the inlets now in controversy. But if there should be any question whatever on that point it is made entirely clear by the testimony which was given before the Committee of the House of Commons when it was investigating the relations of the Hudson's Bay Company to its adminstration of that tract of country, known as Prince Rupert's Land, and incidentally all the land that was covered by this lease. This investigation took place before a Select Committee of the House of Commons in 1857. I refer to pp. 37, 38, and 39 of the Appendix to the United States Counter-Case. Sir George Simpson was examined before that Committee. The Chairman said:—

I believe you hold an important situation in the administration of the territories of the Hudson's Bay Company?—I do.

789

What is it?-I have been Governor of their territories for many years. How long have you held that situation?-Thirty-seven years I have been their principal representative.

Mr. EDWARD ELLICE. AS Governor the whole time?-Yes, I have held the situation of Governor the whole time.

The CHAIRMAN. What is the nature of your authority in that capacity?—The supervision of the Company's affairs; the presiding at their councils in the country, and the principal direction of the whole interior management.

Now, he was familiar with the affairs of this Company from the time of the lease. He signed the lease himself; he was one of the negotiators; he went to Hamburg and made the lease with the representative of the Russian-American Company. He certainly understood when he took that lease what this description was intended to convey.

And, coming to p. 38:

Do you take care to keep a pretty strict supervision over them, and does their advancement depend altogether upon their conduct?—There is a very strict supervision.

Besides your own territory, I think you administer a portion of the territory which belongs to Russia, under some arrangement with the Russian Company? There is a margin of coast marked yellow in the map, from 54° 40′ up to Cross Sound, which we have rented from the Russian-American Company for a term of years.

Is that the whole of that strip? The strip goes on to Mount Saint Elias. Where does it begin?-Near Fort Simpson, in latitude 54°; it runs up to Mount Saint Elias, which is further north.

Is it the whole of that strip which is included between the British territory and the sea-We have only rented the part between Fort Simpson and Cross Sound.

Now, further on in this investigation-I cannot now turn exactly to the point-he referred the Committee to a map in which he stated that that territory which was held under the lease appeared on that map coloured in yellow, and if the members of the Tribunal will turn to Map 35 of the American Atlas, they will find this map, which was laid before a Select Committee of the House of Commons in 1857, and this map was ordered to be printed by the House of Commons in 1857. Now, my contention is that there the House of Commons, the legislative department of the Government, had direct notice that the Hudson's Bay Company, however far it may have been holding in the interior, wherever this particular line might be delineated in the interior, was certainly holding all of these interior waters, and all of these coasts that are now under controversy under the Russian Government, and had been holding them for a long period of time. Notwithstanding that fact, no protest was made, no order was issued that the Hudson's Bay Company could not hold

these inlets, which under the interpretation now contended for under the Treaty belonged to Great Britain, for a foreign Government, but this map was published without question, and with full knowledge of the character of the holding. And not only that, after the publication of this map Great Britain and Canada, with this knowledge brought home to them, issued other official maps in which the same declaration was made.

The Hudson's Bay Company continued to hold that territory by successive renewals of this lease up to the time of the American purchase in 1867, and when at the head of Lynn Canal a revenue vessel hoisted the American flag, upon the same day that the ceremony was observed at Sitka when this territory was taken under the American sovereignty there, a representative of the Hudson's Bay Company at that time came upon the ship, and after the American purchase the Hudson's Bay Company abandoned that territory, never set up any claim that it had a right to it under the authority of 790 Great Britain, and gave up all their posts and withdrew their agencies. If there could have been any question whatever in regard to the territory included in this lease it would be settled by the fact that on the 13th September, 1849, Sir J. H. Pelly transmitted a map to Earl Grey in which he said:

I have now the honour to forward to you a statement of the rights as to territory, trade, taxation, and government claimed and exercised by the Hudson's Bay Company on the continent of North America, accompanied with a map of North America, on which the territories claimed by the Hudson's Bay Company, in virtue of the charter granted to them by King Charles the Second, are coloured green, the other British territories pink, and those of Russia yellow.

This map is referred to in the United States Counter-Case Appendix, 253, and it is No. 19 in the British Atlas. Now, if you will turn to that atlas you will find under the designation given by him that the territory, certainly passing out and beyond all of the coasts and all of the inlets in question, was coloured as belonging to Russia.

Mr. TURNER. That was the map which was ordered to be printed in 1850 by the House of Commons?

Mr. DICKINSON. Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed on the 12th July, 1850. This, then, brings us down to the time of the American purchase.

Mr. RooT. Was this the same Pelly who was consulted at various steps of the negotiations by Mr. Canning?

Mr. DICKINSON. I beg pardon?

Mr. ROOT. I suppose this was the same Mr. Pelly?

Mr. DICKINSON. Yes, this was the same Mr. Pelly whom you might say was the mentor in regard to all these matters which were peculiarly within his knowledge in regard to that far-off country and which were supposed to directly affect the British interests and the interests of the Hudson's Bay Company.

