"f5db9ed8-f195-4a3e-b5e4-20919124e26c"@en . "CONTENTdm"@en . "ALASKA BOUNDARY QUESTION."@en . "http://resolve.library.ubc.ca/cgi-bin/catsearch?bid=1198198"@en . "Sessional Papers of the Province of British Columbia"@en . "British Columbia. Legislative Assembly"@en . "2014-12-10"@en . "[1902]"@en . "https://open.library.ubc.ca/collections/bcsessional/items/1.0064155/source.json"@en . "application/pdf"@en . " STATEMENT OF FACTS\n\u00E2\u0080\u0094 REGARDING THE-\nALASKA BOUNDARY QUESTION,\n-COMPILED FOR THE-\nGOVERNMENT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA\nALEXANDER BEGG.\nTHE GOVERNMENTOF\nTHE PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUUW*\nVICTORIA, B.C.\nPrinted by Richard Wolfenden, Printer to the King's Most Excellent Majesty.\n1902, to\nSsj ci\na>\nCO\nan\nl|D-|8\na.)\ng> v PO JS .E\ntu\n|g.s\"| s\n\u00C2\u00AB.\u00C2\u00A74\u00C2\u00A7ng\n\u00E2\u0080\u00A20 \u00C2\u00AB\u00C2\u00A3 a.S\nS c \u00E2\u0080\u0094~5\n0\n!*\n\u00E2\u0080\u00A2JCDD\nw\nSS^-a-3\n>\n53 C \u00C2\u00AB8-g ft\n\u00C2\u00A7 3 5 * .9\n(\u00C2\u00AB\n_'~l \u00C2\u00AB o f>\nO 5 OH \u00C2\u00A3.5\n\u00C2\u00A3\n= ill.s\n0\nO c c4Coq\nCO\nS'cgjl^?\ni\n2\nccgS^SS\nPcSsMS\no\nor a soic c^\no\n3 arS-S-ti-0\nZ\nC.\u00C2\u00AB OiC gT3\no\n^>&W Br-\ni-n\nc 3 ^ .-\u00C2\u00A7 a \u00E2\u0096\u00A0-\n53 \"g *. p \u00C2\u00BB \u00C2\u00A3\n o!\u00C2\u00BB oS -a\n()\ncc ^ .\u00C2\u00A3 ? ^ .\u00C2\u00A3\n0)\n0\ncc - c _ oCC CO.\nPh\noo -\" \u00E2\u0080\u0094 9 7c no\n\u00C2\u00A33 so to .CC ^t-\nt CD pq J \u00E2\u0080\u009E C3\n<\nesc S\" >,\n\u00C2\u00A3\ncsFSoJg\n3 _\u00C2\u00BB\u00C2\u00A7 a* 1\n\u00C2\u00A7 \u00C2\u00A3 to d c in\n\u00C2\u00A7s\u00C2\u00A7-3-g\u00C2\u00A7\n00 \u00C2\u00B0~ 40 00 g CO\nj S SiJ \u00C2\u00A73\n-S^oe-o\nv 5ww^ ^ 2 Ed. 7 Alaska Boundary Question. 1381\nREPORT\n-ON THE-\nALASKA BOUNDARY QUESTION.\nVictoria, B. C, 5th August, 1901.\nTo the Hon. David MacEwen Eberts,\nAttorney-General for British Columbia, etc., etc., etc.\nSir,\u00E2\u0080\u0094In compliance with your request that I should arrange in a convenient form for\nreference my investigations and conclusions relative to the Anglo-Russian Treaty of 1825,\nwith a view to the settlement of the Alaskan Boundary, the following remarks are respectfully\nsubmitted :\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nThe greatest care and candour shall be exercised on my part in dealing with this international question, the magnitude and the importance of which are not easily realised. In\nby-gone days, when the Treaty referred to was framed and passed, that portion of the\nAmerican Continent, being little known, was not deemed of much value, except for fur-hunting\npurposes. Lapse of time, however, has produced many changes, which require to be dealt\nwith on their merits.\nStatements which may be brought forward in connection with this question, or which\nmay have been adduced previously, to be of value, should be susceptible of proof, and be\nfounded, not on assumption, but on tangible, solid foundation. The aim of this report is to\npresent the \" Boundary Question \" as free from doubt and ambiguity as possible, referring to\nboth sides without bias or prejudice, keeping the Treaty continually in view as a guide.\nThe whole matter naturally resolves itself into two heads, which require to be fully\ninvestigated and examined and decided upon, namely : the contention of British Columbia, or\nCanada, or Great Britain, under the Treaty, on the one side, and the claims of the United\nStates, with their purchase of the rights of Russia to Alaska in 1867, on the other.\nIt may be best to premise here that, in a former \" review \" of this boundary question, I\nhave demonstrated that the passing of the Anglo-Russian Treaty was, chiefly, to protect Great\nBritain in her maritime rights against the extravagant claims made by Russia in 1821. In\nreference to this, the Right Hon. George Canning said (December 8th, 1824):\u00E2\u0080\u0094 * * *\n\" The whole negotiation grows out of the Ukase of 1821. ******* So entirely\nand absolutely true is this proposition that the settlement of the limits of the respective\npossessions of Great Britain and Russia on the North-West Coast of America was proposed\nby us only as a mode of facilitating the adjustment of the differences arising from the\nUkase, by enabling the Court of Russia to withdraw, with less appearance of concession,\nthe offensive pretensions of that edict.\"\nThe first point to be considered is the initial point of the line of demarcation, which is\ndescribed in the Treaty as \" commencing from the southernmost point of the island called\nPrince of Wales Island \" (which is conceded to be Cape Chacon), \" which point lies in parallel\nof 54 degrees, 40 minutes, north latitude, and between the 131st and 133rd degrees of west\nlongitude (meridian of Greenwich), the said line shall ascend to the north, along the channel\ncalled Portland Channel, as far as the point of the continent where it strikes the 56th degree\nof north latitude; from this last mentioned point the line of demarcation shall follow the\nsummit of the mountains situated parallel to the coast, as far as the point of intersection of\nthe 141st degree of west longitude (of the same meridian); and, finally, from the said point of\nintersection, the said meridian line of the 141st degree, in its prolongation as far as the frozen\nocean, shall form the limit between the Russian and British possessions on the continent of\nAmerica to the north-west.\" 1382 Alaska Boundary Question. 1902\nArticle IV.\u00E2\u0080\u0094With reference to the line of demarcation laid down in the preceding article,\nit is understood : \" First. That the island called Prince of Wales Island shall belong wholly\nto Russia. Second. That wherever the summit of the mountains which extend in a direction\nparallel to the coast, from the 56th degree of north latitude to the point of intersection of the\n141st degree of west longitude, shall prove to be at the distance of more than ten marine\nleagues from the ocean, the limit between the British possessions and the line of coast which\nis to belong to Russia shall be formed by a line parallel to the windings of the coast, and\nwhich shall never exceed the distance of ten marine leagues therefrom.\"\nIt having been conceded that the initial point of the line of demarcation, as declared in\nthe Treaty, is Cape Chacon, it is now in order to examine the route or routes chosen, or which\nhave been adopted as the boundary line by parties interested. Those lines are numbered on\nthe accompanying explanatory map by the figures 1, 2, 3, 4, and will be examined\nseriatim. (See map.)\nBoundary line marked ISTo. 1 is drawn in accordance with the wording of the Treaty\n\u00E2\u0080\u0094i. e., \"ascending to the north along the channel called Portland Channel, as far as the point\nof the continent where it strikes the 56th degree of north latitude.\" As the maps published\nin 1824 did not give the name of the Channel, but described it, so as to leave no doubt that\nit was Duke of Clarence Strait, it is necessary, by way of explanation or interpretation, to\nrefer to the despatches on this subject which passed between Sir Charles Bagot, the British\nPlenipotentiary at St. Petersburg, and the Right Hon. George Canning, then British Foreign\nSecretary, who had the matter in hand.\nOn July 12th, 1824, Mr. Canning sent Sir Charles a despatch, of which the following is\nan abstract:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\" After full consideration of the motives which are alleged by the Russian\nGovernment for adhering to their last propositions respecting the line of demarcation to be\ndrawn between the British and Russian occupancy on the north-west coast of America, and of\nthe comparative inconvenience of admitting some relaxation in the terms of your Excellency's\nlast instructions, or of leaving the question between the two Governments unsettled for an\nindefinite time, His Majesty's Government has resolved to authorise your Excellency to include\nthe south points of Prince of Wales Island, within the Russian frontier, and to take as a line\nof demarcation a line drawn from the southernmost point of Prince of Wales Island, from\nsouth to north, through Portland Channel, till it strikes the mainland in latitude 56 degrees.\"\n* * * * u ?pjje advantages conceded to Russia by the line of demarcation are so obvious\nas to render it quite impossible that any objection can reasonably be offered on the part of the\nRussian Government to any of the stipulations in our favour. There are two points which\nare left to be settled by your Excellency. First, in fixing the course of the eastern boundary\nof the strip of land to be occupied by Russia on the coast.\" *******\nThe foregoing extract seemed to have been based on \" Statement D,\" enclosed by Sir\nCharles to Mr. Canning in a despatch dated March 17/29th, 1824, and which had previously\nbeen communicated by Sir Charles to the Russian plenipotentiaries. It says :\u00E2\u0080\u0094\" It was in\nthe hope of being able to conciliate those objects, considered indispensable by the Imperial\nGovernment,\" said Sir Charles, \" and to determine without more delay a question which\nappeared of equal interest to both parties, to arrange definitely, at the actual time, when the\nplenipotentiary of His Britannic Majesty had the honour to propose, on his last conference\nwith the plenipotentiaries of Russia, a line of demarcation which, while conserving to Russia\nfor a southern limit on the islands, the degree of latitude suggested by the Ukase of 1799,\nwould assign at the same time to Great Britain, for a limit on the mainland, the latitude of\n56\u00C2\u00B0 30' north.\"\n\" It would appear,\" Statement D continues, \" that a line traced from the southern\nextremity of the straits named Duke of Clarence Sound, by the middle of those straits, to the\nmiddle of the straits that separate the islands of the Prince of Wales and the Duke of York, and\nthe islands situate to the north of the said islands; thence towards the east by the middle of\nthe same strait to the continent, and thence prolonged in the same direction and manner\nalready proposed by His Britannic Majesty's plenipotentiary to Mount Elias, or to the intersection of the 141st degree of longitude, would form a line of demarcation which would\nconciliate, perhaps, in a satisfactory manner, the reciprocal interests, present and future, of\nboth Empires in this part of the globe.\"\nIn \" Statement D,\" it is also said, referring to the Hudson Bay Company's occupation :\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n\" His Britannic Majesty could not, therefore, without sacrificing the interests of the Company,\nrenounce the rights of sovereignty over the coast and the islands lhat immediately adjoin it, 2 Ed. 7 Alaska Boundary Question. 1383\nup to 50\u00C2\u00B0 30' north latitude, whichever might be the degree of latitude found convenient to\nbe agreed upon, to be definitely taken as the limit between the two powers, as far as concerns\nthe islands further west.\" Yet in the face of all the above testimony, Mr. Bayard, in writing\nto his ambassador in London (November 20th, 1895), requesting him to ask Lord Salisbury\nfor a joint commission, amongst other things said :\u00E2\u0080\u0094\" That no record has been found in print,\nor otherwise, as far as sought, of the circumstances attending the drawing up of the Anglo-\nRussian Convention of 1825, which would throw light on the understanding of the negotiators\non this point, but it may be assumed -with confidence that the charts employed in the\nnegotiation were those of Vancouver. ****** The fact that the parallel of\n54\u00C2\u00B0 40', by the most recent surveys, enters the mouth of Portland Inlet.\" *****\nThe wording of the Convention of 1825 is found to be in complete accord with the features\npresented by Vancouver's chart No. 7. But the \" Portland Inlet\" is altogether to the east\nof the specified line of demarcation, nor is it mentioned in the Treaty. Mr. Bayard, at the\ncommencement of his letter above referred to, speaks of \" the waterway from Prince of Wales\nIsland and through the Portland channel,\" but neither he nor the ambassador mentions Cape\nMuzon in the communications requesting the appointment of a Joint Commission.\nThe limit assigned in the Treaty is evidently the 56th degree of north latitude, as stated,\n\"along the middle of the same strait, south of Duke of York Island, to the continent.\" It\nis also evident that the actual line of demarcation only ascends to the north along Clarence\nStrait or Sound \" to the middle of the straits that separate the islands of the Prince of Wales\nand the Duke of York and the islands situate to the north of the said islands. Those islands\nto the north of the Duke of York Island (since named 'Etolin') are Wrangel, Zarembo,\nMitkof, Kupreanof and Admiralty Islands.\" It, therefore, becomes necessary to retrace the\n\" limit line \" from the point on the continent at the 56th degree of latitude, and proceed\nwestward in Ernest Sound, along the said \"limit line\" to where the divergence on the initial\nboundary line from Cape Chacon took place, at a point nearly half-way along the island coast,\nwhich should be permanently marked by a beacon; thence north-westerly along the eastern\nshore of Prince of Wales Island until its most northerly point is reached, opposite the\nchannel which divides the Island of Kuiu from Kupreanof, and along that channel north to\nPrince Frederick Sound. On reaching the 57th degree of latitude the conventional boundary\nline would follow Prince Frederick Sound to Chatham Strait; thence the line would be\ncontinued to Icy Strait or Taylor Bay, for convenience in landing on \"the strip of land\"\nprovided by Treaty on the continent (within ten marine leagues from the ocean coast), to the\nintersection of the 141st meridian. This completes the conventional line of demarcation from\nCape Chacon, by a practicable water boundary and strip of land, to the intersection of the\n141st meridian, at or near Mt. Elias.