed Map 8.
along the western shore of the canal, beginning near its mouth.    " Observatory Inlet" printed opposite the  upper end of the inlet above
Point Ramsden.     The   islands  separating  one  from  the  other   are
shown. M    q
Brue, 1815.    Pearse Island shown rather close to mainland, mak- MaP 9-
ing the northern channel very narrow.    " Can. de Portland " printed
on west side of canal beginning opposite northern end of Pearse Island.
"Entree de I'Observatoire" printed along the eastern shore of the inlet
beginning well below Pearse Island.
Arrowsmith, 1823.    Pearse and Wales Islands distinctly shown. MaP lv-
NortherifcChannel distinct.    " Portland Canal" printed along western
side, beginning opposite north end of Pearse Island and below the connecting channel.    "Observatory Inlet" printed  at  the  head  of the
inlet.
Russian Map, 1826. Names of Portland Canal and Observatory Map 11.
Inlet applied to the upper parts of these passages. Wales and Pearse
Islands are represented only by two small dots in middle of the lower
part of the joined inlets. Beginning at the continental shore and running inland as far as the summit of the Rocky Mountains is dotted the
parallel of 54° 40' which is marked " boundary by treaty with England
1825." This dotted boundary continues southerly along the ridge of
the Rocky Mountains.
Arrowsmith, 1833. Name of Observatory Inlet placed at the Map 12.
head of the Inlet, Name Portland Canal printed on western border of
the canal beginning a little below the north end pf Pearse Island. The
boundary line through the water is not indicated, except by_ the
colouring of the adjacent shores, yellow for Russian, pink for British.
The yellow colouring includes Pearse and Wales Islands.
Brue, 1833. Can. de Portland applied at the upper end of the
canal. Entree de I'Observatoire printed along eastern side of the canal
beginning well below Pearse Island. British territory coloured brown
includes Pearse Island, Russian territory coloured green includes Wales
Island. A dotted line, wavy, and apparently intended to indicate the
boundary, comes in by Dixon's entrance and continues up Observatory
Inlet and Portland Canal according to the United States contention,
passing to the east of both Wales and Pearse.
Tanner, 1839. "Portland Canal" and "Observatory Inlet"
printed alongside the respective waters, both names beginning well
below the junction. One island is shown, in position of Pearse Island,
and is coloured yellow,' as if Russian territory. The parallel of 54° 40'
is dotted in from the continental shore eastward to the summit of the
rocky mountains and marked "boundary of 1824."
Robt. Greenhow, illustrating his History of California, Oregon and
other countries. Portland Canal and Observatory Inlet printed alongside the upper parts of these inlets. Topography below the junction
very rough. Three islands are shown near the common entrance, one
of which presumably represents Wales Island. A curved line is dotted
in, beginning at Prince of Wales Island, a little north of Cape Chacon
and  passing  into  the channel north of group of islands mentioned
where it terminates.
Official French Map, 1844. Russian territory coloured green; Map 16.
British, indicated by a pink border. The topography of Portland
Canal and Observatory Inlet is quite accurate. Pearse, Wales,
Kannaghunut and Filmore Islands can be distinguished. These are
not coloured either green or pink, indicating presumably that they were
supposed to belong to the United States, which is representedon the
map as possessing all the country west of the Rocky Mountains and
south of 54° 40'.    1 Entree de I'Observatoire " is marked alongside the
Map 13.
Map 14.
Map 15. 46
il
Map 17.
Map 18.
Map 19.
Map 20.
Map 21.
Map 22.
Map 23.
Map 24.
Map 25.
upper point of Observatory Inlet above Point Ramsden. " Canal de
Portland " is marked along the western shore of the canal, beginning
well below the upper end of Pearse Island. From Cape Chacon a
dotted line is drawn, first south-easterly until 54° 40' is reached, then
easterly along that parallel to the summit of the Rocky Mountains. This
is marked "Traite entre La Russie k les Etats-Unis de 17 Avril, 1824."
Joseph Bouchette, 1853, Russian territories coloured blue,
including Queen Charlotte Islands. British territories by pink border.
A large bay in the continent is shown and marked " Observatory
Inlet." This bay divides at its head into two narrow inlets, to which
no separate names are applied. The boundary is shown as commencing
from the head of the westerly inlet.    No islands shown in-the bay.
Spanish Map, 1857. Portland Canal not named. " Canal del
Observatorio" printed, beginning well below the joining channel.
Pearse and Wales Islands shown m an indistinct manner.    A dotted
line is drawn through Clarence Strait, curving towards the g|trance to
the north of the islands, where it terminates. This dotted Hne is not
intended to represent a boundary line, but a ship channel.
Crown Lands Department—Toronto, 1857. A deep bay in the
continent is shown, continued to the north by two narrow inlets, to the
easterly one of which the name "Observatory Inlet" is applied. No
islands are shown in the bay.
Russian Map, 1861. The names "Portland Canal" and
I Observatory Inlet" are printed opposite the upper parts of these
channels. Several islands are shown in the lower part of the combined
inlet in such a manner as to obscure the clear opening of Observatory
Inlet. A dotted line is drawn along the parallel of 54°40/, from the
continental shore westerly to a considerable distance in the ocean. No
explanation is given of this line
German Map, 1863.    Portland Canal not named.
Observatory
three islands
nearly  equal
Canal applied to the upper part of the inlet. Two or
shown below the junction in such a way as to leave
channels on either side.
Russian Map, 1844. "Portland Canal" and "Observatory
Inlet" applied to the upper parts of the inlets. Wales and Pearse
Islands shown below the junction in such a way as to leave a clear
and direct passage from the upper part of Portland Canal to the ocean.
This passage is somewhat narrower than that of Observatory Inlet.
No boundary line is shown in the water.
Admiralty Chart, corrected to 1866. Portland Canal printed
along the western margin of upper part of canal, beginning nearly
opposite the connecting passage. Observatory Inlet printed at the
north end of the Inlet. Pearse, Wales, and other islands shown,
making Portland Canal passage to the ocean more circuitous than it
really is. Several islands also shown in the lower part of Observatory
Inlet, considerably blocking that passage also. No boundary lines
shown in the water. The dotted lines in the open sea are lines of
magnetic declination.
Coast Survey Map, 1867. The United States Territory coloured
brown. British Territory by blue margin. Pearse Island and small
islands to the south-west are coloured brown, as if they were United
States territory. The name "Portland Chan." is printed, however,
along the western shore of the channel, to a considerable distance
below the North end of Pearse Island. No name is applied to
Observatory Inlet.    No water boundary line is indicated.
Recent United States Coast Survey Map. Shows line according
to the United States Contention. FmsQ-MapPv
47
COMPARISON OF CANADIAN MAPS.
Page 86 of U.S. Counter Case; Map No. 28 or U.S. Atlas
ACCOMPANYING COUNTER  CASE.
Eight maps are given for the express purpose of illustrating
" conflict of views of Canadian statesmen," etc., as to the boundary line
of the lisiere, and attention is drawn to the different areas thus given
to the lisiere.
Of these eight maps five are British Columbian. Though published
by, and with the sanction of the Government of that Province, none of
these maps have been adopted by the Government of the Dominion of
Canada or by that of Great Britain.
The remaining three are :—
1. Map prepared by Dr. G. M. Dawson, and published in the
Congressional papers in 1888. (Sen. Ex. Doc, No. 146, 50th Congress,
2nd Session.)
2. Map presented to Joint High Commission in 1898 by British
Commissioners.
3. Map copied from map No. 37 of the British Atlas in the present
case, and showing the formal claim of Great Britain.
As to the first of these, Dr. Dawson's map was drawn before any
surveys of the mountain topography had been made, and from his
general knowledge merely, acquired largely during his expedition to the
Stikine and Yukon in 1887. That his observation of the character of
these mountains was remarkably accurate is shown by the fact that the
area his line assigns to the lisiere (as the same is stated in the U.S.
Counter Case, p. 86) is 8,930 square miles, as against the area by the
British line, drawn after survey, of 7,900 square miles. The difference
of area, 1,030 square miles, is but trifling, considering the absence of
accurate data when Dr. Dawson drew his map, and will be found on
comparison of the two maps in the United States Atlas to be mainly due
to the later and better knowledge of the position of the Pairweather
Range, and the St. Elias Alps, west from Cross Sound to the 141st
meridian.
The second map is a map presented to the Joint High Commission
in 1898 by the British Commission.
During the session of the Joint High Commission more than one
proposal was made as to the course of the boundary line. It was
understood that these proposals, put forward for the purpose of
developing the respective views of the parties upon the question, were
not to be considered the final or authoritative claim of either.
NOTES ON THE RUSSIAN VERSION OF THE TREATY OF
1825, AND ON THE TBANSLATION OF ARTICLES III.
AND' IV. GIVEN ON Pp. 7 AND 8 OF THE APPENDIX
TO THE UNITED STATES CASE.
The object of giving this translation appears to be to show that
the Russians understood certain important words in the Treaty in a
different sense from the usual English equivalents of the French words
of the original.
The most important difference in Articles III. and IV. between
this  translation  and   the  usual  translation occurs as to the words " cote," which is made into " shore," and " continent," which is made
into " solid land."
" Shore." It is admitted that the Russian equivalent of " c6te " may bear
the meaning of either " coast" or " shore," and that of " continent,"
may also bear the meaning (which is indeed literal) of " solid land."
The meaning of the Russian word " beregh," which represents
" c6te " in the Treaty, may be arrived at by considering, not these two
Articles only, but the whole Treaty. For this purpose reference may
be made to the text of F. de Martens' " Recueil des Traites et
Conventions conclus par la Russie avec les Puissances Etrangeres."
This work, which gives the French and Russian in parallel columns, is
published (St. Petersburg 1895) "d'Ordre du Ministere des Affaires
Etrangeres," and therefore is an authentic Russian version, though
there is nothing to show at what date it was translated from the
original French of the Treaty.
The word " cote" occurs eleven times in the Treaty, and in each
case is translated by the Russian noun " beregh," except in Article VI.,
where an adjective derived from this noun is used.
The eleven cases of the use of " cdte" translated by "beregh" in
the Treaty are:
(1) Preamble of Treaty. The Sovereigns express their desire
to settle the limits of their possessions " sur la c6te Nord Ouest de
l'Amerique."
(2) Article I. The subjects of the High Contracting Parties are
not to be hindered | dans la faculte d'aborder aux c6tes."
(3) Article II. Russian subjects may not land without permission
at any British establishment " sur la cdte Nord-Ouest."
(4) Article III. The line of demarcation—" sur la cdte du
Continent et les iles de.l'Amerique Nord Ouest."
(5) Article IV. " Suivre la crete des montagnes situees parallelement kla cdte.
(6) Article IV. " Montagnes qui s'etendent dans une direction
parallele k la cdte."
(7) Article IV. " La limite entre les possessions britanniques et la
isiere de cdte mentioned ci-dessus."
(8) Article IV.    " Parallele aux sinuosites de la c6te."
(9) Article V. British subjects shall not form any establishment
" soit sur la c6te, soit sur la lisiere de terre forme."
(10) Article VI. British subjects to have freedom of navigation
of the rivers and streams which cross the line of demarcation " sur la
lisiere de la c6te indiqu^e dans l'Article III."
(11) Article VII. Reciprocal right of navigation of " toutes les
mers interieurs, les golfes, havres et criques sur la cdte mentioned dans
l'Article III."
Now, seeing that the same word "beregh" represents "cdte" in
all these passages, it is difficult to see how the United States can base
any argument upon the possibility of translating it by " shore" in
Articles III. and IV., unless " shore" can be applied also in the other
passages, and with greater consistency than "coast.''
It is at once seen that " shore" is entirely inapplicable in (1), (3)
and (11).
In (7) " La limite entre les possessions britanniques et la lisiere
de cdte mentioned ci-dessus.''
In the Russian, in this passage, there is no word for " lisiere ; " the
literal translation would be (translating' " beregh" by " shore") " the
limit between the British possessions and the above-mentioned shore."
The " lisiere" is reduced to nothing, for "shore" means the line
of contact of water and land—length without breadth.
In (9) " soit sur la cdte, soit sur la lisiere de terre ferme."
In this the word "lisiere" is in the Russian "krau," meaning
*" border, edge, brink, verge, extremity, brim."    Thus if we translated
•Alexandraw"s " Complete Russian-English Dictionary " (St. Petersburg, 1897). 49
" beregh " (which represents " cdte ") by shore, we shall have as the
literal translation of the Russian—" whether on the shore or on the
edge of the mainland." This would surely be tautology, and it would
not be made better by translating, as the United' States do in
Article IIL, "terre ferme" by "solid land."
In (10)—the right of navigation of the rivers—" de la cdte"
is rendered in the Russian by an adjective derived from " beregh "—
" sur la lisiere de la cdte" becomes " na pribereznomh krau." The
prefix " pri" means " near, at, on, by." So the expression may be
rendered—the " near-the-coast edge "—or the " near-
Either expression emphasises the narrowness of the strip.
In (II).    It is to be noticed that the gulfs, havens, and creeks on
-the-shore edge.
the " beregh " are spoken of.
" Beregh
must mean " coast" here-
j inland seas on the shore'' would hardly make sense.
Now the " coast" or " beregh " is that " mentioned in Article III."
Therefore in one at least of the two places in Article III. (Nos. 4 and
5 above) where " beregh " is used, this word must mean " coast." The
United States, however, translate it by " shore " in both places.
In the United States translation of Articles III.  and IV., the "Solidland.'
Russian equivalent (zemlya tverdaya) of Continent and " terre firme,"
is rendered " solid land."    " Solid land" is the literal translation indeed
of " zemlya tverdaya," but this, like the similar French  " terre ferme "
or German " festgrund " carries a wider meaning also.
In Article III. these words occur as the translation of "Continent"
in " la cdte du Continent" and in " Continent de l'Amerique Nord
Ouest."
It is evident from the context that the only proper translation in
these two passages is " Continent," and not "solid land." Furthermore
in the Treaties both of 1825 and 1903, Continent is spelt with a
capital, as a proper noun. A proper noun cannot be translated by a
common noun or phrase such as " solid land." Continent is also in
these cases spelt with a capital in de Martens' work, which, as already
stated, is of Russian official authority.
In Article VI.—" l'lnterieur du Continent "—Continent is again
spelt with a capital in de Martens, though not in the original French
of 1825. In this passage the whole phrase " l'interieur du continent "
is rendered in Russian by the appropriate case of "zemlya tverdaya,"
so that the passage reads " whether coming from the ocean or from the
continent." As " ocean " here is used in its wide sense, "continent"
which is contrasted with it, must also be used in the wide sense.
1 Solid land " would contrast with " water " not with " ocean."
The same Russian phrase is used in Article III. to translate " terre
ferme" in "jusqu'au point de la terre ferme."
In this passage it seems immaterial whether the translation is
"solid land" or " mainland" or " continent." The slight distinction in
the French between " continent" and " terre ferme" is absent in the
Russian version, It would not therefore appear that the Russian
understanding of this passage was different from that of the British
Government, as in the English version submitted to Parliament at the
time of the Treaty the word used is " continent."
Other points in the United States translation may be noted.
THE VERY SOUTHERN PART OF THE  ISLAND.
The word translated " very " is literally " same," but is used in " Very southern."
Russian merely to denote the superlative.    It should be translated
"most."
"UNDER  54  DEGREES  40  MINUTES."
The word translated " under'' may also mean " at" or near."    So « Under."
also may the French equivalent " sous." 50
BACKBONE OF THE MOUNTAINS.
| Mountains."
" Ten marine
miles."
