And now, my Lord, let me put very shortly what I say about that. I say in the first place we are to get what is "coast" from the Treaty itself, and not from the definition of writers on international law. I say here that the coast is the edge of the ocean, and I say that no other possible construction can be given to the Treaty if you are to read Articles III and IV together, because what Article IV says is

this:

2nd. That whenever the summit of the mountains which extend parallel to the coast, from the 56th degree of north latitude to the point of intersection of the 141st degree of west longitude, shall prove to be at the distance of more than 10 marine leagues from the ocean.

Now, I say they put in that word especially, not " from the coast," because that would have left some question to be decided; there might have been a difference. A man may talk of the coast in a very loose way. As was said by Mr. Robinson, a few days ago, he may talk of going to the coast when he is really going to some inland water or water that may approach the sea, but they put in the word 99.66 ocean,' 10 marine leagues from the ocean."

66

The limit between the British possessions and the line of coast which is to belong to Russia, as above mentioned, shall be formed by a line parallel to the windings of the coast, and which shall never exceed the distance of 10 marine leagues therefrom.

That is from the coast, but it must also mean "from the ocean," because if you are to measure the mountains 10 marine leagues from the ocean you must measure the line from the same place, and if that

is

So, if I am right in that, and I believe no other possible construction can be given to that fourth Article, then I say that I demonstrate from the Article itself that the coast is the edge of the ocean; otherwise I cannot see how the Article itself is to be worked.

625

Mr. AYLESWORTH. Do you mean the line where the water touches the land or what is called the political coast?

Sir EDWARD CARSON. No, I do not; I mean from the ocean, what is known as the ocean. What I say is the coast is the edge of the ocean, what is ordinarily and usually known as the ocean, which I understand to be the largest division of water which is known in our language. It is the water which separates great continents one from the other. That is "ocean" in its ordinary sense. All other waters, the minor waters, have their own specific names, whether you call them seas or whether you call them inlets, or whether you call them canals, or whatever else you may call them. I say that everybody knows perfectly well what "ocean" is as contradistinguished from these smaller seas, and they specially put in there the word "ocean," so that there might be no ambiguity about it.

I go further into the Treaty to prove this. I say that the "ocean means something which does not run up the inlets, and I prove that by the Treaty itself, because it says you are to draw a line parallel to the coast which is the edge of the ocean, and I say that if you are to take it as being the edge of the salt water you have only to look at the contour maps or at any of the maps to see it is absolutely impossible ever to have expected that mountains should run "parallèlement" to these various inlets, and it has always been admitted by anyone who has investigated this matter it is absolutely impossible to draw a line "parallèlement" to these sinuosities. You will see that afterwards; I dare say you have it already present to your minds.

66

Then I say that I have a right to construe the word ocean by reference to the questions you have to answer; and here, again, I am afraid I am going back upon something I said yesterday, but it seems to me to be of such vital importance in this Case that I must go back upon it. I look at the question in this Case, and I say that the questions in this Case must mean something; I say they must mean something which was agreed upon by both parties, as the basis upon which the question in dispute between the two Governments could be settled, and I say that these questions, when you look upon them, at least assume that there can exist the general trend of "coast." I think that "general mainland coast" must be something in contradistinction to inlets.

Now, just look at the questions for one moment.

(1) From the mainland coast of the ocean strictly so called.

What did the parties mean by that? Did they mean where the salt water touched land, as Mr. Taylor said? It is impossible. It is impossible they could have meant that. That is not "the ocean strictly so called." And then it goes on:Or (2)

was it the intention and meaning of the said Convention that where the mainland coast is indented by deep inlets

Does not that show that they previously meant the coast without taking into account the indentations? And then they go on:

(a) From the line of general 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.

Now, my Lord, just let us see to what the construction of the other side would lead us. I may use this in' aid of my contention, that the Parties agreed before they came here that these questions arose upon the Treaty, and from the very fact that they do not leave it to the Tribunal to determine what is mainland coast or what inlets there are, they must be taken to have been assenting, because nothing else can be deduced from these questions; they must have assented to the difference I am drawing between the coast, without taking into consideration the indentations that may be found in it and the indentations themselves, and if I am right in that I think I have generally established what I say that "ocean " here has the ordinary, the large wide meaning which it has in our own geography-of the largest description of water that we know undivided, and not the limited meaning that is put upon it by Mr. Taylor.