\nIt seems pertinent to enquire how the name \"Duke of York Island\" has disappeared from\nthe United States maps and charts and also from Canadian maps, and the name \"Etolin\nIsland \" substituted. The island Duke of York is an important land-mark, which is quoted\nand referred to, as will be observed, by Sir Charles Bagot in the negotiations and despatches in\nframing and arranging for the passing of the Anglo-Russian Treaty. It appears in Vancouver's maps and charts.\nBy tracing the line of demarcation from the Arctic Ocean south along the 141st meridian\nto Mount Elias, and thence westward, ten marine leagues from the ocean coast, along \" the\nstrip of land\" to Cross Sound, and thence southerly, along Icy Strait, Chatham Strait,\nFrederick Sound, and southerly by the channel between Kuiu and Kupreanof Islands to meet\nthe line of demarcation from Cape Chacon at the northern end of Prince of Wales Island, would\ncomplete the suggested conventional water-boundary\u00E2\u0080\u0094convenient and practicable between Cape\nChacon and Taylor Bay at Cross Sound. The \"limit line\" required by the Treaty would\ncontinue to exist through Ernest Sound, to point out how far south amongst the islands to the\nnorth of the 56th parallel of latitude Russia was permitted to approach under the Treaty\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nwhich is binding in like manner on the United States, in their cession of Russian rights and\nprivileges by the purchase of 1867.\nIt follows, therefore, to make the boundary line along the eastern coast to Prince of\nWales Island complete (though now dormant), that the \"limit line\" from the point on the\ncontinent (the 56th parallel of north latitude) which it reached, according to the provision of\nthe Treaty, must also, to fill the conditions of the Treaty to reach the 141st meridian, be\nretraced and prolonged to where it will meet and join the initial line of demarcation from Cape\nChacon, and thence, merged with the initial treaty line, follow it to Mount Elias. 1384 Alaska Boundary Question. 1902\nNext, turning attention to line of demarcation No. 2. It is shown on the explanatory\nmap as the assumed boundary on the official maps of British Columbia, published under the\ndirection and authority of the Department of Lands and Works, Victoria, B. C. The\nboundary, as marked, commences at Cape Chacon and ascends to the north, according to the\nTreaty, through the channel (called Portland Channel) until it reaches the opening' at the\nwestern arm of Behm Canal; thence it follows that channel to Burroughs Bay, to where the\n56th parallel of latitude crosses that bay from the west. This point, however, is not where the\n56th parallel of latitude strikes the continent by passing through Ernest Sound. In the\nReport of a Committee of the Executive Council of British Columbia (in 1885), on the question of the boundary between Canada and Alaska, Mr. Justice Gray misapprehended the interpretation and true meaning of the Treaty in this particular.\nThere is a map published by Mr. Gosnell in connection with his Year Book of 1897, which\nshows the \"limit line\" passing along Ernest Sound in manner similar to the route laid down\nin No. 1, from Cape Chacon. On that map the line is continued from 56\u00C2\u00B0, where it is supposed to meet the continent, and passes along the coast to Juneau, &c, as outlined in No. 2;\nbut does not comply with the requirements of the Treaty by remaining ten (10) marine leagues\nfrom the ocean coast. Besides, not being in accordance with the wording of the Treaty, much\nof the line of demarcation north of latitude 56\u00C2\u00B0 is through an impracticable country abounding\nin glaciers, precipices and deep ravines, entirely unsuited for an international boundary line.\nThis portion of the line at latitude 56\u00C2\u00B0 should be changed to the prolongation of line No. 1.\nThe line numbered 3 on the explanatory map is that claimed by the United States, and\nis so marked on their official maps and charts. It commences at Cape Muzon, which is a point\nat the southern end of Dall Island (not mentioned in the Treaty), and thence proceeds east and\ncontinues in that direction to the southern entrance of Observatory Inlet and Portland Canal,\nin defiance of the plain directions of the Treaty, that the line should commence at Cape Chacon\n\u00E2\u0080\u0094that is, the most southern point of Prince of Wales Island\u00E2\u0080\u0094and ascend to the north through\nthe channel (called Portland Channel), etc.\nPortland Channel of the Treaty was then known as Clarence Strait, and as shown in Vancouver's map and charts passed entirely around the northern end of Prince of Wales Island.\nThis fact, along with the \"limit line\" to where the Treaty required it to meet the continent at\n56\u00C2\u00B0, doubtless gave rise to the name Portland Channel. The whole is unmistakably described by\nthe Right Hon. G. Canning in his dispatch to Sir Charles Bagot, in framing the Treaty of 1825,\nand has been referred to in a former part of this report. It shows clearly that there is nothing\nin the Treaty to warrant or authorise the line to take the east course instead of proceeding\nnorth. Besides, if this interpretation \"ascending to the north\" be adopted as correct, there\ncan be no advantage of the other conventions, which are based on a mistaken direction, and\nhave nothing but assumption to support them. It only requires a reference to the meridian\nlines, mentioned in the Treaty itself, which places the boundary line between the 131st and\n133rd meridional lines. Portland Canal, being entirely to the east of the 131st meridian,\ncannot have a place on the boundary, and nullifies the United States claim to line No. 3.\n(See Appendix. Line No. 4 on map.)\nThe commencement of the boundary line from Cape Muzon was first advocated, as far as\ncan be learned, by Mr. Mendenhall, in an article which he supplied to the Atlantic Monthly\n(April, 1896). That paper commences by quoting the opening sentence of Mr. Charles Sumner's speech in 1867, in the Senate, in advocacy of the ratification of the Treaty by which\nRussia ceded to the United States her entire possessions in America. Mr. Sumner said :\u00E2\u0080\u0094\"In\nendeavouring to estimate its character, I am glad to begin with what is clear and beyond\nquestion. I refer to the boundaries fixed by the Treaty.\" He did not appear to have\nsuspected that by coming into possession of the great territory, whose purchase he so ably\nadvocated, the United States would find itself involved a quarter of a century later in two\ncontroversies with Great Britain\u00E2\u0080\u0094the Behring Sea controversy. \"The Alaska boundary is\nquite worthy of separate consideration, and it will be a misfortune if any ill-considered Act\nshall result in its being merged with other questions of less importance, and subjected to the\nby no means uncertain chances of arbitration.\"\nMr. Mendenhall will surely admit that changing the initial point of the boundary to\nanother island to that mentioned in the Treaty, and proceeding over fifty miles in a direction\ncontrary to what is stipulated in the Treaty, is an \"ill-considered Act,\" and apparently can only\nbe settled justly by arbitration. But Mr. Mendenhall proceeds:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\"The description in the Treaty\nsays : 'Commencing from the southernmost point (Cape Muzon), &c, the said line shall ascend 2 Ed. 7 Alaska Boundary Question. 1385\nto the north along the channel called Portland Channel.'\" A sketch map is furnished along\nwith the article referred to, in which Capt. Vancouver's Portland Canal is named Portland\nChannel. An explanation is also furnished, \" that one must proceed to the east for about fifty\nmiles in order to reach the entrance of Portland Channel, or Portland Canal, as it is often\ncalled.\" To be correct, however, Mr. Mendenhall should have said:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\"It was named Portland\nCanal by Capt. Vancouver, but was not known by the name Portland Channel until 1867,\nafter the United States claims were formulated.\" (See Appendix No. 7). Portland Canal\ncannot be reached from Cape Chacon (the initial point of the boundary) by following the\ndirections of the Treaty.\nAfter many references, twists and explanations, Mr. Mendenhall concludes the article by\nstating : \"The truth is, Great Britain is meeting our wishes in this matter (of arbitration)\nwith almost indecent haste, because the arbitration of the Alaska boundary line, by which she\nhopes and expects to acquire an open sea coast for her great North-West Territories, and to\nweaken us by breaking our exclusive jurisdiction north of 54\u00C2\u00B0 40', is enormously more important than anything she is likely to gain or lose in South America. Having driven her to accept\narbitration in this case, it will be impossible for us to refuse it in Alaska, and we shall find\nourselves again badly worsted by the diplomatic skill of a people who, as individuals, have\ndeveloped intellectual activity, manliness, courage, unselfish devotion to duty and general\nnobility of character elsewhere unequalled in the world's history, but whose diplomatic policy\nas a nation is, and long has been characterised by aggressiveness, greed, absolute indifference\nto the rights of others, and a splendid facility in ignoring every principle of justice or international law whenever commercial interests are at stake.\"\nLine No. 4 appears on a map published, together with an elaborate article, in the\nEdinburgh Review (April, 1900). The line has no explanation given in the text. It\ncommences at Cape Muzon ; it passes Cape Chacon; it continues an eastern course to Pearse\nIsland ; thence along the waterway between that island and the mainland to the entrance of\nPortland ; thence along Portland Canal to its northern end, where it makes an acute angle\nwest to Burroughs Bay, where the 56\u00C2\u00B0 of north latitude is supposed to touch the continent,\nthus describing a new line, which from Burroughs Bay is prolonged north-westerly along the\nfrontier of British Columbia to Juneau and Berner Bay and, crossing Lynn Canal, proceeds to\nMount Elias, and is marked on the map referred to as the \"boundary claimed by Canada.\"\nThe whole line from Cape Muzon is incorrect. No such line has been published, with\nauthority, as claimed by Canada, or at least by British Columbia, the portion of Canada most\ndirectly interested in the settlement of this question, according to the treaty.\nIn the article on the \" Alaska Boundary,\" referred to in the Edinburgh Review, it is\nremarked (page 286), that the limit to the Russian possessions on the continent of America,\nestablished by the Treaty of 1825, is in part a natural boundary and in part a meridian line.\nFrom the head of Portland Canal it follows the summit of the mountains situated parallel to\nthe coast (subject to an alternative proviso to be considered hereafter), etc. The use of the\nname Portland Canal in this instance is incongruous and must be objected to. A paragraph,\npage 287, reads as follows:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\" Having ascertained (from the Treaty) the southernmost point\nof Prince of Wales Island, one is suddenly confronted by the fact that between it and\nPortland Channel (should be Portland Canal) sixty miles of open ocean intervene. Furthermore, Portland Channel (evidently should be Portland Canal) lies almost due east from the\nsouthernmost point. How, then, is the line joining the two to ascend to the north 1 Again,\nthe line is to ascend to the north along Portland Channel (should be Portland Caned), until it\nstrikes the 56th degree of north latitude. But Portland Channel (should be Portland Canal)\ndoes not attain to latitude 56, and there is no provision made for the course the line is to take\nbetween the head of the channel and the point where the mountains situated parallel to the\ncoast are crossed by that parallel.\" The error consists in substituting the name channel for\ncanal.\nThen follow the all important questions : (1) \"Which are the mountains situated parallel\nto the coast? and (2) \" What is the coast?\" The writer in the Edinburgh Revieio quoted\nasks those questions, but does not answer them. He remarks (page 288):\u00E2\u0080\u0094\" At the outset it\nmay be observed that there exists a very general agreement to the effect that the negotiators\nof the Treaty of 1825 relied largely upon Vancouver's charts and the narrative of his voyages\nfor their information respecting the physical features of the country with which they found\nthemselves called to deal. Both parties concur in holding Cape Muzon to be the southernmost\npoint of Prince of Wales Island, though, as a matter of fact, it is not on Prince of Wales 1386 Alaska Boundary Question. 