"Backbone." The Russian word used here, chrebet, means " spine" or " back
bone," also " chain " or " ridge " (of muuntains). It does not seem to
differ essentially from "crete." The Russian word seems to carry the
idea of a succession of mountain masses, articulated together, as it were,
like the vertebras of the spinal column. The French " crete " rather
refers to the appearance from a distance.
The Russian word translated "mountains " also means " hills."
In Article IV. " ten marine miles from the ocean," and " cannot
go further than ten naval miles from it."
I Miles" seems to be the correct translation of the Russian (mil.)
Perhaps this want of precision  of language may indicate that little
importance  was  attached  to the width 'of the   " lisiere " under the
alternative of Article IV.
1 Ocean and mer." " Oc^an " and " mer," in Russian 1 okeanh " and " morye."    Ocean
occurs in the Treaty.
(1) In the preamble—Ocean Pacifique.
(2) In Article I.—Grand ocean, appele" commencement Ocdan
Pacifique.
(3) In Article II.—Exerces sur la Grand Ocean.
(4) In Article IV.—Plus de dix lieues marines de l'Ocean.
(5) In Article VI.—Soit de l'Ocean.
(6) In Article X.—Sur l'Ocean Pacifique.
In all these cases " Ocean " is rendered by " Okeanh."
I Mer " occurs—
(1) In Article III.—Jusqu'a la mer Glaciale.
(2) In Article VI.—Dans leurs cours vers la mer Pacifique.
(3) In Article VII.—Toutes les mers interieurs.
(4) In Article X.—De se remettre en mer.
In the second of these " la mer Pacifique," | mer " is rendered by
I okeanh " ; and in the others by " morye."
Okeanh is in these passages applied consistently to the " Great
Ocean," morye to the Arctic Ocean, as being of less importance with
respect to' the subject matter ; to the inland seas or parts of the ocean ;
and to the sea as opposed to adjacent land (in remettre en mer).
In the French Ocdan and Mer are applied similarly except in
Article VI. Here the rivers seem to be considered as flowing into the
parts of the Pacific immediately adjacent to their mouths, rather than
into the " Great " Ocean."
TRANSLATION MADE BY
MR. BOSANQUET, BRITISH CONSUL AT ODESSA.
Articles III. and IV. of the Treaty.
III. The line of demarcation between the possessions of the High
Contracting Parties along the mainland and islands of North-West
America shall be drawn in the following manner :—
Beginning from the Southernmost part of the Island, called
Prince of Wales' Island, which point is situated below (or at) 54
degrees 40 minutes of north latitude and between the 131st and
L33rd degree (meridian) of west longitude (reckoning from the
meridian of Greenwich) the aforesaid line shall extend northwards
along the strait called Portland Channel (? Canal) to that point of
the mainland where the line touches the 56th degree of the north
latitude.    Thence the line of demarcation shall follow the crest of 51
the mountains, which extend in a direction parallel with the
shore to a point of section at the 141st degree (i.e., meridian) of
west longitude (reckoning from the same meridian, i.e., Greenwich),
and, finally, from this point of section the same 141st meridian line
shall in its continuation to the Arctic Sea form the boundary
between the Russian and British Possessions on the mainland of
North-West America.
IV.  With respect to the line of demarcation determined in  the
foregoing Article it is understood : —
1. That the island called Prince of Wales (Island) shall belong
to Russia in its entirety.
2. That everywhere where the range of mountains which
extends in a direction parallel with the shore from the 56th degree
of north latitude to a point of section below (or at) the 141st
meridian of west longitude, shall be more than ten nautical miles
distant from the ocean, the boundary between the British possessions and the shore designated above as properly belonging to
Russia (lit. as that which ought to belong to Russia) shall be
drawn by a line parallel with the indentations (lit-c rookednesses)
of the shore and cannot go beyond ten nautical miles from it.
I Ou elle atteint."
| Elle " is rendered in Russian, " ona "—■" she."
I Elle " refers to "la ligne," or "la passe," or "la terre ferme."
The corresponding words in the Russian text to the three nouns
are "cherta," " prolevu " (dative of prolivh), and "zemli" (genitive of
zemlya).    Of these "prolivh " ( = "la passe") is masculine.
I Cherta " (la ligne) and " zemlya" (la terre) are feminine.
I Ona " may refer to either of these.
The Russian for " atteint," " Kasaetsya," is in the singular.
The Russian text referred to above is that of de Martens. It
should be observed, however, that the Treaty was negotiated in French,
and there is nothing to show that the Russian version was of contemporaneous date, oi- was used at all by the Russian negotiators. It is
therefore quite possible that the translator used the word " ona " as a
literal translation of the French feminine pronoun " elle," overlooking
the fact that as all three French words to one of which " elle" referred
were of feminine gender, and but two of the Russian equivalents, the
meaning might thereby be changed.
Treaty, 1825,
Art. III.
Ou elle atteint.
TRANSLATION MADE BY MR. E. G. LISTER
FOREIGN OFFICE.
Articles III. and IV. of the Treaty.
III. The line of demarcation between the possessions of the High
Contracting Parties along the coast of the mainland and the islands of
North-West America, shall be drawn in the following manner :—
Beginning from the most southern part of the island called
the Prince of Wales, which point is situated on north latitude
54 degrees 40 minutes, and between the 131st and 133rd degrees
of western longitude (reckoning from the Meridian of Greenwich),
the above-mentioned line shall extend northwards along the Straits
called the Portland Canal up to that point of the mainland where
it (the line) touches the  58th degree of north latitude.    Thence 52
the line of demarcation shall continue along the backbone of the
mountains which extend in a parallel direction with the coast up
to the point of intersection of the 141st degree of western
longitude (from the same Meridian), and, finally, from this point
of intersection the same meridional line of thel41st degree shall
form, in its continuation to the frozen sea, the boundary between
the possessions of Russia and Great Britain on the mainland of
North-West America.
IV.    In regard to the line of demarcation defined in the preceding
Article, it is understood :—
1. That the island called Prince of Wales shall all belong to
Russia without exception.
2. That everywhere where the backbone of the mountains,
which extend in a direction parallel with the coast from the 56th
degree of northern latitude up to the point of intersection on the
141st degree of western longitude, shall be distant more than ten
nautical miles from the ocean, the boundary between the possessions of Great Britain and the coast designated above as necessarily belonging to Russia shall be drawn in a line parallel with
the indentations of the coast, and cannot go more than ten nautical
miles from it.
DEFINITION GIVEN BY DICTIONARIES TO CERTAIN
FRENCH WORDS USED IN THE TREATY OF 1825, AND
IN THE CORRESPONDENCE PRECEDING IT.
Anse.
Anse.
Border.
Cr&te.
Crete.'
Cr&te.
Cr&te.
Canal.
C6te.
Clique.
Crique.
Lisi&re.
Lisiere.
Long.
Long.
Long.
(Bescherelle): Petite baie ayant peu d'enfoncement dans les
terres.
(Littre) : The same.
(Bescherelle): Se dit de ce qui s'etend le long de certaines choses
et qui y sert comme de bord. " Le quai, la chauss^e qui borde la
riviere."
(Bescherelle) : Partie la plus elevee d'une montagne, d'un rocher,
d'une grosse vague, etc.
(Littre): Clme, sommet.
(Academie): Same as Bescherelle.
(Clifton and Grimaud) : French-English dictionary translates by
1° crest, 2° top (of a mountain), 3° ridge; (a) an extended
protuberance ; (b) the top of a roof.
(Bescherelle) : Resserremant de la mer entre deux rivages.
(Bescherelle) : Rivage de la mer. Par extension approches de la
terre, jusqu'a une certaine distance dans la mer.
(Bescherelle): Anse, petite baie port naturel, partie du rivage qui
forme dans les terres un enfoncement ou de petits batiments pouyent
se mettre k abri (de TAnglais " creek.")
(Littre): Petite anse dans les anfractuosites du rivage coupure
formant un canal se prolongeant dans les terres.
(Bescherelle) Exttemite d'une province, d'un pays, considere
comme limitrophe d'un autre. "Les villages sont sur la lisiere de la
Suisse." " La lisiere d'un bois, d'un champ." " II reparut a la lisiere
du bois."
Littre gives practically the same definition ; (Clifton and Grimaud),
"border," "outskirt," "extremity," "verge."
(Le long de.)
Bescherelle : " En cotoyant."
Littre : " The same."
~ 53
Bescherelle : Vaste etendue d'eau salee qui couvre pres des f- du Mer.
globe.    On l'appelle plus proprement " Ocean."    Dans un sens plus
restreint,  portion  de  cette  masse d'eau  portant une   denomination
particuliere.
Bescherelle : Sorte de canal de mer, entre 2 bancs, entre 2 terres, Passe,
entre 2 ecueils, etc., par ou les batiments pouvent, passer sans echouer.
Littre : Practically the same. Passe.
Clifton and Grimaud : Narrow passage or channel. Passe.
N.B.—Several of the above words have also other meanings, but
only those meanings in which they are used in the treaty and
correspondence are given.
HEADS OF INLETS AND TIDE WATER IN THE UNITED
STATES  CASE.
On page 102 (b) of the United States Case the expression is used,
" From the heads of all gulfs, bays, inlets and arms of the sea—that
is, from tide water."
That is " tide water " is used synonymously with " heads of gulfs,
bays," etc.
Note that the Treaty (1903), speaks only of inlets. The other
words, especially 1 arms of the sea," are added without authority.
Then on page 103 (1) occurs the expression "thence north-westerly,
always 10 marine leagues from tide water around the head of Lynn
Canal; thence westerly, still following the sinuosities of the coast at a
distance therefrom of 10 marine leagues."
That is, coast, shore of inlet, and limit of tide water are made
synonymous.
On page 106 in the formal answer to Question 6, "heads of inlets"
is used.
The limit of tide water and the head of an inlet are two different
thin ces. Every river on this coast has its mouth clearly defined by a
bank of mud or sand, which is exposed at low water, with the river
cutting through in one or more channels. The seaward edge of the
bank is usually well defined and steep, deep water being found close by.
With a tide rising from 12 to 25 feet, at high tide the mud flats of the
river valley may be covered for some miles, making, to appearance at
that time, an arm of the sea.
The limit between sea and land on the sea shore is, however,
determined by the condition of things at average low water.
At Chilkat Inlet, the head of the inlet is about 1 mile above
Pyramid Island (Coast Pilot, 1891, p. 201).
Above this are extensive flats, about two miles wide and extending
several miles up the river valley. These are covered at high water,
but bare, except for the channels of the river, at low water. Close
below the edge of these flats, the Coast Survey Chart No. 8303 (date
1897) shows 9 or 10 fathoms of water, which shows that the " head of
the inlet " is well defined.
Tide water, however, in this place extends at least five miles
further.
On the maps in the United States Atlas (Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 25)
the inlet has been drawn to include these river flats for many
miles above the true mouth of the river. By measuring on
these maps back from the 10 marine league line, as it is
drawn on them, I find that the point from which they have started,
that is their "head " of inlet, is as much as ten marine miles above the
mouth of the river.
The same thing has been done at the Taku River—the inlet has
been extended back 8 or 9 miles. 54
Similarly in other places.
On the Stikine River, however, the measurement from their
boundary line brings the coast to the mouth of Le Comte Bay. This
has already been referred to in the British Case, page 74.
MEANING   OF   THE   WORD   "COAST
TREATY   OF   1825.
IN   THE
Extracts from Articles in Magazines and Periodicals.
| The Alaska Boundary Line, Count Nesselrode and the Treaty of
1825," by the Hon. David Glass, Q.C. The Anglo-American Magazine.    November, 1899.    (Page 464.)
On the meaning of " coast" as it affects the measurement of the
lisiere, after quoting Count Nesselrode's letter of April 17th, 1824,
Mr. Glass says :—
" Upon the above statement of the Prime Minister of Russia
I think it is fair to assume the following as his conclusions : First,
that he did not regard Portland Canal as part of the ocean;
second, that by designating 54° 40' as the point at which the canal
opens into the ocean he draws a distinction which is unanswerable ; third, that he did not regard the shores of Portland Canal
as part of the coast of the continent; fourth, that when he says
Portland Canal has its origin inland between latitudes 55° and 56°,
he says that the origin of the canal was 90 miles in the interior ;
fifth, that he did not regard that interior point as part of the coast
of the continent; sixth, that in securing the narrow lisiere, or strip
of land, upon the coast itself, he did not expect to go inland 90
miles and carry the strip of land around this or any other canal.
" And, again, in the same letter, the Count says that, according to the most recent chart, England possesses no establishments
either up to the latitude of Portland Channel or on the shores of
the ocean itself, making thereby a clear distinction between a canal
and the ocean itself."    (Pages 466-8.)
Proceeding, on page 468, he says :—
| When the Count says Russia ensures to England free
outlets and provides for English commerce, it can mean no other
than the use of the bays and inlets extending into the mainland, to
which in a preceding part of the same letter, as above shown, he
makes special reference."    (Page 468.)
As the coast or lisiere was sought not for its value or for any other
purpose, but as a protection to the islands and to prevent establishments
being built on the coast of the continent opposite the islands, Mr. Glass
argues :—
" Now, what protection could it be to the islands to have
the narrow strip go 100 miles inland around the interior end of
some narrow channel ? "    (Page 469.)
Citing the American case as printed, and entitled " Views of the
United States Commissioners on the Alaskan Boundary as defined by
the Treaty of 1825," he says :— me
■TK
© aurora
ration: ♦Secretary I ^olng tboe describes
it of the mountains which nut parallel to the
coast, and which appear, according to the map, to follow all its
'.'aimi :*«i the word ' afeooahsae' it\ tho term used by him
elsewhere in describing the course of the mountains around the
inlet* of the coast, page 72,"    By tolerance to ; —:■   72 of the
printed oase, (-awning ia not found to give a deeeription of land
around the mleta, nor doea he gire tt anywhere m hta mi^.'v.
mee on the subject.     (Pain* 469.)
or otn
Am
m Magazine.   October, 1899.
ne
As to the meaning of
A tl
The words' oo
the continent, such p
uiiiriu ' mean the see bora
ttincr can from point to point
iting trade if
head of fide-water is
into the gulfs, tide Gats
un the coast Une of the
in of the continent. As.
touched at along the winding of the
a distinct branch of maritime service,
quite different. 11 may go scores of mil
and inlets of the mainland, many miles
continent The latter is the border, ih<i
for instance, no one will say that the shores of all the lagoons,
fiords, estuaries and inlets of Puget Sound, or the shores of Puget
Sound itself, are parts of the coast of the continent of America;
or that the shores of the Persian Gulf are part of the coast of
Asia; or the shores of the Gulf of Bothnia part of the coast of
Europe ; or the shores of the Gulf of California part of the coast of
the continent of America. Nor can it be said with any fairness
that the shores of Portland Channel or Lynn Canal are parts of
the coast line of the continent of .America.
" For the reasons before stated, the great contest of the
Russians was to procure a strip of land along the continental line.
But it was never the intention, and there was nothing said about
the strip which was fixed at a width of ten leagues from the coast
*   (Pt) 322-3.)
tl m
t     <■.
" The Alaskan Boundary Lane." Professor Moore, in the North
American Review. By the Hon. David Glass, Q.C. (Concluded.) The
Amjlo-Au-.-rAnn Magazine.    December, 1899.    (Page 548.)
" Coast," he says, means " the coast of the continent, being
first used in this way in the third Article of the Treaty, which
first use governs in the following parte."   (Page 550.)
