recollect, negotiated the Treaty and wrote to Mr. George Canning, that he had negotiated it exactly in conformity with his instructions, so that we have some little indication at all events of what Mr. George Canning meant, and you find Mr. George Canning suggesting these words in his draft- Provided, nevertheless, that if the summit of the aforesaid mountains shall turn out to be in any part of their range at more than the distance of 10 marine leagues from the Pacific, then that, for that space, the line of demarcation shall be a line parallel to the coast and its windings at the said distance of 10 marine leagues therefrom, so that the said line of demarcation shall never extend farther than 10 leagues from the coast."

You cannot get anything clearer. That is what he meant, and that is what Mr. Stratford Canning thought he had expressed, because he

says:

I have drawn this in exact conformity to your instructions.

While I am upon that, and speaking of the negotiations, I should not like to omit, or to forget, the final letter of Mr. Stratford Canning, because it is of great importance. Mr. Stratford Canning, in writing, after the conclusion of the Treaty, to Mr. George Canning, says that something has been said about some other Treaty, or Protocol, or some other secret Treaty. But he says

The PRESIDENT. What page, Mr. Robinson?

Mr. ROBINSON. Page 134-the 3rd April, 1825-Mr. Stratford Canning to Mr. George Canning:—

You are aware, Sir, that the Articles of the Convention which I concluded depend for their force entirely on the general acceptation of the terms in which they are expressed.

Now, there could not be a stronger intimation than is contained there that you are not to construe this Treaty by the preceding negotiations or by what either party may have meant in something they have said between themselves, but you are to construe this Treaty by the words which it uses; and at least when we advance that, we advance a rule that cannot be otherwise than a rule in the law of any nation. Whatever may be the rules of evdence, whatever evidence may be admissible, I venture to think that no nation has any other rule that to construe a Treaty by the words in which it is framed. There cannot be, because you would have no certainty in governing the transactions of business by agreements if agreements were to depend on what the parties had said or written at different times previously; there would be no certainty in any business transactions; and if there is a business transaction more than another, or rather a transaction which is more a transaction of business than another, it probably is a Treaty of this kind. Then we have at all events that declaration of Mr. Stratford Canning, and remember this because that also is of great importance. Mr. Stratford Canning had not been a party to the previous negotiations. Whether he knew anything about them, or whether he had examined them carefully, of course I have no means of knowing more than anybody else. But Mr. Stratford Canning was sent there after the negotiations had been broken off either twice or three times, and he was a new representative. And he was sent there with a draft of a Treaty which Mr. George Canning submitted to him and told him was what he

would agree to. And Mr. Stratford Canning says he has concluded a Treaty in accordance with his instructions.

462

Now, is there any reason or justice or common sense in construing that Treaty by what other negotiators had agreed to two years before, or one year before, or were willing to agree to? It is for these reasons that I have been so strongly desirous to submit to the Tribunal that there never was a case in which the previous negotiations were of less value. You may look at them as you like, and I have no hesitation in admitting that where I may find something in my favour in the year 1824, my learned friends may find something in their favour in the year 1823, and I may find something again in my favour in the year 1822, because the negotiations went on from 1822 to 1825.

But we have in the end practically dropped these negotiations, because Mr. George Canning says, in effect, to Sir Charles Bagot:

You have tried several times, you have always come to a deadlock, always broken off upon something; you have always been unable to agree, and you have given it up. Now, I am going to send a new representative there with my instructions, telling him what sort of a Treaty Great Britain would be willing to agree to, and he goes there with that, and with nothing else. He has got nothing to do with what other people have agreed to, or failed in agreeing to, or have succeeded in agreeing to. He has got to make a new Treaty, and I tell him what we will agree to.

And he speaks, at p. 116, which I have cited, as to the mountain boundary in about the clearest words a man could use. Mr. Stratford Canning goes there, concludes a Treaty, and says he has concluded a Treaty in accordance with his instructions. And recollect that here all prior engagements of one kind or another are put an end to, and this Treaty is to depend upon the words in which it is expressed. I venture to submit that it is very hard to find a case in which a Tribunal, desiring to arrive at the exact agreement which these parties made, should be less influenced by the negotiations. Practically, the previous negotiations were wiped out; they had been ineffectual, they had come to nothing. Sir Charles Bagot had been unable to get the Russians to agree to anything which he was willing to agree to, or was authorized to agree to, and he practically said:

It is no use my trying.

