• Ymn«¥MiiviEi&sinrY-

Gift of
190H

cv^^^JL^Jx. ^w^u^vu.

y?

0 3

BOUNDARY BETWEEN THE DOMINION OF CANADA
AND THE TERRITORY OF ALASKA.

CASE

PRESENTED ON THE PART OE THE

GOVERNMENT OP HIS BRITANNIC MAJESTY
T.O. THE
TRIBUNAL CONSTITUTED UNDER ARTICLE I OF THE
CONVENTION
SIGNED AT WASHINGTON, JANUAIiY 24, 1903,
BETWEEN
HIS BRITANNIC MAJESTY AND THE UNITED
STATES OP AMERICA.

LONDON :
PRINTED AT THE FOREIGN OFFICE,
BY HARRISON AND SONS, PRINTERS IN ORDINARY TO HIS MAJESTY
1903.

CONTENTS.

Chapter.

Subject.

Page.

Terms of Convention ...

1

Introduction ...

5

I

The Negotiations on Boundary Question (1821-25), and the
Treaty of 1825 . ...

14

II

Diplomatic Action since 1825

28

III

Character of Topography

43

IV

The Questions to be Answered ...

45

V

Acts subsequent to the Treaty ...

84

VI

Cartography ...

100

Cr 2 . o/i

BOUNDARY BETWEEN TBE DOMINION OF CANADA
AND THE TERRITORY OF ALASKA.

CASE

PRESENTED ON THE PART OE THE GOVERNMENT OE HIS BRITANNIC
MAJESTY TO THE TRIBUNAL CONSTITUTED UNDER ARTICLE I
OE THE CONVENTION SIGNED AT WASHINGTON ON THE 24th
DAY OE JANUARY, 1903, BETWEEN HIS BRITANNIC MAJESTY
AND THE UNITED STATES OE AMERICA.

Convention, 24th January, 1903. ON the 24th day of January, 1903, a Con
vention was concluded between Great Britain
and the United States of America in order to
provide for a friendly and final adjustment of
the differences which exist between them in
respect to the true meaning and application of
certain clauses of the Convention between Great
Britain and Russia, signed under date of the
28th (16th) Eebruary, a.d. 1825, which clauses
relate to the dehmitation of the boundary-line
between the territory of Alaska, now a possession
of the United States, and the British possessions
in North America.
Article I of the Convention provides that the
Tribunal shall consist of six impartial jurists
of repute, who shall consider judicially the
questions submitted to them.
The other principal Articles of the Convention
are the following : —
"Article III. It is agreed by the High Con
tracting Parties that the Tribunal shaU consider,
in the settlement of the questions submitted to
its decision, the Treaties respectively concluded
between His Britannic Majesty and the Emperor
of All the Russias under date of the 28th (16th)
Eebruary, a.d. 1825, and between the United
States of America and the Emperor of AU the
Russias, concluded under date of the 18th (30th)
March, a.d. 1867, and particularly the Articles
[541] B 2

Ill, IV, and V of the first-mentioned Treaty,
which in the original text are, word for word,
as follows :—
" ' III. Laligne de demarcation entre les possessions des
Hautes Parties Contractantes sur la cote du Continent et
les lies de l'Amerique Nord-ouest sera tracee ainsi qu'il
suit : —
"'A partir du point le plus meridional de Tile dite
Prince of Wales, lequel point se trouve sous la parallele du
54° 40' de latitude nord, et entre le 131e et le 133e degre
de longitude ouest (meridien de Greenwich), la dite ligne
remontera au nord le long de la passe dite Portland Channel,
jusqu'au point de la terre ferme ou elle atteint le 56e degre
latitude nord ; de ce dernier point la ligne de demarca
tion suivra la crete des montagnes situees parallelement a
la cote, jusqu'au point d'intersection du 141e degre de
longitude ouest (me"me meridien) ; et, finalement, du dit
point d'intersection, la meme ligne meridienne du 141e
degre formera, dans son prolongement jusqu'a la Mer
G-laciale, la limite entre les possessions Russes et Britan-
niques sur le Continent de TAmerique Nord-ouest.
" ' IV. II est entendu, par rapport a la ligne de demarca
tion determinee dans T Article precedent —
" ' 1. Que Tile dite Prince of Wales appartiendra toute
entiere a la Russie ;
" ' 2. Que partout ou la crete des montagnes qui s'etendent
dans une direction parallele a la c6te depuis le 56e degre"
de latitude nord au point d'intersection du 141e degre de
longitude ouest se trouverait a la distance de plus de
10 lieues marines de l'Ocean, la limite entre les possessions
Britanniques et la lisiere de c&te mentionnee ci-dessus
comme devant appartenir a la Russie sera formee par une
ligne parallele aux sinuosites de la cote, et qui ne pourra
jamais en etre eloignee que de 10 lieues marines.
" ' V. II est convenu, en outre, que nul etablissement
ne sera forme par l'une des deux Parties dans les hmites
que les deux Articles precedents assignent aux possessions
de l'autre. En consequence, les sujets Britanniques ne
formeront aucun etablissement soit sur la cote, soit sur la
lisiere de terre ferme comprise dans les limites des posses
sions Russes, telles qu'elles sont designees dans les deux
Articles precedents ; et, de meme, nul etablissement ne sera
forme par des sujets Russes au dela des dites limites.'
" The Tribunal shall also take into consideration
any action of the several Governments or of
their respective Representatives, preliminary or
subsequent to the conclusion of said Treaties, so
far as the same tends to show the original and
effective understanding of the Parties in respect
to the limits of their several territorial jurisdic
tions under and by virtue of the provisions of
said Treaties.

Questions. "Article IV. Referring to Articles III, IV,
~ and V of the said Treaty of 1825, the said
Tribunal shall answer and decide the following
questions : —
"1. What is intended as the point of com
mencement of the line ?
" 2. "What channel is the Portland Channel ?
" 3. What course should the line take from the
point of commencement to the entrance to
Portland Channel ?
" 4. To what point on the 56th parallel is the
line to be drawn from the head of the Portland
Channel, and what course should it follow be
tween these points ?
"5. In extending the line of demarcation north
ward from said point on the parallel of the
56th degree of north latitude, following the
crest of the mountains situated parallel to the
coast until its intersection with the 1 41st degree
of longitude west of Greenwich, subject to the
condition that if- such line should anywhere
exceed the distance of 10 marine leagues from the
Ocean then the boundary between the British and
the Russian territory should be formed by a line
parallel to the sinuosities of the coast and distant
therefrom not more than 10 marine leagues, was
it the intention and meaning of said Convention
of 1825 that there should remain in the exclusive
possession of Russia a continuous fringe, or strip,
of coast on the mainland, not exceeding 10 marine
leagues in width, separating the British posses
sions from the bays, ports, inlets, havens, and
waters of the Ocean, and extending from the said
point on the 56th degree of latitude north to a
point where such line of demarcation should
intersect the 141st degree of longitude west of
the meridian of Greenwich ?
" 6. If the foregoing question should be
answered in the negative, and in the event of the
summit of such mountains proving to be in places
more than lOmarine leagues from the coast, should
the width of the lisiere, which was to belong to
Russia, be measured (1) from the mainland
coast of the ocean, strictly so-called, along a
line perpendicular thereto, or (2) was it the
intention and meaning of the said Convention
that where the mainland coast is indented by
deep inlets forming part of the territorial waters
of Russia, the width of the lisiere was to be
measured (a) from the Hne of the general

4
direction of the mainland coast, or (b) from
the line separating the waters of the Ocean
from the territorial waters of Russia, or (c) from
the heads of the aforesaid inlets ?
" 7. What, if any exist, are the mountains
referred to as situated parallel to the coast,
which mountains, when within 10 marine
leagues from the coast, are declared to form the
eastern boundary ? "
The Convention was ratified on the 3rd March,
1903. The full text of the Convention is set out in App. I, p. l.
the Appendix to this Case.
The accompanying Case, together with the
documents, official correspondence, maps, and
other evidence, on which the Government of
Great Britain relies, contained in Appendices I,
II, and III to the Case, is deHvered pursuant to
Article II of the Convention.

INTRODUCTION.

Treaty of 1825.
App. I, p. 37.
Treaty of 1867. lb., p. 136.

Province of British Columbia.

Yukon Territory.

The Convention between Great Britain and
Russia to be interpreted by the Tribunal was
concluded on the 16th (28th) Eebruary, 1825.
By a Treaty between the United States and
Russia concluded on the 18th (30th) March,
1867, Russia ceded to the United States all the
territory and dominion then possessed by her on
the Continent of America and in the adjacent
islands within geographical limits therein
described. In fixing the eastern limits the line
of demarcation between the Russian and the
British possessions in North America, as estab
lished by the Convention between Russia and
Great Britain of the 16th (28th) Eebruary, 1825,
and as described in Articles III and IV of that
Convention, was adopted word for word. An
interpretation of the Treaty which wUl fix the
line of demarcation between the British and
Russian possessions in North America, as it was
laid down in the Treaty of 1825, will delimit the
boundary- line between those territories adopted by
the Treaty of 1867, and as it continues to be at
the present time.
On the cession of the territory to the United
States, the name " Alaska " was substituted fo
" Russian America.''
Throughout almost its entire length, that is
to say, up to latitude 60°, the disputed territory
adjoins the Province of British Columbia
on its westward side. The boundaries of this
portion of the British possessions in America
were fixed by an Imperial Act of 1863, which
specifies the western boundary to be the Pacific
Ocean and the frontier of the Russian territories
in North America, the north to be the 60th
parallel of latitude, the east the 120th meridian
of west longitude and the summit of the Rocky
Mountains. The remaining portion in dispute adjoins the
Yukon territory, and includes the easterly
boundary of the coast strip from the vicinity of
Yakutat Bay to the 141st meridian.

6
British Columbia did not enter the Canadian
Confederation until July 20th, 1871, when its
territory became a part of the Dominion of
Canada. The Yukon territory was created by an Act
of the Eederal Parliament June 13th, 1898, out
of territory added to Canada on June 23rd, 1870.
Only a portion of the international boundary Portion of Line in Dispute.
is in dispute.
With that part beginning at or near Demarca
tion Point on the Arctic Ocean at longitude
141° west, and following that meridian south
wards a distance of about 450 marine miles
until it strikes the summit of the mountains
near Mount St. Elias — which is just within
Canadian territory — the present enquiry has
nothing to do. Por that distance the boundary
is a purely geodetic one, and a meridian, of
longitude can be ascertained with scientific
precision. The disputed part of the boundary-line is that
which runs from the 141st meridian to the
commencement of the line according to the
Treaty, at the southernmost point of Prince of
Wales Island. It may be said to be, roughly
speaking, about 550 marine miles in length.
Inasmuch as in the Treaty the line is described
commencing from the south, that order will, as a
matter of convenience, be observed in this Case.
The general geographical character of the
territory in dispute will be appreciated by look
ing at the map No. 37 in the Atlas, which wHl App. II, Atlas
also show the lines drawn in accordance with
varying interpretations of the Treaty.
HISTORICAL.
I. — Maritime Discoveries, 1741-1821.
The history of the various voyages of discovery # I. Maritime Discoveries, 1741-1821.
in the Northern Pacific and Behring Sea forms 
a considerable literature by itself. During the
negotiations resulting in the Treaty between
Great Britain and Russia in 1825, and after
wards, in the course of the presentation of the
Behring Sea Case under the Treaty of the
29th Eebruary, 1892, an exhaustive examination
was made of all sources of information under
this head, but for present purposes a short sum
mary is deemed sufficient.
The part of the New World washed by the
North Pacific Ocean was discovered much later

Russian Discoveries.

Bancroft, " History of
Alaska," Ed. 1886, p. 37.*

Russian dis
coveries by Coxe,
passim.

Hudson's Bay
Company to Mr.
George Canning,
25th September,
1822, inclosure,
see No. 13 in
App. I, pp. 24-28.

Extract from a
letter from Mr.
Middleton to Mr.
Adams, 1st (13th)
December, 1823,
note (d) to in
closed Confidential
Memorandum,
American State
Papers, Foreign
Relations, vol. v,
pp. 449-455.

Alaska, p. 141.
lb., pp. 157, 158.

lb., p. 174.

than any other part of the North American torrid
and temperate zones. The evident reason for this
is its greater remoteness from Europe and the
fact that it could only be reached by doubling
Cape Horn or the Cape of Good Hope.
The Russians had crossed Siberia and reached
Kamtschatka in 1697. In 1728-29 Behring
practically proved the separation of the con
tinent as high as 67° on the coast of Asia. In
the following year, according to Coxe, he made
another attempt to reach land to the east, but,
after sailing 50 leagues from the Asiatic coast
without seeing anything, returned to Okhotsk
and afterwards to St. Petersburgh. Nothing
more was done until 1741. In June of that
year two vessels set sail, the one commanded by
Behring, the other by his lieutenant Tchirikoff.
According to Muller, the historian of the expedi
tion, Behring came in sight of land in 58° 28'
north latitude, and Tchirikoff in latitude 56°.
Behring did not reach the mainland, but sent
a boat on shore for water on a large island.
He named Cape St. Elias, at the southern end
of Kayak Island, but did not land or take
possession. It is not clear that Behring ever
reached the mainland. Tchirikoff, according to
Muller, reached the mainland in 56°, and sent
ten men in a boat for water. As they never
returned they were probably massacred. Six
more sent after them never came back to the
ship, and probably met the same fate. On the
27th July Tchirikoff returned to Kamtschatka.
As Muller in his map shows no islands on the
coast where Tchirikoff landed, it is believed that
he landed on one of the large islands and mis
took it for the mainland. A number of Russian
voyages are outlined by the historian Coxe,
extending from 1741 to 1748, to the Aleutian
Islands, Eox Islands, Andreanorski Islands, and
other territories comprehended in the Alaskan
peninsula and islands to the north. In 1763,
Glottof, on a trading voyage, reached Kadiak
Island. In 1764 to 1768, Synd, a Heutenant of
the Russian navy, made an expedition along the
coast to Behring Strait. Erom this time to the
visit of Captain Cook, according to Bancroft,
single traders and smaU companies continued to
traffic with the islands in much the same manner
as before.

* Referred to hereafter as " Alaska."

[541]

C

8
Upon these discoveries Russia based in part
her claims to maritime and territorial jurisdiction
over the northern part of the Pacific Ocean and
the north-west coast of America, which will be
referred to hereafter. Her later discoveries were
along the tracks of Cook and other modern
navigators. The Spanish Government sent three exploring Spanish Discoveries.
expeditions along the west coast of North A|aska 194_ ~ 1774-1779
America between 1774 and 1779. These expedi- 197; 211-221.
tions visited certain points on the west coast, up
to the 60th degree of latitude.
In 1786, La Perouse, on his voyages round the French Discoveries.
world, under instructions from the Erench Govern- Ib 255. 1786
ment, first made the mainland of North America
near Mount St. Elias. Thence he sailed eastward
and southward, following the outer shores of the
Alaskan and British Columbia Archipelagos to the
coast of California.
United States' vessels first traded on the north- American Traders.
west coast in 1788. „ x, J ~~~~  „
North-west coast, 1788.
vol. i, p. 185.
No survey of the north-western coast was British Explorations and Surveys.
made until 1778, when Captain Cook, who had 
been sent out by the English Government, the Pacific Ocean,
reached the American coast. Cook explored the j77h_178i784
north-west coast from about 44° north latitude
as far as Prince William Sound and Cook's Inlet,
and took possession of the coast territory. He
was the first to lay down the main outlines of the
north-western part of the continent. His surveys
were until very recently considered in some parts
the most reliable in existence. They did not,
however, extend inside the islands.
Captain Cook's expedition was followed by North-west coast, 1785
those of Captain James Hanna in 1785, Captain sauer's^JIount74"
Peters in the same year, Portlock and Dixon in of Billing's ex-
1786, Meares in 1787, 1788, and 1789, and ffijpp. Sftl. 1786-1789
Vancouver in 1792-94. "A Voyage 1792-1794!
Around the
World," &c,
London, 1789.
Post-Captain George Vancouver, R.N., had Vancouver's Voyages.
been instructed by the British Admiralty in
1791 to make an exploration of the north-west
coast of America, between latitudes 30° and 60°
north, to acquire accurate information as to
whether there was any water communication
from the north-west coast towards the eastern
coast of North America ; to ascertain the number,
extent, and situation of European settlements on
said north-west coast ; and, further, to visit

9
Nootka (on the west coast of Vancouver Island)
and receive from the Spanish Commandant there
restitution of the lands and buildings the pro
perty of British subjects which had been seized
by the Spaniards in 1789, but which Spain, by
Convention of 28th October, 1790, had agreed to
restore. He set out from England in 1791, and, in
accordance with his instructions, wintered at the
Sandwich Islands in the winter of 1791-92.
In the spring of 1792 he crossed to the
continental coast, and examined northward, that
year, as far as Eitz Hugh Sound, returning to the
Sandwich Islands again for the winter.
1793. Early in 1793 he sailed again to the west
coast of America, reaching it near Cape Men
docino. He then proceeded north to Nootka,
and thence went to Eitz Hugh Sound, where he
resumed his examination of the continental
shore. His explorations thence forward for
some time referred to the southern portion of
the territory in dispute. They are of the utmost
importance for the determination of the true
construction of the Treaty, and a detailed exami
nation of this survey will be found in a later
portion of the Case.
The examination of the northern portion of
the territory now in dispute was made on his
return to the coast in July, 1794.
This completed Vancouver's survey of the
north-west coast and adjacent archipelago. He
then returned to Nootka, thence to the Sandwich
Islands, and thence to England, via Cape of
Good Hope, reaching home in September, 1795.
Captain Vancouver died in May, 1798, before
his " Voyages " appeared. In the course of the
same year, however, they were published in
London by his brother, who explained in a note
that Captain Vancouver himself had revised the
whole up to p. 408 of the third volume. The
portion thus revised covers the whole of his geo
graphical discoveries on the coast of America.
App. 11.^ Maps With this edition was published a volume of
charts, three of which, relating to the portion of
the coast now in question, are reproduced in the
Atlas accompanying this Case.
A Erench translation of Vancouver's "Voyages"
was pubHshed in Paris in 1801, and in the same
year a second EngHsh edition appeared in London.
No survey of that part of the continental
coast material to the present question, except
[541] C 2

Nos 1,2,3.

10
Vancouver's, was made before 1825, nor, indeed,
for a long time afterwards. After the publica
tion of his " Voyages," with their accompanying
volume of charts, several maps of this region App. II, Atlas,
were published, namely, a Russian map in 1802, {^mdlQ. ' '
Langdorff's (1803-1805), Arrowsmith's (1822),
Arrowsmith's (1824), Eaden's (1823). These are
reproduced in the Atlas. All follow Vancouver's
charting. It is practically certain that the negotiators of
the Convention of 1825 had Vancouver's maps
before them, because they not only adopt the
latitudes and longitudes assigned by him to the
various points referred to, but also his nomen
clature. A reference to the names used in the
diplomatic correspondence — Mount St. Elias,
Cross Sound, Lynn Channel or Harbour, Chatham
Strait, Norfolk Sound, Cook's Inlet, Admiralty
Island, Novo - Archangelsk and Sitka, King
George's Archipelago, King George's Island,
Stephen's Passage, Duke of York's Island, Duke
of Clarence's Strait or Sound, Prince of Wales's
Island, Portland Channel or Canal, Observatory
Inlet — will show that Vancouver's charts were
used. It is to be observed that Vancouver did not
attempt any exploration or survey on land;
nor had any one else attempted it before 1825.
Vancouver's charts do not even show the exis
tence of rivers ; his surveys stopped at the
beach. Vancouver published in his atlas a chart of
the southern part of the region now under con
sideration, and another of the northern part.
On the former is shown an interior continuous
range of mountains, and smaller mountains
closely following the shore lines. The inter
vening space is entirely covered by a conven
tional (and very regular) representation of
mountains, less heavily shaded.
On the chart of the northern part the interior Differences in Mountains on Vancouver'*
range is also shown boldly, but less elaborately, Charts.
than on the other chart. The shore range is
entirely absent, and in the intervening space the
mountains are very lightly dotted in.
These differences between the charts are such
that they at once strike the eye, and cannot
escape notice.
A few miles of the mainland, with the interior
range, is shown on both of the charts. This
range on one of them is not more than 2 or 3

11

miles back from the head of Houghton Bay.
On the other it is about 20 miles.
Vancouver has also a chart showing the whole
coast on a smaller scale than the other two.
This differs considerably from both the others.
The shore range is considerably emphasized, so as
to equal, or nearly so, the interior range.
The representation of mountains on Van
couver's charts was, therefore, purely conven
tional. They are differently depicted by him on
his own several charts, and also by the map-
makers who followed him. In no case could
it have been supposed by any one in 1825 that
these representations of mountains accorded with
ascertained geographical features.

II. Settlements on the islands and mainland
previous to 1825.

RUSSIAN.

1778.

1783.

1786.

1788.

1790.

Cook, Voyage to
the Pacific Ocean,
1776-1780,London, 1874.

Alaska, p. 186.

lb., p. 191.
lb., p. 224.

A Voyage round
the World, &c,
London, 1789.
Meares' Voyages,
1790. See also
" Annual
Register," 1790,
vol. xxxii, p. 287.

Alaska, pp. 270-
272.

lb., p. 285.

HISTORICAL.
II. Settlements on the Islands and
Mainland to 1825.
In 1778, at Cook's Inlet, Captain Cook found
evidences of Russian trade, but no Russians. At
Unalaska, one of the Aleutian Islands, he again
heard of the Russians, and on a second visit met
Russian traders.
In 1783 the first attempt was made, following
Cook's discoveries, to establish a Russian trading
post on the American mainland at Prince
William Sound. It ended disastrously.
Eor some years after this, only one small vessel
was dispatched from Siberia for trading pur
poses; but in 1784 Shelikof visited Unalaska,
and reached Kadiak Island, intending to effect a
permanent settlement there.
Portlock and Dixon, in 1786, visited Cook's
Inlet and found a party of Russians encamped
there, but no fixed establishment.
Meares in the same year met Russians and
natives at Amlia Island, one of the Aleutian
chain. He proceeded eastward along the
Aleutians, and was piloted by a Russian into
Unalaska. The only Russian establishments
were underground huts of the native pattern.
In 1788 a Spanish expedition found a Russian
colony at Three Saints, on Kadiak Island, but
there were no Russians at Prince William Sound.
Three Saints was the easternmost point which up
to that time had a permanent Russian Settlement.
In 1790, Russia and Sweden being at war, a
Swedish cruiser visited the Aleutian Islands, but

12
found no Government establishment, and no
Russians except traders " in abject poverty."
In 1794 Vancouver ascertained the eastern- Vancouver's 1794.
most Russian Settlement at that time to be at LondonS'l798
Port Etches in Prince William Sound. He vol. iii, p. 199.
"clearly understood that the Russian Govern
ment had little to do with these Settlements ;
that they were solely under the direction of
independent mercantile Companies."
In 1799 the " Caroline," Captain Cleveland, 1799.
from Boston, arrived at Sitka shortly after a
Russian post had been established there.
Of the enterprises of Baranoff, Governor of 1798-1801.
Sitka, Bancroft says : —
" At every point eastward of Kadiak where he had Alaska, p. 384.
endeavoured to open trade he had found himself forestalled
by English and American ships, which had raised the
prices of skins almost beyond his limited means."
Even up to the 28th (16th) Eebruary, 1825, Hudson's Bay
no Russian Settlement had been formed on the GeorgTca^nbg
continent or in the vicinity of the strip in 25th September,
dispute. This was pointed out on the part of App.I, p. 24.
Great Britain at the beginning of the nego- The Duke of
tiations in 1823, and insisted on ever afterwards. Ml? GkCanninff
At no time was this contention controverted by 28tn November,
Russia, and towards the close of the negotiations Memorandum
its truth was frankly admitted. *? Counti
" Nesselrode of
The relation of the British fur traders and the 17th October,
Hudson's Bay Company towards the disputed j^22' 29
strip were, however, of a most intimate character, Count Nesselrode
as shown by the various letters of J. H. Pelly, mhTpril/lsl^
Deputy Governor of the Company, to Mr. lb-> P- 75-
Canning and others. The following extracts are 
made from a letter by Mr. Pelly to Mr. George Settlement of the Hudson's Bay Company.
Canning, the 25th September, 1822 :— gudson BtoMr
George Canning,
" In the year 1793, Sir Alexander McKenzie crossed the 25ta September,
1 822
Rocky Mountains in 56° 30' north latitude, and penetrated App 'i p 24
to the Pacific Ocean in latitude 52° 20'. Immediately
after his return the British fur traders sent expeditions
and established trading posts in the country to the west
ward of the Rocky Mountains. New trading stations
have been gradually formed as the country was more
fully explored, and until 1821 the whole trade of an
extensive district named New Caledonia, and extending
from the mouth of Eraser's River, situated about 49° north
latitude to about 60° north latitude, was carried on by the
British North-west Company.
"The partnership of the British North-west Company
being then about to expire, arrangements were made in
1821 by which the Hudson's Bay Company acquired
possession of all the forts and trading stations of that

13

Association situated in New Caledonia, as well as in other
parts of British North America.
" The principal forts, or permanent and centrical trading
stations in New Caledonia, now occupied by the traders
and servants of this Company, are situated at the Rocky
Mountain Portage in 56° north latitude and 121° west
longitude ; on Stewart's Lake, in 54° 30' north latitude and
125° west longitude ; on McLeod's Lake, in 55° north
latitude and 124° west longitude, and on Fraser's Lake, in
55° north latitude and about 127° west longitude ; and
there are several minor trading posts, the situations of
which are occasionally changed according to local circum
stances. By these means an extensive trade is carried on
with all those Indian tribes which inhabit the country
from about 60° north latitude as far south as the mouth
of Eraser's River, which is in about 49° north latitude,
and between the Rocky Mountains and the sea.
" The British fur traders have never met with the
traders of any other nation in that country, and it does
not appear that any part of it has ever been occupied by
the subjects of Russia or of any other foreign Power 
" This Company has trading establishments also in
Mackenzie's River, which falls into the Erozen Ocean as far
north as 66° 30' north latitude, which carry on a trade
with those Indians who inhabit the country to the west of
that river and to the north of 60° of north latitude, and
who, from the nature of the country, can communicate
more easily with Mackenzie's River than with the trading.
posts in New Caledonia."