1902\nIsland at all, and both acknowledge that the body of water to-day known as Portland Canal\nis, despite the erroneous description in the Treaty, the channel along which the line is to\nascend. Here, however, the agreement ends.\"\nThere is no such an agreement. Portland Canal was so named by Vancouver. It retains\nthe name, the same as on his charts, to this day. Portland Channel was not named\nby Vancouver. It received its name from the negotiators of the Treaty of 1825, as already\nreferred to in this report. It is so named in the Treaty ; but the name Portland Canal is not\nmentioned in the Treaty, nor was that body of water intended to be used as a portion of the\nboundary line. Most determined efforts have been made to substitute the waters of Portland\nCanal for those of Portland Channel; but, fortunately, the description contained in the despatches between the British plenipotentiary at St. Petersburg have exposed the attempt to\ndefraud Canada of the frontiers of British Columbia, containing about thirty thousand square\nmiles of land.\nIn the appendix to this report several obtuse points will be referred to and made clearer\nby fuller extracts, which will show misrepresentations that have been corrected. For example\n(page 288, Edinburgh Review), it is stated that \" the British contention is that the Portland\nChannel of the treaty is the channel so marked on Vancouver's charts, and described in the\nnarrative in terms that leave no doubt as to the body of water to which he intended them to\napply.\" The fact is that Portland Channel is not once mentioned either in Vancouver's maps,\ncharts, or in his narrative of survey or voyages. Portland Canal is frequently mentioned and\nfully described.\nThe Review continues : \" The deflection desired by the United States would give that\nPower the principal islands lying at the entrance of Portland Canal, and thereby the command\nnot merely of the Inlet, but also of the harbour of Port Simpson in British Columbia, which,\nby reason of its natural advantages, is destined to become an important commercial and\nstrategic point. In support of this claim it is agreed on the side of the United States that\nthe line, departing from the southernmost point of Prince of Wales Island, should follow along\nthe parallel of 54\u00C2\u00B0 40', which would bring it in at the mouth of Observatory Inlet. They\nbase their contention on the fact that this latitude is expressly mentioned in the treaty, in\nconnection with the point of commencement, and they urge that the reason of the omission\nthat the boundary should proceed along the parallel is that the repetition was considered\nunnecessary.\"\n\" The Canadians reply,\" so the Edinburgh Review says, \"that when in the course of the\nnegotiations of 1823-5, Russia was forced to abandon her extravagant pretensions put forward\nin the Ukase of 1821, she took the stand upon the charter of the Emperor Paul, and claimed\ndown to 55\u00C2\u00B0. To that line she stubbornly adhered throughout. Inasmuch, however, as the\nparallel of 55\u00C2\u00B0 cuts Prince of Wales Island near its southern extremity, the Russian plenipotentiaries proposed that the portion of the island below that line should be included in the\nRussian possessions. In order to effect this result, the starting point was fixed at the southernmost point of Prince of Wales Island, which happens to be in latitude of 54\u00C2\u00B0 40'. Thus,\nthe extension to 54\u00C2\u00B0 40' was merely a local exception to fit a particular case. For similar\nreasons of convenience, the continental line was carried south a few minutes of latitude to\nPortland Canal, which affords the first natural boundary on the continent, south of 55\u00C2\u00B0.\"\n\" There can be little doubt, from the text of the treaty,\" the Review adds, \"that the\nsouthernmost point of Prince of Wales Island, and not the parallel of latitude, was intended\nas the point of beginning. ***** Seeing that the line is to ascend ' to the north,'\na claim that it is first to run sixty miles due east along a parallel of latitude seems manifestly\nuntenable.\"\n\"Canada,\" the Review continues to add, \"also contends that, having determined that\npoint of departure (Cape Muzon), and also the place on the continent where the boundary\nstrikes the coast (the mouth of Vancouver's Portland Channel), it is agreeable to the rules of\nlegal construction to hold, in the absence of any specific directions, that the line joining those\ntwo points should take the shortest way, which is not a parallel of latitude, but along the arc\nof a great circle.\" But there have been \" specific directions \" provided in the case, in the\ntreaty, and in the negotiations by the directions of Mr. George Canning, as formerly stated in\nthis report, that the line should proceed from south to north along Portland Channel to where\nthe 56th parallel of latitude reached the continent. To effect this, Clarence Strait or Sound,\nand Ernest Sound, were used. 2 Ed. 7 Alaska Boundary Question. 1387\nThe aim of this report is to place before you and the Government of Great Britain the\ntrue state of affairs relative to the claims of the United States regarding the Alaskan boundary,\nwhich hundreds of British Columbians, as well as many Eastern Canadians, look upon as\nunjust, and apart from the requirements and provisions of the Treaty of 1825. It is not\ngenerally realised how much British Columbia has been wronged by the encroachments of our\nneighbours on account of this boundary question. Those encroachments, coasting regulations,\netc., are continually increasing and becoming more and more irksome, vexatious and intolerable. The prosperity of this remote portion of the British Empire depends greatly on the\nretention of the fisheries, etc.; in fact, all the \" Prince of Wales Archipelago \" east of the\nTreaty arrangment of \" ten marine leagues from the ocean coast.\" If the fact of being a\nBritish subject ensures protection by the whole Empire, if required, surely such a valuable and\ndesirable portion of the Empire as is included in the reservations of the Treaty should not be\ncarelessly handed over to a foreign power, to the detriment of British subjects. Our neighbours profess, in an abstract way, great friendship for British Columbia, but, where the\n\" almighty dollar \" comes in, it may be called \" hollow friendship,\"\u00E2\u0080\u0094witness Skaguay, Porcupine, and the string of canneries mentioned in my preliminary report to you of 12th\nJune, 1901.\nIn the Mining and Scientific Press, San Francisco (September 7th, 1901), I notice an\nelaborate report of mining, etc., of the District of Ketchikan. It says :\u00E2\u0080\u0094\" Ketchikan, from\nwhich the district gets its name, was, in April, 1899, a salmon saltery, with a population of about\ntwenty whites and twice as many Indians, all dependent on the salmon fishing business. It\nis situated on Tongass Narrows, on Revilla Gigedo Island, on the inside route taken by all the\nsteam vessels sailing between Seattle in Washington and Juneau and Skaguay in Alaska. It\nis at the present time the most central and generally accessible point for all the mines and\nsmall mining camps that have been established in the district. Its growth started in 1899,\nand has continued steady and substantial ever since. At the present time the population is\nabout 750. The town is incorporated, has water works, a fire department, a school, a church,\nthree large general stores and nine outfitting establishments, hotels, a weekly newspaper, and\na large salmon-canning establishment. It is a port of entry, and all vessels taking the inside\nroute for Alaska enter and clear there. It is the mail-distributing centre for all the other\npost-offices in the district, and the home port of a local steamer line, which distributes the\ntraffic which the mining is building up.\"\n\" The area of the Ketchikan mining districts includes all South-Eastern Alaska, south of\nWrangel, to the International Boundary\u00E2\u0080\u0094an area, roughly, 130 miles north and south, by 150\nmiles east and west. Of land and water it takes in about 20,000 square miles. Besides the\nmainland from Portland Canal, nearly to the Stikine River, it includes a great number of\nislands, principal among which, at the present time, by reason of mineral discoveries, are\nPrince of Wales, Revillagigedo, Annette, Gravina, Dall and Kosciusko. * * * * The\ntopography of both the islands and the mainland is mountainous. * * * * Xhe mining\nhistory of the district is very recent.\n\"Prince of Wales Island is 130 miles long, and from 10 to 40 miles wide. Its area is\n2,650 square miles, and its coast line, following it into all the inlets and harbours, is not less\nthan 800 miles in extent. Practically, all of the island that has been explored has been found\nmore or less mineral-bearing. Except in the central section, including the region of Kassan\nBay and Cholmondelay Sound, the exploration has not gone far inland from the coast. The\nsection of the island north of a line drawn west across the island from Tolstoi Bay has not been\nprospected, even along the beaches.\n\" Prince of Wales Island is fairly to be considered a commercial proposition. In the five\nnoted localities in which copper is the leading metal developed, and in the two in which quartz\ngold is predominant, minable values in enormous quantities have been proven. That is to say,\nthe raw material of wealth from minerals exists; the problem is simply the realising of it at\nthe least cost, all things considered. In a general way it can be stated that any kind of plant\ncan be installed without a single item of extraordinary cost. The maintenance of labour, the\ncost of living, is cheaper than in any interior mining district in the United States. The cost\nof transporting production to market can be made the lowest of any district in the United\nStates.\"\nFrom the foregoing it is evident that Prince of Wales Island is a very valuable and\ndesirable possession, and doubtless was intended by Great Britain when the Treaty was framed\nto be, along with other large islands on the ocean coast, a fair equivalent of the Russian terri- 1388 Alaska Boundary Question. 1902\ntorial claims, and amply sufficient to accommodate any industry or trade which might be\nengaged in; and so it was arranged in the Treaty.\nThe Right Hon. George Canning, in his dispatch to Sir Chas. Bagot, 20th January, 1824,\nin referring to the questions at issue between Great Britain and Russia, characterised them as\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n\"Firstly, an extravagant assumption of maritime supremacy; secondly, an unwarrantable claim\nof territorial dominions;\" and now, under the claim of the United States, to make a present\nto them of this immense and valuable portion of Alaska, beyond the ten marine leagues' limit,\neast of the ocean coast, amounting to about 30,000 square miles, is certainly an extraordinary\nand extra-liberal exemplification of Mr. G. Canning's description of an \"unwarrantable claim\nof territorial dominions,\" and especially when the Treaty excludes all except what may be\nwithin ten marine leagues from the ocean coast.\nBut of more importance still to the British Empire is the correct interpretation of the\nTreaty, when taken in connection with the strategic position of Prince of Wales Island and\nPortland Canal, as regards the diversion of the initial point of the boundary line from Cape\nChacon, which, if permitted to be changed at the ipsi dixit of the United States, becomes of\nthe greatest importance to Great Britain. Cape Chacon, as the initial point, should be maintained inviolate. It is my conviction that no variation should be permitted to substitute Cape\nMuzon, or any other point than that named in the Treaty, as the initial point. It would be\nopening the door for a foreign power to establish a \"Gibraltar\" near Port Simpson, which will,\nin all probability, within a very short period, become the western terminus of a transcontinental railway. Instead of allowing Cape Muzon to be named as the initial point of the boundary\nline, the whole of Dall Island should be claimed by Great Britain as belonging to Queen\nCharlotte Islands, and not included in the Treaty of 1825. (See page 5, \" Alaskan Boundary\nReview.\")\nBy reference to the appendix, hereto annexed, special information on the boundary question will be found, as well as various views relating to the claims proposed by the boundaries\nmarked on the explanatory map. My report, dated June 12th, 1901, will be found to contain\nmuch useful information. It should rouse up British Columbia to make strenuous efforts to\nhave their valuable heritage restored.\nRespectfully submitted,\nALEXANDER BEGG. 2 Ed. 7 Alaska Boundary Question. 1389\nAPPENDICES\nAddenda to Report.\nThis addenda, with its references and explanations, extends over many years, and as it is\nintended to be exhaustive, to meet the various points and claims advanced by the purchasers\nof Alaska from Russia, and dealing, as it does, with the articles of writers in the United\nStates magazines and the United States press, must of necessity be voluminous, and in\nrebutting and refuting statements a few repetitions may occur, yet were considered sufficiently\nimportant to be noted.\nThe principal object which I aimed to arrive at, and which I believe I have accomplished,\nas submitted in the foregoing report, was to simplify the question, to make it more fully\nunderstood by confining it to first principles and facts; and that its settlement, if to be guided\nby the Treaty, should be dealt with in a common sense manner, agreeably to, and in conformity\nwith, the wording, \"spirit and intent\" of the Treaty, as it was passed and agreed upon to and\nbetween Great Britain and Russia in 1825, and also as it was used verbatim et literatim in the\ncession of Alaska by Russia to the United States in 1867.