626

But just look at the result which would follow if you take the contention on the other side. When we asked Mr. Dickinson to draw his line of the coast, he drew the coast round all these inlets. Well, then, I suppose, my Lord, I may ask the Alaska Boundary Tribunal to answer the question:

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 lisière was to be measured (a) from the line of the general direction of the mainland coast?

with the affirmative answer: It was "from the general direction of the line of the mainland coast." That is the only answer you can give us, and that is the answer we ask. And I do not see, if their

construction was right, if there was no such thing as "the mainland coast" and if "the general direction of the mainland coast" meant such a line as runs round everywhere where salt water touches that is what in form they have given as their definition of it-I cannot see what is the object of the two questions. The real question, then, would have been not whether you are to measure it " from the general direction of the mainland coast" (which, according to Mr. Dickinson, runs round the inlets) or from the inlets, because the two things would be identical; but what the Parties would have asked was, as to running up the mainland, what do you mean by "mainland "?

That would have been really the question, and the answer that Mr. Taylor, as I understand this argument, asks you to give is that there is no such thing at all as mainland coast, but that is not one of the questions submitted. Therefore, I submit that on this word "coast," which I have defined as the edge of the ocean, you find the Parties, by the very questions which they have framed here, admit that there is a general trend of the coast which I say is contrasted with the inlets themselves, and it is impossible, on the agreement that has been come to here under which the Tribunal is holding this investigation, to say that the Parties before they came here did not say that the real question was, are you to measure from the tops of the inlets in that manner, or are you to measure from what we call the general trend of the mainland coast? It is useless to proceed with an Arbitration of this kind unless some meaning is to be taken out of these questions, and if you get any meaning at all out of the questions it must be in the manner that I have already said.

I really have gone back to that, because, as I said yesterday, I am extremely anxious, in the first place, that each member of the Tribunal should fully realize the extent to which it pushes them in giving his answers, and because, I see, however the Tribunal may solve it, the very great difficulty of giving answers, yes or no, to any of those questions, and it may be if one goes outside the questions, having regard to the diplomatic correspondence which took place before this investigation came up, in which the Parties refused to submit. any general question to the Tribunal, that with this very limited reference in going outside of the questions, or attempting to answer them otherwise than in the way in which those who framed them expected that answer would be given, you would only be landed in further trouble beyond what we have at the present moment, and that, of course, I am particularly anxious should be guarded against in the interersts of both Parties.

Now, when Mr. Taylor tells us that we are all really talking nonsense when we talk of the general trend of the coast here, because he and the other great authorities on international law know of no general trend of the coast, except of a political coast, what were the Parties talking of all these years? How was it nobody ever found out, notwithstanding all the hands through which this passed, that it was impossible to find any other general trend of the coast except this political coast? What a number of fools have been engaged in this transaction! There is Mr. Mendenhall, whose instructions were read at considerable length by the Attorney-General. Mr. Mendenhall, I believe, is a very distinguished man. I believe that he was a man very much trusted by the United States-certainly a man not very friendly to my country, but I forgive him for that.

The only way he saw of carrying out the Treaty when the Convention of 1892 was entered into-mind you, the very Convention which has led to this Tribunal being appointed-the only way he saw of carrying it out was by directing his surveyors to find the general trend of the coast, and then to make their surveys, and the whole sur

veys have been based upon them, and there has not been one 627 word said about that by either of the learned Counsel who

preceded me in this matter, and I am entitled to presume there is no answer to it; and he proceeds, and gets all these questions gone into it is a matter that took years--upon this mistaken basis; whereas all he had to do was to ask somebody of intelligence, who would have told him, "Why, there is no such thing unless you get a political coast, and there is no political coast here "; and so the whole matter has gone on, and here we are now in the Convention of 1892, having been appointed to fix the data upon which this Tribunal might determine this matter; they go on and waste all this expense upon the assumption that they can get the general trend of the coast, which was taken as the one which we now suggest by Mr. Mendenhall himself in his instructions to his surveyor. He never thought for a moment of going back as the American line goes back. You will find that his surveyors never reached it at all. Why? Because he surveyed the 30 miles back from the general trend of the coast and from no place else. That was pointed out by the Attorney-General as he went through the contour maps. Well, if you are to cast all that aside, and if you are to accept Mr. Taylor's argument, I suggest to the Tribunal the proper report to make to the respective Governments is that we have all gone on a wrong basis.