14

CHAPTER I.

THE NEGOTIATIONS ON BOUNDARY
QUESTION (1821-25) AND THE TREATY
OE 1825. Ukase of 4th September, 1821.
On the 4th September, 1821, the Emperor of App. I, p. 7.
Russia published an Ukase, expressed to be for
the protection of Russian trade with the Aleutian
Islands and the part of the north-west coast of
America subject to Russia. Certain rules were
annexed to the Ukase, of which the first two
were as follows : —
" 1. The pursuits of commerce, whaling, and fishery,
and of all other industry on all islands, posts, and gulfs,
including the whole of the north-west coast of America
beginning from Behring's Straits to the 51° of northern
latitude, also from the Aleutian Islands to the eastern
coast of Siberia, as well as along the Kurile Islands, from
Behring's Straits to the south cape of the Island of Urup,
viz., to the 45° 50' north latitude, is exclusively granted
to Russian subjects.
" 2. It is therefore prohibited to all foreign vessels, not
only to land on the coasts and islands belonging to Russia,
as stated above, but, also to approach them within less
than 100 Italian miles. The transgressors' vessel is
subject to confiscation along with the whole cargo."
By a previous Ukase, published the 27th The Ukase of 27th December, 1799.
December, 1799, the Emperor Paul had created
the Russian- American Company, and had granted
to it extensive privileges in this region. It was lb., p. 5.
this Company that would reap the benefit sought
to be conferred on Russian subjects by the Ukase The Russian- American Company
of 1821.
The Ukase of 1821 was communicated by
Baron Nicolay to the Marquess of Londonderry
by a despatch of the 12th November, 1821, in lb , p. 14.
answer to which Lord Londonderry, writing on
the 18th January, 1822, stated that as to the lb., p. 20.
exclusive sovereignty alleged to belong to Russia
over the territories described in the Ukase, as
also the exclusive right of navigating and trading
within the maritime limits therein set forth,
His Britannic Majesty must be understood as
reserving all his rights. The United States also
protested. In the course of the discussions which arose
out of the Russian pretensions, that Power

15

Behring Sea
Award, " United
States
No. 10(1893)"
C. 7107.

App. I, p. 24.

receded from the claim to exclusive dominion
upon the seas in question. That part of the
controversy is not now material. Suffice it to
say that it was ultimately set at rest by the
Award of the Arbitral Tribunal created by a
Treaty between Great Britain and the United
States, signed at Washington on the 29th
Eebruary, 1892, to settle the differences which
had arisen between these two Powers respecting
the seal fishery in Behring Sea.
As regards the territorial boundary on land,
the negotiations for a settlement originated in a
suggestion made by Count Lieven to the Duke
of Wellington in September, 1822, and recorded
by the Duke in a Memorandum of the 16th of
that month. On this occasion Count Lieven
suggested that if Great Britain had any claim lo
territory on the north-west coast of America,
such claim should now be brought forward.
These negotiations, which will be summarized
below, resulted in the Treaty of 1825, the con
struction of which is now in question.

The Main Points in Difference.

Atlas, App. II.
Map No. 37.

It will be convenient, before going into detail,
to indicate broadly the points now in difference
between the parties before this Tribunal.
In the accompanying Atlas will be found a
map showing the different lines which have
been suggested as giving effect to the Treaty
appHed to the topography as now understood.
Erom this it will be observed that at the southern
end of the line there is a dispute as to the channel
along which the boundary ought to be drawn, in
obedience to the provision which requires that it
should follow "la passe dite Portland Channel."
On the side of Great Britain it is contended
that Portland Channel means the channel which
Vancouver can be shown to have so named, that
is to say, the narrow channel north of Wales
Island and Pearse Island, and extending into the
interior for 82 miles.
The United States, on the other hand, maintain
that the wider channel to the south of these
islands must be taken to be denoted as the com
mencement of the channel referred to by the
expression " la passe dite Portland Channel," the
identity of which, so far as its upper part is
concerned, is not in dispute.
Great Britain, however, further contends that
if there is to be any departure from the clear
nomenclature of Vancouver, there are, as wHl be
hereafter explained, other channels up which the
[541] D

16
line should be drawn in preference to that sug
gested by the United States.
With regard to the rest of the line, the dispute
is of a somewhat different character. According App. I, p. 37.
to Article III of the Treaty, the line is to follow
the crest of the mountains situated " parallele
ment a la c6te " to the point of its intersection
with the 141st degree of west longitude. By
Article IV it is provided that wherever the crest
of these mountains is at a distance of more than
10 marine leagues from the ocean, the limit
between 'British possessions and the lisiere of
coast which is to belong to Russia shall be
formed by a line parallel to the coast, and which
shall never be more distant therefrom than 10
marine leagues.
It is to be observed that the provision in
Article IV, just mentioned, operates only in a
given event, and then only as a corrective of the
line primarily laid down, namely, that of the
mountains. The event in which it is to operate
is if the crest of the mountains, which extend in
a direction parallel to the coast, is at a distance
of more than 10 leagues from the ocean. It will
be seen from the map already referred to, and
more in detail from the large maps inclosed in the
portfolio which accompanies this Case, that, in ^pp- III.
¦ jl £ £ j. xi it i. ¦ ¦ i_ i Portfolio, British
point ot tact, the whole coast region is extremely Commission Map=
mountainous, and that the mountains supply,
speaking generally, the boundary stipulated for
by the Treaty.
It is contended on behalf of Great Britain
that the coast (" c6te") with regard to which the
mountains are contemplated as running in a
parallel direction is the general line of coast of
the Ocean (referred to in Article IV), and not the
shore line of narrow inlets breaking that line ;
and, further, that the expression " montagnes
situees parallelement a, la c6te" and "montagnes
qui s'^tendent dans une direction parallele a la
c6te" do not necessarily denote mountain chains,
but include the case of separate mountains in the
vicinity of the coast, a line drawn through the
summits of which would, roughly speaking, be
parallel to the general line of the coast.
The contention of the United States, on the
other hand, is that there is no defined range of
mountains running parallel to the coast in this
region, but that the whole region is a " sea of
mountains,'' and that, therefore, the provisions of
Article IV become applicable, and that the
boundary is to follow, at a distance of 10 marine

17
leagues, and, even through this sea of mountains,
the sinuosities of the coast. The latter phrase
is, moreover, interpreted as requiring the Hne to
be deflected inland on the occurrence of every
inlet, so that it shall in no place be less than 10
marine leagues from salt water.
The above, in broad outline, are the matters in
difference, though a subordinate point may arise
as to the manner in which the termination of the
water boundary at the head of the' Portland
Channel is to be connected with the point at which
the boundary commences to run by reference to
the mountains, or the 10-marine-league limit, as
the case may be.
Negotiations at Verona. A statement of the British territorial claims
App. I, p. 28. having been invited as already mentioned,
written instructions were, on the 27th Sep
tember, 1822, given by Mr. Canning to the
Duke of Wellington for his guidance in con
nection with this question in any discussion
which he might have upon the subject with
Count Lieven at Verona. These instructions
were of a general character, and merely stated
that tbe information with which the Duke had
been furnished would enable him sufficiently
to prove to the Russian Ministers* that Great
Britain, through the Hudson's Bay Company,
had an equal, if not a superior, claim to that
of Russia, and that the British claim extended
to many degrees of higher latitude than the
51st paraHel. The Duke of Wellington had
several discussions with Count Lieven upon the
point, in which the extent to which occupation
had gone on either side was discussed in general
terms ; but it was afterwards agreed, as recorded
in a despatch of the Duke of WeUington to Mr.
lb., p. 32. Canning of the 29th November, 1822, that the
Memoranda recording these discussions should be
considered as "non avenus," and that The
Russian Ambassador in London should address
to Mr. Canning a note in answer to that which
Lord Londonderry had addressed to Count Lieven
on the Ukase of 1821 being communicated to him.
lb., p. 33. Accordingly, on the 31st January, 1823, Count
Lieven wrote to Mr. Canning proposing that on
both sides the question of strict right should
be provisionally put aside, and that all the
differences to which the Ukase had given rise
should be adjusted by a friendly arrangement,
founded only on the principle of mutual con-
[541 " D 2

18
venience, and that such arrangement should be
negotiated at St. Petersburg.
Tn pursuance of this proposal, Mr. Canning, Negotiations at St. Petersburg.
by a despatch of the 5th Eebruary, 1823, desired . i p 34
Sir Charles Bagot, the British Ambassador at
St. Petersburg, to proceed to open the dis
cussion with the Russian Minister upon the
basis of the instructions given to the Duke of
Wellington. Owing, however, to a doubt as to the position
taken by the United States with regard to this
territory, negotiations were not actually com- '
menced till the following year. Sir Charles
Bagot stated verbally to Count Nesselrode in
August 1823, that he beHeved the British pre- it,., p. 45,
tensions bad always extended to the 59th parallel,
but that a line of. demarcation drawn at the 57th
would be quite satisfactory. In two conversa
tions which he had later with M. Poletica, who,
in the absence of Count Nesselrode, was em
powered to represent the Russian Government,
Sir Charles Bagot gave him to understand that
the British Government would be satisfied to take
Cross Sound,, lying about latitude 57 £°, as the lb., p. 48.
boundary between the two Powers on the coast,
and a meridian drawn from the head of Lynn
Canal as the boundary in the interior of the
continent. In reply, Sir Charles Bagot under- Ibid.
stood M. Poletica to suggest the 55th degree as
that which Russia would desire to obtain as her
boundary, and to intimate that it would be with
extreme reluctance that Russia would consent
to any demarcation which would deprive her of
her establishment at Novo-Archangelsk (Sitka).
In January 1824, Sir Charles- Bagot received lb., p. 59.
new instructions to proceed with the negotiations,
and on the 16th Eebruary had his first conference
upon this question with the Russian Plenipoten
tiaries, Count Nesselrode and M. Poletica. He
then proposed as the boundary a line drawn ib., p. 66.
through Chatham Straits to the head of Lynn
Canal, thence north-west to the 140th degree of
longitude, and thence along that degree of
longitude to the Polar Sea.
In reply, the Russian Plenipotentiaries at the ib., p. 69.
next meeting offered a counter-proposal, which
was afterwards, at Sir Charles Bagot's request,
reduced into writing. By this counter-proposal,
the Russian Plenipotentiaries proposed the 55th
degree of north latitude as the line of demarcation
on the north-west coast of America, being the

19
limit which the Emperor Paul had assigned to
the Russian possessions by his Charter to the
Russian-American Company. Eurther, as that
parallel cut Prince of Wales Island in its
southern extremity leaving out of the Russian
dominions two points of land, it was proposed
that these two points should be comprised within
the Russian limit, in order to avoid an incon
venient division. To complete the line and
make it as distinct as possible, the Russian
Plenipotentiaries expressed a desire to make it
follow the Portland Channel as far as the moun
tains which skirt the coast (" jusqu'aux montagnes
qui bordent la c6te"). Erom that point they
suggested that the boundary should run along
those mountains in a direction parallel ("parallele
ment"-) to the sinuosities of the coast as far as
the 139th degree of longitude. It was explained
that the principal motive which forced Russia to
insist on the sovereignty of this fringe (lisere)
on the continent from the Portland Channel
northwards was that without that territory the
Russian-American Company would have no
means of maintaining their establishments, which
would be thenceforth without a " point d'appui,"
and which would have no solidity. In return
Russia offered the free navigation of all rivers
which emptied themselves into the ocean within
that fringe.
There are certain observations which have to
be made upon the terms of this proposal. In the
first place, it is clear that the limit in point of
latitude which Russia was claiming in principle
was the 55th parallel, and that it was only put
further south so far as necessary to include two
promontories on Prince of Wales Island, and to
reach on the mainland a boundary marked by a
channel. In the second place, it is clear that
the island which they understood as Prince of
Wales Island was the large island so marked on
the map, the two southern extremities of which
would be cut off by the 55th parallel of latitude.
In the third place, the extent and the function
assigned to the lisere which Russia desired
to possess, are worthy of note. It was to be a
mere fringe, as a protection and a " point
d'appui." It will be found that this conception
of the lisere was not departed from.
App. I, p. 70. In reply to this counter-proposal, Sir Charles
Bagot delivered an amended proposal in which
he expanded the description which the Russian

20
Plenipotentiaries had given of their proposed
line. He described this line as being traced
from the southern extremity of Prince of Wales
Island to the embouchure of the Portland Canal,
thence by the middle of that canal until it (the
line) touched " la terre ferme," thence to the
mountains which skirt the coast, and so on.
Sir Charles Bagot continued his despatch by
pointing out that the adoption of this line would
deprive His Britannic Majesty of the sovereignty
of all those coves and little bays which lie
between latitudes 56° and 54° 45'. On this
it is to be observed that the embouchure of Port
land Canal as contended for by Great Britain
was ascertained by Vancouver to lie in latitude
54° 45|-'. It is further to be remarked that
Sir Charles Bagot does not appear to have con
sidered that the concession of the boundary
proposed by the Russians would have deprived
the British of all the inlets above the 56th degree
of latitude.
In this amended proposal Sir Charles Bagot App. I, p. 71.
suggested a line, drawn along the middle of the
channel which separates Prince of Wales Island
and what was then known as the Duke of
York's Island from the islands to the north of
t them, until it touched the mainland ; thence m
the same direction 10 marine leagues inland;
thence northerly parallel to the sinuosity of the
coast. In their reply to Sir Charles Bagot's amended
proposal, the Russian Plenipotentiaries re-stated
their reasons for proposing as the boundary
on the coast of the continent to the south ibid.
("sur la cote du continent au sud") the Port
land Canal, the origin of which inland ("dans
les terres") they said was at the 56th degree
of north latitude, and to. the east the chain
of mountains which followed at a very little
distance the sinuosities of the coast. They
observed that this would leave for British ex
pansion (1) all that part of the coast (" de la c6te ")
situated between the embouchure of the Port
land Canal and the 51st parallel, contemplated as
the boundary in the Ukase of 1821 ; and (2) all
the territory situated between the English estab
lishments at the 54th parallel and the origin of
the Portland Canal.
Erom the language held by the Russian
Plenipotentiaries in making this proposal, it is
perfectly clear that they did not regard the

21
coast ("la c6te "), as the word was used by them
in these negotiations as extending up the
waters of Portland Canal. Had they done so,
it would have been impossible to describe the
Portland Canal as the boundary on the coast of
the continent to the south, nor would they have
described their proposals as leaving free to British
expansion all the part of the coast (" toute la partie
de la c6te") which lay between the embouchure
of Portland Canal and the 51st parallel. Nor,
again, would they have described the Portland
Canal as having its origin inland ("dans les
terres").
App. I, p. 72. Sir Charles Bagot did not give way to the
arguments of the Russian negotiators, but re
peated his amended proposal (modified so as to
give Prince of Wales Island to Russia). This
the Russian Plenipotentiaries declined to accept,
repeating that the possession of Prince of Wales
lb., p. 74. Island without a portion of territory on the coast
situated opposite that island (" sur la c6te situee
vis-a-vis de cette lie") would be of no use to
Russia. At this point Sir Charles Bagot suspended the
negotiations, and by a despatch dated the 29th
lb., p. 66. March, 1824, reported to Mr. Canning the com
munications which had taken place. A despatch
lb., p. 75. dated the l7tn April, 1824, was also addressed by
Count Nesselrode to Count Lieven, in which
he summarized and repeated the views he had
pressed upon Sir Charles Bagot. He speaks
of his proposal to make the southern frontier
of the Russian dominions terminate upon the
continent (" aboutir sur le continent ") at Portland
Canal, of which he says " l'embouchure dans
l'Ocean " is in the latitude of Prince of Wales
Island and the origin inland between the 55th and
56th degrees of latitude. Erom his language here
it is again obvious that in his view the shore at
Portland Canal is not " coast " and its waters
are not " ocean."
In the same despatch Count Nesselrode
emphasizes again and again the slender character
of the lisiere which it was desired that Russia
should possess. He describes it as merely " une
etioite lisiere sur la cote meme," " une simple
lisiere du continent," " un mediocre espace de
terre ferme " only required to enable Russia to
make use of — nay, to avoid losing — the neighbour
ing islands (" le moyen de faire valoir — nous dirons
plus, de ne pas perdre — les lies environnantes ").

22
Russia, he says in conclusion, only reserves to
herself a "point d'appui," without which it
would not be possible for her to preserve half her
dominions. The Russian proposals were laid by Mr. Canning
before the Hudson's Bay Company, and on receipt App. I, pp. 78, 80.
of their Report Mr. Canning wrote to Count
Lieven on the 29th May, 1824, announcing that lb., p. 81.
Sir Charles Bagot's discretion would be so far
enlarged as to enable him to admit with some
qualifications the terms last proposed by the
Russian Government. The qualifications would
consist chiefly in a more definite description of
the limit to which the strip of land required by
Russia on the continent was to be restricted, in
the selection of a somewhat more western degree
of longitude, as the boundary to the northward of
Mount Elias, and in precise and positive stipula
tions for the free use of rivers, &c.
On the 12th July, 1824, the instructions pb. p. 85
referred to were sent to Sir Charles Bagot, with
a draft Convention to which he was authorized to
consent. Articles II and III of this draft Con
vention were as follows : —
"ARTICLE II.
" La ligne separative entre les possessions des deux ib., p. 87.
Hautes Parties Contractantes sur le continent et les lies
de l'Amerique du Nord-ouest sera tracee de la maniere
suivante : —
"En commengant des deux points de l'isle dite du
Prince de Galles, qui en torment I'extremitd meridionale,
lesquels points sont situes sous le parallele de 54° 40' et
entre le 131e et le 133e degre de longitude ouest (meridien
de Greenwich), la ligne de la frontiere, entre les posses
sions Britanniques et Russes remontera, au nordj par la
passe dite le Portland Channel jusqu'a ce qu'elle touche a
la cote de la terre ferme situee au 56e degre de latitude
nord. De ce point elle suivra cette cote, parallelement a
ses sinuosites, et sous ou dans la base vers la mer des
montagnes qui la bordent jusqu'au 139e degre de longitude
ouest du dit meridien. Et de la, la susdite ligne meri
dionale du 139e degre de longitude ouest en sa prolongation
jusqu'a la Mer Glaciale formera la limite des possessions
Britanniques et Russes sur le dit Continent de l'Amerique
du Nord-Ouest. "ARTICLE III.
" II est convenu, neanmoins, par rapport aux stipulations
de l'Article precedent —
"1. Que la susdite lisiere de cote sur le Continent de
l'Amerique formant la limite des possessions Russes ne
doit, en aucun cas, s'etendre en largeur depuis la mer vers

23
l'mterieur, au dela de la distance de lieues maritimes
a quelque distance que sejant les susdites montagnes.
" 2. Que les sujets Britanniques navigueront et com-
merceront librement a perpetuite sur la dite lisiere de
cote, et sur celle des iles qui l'avoisinent.
" 3. Que la navigation et le commerce des fleuves du
continent traversant cette lisiere seront libres aux sujets
Britanniques tant a ceux habitant ou frequentant l'interieur
de ce continent qu'a ceux qui aborderont ces parages du
cote de l'Ocean Pacifique."
App. I, p. 85. By the covering despatch it was left to Sir
Charles Bagot to agree to a distance (left blank in
Article III of the draft) to which the breadth of
the Usibre was to be limited, provided that he
was not authorized to agree to a greater distance
than 10 marine leagues. The covering despatch
also shows that this provision was due to the
uncertainty as to the real position of the
mountains which appeared almost to border
the coast.
The Russian Plenipotentiaries delivered a
counter-draft, in which Articles I and II were as
follows : — ¦ "ARTICLE I.
Ib., p. 94. "La ligne de demarcation entre les possessions des deux
Hautes Parties Contractantes sur la cote nord-ouest de
l'Amerique et les iles adjacentes sera tracee ainsi qu'il
suit : —
"A partir des deux points qui forment l'extremite-
meridionale de Pile dite du Prince de Galles, laquelle
appartiendra toute entiere a la Russie, points situes sous
le parallele du 54° 40' de latitude nord et entre les 131e
et 133e degres de longitude ouest (meridien de Greenwich),
la ligne de la frontiere entre les possessions Russes et les
possessions Britanniques remontera au nord par la passe
dite le Portland Channel, jusqu'au point ou cette passe se
termine dans l'interieur de la terre ferme au 56e degre* de
latitude nord. De ce point, elle suivra cette cote parallele
ment a ses sinuosites jusqu'au 139e degre* de longitude ouest
(meme meridien) et de la, la frontiere entre les possessions
respectives sur le Continent Americain sera formee par la
ligne du susdit degre de longitude dans sa prolongation
jusqu'a la Mer Glaciale. "ARTICLE II.
"La lisiere de la cote nord-ouest appartenante k la
Russie depuis le Portland Channel jusqu'au point d'inter
section du 139e degre de longitude ouest (meridien de
Greenwich) n'aura point en largeur sur le continent plus
de 10 lieues marines a partir du bord de la mer."
[541] E

24
It will he noticed that, at the commencement
of the Article, the possessions of the High Con
tracting Parties are described as " on the north
west coast of America and the adjacent islands,"
instead of " on the continent and islands of north
west America," as in Mr. Canning's draft; and in
the body of the Article, Portland Channel is
described as terminating " dans l'interieur de la
terre ferme." It seems clear that, in the whole
course of these negotiations, Count Nesselrode
used the term "c6te" as meaning the general line
of the continent.
The draft Convention above examined was App. I, p. 92.
declined by Sir Charles Bagot.
In the meantime, Mr. Canning's draft had
been submitted to Count Lieven in London, upon
which he suggested that the line would be more
conveniently drawn along the top ("la cime")
than along the base of the mountains. He made
this suggestion in view of the difficulty which
there might be in defining the base of the
mountains and of the possibility, having regard
to the uncertainty of topographical information
with respect to the region in question, that the
mountains named might extend to the very
edge of the coast, The Memorandum in which
Count Lieven embodied this suggestion was
enclosed in a despatch from Mr. Canning to Sir
Charles Bagot of the 24th July, 1824, in which lb., p. 90.
Sir Charles Bagot was instructed to accept the
alteration (if pressed), provided always the
; stipulation as to the maximum width of the
I lisiere was adopted. Before, however, the
despatch reached Sir Charles Bagot the negotia
tions had been suspended by his rejection, as
before mentioned, of the Russian draft Conven
tion. At this juncture, Sir Charles Bagot ceased
to be the British Ambassador at St. Petersburgh,
and Mr. Stratford Canning was named by His
Britannic Majesty as Plenipotentiary to conclude
and sign the Convention desired.
On the Sth December, 1824, Mr. George 13m Fmal Kegdtiations.
Canning addressed a despatch to Mr. Stratford lb., p. 112.
Canning with the necessary instructions for
continuing the negotiations. As regards the
boundary, he drew attention to the fact that in
the draft delivered by the Russian Plenipoten
tiaries to Sir Charles Bagot all reference to the
mountains as a boundary had been suppressed,
and that the 10-league limit which had been
suggested as a corrective only, in view of the ¦

25
uncertainty as to the exact position of the moun
tains, had been adopted as the general rule.
Mr. Stratford Canning was instructed that this
could not be assented to ; but he was empowered,
where the mountains were the boundary, to
accept the summit, and not the seaward base, as
the line of demarcation. A draft "projet" was
inclosed to serve as a guide in drawing up the
Convention. Article III of the draft accordingly submitted
to the Russian Plenipotentiaries ran as folio ws : —
App. I, p 122. " La ligne de demarcation entre les possessions des
Hautes Parties Contractantes situees sur le continent et
les Isles de l'Amerique nord-ouest sera tracee ainsi qu'il
suit : —
" Coinmencant du point le plus meridional de l'lsle dite
Prince of Wales, lequel point se trouve sous le parallele
de 54 degre's 40 minutes, et entre le 131me et le 133me
degrd de longitude ouest (meridien de Greenwich), la dite
ligne remontera au nord (l'lsle Prince of Wales apparten-
ant en entier a la Russie) le long de la passe dite Portland
Channel, jusqu'a ce qu'elle touche a la cote de terre ferme
au 56me degre de latitude Nord ; depuis ce point-ci, ou la
ligne de demarcation touche au 56me degre, elle suivra la
crete des montagnes dans une direction parallele, a la c6te
jusqu'au 141me degre" de longitude Ouest (meme Meridien).
*****
"Pourvu neanmoins, que si la crete des susdites mon
tagnes, dans quelque partie que ce soit, de leur etendue se
trouvera situee a plus de dix lieues maritimes de la Mer
Pacifique, la ligne de demarcation pour cet espace sera
une ligne parallele aux sinuosites de la cote, de maniere
; que la dite ligne de demarcation ne sera en aucune pavtie
a plus de dix lieues de la cote.
" II est, de plus, convenu que nul Etablissement ne sera
forme' par l'une des deux parties dans les limites assignees
par cet Article a l'autre; les sujets Britanniques ne
formeront aucun Etablissement, soit sur la cote, soit sur
la lisiere de terre ferme comprise dans les limites des
possessions Russes, telles qu'elles sont designees par cet
Article ; et, de meme, nul etablissement pareil ne sera
forme par des sujets Russes au dela des dites limites."
The Russian negotiators amended the language
of Mr. Stratford Canning's draft, which, as recast
by them, read as follows : —
"ARTICLE III.
Ib., p. 125. ¦« La ligne de demarcation entre les possessions des
Hautes Parties Contractantes sur le continent et les Isles
de l'Amerique Nord-Ouest sera tracee ainsi qu'il suit : 
" A partir du point le plus meridional de l'lsle dite
Prince of Wales, lequel point se trouve sous la parallele
du 54degres 40 minutes de latitude nord et entre le 131mc
[541] E 2