\nDelays in delimiting the boundary line, and the difficulties which have been built around\nthis question, are apparently incongruous. Taking the Treaty as the guide there is nothing\nverbose about it. It is plain and pointed. The initial point of the boundary line is clearly\ndescribed. The parallel of latitude, 54\u00C2\u00B0 40', is mentioned, and where it is to be found on the\nmap; so is the meridian of longitude, 132\u00C2\u00B0 W., which agrees with the latitude at the southernmost point of Prince of Wales Island\u00E2\u0080\u0094it cannot be mistaken. The longitude of the line of\ndemarcation is pointed out and hedged between the 131st and 133rd meridional lines, which\nalso agree with Cape Chacon, the latitude and point as laid down. It cannot be any other\npoint or cape under the Anglo-Russian Treaty of 1825. The line then \"proceeds north,\" or\nascends to the north along \"Portland Channel,\" to latitude 56\u00C2\u00B0 and is more fully explained in\nthe appendix.\nWales Island borders on Pearse Island and is situate opposite to Port Simpson. The\nname, which was given to the island by Captain Vancouver in honour of one of his friends in\n1795, is not inserted in the sketch map herewith ; but that is of no consequence, as the island\nhas no relation to the boundary, although it has been ridiculously connected therewith by\nsome of the more recklessly-greedy advocates of the Portland Canal route.\nFrom the foregoing it would seem that what was needed to settle this boundary question\nof location fairly is not more light, but the application of common sense and honesty in\ninterpreting the Treaty by the light which it furnishes. There are only four cardinal\npoints in the mariner's or civil engineer's compass, viz., north, south, east and west. Two of\nthose, from south to north, are imperatively mentioned in describing the direction of the line\nof demarcation in reaching the 56th parallel of latitude. (See appendix and \" Review,\" pages\n6 and 13.) Strange to say, the name, \" Duke of York Island,\" inserted by Captain Vancouver\nin his maps and charts, is given and referred to in the Treaty negotiations, but is expunged\nfrom all United States maps and charts, and the name \" Etolin Island \" substituted therefor.\nThe same change is made in maps published by the authority of British Columbia. Why is\nthis? (See appendix and \"Review,\" pages 14, 15, 18 and 19.)\nBritish Columbia as a Colony only dates from 1858, when the Fraser River gold excitement was at its height. An Imperial proclamation, dated August 2nd, 1858, constituted the\nmainland of New Caledonia into a British Colony, and defined that it should be bounded on\nthe south by the frontier of the United States of America, to the east by the main chain of\nthe Rocky Mountains, to the north by Simpson River and the Finlay Branch of Peace River,\nto the west by the Pacific Ocean, including Queen Charlotte Islands, but no part of the Colony\nof Vancouver Island.\nAn Imperial Act was passed in 1863 to define more particularly the boundaries of the\nColony of British Columbia, specifying the western boundary to be the Pacific Ocean and the 1390 Alaska Boundary Question. 1902\nfrontier of the Russian territories in North America, the north to be the 60th parallel of\nlatitude, the east the 120th meridian of west longitude and the summit of the Rocky\nMountains.\nVancouver Island was constituted a Crown Colony in 1849. In that year Mr. Richard\nBlanshard was appointed to the Governorship. He arrived at Victoria from England, via\nPanama, in 1850, but not finding the position what he expected he returned the next year to\nLondon. He was succeeded by James Douglas in 1851. Governor Douglas retained his then\nposition of Chief Factor of the Hudson Bay Company, in addition to the Governorship of\nVancouver Island Colony.\nLord Lytton, Colonial Secretary of that time, gave great attention to the formation of the\nnew Colony on the Pacific Coast, namely, British Columbia. In one of his despatches he\nwrote to Governor Douglas:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\" You will be empowered both to govern and to legislate on\nyour own authority. * * * With regard to the supposed rights of the Hudson Bay\nCompany I must refer you in even stronger terms to the cautions already conveyed to you by\nmy former despatches. The Hudson Bay Company have hitherto had an exclusive right to\ntrade with Indians in the Fraser River Territory, but they have had no other right whatever.\nThey have had no right to exclude strangers. They have had no right to Government or\nof occupation of the soil. * * * But to render all misconceptions impossible Her Majesty's\nGovernment have determined on revoking the Company's licence (which would itself expire in\nnext May) as regards British Columbia, being fully authorised to do so by the terms of the\nlicence itself whenever a new Colony is constituted. * * * It is the anxious wish of Her\nMajesty's Government that popular institutions, without which they are convinced peace and\norder cannot long prevail, should be established with as little delay as practicable; and until\nan Assembly can be organised (which may be whenever a permanent population, however small,\nis established on the soil), I think, as I have already stated in a former despatch, that your\nbest course will probably be to form some kind of temporary council, calling in this manner to\nyour aid such persons as the miners themselves may place confidence in.\"\nFor the guidance of Governor Douglas, Lord Lytton sent him a despatch containing\nminute regulations relative to \" the disposal of public land for agricultural purposes whenever\na demand for it shall arise, at such an upset price as you may think advisable. Foreigners,\nas such, are not entitled to grants of waste land of the Crown in British Colonies. But it is\nthe strong desire of Her Majesty's Government to attract to this territory all peaceful settlers\nwithout regard to nation. Naturalisation should, therefore, be granted to all who desire it,\nand are not disqualified by special causes, and with naturalisation the right of acquiring Crown\nland should follow.\"\nIt will thus be seen that the foundations of the Government of the Colony of British\nColumbia were well and carefully laid. Its boundaries were properly defined by Imperial proclamation and Imperial Acts of Parliament. Along the coast of the Pacific Ocean commencing with\nthe Strait of Fuca, passing Nootka and Cape Scott on the west coast of Vancouver Colony, the\nboundaries swept to the west of Queen Charlotte Islands (over which Sir James Douglas held\nthe appointment of Lieutenant-Governor, in addition to Vancouver Island and the Mainland\nof British Columbia); ipso facto, he was the Governor of the whole region formerly known as\n\" New Caledonia,\" from the Columbia River to the. Arctic Ocean, and it may be safely said\nthat there was not another man living at the time, within that immense country, who could\nhave managed those difficult and conflicting affairs so quietly and successfully as he did.\nIn the early days when the west coast of British North America was added by exploration,\ntrade and commerce, to the British Empire, the statesmen of that period acted promptly on\nbehalf of British subjects when necessary, as witness the settlement of the Nootka difficulty\nwith Spain in 1789. A message was presented on May 25th, 1790, to both Houses of Parliament, from His Majesty King George III., relative to the capture of certain vessels in Nootka\nSound. On the 26th of May the House of Lords passed an address approving of His Majesty's\nmessage and restitution was duly made by Spain to John Meares, the owner of the vessels.\nThe extravagant claims of Russia, in 1821, were met with similar firmness.\nDuring the governorship of Sir James Douglas and his successors to the date of Confederation in 1871, the only changes which occured in relation to the Alaskan Boundary was the\nlease of the Russian frontier to the Hudson's Bay Company, which was merely a matter of\ntrade convenience between the Russian and British fur companies, and did not in any way\naffect the territorial phase of the boundary. The next epoch was the purchase of Alaska from\nRussia by the United States in 1867\u00E2\u0080\u0094that question, unfortunately, as yet remains unsettled. These historical points which are recapitulated are especially to indicate that the\nGovernment of British Columbia, under the British North America Act, section 92, sub-sections\n(5) to (13), retain all the rights and privileges which they possessed as an independent colony, and\nthat they have hereditary rights respecting Crown lands and property which, if possible, were\nstrengthened by Confederation. The Dominion Government appeared to be simply delegates\nor trustees between the Provincial Government and the Imperial Government. The conviction\nis that by joining Confederation in 1871, the Provincial Government strengthened their\nposition at least by being entitled to have a voice in the settlement of the Alaskan Boundary\nquestion. Many British Columbians expressed great dissatisfaction at the manner in which\nthe management of that affair has hitherto been dealt with from Ottawa.\nAt the present time, when action is being taken to have the British Empire extended and\nconsolidated, would it not be unwise to abandon, for mere sentiment, the valuable and extensive\narea of about thirty thousand (30,000) square miles, or nearly nineteen million two hundred\nthousand (19,200,000) square acres, which includes some of the best fisheries in the world,\nbesides minerals and timber claimed by the United States and largely squatted upon by their\npeople? Apart from the region above noted, they (the United States) would retain under the\ntreaty Prince of Wales Island, Baranoff, Chicagoff and the Kuiu Groups of Islands, aggregating\n6,450 square miles, or four million one hundred and twenty-eight thousand (4,128,000) square\nacres.\nBesides, it is worthy of note that the Canadian Northern Railway, which is now about\ncompleted for the transmission of freight between Winnipeg and Fort Frances (Rainy River\npoints), will be open for traffic on that section by the 10th October, 1901, and will eventually\nbe constructed across the continent with a terminus near Fort Simpson and the territory now\nclaimed by the United States. This is worthy of the most serious consideration from a\nnational and strategic point of view.\nHerewith I also submit a copy of my \"Review\" of the Alaskan Boundary question,\nand reprinted from the June, July and August numbers of the British Columbia Mining\nRecord for the vear 1900. I trust you will find it reliable and of service for reference.\nA. B.\nAppendix No. 1.\n9, Humboldt Street, Victoria, B. C,\n12th June, 1901.\nThe Hon. David MacEwen Eberts,\nAttorney-General, doe., dee.\nDear Sir,\u00E2\u0080\u0094Before the Hon. the Provincial Secretary went to the Mainland recently, I\narranged with him to make a trip north to the neighbourhood of the disputed boundary line\nin south-eastern Alaska, to ascertain how our neighbours are acting in that remote region, and\nto report.\nI proceeded as far north as the town of Ketchikan, which has lately been selected by the\nUnited States authorities as a landing station and a customs port. It is situated at Tongas\nNarrows, near the centre of the west coast of the large island Revilla Gigedo, a short distance\nsouth of the entrance of the west arm of Behm Canal, leading to Burroughs Bay. The Island\nof Gravina lies between Ketchikan and Prince of Wales Island, where a townsite has been laid\nout by the Kasaan Bay Mining Company, and where there is a saw-mill and store, with mining\nprospects extensively carried on. There is a post-office at Kasaan and a general store\u00E2\u0080\u0094the only\nestablishment of the sort on Prince of Wales Island. Ketchikan is about thirty miles from\nPrince of Wales Island.\nThe United States formerly had their custom house on Mary Island, a few miles south of\nKetchikan, and to the east of Annette Island, where the noted Missionary, William Duncan,\nhas settled with his civilised Indians from Metlakahtla. All vessels passing have now to call\nand report at Ketchikan, going either north or south of Ketchikan, instead of Mary Island as\nformerly. The new custom house is more central and more convenient for the new town of\nKasaan on Prince of Wales Island. It is also conveniently situated for the various canneries\nand mines which are being- established alone- Clarence Strait and the islands along the frontier. 1392 Alaska Boundary Question. 1902\nIt is not to be wondered at that those adventurers from the United States should have\nchosen and occupied such favoured localities when they could obtain them by merely squatting\non them. The international squatters seem to make themselves as much at home as if the\nboundary line was finally settled, and that the United States contention and claims were just\nand legitimate. They have taken the risk, and have secured the immediate advantage. They\nargue that when the boundary comes to be settled, if the claim of the United States be ratified\nthey will be all right; and, on the other hand, if Great Britain and British Columbia come out\naccording to the Treaty, from Cape Chacon via Portland Channel to the ten marine league\nboundary from the ocean coast, they can live as comfortably under the laws of Great Britain\nand British Columbia as they could under those of the United States.