Yofessor  Moore's claim that
inia
of—the only part thei
V'the Pro
nuasians ever apt
or wanted to deal aoout,
knew ..U.t.:.'"    (Page 558.}
" As to the meaning of'
Nesselrode of April, 1824. in
'has its origin island be
latitude, and argues tot it w
shores of Portland Canal as coast"   (P|
M The hank* of Portland Canal* Ix
and axe not the eoaata of tho continent
«ast| he quotes the letter of Count
Well he states that Portland Canal
reen  the   55"   and   58* of north
in the Count did not regard the 56
of the Hudson Biver at Albany are part of the coast of the continent, notwithstanding that they have tide-water up to that city.
All the world knows that there is tide water at Albany, but it also
knows that the capital city is 150 miles from the ocean, or the
coast of continent."    (Page 557.)
f
THE  UNITED  STATES  LINE   AT THE  56th  PABALLEL.
Atlas of U. S.
Case.   Maps Nos.,
2, 3, and 25.
In the general description of the line, as claimed by them, in (1),
p. 103, of the United States Case, the course of the line north-west
from the head of Portland Canal is thus given :—
"     *    *    *    thence upon  the  same  course continued  to the 56th
i parallel of north latitude;   thence north-westerly, always   10 marine
leagues from the tide water    * . *    *
From their formal answer to Question No. 4 it appears that by
I the same course " they mean the course which the line drawn along
the centre of the channel as at the point where it touches the head of
Portland Canal. By " centre" of the channel would be understood,
conformably to their expression " equidistant from Pearse Island and
Bamsden Point," the line each point of which is equidistant from the
nearest points from the opposite shores. Such a line would almost
necessarily be curved throughout its extent, and the exact determination of its final course would present serious surveying difficulties.
The description of the line from the channel to the parallel is, in
my opinion, insufficient for the proper laying down, without doubt or
dispute, of a line some 3 or 4 miles in length.
Their description is defective in another point.
Question No. 4 is submitted to the tribunal to correct a hiatus in
the description of Article III. of the Treaty of 1825.
The United States description introduces another hiatus. Coming
up to the parallel on a certain course, they reach the parallel at a
certain point. " Thence," that is from this point, they proceed
" always 10 marine leagues from tide water." By " tide water," as used
here, it is assumed that the utmost limit of tide water is meant.
If the point on the parallel is not exactly 10 marine leagues from
tide water, an additional course is necessary in the description in order
to reach a point 10 leagues from tide water.
The probability that the point on the parallel should be exactly
10 leagues from the limit of tide water is infinitesimally small—in other
words, that this should be the case is incredible.
Even if this coincidence should happen, the description is still at
fault. If it was intended to reach a point on the parallel 10 leagues
from tide water, the course of the line from the channel to the parallel
should have been expressed to fit that intention.
From a study of the maps in their atlas upon which their line is
shown, it appears that they overcome this difficulty by drawing a
straight line from the point of the parallel to a point 10 leagues from
the head of Burroughs Bay. This straight line drawn, in order, as it
seems, to cover their hiatus, is about 25 marine miles in length, a
much greater distance than the hiatus of the Treaty, and nearly equal
to the limit of width of the lisiere.
It is true that, for some part of its length, this straight line passes
within 10 leagues of the waters of Chickamin Biver (a river flowing
into the eastern arm of Behm Canal, south of latitude 56°), but not of
the mouth of the river, nor within at least 5 miles of it. The clear
indication of the maps is. however, that the Chickamin had nothing to
do with the matter. The straightness of the line, as drawn, indicates
that it was drawn to cover the hiatus. 57
Observe, also, that a line which starts from the parallel only
3 or 4 miles from Portland Canal cannot be | always 10 marine leagues
from tide water."
-In the counter case of the United States, a departure from the
position taken in their case, that the line is to be drawn from the head
of Portland Channel | along the same course on which said line touches
the mainland at the head of Portland Channel." Emphasis is now laid
on the existence of a valley extending northerly in the general
•direction of Portland Channel from its head, and it is argued that it is
reasonable that the line should follow that valley to the 56th degree.
The same remark as made above, with regard to improper
■description, applies equally to this new contention. A line drawn on a
•certain course, determined by the trend of the upper part of the
channel, does not necessarily follow the middle of the continuing
valley.    Rather it necessarily does not.
W. F. King.
MOUNTAIN BANGE OB CHAIN.
In the United States Counter Case (p. 39) it is said that it is
■" impossible to conceive of mountains, except in a range, paralleling a
coast. The word j parallel' conveys the idea of extension and
•continuity."
The expression in the Treaty is not " mountains paralleling the
■coast." The words of Article III are " mountains situated parallel to
the coast" (montagnes situees parallelement a la c6te).
Note the force of | parallelement," an adverb qualifying " situees."
It is not the mountains, but the situation of those mountains which is
parallel to the coast.
See also Article IV—" mountains which extend in a direction
parallel to the coast." Here it is the direction which is parallel to the
•coast.
The extension and continuity, therefore, which may be implied in
the word " parallel" is not ascribed in the Treaty to the mountains, but
to the relative position of these mountains.
There is therefore no requirement in the Treaty itself that the
mountains shall form an unbroken " range" or " chain." It may,
nevertheless, be observed that these words " range" or "chain" do not
in themselves imply such absolute continuity as is ascribed to them
in the United States Case and Counter Case. "Range" simply
implies a succession of things in a line, usually straight, but not
necessarily so. "Chain" implies a succession of "links," that is,
■objects separate but lying close to one another. The Russian word for
•crete, which means in its primary sense " backbone," carries much the
same meaning as "chain," a "backbone" being composed of successive
vertebrae. As to the application of " range" and " chain" to
mountains, it is conceived that the words are hardly capable of precise
•definition, and that different geographers would give varying definitions.
It is sufficient here to point out that the negotiators of the Treaty
were doubtless aware of this ambiguity, and of the difficulty which
might result therefrom in a precise demarcation of their line ; since,
though the words chain and range were more than once in the previous
•correspondence, they were omitted in the Treaty.
For the word "chaine," which might imply in some sort a physical
•connection between the successive mountains, they substituted "crete,"
implying merely a visual connection. The word refers to the irregular
appearance of successive mountain summits, when seen from a distance,
like the 1 crest" or comb of a cock. THE BOUNDABY LINE AS DBAWN BY THE UNITED
STATES WEST OF LYNN CANAL.
West of Lynn Canal their line is drawn, as elsewhere, so as to be
always 10 leagues from the nearest point of tide water.
Their Atlas maps 1, 2, 3 and 25, show the line as drawn to pass,
north of Mt. Fairweather, and the other mountains of the " St. Elias.
Alps," and even north of Mt. St. Elias itself.
That Mt. Fairweather was always considered as the northern
limit of the lisiere, is proved by the great majority of the maps
published between 1825 and 1867, including nearly all of those in the
United States Atlas. Even on their Coast Survey map of 1867, to
which some importance is attributed in their case, the line bends
southward almost to Mt. Fairweather, and to within 15 miles of the
coast.
The same fact is shown in the mention of Mt. Fairweather in
the lease from the Bussian American Company to the Hudson's Bay
Company in 1839, and again in the renewal in 1849.
In the maps of the Atlas which show the line they claim, the line
passes more than ten marine leagues behind Mt. Fairweather' and
behind the massive mountains of the "St. Elias Alps." The altitudes-
of some of these peaks are :—
Mt. Fairweather
15,280
Mt. Pinta        	
8,800
Mt. Seattle      	
10,000
Mt. Hubbard	
*                 ...
16,000
Mt. Vancouver
•                 * • *
15,600
Mt. Cook         	
•                 ...
12,700
Mt. Augusta	
.
14,000
Mt. St. Elias	
18,000
NOTE ON THE BOUNDARY LINE AS DBAWN BY THE:
UNITED STATES ON MAP No. 2, AND SAID TO BE.
PARALLEL TO THE SINUOSITIES OF THE COAST.
The word "parallel" implies a mutual relation. If the line is.
parallel to the coast at a distance of 10 leagues, then the coast must be^
parallel to the line at the same distance.
If, then, we draw a line parallel to their line and 10 leagues outward from it, we ought to reproduce the coast.
Such a parallel line, however, is found not to reproduce the coast.
It lies for long distances inland. It touches salt water only at the
following individual points :—
Burroughs Bay, head of.
Bradfield Canal, head of.
Le Conte Bay, mouth of.
Thomas Bay, head of east arm.
Thomas Bay, head of north arm.
Endicott Arm, head of.
Tracy Arm, head of.
Chilkoot Inlet, west side.
Skagway.
Dyea.
Glacin Bay, north arm.
Alsek Biver, mouth of.
Disenchantment Bay, east shore.
■v 59
Disenchantment Bay, north shore.
Yakutat Bay, west side, following the shore for a short distance.
Coast west ot Yakutat, following the shore for a short distance.
The parallel line touches " the mainland coast of the ocean, strictly
so called' only at the following points:—
Le Conte Bay, mouth of.
Alsek River, mouth of
Coast west of Yakutat Bay.
All " sinuosities " of bays, inlets, or peninsulas between the above
points lie more (in many places much more) than 10 leagues from the
Boundary Line claimed by the United States.
AS   TO   THE    UNITED   STATES   HAVING   NOTICE   OF
OUR   CLAIM.
United States contend that, up to August 1st, 1898, they had no JJ. 8. 0. 0., 74.
distinct official announcement that the British Government entertained
views respecting the interpretation of the Treaty of 1825, materially
at variance with those uniformly put forward and maintained by the
United States from the date of the acquisition of Alaska; and that not
till then was any special assertion of a claim to the head of the inlets
made by the British Government; and that not till the delivery of the
British Case on May 2nd, 1903, was there a distinct and formal averment that it contested the water boundary as laid down on the official
maps of the United States since 1867. This is asserted by Mr. Choate
in his despatch of January 22nd, 1900. (F. O. Correspondence, vol. iii.,
pp. 240, 241, 257.)
The United States have not uniformly put forth any views except
by the maps which do not agree, and what was said by Mendenhall
and his predecessors are in accordance with the contention of Great
Britain.
Our claim to heads of inlets is distinctly made in Cameron's Report
which is printed in " Various Documents," pp. 13 to 44, dated
only "1886." See p. 34 (where he gives also the argument from
Article VIL). This report, however, was not transmitted to the
United States.
See also his letter of November 12th, 1884, in F. O., vol. i., 38
(same later at page 19). It would have been well if his suggestion
there as to settling the interpretation of the Treaty before starting
parties to mark the line could have been acted on.
Dr. Dawson's report of February  7th, 1888, adopts Cameron's b.
view as given in his report.    His letter to Sir Charles Tupper of pp
February 11th, 1888 (given at p. 261), shows that he and Mr. Dall
differed as to the Treaty with regard to the width of the " coast"
strip.
A copy of this was  sent by Sir C. Tupper to Mr. Bayard on F.
February I lth, 1888  (following Mr.  Dawson's Alaskan maps sent the P-
day before), with-a letter which speaks of it as explaining Dr. Dawson's
own views on the subject of the British Alaskan Boundary.
On the 22nd January, 1900 (at p. 249), Mr. Choate, in a long letter p. O. iii., 210,
to Lord Salisbury, speaks of this letter of Sir C. Tupper's referring to
Dr. Dawson's letter, as explanatory not  of the views of himself or of
the Canadian or Imperial Government, but of Dr. Dawson's own views,
which he appears purposely to have refrained from adopting, and to
0., App. 259.
. 260-1.
O. iii., 252,
249. 60
have been in no mood to adopt, and he annexes a copy of Dr. Dawson's
letter.
F. 0. iii., 275. In Sir L. Davies' memorandum of 6th December,  1900, concurred
in by the Canadian P. C, it is shown that this meant Dr. Dawson's
views as opposed to those of Mr. Dall, from whom he had differed
(p. 273).
" Various In Sir John Anderson's opinion as these conferences were between
Documents,"p.93. experts specially elected by their respective Governments, Dr. Dawson's
views must be held to have been put forward by H.M. Government.
F. O. iii., 357. Lord Lansdowne did  not answer Mr. Choate's despatch until the
. 18th August, 1902, for reasons which he explains. He then does so at
length, founded apparently on the Canadian O. C. of December 6th,
1900, but with additions. He points out that Mr. Choate describes as
the paramount issue, whether the line should be drawn across or round
the inlets in general and of the Lynn Canal in particular; he shows
that Dr. Dawson's views must be regarded as those of the Canadian
Government, and that his reports j were submitted by the President to
Congress on the 2nd March, 1889, with a message speaking of them as
bearing a subject of great international importance. (See also F. O.
iii. p. 223.)
It may be observed that while Dr. Dawson's letter is submitted, Sir
C. Tupper's letter to Mr. Bayard is not, and the documents, it is held,
are considered of value as bearing upon a subject of great international
importance, and should be put in shape for public information.
It is also shown that on the 1st August, 1888, Sir C. Tupper transmitted to the Colonial Office some correspondence with Sir JohnMacdonald,
in which the proposed trail by the White Pass is objected to on the
ground that the head of Lynn Canal is within our territory, accompanied
by a memorandum of General Cameron ; and Sir C. Tupper adds that he
entirely concurs in the great importance of protesting against the United
States contentions.    (Those documents are in F.O., i. 98, 99.)
It is also to be noticed that in January, 1896, according to Congressional Becord, that a debate took place upon a motion to appropriate
75,000 dollars towards the expense of the Joint Commission to locate
the 141st meridian. During this discussion a report of the Chamber of
Commerce, Seattle, was read and made part of the debate, which (p. 8)
shows that the Canadian claim to part of the inlets was well known,
and it is answered (at p. 11).
A further debate is repor+ed in the Congressional Record of
February 12th, 1896, in which our claim is again referred to (p. 219),
though it is said that we claim to measure from the outer line of the
islands.
It is difficult to understand how in face of this it can be contended
that until 1898 the United States had no notice of our claim.
I do not understand Mr. Choate's argument when he points (p. 245)
to the President's message of December, 1872, and Mr. Bayard's statement of November, 1885, that no question as to the line had ever
arisen as showing that the interpretation of the Treaty was not an
open question. There had been nothing up to that time to call for a
statement of their special view by either side, and in that sense it was
open. (So at p. 242, and I think elsewhere, he speaks of Art. VIL,
ignoring its reciprocal character.)
And again in the U.S.C.C., p. 74, the declaration of Lord
Lansdowne in his despatch above mentioned (F.O. iii., p. 358) that the
main question was that which involved the ownership of the heads of
inlets in general and of Lynn Canal in particular, is called an act of
acquiescence by the British authorities in the occupation of the U.S.
It seems to be a clear statement to the contrary. Possibly, looking at
p. 76 he may mean that " the heads of inlets" means the territory
about the passes there.
F. O. Cor., par.
viii., p. 21. 61
FROM   THE   CONGRESSIONAL   RECORD   OF
FEBBUARY   12th,   1896,
Mr. Cameron speaking for the Committee on Appropriations,
recommended that the Joint Resolutions appropriating .$75,000 for the
survey of the 141st meridian, be passed without amendmeut.
He stated that, after a full consideration, the Committee was
unanimous in recommending the appropriation, He then made way
for Mr. Pitney, a member of the Committee.
Mr. Pitney, speaking on behalf of the Committee, said in part:—
"In 1884 the Canadian authorities abandoning the location shown Extract,
by all published maps for" many years, claimed for the first time in an
official map that the line at its commencement, instead of ascending
the Portland Canal, should ascend an estuary lying some distance
farther west, and called Behm Canal. This claim places in dispute a
territory which has always been considered a part of the territory of
A laska. and which equals in area the State of Connecticut.