26
..et -le- 133me degre de longitude ouest . (meridien de
Greenwich), la dite ligne remontera au nord le long de
a.. passe dite Portland Channel jusqu'a l'endroit ou cette
passe se termine dans l'interieur de la terre ferme au 56me
degre de latitude nord— depuis ce dernier point la ligne de
demarcation suivra la crete des montagnes dans une-
direction parallele a la cote, jusqu'au point d'intersection
de .141™ degre de longitude ouest (meme meridien).
"ARTICLE IV.
" II est entendu —
" 1. Que Pile dite Prince of Wales appartiendra tout
entiere a la Russie.
" 2. Que la lisiere de cote mentionnee ci-dessus, qui
doit appartenir a cette meme Puissance et remonter de
la parallele du 56° de latitude nord au point d'inter
section du 141° de longitude ouest, aura pour limites
la crete des montagnes ainsi qu'il a ete dit plus
haut, mais que partout. ou la distance entre la crete des
montagnes et la mer se trouvernit de plus de dix lieues
marines, la limite de cette meme lisiere sera formee par
une ligne parallele aux sinuosites de la cote, et qui ne
pourra jamais s'eloigner de la mer que de dix lieues
marines. " 3. Qu'a partir du point d'intersection du 141e degre
de longitude ouest, la ligne de ce meme degre" formera
dans son prolongement vers la Mer Glaciale la frontiere
'entre les possessions respectives des Hautes Parties Con
tractantes." It is to be observed that the lisiere in this
draft is treated as commencing not at the mouth
of Portland Channel but at the 56th parallel.
On the 1st March Mr. Stratford Canning App. I, p. 13a
wrote that he had signed the Convention. He
described the line of demarcation as laid down
agreeably to Mr. George Canning's directions,
notwithstanding some difficulties raised by the
Russian Plenipotentiaries. The communications
which passed between Mr. Stratford Canning and
the Russian Plenipotentiaries do not seem to
have been recorded further than appears by the
drafts above-mentioned.
On the 13th March Count Nesselrode addressed
a despatch to Count Lieven transmitting the lb., p. isi.
ratification of the Convention concluded with
Mr. Stratford Canning. Count Lieven was
instructed, when exchanging this instrument for
that to be delivered by the British Government,
to observe to Mr. G. Canning that it would, in
the opinion of His Imperial Majesty, have been
more in accordance with the principles of mutual
justice and reciprocal convenience to give as a

27
frontier to the lisiere of coast which Russia was
to possess from the 56th degree of north latitude
to the point of intersection of the 141st meridian
of west longitude the crest of the mountains
which follow the sinuosities of the coast. This
stipulation w-ould have assured to the two Powers
a perfect equality of advantages and a natural
limit. England would have profited wherever
the mountains were less than 10 marine leagues
from the sea, and Russia wherever the distance
separating them from it was greater. It appeared
to Russia, Count Nesselrode said, that in the case
of countries the geography of which was still
little known it wras impossible to propose a more
equitable arrangement.
It is clear from this despatch that it was well
understood that in no event would the boundary
run further from the sea than the summit of the
mountains, that the 10-league limit was inserted
to provide for the contingency that these
summits might be more than 10 leagues inland,
and that the summits were selected instead of
the base as giving the dividing line — to provide
for the contingency that the base might run
down to the sea itself.
App. 1, p. 135. In reporting to Count Nesselrode the exchange
of the ratifications, Count Lieven stated that he
had made a point of observing to the Secretary
of State how rigorous the limitations insisted
on by Great Britain appeared to the Imperial
Government.

28

CHAPTER II.

DIPLOMATIC ACTION SINCE 1825.
During the period for which the country
now known as Alaska remained part of the
Russian dominions — that is to say, till 1867 —
nothing occurred to bring up the question of the
application, upon the spot, of the boundary pre
scribed by the Treaty of 1825, except a difficulty
as to passage up the Stikine River (dealt with
hereafter), which concerned rather the right of
navigation than the location of the boundary.
In 1871 British Columbia was incorporated 1871.
into Canada. No survey of the boundary-line
between that province and Alaska had ever been
made, and the whole region was then unknown
and practically inaccessible. The Dominion
Government, however, at once took steps in the
direction of getting the boundary ascertained.
On the 11th July, 1872, the Lieutenant-Governor 1872.
of British Columbia forwarded to the Dominion App. I, p. 163.
Government the copy of an address to him from
the provincial Legislative Assembly reciting that
the boundary-line between the adjoining terri
tories of Alaska and the Province of British
Columbia had never been properly defined, and
requesting, especially in view of the probable
development of mining operations in the northern
part of that province, that the Dominion Govern
ment should take some action at an early date to
have the boundary properly laid down.
The Dominion Government acceded to this
request in a Report of a Committee of the Privy
Council approved by the Governor- General on the
20th September, 1872. This Report was forwarded lb., p. 163.
to Her Majesty's Government, and Sir Edward
Thornton, British Ambassador at Washington, Negotiations for Delimitation of Boundary,
was instructed to approach the United States' begun November 1872.
Government upon the subject. A despatch
from Sir Edward Thornton to Earl Granville
of the 18th November, 1872, shows that he
had mentioned the matter to Mr. Eish. The lb., p. 164.
result of- this communication was that the
President, in his annual Message to Congress
on the 2nd December, 1872, recommended the

29

Failure of United States' Congress to
provide for Survey.

1873.

App. I, p. 166.

Ib., p. 168.

Mr. Fish suggests Delimitation at River
crossings.

lb., p. 173.

1875.

Major Cameron's Report. Ib., p. 179.

appointment of a Commission " to act jointly
with one that may be appointed on the part of
Great Britain to determine the line between
the territory of Alaska and the co-terminous
possessions of Great Britain." On the 17th
December, 1872, a Bill to provide for the
determination of the boundary-line was laid
before Congress and read a second time. The
proposal, however, fell through on account of
the unwillingness of the United States to incur
the necessary expense.
On the 12th Eebruary, 1873, Mr. Eish
informed Sir Edward Thornton that the cost
of the survey would be about 1,500,000 dollars
for the United States alone, and that it could
not be completed in less than nine years in
the field and one in the office. He suggested
that it would be sufficient to decide upon some
particular point, such as the head of Portland
Canal, the points where the boundary crosses the
Rivers Shoot, Stakeen, Taku, Iselcatt and Chel-
kaht, Mount St. Elias, and the points where the
141st meridian crosses the Rivers Yukon and
Porcupine. Sir Edward Thornton's despatch referring to
Mr. Eish's statement was communicated to the
Canadian Government ; and by a despatch of the
27th November, 1873, the Governor- General re
quested Major Cameron, Her Majesty's Boundary
Commissioner, to furnish an approximate estimate
of the cost and of the time required for carrying
out the objects of any Commission that might
be appointed to determine and define tbe
boundary -line between British Columbia and
Alaska. Major Cameron was supplied with a
copy of Sir Edward Thornton's despatch, and later
with a Memorandum made by Mr. J. S. Dennis,
the Surveyor- General of the Dominion, in which
the cost of a survey, limited in the sense suggested
by Mr. Eish, was discussed.
On the 18th Eebruary, 1875, Major Cameron
sent in his Report, in which he exhaustively
discusses the relative difficulty and cost of the
proposed survey, whether limited as proposed by
the United States or carried along the whole
boundary. With reference to the scope of the
survey, he makes the following observations : 

" While the United States' Government have indi
cated a definite plan of procedure, and named the
points of the boundary which they consider it- essential

so
should be marked," 'the Government of Canada make no
reference to such details, and, therefore,, leave it to be
assumed that they expect the terms of the' Treaty to be
fully and strictly carried out.
" The cost of marking the line will be seriously
affected by the view which may prevail on this
subject." No action wras taken on Mr. Eish's suggestion
or upon the reports of Mr. Dennis and Major
Cameron. In 1875, a question having arisen as to whether Settlers on Stikine River— Boundary
certain settlers on the Stikine River were in discussion.
British or United States' territory, the boundary 1875.
again formed the subject of discussion between
Sir Edward Thornton and Mr. Eish. A despatch
from Sir Edward Thornton to Lord Derby, dated App. I, p. 183.
the 27th September, 1875, records that Mr. Eish
had communicated to him a couple of letters
received from the United States' Collector of
Customs at Sitka, in which it was alleged that
the point where the settlement was established
was below the British custom-house on the
Stikine, which custom-house was also supposed
to be within United States' territory, that is
within 10 marine leagues from the coast. Mr.
Eish then asked Sir Edward Thornton what he
thought could be done to settle the question of
jurisdiction. Sir Edward Thornton replied that Sir Edward Thornton presses for Survey.
the occurrence went to prove the wisdom of the
recommendation of Her Majesty's Government
that no time should be lost in laying down the
boundary between the two territories. As it was,
he said he could see no way of deciding the
question except by sending officers on behalf ol
each country to take observations and determine
on whose territory the new settlers had established
themselves. He observed that when the question
of laying down the boundary was discussed
about two years before, it was suggested that if
the whole survey could not be made the points
where the territory met could be fixed on the
rivers which run through both of them. Mr. Unwillingness of United States' Congress
Eish replied that even for this partial survey he to Provide for even partial Survey.
feared it would be difficult to obtain the necessarv
grant during the next session of Congress, but he
su°:£ested that as the weight of evidence seemed
at present to bo in favour of the point in question
being in United States' territory, the settlers
should be called upon to suspend operations for
the present and until the question of territory
could be decided.

Ib., p. 183.

31

The Case of Peter Martin.

1876.

Canadian Government sends Engineer to
locate approximate boundary on
Stikine River.

App. I, p. 224.

This despatch was laid before a Committee of
the Privy Council of Canada, who reported that,
in view of the circumstances represented by Mr.
Eish, the Government deemed it desirable that
an officer should be sent by the Government of
Canada or of British Columbia to ascertain
whether the settlement alluded to and the British
custom-house were within British territory. The
Report points out that by the terms of the Treaty
that portion of the boundary extending from
the 56th degree of north latitude to the intersec
tion of the 141st degree of west longitude fol
lowed .the summits of the mountains which
extended, in a direction parallel to the coast, and
should these summits prove to be more than 10
marine leagues from the ocean the line should be
drawn parallel to the windings of the coast, and
should never exceed a distance of 10 marine
leagues therefrom. The Report further points
out that, as the line rested on so intricate a basis,
a satisfactory solution could only be arrived at by
accurately defining the point where the boundary
intersects the Stikine River, and concludes with
a recommendation that this point, if no other,
should at once be settled.
In 1876 attention was again drawn to the
Stikine River by the case of a convict named
Peter Martin, in charge of Canadian constables,
who had committed an assault upon one of them,
for which he was tried and convicted in the British
Columbian Court, at a point upon the Stikine
alleged to be upon the United States' territory.
A question also arose as to whether an establish
ment kept by a Canadian named Choquette on
the same river was situated on British or United
States' territory.
Under these circumstances, the Canadian
Government, in March, 1877, sent Mr. Joseph
Hunter, an engineer, to the Stikine River with
instructions to ascertain with approximate accu
racy the boundary on the said river between
Canada and Alaska. His instructions, which
were signed by Mr. Dennis, the Surveyor-General
of the Dominion already mentioned, required
him to lay down with approximate accuracy the
crossing of the river (should the same occur
within 1 0 marine leagues of the coast) by a line,
in the words of the Treaty, "following the
summit of the mountains parallel to the coast."
The instructions further stated that it was
assumed that the point on the river where the
[541] p

32
Hne would cross, connecting the two highest
peaks of the mountains situate parallel to the
coast adjoining on either side of the river (if
within the distance of 10 marine leagues from
the coast, measured and estimated on a course
at right angles to the general bearing thereof
opposite), would give the crossing of the river
by the international boundary at that point.
A tracing was inclosed showing such general
direction, and embracing 30 miles on each side
of the Stikine, such general direction being
taken as north 32° west, or south 32° east true.
Mr. Hunter was required, therefore, " to lay off
or estimate the 10 marine leagues on a course at
right angles thereto, or north 58° east."
In his Report, dated June 1877, Mr. Hunter Engineer's Report on Survey at Stikine.
stated that the crossing of the river by a line . j 226. 1877.
following the summit of the mountains parallel
to the coast was situated at 1913 miles from the
coast, in a direction at right angles thereto.
Peter Martin had, in any view, been conveyed
in custody through United States' territory, and
he was therefore set at liberty.
The above facts and documents are referred to
as showing that, when there was a question of
applying the Treaty boundary on the spot, the
Canadian Government put forward their view in
strict accordance with the Treaty, working from
the general direction of the coast-line, and acting
on the principle that the 10 marine leagues line
was to be applied only in the absence of moun
tains Avithin that limit.
By a note dated the 15th January, 1877, Sir Sir Edward Thornton again presses For
Edward Thornton, referring to the case of  un ^'
Mr. Choquette, above mentioned, had again lb., p. 202. 1877«
drawn the attention of Mr. Eish to the expe
diency of defining the boundary. In this note
Sir Edward Thornton makes use of the following f
language : —
" The general impression with regard to the
boundary seems to be as follows: The Russian Con
vention of 1825 places it on the summit of the coast
range of mountains when within 10 marine leagues, and
when that range is not within 10 marine leagues then
at the 10 marine leagues from the coast, but under no
circumstances further in the interior. The coast range
rises immediately from tide waters, and the summit of
that range appears to be within 15 miles of the sea.
This is shown by the fact that in the following up
the valley of the Stikine, the axis of the range is
passed at 15 miles from the coast; to this distance
from the sea the course of the river bears easterly,

33

App. I, p. 219.

Congress again fails to provide for Survey.

Great Britain again presses for delimitation
of Boundary. Ib., p. 235.

Ib., p. 236.

Sir Edward Thornton again makes
representations.

Ib , p. 238.

Mr. Seward suggests provisional line.

Ib.,

238.

thence rounding the range . in question northerly,
receiving four or five glaciers which flow in an easterly
direction from the summit of the range in the valley of
the Stikine.
Sir Edward Thornton then proceeds to point
out that these were facts which could not be
positively decided without an actual survey. He
stated that he had been instructed to urge upon
the Government of the United States to unite in
a joint Commission to determine the point
where the boundary intersected the Stikine River
and on such other points on the boundary- line as
might be considered advisable. In the mean
time the status quo should be maintained. In
conclusion, he added that if there were reasons
which prevented the Government of the United
States from agreeing to steps being taken for
settling the boundary-line, Her Majesty's Govern
ment hoped that at least it would agree to some
arrangement or modus vivendi by which no fresh
claim injurious to either could be raised or
strengthened. In reply to this note, Mr. Eish, on the 20th
Eebruary, 1877, informed Sir Edward Thornton
that the attention of Congress had been requested
to the subject. Congress, however, separated
without any action having been taken.
On the 1st October, 1877, Mr. Plunkett, the
British Charge d'Affaires at Washington, wrote
to Mr. Evarts, who had succeeded Mr. Eish,
again asking to have the matter brought to the
notice of the United States' Government. Mr.
Evarts, on the 10th October, 1877, replied that
the subject would again be brought to the
attention of Congress upon its reassembling.
On the 13th December, 1877, Sir Edward
Thornton called at the State Department in
Washington for the purpose of again urging on
Mr. Evarts the expediency of taking measures to
settle the boundary. Not finding Mr. Evarts, he
spoke to Mr. Seward, who suggested that, with
regard to the Stikine, a provisional boundary
might be arranged by »n engineer on each side.
Upon this suggestion being brought to the atten
tion of the Canadian Government, it was recom
mended by a Committee of the Privy Council
that Sir Edward Thornton be informed that the
Canadian Government had already sent Mr.
Hunter to the spot, and that copies of his Report
bad been sent to the British Legation and for
the Eepartment of State at Washington.
[541] E 2

34
On the 19th January, 1878, Sir Edward App. I, p. 241. 1878.
Thornton transmitted to Mr. Evarts a copy of
Mr. Hunter's Report, accompanied by a map
showing the points where the boundary crossed
the river, and inquired whether the Government
of the United States would accept tbe boundary
so ascertained until the exact line could be
regularly determined. By a note of the 20th
Eebruary, 1878, Mr. Evarts accepted this tem- Hunter's line on Stikine accepted
porary arrangement, provided it was understood provisionally.
that it was not to be construed as affecting in iD., p. 242.
any manner the rights under the Treaty to be
determined whenever a joint survey should be
made. Having regard to the proviso subject to which
this arrangement was accepted by the United
States' Government, Mr. Hunter's survey has
no binding effect. The incident is, however,
of importance in that it brought to the
attention of the United States' Government the
manner in which it was considered on the side of
Great Britain the Treaty ought to be applied.
No further communications of importance with Mr. Dalls letter to Mr. Dawson.
respect to this subject took place between the
two Governments unlil 1884, when the question
entered on a new phase. On the 24th April in
that year Mr. Dall, an officer of the United
States' Survey, writing semi - officially to ib., p. 248.
Mr. Dawson, the Director of the Geological
Survey of Canada, advanced the theory that a
boundary according to the Treaty was impos
sible. " There being," he wrote, " no natural
boundary, and the continuous range of moun
tains parallel to the coast shown on Vancouver's
Charts having no existence as such, the United
States would undoubtedly wish to fall back on
the line parallel to the windings of the coast,
and which shall never exceed the distance of
10 marine leagues therefrom of the Treaty. It
would, of course, be impracticable to trace any
such winding line over that ' sea of moun
tains.' "
The idea put forward by Mr. Dall was adopted Mr. Dall's idea adopted by United
by the Government of the United States. In a States' Government.
despatch addressed to Mr. Phelps, the United ib., p. 251. 1885.
States' Ambassador in London, on tbe 20th
November, 1885, Mr. Bayard, the United States'
Secretary of State, referred to the question of the
Alaskan boundary. He said the boundary
agreed upon by the Treaty of 1825 was then, and Mr. Bayard's views.
still was, a theoretical one, based on the charts 

35
the negotiators had before them. He stated that
he was not. aware that any question had arisen
with regard to it between Great Britain and
Russia before 1867, and that it was certain that
none had arisen since between the Governments
of Great Britain and the United States. Dealing
with the water boundary at the south of the line,
he treated Portland Channel as lying to the
south of Wales Island — a conclusion which he
apparently based on the assumption that the
Prince of Wales Island referred to in the Treaty
was the island now (but not in 1825) known as
Wales Island.
With regard to the eastern boundary Mr.
Bayard wrote as follows : —
" There is, however, ample ground for believing
that the erroneous premises upon which the negotiators
apparently based their fixation of the inland boundary-
line along the coast render its true determination find
demarcation by monuments a matter of doubt and
difficulty in carrying it into practical effect ; and that, in
prevision of the embarrassments which may follow delay
in the establishment of a positive frontier line it is the
interest and the duty of the two Governments to reach
a good understanding which shall forthwith remove all
chance for future disagreement."
Views of United States' Government On the 19th January, 1886, Mr. Phelps, in
communicated to Great Britain. £ ,, ... , ,, -..- £
jgog  formally communicating to the Marquis ol
App. I, p. 254. Salisbury the views of his Government, observed
that the boundary indicated by the Treaty had
no apparent ambiguity, but that it was described
and established when the region through which
it ran was entirely unexplored. With reference
to the 10 - marine league line, he writes as
follows : —
" The only other indication of this part of the boundary
contained in the Treaties, the limit of 10 marine leagues
from the ocean, equally fails of practicable location.
The coast proves, upon survey, to be so extremely
irregular, and indented with such and so many projec
tions and inlets, that it is not possible, except at immense
expense of time and money, to run a hne that shall be
parallel with it, and if such a line should be surveyed,
it would be so confused, irregular, and inconsistent, that
it would be impossible of practical recognition, and
would differ most materially from the clear and sub
stantially straight line contemplated in the Treaties."
Mr. Phelps added, as the result of the whole
matter, that
" These Treaties ***** really give no boundary
at all so far as this portion of the territory is con
cerned."

36
The despatch concluded by suggesting that a
Commission be agreed on to acquire materials to
serve as a basis for the establishment of a
boundary-line by Convention.
In the note above referred to, Mr. Phelps had Geological Map of Canada.
asked to be furnished with a copy of a certain
map of the Dominion of Canada geologically
coloured, which had been referred to by
Mr. Bayard. In forwarding this map on the
27th August, 1886, the Earl of Jddesleiorh draws App. I, p. 255.
Mr. Phelps' attention to the fact that the Alaska
boundary shown therein was merely an indi
cation of the occurrence of a dividing-line
somewhere in that region. It would, wrote his
Lordship, be clearly understood that no weight
could attach to the map location of the line
denoted, inasmuch as the Convention between
Great Britain and Russia made its location
dependent on alternative circumstances, the
occurrence or non-occurrence of mountains, and,
as was well known to all concerned, the country
had never been topographically surveyed. The
note ended by a distinct disavowal on the part of
Her Majesty's Government of the correctness of
the line shown.
In view of the importance which has been
attached in the present controversy to the
location of the line in a number of maps (to be
referred to elsewhere in this Case), it is important
to direct attention to the language held by Lord
Iddesleigh on this, the first occasion, when such
a map was handed by a Representative of the
British to a Representative of the United States'
Government, and immediately after the problems
presented by the topography had attracted atten
tion. In fact, the line depicted upon this map
was of the character which had been recently
described by Mr. Bayard as conjectural and
theoretical. No survey was made as suggested by
Mr. Phelps.
In 1887 the attention of Her Majesty's Lieutenant Schwatka's Reconnaissance.
Government was drawn to the report made by
Lieutenant Schwatka, of the United States' army,
of a military reconnaissance conducted by him
in Alaska in 1883, in which he stated that he
had traversed Perrier Pass, and used language
implying that it defined the boundary. Acting
on instructions from his Government, Sir Lionel
West, the British Ambassador at Washington,
by a note dated the 1 4th September, IS87, pointed lb., p. 257.

37

The Dawson-Dall Conferences.
1887-88.

Report of Conferences laid before Congress.

1888.

Proposed trail over White Pass.

out to Mr. Bayard that this was not admitted by
Great Britain.
During the Eisheries negotiations between
Great Britain and the United States, held at
Washington in 1887-88, several informal Con
ferences took place, at the request of the British
Commissioners, between Messrs. Dall and Dawson,
at which the possibility of agreement upon certain
conventional lines was discussed, but no result
was reached from the report of these experts, the
United States' Commissioners taking the ground
that their powers did not authorize them to treat
for an adjustment of the Alaska boundary.
The Report of these Conferences was laid
before Congress by the President of the United
States, and this document included a letter from
50th Congress, jjr Dawson, in which the Canadian contention
2nd Sess., Sen.
Ex. Doc, No. 146. as to the line crossing inlets is clearly put forward,
and a letter in which this contention is combated
with vigour by Mr. Dall, the American expert.
This Report contained a map showing how the
boundary would run in accordance with the views
presented by Dr. Dawson. On- it the line is
clearly marked as crossing the Lynn Canal in the
vicinity of Berner's Bay.
This was the first occasion on which the boun
dary question had been discussed from the point
of view of strict right since the topographical
questions had emerged.
In June, 1888, information reached the Canadian
Government to the effect that certain persons
were about to receive a charter from the
Alaskan authorities to construct a trail from
Lynn Canal by way of the White Pass to the
interior of Alaska. In bringing this rumour to
the attention of Sir John Macdonald, the
then deputy of the Minister of the Interior
observed : —

Atlas.
App. II.
Map. No. 34.

App. I, p. 264. " In view of the well-based contention on our part
that the heads of the larger inlets which penetrate that
portion of Alaska which consists of the coast-line from
Mount St. Elias to Portland Channel, and more par
ticularly the head of Lynn Canal, are within our
territory, it would appear to be important to protest
against the granting of any rights by the United States
or Alaskan Governments at the heads of these inlets."

Canada's Protest.

Ib., p. 265.

