channel two and a half miles in width at its entrance, and that was the only one which he ever entered in his ship.

66

Therefore we claim that the demonstration is perfect, that the negotiators, having before them these maps, understood that what Vancouver named was the Portland Canal as an entire body of water. At that point I desire to draw the Court's attention to the order in which the word "Portland Canal" occurs in the negotiation. Portland Canal" first appears in the Counter-Draft of the Russian Plenipotentiaries, Sir Charles Bagot to Mr. Canning, March 17, 1824, Appendix to the British Case, p. 70. It appears a second time in the amended proposal by Sir Charles Bagot, Inclosure 2 in No. 44, Appendix to the British Case, p. 70. Thirdly, the word "Portland Channel" is first used in the observations of the Russian Plenipotentiaries on Sir Charles Bagot's amended proposal, Inclosure 3 in No. 44, on p. 71 of the British Case Appendix. Fourthly, in the reply by Sir Charles Bagot to observations of the Russian Plenipotentiaries, Inclosure 4 in No. 44, Appendix to British Case. p. 72. Fifthly, it appears in the letter of Count Nesselrode, announcing the final decision of the Russian Plenipotentiaries, Inclosure 5 in No. 44, on pp. 74 and 75; he refers to it as Portland Canal. That is in the Appendix to the British Case, p. 76. Sixthly, in the letter from Mr. George Canning to Sir Charles Bagot, June 12, 1824, their draft Convention inclosed has the term "Portland Channel," Appendix to the British Case, pp. 85 to 87. So there you have in regular order the only occasions upon which the words "Portland Canal," the Portland Channel are used, and it is certainly a significant fact that Sir Charles Bagot, like Vancouver, never did use the word Portland Channel." Sir Charles Bagot always used the word "Portland Canal."

66

And I would like to call the attention of the Tribunal to two mistakes in the British Case-one at p. 70, the amended proposal by Sir Charles Bagot, Canal de Portland is put " Portland Channel " where it ought to be "Portland Canal." Then in the reply of Sir Charles Bagot to the observations of the Russian Plenipotentiaries, on p. 73 of the British Case, the Portland Canal is improperly translated Portland Channel. There are two places on p. 70 and p. 73 of the British Appendix where the English version-it is hardly necessary to change it because the French stands there to speak for itself,

using the word "Canal" where the word "Channel" is put 529 in the English form, so that so far as the negotiators could

be influenced by the maps they saw that the word "Portland Canal" was used upon all of them. The Attorney-General says not only upon those that we know to have been before then, but he admits in every one of them that might have been before them, the word "Portland Canal" was used. Certainly it is significant that the word channel" was introduced by the Russians. Is it conceivable that after the word "Canal" had been used by Sir Charles Bagot twice, the Russians would have substituted a word in the sense in which British Counsel claim it, narrowing their right in the way which such an adoption would have brought about. That I claim to be perfectly incredible, the Russians used it simply as an equivalent of the word "Canal," and the supposition, of course, upon the basis upon which we are now arguing the Case as to the source from which "Portland Channel" was taken is absolutely im

material. It is plain from the context that there is no discrimination made by the negotiators in meaning between "Channel" and "Canal." It was simply substituting the new word of the Russians, who were the first to introduce it as a mere equivalent of "Canal."

Sir EDWARD CARSON. I admit that.

Mr. TAYLOR. Therefore we say that when the Treaty was made this word "channel" was used in the Treaty to designate the whole body of water which Vancouver had named Portland Canal. It seems to be a natural inference, and if that was true, if it were true that the negotiators so used the term, of course the consequence would be under the law of nations, as I shall hereafter try to explain it, that it was the big channel that was the dividing line in this great arm of the sea.

I shall now beg the attention of the Court to maps subsequent to the making of the Treaty, which we claim throw a flood of light upon this transaction. First, the Arrowsmith map on the American Atlas No. 12. This appears to be the first British map published after 1825, showing Wales and Pearse Islands to be Russian, as claimed in the American Case. Secondly, let us refer to the Brué map, published in the American Atlas No. 13. The line of demarcation is there drawn so as to include Wales and Pearse Islands in Russian territory. Let us next look at the British Admiralty Chart No. 25 British Atlas, and that is of the greatest importance. Nothing in this Case is more extraordinary to me than that the authority of this map should be in any way challenged or questioned by the postmortem inscriptions which seem to be written upon it, and which, so far as I can see, do not at all impair its value.

The PRESIDENT. What is the number?