I Still later, in the year 1887, a claim has been made by the Canadian map-makers that the remainder of this portion of the boundary
ought to be pushed nearer to the ocean than previous maps showed it
to be. This claim arises from the fact that whereas the Treaty called
for the ' summit of the mountains' to be followed from the latitude of
56° in a north-westerly direction, subsequent surveys have demonstrated the fact that there is no range of mountains which will answer
the description in that clause of the Treaty. But, according to our
contention, this makes it necessary to fall back upon the second branch
of the description, which declares in effect that in case there shall be no
range of mountains within the limit of 10 marine leagues from the coast,
extending in a northerly direction from the lattitude of 56°, the line
shall follow the windings of the coast, and be nowhere more than
10 marine leagues distant therefrom. That, in short, is one branch of
the controversy.
"In 1892 a convention or agreement was concluded between the
Government of the United States and the Government of Great
Britain, which had for its object a joint or coincident topographical
survey of the south-easterly territory of Alaska, from the latitude of
54° 40' to the point where the 141st meridian is encountered, in order
to ascertain the facts and data necessary to enable us to determine
where, according to the spirit and intent of the Treaty, the boundary
line should be located. That joint survey has been completed, and a
report was signed by the' Commissioners on the 31st day of last
December, but the maps have not yet been engraved, and the matter is
not in a condition to be laid before Congress. I may say, however, that
we are assured by the officials representing the Coast and Geodetic
Survey that their surveys have demonstrated the fact that there is no
range of mountains such as, at the time the Treaty was concluded
between Russia and Great Britain, was assumed to exist, and no range
of mountains to which the language of the Russian Treaty of 1867 can
apply. Therefore, the claim on behalf of the Government of the United
States is and must be that the territory of Alaska, that is, the southeasterly portion of it, shall be bounded to the eastward by a line
distant 10 marine leagues from the coast, and following the windings of
the coast."
I Mr. KNOX. Does the gentleman mean the coast of the mainland or the coast of the Islands ? "
I Mr. PITNEY. I was coming to that, Mr. Speaker. On the
Canadian side of the question 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 the line should be run
there near the  coast, which  would  leave  in  British territory a large 62
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 dismembeied, and it would be
impossible for us to proceed by land from one part of that territory to
the other without the consent of the British authorities."
BELATING TO POSITION OF INTERNATIONAL BOUND A.BY
BETWEEN CANADA AND ALASKA.
From Papers
relating to
American.
Occupation in
Appendix to
■United States
■Case.
"General Howard'
tour in Alaska,
Portland, June
30th, 1875,
pp. 359-60.
Heport on
population and
resources of
Alaska at the
•eleventh Census,
1890.
Description of
iSouth-Eastern
Alaska from
Cape Fanshaw
to the Southern
Boundary, by
Miner W. Bruce.
Referring to the Stakeen River, he says :—
" The next day # # # I took our party up the Stickeen
River as far as the boundary between our territory and British
Columbia," and adds, " the place for the English Custom-house
officers' tent is supposed to be selected within the British line.
Some of our shrewd frontiersmen say that it is not within 10
marine leagues from the sea, as it should be, there being really
doubt as to the summit of the coast range of mountains. I took
a copy of the statement of the boundary line as published in an
English journal (see paper attached, marked 'A'). It seems now
to an observer of little consequence among these rough mountains
where the exact line of division really is ; but, remembering the
trouble the settling of the channel question gave us at Vancouver
Island, I deem it of sufficient importance to recommend that the
attention of the proper department be called to the existing doubt
not plainly settled by the Treaty, that the line may be definitely
fixed."
Of the Chilkat River, he says, " Its trend is to the west by
north," so no question can be raised as to whether it is or is not in
our own boundary. It was formerly supposed that it came from
the northward, but the conference of Lieut. Symonds clearly
demonstrated otherwise. It is, however, very satisfactory to have
got determined, for the reason that heretofore the Chilkats have
been supposed to live under British jurisdiction,, and as the only
method of communicating with them is through our country,
Colonel Powell, the Indian Commissioner for British Columbia, has
frequently told me he.wished that they were under our jurisdiction.
This will also interfere with the whisky traders going there and
selling smuggled goods from the Vancouver Islands, telling the
Chilkats that they were King George Indians and not Bostons.
" The Stikine is the largest river of south-eastern Alaska, but
lies within our boundaries for a distance of only 30 miles in an air
line from its mouth. The Dominion Government claims a boundary
even nearer to the sea coast, including the spot where the British
ocean steamers land cargoes and passengers, and the advent of the
British here has destroyed the once large transit trade of Wrangel.
The extent of territory embraced in my census district is best
described by commencing at a point at the lower or southerly portion of
south-eastern Alaska, near 54° 40' north latitude, thence following what
is known as the boundary line between British Columbia and Alaska to
a point opposite Cape Fanshaw, thence through Frederick Sound and
Chatham Strait to the Pacific Ocean, thence following these waters
through Dixon Entrance to the place of beginning. 63
To give the number of miles travelled to complete the enumeration
would be a matter of sheer guess-work on my part, in view of the
tortuous unsurveyed channels and sounds through which my
course lay.
The time consumed in covering this territory was May 14th to
October 29th. My means of travelling was a canoe hewn out of a
cedar log, 35 feet long, and capable of carrying six persons and three
months' supplies.
RELATING   TO   BARRIER   AND   NAVIGATION   THROUGH
RUSSIAN STRIP.
Feom Message on the Acquisition of Bossian America, Including
Sumner's Speech, 1868.
Mr. Collins to Mr. Seward.
New York, April Uh, 1867.
* * * The first river of any importance that enters the sea in 40th Congress,
Russian America is the Stikeen, or St. Francis, in about 50° north 2nd session^Ex.
latitude.     This river has been followed by the telegraph exploring
parties to the Cascades, where it breaks through the coast range of
mountains dividing British Columbia from Russian America.
* * * There are many small streams as you ascend along the coast
and passes over the mountains into British Columbia, and parties of
natives trade with the interior tribes more to the east and north by
following some of these streams, and thus arrive in the valley between
the coast range and Bocky Mountains. * * *
Doc. No. 177,
p. 24.
THE BBITISH - RUSSIAN TREATY OF 1825. — FORMER
UNITED STATES CONTENTION AS TO MEANING OF
ARTICLE  VI.
The  Sixth  Article of Russia's Treaty  with   Great Britain is
follows :—
as
It is understood that the subjects of His Britannic Majesty,
from whatever quarter they may arrive, whether from the ocean or
from the interior of the continent, shall for ever enjoy the right
of navigating freely, and without any hindrance whatever, all
the rivers and streams which, in their course toward the Pacific
Ocean, may cross the line of demarcation upon the line of ooast
described in Article III. of the present Convention.
The meaning of this Article is not obscure. The subjects of Great
Britain, whether arriving from the interior of the continent or from
the ocean, shall enjoy the right of navigating freely all the rivers and
streams which, in their course to the Pacific Ocean, may cross the line
of demarcation upon the line of coast described in Article III. As is
plainly apparent, the coast referred to in Article III is the coast south
of the point of junction already described. Nothing is clearer than
the reason for this provision. A strip of land, at no point wider than
10 marine leagues, running along the Pacific Ocean from 54° 40' to 60°
(320 miles by geographical line, by the windings of the coast three
times that distance), was assigned to Russia by the Third Article.
Directly to the east of this strip of land, or, as might be said, behind it,
lay the British possessions. To shut out the inhabitants of the British
possessions from the sea by this strip of land would have been not only
Fur-seal
Arbitration
Proceedings of
the Tribunal of
Arbitration, 1893,
vol. ii.    Case of
the United States
Appendix, vol. i.,
pp. 273-5. 64
unreasonable, but intolerable, to Great Britain. Bussia promptly conceded the privilege, and gave to Great Britain the right of navigating
all rivers crossing that strip of land from 54° 40' to the point of intersection with the 141° of longitude. Without this concession the treaty
would not have been made. I do not understand that Lord Salisbury
dissents from this obvious construction of the Sixth Article, for, in his
despatch, he says that the Article has a 1 restricted bearing," and refers
only to " the line of coast described in Article III" (the italics are his
own)—'and the only line of coast described in Article III is the coast
from 54° 40' to 60°. There is no description of the coast above that
point stretching along the Behring Sea from latitude 60° to the Straits
of the Behring.
The Seventh Article of the Anglo-Bussian Treaty, whose provisions
have led to the principal contention between the United States and
Great Britain, is as follows :
It is also understood, that for the space of ten years from the
signature of the present convention the vessels of the two Powers,
or those belonging to their respective subjects, shall mutually be
at liberty to frequent, without any hindrance whatever, all the
inland seas, the gulfs, havens, and creeks on the coast mentioned
in Article III, for the purposes of fishing and of trading with the
natives.
In the judgment of the President the meaning of this Article is
altogether plain and clear. It provides that for the space of ten years
the vessels of the two Powers should mutually be at liberty to frequent
all the inland seas, etc., " on the coast mentioned in Article III, for the
purpose of fishing and trading with the natives." Following out the
line of my argument and the language of the Article, I have already
maintained thtt this privilege could only refer to the coast from'54° 40
to the point of intersection with the 141° of west longitude, that
therefore British subjects were not granted the right of frequenting the
Behring Sea.
Denying this construction, Lord Salisbury says :
I must further dissent from Mr. Blaine's interpretation of
Article VII of the latter Treaty (British). That Article gives to
the vessels of the two Powers liberty to frequent all the inland
seas, gulfs, havens, and creeks on the coast mentioned in
Article III for the purpose of fishing and of trading with the
natives." The expression " coast mentioned in Article III" can
only refer to the first words of the Article, " the line of demarcation
between the possessions of the high contracting parties upon the
coast of the continent and the islands of America to the north-west
shall be drawn," etc., that is to say, it included all the possessions
of the two Powers on the north-west Coast of America. For there
would have been no sense whatever in stipulating that Russian
vessels should have freedom of access to the small portion of coast
which, by a later part of the article, is to belong to Russia. And,
as bearing on this point, it will be noticed that Article VI, which
has a more restricted bearing, speaks only of " the subjects of His
Britannic Majesty" and of "the line of coast described in
Article III."
language
It is curious to note the embarrassing intricacies of his lordship's
and the erroneous assumption upon which his argument is
based. He admits that the privileges granted in the Sixth Article to
the subjects of Great Britain are limited to § the coast described in
Article III of the Treaty." But when he reaches the Seventh Article,
where the privileges granted are limited to | the coast mentioned in
Article III of the Treaty," his lordship maintains that the two references do not mean  the  same  coast at  all.    The  coast  described in 65
Article III and the coast mentioned in Article III are therefore, in his
lordship's judgment, entirely different. The " coast described in
Article III" is limited, he admits, by the intersection of the boundary
line with the 141° of longitude, but the "coast mentioned in
Article III" stretches to the Straits of Behring.
The Third Article is, indeed, a very plain one, and its meaning
cannot be obscured. Observe that the " line of demarcation" is
between the possessions of both parties on the coast of the continent;
Great Britain had no possessions on the coast line above the point of
junction with the one hundred and forty first degree, nor had she any
settlements above 60° north latitude. South of 60° north latitude was
the only place where Great Britain had possessions on the coast line.
North of that point her territory had no connection whatever with the
coast, either of the Pacific Ocean or the Behring Sea. It is thus
evident that the only coast referred to in Article III was this strip of
land south of 60° or 59°30/.
The preamble closes by saying that the line of demarcation between
the possessions on the coast 1 shall be drawn in the manner following,"
viz., from Prince of Wales Island, in 54° 40', along Portland Channel,
and the summit of the mountains parallel to the coast as far as their
intersection with the one hundred and forty first degree of longitude.
After having described this line of demarcation between the possessions
of both parties on the coast, the remaining sentence of the article
shows that, " Finally, from the said point of intersection, the said
meridian line shall form the limit between the Russian and British
possessions on the Continent of America." South of the point of
intersection the Article describes a line of demarcation between
possessions on the coast; north of that point of intersection, the
Article designates a meridian line as the limit between possessions
on the continent. The argument of Lord Salisbury appears
to this Government not only to contradict the obvious meaning of the
seventh and third Articles, but to destroy their logical connection with
the other Articles. In fact, Lord Salisbury's attempt to make two
coasts out of the one coast referred to in the Third Article is not only
out of harmony with the plain provisions of the Anglo-Bussian Treaty,
but is inconsistent with the preceding part of his own argument.
These five Articles in the British Treaty (the third, fourth, fifth,
sixth, and seventh) are expressed with an exactness of meaning which
no argument can change or pervert.
EXTBACTS  FROM   MESSAGE ON   THE   ACQUISITION   OF
RUSSIAN AMERICA, INCLUDING SUMNER'S  SPEECH,
1868.
The Treaty.
Questions arising under the Treaty.
*    *    *    There are many questions not unworthy of attention 40th Congress
which arise under the Treaty between Russia and Great Britain, fixing 2nd session,
the eastern Hmits of these possessions, and conceding certain privileges Ex. Doc, No. 11
to the latter Power.    By this Treaty, signed at St. Petersburg, 1825, pP- 135"6-
after fixing the boundaries between the Russian and British possessions,
it is provided that | for the space of ten years the vessels of the two
Powers, or those belonging to their respective subjects, shall mutually
be  at  liberty  to  frequent,  without  any hindrance whatever, all the
inland seas, gulfs, havens, and creeks on the coast for the purpose of
fishing and of trading with the natives ;" and also that " for the space
of ten years the port of Sitka or  Novo  Archangelsk  shall be open to 66
the commerce and vessels of British subjects." (" Hertslet's Commercial Treaties," vol. ii., p. 365.) In the same Treaty it is also
provided that " the subjects of His Britannic Majesty, from whatever
quarter they may arrive, whether from the ocean or from the interior
of the continent, shall for ever enjoy the right of navigating freely and
without any hindrance whatever all the rivers and streams which in
their course toward the Pacific Ocean may cross the line of
demarcation." (Ibid.) Afterwards a Treaty of Commerce and
Navigation between Russia and Great Britain was signed at
St. Petersburg, the 11th January, 1843, subject to be terminated on
notice from either party at the expiration of ten years, in which it is
provided that " in regard to commerce and navigation in the Russian
possessions on the north-west coast of America, the Convention of the
28th February, 1825, continues in force." (Ibid., vol. vi., p. 767.)
Then ensued the Crimean war between Russia and Great Britain,
effacing or suspending Treaties. Afterwards another Treaty of
Commerce and Navigation was signed at St. Petersburg, 12th January,
1859, subject to be terminated on notice from either party at the
expiration often years, which repeats the last provision. (Ibid., vol. x.,
p. 1063.)
Thus we have three different stipulations on the part of Bussia :
one opening seas, gulfs and havens on the Bussian coast to British
subjects for fishing and trading with the natives ; the second making
Sitka a free port to British subjects; and the third making British
rivers which flow through the Russian possessions for ever free to
British navigation. Do the United States succeed to these stipulations ?
Among these I make a distinction in favour of the last, which by
its language is declared to be 1 for ever," and may have been in the
nature of an equivalent at the settlement of the boundaries between the
two Powers. But whatever may be its terms or its origin, it is obvious
that it is nothing but a declaration of-public law, as it has always been
expounded by the United States, and is now recognised on the Continent of Europe. While pleading with Great Britain in 1826 for the
free navigation of the St. Lawrence, Mr. Clay, who was at the time
Secretary of State, said that " the American Government did not mean
to contend for any principle the benefit of which in analogous circumstances it would deny to Great Britain." (" Wheaton's Elements of
International Law," Part II., cap. 4.) During the same year Mr.