The attention of Lord Salisbury was aft
once called to this matter, and Her Majesty's
Minister at Washington instructed to inform the
United States' Government that this Report had"

38
reached Her Majesty's Government, by whom it
was presumed to be unfounded, " as the terri
tory in question is part of Her Majesty's
dominions." Sir Lionel West, in communicating upon this App. I, p. 266.
matter with the United States' Government,
omitted to specify precisely the locality to which
the report bad reference, and Mr. Bayard replied Ibid.
that neither his Department nor, as he stated in
a subsequent note, the Department of the In
terior had any information as to any proposed
action of the character described.
In April, 1891, the attention of the Canadian Proposed United States' Survey of
-i Boundary.
Government was drawn to a Report of the United  1891.
States' Coast and Geodetic Survey, in which it
was stated that a survey was about to be made
under the authority of Congress, which would
involve the marking by monuments of a line
through the Portland Canal to the 56th degree Through Portland Canal.
of latitude, thence north-westerly following
as nearly as might be practicable the general
trend of the coast, at a distance of about 35 The general trend of the Coast.
miles from it to the 141st degree of west
longitude, thence due north to the Arctic
Ocean. Upon this Sir Julian Pauncefote was instructed Great Britain's Protest,
to remind the United States' Government that
tbe boundary at this point was at that present lb-. P- 268.
time the subject of some difference of opinion
and of considerable correspondence, and that the
actual boundary-line could only be properly
determined by an International Commission,
Sir Julian Pauncefote accordingly, on the 5th
June, 1891, addressed a note to Mr. Blaine in
conformity with these instructions.
In Eebruary 1892 a Conference took place
between Delegates from the Canadian Govern
ment and the United States' Secretary of State, ,Rq„
relating primarily to the extension and develop
ment of trade between the United States and the
Dominion. At this Conference an agreement
was reached respecting the Alaska boundary,
which was embodied in a Convention signed at
Washington on the 22nd July, 1892.
The preamble of this Convention recited that Convention, 22nd July, 1892.
the parties were equally desirous of providing for Ib 269
the removal of all possible causes of difference
between the respective Governments thereafter in
regard to the delimitation of the existing boun
dary between their possessions in America in
respect to such portions of said boundary as

39
might not, in fact, have been permanently
marked in virtue of Treaties theretofore con
cluded. Article I provided as follows : —
ARTICLE I.
App. I, p. 269. « The High Contracting Parties agree that a
coincident or joint survey (as may be found in practice
most convenient) shall be made of the territory adjacent
to that part of the boundary-line of the Dominion of
Canada and the United States of America, dividing the
Province of British Columbia aud theNorth-west Territory
of Canada from the territory of Alaska from the latitude
of 54° 40' north to the point where the said boundary-
line encounters the 141st degree of longitude westward
from the meridian of Greenwich by Commissions to be
appointed severally by the High Contracting Parties,
with a view to the ascertainment of the facts and data
necessary to the permanent delimitation of said
boundary-line in accordance with the spirit and intent
of tbe existing Treaties in regard to it between Great
Britain and Russia and between the United States and
Russia. "Application will be made without delay to the
respective Legislative Bodies for the appropriations
necessary for the prosecution of the survey, and the
Commissions to be appointed by the two Governments
shall meet at Ottawa within two months after said
appropriations shall have been made, and shall proceed
as soon as practicable thereafter to the active discharge
of their duties.
" The respective Commissions shall complete the
survey and submit their final Reports thereof within
two years from the date of their first meeting.
" The Commissions shall, so far as they may be able
to agree, make a Joint Report to each of the two
Governments, and they shall also report, either jointly
or severally, to each Government on any points upon
which they may be unable to agree.
" Each Government shall pay the expenses of the
Commission appointed by it.
"Each Government engages to facilitate in every
possible way any operations which, in pursuance of the
plan to be agreed upon by the Commissions, may be
conducted within its territory by the Commission of the
other. " The High Contracting Parties agree that, as soon
as practicable after the Report or Reports of the Com
missions shall have been received, they will proceed to
consider and establish the boundary-line in question."
Mr. W. E. King was appointed Her Majesty's
Commissioner, and the United States appointed
Dr. T. C. Mendenhall, afterwards succeeded by
General WHliam Ward Duffield . The period for
[541] G

40
making this Report was afterwards enlarged to Period for making Report extended.
the 31st December, 1895, by a Supplementary . j 2?1 ~
Convention signed in Eebruary 1894.
It is to be observed that the Convention of the
22nd July, 1892, has reference to an existing
boundary, and that it provided for the ascertain
ment of the facts and data necessary to its
permanent delimitation in accordance with the
spirit and intent of the existing Treaties. In
view of contentions which have since been put
forward in the course of this controversy, that
the claim of the United States receives support
from effect having before this date been given to
their interpretation of the Treaty of 1825 by
maps published or acts done with the acquiescence
of Great Britain, it is important to observe that
by this Convention the rights of the two Govern
ments concerned are by agreement referred back
to the Treaties. The facts and data to be ascer
tained were to be so ascertained by a joint survey.
Previous cartography or acts of settlement were
not embraced in the work authorized by the
Convention, nor did the Commissioners, who
properly confined themselves to the Convention
under which they were appointed, report upon
such cartography or acts of settlement, if any
existed. The Commissioners presented their Joint Report of Commissioners, 31st December,
Report on the 31st December, 1895, followed td., p. 282.  ' 1895.
In March, 1896, by elaborate maps, a repro- App. III. Portfolio.
duction of which accompanies this Case. The
topographical results of their survey are ex
amined elsewhere.
Gold having been discovered in the Valley of Discovery of gold in the Klondike.
the Yukon beyond the passes lying at the head ±ooo.
of Lynn Canal, great traffic was attracted to
that region in the year 1897. The circumstances Rush to the Gold-fields.
of settlement of the disputed territory, and
claims based thereon, arising out of this move
ment, are treated elsewhere. Eollowing these Sir Julian Pauncefote proposes deter-
-events, Sir Julian Pauncefote, on the 23rd mination^fBoundary.
Eebruary, 1898, proposed to Mr. Sherman that iggg^
the determination of the boundary should be App. I, p. 291.
referred to three Commissioners, one to be
appointed by each Government and the third by
an independent Power. He also expressed the
hope that, pending such settlement, a modus
vivendi could be amicably arranged.
The latter proposal was acted upon, and by Provisional Boundary.
exchange of notes, it was provided that a 1899.
provisional boundary should be established.

1898.

41
App. I, p. 305. Reference to this instrument will show that it
was therein expressly provided that it should not
affect the rights of either party in reference to
the permanent delimitation of the boundary.
A provisional boundary was subsequently
arranged on this basis, which is still being acted
upon.
Joint High Commission. In tbe autumn of 1898 a Joint High Com
mission, comprising Representatives of Great
Britain and the United States, met at Quebec,
and afterwards adjourned to Washington, where
it sat till Eebruary, 1899. The Commission was
constituted with a view to the discussion and
adjustment of a number of matters then in
question between the two Governments. The
business which wras to occupy the Commission
was arranged at a series of Conferences held at
Washington in May, 1898. The Protocol of
these Conferences recorded that it was expedient
to come to an agreement upon (among other
lb., p. 297. subjects) " provisions for the delimitation and
establishment of the Alaskan-Canadian boun
dary by legal and scientific experts, if the Com
mission should so decide, or otherwise."
The Protocol further provided that each
Government should communicate to the other,
in advance of the meeting of the Commission, a
Memorandum of its views on each of the subjects
to be discussed.
In accordance with the above provision, Sir
lb., p. 298, Julian Pauncefote was instructed to deliver to
the Secretary of State at Washington a copy of a
lb., p. 297. despatch of the 19th July, 1898, addressed by
the Marquis of Salisbury to the British Com
missioner, setting forth the views of Her
Majesty's Government. This despatch, after
adverting to the existing arrangement at the
head of Lynn Canal, pointed out that, as the
line there adopted was more than 100 miles from
the ocean, Her Majesty's Government could not
reasonably be expected to continue to accord it
provisional recognition for an indefinite period ;
and, pending a definite settlement of the question,
a provisional line more in accordance with the
Treaty stipulations should be adopted, which
would allow the occupation by Canada of one
of the ports on these inlets.
The despatch referred to the special reasons
for an early delimitation of this part of the
boundary, and stated that Her Majesty's Govern
ment thought it desirable that, if possible, the
[541] G 2

42
Joint Commission should in any case agree
on some provisional arrangement for fixing a
temporary line on the various inlets and rivers
traversing the strip, and also at any other point
at which disputes might arise pending a final
settlement of the question. It wras added that
the boundary-line must, in the first instance, be
sought in the mountains which border the coast,
and that the important condition that the
line is nowhere to exceed 10 marine leagues from
the coast governed throughout.
The Government of the United States, on
Lord Salisbury's despatch being communicated
to them, handed to Sir Julian Pauncefote a
Memorandum setting forth the views held by App. I, p. 299-
them. This Memorandum pointed out that the
Alaskan boundary had already been the subject
of conventional arrangements, and that the
Report of the Joint Commission was now avail
able, and had made it possible for the Govern
ments to carry out the stipulation in the last
clause of Article I of the Treaty of the 22nd
July, 1892, to proceed to consider and establish
the boundary in question. It was stated that
the Government of the United States would
expect the Joint High Commission to seek to
execute this stipulation by an agreement as to
the boundary as fixed by the Anglo-Russian
Treaty of 1825 and by the American-Russian
Treaty of 1867. The United States' Govern
ment, it was added, had no reason to anti
cipate any other than a definite and satisfac
tory settlement of this important question by the
Joint High Commission.
The Joint High Commission embarked upon
its labours under the provision of the two docu
ments just reverted to. The discussions and nego
tiations which took place were understood to be
confidential, and will therefore not be here ad
verted to. The Commission separated without
any settlement being made either upon the basis
of rieht or of convention.
The adjournment of the Commission was
followed by proposals to refer the matters in
dispute to arbitration, and after a long corre
spondence the Treaty under which this Tribunal
sits was signed at Washington on the 24th
January, 1903. -igQ3

43

CHAPTER III.

CHARACTER OE TOPOGRAPHY.

Eeport of Messrs.
DuflSeld and King
under Convention
of 1892.
App. I, p. 282.

The surveys made by the Commissioners ap
pointed under the Convention of the 22nd July,
1892, disclose the following facts relative to the
orography of the region bordering the coast : —
In general character this region is wholly
mountainous ; though narrow borders of flat land
are to be found in the valleys of the rivers and
inlets, and occasionally on the ocean front. As
a rule, the land rises from the water's edge in
steep wooded slopes, forming the frontal foot
hills of high mountain ridges, which are sur
mounted by peaks 3,000 feet or more in
height. The summits of these mountains are
bare, the timber line not rising to that elevation
on any part of the coast in question, and not
averaging more than 2,500 feet.
Eurther inland the mountains rise to greater
heights — to 6,000 or 7,000 feet and upwards —
along the southern part of the coast, while to the
west of Cape Spencer the very lofty mountains
of the Eairweather Range are found rising imme
diately from the coast. Between Portland Canal
and Cape Spencer the mountain barrier is pene
trated by the valleys of rivers, streams, and inlets.
These valleys run back in a direction nearly per
pendicular to the general direction of the coast,
and are usually nearly straight for a considerable
distance. Opening into these valleys on either side are
subsidiary valleys, also in general approximately
straight, andrunning approximately perpendicular
to the directions of the main valleys, and in
parallelism to the coast.
The heads of these side valleys thus extending
from adjacent main valleys inosculate with one
another and so furnish well-defined depressions,
which separate the mountain masses adjacent to
the coast from those lying further back.
Thus appears a number of short ranges, or
elongated mountain masses, of length consider
ably exceeding their breadth, and lying with
their lengths parallel to the general trend of the
coast which fronts them.

44

To an observer passing along the channels
which separate the mainland from the adjacent
archipelago, these mountains present the appear
ance of a range, parallel to the coast, which in
general hides from his view the mountains
behind, which are seen only where the coast
mountains are cut across by the valleys above
referred to.
At the northern end of Glacier Bay, the Muir
Glacier discharges into the sea. The south
eastern corner of this glacier also discharges into
the Endicott River, which on a very direct
eastern course, with very little descent, discharges
into Lynn Canal.
Extending in the opposite direction, the north
west arm of Glacier Bay penetrates far inland,
and separates the massive range of the Eair
weather Mountains, lying north of Cape Spencer,
from the mountains of the interior lying between
Glacier Bay and the Chilkat River.
Continuing north-westerly from Cape Spencer,
the mountains above mentioned rise almost
immediately from the ocean, until Alsek River
is crossed.
This range is now commonly known as the
St. Elias Alps. They lie well back from the
shore, leaving a considerable margin of low-lying
land between them and the ocean, until Yakutat
Bay, and its continuation, Disenchantment Bay,
are reached. West of Yakutat Bay lie Mount
St. Elias and the mountain ridges between it
and the ocean, which are almost submerged in
the great Malaspina Glacier.

45

CHAPTER IV.

Pirst Question.

THE QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED.

EIRST QUESTION.
The first question to be answered by the
Tribunal is —

Case, p. 3. " WHAT IS INTENDED AS THE POINT OF COM
MENCEMENT OP THE LINE ? "

App. I, p. 38.

Ibid.

The description in the Treaty of 1825 is —
"A partir du point le plus meridional de Pile dite Prince
of Wales, lequel point se trouve sous la parallele du
54° 40' de latitude nord et entre le 131" et le 133e degre
de longitude ouest (meridien de Greenwich)."
The British Case on this head, proceeding, as
it is believed, on admitted or indisputable facts,
may be stated briefly and in general terms,
supported by some references to the over
whelming evidence on which it is based.
Article IV of the Treaty provides —
" II est entendu, par rapport a la ligne de demarcation
determinee dans lArticle precedent —
'' 1 . Que file dite Prince of Wales appartiendra toute
entiere a la Russie."

Trinee of Wales Island.

App. II. Maps
Nos. 1 and 2.

App. I, p. 147.

It is true that an attempt was once made by
the United States to apply this language to the
island latterly named Wales Island, the south
easterly point of which Vancouver had. named
Point Wales after a friend.
But it is understood that this contention is no
longer pressed, and it will be so treated at
present. There can, indeed, be no doubt that " Prince
of Wales Island," wherever it occurs, refers to
the large island to the north of Dixon's Entrance
shown in Vancouver's charts and described in
his book, the main sources of information
available to the negotiators. This land was
rightly surmised by him to be "much broken
and divided by water," but he did not verify his
supposition, and, while calling what was in fact

46
a group by the name of " Prince of Wales
Archipelago," he showed it in the chart, un-
surveyed, as one island. Nor did he fix
astronomically the situation of the southern
points. It was thus naturally called Prince of
Wales Island during the negotiations and in the
Treaty. There are two southern points on this land, British View,
shown on the chart-Cape Chacon and Cape The Southernmost P<*hri.
Muzon — both within the limits of longitude, and
both very near the latitude mentioned in the
clause. And, indeed, there is also on Bean
Island a small island lying close on the west side
of Cape Chacon, a point called Cape Nunez, the
latitude of which is now ascertained to be below
those of the two Capes Chacon and Muzon.
This island may be treated as a discrepancy, and
need not be separately noticed hereafter.
Obviously the negotiators, ignorant of the
precise latitude, and therefore uncertain of the
precise situation, desired to describe whatever
point should turn out to be the most southerly.
Recent investigations have shown that while
Cape Chacon, the more easterly, is in latitude
54° 41' 25", Cape Muzon, the more westerly, is App. I, p. 285.
in latitude 54° 39' 50", being thus slightly the
more southerly.
Cape Chacon is, in fact, on Prince of Wales
Island, the great island of the archipelago, and
later formally distinguished by that name; while
Cape Muzon, though represented, as from a
distance it appeared to Vancouver to be, on a
peninsula of that same island, is, in truth, on a
separate island close adjoining.
Thus, Cape Chacon is the most southerly
point of Prince of Wales Island as now known,
and is the point in this sense answering the
description. And it might be from one point of
view rather more favourable to Great Britain
than Cape Muzon.
But Great Britain concedes that it sufficiently
appears that Cape Muzon, the more southerly
point, fulfils the essential conditions of the
Treaty, and should be held to be the point of
departure. And the result is, after all, substantially the
same for the purposes in hand, whichever Cape
is chosen. For the point under discussion is, in
truth, important only as the starting-point of a
line which was to leave the whole of Prince of
Wales Island to Russia, and which was to

47

App. I, p. 38.

The United States' Contention.

Geographical Definition governs.

ascend to the north along the "passe" called
Portland Channel. (See Article III : " La dite
ligne remontera au nord le long de la passe dite
* Portland Channel.' ")
It thus appears (as will be elaborated on the
subsequent questions) that if the starting-point
should be held to be Cape Muzon, the line
should yet, in order that Russia may possess the
whole of Prince of Wales Island, hug or be
deflected round Cape Chacon, which would thus
become a fresh, and the only important, point of
departure. What has been said would suffice as a state
ment of the British view. But it is understood
to be the contention of the United States ihat
the point in question is absolutely governed by
the parallel of latitude mentioned later in the
description, namely, 54° 40'.
The point so fixed being slightly north of the
extremity of Cape Muzon would, of course, but
for the later provision that the whole of Prince
of Wales Island should belong to Russia, cut off
a small part of that cape, but the use of this
geographical description avoids all question.
It is not proposed here to anticipate in detail
the case of the United States, and Great Britain
reserves her right to deal later fully therewith as
it may be presented. But it may be proper and
convenient that the construction of the Treaty
advanced by Great Britain should be at once
fortified by a brief summary of the case for
taking the geographical, rather than the astro
nomical, as the governing definition.
The order and the terms of the clause
of themselves would produce this result ; if
there be any conflict between the parts, the
reading of the sentence shows which part
prevails. Other considerations are these : On the lan
guage of the Treaty, the whole of Prince of
Wales Island was to belong to Russia. It was
intended to define a starting-point, and a line of
demarcation was to be drawn therefrom which
would leave that island on the Russian side of
the boundary.
Accordingly, the southernmost point of Prince
of Wales Island was designated as such point.
It had not yet been ascertained which was such
southernmost point. Therefore, it could be, and
was, defined only, but also adequately, by the
general geographical description. That descrip-
[541] H

48
tion was certain ; for astronomical observations,
when taken, would make it so, and id certum est
quod certum reddi potest. But the ascertainment
not having, as yet, taken place, a doubt remained
whether the point was to the westward at Cape
Muzon, or to the eastward at Cape Chacon.
The result of the determination by observation
of one or the other of these points as the more
southerly might obviously change the incidence
of the line to be drawn thence to the Portland
Canal as regards Prince of Wales Island.
The line, if running from the westerly point on
a course sensibly to the north of east, might (as,
indeed, so running from Cape Muzon it would)
cut off some part of Cape Chacon. This result
was obviated by the provision with regard to the
line of demarcation that the whole of the island
should belong to Russia.
Everything thus confirms the view, clearly
indicated by the words of the clause, that the
geographical description was intended to be, and,
in fact, was the true description.
To this description, complete in itself, are
added some astronomical indications. These,
however, are in form, as necessarily they must
have been, general and incomplete. On their
face, they do not even profess to fix any point at
all. The definition of a point by astronomical
co-ordinates demands definite parallels both of
longitude and latitude, the intersection of which
gives the point. Here the latitude is given as
" sous la parallele du 54° 40' de latitude nord," APP- J' P- 38'
which tells us whereabouts the latitude of the
southernmost point was assumed to be.
It tells us in this case no more than where
abouts ; for the words all taken together show
that (as the fact was) the exact latitudes of the
points were unknown. Had they been known,
the southernmost point could and would have
been fixed in the Treaty.
So much as to the latitude. But (just because
the latitudes being unknown the southernmost
point might be either Cape Muzon or Cape
Chacon) there could be no attempt even to
approximate the longitude, which depended on
the unascertained fact. Accordingly, no such
attempt was made, and the longitude is stated to
be " entre le 131e et le 133e degre" de longitude Ib-' P- 38-
ouest (meridien de Greenwich)."
Thus there is no attempt to fix the point
astronomically, for there is no fixed point of

49

intersection. That point may occur anywhere
along about 70 miles of longitude. Where ? To
answer that question, it would be necessary to
revert to the geographical description ; and that
brings us once again away from the parallel down
to the southernmost point of Cape Muzon. The
astronomical description is thus fatally defective,
and cannot be substituted for or control the com
plete geographical description.
The astronomical indications thus appear to
have been added merely for easier identification
of the locaHty at which the geographical point
appeared to be situate, and not, in intent any
more than in form, as co-ordinates by which that
point could, with the existing knowledge, be at
the moment fixed.
Reference to the course of the negotiations, so
far as permissible, would confirm this view.
It may be added that, on the mere question of
starting - point, there appears, on the theory
already suggested when dealing with the
geographical description, no substantial difference
in practical results between the geographical and
the astronomical indications. It is, however,
understood that the contention of the United
States is raised in order to secure a starting-point
on the parallel 54° 40', with a view to setting up
the contention that the Hne should run for no
less than 74 miles along that parallel. This,
however, arises on a subsequent question, and,
therefore, is here left untouched.

Second Question.

Case, p. 3.

App. I, p. 38.

General Statement
Portland Channel.
British View.

SECOND QUESTION.
The second question to be answered by the
Tribunal is —
"What channel is the Portland Chan
nel?" The words of the Treaty are —
" La dite ligne remontera au nord le long de la passe
dite Portland Channel!'
The only canal known by the name of Port
land at the time of the Treaty had been surveyed,
charted, described, and named by Vancouver as
Portland Canal, and is so caUed in the first
edition of his book, but changed in the second
edition to Portland Channel. The variation
seems immaterial.
[541] H 2

50
Reference is made to Vancouver's charts in APP- J1- ^aPs
Nos. 1, 2, 3.
the Atlas, Nos. 1, 2, and 3, and also to the it>., Map
compiled map, No. 37, in which the various "
different contentions are shown.
Great Britain contends that " la passe dite
' Portland Channel ' " means the channel which
Vancouver named Portland Canal, and which
enters from the ocean between Tongass Island
and Kannaghunut Island, leaving Sitklan, Wales,
and Pearse Islands on the south .and east, and
extending northerly 82 miles to its head. Great
Britain further contends that if, contrary to
the British view, there is to be any departure
from the nomenclature and descriptions of Van
couver as the controlling element of decision,
then the line should be determined to run up
Clarence Strait and Ernest Sound, or up Behm's
Canal, on one or other side of Revilla Gigedo,
any of which courses would fit the other par
ticulars of description in the Treaty more closely
than does Portland Canal.
Postponing the discussion of this alternative
suggestion, it is proposed now to state the case
on the inquiry as to what was Vancouver's
Portland Canal. The answer must depend on
the evidence to be found in Vancouver's book
and charts, known to have been before the
negotiators, and the sole, or, at any rate, the
main and best sources of information on this
head. To which has to be added whatever
evidence may be supplied by the negotiations
themselves and a few other then existent maps.
As to the greater part of the length of the
Portland Channel above shortly described, there
is not, and could not be, any dispute. Reference
to the charts will show that, at .any rate, that
portion of the westerly water which extends
inland from the upper end of Pearse Island to
the head of the channel marked "Portland
Canal " must be comprised in Vancouver's Port
land Canal. And this is the common case of
both sides. The dispute is as to the remainder
of the channel.
Great Britain contends that this remainder, as
surveyed, charted, described, and named by
Vancouver himself, is the continued passage
seaward between Pearse, Wales, Sitklan, and
Kannaghunut Islands on the east and south, and
the continental shore, Eillmore and Tongass
Islands on the west and north.
The United States contend that Vancouver's The United States' Contention.
Portland Canal, commencing at the head, turns 

51
along the branch between Pearse Island and the
peninsula, passes Ramsden Point, in Observatory
Inlet, and reaches the ocean by the channel
between Pearse and Wales Islands on the west,
and the easterly continental shore, entering the
ocean between Point Wales on the west and
Point Maskelyne on the east. This contention
involves the question, " What was Vancouver's
Observatory Inlet?" Eor if, as Great Britain
contends, that inlet comprised the channel just
mentioned, then it can hardly be part of Portland
Canal. Now, it is common ground that the easterly
channel inland from Point Ramsden to its head
is comprised in Observatory Inlet.
But Great Britain contends, while the United
States deny, that the continuation of this channel,
from Point Ramsden to the ocean, between Point
Maskelyne and Point Wales, is part of Observa
tory Inlet, as surveyed, charted, described, and
named by Vancouver himself, at the same time
at which he dealt with Portland Channel.
It will thus be important to ascertain whether
Observatory Inlet extended from the ocean to its
head, or was only an inlet of an inlet ; beginning
at Point Ramsden at the head of another inlet,
either unnamed or being part of Portland Canal.
In this view, and also because the order of
Vancouver's explorations and nomenclature
naturally lends itself to the treatment, it will be
found most convenient to begin, where Vancouver
began, with the approach to Observatory Inlet,
and to sketch his progress and work as shown in
his charts and book, of which the relevant
passages are to be found in the Appendix.
, a Vancouver's object was to find and trace the
Vancouver s Survey. •>
Observatory Inlet. continental shore, a task rendered difficult by the
multitude of large and mountainous islands off
the main coast, and by the long and narrow
indentations or fiords cutting into that coast.
He was often disappointed, finding what he
thought mainland to be island and what he
thought island to be mainland.
App. I, p. 139. On the 21st July, 1798, Vancouver took his
ships through Brown's Passage eastward, naming
the Passage and Dundas Island as he passed,
and reaching the entrance of an arm, up
which he expected from the report of Mr. Brown
to find an extensive inland navigation. To
the south-east point of entrance of this arm
(which is according to the British contention

52
Observatory Inlet) he gave as he passed it the
name of Point Maskelyne.
He proceeded up the arm, exploring the -^PP- 1> P- 14°-
indentations, and passing on the 22nd July a
channel or branch to the west, extending north-
north-westerly, so large that he doubted whether
it might not be the main channel. This was the
branch between Pearse Island and the Peninsula,
off Ramsden Point, which he, as will appear,
explored later. But at that time he decided to
continue his pursuit of the north-north-east arm
in which he was, and he eventually gained
Salmon Cove far up the inlet. There he estab
lished an Observatory, and left the ships in
charge of his officers, with instructions to take a
series of observations.
He himself set out up the inlet in boats, and
completed the exploration to the head, without
finding the supposed extensive inland navigation, lb., p. 142.
and returned disappointed to the ships at Salmon
Gove. He now beHeved that the continental shore
extended far up the branch already mentioned
between Pearse Island and the Peninsula ; and
accordingly proceeded to explore up that branch.
On the 27th July he turned the easterly point of
the entrance, which he then named Point
Ramsden. Passing through the branch, he Vancouver's Survey.
turned the other point of the Peninsula, and, Portland Canal.
proceeding inland, explored to its head the long Ib-> P- 143.
and narrow water which is on both sides agreed
to be embraced in Vancouver's Portland Canal.
Once more disappointed, be retraced his course
as far as the branch between Pearse Island and
the Peninsula. He did not re-enter that branch,
but continued down the western channel along
the western or continental shore, leaving Pearse
and Wales Islands to the east and south.
On the 1st August, "in order to keep the
continental shore on board," he quitted the main
channel, there about, a mile wide, "and whose
shores appeared to be most broken, as if ad
mitting several passages to the sea," for a narrow
channel by which he passed round the greater lb-> P- 144-
part of an island (Fillmore Island), so regaining
the main channel at its other end.
On the -2nd August he observed " the south
eastern side of the canal to be much broken,
through which was a passage leading S.S.E. to
wards the ocean" (Tongass Passage). jyd.
In the hope of gaining a more northerly and
westerly communication with the sea, he did not

53
take this passage, and soon found that the
channel he was then pursuing also communi
cated with the ocean, making the land to the
southward one or more islands (Sitklan and
Kannaghunut Islands). He found that from
the north-west point of this land, situate in
App. I, p. 144. latitude 54° 454', longitude 229° 28' (this, it may
be remarked, was on Kannaghunut Island, and
indicates the entrance of the channel), the Pacific.
was evidently visible. He had thus been still
pursuing the westerly channel, keeping Sitklan
and Kannaghunut Islands to the south, and
Tongass Island to the north.
This ended the exploration ; and, on the fol-
Ibid. lowing day, the 3rd August, he turned northward,
and, after exploring Nakat Inlet, turned westward,
reaching a point on the continental coast which
he then named Cape Eox, and took shelter for
the night in a cove close by. His journey had
thus comprised the ascent of the canal from the
point at which he entered it by the branch to its
head, and its descent past that point by the
westerly and northerly channel, to the ocean
between Tongass and Kannaghunut Islands, in
latitude 54° 45f', longitude 229° 28'. This
examination occupied from the 27th July to the
2nd August.
Vancouver then proceeded to explore Revilla
Gigedo and other neighbouring islands.
On the 14th August, on his return to the ships,
he passed across the south-east entrance of the
canal of Revilla Gigedo, taking shelter for the
night in the same cove near Cape Eox. And his
book proceeds to say :¦—
lb, p. 145. " In the forenoon (that is of tlie next day, 15th August)
we reached that arm of the sea whose examination had
occupied our time from the 27th of the preceding to
the 2nd of this month. The distance from its entrance
to its source is about 70 miles, which, in honour of the
Naming Portland's Canal. noble family of Bentinck, I named Portland's Canal."
Now the distance as measured by Vancouver's
chart from the ocean to the head is about
72 miles, and this naturally accounts for his
figure ; but the true distance, as modern charts
show, is 82 miles. Thus, Vancouver was 10
miles short. This is accounted for by the fact
that on his chart the head of the canal is
erroneously placed in latitude 55° 45', while the
true latitude is 55° 55', a difference of ten minutes,
or 10 miles. The probable explanation is that his
observation for latitude near the head of the canal
taken at noon on the 29th July was erroneous.