\nThey have at Ketchikan a full complement of customs officers\u00E2\u0080\u0094a collector, an inspector,\nlanding waiter, &c, a wharf and warehouses, a legal staff, including judge, clerk, bailiff,\nconstables, attorneys, &c. There is also a well printed newspaper, published weekly, by the\nex-Governor of Alaska, A. P. Swineford. It deals with public matters fearlessly. Judging\nfrom the large and numerous specimens and cabinets of ores of various kinds on exhibition in\nbrokers' show-cases, the surrounding country must be rich in minerals.\nThe Town of Ketchikan has a salmon cannery established near it, fitted to manufacture\n32,000 cases per season. The adjoining land is rocky and limited for building purposes. There\nare many salmon canneries now being erected at points along the frontier and bays. At\nPyramid Harbour there is a cannery equipped to put up 50,000 cases ; at Chilkoot, .30 miles\ndistant, one for 15,000 cases; at Klamak, 28,000 cases; at Hunter's Bay, the Pacific Steam\nWhaling Company outfitted for 60,000 cases; at Yies Bay, the Boston Fishing and Trading\nCompany for 32,000 cases, with lots of fish within 18 miles, but having, the U. S Agent says,\nand describes as, the most destructive specimen of trap he ever saw, completely evading the\nspirit of the law, while conforming to its literal requirements; again, at Loring, in Behm Canal,\nfitted for 68,000 cases; at Metlakahtla, Mr. Duncan's Industrial Settlement Company, a very\ncomplete establishment, for 20,000; at Wrangel Narrows, Mr. Kutchin, U. S. Special Agent,\npronounces the establishment there of the Ivy Straits Packing Company, practically new and\ncomplete in every respect, to be the best in Alaska, equipped for 100,000; it also is engaged\nin salting, and has caught and put up 200,000 lbs. of halibut last season; at Pritchard's Cove\nis the saltery of the Great Northern Fish Company of Seattle, which puts up about 12,000\nbarrels; near Wrangel is the cannery of the Thlinket Packing Company, fitted for 32,000 and\none for 55,000, besides a new one of the Roger Warnock Packing Company for 5,000 cases ;\nat Taku, at Port Snettisham, for 12,000 cases, and at Sunny Bay, Taku Inlet, for 10,000 cases.\nThe new cannery of the San Juan Fish and Packing Company, at Taku, Alaska, has a daily\ncapacity of 1,000 cases, and the pack for this year is estimated to reach 40,000 to 60,000 cases.\nThe San Juan Fish and Packing Company was organised in January of this year, with its main\noffice in Seattle. Its officers are: President, W. H. Bogle; Vice-President, J. H. Calvert;\nTreasurer, Edwin Ripley ; Secretary, C. M. Bogle.\nIt is thus seen that canneries are spreading rapidly in every suitable direction, all over\nthe British Columbia frontier, with the certainty, under such management, that the industry\nwill soon be ruined. This state of affairs, if nothing else, should call loudly for interference\nwith the unwarrantable practices which are destroying the trade of British Columbia, in a\nmeasure, and intensifying the injustice of the encroachments by our neighbours, under the\nshadow of the Treaty of 1825. If Great Britain under the Treaty be entitled to the sovereignty\nof the north-west coast and frontier of British Columbia, east of the ten marine leagues boundary\nfrom the ocean coast, let the matter in dispute be settled, our rights be confirmed and our\nlegitimate trade established. Those squatters may probably continue in the possession of their\nholdings, but will have no power to dispute the sovereignty of the country, and must conform\nto the laws of the Crown.\nThe Government of British Columbia would, I doubt not, be fully justified in passing an\nOrder in Council directing attention to the reckless destruction of Alaska salmon, as reported\nby the United States Agent, and calling upon the British Government to have the question of\nsovereignty settled, so that the proper legitimate owners of these valuable fisheries, mines, &c,\nin the territory now claimed by the United States, should revert to the full possession of British\nColumbia.\nThe more this question is considered and examined the more important and pressing the\nsettlement becomes. When the Treaty under discussion was passed many years ago, the whole\nof the northern portion of the Continent of North America was used only for fur trading 2 Ed. 7 Alaska Boundary Question. 1393\npurposes, by the Russian and H. C. Co. fur trading companies. Not much value w?as attached\nto that vast territory\u00E2\u0080\u0094there was little at stake in the trade with the natives. Of late years,\nhowever, matters have greatly changed, especially in the value and trade of the fisheries and\nmines in the region now in dispute, and which should not be any longer overlooked or neglected.\nI have called the attention of the Hon. the Provincial Secretary to the manner in which\nour neighbours are continuing to override the Treaty, how our trade is disorganised and our\nsalmon fishing industry is in a fair way of being destroyed.\nI have the honour to be,\nSir,\nYour obedient servant,\nAlexander Begg.\nAppendix No. 2.\nThe following series of articles, under the heading of \" Wholesale Encroachments,\" were\nwritten for the Victoria \" Colonist,\" and appeared in that paper at various times. They are\nreproduced here for the information they contain :\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n\"It will be somewhat of a surprise to many of the readers of the \"Colonist\" to be informed\nthat a large business is being carried on by our appreciative neighbours from the south of \"San\nJuan boundary,\" on the lands which they claim as belonging to the United States on the\nnorth-west frontier of British Columbia, under the Treaty of 1825, between Great Britain and\nRussia. The United States official reports from a special agent in charge of salmon fisheries,\nshow that salmon canneries of large capacity are erected by the dozen along the bays and\nharbours of the frontier of British Columbia, although the land is still in dispute.\nOne of the United States members of the Joint Commission, the Hon. J. W. Foster, ex-\nSecretary of State for the United States, although the Commission had adjourned and agreed\nto allow matters connected with the boundary dispute to remain in abeyance, furnished an\nargumentative article in the November number, 1899, of the \"National Geographic Magazine.\"\nMany of the statements in that article are incorrect, and could easily be disproved. Mr. Foster\nmaintained, throughout the article referred to, the United States contention of the boundary\nline by way of Portland Canal. The Edinburgh \"Review,\" April, 1900, in reviewing this\nsubject, says : \" The Honourable John W. Foster, ex-Secretary of State, and a member of the\nInternational Joint Commission, has taken the somewhat unusual course in a plenipotentiary,\nduring the progress of a negotiation in which he is engaged, of contributing to a magazine an\narticle on the subject of the Alaska Boundary.\" Gen. Foster visited Alaska in 1900, but, so far\nas can be learned, he in no way endeavoured to prevent the encroachments of United States\ncitizens on the territory in dispute, until after a decision had been arrived at. The international squatters continued to work on as briskly as ever.\nThe Joint High Commission made an exhaustive survey of the region from Cape Cox east\nto the entrance of Portland Canal, and thence along the whole frontier of British Columbia\nby way of Taku, and northward of Skagway and Dyea\u00E2\u0080\u0094a grand, majestic sweep on paper.\nOn land, however, much of the frontier, especially along the Coast Range, is so rocky and\ncovered with glaciers that the survey had to be made by the aid of the camera ! This\nsimplified the engineers' work greatly, but cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, and in reality\nall to no purpose, as far as the delimitation of the boundary line is concerned, if we are to be\nguided by the Anglo-Russian Treaty of 1825. (The reports of the Auditor-General of Canada\nshow a total expenditure by Canada to 30th June, 1900, of $38,747 as to the cost of the Joint\nCommission.) That document, about which so much has been said and written, deals curtly\nwith the subject\u00E2\u0080\u0094gives the initial point\u00E2\u0080\u0094the line of direction, names the channel along which\nthe boundary is to run. The High Commission, that is, the United States members thereof,\npaid no attention either to the point of commencement (the southernmost point of Prince of\nWales Island), or to the direction given\u00E2\u0080\u0094north (from south to north)\u00E2\u0080\u0094it suited them to go\ndue east instead, and contrary to Mr. Canning's despatch to the British ambassador at St.\nPetersburg, Sir Charles Bagot, who informed the Russian plenipotentiaries of the instructions,\nnaming Duke of York Island as a landmark. This landmark has had its name since changed\nto Etolin. 1394 Alaska Boundary Question. 1902\nIn the treaty they are restricted to a certain point on Prince of Wales Island as the initial\npoint of the treaty. Mr. Bayard commences the boundary on another island some miles west\nof Prince of Wales Island. The treaty restricts the boundary line to run between the 131st\nand the 133rd meridians of longitude; whereas Portland Canal is entirely to the east of the\n130th meridian, and could not possibly be reached by the description given in the treaty. In\nthe preamble to the treaty, in article III. (page 9, \" Review\") it reads : \"The line of demarcation between the possessions of the high contracting parties upon the coast of the continent\nand the islands of America, to the north-west, shall be drawn in the manner following : Commencing from the southernmost point of the island called Prince of Wales Island,\" etc.\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nnote that \" the islands of America to the north-west\" are included; whereas, if the line went\nby Portland Canal there would be no islands to include. It is also w?orthy of note that in the\ndeed of cession from Russia to the United States the above clause is omitted.\nFrom the time of the purchase of Alaska by the United States from Russia in 1867, not\nmuch was said in reference to it until in 1885, when the late Mr. Bayard, then the United\nStates Secretary of State, through his ambassador in London, Mr. Phelps, made application to\nLord Salisbury that a Joint Commission should be appointed to have the Alaskan Boundary\nquestion settled. Mr. Phelps' letter to Lord Salisbury was an echo of Mr. Bayard's. Col.\nCameron was appointed by the British Government to look after British interests. Unfortunately for Great Britain and British Columbia, Col. Cameron took a view of the subject\nsimilar to Mr. Bayard. The direction of the boundary line being changed, and a different\nbody of water, namely, Portland Canal, being substituted for Portland Channel, gave an\nentirely new aspect to the question, which became so mixed up and muddled that the question\ncould not be understood, which was apparently what Mr. Bayard had in view. The original\ntreaty was scarcely ever referred to; indeed, there was none of it left for reference except that\nportion running along the 141st meridian of longitude to the Polar Ocean.\nThe original treaty was thus ignored and the Bayard-Cameron line substituted to proceed\ndirectly east from Cape Muzon, a point not included in the treaty, to Portland Canal. Now\nit so happens that neither on Vancouver's maps or charts was the name Portland Channel\nmarked, but Portland Canal was, so it was decided that the boundary should be made to sweep\neastward 50 or 60 miles east, instead of north, and enclose and appropriate a few million acres\nof land from British Columbia, as well as the frontier and fisheries. Those valuable lands and\nislands to the east of the treaty boundary, that is, ten marine leagues from the ocean coast\nnorth of parallel 56\u00C2\u00B0, as claimed by the United States, are computed to contain from 25,000\nto 30,000 square miles of land\u00E2\u0080\u0094or from 16,000,000 to 19,200,000 square acres ; still leaving\nwest of the treaty boundary as outlined from the ocean coast\u00E2\u0080\u0094Prince of Wales Island, 2,700\nsquare miles ; Baranoff, 1,725 square miles ; Chicagoff, 1,725 square miles, and the Kuiu group\nof islands, 300 square miles\u00E2\u0080\u0094aggregating 6,450 square miles, or 4,128,000 square acres.\nThe strip of land along the coast of the continent, west of Cross Sound, of ten marine\nleagues from the ocean coast onward to the 141st meridian, completes what is known as\nSouth-eastern Alaska.\nVictoria, June 19, 1901. Alexander Begg.\nIn the former article it was shown that, on the ocean coast, six thousand four hundred\nand fifty (6,450) square miles would accrue to the United States, by sale of Alaska, under the\nAnglo-Russian Treaty. That large quantity of land and islands bordering on the Pacific\nCoast, and within the ten marine league boundary, was deemed a generous concession by Great\nBritain, sufficient to accommodate the requirements of the fur trading Russian Company.\nThis large and exceedingly convenient foothold was secured to them by the treaty of 1825. It\nwas sold by Russia to the United States in 1867, with all its rights and privileges, but nothing\nmore. Russia only could sell her rights under the treaty.