the Ukases of 1799 and 1821. He speaks of the coast, the identical coast in regard to which these complications had arisen, and he uses the express term North-West Coast" when he comes to a question of dividing that particular coast. And then he proceeds, further down in the same paragraph:

That upon the continent and toward the east this frontier could run along the mountains which follow the sinuosities of the coast as far as Mount Elias.

Now, will anyone pretend when he spoke of mountains following the sinuosities of the coast he meant mountains leaping across these waters, and that any such notion as that entered into his head when he was dealing with the North-West Coast, which, to his mind, had an historical meaning, the inception of it beginning with the Ukase of 1799?

We get at the understanding of these Parties by finding how their minds met upon the meaning of that word "coast." It was impossible that either the British negotiators or the Russian negotiators could at that time have attached any such meaning to it as is now attributed to it. Russia never departed from her first insistencethat the frontier was to run along the mainland and be carried down as far as her contention was then set up, which was to 55 degrees.

Mr. Canning wrote to Sir Charles Bagot, as appears on the 181st page of the Appendix, on the 12th July, 1824. That was the time, you recall, that he sent his counter-draft. He says:—

After full consideration of the motives which are alleged by the Russian Government for adhering to their last propositions respecting the line of demarcation to be drawn between British and Russian occupancy on the North-West Coast of America.

747

He repeats that term "North-West Coast."

And of the comparative inconvenience of admitting some relaxation in the terms of your Excellency's last instructions, or of having the question between the two Governments unsettled for an indefinite time, His Majesty's Government have resolved to authorize your Excellency 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 Channel, till it strikes the mainland in latitude 56; thence following the sinuosities of the coast.

Now, if the Tribunal shall fix the point above Portland Canal, as I undertook to demonstrate they should fix it, this line following the sinuosities of the coast must start there [indicating], and the parallelism must begin there [indicating]. You could not take a line beginning there and run it parallel to the coast if you bring it down 57 miles towards the coast. It would be a complete departure from the line which has been here indicated. Could anyone say that Russia had then in mind any line of political coast to which this line was to be drawn parallel, or that she spoke of anything but the entire coast over which the controversy had raged? But Mr. Canning says that these instructions were given upon a consideration of the motives that had influenced Russia.

Now, let us see what these motives were. If you turn to the 158th page you will find in the counter-draft of the Russian Plenipotentiary that they say::

From this point the boundary would ascend along those mountains parallel to the sinuosities of the coast, as far as the 139th degree of longitude (meridian

of London), the line of which degree, prolonged northward, would form the ulterior limit between the Russian and English possessions to the north as well as to the east.

The principal motive which constrains Russia to insist upon sovereignty over the above-indicated lisière (strip of territory) upon the mainland (“terre ferme ") from Portland Channel to the point of intersection of 60 degrees latitude with 139 degrees longitude is that, deprived of this territory, the RussianAmerican Company would have no means of sustaining its establishments, which would therefore be without any support ("point d'appui "), and could have no solidity.

Here they indicate their motive. Their motive was to secure this strip of territory, and deprived of this territory they would have no means of maintaining their establishments. With that language is it possible to say that when he spoke of a strip of territory he meant a strip of water and land mixed up? Such would also be the lisière which would be necessarily given if the meaning attached to "coast by Great Britain is to be accepted.

Mr. AYLESWORTH. Yet you think, Mr. Dickinson-yet you argue, I should say that the lisière consists of a strip of land and a couple of islands at the south end.

Mr. DICKINSON. I beg your pardon.

Mr. AYLESWORTH. Yet you argue that the lisière consists of a strip of land and a couple of islands, Wales Island and Pearse Island, at the south end. Are you not arguing for a broken lisière when you are arguing for the southernmost branch of the channel?

Mr. DICKINSON. The line that was to be drawn parallel to the sinuosities of the coast would not begin until the line got to the 56th degree. It was not to go back. The parallelism only begins at the point you reach after you attain the head of Portland Canal, so what was south of the 56th degree has nothing whatever to do with the question of parallelism. These are the terms in which the Treaty was drawn, and the question of parallelism and sinuosity only begins

after you reach the point north of Portland Channel. On 748 the further question as to motive-for this is a very important consideration on p. 161 the observation of the Russian Plenipotentiary was:—

On the other hand, the Plenipotentiaries of Russia have the honour to repeat to him that without a lisière upon the continental coast, starting from Portland Channel

There is where the lisière begins; I call attention to that

* the Russian establishments on the islands in the vicinity would have no support (“point d'appui "): that they would be at the mercy of the establishments which strangers might form upon the mainland, and that any such arrangement, far from being founded upon the principle of mutual accommodations, would but offer dangers for one of the Parties and exclusive advantages for the other.