54

Thus the whole canal from the sea to the head,
keeping the course already described, is shown to
be Vancouver's Portland Canal, identified and
named by him on the 15th August ; and the
British contention is clearly established.
Erom the point last described, Vancouver,
half starved, made for his ships in Salmon Cove ;
where, in view of the good results attained in
astronomical and nautical observations, he named
the water Observatory Inlet.
On the 17th August he set out in the ships
on his return to the ocean by the same route
by which they had entered. As his book
describes this return, they " did not reach the
entrance of Observatory Inlet until two o'clock in
the morning of Tuesday, the 20th, a distance of not
more than 13 leagues from Salmon Cove." The Ib-> P- 146-
distance, according to a modern chart, from
Salmon Cove to the entrance between Point
Maskelyne and Point Wales, is about 40 miles.
The words quoted, without more, show to demon
stration that the entrance of Vancouver's Obser-
tory Inlet was there, at the ocean.
An additional and final demonstration of this
fact is given by the immediately following passage,
"The west point of Observatory Inlet I dis
tinguished by calling it Point Wales."
It thus appears that when entering tbe arm
which has been described, Vancouver named its
easterly point of entrance Point Maskelyne ; that
when setting out from Salmon Cove on his
return he named Observatory Inlet ; that he
closely estimated the distance from Salmon Cove
to the ocean entrance of that same Observatory
Inlet at 13 leagues ; and that as he passed what he
calls " the west point of Observatory Inlet "
he named it, as such, " Point Wales," which is
shown just opposite Point Maskelyne.
The general result then is a conclusive demon
stration that Vancouver's Observatory Inlet was
the Channel extending from Point Maskelyne
and Point Wales at the ocean, past Salmon Cove,
to the head ; and that his Portland Canal was
the channel between Tongass and Kannaghunut
Islands at the ocean, past Sitklan, Wales, and
Pearse Islands on the south and east to the head ;
and that this latter is "la passe dite Portland
Canal " of the Treaty.
The correctness of these views of Vancouver's
action is, indeed, acknowledged in the Report of
Mr. Dall, a United States' Officer, presented by 2nd Sess°Sen.'Ex
Doc. No. 146, p. 20

Return to and Departure from Observatory
Inlet,

Naming Observatory Inlet,
App. I, p. 146.

Identification of Observatory Inlet.

Ib., p. 146

General Result.

Confirmation of Result.
50th Congress,

55
the President to Congress, and printed amongst
its documents. Mr. Dall concludes his resume
of Vancouver's account by saying that " if the
treaty Is to be tried by Vancouver's text, it will
result in giving to Great Britain the above-
mentioned islands (meaning Wales and Pearse
Islands), and some other small ones" (doubtless
referring ito Sitklan and Kannaghunut Islands).
The only opposing argument he makes is that
there is " a certain discrepancy between his
charts and his text."
And the alleged discrepancy is that on two of
his charts the places alongside the waters at
which are printed the names " Portland Canal "
and " Observatory Inlet" do not (though it was
physically possible that they should) extend
southward as far as Pearse Island, and are thus,
as he suggests, attached to the two upper parts
alone. He admits that on a third chart the
names do extend past the head of Pearse Island,
but he says the larger charts would produce the
stronger impression.
Other Facts and Action before the Treaty. It is thus that Vancouver's text is to be con
tradicted and overborne ! The printed names,
of which the location is criticized, do not
extend to either end of the channel alongside
which they are placed. They are, notwithstand
ing, to reach to one end, but not to the other.
They were probably so placed because those parts
of the map afforded clearer spaces for printing.
But it is needless to continue; the statement
of his proposition is its sufficient refutation.
It remains to deal under this head with the other
relevant facts and action preceding the con
clusion of the Treaty, of which there are but
few. There are, however,- some Other maps
which appear to have been used by one or both
of the negotiators, as to which it is convenient to
point out here that the maps of Arrowsmith and
Eaden both show the name " Portland Canal "
extending beyond the head of Pearse Island, and
that the Russian charts of 1802 and 1826 show
the latitude of the. mouth of Portland Canal as
54° 45^'.
The only preliminary action, if such it can be
called, consists of the references during the nego
tiations to Portland Canal and Observatory Inlet.
As to these, the various proposals and counter
proposals affecting this branch are summarized
in the answer on the third question.
It is submitted that these negotiations contain
[511] I

56
nothing which can adversely affect the con-
elusions already drawn.
There are, however, at any rate two papers so
clearly confirmatory of those conclusions as to
justify special notice here.
The first is Baron Tuyll's suggestion to Count
Nesselrode, so early as the 21st October, 1822, in
which he says : — ¦
" Mais dans la supposition que Ton ne put reusrir a App. I, p. 33
etendre les frontieres de la Russie beaucoup plus vers
le f,ud, il serait, ce semble, indispensable de les voir au
moins fixees au 55e degre" de latitude nord, ou, mieux
encore, a la pointe meridionale de I'Archipel du Prince
de Galles et V Observatory Inlet, situes a peu pres sous
ce parallele. Tout voisinage plus rapproche des eta-
blissements Anglais ne pourrait manquer d'etre prejudi-
ciable a celui de Novo-Archangelsk, qui se trouve sous

This shows that Russia knew that Observatory
Inlet entered the ocean at a point substantially
as far south as the southernmost point of Prince
of Wales Island, and thus that she read Van
couver's book and charts in accordance with the
present British contention.
Russia, however, did not at any time propose
Observatory Inlet.
And it cannot be supposed that when, later on,
after tedious negotiations, she proposed Portland
Channel, she meant the entrance of Observatory
Inlet. The second notable document is Sir Charles
Bagot's proposal to Russia of Eebruary-March,
1824, made in amendment of the Russian pro
posal of that period to adopt Portland Channel.
In this he says :—
" Comme il a ete convenu de prendre pour base de lb., p. 70.
negociation les convenances mutuelles des deux pays,
il est a remarquer, en reponse a la proposition faite par
les Plenipotentiaires Russes, qu'une ligne de demarca
tion tracee de l'extremite meridionale de l'ile du
Prince de Galles jusqu'a l'embouchure du Canal de
Portland, de la par le milieu de ce canal jusqu'a ce
qu'elle touche la terre ferme, de la jusqu'aux mon
tagnes qui bordent la c6te, et de la le long de ces
montagnes jusqu'a la longitude du 139" degre, &c,
oteroit a Sa Majeste Britannique la souverainote de
toutes ces anses et de ces petites baies qui se trouvent
entre les latitudes 56° et 54° 45'."
This shows that the British understanding,
communicated to and not questioned by Russia,

57
was that Portland Channel entered the ocean in
54° 45', which is a very close approximation
to Vancouver's observation, : already given, of
54° 45£' for Kannaghunut Island, and is iden
tical with the position given on the Russian
charts of 1802 and 1826 to the entrance of Port
land Canal. It does not fit Point Wales, which
was plainly in a lower latitude, and is now ascer
tained to be in 54° 42' 15". Sir Charles Bagot's
statement, therefore, shows the view taken at the
time as to the entrance of Portland Canal,
coinciding with the British Case now presented.
Thus, that affirmatively appears which, even in
the absence of any such evidence, would yet be
the clear and indubitable presumption, namely,
that there was not, on the one hand or the other,
any mistake as to either Portland Channel or
Observatory Inlet, and that both sides correctly
understood the entrances and courses of those
channels to be according to the facts already
demonstrated, and dealt with each other on that
footing.
Navigability. It is possible that the comparative facility of
navigation of Observatory Inlet over Portland
Channel may be urged as an argument for the
adoption of the former as the Portland Channel
mentioned in the Treaty. Any such argument
must be dissipated by the precise and unmistak
able description of Portland Channel already
given ; to overbear which, on any such ground,
would be to refuse all respect for, or adherence
to, the terms of the Treaty.
To this view may be added these observations.
The 55th parallel was the limit of the Russian
claim; any suggested further extension south
ward to about 54° 40' being but local, for the
express purpose of giving Russia the whole of
Prince of Wales Island, which appeared to ex
tend to about that parallel.
Poitland Channel, as described, was the first
natural continental boundary beginning below
55°, and was presumably proposed on this ground.
Portland Channel was proposed, not on any claim
or contention for inland navigation, but solely as
a convenient natural boundary to the suggested
continental possessions of Russia. These posses
sions were claimed only as essential to the bene
ficial enjoyment of the islands and their trade.
The appellation, given in the Treaty to the
canal, of " passe," is in itself indicative of a
narrow channel, and fits the true Portland
[541] I 2

58

Canal far better than it does the broad waters
suggested in substitution.
If convenience is to be considered, there are
infinitely stronger arguments against the admis
sion of the United States as successors in title
of Russia to the navigation of Observatory
Inlet and the sovereignty of Wales and Pearse
Islands. Eor such admission would give domi
nation of the continental coast opposite, and
the important point of Port Simpson, to the
great prejudice of Great Britain. Indeed, this is
the consideration, and not that of the value of
Wales and Pearse Islands in themselves, which
really makes the question of Portland Canal of
substantial interest to either nation. Great
Britain is naturally desirous of safety against
attack, which has, as she conceives, been secured
by the true construction of the Treaty. These
islands are valuable to her for defence ; they can
be valuable to any other Power only for attack.
But, in truth, neither ground can be justly
urged as affecting the interpretation .of the
Treaty.

Reference must now be made to matters sub- Action subsequent to the Treaty.
sequent to tbe Treaty which may, under the
terms of the Convention, be assumed to affect its
interpretation. It rs submitted that there is, in regard to this
question at any rate, no ground for changing, by
any subsequent matter which can be set up, the
plain and clear conclusion to be reached on the
contemporaneous evidence as to the meaning of
" la passe dite Portland Channel."
And any suggestions to a contrary effect will
be just touched on here, in the same spirit
and under the same reserves as apply to some
suggestions so touched on in dealing with the
first question.
It is submitted that (whatever weight mi°Ht
be given to matters of the nature referred to,
were the question one of the interpretation to be
assigned to a document fairly susceptible of more
than one meaning, on the ground that both
Parties had by their acts clearly given to it the
interpretation claimed) such matters should not
be used here to overbear a meaning so con
clusively established.
V
There seems, indeed, to be little or nothing of
any adverse significance in early years.

59
Cartography. Thp practjce 0f some cartographers, prior to
the Treaty, was to treat. as the more important
water Observatory Inlet, which had been the
scene of the astronomical observations by which
the survey of the region generally was corrected ;
and sometimes, accordingly, it alone is named,
Portland Channel being delineated without
name. But in the years following the Convention,
Portland Channel, presumably by reason of the
importance it had acquired through that trans
action, appears named, while Observatory Inlet
is sometimes left without a name.
" The History of As to the lines laid down by cartographers,
foraf^&c." 2nd reference is made to the work of Mr. Greenhow,,
Edition, Boston, Translator and Librarian of the Department of
State of the United States, and a man of high
' repute. In the map in his history of Oregon and
other regions, published in Britain in 1841, and
in the United States in 1845, he shows the water
boundary running to the north of the islands, in
accordance with the British contention.
And it is believed that no map has been found
showing any contrary indication till a compara
tively late date.
Indeed, upon the cession by Russia to the
United States, they dispatched troops to occupy
the territory, and stations were established at
various points, one of which was at Tongass, just
north of the Portland Channel. The fair pre
sumption is that this was because that was the
limit ; for had Wales Island been the limit,
surely an occupying force would have been
stationed there, or on Pearse Island, instead of
at Tongass.
App. II. Map It would seem that the first departure from
Vancouver's nomenclature was in 1853, when
the Hydrographic Department of the British
Admiralty, on the occasion of a fresh survey of
Queen Charlotte Island and adjacent coasts,
applied to that part of Observatory Inlet, which
extends from Pearse Island to the sea, the name
of Portland Inlet.
No authority has been traced for bestowing
this name ; but it seems not to have been unusual
for those engaged in surveys or in cartography
from time to time to distinguish named regions
more minutely or to give names to unnamed
points- And it seems to be a common practice
when, for example, an island point has been

60
named, for later surveyors or cartographers to
assign the name of the point to the island also.
So it happened that Wales Island was, in 1853, App. II. Map
named by the British Admiralty. Pearse Island
was first named in 1868, and then by the British
Admiralty Surveyor. The name Pearse Canal
was first applied to the lower part of Portland
Channel in a United States' chart so late as
1885. Whatever complication or confusion has
arisen is perhaps traceable to the application of
the name Portland Inlet as described.
There seems to have been a system of com
munication of their charts between the Admiralty
Departments of the different Powers, under which
the later charts of one country were used in the
preparation of succeeding charts in the other.
And such, of course, was the habit of private
cartographers. Thus, there would be a natural
tendency to the reproduction of a fresh name or
line on all later charts.
In the absence of any question raised as to
the boundary which would attract attention to
the matter, such matters are, it is submitted, of
no importance. And, at any rate, they do not
destroy, or even weaken, clear existent rights-.
There is one remaining transaction of late
date which is more fully dealt with hereafter, to
which a short allusion should now be made.
After the question of the boundary had become United States' Storehouses on Wales
urgent, and a joint survey under the Commission an(^ Pearse Islands.
of 1892 had proceeded, the United States, in
1896, caused small storehouses of about 15 feet APP- 1> P- 300.
by 20 feet dimensions, never used or occupied, to
be built, one on Wales Island, a second on Pearse
Island, a third on Halibut Bay higher up on
Portland Canal, and a fourth on Salmon River,
near the head of the canal. Ihese erections
were indicated in a United States' coast survey
chart, whereupon in 1902 Great Britain called lb., p. 294.
attention to the fact, and asked explanations.
In reply, it was stated by the Secretary of State
that on examination of the charts of the re°ion Ibid.
he found no indication of storehouses at the
points named, and that he was not aware that
Great Britain bad advanced any claim to the
region before the signature of the Protocol of
30th May, 1898.
On reference being given to the number
of the chart, the Secretary of State explained Ib., p 295
that the omission of the storehouses on the later
issues was caused by an oversight of the draughts-

61
man, and that they would appear on the later
charts to be issued.
It is submitted that no transaction of this
nature, accomplished at that juncture under
those circumstances and with such obvious in
tent, could, even had it passed unnoticed, avail to
strengthen the claim of the United States or to
weaken that of Great Britain.
Water boundaries alternative to Portland Allusion was made at the commencement of
c the discussion of this question to alternative
water routes.
As then stated, the British view is that the
language of the Treaty, applied to the relevant
extrinsic evidence, so inevitably fixes Vancouver's
Portland Canal as being " la passe dite Portland
Channel," that it is hopeless to contend for any
other route — hopeless, for example, to propose, as
do the United States, the substitution of the
lower part of Observatory Inlet for the lower
part of Portland Canal.
This view is maintained by Britain, in spite of
the fact that there are, with reference to the
other parts of the description of the line — both of
that part which runs from Prince of Wales Island
into and up the canal, and that part which strikes
the 56th parallel, and thence follows the crest of
the mountains situated parallel to the coast —
some difficulties as to its adoption. These
difficulties will crop up again in the discussion of
the subsequent questions. They may, for the
present purpose, be adequately summarized as
follows : —
First ; the line from Prince of Wales Island to
the channel is, under the Treaty, to start from a
point, from which it is to ascend to the north,
along the passage called Portland Canal.
Reference is made to the map for better com
prehension of the statement.
It is obvious that instead of ascending to the
north from Prince of Wales Island, the course,
if the contention of the United States were
adopted, would be due east for 74 miles ;
while, if the British view be taken, it will be a
course north 85° east for 66 miles, there being in
the latter case but little northing, whde in the
former there is absolutely none, for these con
siderable distances.
Though the British contention does give some
northing, and so far inflicts less violence on the
language than that of the United States, yet
neither of these results can be said to accord

62

with the more obvious import of the description,
which points to a northward line from Prince of
Wales Island.
Next, the line is to ascend north along the
channel up to the point of the mainland where
it reaches the 56th parallel. There is a moot
point not now to be debated : What is " it " ?
Is it the line, the channel, or the land ?
Erom the 56th parallel the line is to follow the
crest of the mountains parallel to the coast, being
by subsequent provisions those lying within not
more than 30 miles of the Ocean.
The natural construction of the language seems
to contemplate a point on the channel where the
parallel and the coast-mountains meet.
But Portland Canal does not fulfil these con
ditions. According to Vancouver's work, the
only source of knowledge then available, it ends
about 15 miles, and, according to recent surveys,
about 5 miles south of the parallel. And the
required mountains do not approach any part of
the channel ; nor do they coincide with the 56th
parallel short of a point near the coast on a
course north 85° west from the head of the
channel. It thus becomes necessary, in order to reach
the separated points assumed to be coincident,
either (1) to run the line from the head of
the channel along the course just mentioned,
which is the shortest way of reaching the
point of coincidence of the coast-mountains
and the parallel, or (2) to run it north to
the parallel and thence along the parallel to
the same point, or (3) to run it in the general
direction of the course of the canal to the
parallel and then along the parallel as before.
- The general result is that the description does
not fit the facts, and it is necessary to project
lines not specifically designated in the Treaty, and
to take courses easterly, northerly, and westerly
along three sides of a great square in order to
bring Portland Canal into the line of demar
cation. These are results so extraordinary that they
can be accepted only on the hypothesis that,
under the specific words of the Treaty, it is
imperative to find and follow Vancouver's Port
land Canal.
And be it remembered that to get into that
canal by Observatory Inlet would only make bad
worse.

63

But if this hypothesis were discarded, it is clear
that there are other channels which so well meet
the difficulties, and, in all but name, fit the des
cription, that — only looking over the ground and
applying to it the words of the Treaty -there
could be no hesitation in concluding that one or
other of these, and not Portland Channel, is what
the words import.
Taking these routes for convenience in their
order of proximity to Prince of Wales Island,
and of conformity to the indicated Hne, the first
is by Clarence Straits and its continuation,
Ernest Sound ; through which channel a line can
be drawn ascending north all the way from
Prince of Wales Island, and striking (as nearly
as can in the nature of things be expected when
water is to meet a mountain crest) a point coinci
dent at once with the channel, the parallel, and
the mountains.
The next route is through Clarence Straits
and Behm's Canal, on the west of Revilla
Gigedo, past Bell Island at its head, to Burroughs
Bay, on which route a line can be drawn
achieving substantially the same results.
The last is past the south-easterly point of
Revilla Gigedo Island, through Behm's Canal on
the east of that island, past Bell Island to
Burroughs Bay, on which route again, though less
directly than by the others, a line can be drawn
with like results.
It cannot be denied that reference to the
course of the negotiations raises difficulties in
the way of the adoption of any of these lines.
But it is only by applying the course of the
negotiations, and drawing from them both nega
tive conclusions as to these lines and affirmative
conclusions as to Portland Canal, and by holding
that the Treaty words '• dite Portland Channel"
absolutely control, that a case can be made for
that route against other suggested lines.
Great Britain then, agreeing to Portland Canal,
claims that it is the Portland Canal of Vancouver,
and is not to be at all departed from.
But she claims also that, if departed from, it is
not the entrance of Observatory Inlet (which
would aggravate some and diminish none of the
difficulties), but one of the other routes above
indicated that should be preferred, as most nearly
answering the language of the Treaty.