Gallatin, our Minister in London, when negotiating with Great Britain
for the adjustment of our boundaries on the Pacific, proposed that " if
the line should cross any of tlie branches of the Columbia at points from
which they are navigable by boats to the main stream, the navigation
of both branches and of the main stream should be perpetually free
and common to the people of both nations." At an earlier day the United
States made the same claim with regard to the Mississippi, and asserted
as a general principle that " if the right of the upper inhabitants to
descend the stream was in any case obstructed, it was an act by a
stronger society against a weaker, condemned by the judgment of mankind." (Ibid.) By these admissions our country is estopped, even if
the public law- of the European Continent, first declared at Vienna
with regard to the Rhine, did not offer an example which we cannot
afford to reject. I rejoice to believe that on this occasion we shall
apply to Great Britain the generous rule which from the beginning we
have claimed for ourselves.
The two other stipulations are different in character. They are
not declared to be " for ever," and do not stand on any principle of
public law. Even if subsisting now, they cannot be onerous. I doubt
much if they are subsisting now. In succeeding to the Bussian
possessions, it does not follow that the United States succeed to ancient-
obligations assumed by Bussia, as if, according to a phrase of the
common law, they are 1 covenants running with the land." If these
stipulations  are  in  the  nature  of servitudes, they depend for their 67
duration on the sovereignty of Russia, and are personal or national
rather than territorial. So at least I am inclined to believe. But it is
hardly profitable to speculate on a point of so little practical value.
Even if | running with* the land," these servitudes can be terminated at
the expiration of 10 years from the last Treaty by a notice which,
equitably, the United States may give, so as to take effect on the 12th
January, 1869. Meanwhile, during this brief period, it will be easy by
Act of Congress in advance to limit importations at Sitka, so that this
| free port" shall not be made the channel or doorway by which British
goods may be introduced into the United States free of duty    *    *    *
EVIDENCE PBESENTED BY THE UNITED STATES, AS TO
THE TOPOGBAPHICAL BESULTS OF 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 ten marine leagues of tide water
there is no defined and continuous range such as appears upon the early
map3 and charts following the sinuosities of the coast."
For the observations from which these conclusions are deduced,
reference is given to pages 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 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, but no
attempt to do this is made in the case of the United States ; nor do the
five officers who state their conclusions (with but one exception) so
much as mention the fact that such maps were made, or base these
conclusions in any way upon this primary evidence.
It would seem that strong objection should be taken to the
reception of secondary and fragmentary evidence when primary and
complete evidence is before the Commission. A distinction should be
drawn between this secondary evidence by the United States surveyors
and the declaration by Mr. King in the Appendix to the British Case.
Mr. King, in his declaration, simply states conclusions deducible from
the maps of the joint survey, and does not seek to substitute his own
observations or opinions therefor.
The exception referred to is Mr. Tittmann's reference to his visit to
the Chilkoot and White Passes, and the Klehini River. From the
examination which he was thus able to make, he reached the conclusion
that there did not exist a mountain range fulfilling certain conditions.
The study of the Commission maps served merely as a confirmation of 68
Mr. Tittmann's
Statement, page
529, United
States Appendix.
league limit
which
a conclusion arrived at from observations of limited scope, and were not,
it appears, the basis of that conclusion.
The opinions are based upon surveys which the deponents
individually made in certain restricted localities, and upon general
views, unsupported by anything of the nature of an observation
properly so-called, of the mountain scenery, which they had in common
with all travellers along the coastal steamboat routes.
The description of the coast, moreover, appears to be given mainly
from memory, and not from notes made at the time. Expressions such
as "my recollection is," " I recall," frequently occur. Mr. Ogden gives
a date as " about the 10th or 12th of May."
Indistinct memory, in 1903, of what was seen nine or ten years
before, may account for some of the discrepancies in the affidavits which
it is now proposed to examine.
Mr. Tittmann surveyed a portion of the Stikine River, extending
from a point about ten leagues from Bothesay Point down the river
towards the coast. He " determined the position and altitude of
mountain peaks which could be seen from various points on the river,
including several peaks about eight miles distant from the river,, and
approximately ten marine leagues from the coast. These peaks were
Kate's Needle on the west, and Big Mountain on the east."
Thus his extent of view was limited to eight miles on either side,
and this only in the case of three specially high peaks. (Pinnacle
Mountain 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 or his party.
Yet he says he " paid special attention to identifying and locating the
crest of the mountains." He also found that " within the ten marine
there is a total absence of that continuity and system
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 eight miles.
In 1900, Mr. Tittmann was engaged in delineating the provisional
boundary about the head of Lynn Canal. He says that from the
examination which he made there, and a study of the maps of the
Commissioners, he has reached the conclusion " 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 line
projected from the head of the Lynn Canal southward and drawn to
the 56th parallel at a point near the head of Portland Canal, such line
being drawn parallel to the sinuosities of the coast line, which proceeds
around the bays and inlets, and not more than ten 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
ten 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 and 3 of the Atlas accompanying the United States Case (which maps were prepared in the
office of the  United  Coast   and Geodetic Survey, apparently from 69
modern data), that there is every indication of a continuous watershed or divide within ten 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 lone:. It is within ten leagues from the shores of Lynn Canal,
Stephens Passage, etc.
Mr. Tittmann demands a " defined and continuous range or chain
running generally parallel to the coast," within ten 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 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 ten 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 twenty nautical miles from the head of
Le Comte Bay, or twenty-five 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 personally engaged were
confined to the valleys of the Taku and the Stikine River. He also
saw the coast from the deck (or rigging) of the steamboat, while passing along the usual routes of navigation.
Of the Taku Biver 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 w7ork I determined the contour and height of all
the mountains that were visible from the bed of the river."
These determinations of the " contour " appear from Card No. 4 of
the United States Commission, 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 Commission 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. An affidavit by Mr. McArthur, the Canadian
surveyor whom Mr. Welker accompanied, is appended, showing 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
Mr. Ogden's
Deposition,
Appendix to
United States
Case, p. 530. 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
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 be conceived
possible that anyone 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," etc.
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
U. S. 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 from 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 anyone on a steamer not more than
two or three 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 fifty feet, let us say, above the deck, to look over the top
of a mountain three miles away, would enable him to see fifty feet more
of the top of a mountain three miles beyond that, and no more.
Beferring 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. Tittmann's camp: " This gave me an
opportunity to see a large section 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 opinionfit was of little  consequence  that  the group  of 71
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."
As to the nature of these " foot-hills," as they appear to the eye,
see the magazine articles descriptive of the coastal topography in the
Appendix to the Counter Case.
Mr. Ogden's conclusion is that " there is not within ten marine
leagues from the coast any continuous chain of mountains in the form
of a summit range running from the 56th degree 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.
I 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 ten 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 as to " 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 56 th
parallel to the 141st meridian a "continuous chain of mountains," etc.
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 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, " Immediately behind the
shore line up to this point is the eastern portion of the St. Elias Bange
of mountains, and which extends nearly to the Copper Biver, and
includes the highest mountain peaks yet known on the North American
continent. This eastern portion of 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. 72
Mr. Hodgkins's
Deposition.
Thus there is a " range " along this part of the coast, at least.
Mr. Hodgkins was appointed by the United States Commissioner
as attache on the party of Mr. Wm. 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 steamboat trip, he says
that according to his recollection of the shore of the continent northward from Dixon'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 only source of personal
information would be his observations while working with Mr. Ogilvie
on the mountains near Taku Inlet and Gastineau Channel.
Mr. Hodgkins's 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 III. of British Commission map in the Pacific,
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 is 2,000 feet in height, or
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 as to the point most essential in the present
investigation, the height of the 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 bis information must have been derived
from the " other investigations." What the nature of these investiea-
tions may have been be does not state. They are evidently not
examinations of the Commission maps, for as has been shown, bis statement—that is. his later statement—revised between February 24th,
1894, and April 16th, 1903, in the light of bis "other investigations,"
is at variance with those maps.
His conclusion is framed with the usual qualifications in speaking
of the mountains, " no continuous chain," with the addition of the
former 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 ^- Baldwin's
of  the   mountains   immediately   bordering   the   coast  has already    ep0bI on'
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 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 page 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 fiorda"
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 ail known
sources of information." In it more than three pages (109 to 112) are
devoted to the description of the Stikine River. On page 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." 74
In a foot-note on page 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.
Summer 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 page 111, 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 five miles
above the delta islands the valley narrows and the river appears only
two or three hundred feet in width. The depth in the channel is
nowhere less than seven, and will average over twelve feet. The
appearance of the high land on either side is as if ranges trending
N.W. and S.E. 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, etc., it will be seen, differs materially from that of the
gentlemen who have made affidavits in support of the United States case.
Yet Mr. Davidson,at least, will hardly be accused of undue partiality to
the British view of the boundary question, for in his Report of 1867
(40th Cong., 2nd Sess., H. R, Ex. Doc. No. 177, page 265) he says of
Portland Canal :—
" This extensive arm of Dixon's Sound forms the south-eastern
dividing line between British Columbia and Alaska; commences in
latitude 54° 41', according to Vancouver's map, and the entrance lies
between Point Maskelyne on the mainland, near Fort Simpson and
Point Wales, upon an island lying north-west from Point Maskelyne.
Vancouver places the latter in latitude 54° 42-g-', longitude 150° 15'
west (vol. 1, p. 327), while the position of Point Wales from the map
is in 54° 41|'and longitude, 150° 20'. 'The entrance ■ is not more
than two-and-a-half miles across, and this, at the distance of a few
miles, seemed to be materially contracted.' From the entrance the
canal runs north 35° east twenty miles, with an average width of three
miles, with channels breaking off to the east and west, where it
receives Observatory Inlet, a large branch which comes about forty
miles from the north-north-east. The north point dividing the inlet
from the canal was named by Vancouver, Point Bamsden, and placed
in latitude 54° 59', and longitude 149° &7#' west (page 336). At first,
when entering upon the survey of the canal and inlet, Vancouver was
\ uncertain which to consider the main branch.'    (Vol. 2, p. 330.)
" The canal continues from the above point, with the course north
23° west, for seven miles ; then north 30° east, for thirteen miles ;
north 20° west, for thirteen miles ] north 7° west, for ten miles ; north
27° east, for nine miles, and terminates in latitude 55° 45', and
longitude 14 9° 54' (page 340, vol. 2).
I The distances on the above courses, taken from Vancouver's map,
' sum up seventy-two miles, and in his narrative he says the total' distance
from its entrance to its mouth is about seventy miles ; which, in honour
of the noble family of Bentinck, I named Portland's Canal.'   (Page 371,
volume 2.)
I The shores of this inlet were nearly straight, and in general little
more than a mile asunder, composed mostly of high rocky cliffs covered
with pine trees to a considerable height; but the more interior country
was a compact body of high, barren mountains, covered with snow (July
29th, 1793).    As we pursued this branch, salmon in great plenty were 75
leaping in all directions; seals and sea-otter were also seen in great
numbers, even where the water was nearly fresh, and which was the
case for upwards of twenty miles from its termination." (Vol. 2, p. 340.)
It appears from this extract that Mr. Davidson had read Vancouver's " Voyages" with some care, for he makes several quotations
from that work. Yet in the first sentence he conveys the impression
that Vancouver placed the entrance of Portland Canal between Point
Maskelyne and Point Wales.
Again, " the north point dividing the inlet from the canal was
named by Vancouver Point Ramsden." " At first, when entering
upon the survey of the canal and inlet, Vancouver was uncertain
which to consider the main branch." This again conveys the
impression that Vancouver named the lower part of Observatory Inlet
" Portland Canal."
Then again, after giving the bearings and distances up to the head
of Portland Canal, he says, " The distances on the above courses, taken
from Vancouver's map, sum up seventy-two miles ; in his narrative he
says the total \ distance from its entrance to its mouth is about seventy
miles; which, in honour of the noble family of Bentinck, I named
Portland's Canal."
The full text of Vancouver's account of his explorations of Portland
Canal and Observatory Inlet is printed in the Appendix to the British
Case, pp. 139-146, and need not be quoted here. As has been
pointed out in the British Case, it is perfectly clear to any reader of
Vancouver's text that his Portland Canal and Observatory Inlet were
two distinct channels, having separate openings to the ocean. Mr.
Davidson, however, by removal of sentences from their context,
would make it appear that Vancouver placed the entrance to " Portland
Canal" between Points Maskelyne and Wales.
It will be observed that on pages 342 and 343 of the Appendix to
the United States Case, the extract given from Mr. Davidson's Report
referring to Portland Canal terminates at the end of the first
paragraph. The rest of what Mr. Davidson wrote concerning the
Canal, including the remarkable passage in which Vancouver's naming
of one canal is attributed to another, is left out.
Returning to the question of the irregularity of the formation of
the Alaskan coast, which is asserted by the deponents, reference may
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 canon, 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. Flemer's
Deposition,
Appendix to
United States
Case, page 537.
Mr. Baldwin, states that at " no point between our camp " (up the
river near the ten league limit) " was there a continuous or homo-
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, etc., 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 remajn, at this point,
incomplete.
The " Alaska Coast Pilot" of 1883, indeed, suggests that there is
something Hke a range here, distinguishable from the mountains of
the interior, for it says of the " Skoot or Iskoot Biver " (page 111),
"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 twenty miles. At the summit, where the head-waters of this
branch are intimately associated with those of the Naas River, the
elevation attained is twenty-six hundred feet. By ascending the Skoot
and making the portage, the Stikine Indians can descend the Naas
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, etc.
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 overlooked the possible
existence of a " distinct watershed" extending for 100 miles, perhaps,
from Chilkoot Pass, a pass which they both personally visited.
Mr. Flemer, in 1893, was attached to the party of the British
Commission under Mr. Talbot, and his surveys of that season were made
over the mountain area south of the Stikine Biver.
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 Biver, he
remarks : I 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 77
intervening depressions, 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 S. 25° E. 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 His Majesty's Government claims that the boundary
line should follow.
On the same Card, to the south-west of this range, appear other f^S^0^ Jf1:
mountains  close  to the  shore, extending south from near  Bothesay TB^ti^Case   ^
Point at the mouth of the Stikine  to Wrangell  Peak.    This series of portfolio,
mountains,   although  of short  extent compared with  the next inner
range just  mentioned,  may  yet, as  it seems,  be properly  called  a
1 range "—the " Cannery Bange "—see Sheet No. 4 of the United States
Commission.    Mr. Flemer, however, says that there are 1 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  1 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, indeed, as to the abruptness of the mountains along
the upper part of Lynn Canal, and the narrow valley bottoms of the
rivers Katzehin, Skagway, etc., might seem to indicate a " coastal
mountain range" (if the shores of Lynn Canal are the "coast'').
1 Never in a continuous range or chain," he says.
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 ten leagues of the coast (see remarks upon
Mr. Tittmann's statement). The evidence of the maps in the United
States Appendix seems to show that this " divide " runs nearly north
and south, and it must be a "mountain formation." Mr. Flemer tells
us, however, that the mountain formations do not run north and south.
Upon what evidence does he base this statement ?
Mr. Flemer 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 thirty miles from the coast."
From this sentence it might be inferred that the passes at the
heads of the rivers named are thirty 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 ten leagues. The other rivers take their
rise much nearer the shore.
Messrs. Hodgkins, Baldwin and Flemer, 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. Flemer 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 78
Ii!"'
Br. Counter Case,
App. i., p. 60.
Evidence  of  Mr.