Mr. TAYLOR. No. 25; and I beg special attention to this because I want to compare this map with the narrative of Vancouver. Here the great broad channel, the Portland Channel and Portland Canal which Vancouver went up in his ships, which he said was broad and spacious and navigable, is made the great central part of the picture, and the poor little strip of water which Vancouver denounced as a worthless labyrinth of rocks is treated by the British Admiralty even with more contempt than it was dealt with by Vancouver.

The PRESIDENT. That is an Admiralty chart, Mr. Taylor, and you know what Admiralty charts are used for.

Mr. TAYLOR. If your Lordship pleases that is the very point, that it was so insignificant, that it was not worthy even of a survey or a

name.

The PRESIDENT. Very well.

530

Mr. TAYLOR. That it was not worth even a survey or a name in the estimation put upon it by the British Admiralty in sending out its charts to guide the movements of the greatest navy in the world, put it just where Vancouver had put it as a worthless thing that was not within the purview of navigation, and was not worthy of a survey or a name; and when we go further, and look at the British Admiralty Chart No. 33, we see substantially the same thing, except that this condition of things is brought down by the English Admiralty to 1884, and I should like very much for the Court to look upon that map. There we have the same distinctness, the great channel marked and the other one ignored. There we have

Observatory Inlet put in its proper place as a mere branch, and you see the names written as Vancouver had written them, in such a way as to indicate beyond all possibility of doubt that Observatory Inlet was considered as a mere branch of this one body. Let us then turn to the Canadian map, No. 41 in the Atlas of the American CounterCase, and let us see how the Canadians view the question; they were nearest to it and most interested.

Mr. TURNER. What particular map are you looking at now?

The PRESIDEnt. No. 40.

Mr. TAYLOR. Map 41 of the United States' Counter-Case. This is a Canadian map to show the Canadian view. Now let us turn to No. 31 of the British Atlas, the map of British Columbia. As late as 1884 there is the line running in such a way that there can be no mistake in favour of the United States.

Mr. AYLESWORTH. What number is that?

Mr. TAYLOR. No. 31.

Sir EDWARD CARSON. 31 of the English Atlas.

Mr. TAYLOR. The British Atlas, No. 31. It is a Canadian map and is described as: "Map of the Province of British Columbia, compiled and drawn by Edward Mohun, C. E., by direction of the Honorable W. Smithe, Chief Engineer of Lands and Works, Victoria, B. C., 1884." So that is a very moderate statement to make, that after the making of this Treaty the interpretation given by subsequent maps, British and English, is to show that this channel claimed in the British Case as the Portland Channel was ignored not only by the British Admiralty but by the Canadian map makers and the matter made so plain that there could be no doubt or question about it. I was very much touched yesterday when the distinguished advocate Mr. Robinson, who preceded me, made such a sharp outcry upon the subject of maps. After hearing his dissertation, one felt that maps were of no consequence or authority in the world anywhere, and, by an allusion which was evidently directed at myself, he indicated that if any commentator upon international law should ever issue a second edition, he would like very much to have some light on the proposition of whether citizens of the world ought to supervise all the map-makers of the world and see whether they make proper and correct maps; and, further, he complained of the great outrage of expecting a man to examine maps in a foreign language, and he made a pitiful plea that he could not read Russian, and also he said he could not understand maps in Spanish or in German. That may be so. However, admitting, for the moment, that there is no obligation of international law for the citizens of one nation to supervise and examine the maps of other nations in languages which they do not understand, I confidently claim that Mr. Robinson has demonstrated to us here by his lucid and powerful argument that he is a master of English prose. He certainly understands how to read the English language, and therefore he must be assumed to be able to read the maps issued by the British Empire, especially in the Province of Canada, of which he is such a distinguished ornament. He must read the maps issued by his own country; he must know their contents, and he must respect their authority. He cannot undertake to assail the official English maps or the official Canadian maps unless he proposes to take the position that the map makers of Canada and the British Empire have been attempting to perpetuate a fraud on all mankind.

531

I say he is bound to respect the maps of his own country, and nothing was more cheering to me in this Case than his pitiful outcry, because it carried with it a ring of genuine pain; he showed that he felt these cruel, indisputable British and Canadian maps were crushing the Canadian Case to death. I sympathize with my friend in the assaults which he has made on the map makers of this world; they have done him a hard turn in this Case.

If the Court please, what I have tried to say so far has been intended as the prelude for an argument based upon international law. What I claim that I have demonstrated beyond all question to this Tribunal is that the boundary set by the Treaty between these two nations was that the estuary, that arm of the sea which is one unbroken whole, a fjord, a canal, which had in it two channels, and that there was no kind of designation or inscription intended to indicate which one of the subordinate divisions, which one of the channels of the invisible whole was intended as the boundary. Therefore, I say that no case has ever arisen between nations where there was a more ideal basis, a more perfect predicate upon which to apply the doctrine of the thalweg, to discriminate by operation of law which one of the two channels is the real boundary, when the body of water as a totality and an indivisible whole was set up as the boundary.