[541] K

64

THIRD QUESTION.
The third question to be answered by the Third Question.
Tribunal is —
" What course should the line take prom Case, p. 3.
the point op commencement to the entrance
to Portland Channel ? "
The words of the Treaty are —
" A partir du point leplus meridional de l'ile dite Prince App., p. 38.
of Wales, lequel point se trouve sous la parallele du
54° 40' de latitude nord, et entre la 131e et le 133e degre
de longitude ouest (meridien de Greenwich), la dite ligne
remontera au nord le long de la passe dite Portland
Channel," &c.
The question rightly assumes that the course
of the line must be from the point of commence
ment to the entrance of Portland Channel.
The British view as to these two points has British View.
been already stated, and, it is submitted, estab- 
lished ; and the contention of the United States,
so far as at present appears, has also been indi
cated and briefly challenged by anticipation and
under reserve.
Whatever the two points may be, .it is sub
mitted that the general principle and universal
rule, where a Hne is to be drawn from point to
point without further definition, should govern,
namely, that the most direct line between the
points should be taken.
Accordingly, the British contention is that,
subject to the question as to Cape Chacon to be
presently treated, the course should be on the
shortest line from the southernmost point of
Cape Muzon to the centre of the channel between
Tongass and Kannaghunut Islands.
Such a line would be an arc of a great circle
and would follow a course north 85° east, thus
running a little northerly, and so, to some
extent, conforming to the direction to the north
indicated in the Treaty.
But such a line would cut off a small part of
Cape Chacon ; while, under the IVth Article
of the Treaty, it was agreed, " par rapport a la
ligne de demarcation .... que Tile dite Prince
of Wales appartiendra toute entiere a la Russie."
To accomplish this result, the line thus de
scribed must receive some modification.
If its general course is to remain, then, at the
point where it, reaches the shore of Cape Chacon,

65
it must be deflected round that cape till it strikes
the point on its other shore, where, were it con
tinued across the cape, it would have left the
land ; and it must thence proceed on the original
course. If its general course is to be so far modified as
to exclude Cape Chacon, then that course should
be on the arc of a great circle from the point
of commencement to the southernmost point of
Cape Chacon ; and thence, again, on the arc of a
great circle, to the entrance of Portland Channel,
as above described.
The latter may be the simpler, but there is no
substantial difference in the result.
United States' Contention. Touching briefly, in the sense and with the
reserves already indicated, on the understood
contention of the United States, reference has
been already made, in dealing with the Eirst
Question, to the notion that the paraUel of
54° 40' is the point of commencement.
Eor the moment treating that notion as
exploded, there remains no visible connection
whatever between the line and the parallel.
It is to begin south of the parallel, and is to
ascend north along Portland Channel, the very
entrance of which is itself further north than
the point of commencement.
How, then, or why is it to be curved so
as to attain the parallel, in order that it may
thence proceed due east along a parallel which
did not even govern the point of departure, and
has nothing at all to do with the course ?
This would be to violate, not to fulfil, the
Treaty. But even if the point of commencement be on
the parallel, this affords not the smallest ground
for the contention that the course is to be
along it.
The point is one of commencement of a line
which is to depart thence, and the route by
which it is to travel must be traced by its
description, which does not take it along the
parallel, but gives it a northward direction.
It may also be remarked that the frame of
the Treaty is quite opposed to the introduction,
by interpretation, of parallels of latitude or
meridians. When these are required, as in the case of the
meridian of 141° W. longitude, the intersection
with the parallel of 56° N. latitude, and the
point of termination at the meridian of 141° W.
[541] K 2

66
longitude, the intention is stated clearly and
decisively. . It is submitted that nothing in the cours3 of^ Preliminary Action bearing on .the Question.
the negotiations damages, but everything con-
firms, the British view as to the effect of the.
Treaty on this point.
A resume of , the various proposals may be
useful as showing the process by, and the basis
on which, the Parties in the end agreed : —
1. Great Britain, in 1823, suggested the 57th App. I, p. 45.
parallel as a line satisfactory to her.
2. Subsequently she suggested Cross Sound, lb., p. 48.
as lying in about latitude 57|-.
3. Thereon Russia suggested the 55th parallel. Ibid.
4. Great Britain, in Eebruary 1824, proposed lb., p. 66.
a line drawn through Chatham Straits to the
head of Lynn Canal.
5. As a counter-proposal, Russia, in Eebruary
(March) 1824, once more suggested the 55th
parallel, adding these words :—
" Comme le parallele du 55e degre" coupe file du Prince lb., p. 70.
de Galles dans son extre'mite" meridionale, laissant en
dehors deux pointes de terre, les Plenipotentiaires de
Russie ont propose que ces deux pointes fussent comprises
dans les limites Russes, voulant eviter par la une division
de territoire egalement incommode aux deux parties
int^ressees. " Pour completer la ligne de demarcation et la rendre
aussi distincte que possible, les Plenipotentiaires de Russie
ont exprime" le d^sir de lui faire suivre le Portland Canal
jusqu'aux montagnes qui bordent la cote."
6. Great Britain made an amended proposal, Ibid.
which stated the Russian plan as one for a
boundary-line drawn from the southern extremity
of Prince of Wales Island to the entrance of
Portland Canal, and thence along the. canal, &c,
and pointed out that this line would deprive
Britain of all the little bays between . 56° and
54° 45'.
And she offered to take as the boundary a line
drawn from the west, eastward through the
channel separating Prince of Wales Island and lb., p. 71.
Duke of York's Island from all the more northerly
islands, fill the line should reach the mainland.
7. Russia, thereon, acknowledging that the
Russian Company had not fixed establishments
on the 55th parallel, yet pointed out the con
ditions as to its trade as reasons for the Russian
proposals, and proceeded as follows : —
"II etoit done de la convenance mutuelle des deux Ibid.
Empires d'assigner de justes limites a des progres re-

67
ciproques qui ne pouvaient qu'occasiontier avec le temps
les plus faeheuses complications.
" II etoit aussi de leur convenance mutuelle de deter
miner ces limites d'apres les separations naturelles qui
forment toujours les frontieres les plus distinctes et les
plus certaines.
" C'est par ces raisons que les Plenipotentiaires de
Russie ont propose pour limites sur la cote du continent
au sud le Portland Channel, dont l'origine dans les terres
est par le 56e degre de latitude nord, et~ a Test, la chalne de
montagnes, qui suit a une tres petite distance les sinuosites
de la cote ....
" On ne parlera point ici des deux pointes de l'ile du
Prince de Galles, qui sont situees au-dessous de la ligne
du 55e degre de latitude nord. Ces deux pointes lie
pourroient etre d'aucune utilite a la Grande-Bretagne, et
si les neuf-dixiemes de l'ile du Prince de Galles appar-
tiennent a la Russie, il est evidemnient d'un interet
reciproque que l'ile lui appartienne tout entiere."
App. I, p. 74. 8. Great Britain, objecting to concede Portland
Canal, proposed a line from the end of Duke of
Clarence Straits through that channel to the
middle of the channel separating Prince of Wales
and Duke of York's Islands from all the islands
to the north, and then through that channel to
the mainland.
Ib., p. 66. 9- Russia declined ; and the negotiations were
suspended, pending a reference to the British
Government.
Ib., p. 85. 10. On the 12th July, Great Britain authorized
her Plenipotentiary to consent to include the
south points of Prince of Wales Island within
the Russian frontiers, and to take as the line of
demarcation a line drawn from the southernmost
point of Prince of Wales Island from south to
north, through Portland Canal, &c.
And the despatch enclosed a draft Convention
describing the line thus : " Commencing from
lb., p. 87. the two points of the island called 'Prince of
Wales Island,' which form the southern
extremity thereof, which points lie in the parallel
of 54° 40', and between the 131st and 133rd
degree of west longitude (meridian of Green
wich), the line of frontier between the British
and Russian possessions shall ascend northerly
along the channel called Portland Channel."
11. The Russian Ambassador made no objec
tion to this line. And Russia later presented
a counter-draft, the line proposed by which was,
as to this part, as follows : —
tj, 04 "A partir des deux points qui forment l'extremite
meridionale de l'ile dite du Prince de Galles, laquelle

68
appartiendra tout entiere a la Russie, points situs's sous la
parallele du 54° 40' de latitude nord, et entre les 131e et
133e de longitude ouest (meridien de Greenwich), la ligne
de la frontiere entre les possessions Russes et les posses
sions Britanniques remontera au nord par la passe dite le
Portland Channel."
12. Owing to differences on other points, the App. I, p. 92.
negotiations were again suspended.
13. Upon their renewal, no question was
raised as to this branch of the subject. Great
Britain proposed a draft, which thus stated the
line : " Commencing from the southernmost point lb., p. 115.
of the island called ' Prince of Wales Island,'
which point lies in the parallel of 54° 40', and
between the 131st and 133rd desree of west
longitude (meridian of Greenwich), the' line of
frontier between the British and Russian posses
sions shall ascend northerly (the whole of Prince
of Wales Island belonging to Russia) along the
channel called ' Portland Channel.' "
14. After discussion, the Treaty was concluded,
on the basis of that draft, in the words already
given. It is submitted that everything that passed
during the negotiations confirms the British Case
in favour of the direct line between the described
points.

FOURTH QUESTION.
The fourth question to be answered by the Fourth Question.
Tribunal is — 
" To WHAT POINT ON THE 56TH PARALLEL Case. p. 3.
is the line to be drawn prom the head op
the Portland Channel, and what course
should it pollow between these points ? "
The words of the Treaty are : —
" La dite ligne remontera au nord le long de la passe App. I, p. 38.
dite Portland Channel jusqu'au point de la terre ferme ou
elle atteint le 56e degre latitude nord; de ce dernier. point
la ligne de demarcation suivra la crete des montagnes
situees parallelement a la cote."
The line is to ascend to the north along the
" Passe " called Portland Channel, to the point in
the mainland at which "it " (referring to either

69

the line, the channel, or the mainland) reaches
the 56th parallel of north latitude, and from that
same last-mentioned point the Hne is to follow
the crest of the mountains situated parallel to
the coast.
It is submitted that the point in the 56th
parallel to which the line should be drawn is the
point from which it is possible to continue the
line along the crest of the mountains situated
parallel to the coast, and, accordingly, that the
point at which the 56th parallel and the crest
of the coast mountains coincide is the point in
question. The question as to what is meant by "elle"
seems to present more room for subtle disputa
tion than for profitable argument.
As suggested in the prior reference, the de
scription rather assumes a coincidence of the
channel, the parallel, and the mountains, in
which case it would be of no consequence
whether " elle " refers to the line, the land,
or the channel. But in fact there is no such
coincidence. It is the bridging of the gap which
makes the difficulty.
Whether " elle " denotes la passe, la ligne, or
la terre ferme, it is submitted that the point to be
attained is the point on the 56th parallel, whence
the hne can, as is directed, follow the crest of
the coast mountains.
Then, recognizing that the gap to be filled is
that between the head of the canal and the point
of coincidence of the parallel with the coast
mountains, and, adopting the general principle
as to lines to be drawn from point to point (a
principle never more solidly based on reason than
when the aim is to bridge a gap not obviously
contemplated at all), it is submitted that the line
should be drawn direct on the arc of a great
circle to that point of coincidence which has
already been described.
Two other modes of drawing the line so as ulti
mately to reach that point are suggested. One is
to draw it due north from the head of the canal
to the parallel, and thence along the parallel to
the point of coincidence with the coast mountains.
This may be argued to be the shortest way of
reaching the parallel ; and so it is ; but taking
the whole description together, it is the parallel
at the point of coincidence that is to be attained ;
and to that point this is not the shortest route ;
it takes two sides of a triangle.

.7.0

The other is to extend the line on the general
direction of the canal till it reaches the parallel,
thence continuing as before. To this plan
similar observations apply.
Each of these alternative plans would transfer
to the United States the triangle enclosed
between the line first proposed ahd the others ;
but this, though of consequence, is not the most
important subject of contention; which is rather
the point to be attained on the parallel than the
route by which that point is to be reached ; and,
of course, any of these routes would reach the
point for which Great Britain contends.
As to the point on the ground which answers
the suggested definition, that subject falls within
the general question of the lisiere boundary, of
which the point is the commencement, and is
therefore reserved for the general discussion
under the subsequent questions.
It is now proper to add a brief reference
(subject to the limitations already indicated) to
the result in case it should be found that the
coast mountains are, at their intersection with
the 56° north latitude, more than 10 leagues from
the Ocean, in which case the boundary-line is to
be formed by a line parallel to the windings of
the coast, from which it is never to be more
(though it may be less) distant than 10 leagues.
It is submitted that the effect of this alterna
tive provision, if it be held that the facts on the
ground bring it into operation, would be to
substitute, for the already described point of
coincidence on the parallel, that point on the
parallel which answers the language of the pro
vision, and which must accordingly be not more
(though it may be less) than 10 leagues from
the coast. It is submitted that to that point (to
be ascertained according to the rules of decision
which may be laid down in answer to the general
questions to be later discussed) the observations
made would apply, and that the line should be
drawn to it on the principle stated.
It is submitted that there is nothing in the
negotiations which impairs the force of the
arguments presented as to the effect of the
Treaty on this point.
And as to subsequent action there is nothing
suggested, apart from the alleged effect of the
maps tracing the boundary -line, indicating the
10-league limit and not the coast mountains
as the boundary. The discussion o'f this point,

71
already touched on in the Case, falls within the
general question, and, therefore, is not here
opened:

EIETH QUESTION.
Fifth Question. The fifth question is as follows :—
Case, p. 3. « TN EXTENDING THE LINE OF DEMARCATION
northward from said point on the parallel
of the 56th degree of north latitude, fol
lowing the crest olf the mountains situated
parallel to the coast until its intersection
with the 141st degree of longitude west of
Greenwich, subject to the condition that if
such line should anywhere exceed the dis
tance of 10 marine leagues from the ocean
then the boundary between the british and
the Russian territory should be formed by a
line parallel to the sinuosities of the coast
and distant therefrom not more than
10 marine leagues, was it the intention and
meaning of said convention of 1825 that
there should remain in the exclusive pos
SESSION of Russia a continuous fringe, or
STRIP, OF COAST ON THE MAINLAND, NOT EX
CEEDING 10 MARINE LEAGUES IN WIDTH, SEPA
RATING the British Possessions from the
bays, ports, inlets, havens, and waters of
the Ocean, and extending from the said
point on the 56th degree of latitude north
to a point where such line of demarcation
should intersect the 141 st degree of longi
tude west of the meridian of greenwich % "
Great Britain contends that the answer to this
question should be in the negative.
The material phrases in the Treaty are as
follows : —
. I p 38. • " ^a h'gne de demarcation suivra la crete des mon
tagnes situees parallelement a la cote (Article III).
" Que partout oil la crete des montagnes qui s'etendent
dans une direction parallele a la cote  se trouverait
a la distance de plus de 10 lieues marines de l'Ocean, la
limite entre les possessions Britanniques et la lisiere de
cote .... sera formee par une ligne parallele aux
sinuosites de la cote et qui ne pourra jamais en etre
eloignee que de 10 lieues marines (Article IV)."
[Ml] L

72
It is clear that "c6te" and " Ocean" refer to
the same thing. If the mountains are more than
10 marine leagues from the " Oc6an," the line
must be drawn nearer the " cote." If the moun
tains are within 10 marine leagues of the "Ocean,"
the 10 marine leagues from the " c6te " have not
to be measured.
Upon the meaning of the two words " c6te "
and " Oc6an" in these Articles the answer to this
question depends.
It is submitted upon the language of the
Russian negotiators that the words " la c6te "
and " l'Ocean," as used by them, referred to coast
and water outside the narrow inlets. With
respect to Portland Canal, it is demonstrable that
they did not consider this either " c6te '' or
" ocean." In the Russian reply to Sir Charles Bagot's,
amended proposal, Portland Canal is made the APP- 1 P- 71*
boundary " sur la cote du continent au sud,"
obviously treating it as running from the coast
inland, because in the same sentence it is
said that its origin " dans les terres est par le
56e degre."
In the same document the coast left to Great
Britain is described as starting from the " em
bouchure " of Portland Canal. If Portland Canal
was coast, the British coast should have been
described as commencing at its bead.
In Count Nesselrode's despatch of the 17th lb., p 76.
April, 1824, he refers to the entrance to Portland
Canal as its " embouchure dans 1'ocean," and to
the head of it as its " origine dans les terres.''
In Count Nesselrode's draft Treaty submitted lb., p 04.
to Sir Charles Bagot the head of Portland Chan
nel is spoken of as " clans l'interieur de la terre
ferme.'' The same conclusion is deducible from a con
sideration of what must have been present to the
minds of the negotiators.
It is to be observed that this Treaty contem
plates a shore-line such as admits of another line
being drawn parallel to its sinuosities at a dis<-
tance of 10 marine leagues. The negotiators,
though they were consciously ignorant of the
true position of the mountains, had before them
in Vancouver's Map a representation of the
continental shore-line which they knew had
been explored by him. It was as patent
to them as it is to us to-day that it would
he impossible to trace a line following at 10

73

marine leagues the convolutions of the line form
ing the edge of salt water. On the other hand,
it was as patent to them as it is to us to-day that
to draw a line following the waving character of
the general coast, neglecting the deep and narrow
inlets, would be a perfectly feasible and business
like arrangement.
The British contention is that the possible,
and not the impossible, was contemplated ; and
that whether any particular recess or projec
tion is to be regarded as varying the contour of
the " coast " within the meaning of this Treaty
(i.e., whether or not its shore is " cote " within
Article III, and the convolutions of that shore
" sinuosites de la cote " within Article IV) is a
question of fact depending upon its shape and
size, and the other circumstances of its relation
to the general contour. One test would, in
principle, be analogous to that employed when the
question is whether inland waters are territorial.
Another test would be furnished by the con
sideration that the line contemplated was one
capable of having another drawn parallel to it
at a distance of 10 marine leagues ; and con
volutions inconsistent with this character could
not be followed in detail.
The line of coast, ascertained on the system
above contended for, supplies the datum line
with reference to which the boundary (following
the mountains or the 10-marine-league line, as
the case may be) is to be applied. If and where
the inlets penetrate further than the boundary so
ascertained, Great Britain contends that the
Treaty meant they were to be in British terri
tory. In this connection attention is drawn to the
10-marine-league line drawn as contended for hy
the United States. It is apparent that it does
not, and cannot, follow the sinuosities of the
"C6te" as that word is interpreted by the
United States themselves. It is drawn parallel
to an imaginary line running primarily through
the points at the head of the inlets. This must
in any case be wrong. Yet there is no feasible
alternative but that presented by the British
view. The view above now Contended for by the
United States has not always been put forward
by the officers of that Government. In 1893
Dr. T. C. Mendenhall, in issuing instructions to
the surveyors under his direction for the making
[541] L 2

74
of the survey under the Convention of 1892,
directed Mr. Tittmann, charged with the duty of
survey of the Stikine River, to continue his
survey to a point on that river, distant " not less
than thirty nautical miles from the coast of the App. I, p. 274
mainland in a direction at right angles to its
general trend." Mr. Tittmann was also in
formed that, should a range of mountains be
found to exist, it was of the first importance that
its distance from the coast and its general trend
should be determined unless such distance should
considerably exceed the specified 30 nautical
miles. Mr. J. E. McGrath is directed in the
survey of Taku Inlet and River to continue his
survey to a point " on the inlet or river distant
not less than 30 nautical miles from the coast lb-! P- 276-
of the mainland in a direction at right angles
to its general trend." His instructions as to the
mountains are in the same words as those given
to Mr. Tittmann.
It is evident that Dr. Mendenhall did not
consider the shore line of an inlet as being part
of the "coast."
As will be seen from the maps of the United
States' Commission, the survey of the Stikine App. III. Portfolio,
River was carried to a point of the river from Somm1s?ionMaP.
which a distance of 30 marine miles, measured
towards the coast, at right angles to its general
direction, indicates the "line of general trend"
to pass at the entrance of Le Conte Bay. The
point taken on the Stikine is less than 30 miles
from the head of that bay.
Again, the point on Taku River is 30 miles
from Jaw Point, which is within Taku Inlet and
several miles south of its head. Part of the
inlet is, therefore, less than 30 miles from the
point taken.
It is to be observed that Dr. Mendenhall and
his able assistants were engaged under tbe Con
vention of 1892 in ascertaining " the facts and
data necessary to the permanent delimitation of
the boundary-line in accordance with the spirit
and intent of the existing Treaties." Copies of
Articles III and IV of the Treaty of 1825 were
embodied in the instructions above cited. Yet the
principle followed by them (which is the same as
that applied on the Stikine River by Mr. Hunter
in 1877) is inconsistent with the view since con
tended for by the United States. Eor if the line
is properly drawn parallel to the general trend of
the coast when inlets breaking that general trend

75
terminate short of the line so drawn, it must also
be properly so drawn when the inlets are long
enough to be cut by it. The effect of the
occurrence of the mouth of an inlet upon the
general trend of the coast cannot depend upon
its interior length.
The truth is that the only difficulty is that
caused by reading into the Treaty a controlling
principle that British territory shall nowhere
touch salt water, and by rejecting every appli
cation of the Treaty which does not produce
a result in conformity with that assumption. It
is submitted that no vestige of any such principle
is to be found in the Treaty. The question
whether British territory touches salt water was
left by the Treaty to depend upon the application
of the boundary thereafter to be ascertained with
reference to the general line of the coast as a
datum. Any assumption as to how the provisions
of the Treaty would affect particular places would,
therefore, be an assumption, not as to the meaning
of the Treaty, but as to the way it would
operate when practically applied.
It is submitted that the reasons above given
show that this is what the negotiators must have
contemplated, and such conclusion is not incon
sistent with any intention that can be attributed
to either party.
It has been said that the Russians were
negotiating to exclude Great Britain from the
sea. The Russian description in the course
of the negotiations of the danger they anticipated
to their establishments on the islands, if they did
not obtain a lisiere of coast, does not warrant
the assumption that they regarded their safety as
only to be secured by Great Britain being cut off
from salt water.
App. I, p. 75 In Count Nesselrode's despatch to Count
Lieven of the 17th April, 1824, in which are
summed up and repeated the views he had
expressed during the negotiations with Sir C.
Bagot, he described the situation he wished to
guard against. Speaking particularly of Prince
of Wales Island, he said that, according to the
proposal of the English Ambassador (which
offered the Clarence Strait line), Russian estab-
Ib.,p. 77. lishments of that island " se trouveraient
entierement isotes, privet de tout soutien, envc-
loppes par les domaines de la Grande-Bretagne
et a la merci des 6tablissements Anglais de la
c6te." To avoid a state of things so described,

76
it was not necessary to cut Great Britain off
from access to the sea. Count Nesselrode himself
says so a little lower down in the same despatch.
" Pour nous," he writes, " nous bornons nos App. I, p. 77.
demandes a celle d'une simple lisiere du continent,
et afin de lever toute objection, nous garantissons
la libre navigation des fleuves.'' And further on :
" La Russie laisse au developpement progressif lb., p. 78.
des etablissements Anglais une vaste etendue de
cote et de territoire ; elle leur assure de libres
debouches." A further argument in support of the British
contention can be based upon Article VII of the
Treaty. The liberty to frequent the inland seasj
gulfs, havens, and creeks on the coast mentioned
in Article III is reserved mutually by both
Powers. This contemplates the possibility, at
least, that some of these waters may be British.
This Article has, however, been used to furnish
an argument against the British contention. It
has been said that it shows that Great Britain
was taking for a limited period a licence to fre
quent waters of this description on this coast
that were ex hypothesi Russian. That is un
doubtedly true. But the point is whether they
were necessarily all of them, and in every part,
Russian. This in no way follows from the
licence given by the Article, which, of course,
only postulates that there should be some Rus
sian waters to which it may apply. It equally
postulates that there should be some British
waters to which it may apply.

SIXTH QUESTION.
The sixth question is as follows : — Sixth Question.
"IF THE FOREGOING QUESTION SHOULD BE Case, p. 3.
ANSWERED IN THE NEGATIVE, AND IN THE EVENT
OF THE SUMMIT OF SUCH MOUNTAINS PROVING TO
BE IN PLACES MORE THAN 10 MARINE LEAGUES
FROM THE COAST, SHOULD THE WIDTH OF THE
lisiere which was to belong to Russia be
measured (1) from the mainland coast of
the Ocean, strictly so called, along a line
perpendicular thereto, or (2) was it the
intention and meaning of the said con
tention that where the mainland coast is

I I

INDENTED BY DEEP INLETS FORMING PART OF THE
TERRITORIAL WATERS OF RUSSIA, THE WIDTH OF
THE lisiere WAS TO BE MEASURED (a) FROM THE
LINE OF THE GENERAL DIRECTION OF THE MAIN
LAND COAST, OR (b) FROM THE LINE SEPARATING
THE WATERS OF THE OCEAN FROM THE TERRITORIAL
WATERS OF RUSSTA, OR (c) FROM THE HEADS OF
THE AFORESAID INLETS ? "
This question is expressed to arise " if the
foregoing question should be answered in the
negative, and in the event of the summit of the
mountains proving to be in places more than
10 marine leagues from the coast."
This is understood to refer to the event of a
double condition being fulfilled, viz., if —
1. The coast-fringe is held not to be. neces
sarily continuous on the mainland ; and also
2. The summit of mountains prove to be in
places more than 10 marine leagues from the
coast of such (possibly discontinuous) fringe.
The answer which Great Britain contends
should be given to the points raised in this
question appears from what has been said in
dealing with the fifth question. The width of
the lisiere should be measured along a line
perpendicular to the general direction locally of
the mainland coast of the ocean, that is to say,
from the line of the " c6te " as interpreted in
the answer submitted to the last question, which
line was described as the datum line.
Whether any inlet forms part of the territorial
waters of Russia depends on the question how
far back the inlet extends from the line of the
coast of the Ocean, as above explained. If it
extends further than the line of the mountains
parallel to such coast, or, in the absence of moun
tains, further than 10 leagues from such coast,
the upper part of the inlet is part of the terri
torial water of Great Britain. It is only in the
event of its not extending beyond those limits
that the whole of the inlet forms part of the
territorial waters of Russia.
Where the mainland coast is indented by deep
inlets forming part of the territorial waters of
Russia, the line would still be measured from
the line of the general direction of the mainland
coast, which would cross the inlet at its mouth
in a path so far coincident with the limit of the
territorial water (that is to say, from headland
to headland) as might be consistent with the

7S

preservation of its character as a general, and not
a detailed, line.
The line would not be measured from the
heads of inlets of the kind referred to. Ac
cording to the British contention, the continuity
of the fringe is liable to be broken, on the main
land, not only by the mountain boundary (where
found) crossing inlets, but also (where mountains
do not occur) by the 10 - league boundary
doing so.
The British view is that the shore-line of
inlets of the kind in question, whether at their
head or along their sides, does not affect the
datum line furnished by the coast, and there
fore does not affect any line ascertained from
that datum.
It is submitted that the line of the coast of
the Ocean cannot be construed as following the
shores of long, narrow, and deep inlets which
occur upon it. So far from forming part of the
coast of the Ocean, such inlets break its con
tinuity. They form in the strictest sense terri
torial waters of the Power to which the land on
each side of such inlets belongs. They are in no
way wanted for the navigation of the vessels of
other Powers, unless such right of navigation has
been granted by Treaty or is required for the
purpose of lawful access to the shores of such
inlets. The British position on this point may be
illustrated by reference to the concrete cases of
the Bradfield Canal, the Endicott and Tracy
Arms, the Snettisham Inlet, the Taku Inlet, and
the Lynn Canal, with its branches Chilkat Inlet,
Chilkoot Inlet, and Taiya Inlet.
On the general question of territorial waters,
reference may be made by way of illustration to
the Convention concerning the fisheries in the
North Sea, to which effect was given by " The Sea
Eisheries' Act, 1883 " (46 and 47 Vict., cap. 22),
the Convention as set out in the first schedule to
the Statute, and the second Article is as
follows : —
" As regards bays, tbe distance of three miles shall be
measured from a straight line drawn across the bay, in the
part nearest the entrance, at the first point where the
¦width does not exceed ten miles."
It will be observed that, as regards bays, the
territorial limit of three miles is to be measured

79
from a line drawn across the bay at the first point
where the width does not exceed ten mHes.
It is submitted that the principle invoked in
this Convention for the purpose of determining
the point from which the three mHes of territorial
waters should be measured is one to which
regard may properly be had in determining what
is to be treated as the line of the coast for the
purposes of the present Treaty.
Bradfield Canal, Endicott and Tracy Arms, the
Snettisham Inlet, and Taku Inlet are aU land
locked waters, which, for the present purpose, it
is submitted are indistinguishable from the rivers
of which they are the estuaries.
With regard to Lynn Canal, if the rule adopted
in the North Sea Convention is followed, the
general line of the coast must be treated as
crossing the Lynn Canal in latitude 58° 22' and
longitude 134° 53', being the first point from its
entrance, where the width does not exceed ten
miles. Even if a stricter rule were to be applied
in the present case, it would be found that at
latitude 58° 45' and longitude 135° 07' the width
of the Lynn Canal does not exceed 6 miles, and
it is submitted that, by no possibility, can the
general line of the coast be placed higher up the
Lynn Canal than at this point. A glance at the
physical conformation of Chilkat Inlet, Chilkoot
Inlet, and Taiya Inlet is enough to show that
the shores of these inland waters cannot be
treated as the Hne of the Ocean coast, and yet the
contention of the United States appears to be
that the heads of these inlets are to be treated as
the starting-point from which the lisiere at this
point is to be measured.
It is submitted that all such inlets form, for
the present purpose, no part of the Ocean, that,
for the purposes of the Treaty, they stand on the
same footing as the rivers which flow into the
Ocean either directly or through such estuary,
and it is only the British contention which gives
effect to the scope and to the specific provisions
of the Treaty.