Now, if there is any mainland along that coast, where any nation but Russia could fix establishments in such proximity as to interfere with the trade that she was trying to secure, it is perfectly manifest that the motives of Russia would not be subserved by obtaining any such lisière as that. But there is a further explication of what they meant, and that is at p. 167, where Count Nesselrode wrote to Admiral Mordvinof, and it is perfectly legitimate to look at this

and see the ideas he had in his mind, because those ideas were significant in controlling him in agreeing to the Treaty. He says:—

For this only one expedient presents itself: to establish at some distance from the coast a frontier line, which shall not be infringed by our establishments and trappers, as also by the hunters of the Hudson's Bay Company.

Did that consist with the idea of the lisière crossing the water? Further, he says:

As I have said above, for the peaceful existence of our Colonies more than all, is it necessary to determine with accuracy the frontier, the extent of the country between the coast, and this frontier must be sufficient and be in correspondence with the condition to what those establishments will, in all probabilty, in time attain, and by their means of own defence.

I suppose he means "be" their own means of defence, showing that the lisière was not only to protect the establishments they had there, but all the establishments they might, in the development of this country, put there in the future.

Then, again, he says:

Independent of the circumstance that the land in those places is almost sterile, affords no corn fields, which, in the opinion of your high Excellency, are necessary for a Colony, is hardly able to produce good food products, and that the principal pursuit of our settlers consists in the capture of marine and not land animals, it is necessary to bear in mind that, in accordance with contemplated plans, these Settlements, after the line of frontier has been fixed, will acquire recognized and undisputed possession of a considerably extensive zone of country

He could not have applied that word "country and " zone of country to the waters that intersect this lisière, and are made part of the lisière, as if these waters were part of the strip of the continent. Again, on p. 164, he says:

That the possession of Prince of Wales Island without a slice (portion) of territory upon the coast situated in front of that island could be of no utility whatever to Russia.

That any establishment formed upon said island or upon the surrounding islands would find itself, as it were, flanked by the English establishments on the mainland, and completely at the mercy of these latter.

One more reference to this point, and I am through with it. That is on p. 173. He says:-

749 If Prince of Wales Island remains to us, it is necessary that it can be of some utility to us. Now, according to the plan of the British Ambassador, it would be for us only a burden, and perhaps an inconvenient one. That island, in fact, and the establishments which we might set up thereon, would find themselves entirely isolated, deprived of all support, surrounded by the domains of Great Britain, and at the mercy of the English establishments of the coast. We would exhaust ourselves in the cost of guarding and watching our part, without any compensation to alleviate the burden.

When all these expressions were before Mr. Canning, and all these declarations showing exactly what they meant by lisière, and the motives they had, and when he says that this proposition would subserve those motives, and meet Russia's views, how can it be maintained that it could be done by breaking up this lisière, and not making it a strip upon the continent, as they over and over again expressed it should be, but making it composed partly of land and partly of water?

When the draft Convention was submitted by Mr. Canning he used the word "coast," and the Attorney-General has commented upon

the fact that that word was changed where it applied to the head of Portland Channel, by M. Matusevich, to read "passe." Well, what motive led him to make that change is immaterial now, but it shows that Mr. Canning understood that that was "coast." We cannot impute to Mr. Canning carelessness in the use of that term. He used it in the English, and he used it in the French, and he did not use it thoughtlessly or unadvisedly, because they had been talking about "coast" all the time. When we come to look at his draft Convention of 8th December, notwithstanding the change made by M. Matusevich, he recites the word "coast" again both in the English and the French drafts.

Now, that change was just simply a matter of style. I suppose Mr. Canning certainly understood that it was. If he thought at that time that the change of the word "coast" would have any bearing upon the construction of the Treaty, surely something would have been said about it. If he understood that the alteration was made because Russia thought that "coast" meant something else, and that this other meaning would give to Great Britain larger territory than it would get under the terms as he used it, is it possible that Mr. Canning would afterwards have repeated it both in the English and French drafts, which he sent back? I say that is entirely inconceivable.