I suppose then Mr. George Canning said:

Very well, if you cannot succeed in doing anything, I will send another representative, and, further, tell him precisely what I am willing to agree to.

He sends him, and then within a very short time-I forget the date of his instructions-p. 116, I read to your Lordship just now. The PRESIDENT. 28th December-two months before.

Mr. ROBINSON. 28th December, and they made the Treaty in February-within two months. He says:

I have sent another representative, and I will give him a draft of exactly the Treaty that we are willing to agree to.

And in February-three months afterwards-he gets a letter from that representative saying in effect:

I have concluded a Treaty exactly as you authorized me. And remember that that Treaty is intended to mean exactly what it says.

I should be wasting words if I were to insist longer upon the only point that I desire to make upon the negotiations, that they cannot

be considered in any way or shape as controlling this Treaty, and that practically they cannot be considered as throwing any light on this Treaty, for the various reasons that I have tried to advance.

Then, if the negotiations will not give us any certain light, the next question is, what does the Treaty mean? I have spoken of this Treaty with the exception of Question 7, addressed to the Tribunal. As to what is the meaning of Question 7, I think I have incidentally been led rather off my line. I have said what I wanted to say about those mountains. I do not know that I can give the Tribunal any assistance about the fourth course. You cannot get up to the 56th parallel by the Portland Channel; and curiously enough they knew it if they had looked at the maps, but they said you are to go along Portland Channel, to the 56th parallel. I am not quite certain what that means, nor am I quite certain, I may say now, what Question 7 means, and I should like just to say a word upon that Question. It is in a very few words: if it is not very clear, at all events it is very short.

What, if any, 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?

463

What I have never been certain about is whether that is submitted as a question of law or a question of fact, or both. Mr. Dawson and Major-General Cameron both strongly urged that there was no use sending a surveyor until the Treaty had been construed. It would be sending surveyors on a wild goose chase to find out a line until they knew what sort of a line to look for, and you must first construe the Treaty before you have a survey. Now, I never have been certain in my own mind-and I have no knowledge as to how this Treaty came to be framed, or by whom-I have never been quite certain when it says what, if any, are the mountains-whether it means, first, what kind of mountains does the Treaty require-a continuous chain or a regular chain, or what does it require? And when the Tribunal has answered that you may ascertain, possibly from the information given by the Commission, possibly by resort to expert evidence which you are empowered to get, you may ascertain whether it is there or not. But I have always doubted whether the intention of that was not to ask the Tribunal, what does the Treaty mean? Does it mean to ask you whether the mountains which the Treaty requires are a continuous and regular chain, or whether they are a chain of summits more or less connected, more or less regular? I have been the less certain because it says:

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?

I do not know exactly what the meaning of these words is, "if any exist." Does it add anything one way or another?

The PRESIDENT. Does not it rather seem to say that if the evidence satisfies us that there are any, we are to indicate that. That is what I think the words "if any exist " mean, but I am not sure?

་་

Mr. ROBINSON. I think it may mean that, my Lord.

The PRESIDENT. Because, you see, it is coupled with this power to send experts if we want experts.

Mr. ROBINSON. Yes, it is. Then it would mean that your Lordships are to determine whether there are any mountains. Well, now that

would bring it to a question of law. First, your Lordships are to say what sort of mountains are required. Then look at the evidence furnished by the Commission to see whether you know they are there. Then if you do not know whether they are there or not, you are to send experts to find out. That is as far as I can get in the construction of those words. I never could quite make out whether it was a question of law or a question of fact, or a mixed question, as we say in the law, of both.