It was with a sense partly of amusement and partly of surprise that I saw the very gingerly and cavalier manner in which the Attorney-General attempted to deal with one of the elementary principles of international law. One felt from the way in which he tried to waive away the doctrine of the thalweg that it was some novel and unsupported invention, some fancy that had no place in international law, that the whole thing was a confusion that he could hardly understand, and, without offering the slightest authority to combat the high masters which we have offered in support of our contention, he just attempted to waive the thing away as one of the things that was entitled to no serious consequence. If we could dispose of the elementary principles of international law on that basis it would be very easy for me to attack the doctrine of the 3 miles zone by simply saying, "I do not like thee, Dr. Fell: the reason why I cannot tell," that I think the 3-mile zone should have no place in international law. It would be just as easy for me to attack the doctrine of the 3 miles zone, and I could do it with as much hope of success as the AttorneyGeneral has attacked the doctrine of the thalweg. It was born with modern international law, it comes down from Grotius's time as one of the elementary principles, and the only modification that has been made in it is a modification which is very much for our convenience, and has been thus stated by that great English publicist, Sir Travers Twiss, who said:

Grotius and Vattel speak of the middle of the river as the line of demarcation between two jurisdictions, but modern publicists and statesmen prefer the more accurate and more equitable boundary of the mid-channel—

And that is the simple meaning of the channel

the valley in the middle.

If there be more than one channel of a river, the deepest channel is the midchannel for the purposes of territorial demarcation, and the boundary line will be the line drawn along the surface of the stream corresponding to the line of deepest depression of its bed. ("The Law of Nations,” i, pp. 207-208.)

Then he goes on to speak of the Treaty of Argovie, and he cites Bluntschli; and Hall is to the same effect, but what I desire to call the Court's attention especially to in reference to the particular contingency with which we have to deal is the application of the doctrine of the thalweg to an arm of the sea which is a boundary like this as distinct from the estuary of a river. I think that has been made the subject of discussion-I believe his Lordship will bear me out in the statement by the greatest American publicist that has lived since the time of Wheaton, and one to whom, perhaps, European publicists have assigned more position and authority than to any American publicist of our times. I speak of David Dudley Field, who has received the laurels of the publicists of Europe as one of the greatest expounders of modern international law. I know of no person who can be put up above him, except perhaps Bluntschli or Calvo, and I want you to note that in formulating this principle that applies strictly and completely to this case, that David Dudley Field based his statement on the authority of Bluntschli.

And let me read what he says in his "International Code," in which he has summed up all the principles of international law. He says:

532

sea,

Boundary by stream or channel 30.-The limits of national territory, bounded by a river or other stream, or by a strait, sound or arm of the the other shore of which is the territory of another nation, extend outward to a point equidistant from the territory of the nation occupying the opposite shore; or if there be a stream or navigable channel, to the thread of the stream, that is to say, to the mid-channel; or, if there be several channels, to the middle of the principal one.

That is the clean-cut, definite statement of David Dudley Field as to an arm of the sea that is a boundary between two countries, and he rests his statement upon the authority of Bluntschli. Have you heard one word of suggestion from the Counsel of Great Britain to show that there is any publicist, continental, American, or English, who has ever said a word anywhere to challenge the doctrine of the thalweg as thus defined?

The PRESIDENT. Mr. Taylor, I do not think it is of any real importance, because I agree with you that if you establish what is called Portland Inlet or the Portland Canal includes both branches that is enough for your purpose; the doctrine of the thalweg applies, but I am bound to say I do not think that even David Dudley Field himself-and Dudley Field was a very great authority-means to say what you put upon him, because he refers to Bluntschli, who is there dealing with rivers. Bluntschli has got a separate chapter on arms of the sea. Do not think I am referring to this to dispute what you suggest, but simply because I do not think that is authority to support your view. I have read Bluntschli.

Mr. TAYLOR. I am very glad to hear that. The attempt to draw any distinction between two channels of an estuary which is the mouth of a great river system as contradistinguished from an arm of the sea is a distinction which rests upon no possible foundation in logic or in law. Suppose for illustration there was a great river system, as was supposed, coming into Portland Canal, how could that possibly affect in any way the question of the boundary so far as the arm of the sea extended-whether the arm or a river ran

S. Doc. 162, 58-2, vol 7—8