H. P. Ritter,
TT. S. Counter
Case, App., p. 262.
coast," which generally serve " to prevent any extensive inspection of
the interior " ;   behind the | coastal barrier " ;   " over the mountains
rising precipitously  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 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 lac6te/'
as involving a "continuous range of mountains parallel to the coast,"
has been modified into " a continuous dominating range of mountains
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 solely to pp. 529-38
of the Appendix to their Case, and to pp. 257 and 262-65 of the
Appendix to their Counter Case.
Pp. 529-38 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 been dealt with in the
previous portion of this paper, 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
I 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) for a wide
belt of mountainous country which runs parallel to the coast for the
entire length of the province of British Columbia; and—
(2) The inferred statement that at certain points of the Fraser
Valley the mountains form a " complex."
Compare with this, Mr. W. H. Dall's statement, '" Advancing
northward 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 almost 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 79
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,
etc., 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
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 1 attached  to  the  party of Mr. O. H. Tittmann." jvj* p^tt°f Mr'
From this it must not  be understood that Mr. Pratt accompanied Mr. jj g oOUnter
Tittmann during  any of the surveys described by Mr. Tittmann in his Case, App. p. 262
statement.   Mr. Pratt was attached to the party of one of the Canadian
surveyors, and worked with him.
Mr. Pratt says he ascended 10 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.
From 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 clearly that he could not on
account of the height of the mountains lying just to the westward and
south westward of his view point.
These last-mentioned mountains form the range considered by
Mr. Joseph Hunter, in 1897, to be the axis of the coast range. As to
Hunter's range south of the Stikine River at this point, it may be
mentioned here that Hunter's conception of a definite range here
is supported by the evidence of Mr. Baldwin that he could see up
the valley of the Katete River 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 coast  lies between the Katete and
Iskoot Bivers.
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 of them, much less explanation of their non-accord with the
theory put forward of irregular arrangement of isolated peaks, and to
rest upon the bare statement of the theory, that there is no 1 defined"
mountain range.
1 No defined mountain range within this region described by me."
It is not clear what region he has described. The only thing approaching a 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.
U. S. Case,
App. p. 535. Evidence  of   Mr.
P. A. Welker,
U. S. Counter
Case, App. p. 263,
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 summit between the Stikine and the coast. It is seen
from the Commission maps that the other mountains which Mr. Pratt,
in company with Mr. Gibbon, ascended, lie on the coastal side of the
glacier field.
From these he could see only the edge and lower slopes of the ice
field. To determine the fact of continual rise, it would be necessary
to obtain a view point near the top. His only such view point was
the peak near the Great Glacier. What he saw, or could 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, generalisation.
Mr. Pratt also says—" In my trips up and down Lynn Canal, I
was impressed by the topography on each side. In general the mountains rise abruptly from the sea, but the mountains increase in elevation
from the south towards the passes and east and west from the shores of
the canal."
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 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. 76), are sufficient to contradict the statement in the
last sentence of Mr. Pratt's affidavit.
Mr. Welker accompanied Mr. McArthur in the ascent of some
mountain peaks with him. For a list of Mr. Welker's ascents see
affidavit by Mr. McArthur in the Appendix to British Counter Case,
p. 73.
As Mr. Welker says, the peak most remote from the shore which
he personally ascended was about five miles from the mouth of Speel
Biver. With the aid of Mr. McArthur's statement, this peak is
identified with 12 m. of the British Commission Map. This peak is
between 2,000 and 2,250 feet high, on a ridge standing isolated in the
valley of Speel River. Being closed in by mountains on each side
upwards of 4,000 feet high, it was not a suitable view point for
examination of the general features of the country.
As Mr. McArthur ascended many 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 twenty to thirty 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, and which 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 two miles from its head.
The word " determine" would indicate that he had accurately
placed the mountain by means of surveying instruments. The maps
show that a mountain two 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 Stephen's Passage, 81
Evidence of Mr.
John Nelson,
U. S. .Counter
i.e. from the ocean coast of the continent, and less than 12 miles from
the British Triangulation Station No. 93, to which Mr. Welker
ascended, and from which he supposedly made his determination of the
height and position of his inner peak.
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
United States Commission Map.    Perhaps it may  be the same as the App. iii., to Br.
peak marked on that map, at  the head of Tracy Arm.    That  peak is, Case> P\s-
however, placed close  to   the  head of Tracy Arm, and is given  an Commisslon MaP-
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 Mr. Welker's last sentence that the maps
and the photographs show a most clearly defined mountain range lying
west of Endicott Arm, west of the upper part of Holkham Bay and
west of Port Snettisham. ■
This range is completely separatedJfrom the inner mountains by
the depression of Endicott Arm and Holkham Bay, and by that of
Port Snettisham and the valley between Snettisham and (Tolkham
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.
'fhe 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 q^' ^ppnp
made a survey of the region about the Katzehin  River, 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.
The affidavit nevertheless 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 Biver, 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.
It can only be conjectured that the purpose in now presenting this
affidavit as to the results of a survey made in 1898, is to discredit in a
certain point the maps 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 lie far to the seaward from the line claimed by the United
States. It has already been noticed that these maps rather inconveniently 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 drain 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 has
this same error in company 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 determine If
1
u. s. c. c,
p. 276.
lb., p. 278
82
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, etc., 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.
Other evidence than that discussed above the United States have
not offered in support of their assertion that " the proof that no such
range exists is conclusive."
EXTRACTS   FROM   INSTRUCTIONS   GIVEN   BY
DR.    MENDENHALL   TO   HIS   ASSISTANTS   IN   1894.
Instruction to Mr. J. F. Pratt:—
1 You will execute the triangulation and topographical reconnaissance of the Chilkat and Taiya Inlets to the 10 marine league limit."
" Parties under the charge of Messrs. J. A. Flemer and H. P. Ritter
will be operating in the mountain regions adjoining the Chilkat and
Taiya Inlets    * *    *    the triangulation to the  10 marine league
limit and the topographical reconnaissance of the upper portions of the
inlets are of the first importance, and if it is found necessary to leave
any part of the work unfinished, it should be the topography of the
lower portions."
Instructions to Mr. E. F. Dickens :—
" You will please arrange for the continuation of the reconnaissance of the Unuk River from the point reached by you last year to the
10 marine league limit.'
"As the trigonometrical survey of the Chilkat and Taiya Inlets to
the 10 marine league limit is of the greatest importance, the topography
(of the lower portions, at least) being secondary, you will first assist in
the triangulation."
Instructions to J. A. Flemer :—
I Make a topographical reconnaissance of the country to the northward and eastward of Taiya Inlet and River to the 10 marine league
limit."
| The party of Assistant Pratt will be engaged in the survey of the
Chilkat Inlet and River to the boundary."
| Make a topographical reconnaissance of the country to the northward and westward of the Chilkat Inlet and River to the 10 marine
league limit."
"The party of Assistant Pratt will be engaged on the survey of
the Chilkat Inlet and River to the boundary." 83
MAJOR CAMERON'S  REPORT OF FEBBUARY 18th, 1875.
Of this report the United States, on page 19 of their Counter
Case, say "Major D. R. Cameron's report, published in 1878, is
submitted in evidence by Great Britain, together with all the appendices
which accompanied it, except an extract from the journal of the Royal
Geographical Society of 1869. An examination of this extract
discloses that it is entirely at variance with the present claim of Great
Britain as to the southern boundary, and the course of the line to the
head of Portland Canal. The expression used is ' Portland Inlet,
through the centre of which runs the boundary between the British and
lately acquired territory of the United States''''
The above is erroneous in the statement that all the appendices
except the extract from the journal have been offered in evidence by
Great Britain. On the contrary none of the appendices to Major
Cameron's report has been offered, but only the report itself with the
transmitting letter.
Appended to the report was a long and very detailed statement of
proposed organization of the survey party, and the. extract from the
journal referred to. It was not considered necessary to print these
appendices, as having no essential bearing on the case. This is stated
in a note on page 182 of the British Appendix. The United States,
however, suggest suppressal of evidence, and to substantiate that
suggestion endeavour to connect the " Portland Inlet," mentioned in
the extract from the journal of the Royal Geographical Society, with
the I Portland Inlet," which is referred to in the British Case as being
a name sometimes applied to the lower part of Observator}7 Inlet.
The connection between the Portland Inlet of the journal and the
Portland Inlet of the British Case, depends upon the quotation in the
above extract from the United States Counter Case of part of a
sentence.
The whole sentence reads :—
" Portland Inlet, through the centre of which runs the boundary
between the British and lately acquired territory of the United States,
has been surveyed, and formed to extend 11 miles further north than
shown on the old charts."
The reference to the survey as showing that the inlet extended
"11 miles further north" is the essential point of the extract, and
shows that the name " Portland Inlet " is intended to apply to the
upper part of Portland Canal, not the lower part.
I SURVEYOR-GENERAL DENNIS'S MAP,"   1878, IN UNITED
STATES ATLAS TO COUNTER CASE.
In the Atlas accompanying the Counter Case of the United
States, No. 29, are printed six maps of the lower part of the Stikine
River. These are said, in the list of maps at the beginning of the
Atlas, to have been re-drawn on a common scale for the purposes of
comparison.
One of these maps has printed below it, " Surveyor-General Dennis's
map, 1878." It may be well to point out that this map was not drawn
by Mr. Dennis for the purpose of showing where he considered the
boundary should be drawn, but, instead, where the United States had
placed it.
A copy of the original of this map will be found in the British
Atlas (No. 27). From this copy of the original it will be found that
the map was intended to be a tracing of the United States Coast
Survey Map of 1869.    The tracing was made in  the Dominion  Lands 84
Office at Ottawa, and certified by Mr. Dennis as a true copy of the
chart. A copy of the chart, of which it is a copy, is printed in the
United States Atlas alongside the copy of the tracing. It is not
known what purpose is to be served by printing these two maps
together for "purposes of comparison." Any coincidence between them
as to representation of the topography or of the boundary line is to be
attributed to the fact that the second was intended to be an exact
copy of the first. Any difference must be due either to inaccuracy of
the copyist in the Dominion Lands Office, or to inaccuracy in the
present redrawing and enlargement " for the purposes of comparison."
That the latter at least enters into the matter, will be seen on comparing the redrawn enlargement with the photographic copy of the
original printed in the British Atlas.
DESCRIPTION OF PBOPOSED LEASE BY THE RUSSIAN
COMPANY TO AN AMERICAN COMPANY IN 1867.
Reference is made on page 19 of the United States Counter Case
to a proposal made in 1867 to the Russian American Company to lease
certain territory. Upon the wording of the description of the territory
proposed to be leased, as given in a report from the Russian Company
to its Government, the United States base an argument that the
parallel of latitude 54° 40' was considered the southern boundary of the
Russian possessions.
On pp. 33-35 of the Appendix this report by the Russian Company
is given. It is headed Memorandum," and given as an enclosure of a
letter of the Minister of Finance to the Vice-Chancellor. This letter is
stated to be a " translation "—from the Russian it is presumed. The
memorandum is in English, and is not stated to be a translation, though
it doubtless is, being an enclosure in the Russian document. The
description is to be found at (l) on page 34.
Beginning at the point on the Pacific Ocean where the 54° 40'
north latitude intersects 134° 30' west longitude, along the Christian
Sound and Chatham Strait to the 59° of north latitude on the chief
promontory of Chilcat Peninsula, shown on the chart under the name
of Lynn Channel; thence northward to the boundary between Bussian
and English possessions ; thence southward along the above-mentioned
boundary to latitude 54° 40', and thence west to the point of beginning,
including all islands, headlands, rivers, etc., within the said limits, with
the right of navigation on the River Mackenzie, from its mouth to the
British frontier."
It is said further on in the memorandum that the territory here
described, excluding the islands, is exactly that leased to the Hudson's
Bay Company. The directors of the company make no comment upon
the terms of the description, but evidently suppose that the River
Mackenzie at its mouth was within the Russian frontier.
This shows that the Directors made no reference to the maps of
the country, much less to the negotiations preceding the Treaty of
1825. A description shown or vouched for, by persons so ignorant of
history and geography as to make such an error, is hardly to be relied
upon as accurate. Note also their error in the memorandum in describing Cape Spencer as in latitude 54° 40'.
But even if we allow the description as accurate as to the " metes
*nd bounds," it does not carry the line down to 54° 40' on the continental coast. The latter part of the description begins from some
northern point on the boundary, between Russian and English possessions. 1 Thence southward along the above-mentioned boundary to
latitude 54° 40' and thence west to the place of beginning.'' Following the boundary southward they would come to the head of Portland 85
Channel. Thence they would proceed southward to the place where the
boundary line is in latitude 54° 40', i.e., somewhere near Cape Muzon.
Thence they would go west to the place of beginning along 54° 40'.
There is nothing along this portion of the boundary proposed to be
conveyed which did not belong to Russia under the Treaty, as Great
Britain interprets it. What difference is there between a boundary
which " ascends to the north," and one which proceeds " southward " ?
MISCELLANEOUS NOTES.
The first mention of Mr. Matusevitch in the index to the Russian Matusevitch.
Correspondence occurs in 1829. He appears to have gone to London
and returned in that year. He returned to London in 1830, and on
June 8th, 1830, he sent his credentials as Minister Plenipotentiary (of
the Czar) during the absence of Prince Lieven. He sent new
credentials in August, 1830, accrediting him in a like capacity. In
this latter document he is described as " Conseiller Prive Chambellan
et Chevalier Comte Adam de Matuszewie."
In 1837 he was appointed Minister at Stockholm.—F.O., June 13th,
1903.
Chilkat River.
The Indians of Yakutat Bay and Weskatahin village, near Dalton's Routes bet-ween
Post, communicate by two routes. One by Disenchantment Bay, and Yakutat and
over the St. Elias Alps by the Nunatak Glacier, and across country to
Dalton's Post or Wesketahin ; and the other, and more travelled, by
canoe along a system of lagoons which extends close to the sea between
Ocean Cape and Dry Bay, at the mouth of the Alsek River, and thence
by a difficult trail up the Alsek to Wesketahin. From thence the
Dalton trail leads to Klukwan and Chilkat.
When  in  Victoria,  British Columbia, a  few  days  ago,  I made The B. C. Map of
inquiries as to the publication of a map  of British Columbia in 1884, 1884.
giving an incorrect boundary to Alaska, which resulted in my obtaining Letter from Mr.
the  following information  from  Mr.  Justice  Irving, who was Deputy -^ Laurier
Attorney-General when the map was drawn. june 25th, 1903.
He stated that the map was drafted by Mr. Mohun, C.E., of the
Lands and Works Department, and submitted to the then Attorney-
General, Mr. Davie, who was not satisfied with the drafted boundary
line, and caused to be written or stamped upon the drafted line, either
the word " approximate" or " disputed." That map was, he believes,
sent to Dawson Brothers, of Montreal, or to some Edinburgh engravers,
to be printed, .and beyond that action he could give no further
information. The result of my inquiries from Mr. Mohun, the
draughtsman, were unsatisfactory, for he only remembers drafting the
map and submitting it to the then members of the British Columbia
Government. I have urged both gentlemen to forward to you a report
on this map.
This information to some extent, is, I think, in harmony with Lord
Iddesleigh's disavowal in 1886 of a Canada geological map referred to
by Mr. Bayard in his despatch of the 20th November, 1885. IP
Mr
1
Dr. Holland on
Jurisdiction over
Bays.
Extract from
letter from
Dr. Holland,
Professor of
International
Law, Oxford, to
Mr. Hodgins,
June 9th, 1903.