[541]

M

80
SEVENTH QUESTION.
The seventh question is as follows : — Seventh Question.
" What, if any exist, are the mountains Case, p. i.
REFERRED TO AS SITUATED PARALLEL TO THE
COAST, WHICH MOUNTAINS, WHEN WITHIN 10
MARINE LEAGUES FROM THE COAST, ARE DECLARED
TO FORM THE EASTERN BOUNDARY ? "
Great Britain contends that there are such
mountains, and that they are to be found fronting
the general coast of the mainland along the whole
coast from latitude 56 degrees northwards.
It is to be observed in the first place that the
mountains contemplated by the Treaty were
described as follows : —
" La crete des montagnes situees parallelement a la App. I, p. 38.
c6te (Article III).
" La crete des montagnes qui s'etendent dans une
direction parallele a la cote depuis le 56e degre
(Article IV)."
This indicates a general parallelism only.
Mountains being a natural feature could not, of
course, be expected to run uniformly parallel to
the coast, whether straight or winding. In this
they differ from the arbitrary 10-league line
which, especially as it would only fall to be drawn
through a country where mountains failed,
might be drawn with substantial accuracy
parallel to the general line of the coast. More
over, the Treaty contemplated that the mountains
in question might vary in distance from the
coast, from its very edge to the extreme limit of
the 10" marine leagues, without sacrificing their
general parallel character.
It is further to be observed that the mountains
were not to be unbroken. This is clear from the
circumstance that the line was to be crossed
by rivers. According to the British contention,
if there is a gap in the mountains not amounting
to a discontinuance of the general line traced by
them, this is not to be regarded as interrupting
the mountains for the purpose of the line any
more than the mouth of a narrow inlet, or the
base of a narrow peninsula would be regarded
as interrupting the general line of the coast.
Where a gap of this character is found in the
mountains on the occurrence of a river, a narrow

81
inlet or a narrow valley, the line should be con
tinued across that gap and should not be suddenly
set back up the gorge of the river or the course
of the inlet or vaUey to the 10-marine-league
point. The 10-marine-league line applies to
supersede the mountain only where the mountains
cease altogether or recede beyond the 10 marine
leagues. In the latter case the artificial line
begins where the mountains cross the 10-league
Hmit and ceases where thev recross it.
v
According to the British contention, the phrase
" la crete des montagnes " signifies the tops of the
mountains adjacent to the sea. It was introduced
as a concession from the line along the base of this
slope proposed by Mr. Canning. The governing
idea was that this slope was to be Russian.
Whether, when the top of the slope had been
attained, it should be found to be backed by a
mass of peaks or to end in a ridge descending on
the other side to a plain did not concern the
Russians, who bargained only for the slope.
The mountains were to be the mountains next
the sea. It will be convenient to collect from
the correspondence recording the negotiations
the passages in which they are described.
App. 1, p. 70. j^ boun(Jary by mountains is first proposed in
the Russian counter-draft delivered to Sir Charles
Bagot in Eebruary 1824. They are described as
" montagnes qui bordent la c6te."
Ibid. The same phrase is used in Sir Charles Bagot's
amended proposal which is the next document.
Ib.,p. 71. In the Russian observations on Ibis amended
proposal the words are " la chalne de montagnes
qui suit a une tres petite distance les sinuosites
de la c6te."
Ib., p. 76. In Count Nesselrode's despatch of the
17th April, 1824, it is " des montagnes qui suivent
les sinuosites de la c6te."
Ib-> P- 78, When the suggestion is laid before the Hud
son's Bay Company they ask for "some more
definite demarcation on the coast than the sup
posed chain of mountains contiguous to it";
they speak of the scanty information available as
to " the country in the immediate neighbour
hood of the sea"; and they propose as the
boundary " the nearest chain of mountains, not
exceeding a few leagues of the coast."
Ib., p. 85. In writing to Sir Charles Bagot on the
12th July, 1824, Mr. Canning suggests a line
***** "following the sinuosities of the
coast, along the base of the mountains nearest
[541] ' M 2

82
the sea," and he particularly refers to the point
that it is the " seaward base " that is referred to.
In Count Lieven's Memorandum of July 1824 App. I, p. 91.
he speaks of "la base des montagnes qui suivent
les sinuosites de cette cote," and he refers to the
possibilities that they slope "jusqu'aux bords
meme de cette cote." On the matter again
coming before the Hudson's Bay Company they
once more emphasize the necessity of more accu
rately defining the eastern boundary " than by ib., p. 80.
the chain of mountains at a ' tres petite distance
de la c6te.' "
In Mr. Canning's despatch of the 8th December, ib., p. 113.
1824, the phrase is, " the mountains which run
parallel to the coast, and which appear, according
to the map, to follow all its sinuosities."
In Count Nesselrode's despatch of the 13th lb., p. 131.
March, 1825, it is, " la crete des montagnes qui
suivent les sinuosites de la cdte."
The same conclusion is indicated by the
expressions as to the character of the lisiere.
In the negotiations which took place in
Eebruary and March 1824, the Russian deside
ratum is thrice described by them as a " point
d'appui " and once as " un portion de territoire
sur la c6te."
In Count Nesselrode's despatch of the 17th lb., p. 75.
April, 1821, it is, "ne . . . . qu'une etroite }b.| p. 77!
lisiere sur la cdte meme," "une simple lisiere du lb., p. 78.
continent," "une mediocre espace de terre
ferme," " uniquement un point d'appui."
Mr. Canning, on the 29th May, 1824, writes rb., p. 81.
of " the strip of land required by Russia."
From this point in the correspondence the
word lisiere is used without qualification to
denote what the parties now thoroughly under
stood to be referred to.
Great Britain contends that this view cannot
be sustained with reference to the topography of
this region, and that as the Treaty is to be
followed the line must be drawn according to the
contention of Great Britain.
The identification of the mountains further
depends (as has already been shown in the argu
ment submitted upon Question V) upon the
identification of the " c6te " to which their
direction is to be parallel.
It is to be observed that if " c6te " includes the
shore of the inlets, the mountains to be sought
are those parallel to that shore, and a line drawn
on this principle would give to Great Britain

83
the interior not only of the stretches of territory
between the inlets, but also of peninsulas
running out beyond the coast-line, if there are
mountains running parallel to the shore. Great
Britain does not put forward the contention that
this is the true boundary, but if the contention of
the United States that " c6te" includes the shore
of inlets is well founded, Great Britain will main
tain that it certainly includes also the shore
between the mouths of the inlets and the shore
of peninsulas, and that the principle must be
applied in favour of Great Britain as well as
against her.
The contention of Great Britain as to the
interpretation to be put upon the word "c6te,"
and as to the considerations which are to be
regarded in identifying the mountains parallel
thereto, have now been set forth. The result
upon the ground which the adoption of those
contentions would give must now be indicated.
The point of departure is, as has already been
submitted, the point where the crest of the coast
mountains is found on the 56th parallel. Great
Britain suggests as answering this description the
App. II. Map point shown on the map in the Atlas herewith in
longitude 131° 42'. This is where the mountains
finally leave latitude 56° and run north. The coast
just south of latitude 56° turns, however, suddenly
to the east, and it may be that a point on the crest
of the mountains parallel to the coast may be
found on the 56th parallel more to the eastward.
The adoption of such an alternative would not
affect in principle the British contention.
Erom the point of departure above suggested,
the line proposed by Great Britain follows the
mountains northwards as shown on the map
referred to. The particular mountains and
ridges followed with the reasons for selecting
them are set fqrth in a declaration to be found
App. I, p. 307 in the Appendix by Mr. W. E. King, the British
et sel' Commissioner upon the Survey under the Con
vention of 1892. It will, of course, be under
stood that this is not put forward as showing
throughout the only possible way of giving effect
to the British contentions, but that it is sus
ceptible of any variations in detail which may
commend themselves to the Tribunal in ex
amining the topographical conditions met with
in tracing the line.

84

CHAPTER V.

ACTS SUBSEQUENT TO THE TREATY.
THE Tribunal is to consider in the settlement 1825-1867.
of the questions submitted to its decision, not
only the original text of the British-Russian
Treaty of 1825, and of the Treaty of cession of
Russian America to the United States in 1867,
but also —
" Any action of the several Governments, Case, p. 2.
OR OF THEIR RESPECTIVE REPRESENTATIVES, PRE
LIMINARY OR SUBSEQUENT TO THE CONCLUSION OF
said Treaties, so far as the same tends to show
THE ORIGINAL AND EFFECTIVE UNDERSTANDING OF
THE PARTIES IN RESPECT TO THE LIMITS OF THEIR
SEVERAL TERRITORIAL JURISDICTIONS . UNDER AND
BY VIRTUE OF THE PROVISIONS OF SAID TREATIES."
The actions of the parties previous to the
Treaty of 1825 have already been discussed.
The remaining period naturally divides itself into
two, the actions of the parties from 1825 to 1867,
and subsequently from 1867 to the date of the
present Convention, the 24th January, 1903.
It does not appear that even up to the time An Unknown Territory.
of the cession in 1867 either Great Britain or the
United States had acquired any but a very dim
idea of that remote part of the New World. The
United States, being nearer to Russian- America
than any European country, and closely con
nected with it by trade, had been considering
the purchase of the territory during the Adminis
tration of Mr. Polk and Mr. Buchanan, and had
made a definite suggestion to purchase in
December 1859. If any exact information of the
district from 1859 to 1867 were available, it would
certainly be in the possession of the United
States' public men, and could not have escaped
the Hon. Charles Sumner, Senator for Massa
chusetts, whose speech advocating the purchase
of Alaska is put forward as the embodiment of
expert knowledge regarding Alaska at that time.
Yet Sumner declared in 1867 that "perhaps no B.R,, 40th Beng.,
region of equal extent on the globe, unless we ^ NcT "m*"
except the interior of Africa or possibly Green- pp. 124 et seq.

85

land, is as little known," and cites the description
of it given by the poet Campbell in the
" Pleasures of Hope," " While exploring earth's
loneliest bounds and Ocean's wildest shore."

The Russian-American Company and
the lisiere.

Case, p. 12.

App. I, p 150.

Alaska, p. 591.

It seems impossible to conceive of any local
act performed in those remote regions by Russia
during that early period of which Great Britain
could be said to have been made aware by any
means except direct communication or corre
spondence with Russia. It has been shown that no
such posts had been established by the Russians
on the disputed territory previous to the Treaty
of 1825. By the negotiations leading to that
Treaty it appears that the lisiere was sought
simply as a "point d'appui," so that it might
not be adversely occupied. The lease to the
Hudson's Bay Company, 6th Eebruary, 1839,
provided for the return of only one Russian post
at the expiry of the lease, that of Highfield.
situated, not on the lisiere, but on Wrangel
Island, a part of the Russian possessions, and in
no way in dispute. This seems sufficiently con
clusive that there were no other posts. Bancroft,
speaking of the cession of 1867, states that
Russia herself had never occupied and never
wished to occupy this territory — meaning, it
seems, the whole territory of Russian America.

Hudson's Bay Company Lease from Russian-
Amcriean Company of 6th February, 1839.

App. I, p. 150.

The lease by the Hudson's Bay Company of
the 6th February, 1839, from the Russian-
American Company, cannot be put forward as
affecting the boundary question. The lease sets
up no boundary. It is impossible to detect the
recognition of any sovereignty on the part of
Russia, except over that portion of the territory
given her by the Treaty. That Russia possessed
some portion of the mainland could not then be
denied. If the Hudson's Bay Company, for the
purpose of disposing of a disagreeable competitor
in the fur trade, and to avoid a recurrence of the
Stikine incident of 1834, chose to lease " say the
whole mainland, coast, and interior country
belonging to Russia.," it cannot be argued that
it thereby leased something that did not belong
to Russia, or that Great Britain thereby gave
Russia something more than she had previously
possessed. The Company already enjoyed a
monopoly of the territory on the British side of

86

the line. By the lease it secured a similar
monopoly on the Russian side. It was a matter
of indifference to it whether its rights were
derived from its British charter or its Russian
lease, and no question as to the true location
could possibly arise.
The history of the lisiere from the Treaty
of 1825 until 1867 is simple enough. As has
been said in the course of the diplomatic corre
spondence, the only value of the region during
the first ten years after 1855 lay in the fur trade,
and that trade was thrown open on equal terms
to the subjects and citizens of Great Britain
and Russia, by Article VII of the Treaty
between Great Britain and Russia of 1825,
and, before the expiry of the ten years,
events, which resulted finally in the lease to the
Hudson's Bay Company, of the trade of the
whole of a lisiere southward and eastward of
a line joining Cape Spencer and Mount Fair-
weather/had occurred.

History of lisiere.

1825-1867.

The circumstances leading to the lease are well
known as " the Stikine incident." The clause
of the Treaty throwing open the trade in furs
would terminate by effluxion of time in 1835. In
1833-34 a Hudson's Bay expedition proceeded to
Stikine River for the purpose of exploring it and
establishing a post on the upper portion of the
river. In June 1834 the expedition was pre
vented by the Russians from ascending the river.
This was in manifest violation of the Treaty
inasmuch as British subjects had the right to
the free navigation of the river, and the upper
portion was, under any interpretation, in British
territory. On the 24th October, 1835, the Governor of App. I, p. 155,
the Hudson's Bay Company wrote Lord
Palmerston complaining of the infraction of the
Vlth and Vllth Articles of the Treaty of 1825,
and claiming 22,150Z. damages. On the 28th
January, 1836, the Hudson's Bay Company was lb., p. 158.
informed that the Russian Government disavowed
the action of its servants, and promised to convey
His Imperial Majesty's displeasure over what
had been done. The damages were not paid,
however, but a negotiation followed, which led to.
the leasing by the Hudson's Bay Company of the
territory of its rival. Part of the consideration
of the lease was the damage which had been

Stikine River Expedition.

1833-1834.

87
suffered by the Hudson's Bay Company through
the stoppage of its expedition up the Stikine.
The lease was not brought about by any dispute
as to the boundary line but by the desire of the
Hudson's Bay Company to avoid unnecessary
friction by illegal acts of the Russians, of which
the above is an example, and by the further
desire to. en joy a monopoly of the trade.

The Hudson's Bay Company's Lease and
Renewals.

Termination of Lease, 31st May, 1867.

App. I, p. 136.

The original Agreement was made the 6th
Eebruary, 1839, the lease to commence the 1st
June, 1840, and to last ten vears. A supple
mentary Agreement was entered into the 17th
May, 1842. The lease was renewed in 1S49, and
on the 28th December, 1858, the lease between
the two Companies was extended to the 1st
January, 1862. It was further extended till
June, 1865, and in May, 1866, again for one year,
terminating on tho 31st May, 1867 (see Declara
tion on p. 306 of Appendix I). As the Treaty
of 1867 was concluded on the 30th March, 1867,
it will be seen that, until after the cession of
1867, the lisiere was under lease to the Hudson's
Bay Company.
There is no evidence that Great Britain either
approved or disapproved of the lease, nor
was the Hudson's Bay Company, during the
period in question, in any sense a representative
of the British Government, and no action of the
Company could possibly affect the question at
issue.

Proceedings of Select Committee of British
House of Commons of 1857.
Report from the
Select Committee
on the Hudson's
Bay Company,
ordered by the
House of
Commons to be
printed 31sfc July
and 11th August,
18S7.

pp. iii et seq.

The proceedings of the Select Committee of
the British House of Commons in 1857, " to
consider the state of those possessions in North
America which are under the administration of
the Hudson's Bay Company, or over which they
possess a licence to trade," lend no countenance
to United States' contention.
In 183S the Hudson's Bay Company had been
granted the licence of exclusive trade over that
north-western portion of British America known
as the Indian Territory. In 1857 this licence
was about to expire, and the Committee met to
consider the conditions of the territory which
the Hudson's Bay Company had administered
under its licence. The people of Canada east of
Lake Superior felt that the means of extension
and regular settlement should be afforded to
[5411 N

88

them over a portion of this great territory,
particularly the Red River Valley and the
VaUey of the Saskatchewan. The Canadian R . f , ,
western boundary in 1S57 did not extend much Select Committee
, j x i o xi j. d j.i °n tbe Hudson's
beyond Lake Superior in the centre of the Bay company,
Gontinent. As a matter of fact, the territory in ordered by the
House of
question was not then a part of Canada, and Commons to be
Canada was at that time in no way concerned and mhAi/ust
in that remote part of British North America. 1857, p. 210.
The question of the boundary-line between the
lisiere and British territory was in no way the
subject of the inquiry.

In passing from the period extending from
1825 to 1867 to that extending from 1867 to the
date of the present Convention, the 24th January,
1903, the relations of Great Britain and the
United States, become the subject of con
sideration. It is, perhaps, not strictly necessary that the
facts bearing on these relations should be taken
up in the original presentation of the British
Case. They might be more properly dealt with
in reply. It is only because it may be more
convenient that the Tribunal should be made
conversant, in the first instance, to some slight
extent, at least, with the contentions of both
sides in this connection, that any effort is made
to deal with them now. Anything that is
advanced at this stage of the Case, dealing with
these subjects, is therefore given with a full
reservation of the right to deal with the same
subjects more fully in reply.

More Recent Acts.

1867—1903.

The facts as to the occupation of the territory
after the acquisition by the United States are as
follows : —
The formal occupation of the newly-ceded Alaska,
territory is described in Bancroft's " History of pp- 594-600-
Alaska," at pp. 594-600 et seq. It appears that
with some ceremony the United States' flag was
unfurled at Sitka on the 18th October, IS 67.
Eort Tongass appears to have been established Pacific Coast
in 1867, and was visited by transports with pa°t'j aS "*'
garrison supplies. A United States' military second series,
force was sent to Cook's Inlet in 1868. There ibid.' citation
were also some troops at Wrangell. I1*01? JVvtlie's\-
x ° Cook Inlet, p. bo,
Sitka, Tongass, and Wrangell were all situated Alaska, p. G06,
on islands, and Cook's Inlet lies far to the west n0 e

Occupation by the United States.

89

of the territory in dispute, and on the Russian
side of the 14 1st meridian.

In his letter of Ihe 23rd May, 1877, ordering

Report on Alaska
by Morris, p. 26.
45th Congress, 3 the return of the troops from Alaska, the
Ex! Doc. 59? Assistant Adjutant-General concludes with these
words : —
" Upon the departure of tbe troops, Sitka and Fort
Wrangell will be discontinued as military posts," and " all
control of the military department over affairs in Alaska
will cease."
There is nothing to show that upon the transfer
a detachment was stationed at any time on the
strip of mainland.

Absence of United States' control
throughout the lisiere.

Alaska, p. 602.

As to the extent to which legislation and the
enforcement of law and order had been developed
in Alaska generally up to a recent day, the
following quotations from Bancroft may be
made : —
" The Company and the Imperial Government gave
them at least protection, sufficient means of livelihood,
schools, a church ; but in this vast territory, there never
existed, since 1867, other than a semblance even of
military law. There was not in 1883 legal protection for
person or property, nor, apart from a few regulations as to
commerce and navigation, had any important Act been
passed by Congress, save those that relate to the preser
vation of seals, the collection of revenue, and the sale of
fire-arms and fire-water."

Ib., p. 004.

Establishment of Schools.

and —
" As there was no legal title to land in Alaska,, there
could be no legal conveyance nor mortgage, though con
veyances were made occasionally and recorded by the
Deputy Collectors at Wrangel and Sitka, the parties
concerned taking their own risk as to whether the
transaction might at some distant day be legalized.
" Miners and others whose entire possessions might lie
within the territory, and who might have become resi
dents, could not bequeath their property, whether real or
personal, for there were no Probate Courts nor any
authority whereby estates could be administered. Debts
could not be collected except through the summary
process by which disputes are sometimes settled in
mining camps. In short, there was neither civil nor
criminal jurisdiction in any part of Alaska."
Schools have not been maintained in Alaska
from the time of the Treaty of Cession, or to any
[5411 N 2

90
extent during any considerable period. Petroff, * ReP°rt on the
B * x ' population,
Special Agent of the United States, in his Industries, and
Report of the 7th August, 1S82, to the Superin- ^]asjjai Dy ivan
tendent of the Census, says : — Petroff, Special
Agent, to
¦' At present the only schools in all western Alaska Census of "United
where English is taught are on the Pribilof Islands and States, 7th
Iliuliuk settlement, Unalaska, both being maintained at 1( g^\ ' , g„im!!n
the expense of a trading firm." Fisheries, and
GeneralResources of
Later on in the same Report he says : — AI 2271'" V0'' 1Vv
" At the location of all parish churches it is supposed lb., p 229.
or expected tha schools will be maintained by the Church
authorities, but as already mentioned, there is much laxity
in this respect, ind at least 20,000 natives, are entirely
without the remotest influence of church or school — a fact
our Board of Foreign Missions might take into considera
tion."

This appears, then, to have been the condition
of educational development seventeen years after
the Treatv of Cession.
Presbyterian missionaries, according to Petroff, Petroff, p. 227.
had established schools on several of the out
lying islands and at some of the Chilkat villages
on Lynn Canal, but he nowhere claims that
they were recognized by the United States''
Government or supported by public money.

The very slight nature of the control oc- Visits of United States' naval forces to the
casionally exercised by the United States over head of Lynn Canal in 1869 and 1890.
the inhabitants of Alaska may be illustrated by
reference to the incidents of 1869 and 1890.
The events of 1869 are described in the Report Petroff, p. 357.
of Ivan Petroff, Special Agent of the United
States, before referred to : —
" On the 1st January, 1869, the Chief of the Chilkat
tribe was on a visit to Sitka with sixty or seventy
warriors, and paid his respects to General Davis, who
made him a present of a few bottles of whisky."
The Special Agent proceeds to describe the
effects of the whisky on the Chief, the subse
quent collision with the military, the shooting
of some Indians and prospectors, the excitement
caused by the news that the crew of the wrecked
schooner " Louisa Downs " had been massacred,
the prompt burning of three deserted villages in

* Hereafter referred to as " Petroff."

91
which "not a hostile warrior was seen," and
adds : — ¦
' "' u ' " Some time later it was discovered that the ship
wrecked crew hadnot been killed, but rescued by these
savages and treated kindly."
The only other reference to 1869 is the follow
ing; : — ¦
lDi(i " In the month of July of the same year, the Chilkat
Indians, who had still a life to their credit on account
of the trouble in Sitka in the month of January, boarded
a small trading vessel, and demanded a life or money.
A written guaranty for the settlement of the claim was
given, and the matter reported to the Commanding
Officer at Sitka, who, however, refused to have anything
to do with it. Upon this, the trader who had given
the security paid the claim, thus securing peace to the
country, and after this the Indians submitted to the
General's demands."
It does not appear that any even of these
events occurred on the territory now in dispute..
The United States' trading vessel does, however,
appear to have submitted to the Indian demands,
and another United States' trader seems to have
paid the Indian bill.
In 1890, as it has been alleged, some cannery
owners sent to Sitka for aid against some Indians
in Lynn Canal. A vessel arrived, and the In-
dians were invited on board and feasted. Nothing
further appears to have been done.
. Another passage from Petroff may be quoted
in this connection : — ¦
lb., p 3G0. "In 1878 the Sitka Indians began to comport them
selves in the most insolent manner, defacing the graves
in the Eussian cemetery, pulling down the stockade,
separating the town from the Indian Settlement, and
committing other similar outrages At that time not
even a revenue cutter was present in the harbour, and
the inhabitants, becoming very much alarmed, sent an
appeal for immediate protection to the Commander of
an English man-of-war in the harbour of Victoria. The
assistance was promptly rendered, just in time, it was
claimed, to prevent disaster; opinions on that subject
Avere, however, divided. In due time the English man-
of-war was relieved by a similar vessel of the United
States' navy, and since- that time a vessel of that class
bas been constantly stationed in the harbour of Sitka,
affording protection and assisting the inhabitants of
South-Eastern Alaska in various ways,"
¦fr it thus appears that an American ship inter
fered to save life on Lynn Canal, and a British

92

ship performed the same office for the Americans
at Sitka. Both England and Canada were
unaware of these events ; nor does Great Britain
lay claim to Sitka because of the timely aid her
vessel was able to afford.