\nThe foregoing approximate number of square miles, which would accrue to the United\nStates by the purchase of Alaska under the treaty, is based and computed on a suggested\nconventional water boundary from Cape Chacon, northerly, .and includes the whole of Prince\nof Wales Island, the Kuiu Group, Baranoff and Chicagoff, intersecting the strip of land on\nthe northern mainland, and westward to the 141st meridian, as may be agreed on. Such an\narrangement would save further expense in surveys and furnish an equitable and practicable\nboundary, both for the United States and Canada, or British Columbia. It would leave\nBritish Columbia in possession of her frontier as it existed prior to the treaty of 1825. Parties 2 Ed. 7 Alaska Boundary Question. 1395\nwho have taken unwarrantable possession of a portion of British Columbia under the United\nStates claim have done so with their eyes open. They may be permitted to retain their\nholdings under the British flag and under Canadian laws and regulations, which are generally\nadmitted to be as desirable and safe, for life and property, as those of the United States.\nLet us now see how Mr. Secretary of State Bayard manipulated his circuitous boundary,\nso as to annex to the United States the very large and valuable territory, ten marine leagues\nfrom the ocean coast, north of the 56th degree of latitude, as claimed by the United States,\nand computed to contain from 25,000 to 30,000 square miles of land\u00E2\u0080\u0094or from 16,000,000 to\n19,200,000 square acres, still leaving west of the treaty boundary, as outlined from the ocean\ncoast, six thousand four hundred and fifty (6,450) square miles, or four million one hundred\nand twenty-eight thousand (4,128,000) square acres.\nMr. Bayard, in his application to Lord Salisbury for the appointment of a Joint High\nCommission, begins very gently by stating he \" was not aware that any question concerning\nthe true location of the line so stipulated in the purchase of Alaska, ever rose at any time\nbetween Great Britain and Russia, prior to the cession of Alaska. * * * It is certain,\"\nhe continued, \"that no question has arisen since 1867, between the Governments of the United\nStates and Great Britain, in regard to this boundary.\" This latter statement is fully refuted\nby the following extracts from a reply by the Premier of British Columbia, Hon. T. Davie, to\na question in the Legislative Assembly, Victoria, B. C, February 14th, 1895. The question\nwas :\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n\" What steps, if any, have been taken by the Provincial Government towards having our\nrights recognised or represented in the delimitation of the Alaska-British Columbia Boundary\nLine ?\" The Hon. Mr. Davie said :\n\"As far back as 1877 the matter had consideration, and from 1883 to 1889 frequent and\nstrong representations were made by the Government of British Columbia to the Government\nof the Dominion of Canada, respecting the great desirability of having the Alaskan Boundary\ndefinitely delimited, under the terms of the treaties governing the same.\n\" In 1884 a report of the Executive Council, dealing exhaustively with the line of demarcation, as described in the terms of treaty, and urging to have the boundary between British\nColumbia and Alaska defined without delay, was drawn up and approved 22nd July, 1884\n(See Sessional Papers, B. C, p. 451, 1885). This report was accompanied by maps and charts.\n\"An Order in Council, approved November 9th, 1885, reiterating what was advanced in\nthe minute of the previous year, urged on the Dominion Government an early settlement of\nthe question.\n\"The Committee of Council, November 30th, 1885, having had under consideration the\nproposal of the Dominion Government to exhibit at the Indian aud Colonial exhibition a\nmammoth map of Canada, and having in view its possible bearing on the disputed boundary\nline between British Columbia and Alaska, prepared a minute defining their views of the\nproper location of the line of demarcation, and recommending the same in accordance with the\nreport of July 22nd, 1884, as having its starting point at the southernmost point of Prince of\nWales Island, and ascending to the north through the Duke of Clarence Strait, and thence\nalong the western leg of Behm Canal till it 'strikes' the 56th degree of north latitude, instead\nof as incorrectly on the map of Canada, published by authority in 1880, whereby the line is\ndrawn in an easterly direction to and up Portland Canal, thereby depriving the Crown of a\nlarge and valuable territory and important waterways. The committee again urged a speedy\nsettlement of the question.\n\"In 1887 the question was the subject of strong representations in Executive minutes\nforwarded to Ottawa, namely, on the 7th of February and the 16th of March, in which the\nprevious minutes were called attention to.\n\"The American Congress in 1888 made a grant for an exploratory survey 'of the line up\nthe Portland Canal'; whereupon representations were made to the Dominion Government\nprotesting against the admission of the point of starting as correct by the American Government, and calling attention to the previous minutes. To this minute, embodying these\nrepresentations, was attached a memorandum by the late Mr. Justice Gray.\n\" On February 23, 1888, Mr. Justice Gray was authorised to proceed to Washington to\nrepresent the views of the Government of this Province at a meeting where the matter was\ndiscussed. Unfortunately, Mr. Gray died before he had submitted his report to the Government. 1396 Alaska Boundary Question. 1902\n\" Subsequently the Government of the Dominion of Canada, acting conjointly with the\nGovernment of the United States, appointed Commissioners for the purpose of ascertaining\nthe physical and other data necessary in finally determining the boundary between Alaska and\nCanada, and the authority of the Province of British Columbia extending no further than to\nthe representations and recommendations referred to in the foregoing, and the Government\nhaving fully expressed their views, no further action on its part was taken to finish the settlement of the matter, except by consent, relating exclusively to the jurisdiction of the main\nparties to the dispute.\n\" At a subsequent sitting the following resolution was unanimously passed by the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia : ' Whereas a Commission has been appointed by the\nDominion Government, acting conjointly with a Commission appointed by the Government of\nthe United States, for the purpose of delimiting the boundary line between the Territory of\nAlaska and that of the Dominion of Canada.\n\" ' And whereas the Government of the Province of British Columbia have in the past\ntaken active steps in bringing about the measures adopted by the Dominion Government for\nthe location of the line of demarcation, and its early and expeditious determination, and have\nrepeatedly brought to the attention of the authorities at Ottawa the great importance of\nobtaining all the territory rightfully that of Canada within the term and meaning of the treaty\ngoverning the same :\n\" ' Therefore, be it enacted, that a respectful address be presented from this House to His\nHonour the Lieutenant-Governor, praying that he will be pleased to move His Excellency the\nGovernor-General to consider the great desirability of British Columbia being directly represented in the negotiations for the settlement of the boundary line between Canada and the\nterritory of Alaska, and that no effort be spared to secure for this province all that was\noriginally contemplated under the terms of the treaty of Great Britain with Russia.'\"\nThe newspaper report on the above resolution says:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n\"The mover explained that the Dominion Government does not appear to grasp all the\npoints in connection with the matter.\n\" Hon. Mr. Turner (Minister of Finance) recognised this as an opportune resolution, as\nit would be a matter of great importance to this country to have the southern boundary of\nAlaska laid out as defined in the original treaty, instead of according to the incorrect version\nmade by the United States, which the Dominion appears to have adopted.\n\" Mr. Hunter (civil engineer) stated that lie had called the attention of the Dominion\nGovernment to the mistake in the United States version of the treaty so long ago as 1877,\nwhen Hon. Edward Blake was Minister of Justice; but though that Government was fully\nadvised of the matter, strange to say, no steps have been taken to correct the mistake.\nResolution agreed to.\"\nThe resolution referred to was forwarded to the Governor-General at Ottawa, and dealt\nwith according to the following extract from a report of the Honourable the Privy Council, as\napproved by His Excellency on March 25, 1895:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n\" The Minister of the Interior, to whom the question was referred, states that the existing\nCommission under the Convention at Washington has for its object the ascertainment of the\nfacts and data necessary for the permanent delimitation of the existing boundary line in\naccordance with the spirit and intent of the existing treaties in regard to it between Great\nBritain and Russia.\" Also the closing paragraph I. of the Convention reads: \" The high contracting parties agree that, as soon as practicable after the reports of the Commissioners shall\nhave been received, they will proceed to consider and establish the boundary line in question.\n\" It appears, therefore, that there is no need for the direct representation of the Province\nof British Columbia upon the present Commission, which is charged with the duty of collection\nof facts, particularly with respect to the topographical features of the region in question.\n\" The Minister recommends that this view of the case be brought to the attention of the\nGovernment of British Columbia with the assurance that care will be taken to guard the\ninterests of the Province in any action which may be taken after the reports of the present\nCommissioners, which are to be rendered to the Governments of Canada and the United States\non 31st December, 1895, have been received.\"\nFrom the foregoing it is evident that Mr. Bayard's statement that \"no question has arisen\nbetween the Governments of the United States and Great Britain since 1867, concerning the 2 Ed. 7 Alaska Boundary Question. 1397\ntrue location of the boundary,\" is proved to be incorrect. If his subsequent statements do not\nprove more reliable than the first, they cannot evoke much confidence. We shall see.\nThe President of the United States in Mr. Bayard's time, as well as in the year 1872,\nunder President Grant, advocated the delimitation of the boundary line. In his annual\nmessage, President Grant said: \"The region is now so sparsely occupied that no conflicting\ninterests of individuals or of jurisdiction is likely to interfere to delay or embarrass the\nactual location of the line. If deferred until population shall enter and occupy the territory, some trivial contest of neighbours may again array the two Governments in antagonism. I therefore recommend the appointment of a Commission to act jointly with one that\nmay be appointed on the part of Great Britain, to determine the line between our territory of\nAlaska and the coterminous possessions of Great Britain.\" Since that time the condition of\nincreasing settlement apprehended by President Grant has assumed marked proportions. In\n.the judgment of the President, \"the time has now come for an understanding between the\nGovernment of the United States and that of Her Britannic Majesty, looking to the speedy\nand certain establishment of the boundary line between Alaska and British Columbia. And\nthis necessity is believed to be the more urgent, inasmuch as the treaty line is found to be of\nuncertain, if not impossible, location for a great part of its length.\"\nLet the treaty lie divested of the propositions, changes and additions attached to it by\nMr. Bayard, and it is neither \" uncertain nor impossible of location for a great part of its\nlength.\" With those changes, additions, etc., and because it is required to run not according\nto the course laid down by its framers\u00E2\u0080\u0094east for many miles instead of north\u00E2\u0080\u0094it is set down\nas \" impossible.\" What else could be expected? Is water expected to run up hill without a\nforce-pump 1\nAlexander Begg.\nJune 22nd, 1901.\nFollowing up Mr. Bayard's letter of November, 1885, to Mr. Ambassador Phelps, it is of\nprimary importance to ascertain if it be based on correct premises. There is no use in dealing\nwith statements which are not founded on facts. In the letter under review, there is nothing\non which to build except the initial point at Cape Chacon. The language of the treaty is\ncorrectly quoted by Mr. Bayard that: \" The said line shall ascend to the north along the\nchannel called Portland Channel, as far as the point of the continent where it strikes the 56th\ndegree of north latitude.\" Beyond this the treaty boundary disappears. It does not suit\nMr. Bayard's theory.\nNo one disputes the correctness of the paragraph which states \" so far as relates to the\nwater boundary, and it is to be remembered as already remarked, that the line so described\nwas intended to leave Prince of Wales Island Russian territory in 1825, and a possession of\nthe United States in 1867.