My impression is that the authority for Hautefeuille's dictum (as
is so often the case with him) must be of the slightest, the truer view
seeming to be that which was adopted in the Hague Fisheries
Convention of 1882, that the three miles of territorial water is to be
measured by drawing a line at right angles to one uniting the two
sides of the Bay, at the point where first it does not exceed six miles in
breadth. You have, I daresay, already looked at Rivier's " Principles
du Droit des gens," t. 1, p. 155, at the annuaire of the " Institut de
Droit International," tt. XII., pp. 104, 151, and XIII., pp. 125, 281
(see especially p. 329), also at the Questionaire and Report of the
Association for the Reform, etc., of the Law of Nations for 1893. I
could lend, you this if it is not accessible to you. There is also a
Preisschrift which 1 have by W. Schlicking of 1897.
Lynn Canal or
Chilkat Bay.
The name 1 Lynn Canal," though given by Vancouver, did not
become fixed as the appellation of this channel until after the cession
by Russia to the United States.
I The United States Coast Pilot, Alaska," officially published at
Washington in 1869, gives the name of Chatham Strait to the whole
length of the channel now known under the two names of Chatham
Strait and Lynn Canal.
In the second edition of the | Pilot," 1883, are references—see pages
118, 181, 182—which show that the name Lynn Canal was only then
becoming fixed.
On page 196—the inlet westward from Point Seduction was named
by Meade (apparently about 1869) Chilkat Inlet, "from the river of
that name, which it receives."
Length of
Portland Canal.
Measured on Vancouver's chart, the distance from the entrance at
Tongass to the head is almost exactly 70 miles.
On the same chart, the distance from opposite Point Wales to the
head of Portland Canal, via Point Ramsden, is a very little more. I
make it about 70|- miles.
Assistant Davidson, United States C. & G. S., extracts from whose
report of 1897 are printed in the United States Appendix, measures
the distance on Vancouver's chart as 72 miles.
Vancouver's position of the head of the canal being in error llf
miles, this amount must be added, making the length of the canal from
its head to either entrance 70 -f- llf or 70|- -f- llf, about 82 nautical
miles = 96 statute miles.
W. F. King.
Matusevich's
corrections of
Mr. S. Canning's
Draft Projet
The text of Mr. Canning's draft is printed on pages 121-123 of
the British Appendix ; the corrected draft on pages 125-127.
As will be seen by the double asterisks at the beginning of each,
these drafts were taken from General Foster's memorandum.
The note on page 123 is also taken from that memorandum.
We have not seen the originals of these drafts, and the underlining is not given by General Foster. We are therefore unable to
investigate the corrections made by Matusevich otherwise than by
comparing his resulting draft with Mr. Canning's.
Italics are used in two places in the English translation (also taken
from General Foster) on page 124. These, however, do not cover all
the changes which appear on comparison of the drafts. 87
Lindeberg in 1838 ascended the Chilkat River for some 10 miles Iindeberg's
r .1 °.i Survey of 1838.
above the moutb. J
He saw Indian winter houses at or near the present Gantagastaki
village, also summer (?) houses on the other side of the river. He
•saw no Indians there apparently.
To the point at this village he applied the name Zimovya Point—
(ZimovyarzWinter Hut).    To the point on the north bank four or five
miles up he applied the name Povorotny Point (Turning Point).
The "Coast Pilot" has applied the name Zimovia to the upper
point, which is properly Povorotny.
The identification of Zimovia Point as the lower point of the two
is certain from the bearings and • distances, as well as the general
•description given by Lindeberg.
His name Povorotny is also apt, since, as the " Coast Pilot"
says, at this point (which the " Coast Pilot" calls Zimovia) the river
turns more to the north.
10133.
No. 168.
(Canada.)
LAW OFFICERS to FOREIGN OFFICE.
Royal Courts of Justice,
April 23, 1898.
My Lord,
We were honoured with your Lordship's commands signified in
Mr. Villiers' letter of the 4th instant, transmitting to us the accompanying papers relating to the extent and character of the obligations
which devolved on the United States Government in consequence of
their purchase of the territory of Alaska from Russia in 1867, and
requesting that your Lordship might be favoured with our opinion as
to whether in virtue of the Treaty in 1825 with Russia as revived by
the Treaty of 1859 Her Majesty's Government can still claim from the
United States the right of navigating freely, without any hindrance
whatever, all the rivers and streams which in their course towards the
Pacific may cross the line of demarcation upon the strip of coast
described in Article III of the former Treaty, and also as to the rights
of this country under Article XXVI of the Treaty of Washington, in
regard to the free navigation of the Stikine, including the right of
transhipment at Wrangel.
In obedience to your Lordship's commands we have taken the
papers into our consideration, and have the honour to
Effect of Treaty
of Washington on
British right to
navigate rivers of
coast strip.
More recent
opinion of Law
Officers to
Foreign Office.
Report.
That the terms of Article XXVI of the Treaty of 1871 make it
•difficult for Her Majesty's Government to base their claims to tranship
goods at Wrangel upon rights given to Great Britain in the River
Stikine by virtue of the Treaty of 1 825, and for the purposes of that
claim it does not appear to us to be material whether any right can be
claimed under the latter Treaty.
The rights conferred by the Treaty of 1825 were not, in our view,
affected by the cession to the United States, inasmuch as Russia could
-cede only what she had. In our opinion, however, the 26th Article of the Treaty of 1871
confers on Her Majesty's subjects the right of navigating the Stikine
for commercial purposes, and the right of transhipment at Wrangel is
an incident to the right of navigation, without which it would be
useless. The United States can frame regulations reasonably regulating
the exercise of this right, but cannot impose any such conditions as are
contained in the Bill before Congress. Free navigation including
transhipment is a matter of right.
The Marquess of Salisbury, K.G.,
&c, &c, &c.
We have, &c,
RICHARD E. WEBSTER.
ROBERT B. FINLAY.
Hon. R. W. Scott
not Canadian
Commissioner of
Crown Lands.
U. S. Counter
Case, p. 60.
" Hon. R. W. Scott, at that time Commissioner of Crown Lands
and now Secretary of State in the Canadian Cabinet."
Mr. Scott was not at that time (1893) Commissioner of Crown
Lands in the Canadian Cabinet.
He was Commissioner of Crown Lands in the Provincial Cabinet
of Ontario, and bad, in that capacity, no more to do with the Alaskan
matter, or any other Dominion matter outside of Ontario, than the State
Engineer and Surveyor of New York (a somewhat similar position) has-
to do with the administration of the Philippine Islands.
Mount St. Elias
and the
Boundary.
IT. S. Counter
Case, page 41.
" Throughout the negotiations it is apparent that mountain %
(St. Elias) " was to form a conspicuous landmark on the frontier ; and
the northern boundary along the 139th meridian of west longitude,,
which had been substantially agreed to by the negotiators, was changed
to the 141st in order that its lofty peak might mark the termination of
the lisiere, since the latter meridian more nearly approached the
mountain."
In support of these statements references are made to United
States Case Appeal, pages 163, 178, 180, 181; United States Counter-
Case Appeal, pages 178, 200, and 211.
The last three references are to modern statements which do not
in themselves support the above proposition.
Moreover, there is no need to refer to modern conceptions of what
the negotiators said, since the original correspondence is before the-
Tribunal. This consideration narrows the effective references by the
United States to those on pp. 163, 178, 180, and 181 of the Appendix
to this case.
The first of these is the expression of Sir C. Bagot—" thence to-
Mount Elias, or to the intersection of the 140th degree of longitude."
The second (p. 178)—1 the mountains which follow the windings of
the coast to Mount Elias," and again, at the foot of the page, " proposes
that the line of demarcation, starting from Mount Elias, instead of
following the prolongation of the 139th degree of longitude, shall take
a more western course, sufficient  to divert it from the mouth of the-
Mackenzie River."
The third (p. 180)—" in the selection of a somewhat more western
degree of longitude as the boundary to the northward of Mount Elias."
The fourth (p. 181)—" along the base of the mountain nearest the
sea to Mount Elias, and thence along the 139th degree of longitude to
the Polar Sea."
At the foot of p. 181—" the line of demarcation * # * * as-
far as Mount Elias." These extracts tend to show that the negotiation though Mount
Elias was in longitude 139°, and that 141° was chosen in order to
make sure that the line should clear the mouth of Mackenzie
River.
Mount Elias is placed on Vancouver's charts in about 140° 30'.
The United States, though objecting to Great Britain drawing the
line south of Mount Elias, themselves draw it distinctly to the north of
this mountain on their map No. 2.
Letter of the Governor of the Russian-American   Company  to Tongas and
Lieutenant Zarembo. jj^p*^-
Third line of the translation,  "most   convenient route to Tumbaz  .'   '   ^fi
/m \ „ -ft-PP- P-i0?-
(longas).
The word " Tongas " in parentheses is not in the original Russian.
It is an interpolation of the translator.
"Tumbaz," in the certified copy of the original, is "Tumgaz."
Ibid. p. 302, "Tongas" is in the Russian " Tomgaz."
"The  name  ' Portland Canal'  extends along the shore  of the TJ.S. mis-state-
channel, j beyond the head of Pearse Island,' as stated in the British mentasto
Case."    The reference is to p. 55 of the British Case. ut^CounteT1"
• From the context in which the above quotation is made, it would Case p. 14.
appear that " beyond " means above, or to the north of, the head of
Pearse Island.
As used in the British Case, however, it clearly means " beyond,"
as it would appear to one in the upper part of Portland Canal, i.e.,
below or to the south of the head of Pearse Island.
This last is in fact the position of the beginning of the word
" Portland " on the maps referred to in the British Case.
I A Russian Chart (copied from Vancouver's Survey)." Origin of Russian
This was probably the Russian map of 1802, which was taken Chart.
from Vancouver, with the addition of some more information in the ?■     Co"nter
neighbourhood  of Norfolk  Sound.    Sitka  Bay  is  named, and Fort
Archangel Michael is shown on a small island.
The longitude 225° mentioned in the same letter was not, however,
taken from this map.
" The Russian dominions north of 54° 41'." Various latitudes
1 The Russian dominions north of 50° 41'." of Russian
"Near the frontier line of Russian dominions, at about  55° of ^?1^in^ns-,
,i i   ,-,    -i   ,, U. S. Counter
northern latitude. Case, APP. p. 232,
ib., p. 245.
ib. p. 282.
" According to the rule announced by the British Commissioners Navigation of
during the  negotiation  of the  Treaty of Washington in  1871, the inland waters
U. S. Counter
navigation of inland waters by the citizens of another nation could not Q^se p 26
be claimed as a right.'
The reference given (to p. 211 of App. to Rr. Case) shows that
the " rule" did not refer to " inland waters " generally, but to one
specified river, the St. Lawrence. Page 6
Page 8
Page 3.
Page 4.
Page 10, par.
Page 11.
90
NOTES ON UNITED STATES COUNTER CASE.
I United States did not in its printed Case anticipate the
claim," etc. We did not ask them to do so, but we were entitled to
expect them to set out the evidence in support of their own claim, and
so far as Portland Channel is concerned, they have deliberately kept it
back to prevent its being rebutted in our Counter Case.
Officers of Hudson's Bay Company examined narratives of
Vancouver, etc.
Hudson's Bay Company advised, and in a measure controlled the
British Government at each step of the negotiation.
No citation is given to substantiate the assertion that
I Vancouver's book was known to have been before the negotiators."
Lower down, | upon the establishment of the fact that Vancouver's
narrative was read and.relied upon by the Russian negotiators," etc., why
Russia only ? Unless it is that they know it is too late for us now to
get evidence that they did. The United States were aware from Dall
that Vancouver's narrative was against them, but they made no
allusion to the point in their case. Vancouver's works referred to in
United States discussions, see pp. 54, 61, 77, Appendix to United
States Case ; referred to by Canning, p. 60, Appendix to British Case
(copied from Vancouver's survey). Lower down this appears as
"Russian copies of Vancouver's charts," quite a different thing.
The Bussian chart of 1802 was copied from Vancouver's survey; it
was not a copy of Vancouver's charts, and we know that it was used
by the Russians as well as by Bagot.
Inconceivable that work so well known and pointedly brought
forward by United States and Canning not examined by Russians.
Enclosures in Canning's of 20th January are the memoranda of
Pelly referred to just before, and the " suggestions as to additional
memoranda," etc., has no basis.
(" As there is every reason to believe ") Vancouver only examined
the greater openings, missing Stickeen inter alia as he was looking
more especially for a great navigable river. Surely this statement of
Bagot's implies not ignorance of, but a careful and just appreciation of,
the scope and object of Vancouver's exploration. The statement as to
Portland Canal itself does not prove anything. All that he says is :
'' L'origine du Portland Canal peut-etre, comme il y a lieu de croire,
l'embouchure," etc. This only says, " the head of Portland Canal may
be, as there is room to believe, the mouth," and Vancouver's description
does not exclude that possibility, and, indeed, " the low marshy land "
at which his party hastily glanced implied a river mouth.
All this is beside the point. Portland Canal was the first natural
boundary below 55°, which was the latitude claimed by Russia. It was
a clearly marked channel shown on all maps, and there was no need of
further definition. The whole argument assumes that Russia was
claiming as far south as she could get. From the first she avowed that
she wanted 55° only, and asked for the first natural line of demarcation below that, and Tuyll's note given in Appendix to the United
States Case shows unmistakably that they know that Vancouver's
Observatory Inlet was in 54° 40', not Portland Inlet.
The very narrowness and straightness of Portland Channel
rendered more precise definition unnessary.
If the Russians wanted a continuous strip of land, not a strip of
continuous territory, it is inconceivable that they would have accepted
or asked for a ragged fringe at the end, they would have asked for and
insisted on Observatory Inlet right through. If the Hudson Bay Company, as asserted, controlled negotiation, they at least, as Pelly's memorandum shows, knew Vancouver's " Voyages."
The explanation of southern point of Prince of Wales Island is
absurd, the Treaty makes no mention of the parallel of 54° 40' except
as defining the position of that point. 91
Observatory Inlet on the early maps is more or less parallel to Page 14.
Portland Canal, and if the Russians wanted 54°  40' as the ooundary,
they would, as Tuyll proposed, have asked for that, not Portland Canal,
-as the boundary.
There is nothing to show that Lord F. Conynghara sent Mr. Pelly Page 17, par. 2.
Nesselrode's despatch, as in his answer he speaks not of the boundary
from 54° 40', but of the boundary from Portland Canal. The despatch
was not sent on 31st August (13th September), but according to the
United States themselves on 13th September, and it is doubtful even
if it was sent then, as it bears date 4th September (p. 96), and 4th
September would be 16th according to New Style reckoning.
It is to be noted that Nesselrode in his earlier despatch of 5th (17)
April, says, " Nous proposions de porter la frontiere m^ridionale de nos
domains au 54° 40' de latitude et de la faire aboutir sur le continent au
Portland Canal, dont l'embouchure dans l'ocean est a la hauteur de l'lle
de Prince de Galles," etc. This language is inconsistent with the idea
that it was to follow the parallel. It is to be brought down to that
parallel, and from thence to go to the mouth of Portland Canal. Moreover, in speaking lower down of the Treaty then just concluded with
the States, he does not identify the boundary he was seeking to establish
with England with the line mentioned in the United States Treaty,
but whenever he mentions the boundary speaks of it as Portland Canal.
It is only in the later despatch that he speaks of 54° 40', instead of
Portland Canal.    As to the American Treaty, see Greenhow, p. 342.
This part unquestioned till Joint High Commission, but see App. Page 19.
to Br. Case, p. 268, the reference to " this point" can only mean Portland Canal, which is the  only  part  specifically  mentioned.
Pearse Canal is south of 54° 45', which Bagot specified in his note, Page 23.