Count Lieven's understanding of the word "côte " in the draft submited by Mr. Canning is perfectly manifest. It is set out on p. 186 of the United States' Appendix. In his letter to Count Nesselrode, he says:

As regards the frontier of the respective possessions to the south of Mount Elias, Mr. Canning makes it run along the base of the mountains which follow the sinuosities of the coast.

Now, could he have meant the mountains that trend across the Lynn Canal? Is it possible to attribute to that sentence any such meaning when he wrote it as that he understood that the mountains which conformed to the sinuosity, were mountains which did not run along the coast, but which leaped from peak to peak and made a different crest from any crest shown in the maps which were before them when they made the Treaty?

Now, he says:

I thought it my duty to represent to him that when a chain of mountains is made to serve for the establishment of any boundary whatever, it is always the crest of those mountains that forms the line of demarcation.

He uses there the terms "chain of mountains" and "crest of mountains," and whatever significance may be given by the Tribunal to the words "crest" and " and "chain" when they consider that question. this letter shows that it is utterly impossible for Count Lieven at that time to have understood by the chain of mountains that he was speaking of, as one that ran parallel to the coast, mountains that cut across 750

and dismembered the coast, as is now contended by Great Britain. Great Britain had demanded, in the second paragraph of Article III of the Canning draft, which appears on p. 201, as is shown in this letter of Count Nesselrode to Count Lieven::

1. Liberty to English subjects to hunt, to fish, and to trade with the natives of the country, perpetually, on the whole of that part of the coast which con

stitutes the subject of the discussion, and which extends from 59° of north latitude to 54° 40'.

Is it possible that Count Nesselrode could have written this explanation to Count Lieven, that England was asking the right to hunt on the whole of the coast, if he had understood that by "coast" a large part of these coasts were going to Great Britain as a matter of right? Such an interpretation as that is entirely incompatible with the explanation, and you have to strike out the significant words of that sentence in order to attach any such meaning as that to the word "coast."

Russia declined to give this right because Russia understood that all of these coasts were to go to Russia, and because she was unwilling to make this concession. If the understanding now contended for had been attached to the word "coast," could any question have arisen as to the rights upon the whole of the coast? Would they not have said, 66 So much of the coast as goes to Russia"? But it is stated in the most explicit terms that the demand is made of Russia in respect of the whole of the coast. If Great Britain had thought that she had any claim to part of these coasts, would she have demanded from Russia the right to hunt and trade upon the whole of the coast?

Now, Russia's objections are set forth and show very clearly what the understanding was on p. 202. They said:

We have been willing to suppose that, in spite of a formal taking possession, a long occupation of the principal points, and a peaceful exploitation of the sources of revenue and wealth presented by the countries in question, Russia's rights of sovereignty to the 51st degree of north latitude might be the subject of a doubt. We have, consequently, confined them to the 54° 40', and, to prevent any new dispute from arising on this point, we have permitted one of the Powers with which we were in litigation to share for ten years on the whole extent of the coast where our rights had been disputed, the profits of hunting, fishing, and trading with the natives.

I read this yesterday in another connection. However, I beg pardon for repeating it; but it is in the line of argument I am pursuing, and I hope the Tribunal will not think I intend to unnecessarily burden them with references:

"We offer the same advantages to England "-I read that in connection with Article VII-" but to grant them for ever would be to obtain the recognition of our rights of sovereignty only to abandon the exercise of them."

Here he uses the expression "the whole of the coast," and the rights on the whole of this coast had been granted to the United States, and it was proposed to give to Great Britain the same rights. Now, he brings in the use of this term "North-West Coast" at the bottom of that page. He says:

Russia's rights of sovereignty over the North-West Coast, beginning at 59 degrees of north latitude, have been disputed. Hence, between that degree and the parallel which would form our southern boundary, we hastened to offer special advantages to the Powers with which we were in dispute.

Then he goes on and speaks of the grant to the Americans, and he says expressly here" the whole of the coast," and he could not have meant a dismembered and broken-up coast; and I respectfully insist that it is utterly impossible that any one of these Plenipotentiaries could have had any such notion with regard to "coast" as that now advanced.

S. Doc. 162, 58-2, vol 7-23