\" But Mr. Bayard is decidedly in error by stating that \"no record\nhas been found in print or otherwise so far as sought, of the circumstances attending the\ndrawing up of the Anglo-Russian convention of 1825, which would throw light on the understanding of the negotiators of this point\"; but is correct in stating, \"it may be assumed with\nconfidence that the charts employed in the negotiation were those of Vancouver.\"\nSir Charles Bagot was the British ambassador at St. Petersburg in 1824, in charge of the\nconvention. His despatches to and those from the Right Hon. George Canning, were frequent\nand distinct on the subject of the boundary line\u00E2\u0080\u0094its direction, course, etc., which flatly\ncontradicts Mr. Bayard's statement that no such record existed. A despatch from Mr. G.\nCanning to Sir Charles, dated 12th June, 1824, unmistakably says: \"His Majesty's Government have resolved to authorise Your Excellency to consent to include the south points of\nPrince of Wales Island within the Russian frontiers, and to take, as the line of demarcation, a\nline drawn from the southernmost point of Prince of Wales Island, from south to north,\nthrough Portland Channel till it strikes the Mainland in latitude 56 degrees; thence following\nthe sinuosities of the coast along the base of the mountains nearest the sea to Mount Elias,\nand then along the 139th degree of longitude to the Polar Sea.\" The language of the treaty\nas signed by the plenipotentiaries, corresponds very closely to the directions sent by Mr.\nCanning.\nIt does not affect the question in the slightest degree, that Cape Muzon, Cape Chacon, or\nthe mouth of Portland Inlet should each be 54 degrees 40 minutes north latitude. The treaty\nonly specified Cape Chacon, the southernmost point of Prince of W'ales Island, so that another 1398 Alaska Boundary Question. 1902\nstatement in Mr. Bayard's letter that 54 degrees 40 minutes enters the mouth of Portland\nInlet, and \"that the most navigable channel trends thence directly inland, lend reason and\nforce to the conviction that it was the intention of the negotiators that the boundary line\nshould directly follow the broad and natural channel midway between the shores (presumably\nPortland Canal) and extend, if need were, inland in the same general direction until the range\nof hills, hereafter to be considered, should be reached (as appears in Vancouver's chart) at or\nnear the 56th parallel,\" is of no effect.\nMr. Bayard overlooks the fact that the treaty, which he has quoted in his letter, limits\nthe treaty to between the 131st and 133rd meridians of west longitude, whilst Portland Canal,\nwhich is quoted above as extending inland to near the 56th parallel, is east of the 130th\nmeridian, and cannot be the \"broad and natural channel\" which it is supposed or stated to be.\nYet Mr. Bayard adroitly writes : \"It is not therefore conceived that this water part of the\nboundary line can ever be called in question between the two Governments!!\"\nThen, again, there is an inclosure in Sir Charles Bagot's despatch to the Rt. Hon. G.\nCanning, dated St. Petersburg, 17th March, 1824, which is Sir Charles Bagot's ultimate\ndecision to the Russian plenipotentiaries. It contains the following paragraph: \"It would\nappear that a line traced from the southern extremity of the straits named Duke of Clarence\nSound (now known as Clarence Strait), by the middle of those straits, to the middle of the\nstraits that separate the islands of the Prince of Wales and the Duke of York and the islands\nsituate to the north of the said islands; thence towards the east by the middle of the same\nstrait to the continent; and thence prolonged in the same direction and manner already\nproposed by His Britannic Majesty's plenipotentiary to Mount Elias, or to the intersection of\nthe 140th degree of longitude (since changed to the 141st degree) would form a line of demarcation which would conciliate, perhaps, in a satisfactory manner, the reciprocal interests,\npresent and future, of both empires in this part of the globe.\"\nThe reference made to Duke of York Island by Sir Charles Bagot may be taken as\ncorroborative evidence that the boundary line was intended to pass that island to the continent\nat the 56th parallel of latitude. That being the case the boundary could not have its course\nby Portland Canal. It is singular that Duke of York Island has been robbed of its name, and\nthe name \"Etolin\" given to it instead. There may be some sinister motive in that change,\nwhich apparently should not have been made. Another item of corroborative evidence may\nbe drawn from the statement in the treaty that the boundary should pass between the 131st\nand the 133rd lines of longitude\u00E2\u0080\u0094which, as pointed out elsewhere would not allow it to pass\nby Portland Canal, as that body of water is east of the 130th meridian, and could not be\nreached. Portland Canal, therefore, must be abandoned as the eastern boundary of south-eastern\nAlaska, and Clarence Strait adopted.\nAlexander Begg.\n29th June, 1901.\nA short recapitulation of a few of the salient points connected with \" Wholesale\nEncroachments \" on the north-west frontier of British Columbia, as elucidated in three former\nchapters under the above heading, may form a fitting corollary to the aforementioned articles\non that subject. The Anglo-Russian Treaty of 1825 was duly passed, and received the\nsanction of the Emperor of Russia and his Britannic Majesty, King George IV. The four\nlarge islands which covered the whole frontier of British Columbia, on the Pacific Ocean\ncoast, were ceded to Russia by the treaty referred to, and furnished the Russian Fur Company\nwith sufficient and convenient lands as a base of operation for the fur trade, or any other\nindustry in which they might choose to engage.\nThose islands, taken together, contain, approximately, about 4,128,000 square acres. The\ntreaty also includes a strip of land of ten marine leagues from the ocean coast, between Cross\nSound and Mount Elias, and thence created the 141st meridian of west longitude, the boundary\nbetween British and Russian possessions in that portion of the North American Continent,\nreaching to the Arctic Ocean, all of which appeared to be quite satisfactory to \" the high\ncontracting parties,\" for many years after the treaty had been passed.\nThe United States, in the year 1867, purchased from Russia all the land and islands,\nwith their rights and privileges, as set forth in the treaty and passed in 1825. It is thus seen,\nthat for over 40 years the treaty of 1825 was fully accepted both by Russia and Great Britain.\nPossession was promptly taken by the United States, by lowering the Russian flag at Sitka 2 Ed. 7 Alaska Boundary Question. 1399\nand hoisting the Stars and Stripes. A few United States soldiers were stationed at Fort\nWrangel and Fort Tongas, but were subsequently recalled, as useless.\nAffairs in this remote region remained with the boundary line undefined until 1865,\nwhen Mr. Bayard by a coup-de-main made an adroit effort to change the direction of the line\nof demarcation from Cape Chacon, instead of north along the channel (called Portland Channel)\naccording to the treaty, to make it run east, and make Portland Canal the line of demarcation.\nLord Salisbury, through the United States Ambassador in London, Mr. Phelps, was asked for\na Joint Commission to define the location of the boundary line, which was granted, and here\nthe glaring injustice to Great Britain commences.\nAlthough the treaty, as plain as words can make it, and repeated in the cession to the\nUnited States from Russia, says north as stated, Mr. Secretary Bayard decided on changing\nthe direction of the line of demarcation, which, according to the treaty and cession to the\nUnited . States is described as ascending from Cape Chacon, along Portland Channel, from\nsouth to north ; Mr. Bayard, not content with the liberal provision made to Russia and the\nFur Company, decided that the line should first proceed east some 50 or 60 miles to Portland\nCanal, and then run north. The name Portland Channel was parodied to suit the new line of\ndirection, and to form a loop that would enclose, exclusive of the islands, ten marine leagues\nfrom the ocean coast, about 20,000,000 square acres of land, including fisheries, timber and\nminerals, as well as several important strategical points or stations near Fort Simpson and\nObservatory Inlet.\nThe fundamental error and mistake is the substitution of, and changing the location of,\nthe waters\u00E2\u0080\u0094called Portland Channel in the treaty\u00E2\u0080\u0094to Portland Canal, which has been clearly\nshown, that being entirely to the east of the 131st meridian of longitude, and outside of the\nlimit mentioned in the treaty, cannot possibly be accepted as correct, or be ratified as the\nsouth-eastern boundary of Alaska.\nIt is unnecessary to refer further to the full replies of Premier Davie to the query of the\nLegislature of British Columbia; but it may be of value to note that on the mammoth map\nof Canada, exhibited at the Colonial Exhibition, London, the Alaskan Boundary is referred to\nas incorrect. The same objection has been raised to the mammoth map of Canada, which has\nbeen exhibited in 1900 at Paris. Details of minor import will doubtless be duly dealt with.\nThe sovereignty of the-frontier of British Columbia remains to be permanently ratified in\njustice to Great Britain. There need be no difficulty or hardship in arranging with the\nsquatters who have taken up locations. The arbitation fiat will be sufficient to settle the\nwhole affair\u00E2\u0080\u0094if decided in favour of the United States claim, the citizens of that country\nwill have their claims and improvements undisturbed ; and if in favour of the contention of\nCanada, there can be no trouble.\nAlexander Begg.\nJuly 6th, 1901.\nThe Cameron Line.\n(From the Or Mia Weekly Times, 24th June, 1896.)\nConsiderable misapprehension exists as to what is really meant by \" The Cameron Line,\"\nin the article headed \" The Alaska Boundary Question,\" which appeared in the May number\nof the Century (1896), over the signature \" Eliza Ruhamah Scidmore.\"\nAlthough it is not at all certain that such a line is in existence, yet it is of interest to\nascertain as far as possible, how it came to be named in connection with the Anglo-Russian\nTreaty of 1825. An examination of the subject shows that in 1885 or 1886, Colonel D. R.\nCameron, R.A., was commissioned by the British Government to report on the Alaskan\nboundary. He did so, and submitted his report in 1866. In the opening paragraph of that\nreport he says :\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n1. \"The matter aims at a demonstration of the intentions of the framers of the Convention, founded upon records of the negotiations, maps, charts, and the wording of the treaty\nitself, and brings into contrast with the conclusions thus arrived at, views inconsistent with\nthem, and based, it is believed, on imperfect information.\" 1400 Alaska Boundary Question. 1902\n2. \" The interpretation of the Convention, supported by the arguments now submitted,\nwill be found to be an unstrained and natural version of the terms of the treaty, consistent in\nevery respect with the inferences to be drawn from the records of the negotiations, and not\ninconsistent in any single point with the geographical features referred to.\"\n3. \" On the other hand, it is shown that the alternative interpretations abound with\nuntenable assumptions, improbabilities, inconsistencies and contradictions. These support the\nview that the treaty description of the boundary in every detail except as regards the meridian\nline to the Arctic, is inaccurate, incomplete or impracticable.\"\n4. \" The interpretation maintained in this report to be that intended by Great Britain is\nprecise and definite ; and consistently with the attitude of the contracting parties at the date of\nthis Convention, indicates a line easier to be recognised and marked than any other which\ncould even now be described in words.\"\nIt will thus be seen that Colonel Cameron outlined an extensive programme for his report.\nUnfortunately, however, it was not well carried out, for he soon fell in line with Mr. T. F.\nBayard, Secretary of State at Washington, who, on the 20th of November, 1885, sent a\ndespatch to the United States ambassador at London, E. J. Phelps, instructing him to ask the\nBritish Government, through Lord Salisbury, then Premier and British Secretary of State for\nForeign Affairs, for permission to have a joint commission appointed, for the purpose of\nobtaining a settlement of the boundary line between Alaska and British Columbia, which had\nbeen neglected since the purchase of Alaska from Russia by the United States in 1867.\nMr. Bayard's request to have a Commission appointed was granted ; and, as formerly\nmentioned, Colonel Cameron was chosen to report on the subject. In his instructions to Mr.\nPhelps, Mr. Bayard indicated the line of demarcation which he desired to have observed in\ndefining the location of the boundary; but in so doing, as will be seen by further examination,\nhe departed from the line as described in the Treaty, and instead of following it, he discredited\nand ignored it altogether, at least as far as it reads\u00E2\u0080\u0094\" the said line shall ascend to the north,\nfrom the southernmost point of Prince of Wales Island, along the channel called Portland\nChannel, as far as the point of the continent where it strikes the 56th degree of latitude,\"\netc., thus creating a new line almost due east from the southernmost point of Prince of\nWales Island to Portland Canal.