-and therefore could not have been in question—that the quotation fixes
the " southern limit" is exactly our point.
I Natural outlet," though it is admitted that it was not known as Page 26.
•such till long after, and all the description of it from recent report is
nothing  to the point;  to  the  negotiators  it was simply the end  of
Russia's strip of continent.
I Sovereignty over the inlets," Great Britain would not have this
if the United States controlled the mouth.
Definition of physical coast as following salt water, but see p. 33—
is the head of Portland Canal salt water ?
No inland waters within physical coast, how about Lynn Canal,
Taku Inlet, etc. ?
" Political ocean," the sole object was political. Russia's aim was
jurisdiction, as fully borne out by her action on the expiry of the ten
years of the Treaties.
In all the passages quoted " coast " is obviously descriptive.
As to Mendenhall as an " official," cf. above as to Pender, p. 16.
Page 29.
I Ten marine league,
nothing
here  to  imply where it was to be
is not chain a succession of links, which is
measured from.
" Chain of mountains,
what we contend for ?
Crete was substituted for base. To have used the plural would
have introduced confusion. The maps do not show a chain, but a close
succession of peaks, and the only question is what were the peaks. The
Faden and Arrowsmith maps as well as the charts show a line of crests,
not a single crest as the argument implies.
The object of the lisiere is clearly shown by the correspondence
following the end of the ten years.    It was jurisdiction over the straits.
Recognition by the Hudson's Bay Company was not recognition by
Great Britain, and the terms of the lease left the boundary vague
(54° 40' or thereabouts). The correspondence shows that the Hudson's
Bay Company were anxious to come to an- arrangement with the
Russian Company to exclude Americans, and to furnish supplies to the
Russians before the Ogden incident.
Page 33.
Page 34.
Page 35.
Page 38.
Page 39.
Page 40.
Page 45. Page 46.
Page 49.
P. 51, pars.
Page 53.
Page 56.
Page 59.
2&3.
Page 60.
Page 65.
Page 67.
Page 69.
Page 89.
92
Simpson's opinion, cf. paragraph top of p. 34 of " Hudson's Bay
Company's Correspondence Works," letter pp. 31 and 32.
Trading with Chilkat, the essence of the bargain was that the
Hudson's Bay Company were to have the monopoly of the mainland
trade, and the statement about Chilkat would have been equally true,,
see p. 11 A.pp. to U.S. Counter Case—Chilkat is used as the designation of the tribe, not of the locality. (See also p. 55 " Hudson's Bay
Company's Correspondence.")
The Hudson's Bay Company could not be the de facto government. They never had any jurisdiction, but only a trade monopoly in
the territory of the North West Company.
See Pelly to Palmerston, p. 39 " Hudson's Bay Correspondence."
Government has nothing to do with publications or proceedings-
of Select Committees and no responsibility.
I Allies of Russia," is this a sign of Russian sovereignty or the
opposite ?
No controversy over terms of the Treaty—quite true because
neither party knew the topography or had any occupation.
L. 0. opinion—that opinion has been overruled by a later L. O.
opinion. It is important to guard against any admission that the
provision of Treaty of 1825 as to navigation of rivers is not in force—
we cannot say what may be the future importance of the Taku and
Stikine.    (See L. 0. opinion 23 April, 1898.)
If Mr. Begg is an authority, the boundary runs up Clarence Strait
and Ernest Sound.
Wood and Russian monument. See his actual words, p. 79—
he only went to what he considered the boundary line.
Iddesleigh's  note  was an emphatic statement that the boundary
was wherever it might have been left by the Treaty, and it had distinct
reference  to  the  Bayard-Phelps  Communication—see    the    opening-
sentence.
Affidavit should be got from Bowell and Foster as to discussions-
in 1892.    The whole argument is based on the assumption that Russia
and United States had formally and officially put  forward  a  definite
location  of  the  line  at  a  time when it was admitted that the whole
country was as little known as the interior of Tibet.
"Torn and raveled fringe"—how about the distinct tear at the-
end if Wales and Pearse Islands go to United States ?
As to value of maps see an excellent passage in Greenhow,.
pp. 437-8.
EXTRACTS FROM MAGAZINES.
| The Canadian view of the Alaskan Boundary dispute, as stated
by Hon. David Mills, Minister of Justice, in an interview with the
correspondent of the Chicago Tribune on the 14th August, 1899."
The  boundary on  the  mainland  is  to be  the   "range" of
mountains, or the summits of the coast range, when it  was not
more than 10 leagues from the coast.
On this he says:—
" It is, I think, manifest that the framers of the Treaty
assumed that harbours, inlets, and arms of the sea would be
found, when the boundary was drawn, within  British territory,.
^ 93
and certain provisions of the Treaty were entered into upon this
assumption."    (Page 21.)
In support of this he cites Articles VI., VIL, and X. of the Treaty.
The coast described in Article VII. as being the coast
mentioned in Article in., he says, " is not the entire coast of the
•continent,. but the coast north of 54° 40'." This also is
the coast referred in in Article X., which provides that every
Russian as well as every British vessel navigating the Pacific
Ocean, " compelled by storm or accident to take shelter in the
ports of the respective parties, shall be at liberty to refit
therein," etc.
■On this article, he says :—
" It has been contended by some of the United States press,
that the waters belonging to Great Britain herein referred to, are
those that lie south of the 54° 40' of north latitude, but
this is not so. Those territories were in dispute between Great
Britain and the United States, and with reference to them no
compact was entered into in the Treaty between Bussia and Great
Britain. What is entered into is the establishment of a boundary
north of 54° 40', and it is to this boundary, separating the
territories of Bussia from the territories of His Britannic Majesty,
that all the provisions of the Treaty referred. Russia made no claim
in this Treaty to any territories further south. She set up no
pretensions to any privileges further south; what was being settled
was the dispute between Great Britain and Russia in respect
to sovereign rights north of 54° 40' north latitude. The subjects
of Great Britain were, without any hindrance whatever, to have
liberty of navigating freely all the rivers and streams which in
their course towards the Pacific Ocean may cross the boundary
line, the line of demarcation, as set out in Article III. of the Convention. These rivers and navigable routes were not rivers south
•of 54° 40' north latitude, but rivers north of that latitude—rivers
that flowed from British territory through the Russian territory
upon that coast. All the provisions of the Treaty relating to
fishing and to navigation have reference to the territories and
waters which were the subject of the Treaty, and so it is wholly
beside the question to refer to the Convention between the United
States and Russia of the previous year. It is as plain as anything
can well be, that the contracting parties assumed that when the
separating line came to be drawn, under the Treaty, there
would be, in some places, harbours and inlets remaining on the
British side of this boundary line, and Russia stipulated for the
right of Russian navigators to use them, and for her ships to take
refuge in them, as she had conceded a like right to the subjects
of His Britannic Majesty. These would, indeed, be strange Treaty
stipulations if, upon the whole length of this boundary, from the
56° of latitude to Mount St. Elias, it never - crossed an inlet, and
at no point touched the sea."    (Pages 22-3.)
I The Alaska Boundary Line. Count Nesselrode and the Treaty
-of 1825," by the Hon. David Glass, Q.C. The Anglo-American
Magazine, November, 1899.    (Page 464.)
-As to the meaning of Article VII. of the Treaty, he says :—
| There certainly is no grant made here by Russia to England
any more than there is by England to Russia; but the article
makes it quite clear as to what is an inland sea, as spoken of here.
It is a sea lying enclosed, or back from the coast of the continent,
such as Count Nesselrode said the inlets were; and when the
narrow strip of land was taken off along the coast of the continent, 94
I r*
behind the strip there might be inland seas, gulfs, havens, and*
creeks belonging to Britain: while outside or in the lisiere, or
strip, where it crossed these inlets, the gulfs, havens', inlets and
creeks would belong to Russia. This is why the seventh article
was placed in the Treaty. It was for mutual advantage and
convenience, and continued for ten years. The object in limiting
to ten years may have been that each might ascertain within that
time the exact boundary as a guide for all future time. Hut after
the expiration of the ten years, the inland seas could only be used,
for navigation, and not for fishing and trading with the natives-
See Count Nesselrode's letter, August 24th, 1824." (Pages
470-1.)
" The Alaskan Boundary Line," Professor Moore, in the North
American Review, by the Hon David Glass, Q.C. (concluded). The
Anglo-American Magazine, December, 1899.   (Page 548.)
The correspondence means, he says, that " the British were
to have the right to navigate the rivers, streams, inland seas,,
gulfs, havens and creeks through the lisiere, or strip of land, and
also those inside of the lisiere in their own territory, the latter
being what are known as territorial waters."    (Page 557.)
The result of the treaty as to commerce and navigation he^
summarises as follows :—
| In other words, you may go in and out through the rivers
and streams, inland seas, gulfs and havens within and across the
lisiere for the purpose, of navigation for all time, and for the period
of ten years we shall mutually be at liberty to frequent, without
any hindrance whatever, all the inland seas mentioned in article
three, for the purpose of fishing and trading with the natives,,
both within and without the lisiere. But after that time each
country, excepting for navigation, shall be confined to its own
.inland seas, gulfs, havens, and so forth; and the creeks, rivers,
gulfs, or inland seas through which they may flow on their way to
the ocean through the lisiere, shall for all time be the property of
Russia, while the British for all time shall have the right to
navigate the rivers and streams from the ocean through and
across the lisiere."
He then refers to Count Nesselrode's letter of April 17th,
1824, in which Russia offers England free outlets, and provides for
the interest of British commerce, asking in exchange a " point
d'appui." His words were :—" She ensures to them free outlets.
She provides for the interest of commerce. And in compensation
for all these benefits, she reserves for herself only one point of
support, without which it would be impossible for her to keep
half of her dominions."    (Page 554.)
He proceeds further with the analysis of the negotiations, and
says:—
"It is quite clear that the Count made a wide distinction
between commercial privileges, that is, the right of fishing,
hunting and trading with the natives, and what he calls navigation
privileges. He says, ' We have always been ready to guarantee
this freedom.'" 95
THE CLARENCE STRAIT BOUNDARY-
ARGUMENT.
-A POSSIBLE
By the Convention of 1825, the Bussian territories were to
include :—
(1.) The continental territory to the west of the 141st meridian.
(2.) A certain line of coast, described in Articles III and IV,
and distinguished from (1) by Article VI of the Convention, in which
it is referred to as the lisiere, or line of coast.
(3.) The islands opposite to the lisiere (which would belong to
Russia by general principles unless expressly disposed of otherwise by
the Convention), and the whole of Prince of Wales Island (by special
provision of Article IV).
The limits of the above three divisions are well defined.
The boundary between the western continental territory and the
lisiere, that is to say, the western limit of the latter, is 141° of west
longitude.
The lisiere extends easterly and southerly to latitude 56°. This
is apparent from the letter of Count Nesselrode to Count Lieven of
13th March, 1825. In this letter, which was written after the
conclusion of the Convention, and therefore may be taken to indicate
what that instrument, in the opinion of the Russians, meant, the
statement is made that the lisiere begins in latitude 56°. It is clear
that by lisiere he meant the same thing as defined by Article VI, as
the I line of coast described in Article III."
That latitude 56° is the southern boundary of the lisiere equally
appears from the terms of the Convention itself. In Article III, a
water boundary is described which is to strike the continent in
latitude 56°.
Now, returning to the point of commencement, this is the southernmost point of Prince of Wales Island, in latitude 54° 40' and between
longitudes 131° and 133.°
The southernmost point of Prince of Wales is Cape Chacon, which
lies about 1\ miles north of the parallel of 54° 40'. (See Report of
the Commissioners appointed under the Convention of 1892.) Cape
Muzon, which lies further to the west, is 1,100 feet south of the same
parallel. This point is therefore further south than Cape Chacon. It
is, however, not on Prince of Wales Island, but on a separate Island
called Dall Island.
Hence the point of comniencement of the line of demarcation is
Cape Chacon.    This is one fixed point.
In order to define the next fixed point, the other termination of
the water boundary, we find, where the 56th parallel intersects the
coast of the continent, at Seward Passage, which leads northward from
Ernest Sound, mountains rising directly from the water's edge to a See Map
height of about 1,750 feet, and rapidly increasing in height behind, of the British
This mountain ridge then defines the width of the lisiere at this point,
and thus the second fixed point, the northern termination of the first
point of the line of demarcation, is defined.
We are, by Article III, to reach this point from Cape Chacon by
a line which " shall ascend to the north along the channel."
The natural and consistent course for the line between these points
is from Cape Chacon, up the mid-cbannel of Clarence Strait, Ernest
Sound and Seward Passage to the 56th parallel, thence to the
mountains aforesaid.
The line thus drawn begins at the southernmost point of Prince of
Wales Island, ascends the channel all the way to the 56°, in a direction
very nearly due north, and between the 131° and 133° of longitude,
and strikes the continent at 56°.
No other line can be drawn which so well fulfils the evident
intention of the Convention as to the limits of the lisiere and its
wording as to the course of the line of demarcation through the water,
as this.
Commission
Sheet 1,
Appendix III to
British case. iiiin
96
A water boundary might indeed be drawn up Behm Canal to
strike the continent at 56°, either on the shores of Bell Arm, of Behm
Canal, or at Burrough's Bay.
In reaching this point, however, the line would have to pass for
some distance within the continental waters of Behm Canal, whereas
the former line first strikes the continent at its outer coast. The Behm
Canal line would also leave in Russian territory the considerable area
of mainland known as Cleveland Peninsula, which lies south of
latitude 56°.
A line up Portland Canal, or Observatory Inlet, and Portland
Canal would strike continental waters at the very entrance to those
inlets. Reaching the head of Portland Canal, it would strike the
mainland there, some miles below 56°, 15 miles in fact, according to
the information which was in the possession of the negotiators
from Vancouver's chart. It would have given to the Russians not
merely a lisiere (fringe or border) south of 56°, but a continental area
cf some 3,000 square miles.
Portland Canal, in fact, heads within the continent, and was so
considered by the negotiators (see observations by the Russian
Plenipotentiaries on Sir C. Bagot's amended proposal) ; a line following
it would, therefore, strike the continent before it reaches its head.
When the line reaches its head, it is still a long distance from the 56th
parallel. There is a hiatus here which would have to be bridged by
the insertion in the description of a line joining the head of the Canal
with the summit of the coast mountains at the 56th parallel.
Thus,- between the two fixed points, Cape Chacon, and the
mountain summit described above, it would be necessary, in order to
follow Portland Canal, to first pass across (not along) the channels
called Clarence Strait and Revfllagigedo Channel for 50 miles, in a,
•direction nearly east (not north) to the mouth of Portland Canal;
thence along Portland Canal, with a wide sweep to the east, to its
head ; thence across the intervening country in a straight line to near
Ernest Sound, a distance of nearly 60 miles in a direction nearly east.
On the other hand, the line following Clarence Strait would
connect the two given points by a short and very direct line, limiting
the necessary hiatus between the water and the mountain summit to
less than a mile.
It should be observed, moreover, that a line drawn from Cape
Chacon to the mouth of Portland Channel, would have given to Russia
without any question not only the whole of Prince of Wales Island,
but the extensive archipelago comprising Revillagigedo Island,
Gravina, Annette Island, etc., which lies between the southern part of
Prince of Wales Island and the mainland. Under the supposition that
such was the intention, it is difficult to explain the reservation to
Russia by Article IV of the whole of Prince of Wales Island.
The occurrence in the Convention, however, of the words " called
Portland Channel," would appear to militate against the interpretation
above given whereby the line would ascend Clarence Strait.  

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:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/cdm.chungpub.1-0056222/manifest

Comment

Related Items