With reference generally to the claims of Isolated acts of possession by United States'
occupation set up by the United States because pf Citizens treatec* SeQeralIv-
certain isolated acts of her citizens, as, for
instance, the establishment of a mission school
by the Presbyterians at Pyramid Harbour about
18S1, a private store at Taiya Inlet in 1882 or
1883, and of one or two canneries at Pyramid
Harbour about 1883, it cannot be contended that
these individual acts of possession are of any
importance as bearing on the Case. The United
States had officially declared that "all claims
of pre-emption and settlement in Alaska were h. E 55th Con-
not only without the sanction of law, but were gress, 1st Session,
. Doc. No. 92,
in direct violation of laws applicable to the public Part iv, p. 121.
domain." Individual acts of possession in Alaska
therefore would be in violation of American law.
It cannot be presumed in the absence of proof
that the people who located in the territory now
in dispute did so in assertion of or in reliance on
the sovereignty of the United States.

Up to this point this account has been taken
up with the annals of an unknown region.
Apart from the visits of occasional Alaska
tourists, who found their way north to escape
the summer heat and enjoy the novel scenery of
the cloud-drenched coasts, and snow-capped
mountains, and beyond the few engaged in the
canning industries no one came to disturb the
silence of the lisiere or the peace of the
aboriginal inhabitants. It was as unknown as
the interior of Africa or possibly Greenland when
Mr. Sumner spoke in 1867. Eor years conditions
remained unchanged, and until 1896 the Govern
ments of Great Britain or Canada knew little or
nothing of the movements of the people along
that remote north-west coast.

Recent Acts.

Reference will now be made to the cases of
Dyea, and Skagway, two Settlements at the head
of the Lynn Canal. It is understood that it is
claimed, on the part of the United States, that

Dyea and Skagway.

93
their possession of these places arose and con
tinued under circumstances which should in
fluence the Tribunal to so delimit the boundary
as to leave these places within. United States'
territory. This contention is wholly disputed.
The Rush to the Klondike Gold Fields. When in the summer of 1896 rich gold-fields
were discovered in the Canadian-Klondike dis
trict upwards of 500 miles in the interior from
the head of Lynn Canal, and the news gradually
reached the outer world during the next six
months, the eyes of the people of North America
were suddenly turned towards this hitherto un
known and almost inaccessible region. Tens of
thousands of people in the early spring of 1897
started for " The Klondike," as the new mining
district was popularly termed. The shortest way
to it was by the Lynn Canal over the Skagway
(White) and Chilcoot Passes and down the Yukon
River. The pilgrims were of various nationali
ties, but mainly United States' citizens. Many
stopped at Dyea and Skagway, while others
pushed on over the passes to the gold-fields. By
this movement of travel Dyea and Skagway came
into existence. If there had previously been
one or two isolated and temporary squatters at
these points, their presence could not, it is
believed, be shown to be of such a character as
to constitute a settlement by or on behalf of the
United States. It is to be particularly noted
that this movement of population took place as
a movement toward the Canadian Klondike, and
the Settlements of Dyea and Skagway were an
incident thereof, and came into existence wholly
without reference to the question as to whether
the sites of these Settlements were in British
or United States' territory. In the early
summer of 1897, therefore, the position was
that some thousands had got over the passes,
others were camped at Dyea and Skagway,
and the movement was rapidly growing. Eood
and supplies had to be transported from the
cities of the Pacific coast through Lynn Canal
and over the passes.
It will be observed that this traffic had to pass
from the towns and cities of British Columbia
and the Pacific Coast States through the waters
which separate the islands and strip of coast
owned by the United States to the mouth of
Lynn Canal, and thence over the frontier, wher
ever it might be, into the Canadian territory.

94

United States' Revenue Regulations.

Canada's Claim well known.

The Chilcoot Pass.

Under these circumstances, the Canadian Go
vernment was forced by the imperious necessities
of the case to make provision for the traffic,
and this explains their subsequent action.
British vessels were met by the fact" that the
regulations governing the action of the United
States' revenue officers in charge of Alaskan
ports were interpreted by them as forbidding
landing from any British vessel anywhere on the
shores of Lynn Canal, Juneau on the Gastineaux
Channel being the only port of entry in this part
of the territory.
These regulations were put in force, notwith
standing that Canada's claim to the territories
at the head of Lynn Canal was at the time
well known to the United States' Govern
ment. A reconnaissance having been made
by Lieutenant Schwatka, of the United States'
army, in the year 1883, of the passes from
the Lynn Canal to the Yukon, embraced in the
disputed territory, the Canadian Government in
1887, as already stated in this Case, shortly after
they had official notice of his report, caused a
protest to be lodged with the Government at ^pp. t; p. 257.
Washington against the implied claim of Lieu
tenant Schwatka that this pass, called by him
Perrier Pass, and now known as the Chilkoot
Pass, was in United States' territory. Again, in
1S88, the Canadian Government forwarded a
further protest to Her Majesty's Government for
communication to the United States' Government
against a rumoured attempt of the United States
to exercise jurisdiction at the White Pass,
claiming it as British territory ; and in the same ib., p. 264.
year, during the currency of the Fishery nego
tiations at Washington, Dr. G. M. Dawson, as Tne Dawson-Dall Correspondence.
representing Her Majesty's Government, in an jb., p. 259 et seq.
informal conference with Mr. Dall, representing
the United States, put forward the contention
that the territories surrounding the head of Lynn
Canal were British. The report of the conference
between Dr. Dawson and Mr. Dall was subse
quently laid before Congress by President Cleve- The President's Message.

Canada's Protest.

The White Pass.

Canada's Protest.

land, in his Message dated 2nd March, 1889.

50th Congress,

In recommending to the President the publication 2nd Session,
of these documents, the Secretary of State No^uei' p°i"'
observed : —

"These documents are considered of value as bearing
upon a subject of great international importance, and
should be put in shape for public information."

95

Tbe Convention of 1892.

App. I, p. 269.

Report of Commissioners. Ib., p. 282.

Boundaiy Question sub judice.

The United States' Revenue Regulations.

Canada's Position.

Ib., p. 289.
Consequent Negotiations.

Ibid.

Ibid.

Dyea a Sub-port of Entry— Canada's
Reservation.

Ibid.

Indeed, by the year 1892, such a diplomatic
rapprochement had been arrived at between Great
Britain and the United States with reference to
the ascertainment of the true boundary that on
the 22nd July of that year a Convention, herein
before referred to, was entered into between the
two countries for a survey, with a view to the de
limitation of the line in accordance with the spirit
and intent of the Treaties. By this Convention,
it was agreed that the boundary was to be con
sidered and estabHshed as soon as practicable
after the receipt of the Report of the Commis
sioners. That Report was signed on the 31st
December, 1895, and laid before the Parliament
of Canada and the United States' Congress early
in 1896. The position was, therefore, that the
High Contracting Parties had not had time to
meet to consider the boundary-line, and the
matter was still sub judice
. It is obvious that if the Canadian Government
had instructed British vessels to disregard these
Regulations, there would have been grave danger
of a serious collision. Instead of pursuing a
course thus at variance with sound and prudent
international practice, the Canadian Government
opened communication with the Government of
the United States, and proceeded to make
the best arrangement possible for the pro
tection of her trade with the Yukon, while
at the same time reserving her rights as to the
ultimate determination of the boundary. On
the 22nd July, 1897, the Canadian Commis
sioner of Customs inquired of the United States'
Treasury Department if Canadian goods could
pass from Juneau, Alaska, to the Yukon frontier
without payment of customs duties if owners
paid for United States' officers accompanying
the goods. The Assistant Secretary of the
Treasury, in reply, inquired if it would facilitate
matters to make Dyea a sub-port of entry. On
the following day the Canadian Commissioner of
Customs replied that it would facilitate matters
if Dyea were made a sub-port of entry " pending
settlement of boundary question," and requested
that, if this arrangement were agreed to, the
Treasury should issue instructions to allow British
steamers from Canadian ports to land and receive
passengers and goods at Dyea. This arrangement
was approved of on the same day, " merchandise
to be accompanied by a Customs officer at
expense of owners." On the 19th August
[541] O

96

following the Canadian Acting Minister of
Customs sent the following despatch to the
United States' Treasury Department : —
" Freight and passengers for Yukon are going in by App. I, p. 290.
White Pass, and the landing is at Skagway Bay,
three miles south of Dyea. American vessels deposit
freight and passengers at the bay, but privilege refused
to Canadian vessels. Customs officers can as con
veniently pass entries at Skagway as at Dyea. Will
you please instruct officials by wire to extend privilege
of landing at Skagway Bay to Canadian vessels as
conceded to American vessels."
On the day following the Canadian Acting
Minister of Customs received the following
reply from the Treasury Department : —
" On the 6th instant, limits of Port of Dyea were ibid.
extended to include Skagway, and deputy in charge
instructed accordingly. This action gave Canadian
vessels same rights as vessels of United States."

Eour important facts are made evident by
this correspondence : —
1. The objective point referred to in the
first Canadian communication is the " Yukon
frontier," no special locality being mentioned.
2. The reference to Dyea and the proposition
to make it a sub-port of entry came from the
United States' Government.
3. Canada, in accepting this proposition, ex-
pressly provided that her acceptance was " pend
ing settlement of boundary question."
4. The necessity of the Case requiring imme
diate action rendered it quite impossible for
the Canadian Government to adopt any other
course than that which was followed.

Four Important Facts.

A few months later the Canadian Government,
in the early part of the year 1898, formally
protested to the Imperial Government that the
United States bad established a sub-port of
customs at Dyea, in territory which they claimed
was rightfully British, and urged the desirabiHty
of establishing the boundary-line as contemplated
by the Convention of 1892. An agreement was lb., p. 305.

Canada protests, and urges Delimitation
of Boundarv.

subsequently reached for establishing a pro
visional line as a boundary, but without prejudice
to the claim of either Government, and matters
have since remained in statu quo.
It is submitted, therefore, that the claims put
forward by the United States' Government to
hold Dyea and Skagway as Settlements made
without notice of adverse rights, and without
any mutual communication saving the rights of

The Pro\isional Boundary.

The Result.

97

Great Britain, are not claims which are justified
by the facts.

Ocoupation of Wales and Pearse Islands'.

Construction of Storehouses in 1896.

App. I, p. 293.

Ib.. p. 294.

Canada's Inquiry.

Ibid.
The United States' Reply.

Ib., p. 295.

Ib., p. 300 et seq.

It is necessary to refer to one other alleged act
of possession on the part of the United States —
the construction of certain storehouses on Wales
and Pearse Islands, territory claimed to be
British. These storehouses were constructed by
the United States' Government in tbe summer of
1896, but nothing was known with regard to
them by the Canadian Government until the
year 1901.
In October 1901, it was discovered that on
Chart No. 3091, pubHshed by the United States'
Coast and Geodetic Survey, of part of the Pacific
coast, the following names appeared : —
" St. House No. 1," on the eastern shore of
Wales Island.
" No. 2 Storehouse," on the eastern shore
of Pearse Island.
" United States' Storehouse No. 3," on the
shore of Halibut Bay, which is a small inden
tation of the western shore of Portland Canal.
"United States' Storehouse No. 4," on the
western shore of Portland Canal, to the north of
the mouth of Salmon River, near the head of
Portland Canal.
The exact point designated by the name was
indicated on the chart in each case by a small
dot. An inquiry was at once directed to the United
States' Government "as to the nature of the
storehouses and the reason for their erection in
this territory, the title to which was and still is
the subject of diplomatic negotiation." In Eeb
ruary 1902, Secretary Hay replied : —
"That the storehouses are upon territory which has
been in the possession of the United States since its
acquisition from Russia, and that the designation of
Portland Canal is such as has been noted on all the
charts issued by the United States since that acquisition,"
and added —
" I am not aware that the Government of His Britannic
Majesty ever advanced any claim to this territory before
the signature of the Protocol of the 30th May, 1898,
preliminary to the appointment of the Joint High Com
mission." In his letter, Mr. Hay directed attention to a
certain report of the Bureau of Engineers of the
United States' army. Erom this report, it appears
[541] O 2

98
that the storehouses in question had been built
in 1896 by parties landed by a United States'
revenue-cutter, which had been sent out for the
purpose. This report further states that after the
completion of each of the buildings referred to,
the "flag was hoisted," " three cheers given," &c.
In short, the usual formalities ordinarily The formalities at Wales and Pearse Islands.
observed in taking possession of newly-acquired
territory were gone through with, and this,
although all these regions so formally taken
possession of by the United States are claimed by
them to be part of that territory which they have
held for seventy years of undisputed occupation
by the Russians and themselves. Wales Island
in particular, upon which one of these storehouses
was erected, with these solemn formalities, is
within a few miles, across a narrow channel (the
Portland Canal of Vancouver) from Port Tongass,
which was occupied by the United States as a
military post for several years after 1867.
In reply to the above letter of Secretary Hay
of Eebruary 1902, the attention of the Secretary App. I, p. 294.
of State of the United States was directed by
Mr. Eaikes, the British Charge d'affaires at
Washington, to the note, addressed by Her
Majesty's Minister at Washington to the United
States' Secretary of State on the 5th June, 1891.
Mr. Raikes, in his letter, said : — lb., p. 295.
"In view of a certain passage in tbe Report of the The British Protest of June, 1891.
United States Coast and Geodetic Survey, your Govern- 
ment was reminded in this note, at tbe desire of the
Government of Canada, that the question of the
boundary in the neighbourhood referred to was the
subject of some difference of opinion, and that the
actual line could only be properly determined by an
International Commission.
" The Canadian Government point out that shortly
after that date provision was made in the Convention
of the 22nd July, 1892, for the delimitation of the
boundary-line in accordance with the ' spirit and intent
of the Treaties,' and an agreement was entered into
that the boundary was to be considered and established
as soon as practicable after the receipt of the Report
of the Commissioners.
" That Report was signed on the 31st December,
1895, and laid before the Parliament of Canada and
the United States' Congress early in 1896 ; but in the
same year, before the High Contracting Parties had
met to consider the boundary-line, and while the
matter was still sub judice, the United States erected
the storehouses on part of the ' territory adjacent,'
which was the subject of the operations of the joint
survey and of the diplomatic negotiations.

99
" The Canadian Government conceive that occupa
tion effected under such circumstances would not, in
international law, have any validity, but they are of the
opinion that, nevertheless, the matter should not be
allowed to pass without protest, and they have,
therefore, expressed the desire that your Government
should be informed of their views on the subject."
App. I, p. 296. On the 16th September, 1902, the Acting
Secretary of State of the United States formally
acknowledged receipt of the above commu
nication. Summarised, the matter of these storehouses
stands as follows : —
Summary. Wales Island is close to Tongass Island, where
for some years the United States had a military
post, being separated therefrom by a narrow
channel. While the whole question of the boundary was
sub judice under the Treaty of 1892, the United
States formally . sent a revenue-cutter to take
possession of Wales and Pearse Islands, and did
so take possession in the year 1896.
Of this action Canada knew nothing until
1901, when it was observed by an examination of
the United States' chart ; Canada then at once
protested, and was informed :
1. That the storehouses were not shown on
the United States' maps.
2. That the islands had been in the possession
of the United States since 1867.
It thereupon transpired that although posses
sion had been taken and reported, and the store
houses marked on one chart, the charts which
followed did not show the storehouses. The
accident of a Canadian official happening to
see the one particular chart upon which the
storehouses were marked, alone brought the
incident to the attention of the Canadian Govern
ment five years after it had occurred.

100

CHAPTER VI

CARTOGRAPHY.

IN the discussions of this question which have Cartography.
taken place, a number of maps have been at
different times referred to. Of these maps those
that are in the possession or control of the
Representative of the British Government, so far
as known, are reproduced in the Atlas which
accompanies this Case, except such as are mere
copies or reproductions of those which are so
included in the Atlas.
Many of the maps referred to in the discussions
are in such custody as not to be readily procur
able for the purpose of having copies made. In
such cases they have not been included in tbe
Atlas. It is believed, however, that sufficient have
been included to make clear the arguments which
are based upon the action of cartographers in
relation to the subject in dispute.
The bearing of the maps, which have been
compiled at various dates, upon the identification
of the Portland Canal mentioned in the Treaty,
has aheady been alluded to in this Case. It
only remains to comment on such bearing as
they may have on the line which runs from the
head of Portland Channel.
With regard to maps generally, it is to be
observed in the first place that their authority
depends upon the degree of information to be
attributed to their authors.
In considering whether the map makers who
have shown upon their maps lines indicating a
boundary had any adequate information to guide
them, it is to be borne in mind that the question
how the Treaty of 1825 affects the inlets on this
coast has always been a question, not of the
interpretation of the Treaty in the abstract, but of
its application to the topography. Whether the
line crossed any7~and if~~so, what inlets was a
matter which could not be decided till it was
ascertained what was the true line of the coast,
and what was the relation thereto of the various
inlets and of the mountains bordering the coast.
If this is the correct view of the question it is

101

obvious that the information within reach of the
map makers in question was nil. There had been
no survey, and the country was unfrequented
and unknown.
It is contended that the line shown on these
maps is really a theoretical line drawn to in
dicate broadly that a boundary existed in that
region. This is not a case where a map maker is
identifying natural features of the country as
answering to any particular name; in which
case the map might be evidence to show
that at that time some persons, at any rate,
understood such name as applying to such
natural features. Nor is it a case where the
map maker purports to depict the sites of settle
ments, the extent of discovery, or the like ;
in which cases the map might afford evidence
of reputation or tradition. The maps of North-
West America now under discussion simply pur
port to show the general course of a boundary
existing, as yet, only on the paper of the Treaty
which recorded it, deprived during all the years for
which the lisiere was under lease to the Hudson's
Bay Company of any practical importance,
traceable with reference to no local names, and
resting on no facts known to the map maker.
It is submitted that the Government of Great
Britain should not be expected, before the
question arose, to make any disavowal of the
correctness of such maps. It would have been
impossible for any one, whether Government
official or private map maker, to pretend to trace
the exact course of the boundary. As a matter
of fact, everyone in any way brought into con
tact with the matter knew that the boundary
was undetermined, and was incapable of being
determined except by survey and by joint inter
national action. No one, therefore, regarded the
appearance of conventional and obviously inac
curate lines upon maps as having any significance.
The appearance of these Hnes seems to be
accounted for by the fact that the known point
of commencement in the continent was the head
of Portland Canal. The line was, therefore,
roughly drawn from the head of Portland Canal
as an indication that there was a boundary some
where in that neighbourhood, it being impossible
to lay it down exactly by reference to the parti
cular definition in the Treaty owing to complete
lack of information in regard to the ground.
When one cartographer adopted this plan,

102
others having no knowledge of the topography,
and in the absence of any official interpretation
of the Treaty, naturally followed the example of
the first.
That these lines were wholly without autho
rity and that they could not be considered as
drawn in accordance, or even approximately in
accordance with the Treaty, is clearly shown by
Mr. Bayard, United States' Secretary of State, in App. I, p. 248.
his letter to Mr. Phelps, United States' Minister
at St. James', of November 20, 1885, already
referred to in this Case. Mr. Bayard first quotes,
with approval, a letter of Mr. Dall, the United
States' Expert Officer, in which Mr. Dall says : —
" We have no good topographical maps of this part of [b., p. 252.
Alaska  "
" We may then fall back on the line parallel with Mr. Dall's Views.
the windings of the coast. Let any one with a pair of 
drawing compasses, having one leg a pencil point, draw
this line on the United States' Coast Survey Map of Alaska
(No. 960, of 1884). The result is sufficient to condemn it.
Such a line could not] be surveyed : it crosses itself in
many places, and indulges in myriads of knots and tangles.
The line actually drawn as a boundary on that map omits
the intricacies, and is intended merely as an approxi
mation." Mr. Bayard then says : — ib,d-
" The line traced upon the Coast Survey Map of Alaska Mr. Bayard expresses United States' Viow.
(rTo. 960), of which copies are sent to you herewith, is as
evidently conjectural and theoretical as was the mountain
summit line traced by Vancouver. It disregards the
mountain topography of the country, and traces a line on
paper about 30 miles distant from the general contour
of the coast."
Mr. Bayard then specifically instructs Mr. The United States repudiates the Line of
Phelps to "bring the foregoing considerations e oas  ^V6J aP-
to the attention of the Marquis of Salisbury," lb., p. 253.
instructions which were carried out in due course.
It is demonstrated, therefore, that in 1885 the
United States' Government officially disavowed
to the British Government the correctness of this
conventional line, adopted by their own and other
cartographers, and declared that the line was not
in accordance with the Treaty, and was merely
conjectural. The Earl of Iddesleigh in his letter of lb., p. 255.
August 27, 1886, to Mr. Phelps, some months
later, expressed substantially the same view on
behalf of Great Britain, He said : —
"In the note which you addressed to the Marquis
of Salisbury on the 19th January last, you requested

103

that you might be furnished with a copy of the map of
the Dominion of Canada, geologically coloured, from
surveys made by the Geological Corps, 1842-1882,
alluded to in Mr. Bayard's statement of the 20th
November, 1885, with reference to the question of the
Alaska frontier.
" In forwarding to you a copy of the map in ques
tion, I have the honour to invite your attention to the
fact that the Alaska boundary-line shown therein is
merely an indication of the occurrence of such a dividing
line somewhere in that region. It will, of course, be
clearly understood that no weight could attach to the
map location of the line now denoted, inasmuch as the
Convention between Great Britain and Russia of the
28th February, 1825, which defines the line, making its
location dependent on alternative circumstances, the
occurrence, or the non-occurrence, of mountains, and, as
is well known to all concerned, the country has never
been topographically surveyed.
" Her Majesty's Government, therefore, feel that they
are bound distinctly to disavow the recognition of the
correctness of the line shown on the edition of the Map
in question, forwarded herewith, as the boundary-line
between the Province of British Columbia and Alaska."

British and United States' Views Identical. The positions of the United States and Great
 Britain upon this .subject are therefore identical.
In view of this fact, it becomes unnecessary to
make any extended statement in reference to
the appearance of this conjectural line on the
various maps reproduced in the Atlas and on
other maps which may be brought forward.
With a view to showing the diversity of the
conventional and unauthorized lines drawn upon
maps by the various cartographers, attention is
drawn to the following : —
A map of Alaska and adjoining regions was
compiled by Ivan Petroff, Special Agent of the
United States, tenth census 1880, published in
App. II. Map United States' Census Report. This map shows a
waving line not following the parallel of latitude,
entering the mouth of Observatory Inlet, and
crossing up into Portland Canal, running from
the head of Portland Canal about 30 miles from
the general line of the coast up to Lynn
Canal, and then running a simHar distance
around the head of Lynn Canal. This line in
some places treats tbe inlets as not forming part'
of the coast, and it measures the approximate
30 miles from the mouth of the inlets until it
reaches Taku Inlet and Lynn Canal, when it
adopts a different principle and appears to treat
Lynn Canal as part of the Ocean.
[541] P

104
Another map, printed in volume viii, 10th Ap. II. Map
Census, United States, 1 880, compiled by the Na 30'
same Ivan Petroff, Special Agent, bas a line
indicating the boundary which follows the same
general principle as that immediately preceding,
except that it assumes some point in Lynn Canal
as the point where the coast stops, and shows the
boundary-line apparently crossing the head of
Lynn Canal, leaving a portion of it on the
British side of the boundary-line.
In the library of the United States' Congress
at Washington there exist maps opposed to the
United States' contention. The following may
be mentioned : —
A map published by A. Bertrand of Paris in
1826, giving a delineation of the west coast of
America, shows Alaska as a peninsula only.
Again, Sharp's ' Student's Atlas (Chapman and
Hall of London), 1850, shows the coast strip
about 10 marine leagues wide from Mount St.
Elias to latitude 56° 15', thence south-west to
Burrough's Bay. Revillagigedo is coloured as
being British territory.
Another map showing the world on Mercator's
projection in the same Atlas shows Russian
America as confined to the mainland west of the
141st meridian.
A comprehensive Atlas, published by W. G.
Tichnor of Boston, 1835, shows the boundary
between the Russian and British possessions
by a dash line, on the 141 st meridian Arctic
Ocean to the Pacific Ocean, marked " boundary
settled in 1825." Upon this map a coloured
line is drawn, apparently by hand, showing the
boundary from the 141st meridian north of
St. Elias, running along approximately parallel
to the general line of coast to the head
of Portland Canal. Another copy of the same
Atlas, apparently older, shows the same dash
line ; but the coloured line added by hand runs
into Lynn Canal on the west side near the head,
and emerges near Endicott Arm, and from this
point to latitude 56°, where it ends, leaves a
very narrow strip between line and shore. Erom
56° to 54° 40' the mainland is all shown as
British territory.
In another Atlas published by Chapman and1
Hall, of London, 1844, described as an Atlas pub
lished by the Society for the discussion of useful3
knowledge, is a map of British North America,

App. I, p. 2?9.

105
which shows the boundary-line approximately
10 leagues from the shore to Burrough's Bay.
These maps are cited for the purpose of
showing that the boundary-line shown upon the
maps were all hypothetical, and differed greatly
as between themselves.
Convention of 22nd July, 1892. Einally, on this subject, reference is made to
the Convention which was concluded between
Great Britain and the United States on the 22nd
July, 1892. This Convention has been already
referred to, and is set out in the Appendix. It
must be remembered that it was concluded after
the diplomatic correspondence and communica
tions which had taken place from 1825 to 1892,
and followed not long after the letters of Secre
tary Bayard and the Earl of Iddesleigh, cited
above. It provided for a determination of the
boundary to f oUow the ascertainment of facts and
data by joint survey, but made no reference to
previous cartography.
In regard to the remarks offered upon the
question of maps, they are made with a reser
vation of the right to deal with the subject
fully in the British Counter-Case. It is obvi
ously impossible at this stage to know what view
will be presented by the United States, and the
foregoing observations are made at this stage
for the purpose of putting the Tribunal in pos
session at the outset of the general view taken by
Great Britain upon the subject.