\nTo point out Mr. Bayard's error, and also that of Colonel Cameron following him, it will\nonly be necessary to quote a few of the arguments used by Sir Charles Bagot, the British\nPlenipotentiary at St. Petersburg, when discussing the Convention with the Russian\nPlenipotentiaries. Russia claimed, along with a strip of land along the coast, the whole of\nPrince of Wales Island; and also desired that Portland Canal should form the eastern\nboundary of Russian America, south of the strip of land along the coast.\nSeveral proposals and counter propositions passed between the plenipotentiaries, they\nwere reduced to writing, marked A, B, C, D, and E, and sent along with a despatch from Sir\nCharles Bagot to the Right Honourable George Canning, who was then (March, 1824)\nBritish Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. The answer of Sir Charles to the Russian\nplenipotentiaries, in the paper marked \"D,\" contained his final decision on the subject. In it\nhe described the route of the proposed line of demarcation. He deals also with the Portland\nCanal question, pointing out conclusively that the channel called Portland Channel in the Treaty\nof 1825, is not the same body of water as the inlet named Portland Canal by Vancouver in\n1793. This should be distinctly kept in view, as it simplifies the whole affair and unravels the\ndifficulty which the substitution of the one name for the other has tended to produce.\nIn referring to the proposed line as his ultimate decision, Sir Charles, in statement marked\n\"D,\" says : \u00E2\u0080\u0094 \"It would appear that a line traced from the southern extremity of the straits\nnamed Duke of Clarence Sound, by the middle of those straits to the middle of the straits\nthat separate the Islands of Prince of Wales and the Duke of York from all the islands situated\nto the north of the said islands, thence towards the east by the middle of the same straits to\nthe continent, and thence prolonged, in the same direction and manner already proposed by\nHis Majesty's Plenipotentiary, to Mount Elias, or to the intersection of the 140th (changed to\n141st) degrees of longitude, would form a line of demarcation which would conciliate, perhaps,\nin a satisfactory manner, the reciprocal interests, present and future, of both Empires in this\npart of the globe.\"\nReferring in the same statement \"D\" to the Russian claim for land on the coast of the\ncontinent and to the propriety of making Portland Canal the eastern limit of the Russian\nfrontier, Sir Charles argues :\u00E2\u0080\u0094\" It is a principle which is founded no less on the recognised 2 Ed. 7 Alaska Boundary Question. 1401\nopinion of the most celebrated jurists than on the universal custom observed between nations,\nthat the discovery or simple occupation of any islands situated on the coast of a continent gives\nno right whatever to the sovereignty of any part of the neighbouring mainland.\nAccording to this principle, Sir Charles Bagot always maintained in the conferences he\nhad the honour of having with the Russian Plenipotentiaries that His Britannic Majesty\ncould not admit that the rights of Russia on the north-west coast of the continent of America\nshould extend towards the south, on the continent, beyond the point where Russia has actually\nformed establishments.\n\"It has never been affirmed by the Plenipotentiaries of His Imperial Majesty that Russia\npossessed any establishments whatever on the mainland south of north latitude 60\u00C2\u00B0 or 59\u00C2\u00B0, but\nthey have declared that, deprived of a strip of land on the mainland, the Russian American\nCompany would have no means of supporting the establishments on the islands, which would\notherwise be without any support, assistance or solidity.\n\"Such arguments founded on the consideration of the practical convenience of Russia,\ncould not fail to have the greatest weight with the Plenipotentiary of His Britannic Majesty,\nwho did not hesitate, in consequence of this observation of the Plenipotentiaries of Russia, to\nabandon the line of demarcation he had at first proposed, viz., that which was to pass through\nthe middle of Chatham Straits to the northern extremity of Lynn Canal, and from thence to\nMount Elias, or at the intersection of the 140th degree of longitude, and to propose another\nwhich would not only assure to Russia a strip on the continent, opposite to the most southern\nestablishment which she possesses on these islands, but would also assure to her the possession\nof all the islands and waters that are placed between this establishment and the continent, in\nfact the possession of all which might become, in consequence, of any utility either for its\nsolidity or prosperity.\n\" But the Plenipotentiary of His Britannic Majesty cannot admit that Russia could\naccord or assure to His Britannic Majesty a new advantage by renouncing any part of the\ncoast between the mouth of Portland Canal and the degree of latitude looked upon as the\nlimit of the Russian possessions in the Ukase of 1821, by renouncing any part of the continent\nsouth of the establishments which have been formed there; for even though His Britannic\nMajesty might recognise that degree of latitude as forming the line of demarcation in regard\nto the islands, he could not, according to the principle formerly enunciated, have recognised\nit as the limit on the neighbouring Continent, on which the Hudson Bay Company had already\nestablished several important posts.\n\" That Company having, in effect, establishments near the coast north of the 55th degree,\nHis Britannic Majesty could not, therefore, without sacrificing the interests of the Company,\nrelinquish the rights of sovereignty over the coast and the islands that immediately adjoin it,\nup to the 56\u00C2\u00B0 30' north latitude, whichever might be the degree of latitude found convenient\nto be agreed on to be definitely taken as the limit between the two powers, as far as concerns\nthe islands further west.\n\"The origin of the Portland Canal may be, as there is reason to believe, the mouth of a\nriver which flows through the middle of the country occupied by the Hudson Bay Company,\nand it is, in consequence, of the highest importance for Great Britain to possess the sovereignty\nof the two hanks.\n\" It was in the hope, therefore, of being able to conciliate these objects, considered indispensable by the Imperial Government, and to determine, without more delay, a question which\nappeared of equal interest to both parties, to arrange definitely at the time which the Plenipotentiary of His Britannic Majesty had the honour to propose in his last conference with the\nPlenipotentiaries of Russia, a line of demarcation, which, while conserving to Russia for a\nsouthern limit on the islands the degree of latitude designated by the Ukase of 1799, would\nassign, at the same time, to Great Britain, for a limit on the mainland latitude of 56\u00C2\u00B0 30'.\"\nThe Russian Plenipotentiaries refused to sign the treaty as proposed by the British\nPlenipotentiary. On July 12th, however, Mr. Canning sent a despatch to Sir Charles, which\ncontained the following extracts :\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n\" His Majesty's Government have resolved to authorise Your Excellency to consent to\ninclude the south points of Prince of Wales Island within the Russian frontiers, and to take\nas a line of demarcation a line drawn from the southernmost point of Prince of Wales Island,\nfrom south to north through Portland Channel, till it strikes the mainland in latitude 56\u00C2\u00B0;\nthence following the sinuosities of the coast along the mountains nearest the sea to Mount\nElias, and thence along the 139th (afterwards extended to the 141st) degree of longitude to\nthe Polar Sea. * * * * 1402 Alaska Boundary Question. 1902\n\"The advantages conceded to Russia by the line of demarcation traced out in this Convention are so obvious as to render it quite impossible that any objection can reasonably be\noffered on the part of the Russian Government to any of the stipulations in our favour.\"\nIn face of the foregoing liberal, plain, pointed, statesmanlike documents, where does the\n\"boomerang\" boundary of Mr. Bayard come in ? Sir Charles left the Russian Court at St.\nPetersburg before the treaty was signed. No material change was made in the Convention\nbefore the arrival of Mr. S. Canning, who succeeded Sir Charles in December, 1824, and who\ncarried with him to St. Petersburg a special letter of introduction from His Britannic Majesty\nto the Emperor of all the Russias, with instructions to resume the unfinished work of the\nConvention where it had been left by the former Plenipotentiary. Nothing further is heard of\nthe Portland Canal boundary until after the signing of the Treaty in 1825, nor for many years\nafterwards, until 1867. It may, therefore, pertinently be asked where and how does the\n\" boomerang \" boundary come in ?\nThe following extract from Colonel Cameron's report will, perhaps, explain what he meant\nby the \"unstrained and natural version of the treaty, supported by his arguments.\" (See\nparagraph 1.) It treats of the \"great circle,\" and says: \"It has already been explained that\nthe southernmost point of Prince of Wales Island and the Portland Canal, as regulating the\nboundary line, were adopted on the suggestion of the Russian plenipotentiaries, as well-marked\ngeographical features, etc.\" It is not according to fact to state that this portion of the line\nhad been adopted, the very reverse is stated by Sir Charles Bagot, who says \" it is of the\nhighest importance for Great Britain to possess the sovereignty of the two banks,\" (of the\nPortland Canal).\nThe report continues: \"Under these circumstances it follows that the boundary described\nby the convention of 1825 as 'a partier du point le plus meridional de Pile dite Prince of\nWales. * * ' La dite ligne remontera au nord le long de la j)asse dite Portland Channel,'\nfollows the course of a great circle between the south of the Prince of Wales Island and the\ncentre of the Portland Canal ocean entrance. Such a line is the most direct that can be drawn\non the earth's surface between any two named terminal points. All points on it viewed from\neither extremity appear to be what would be popularly described as in line. It is consequently\nthe simplest.\" It is simply amazing !\nAnother auxiliary is brought to bear in straightening up Portland Canal to accommodate\nthe new boundary, namely, the medial line. Respecting it the report says : \" Probably as\nstrict a practical definition of a medial line suitable to the case under discussion is that it shall'\nbe a line so placed between the opposite canal boundaries that lines intersecting it at right\nangles, and limited by the opposite boundaries, shall be bisected by it. The characteristic of\nsuch a line is that were a vessel moving along it the boundaries of the canal would be equidistant on the vessel's beams. Yet the definition fails to satisfy the problem under the\ncircumstances of sudden or angular change of direction, or of breadth in the canal, and\nrequires to be supplemented by the following: \" Where the application of the foregoing\ndefinition fails to give a continuous line, a conventional medial line shall be agreed upon, so\nas to connect the adjacent extremities of the interrupted lines described in accordance with\nthe definition.\"\nOn the principle that you must \" catch your hare before you can cook it,\" it is probable\nthat the application of both the great circle and the medial line may be quite unnecessary, for\nboth banks of Portland Canal were and yet are of importance to Great Britain, therefore she\ndid not relinquish them at the suggestion of the Russian plenipotentiaries; nor is it at all\nlikely that the suggestion of 1885-6 will be any more successful.\nIt may be all very well for Colonel Cameron to stand on Cape Chacon, as if hypnotised\nby Mr. Bayard and throw? the \" boomerang\" east to Portland Canal; but the wonderful\nmissile will circle around by the 56th degree, until it returns of its own accord and falls\nharmlessly behind the operator at Cape Muzon. The treaty boundary will not be affected in\nthe least, as it goes north (from south to north), along Clarence Strait and Ernest Sound\n(called Portland Channel in the treaty), until it reaches the continent at 56 degrees, as outlined by Sir Charles Bagot and confirmed by the Right Hon. George Canning.\nAlexander Begg.\nvictoria, b. c :\nPrinted by Richard Wolfenden, Printer to the King's Most Excellent Majesty.\n1902."@en . "Legislative proceedings"@en . "J110.L5 S7"@en . "1902_53_1377_1402"@en . "10.14288/1.0064155"@en . "English"@en . "Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library"@en . "Victoria, BC : Government Printer"@en . "Images provided for research and reference use only. For permission to publish, copy or otherwise distribute these images please contact the Legislative Library of British Columbia"@en . "Original Format: Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. Library. Sessional Papers of the Province of British Columbia"@en . "STATEMENT OF FACTS REGARDING THE ALASKA BOUNDARY QUESTION, COMPILED FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA BY ALEXANDER BEGG."@en . "Text"@en . ""@en .