The PRESIDENT. But, Mr. Solicitor, without going into geographical books and things of that sort, I do not think it can be denied that there is such a thing as the general trend of the coast. You find it in geographical books over and over again.

Sir EDWARD CARSON. I know.

The PRESIDENT. The question is what does it mean here. It is beyond argument to say you can have a general trend of the coast. Sir EDWARD CARSON. I read out to you the passage. I must deal with the United States' Argument.

The PRESIDENT. Certainly.

Sir EDWARD CARSON. I have to deal with the United States' Argument, and I do so for this reason all the more because it is not merely the arguments of Mr. Taylor that I am dealing with, but I am dealing with the map which has been put in, and which Mr. Dickinson relies upon as pointing out to you what is the general trend of the

coast.

Mr. DICKINSON. I do not want to interrupt you, but you are probably misleading yourself, and I think perhaps I had better correct you. That map is not put in as showing the general trend of the

coast.

The PRESIDENT. You said it was to show the line to which you were to run a parallel.

Mr. DICKINSON. We call the coast the line in the Treaty, but the Solicitor-General is labouring under a misapprehension if he thinks that represents the general trend of the coast, and I want to correct him.

Sir EDWARD CARSON. If I misrepresent my friend I am very sorry.

Mr. DICKINSON. Not misrepresents; I only wanted you to understand the point, so that you may discuss it.

628

Sir EDWARD CARSON. Really, then, I should like to know what is their view of the general trend of the coast. I am entitled to ask that. If he can explain when he comes to speak, I think we are entitled to know. He says it is all the sinuosities, and I thought he meant that it was all the sinuosities of the coast.

Then, again, you find that Mr. Bayard also talks of the general contour of the coast, and that Mr. Phelps talks of the coast itself being indented, which, of course, is a thing which really I claim in this Case that the Treaty itself shows, as I have already attempted to point out, that the coast is the edge of the ocean, that the ocean is something which is different from the salt waters, if you please, which fall into the indentation, because it certainly would be a novel thing to lay down that the ocean was everywhere where you found salt water touching land. I do not know where we would be stranded; I do not know whether we ought not to go out and look at the ocean now, if we are to take ocean to extend as far as the salt

water goes.

Now, if that is so, if the coast, then, is something to which a parallel can be drawn, I will only leave this by saying it is impossible to draw a parallel to the coast that has been marked, as it has been marked by Mr. Dickinson, or those who advise him, and I should like him to point out what he thinks is the general trend of this coast, which is the matter upon which the whole survey has been made, and if we are not enabled to use that survey, I do not know what we are enabled to use.

Now, I say, passing from that, the negotiations, so far as you can gather anything from them, show that I am right in my construction of coast as being the edge of the ocean, and draw a distinction between the ocean and the waters of the inlets. I say that, because we have several times during the negotiations, the head of Portland Canal treated as " dans les terres," and not treated as coast at all, and I think that Portland Canal is a useful instance, because it is in configuration, when you look at the maps, much more like the Lynn Canal than any other inlet along the lisière. I am not going through the various passages, which have been already referred to by the Attorney-General; I will only cite one of them again, just to remind you of it. If you look at p. 76, it is:

Afin de ne pas couper l'Ile du Prince de Galles, qui, selon cet arrangement, devait rester à la Russie, nous proposions de porter la frontière méridionale de nos domaines au 54 degrés 40 minutes de latitude, et de la faire aboutir sur le continent au Portland Canal, dont l'embouchure dans l'océan est à la hauteur de l'Ile du Prince de Galles et l'origine dans les terres entre le 55° et 56 degré de latitude.

Well, nothing is more explicit than that phrase "l'origine dans les terres." Am not I entitled to apply these words as a description of Lynn Canal? Supposing the negotiators were describing Lynn Canal, what reason is there that they should describe it any differently from the way in which Portland Canal is described? I have here a photograph of a portion of the top of it, or near the top of it. The PRESIDENT. Where is it taken from, do you know?

Sir EDWARD CARSON. It is taken from the summit of a moun