Now, with regard to that question I was speaking of. I do not see myself that it makes any great difference what line you take from the head of Portland Channel to the 56th degree; you have to go to the mountains bordering the coast. You have to get there by the most direct line, and you have to find out what the mountains are bordering the coast, and that you can only find out by reference to Article III, so that it is merely a repetition of the problem that is before you in construing that Article. Before you can construe Article III, you have to find out what sort of mountains are required, and the moment you have found that out, it is perfectly plain that the Treaty tells you to get to them, and you get to them just as you get to Portland Channel, by the most direct line. And the real difficulty seems to me to consist, or the real problem seems to me to be, not how are you to get to them, but what are the mountains that you are to get to? You are to get to the mountains that border the coast. They say that their chain is the mountains that border the coast. We say our chain is the mountains that border the coast. Well, to my apprehension and in my submission it is almost useless to argue that the mountains that border the coast were intended to be at any long distance from the coast. You cannot by any course of argument get over what was said in the negotiations by the Russians and by Mr. George Canning. The only reason why the Russians objected to the mountain boundary was because they said it might mean nothing--it might come down to the water; while Mr. Canning said :—

464

If you are afraid of that I have no objection to you taking the summit of the mountains.

Now, in face of that, how can it be argued that the intention of the Parties was that they should have a chain a long way from the coast? A long way from the coast could not possibly come down to the water. And all that the Russians cared for was that they were to have something. They were to have a little strip on the continent, and I do not go back to what we have heard so often about the lisière being a mere strip and so on, but on several occasions they repeated over and over again this argument as a kind of excuse and justification for what they were asking for. The Russians say:—

We are asking for very little. We want a mere strip on the coast. We want a narrow strip on the coast. We are not asking for anything more. We are giving you a great deal, and we only ask for this little thing.

Well, that is the common language, I will not say of people dickering, but perhaps nations dicker just as much as individuals do, it is very much the same sort of thing.

And with reference now to what I should probably have forgotten.

my learned friend, Mr. Watson, devoted some time to an argument which I thought at all events was not a very close argument, and it was that it was highly improbable that the Russians would ever have consented to take so little when they had so much to give. Well, that does not affect one's mind very much if we find that the contract is expressed in plain words, or in reasonably plain words. It would not affect my mind to say then, "It is perfectly absurd to think that Russia would have taken so little when she was giving so much." The fact is, she did take it. That argument is now based upon the claims which Russia had to large tracts of territory. I wish your Lordships would be good enough to refer to Mr. Middleton's Memorandum which he sent to the Russian Government when he was protesting against the Ukase of 1821, in which he practically pointed out that the Russians had nothing-they had no settlers round the coast-that they did not own anything. And if anything more is required, and if anyone has time to spare which is of no great value, let him read all the negotiations in the Behring Sea matter. Why, the very substance of our Behring Sea Case was this: the Russians founded their maritime pretensions on their territorial rights; they said:

We discovered this continent, we own a great deal of it, we have establishments here and there, and having that vast tract of territory, we ought to have a great deal of maritime jurisdiction on the sea that washes it.

Great Britain and the United States together laughed them to scorn and said:

You have nothing; practically you have made no discoveries here.

It is a very able Memorandum. I have read it very carefully; it is at p. 59, American Case, Appendix. It was handed by Mr. Middleton to the Russian Plenipotentiaries, and a copy was sent by him to Mr. Adams when Mr. Middleton was reporting to Mr. Adams his various conferences and negotiations.

Now, if you look at Mr. Middleton's Memorandum, it is prefaced by a very undeniable maxim that I could never see the exact application of. At all events, the only inference I derive from it is first, that he wished to tell the Russians nothing but the truth, and nothing was to be concealed from them, and that they, being great men, would not object in the least to hear it; and the pith of what he told them was that they were advancing a lot of claims that had no real foundation. Well, I don't know that that would impress the Russians very much, but at all events, he goes through the different discoveries, and he says then :

It is proved by the "pièces" produced in this discussion that the claims of Spain extended to the other side of Prince William Sound, situated in the 61st degree of north latitude; and that the Court of Russia, having had information of the extent of these limits, has declared that she had no intention of opposing it; that she had even added expressions of regret that her repeated orders to prevent the violation of the territory of Spain by Russian subjects should have been disobeyed.

465

It is then demonstrated that Russia, in the year 1790, was far from forming any territorial claim for herself upon the continent of North America on this side of the 61st degree of north latitude.