As I stated, this brings us down to the American purchase in 1867. From 1825 down to 1867 there had never been done, so far as we know, a single act, and there had never been put on record a single declaration by the British Government that she owned any part of the coast, or of the waters, which bear a relation to the solution of the fifth question which we have now under consideration. And it is not credible that at that time Great Britain could have underS. Doc. 162, 58-2, vol 7—26

stood that she had any right in these waters, for she would have asserted it in some sort of way. In the face of, or rather with the knowledge of, these declarations of her maps, with the knowledge of the declarations of the Russian maps, and of cartographers generally, and doubtless with the further understanding that Great Britain had never exercised any sovereignty or control over these waters, the United States went into this purchase.

At the time that the Treaty was entered into between Great Britain and Russia, the United States had certain rights to those inlets as she interpreted the Treaty of 1824, which rights continued for a period of ten years. She also understood that Great Britain had secured identically the same rights, and had secured them by putting into her Treaty with Russia the same language that had secured similar rights to the United States. The United States understood that the enjoyment of these rights was solely permissive under the Russian Government, and that she did not hold or enjoy any of them by the grace of the Government of Great Britain.

At the time of the expiration of that privilege, certain American traders were not disposed to observe the obligations laid upon them

by the Treaty, and attention was called to the representatives 791 of the American Government that ships were trading in that

section in violation of the rights of Russia, and representations were made in such a way that the Secretary of State caused to be published a notice in order that those who were carrying on commerce and enterprises in that section of the country, and who were citizens of the United States, might desist, and the notice was given for the purpose of warning them that unless they did, Russia under the exercise of its supreme rights in respect of those waters would confiscate the vessels.

That showed the clear understanding of the United States in regard to the sovereignty of these waters. With that understanding growing out of these Treaties, the United States never had any declaration from Great Britain by a map or otherwise that she set up a claim to those waters. On the contrary having repeated declarations from Russia, not dissented from by Great Britain, but on the contrary, concurred in by Great Britain that those waters belonged to Russia, the United States entered upon this purchase.

Now, I do not say for a moment, or mean to suggest, that there was any act of bad faith upon the part of Great Britain in permitting the United States to purchase this territory, and, although a long time intervened between the consummation of the Treaty and the payment of the purchase-money, in standing by and permitting the money to be paid, and that thus she is estopped from setting up a claim. Not at all. I do not put it in that light. I do not think it was an act of bad faith at all. I think that at that time Great Britain acted just as she had acted previously, and that, from the signing of the Treaty, her action was expressive of the interpretation that she put upon the Treaty, and that, not believing that she had any right in those waters, she never felt that she was called upon to intervene in any way or give notice to the United States' Government.

The Treaty was consummated between Russia and the United States, and immediately steps were taken upon the part of the United States to subject this newly acquired territory to her sovereignty.

With great formalities, probably for the first time in the history of the American Government, so far as I know, a ceremony was gone through such as characterizes taking possession of a country that had hitherto been foreign, at Sitka, and doubtless accounts were given of that in the papers at the time. The Government of Great Britain was doubtless cognizant of all that took place.

Another event of like character occurred-I have hitherto referred to it-upon the same day and somewhat in the same manner, and that was at the very head of Lynn Canal, which constitutes a part of the waters now under controversy. And I take it that all the civilized. world at that time, who were generally informed in regard to the matters of acquisition and transfer of territory, understood that the United States went into possession of and expected to administer all the waters in regard to which this question now has arisen.

I must say, Mr. President, that I have progressed somewhat more rapidly than I had anticipated, and although I could go on if the Commission desires, it really would economize time if the Commission would now adjourn, as I have every reason to believe that I shall be able to conclude to-morrow.

(Adjourned till to-morrow at 11 A. M.)

792

NINETEENTH DAY.-THURSDAY, OCTOBER 8, 1903.

All the Members of the Tribunal were present.

Mr. DICKINSON. Mr. President, I now proceed to treat the remaining points of my argument, which I expect to finish to-day. The main question with which I have to deal is that of occupation by the United States' Government, and I will deal with it from the standpoint of showing the interpretation put by the Parties upon the Treaty, and not from the standpoint of the doctrine of adverse possession, prescription, or estoppel, or anything of that sort, because we have never put the Case of the United States under this Treaty on any such ground as that. But preliminary to the discussion of the question of occupation, it is necessary that I should take up and deal with the positions that have been advanced by Counsel on the other side, in which they have maintained that throughout a long period-a period of 30 years the whole question in respect of this line has been in controversy, and that as it has been in controversy it could not be said that any occupation on the part of the American Government could be taken as manifesting any interpretation, certainly on the part of Great Britain, that that occupation was rightful. I, therefore, first, shall ask the attention of the Tribunal to a consideration of the different questions under the general head of what has been styled sub judice.

Preliminary to that, although I shall go more into detail hereafter and make references with regard to occupation, it will be helpful to note what had been the general character of occupation previous to the time, which has been designated in the arguments of opposing Counsel as the time at which this question began to be raised. The time designated is 1872; that is the first date mentioned by the Attorney-General in his argument. Now, it will be borne in mind that Russia had occupied this territory. I shall not go into details over that part of the argument. The property had been transferred to the United States, and possession had been taken of the property in 1867, so that there was the period from 1867 to 1872 certainly before any question whatever was raised, even under the contention of the opposing Counsel.

What were the acts done by the United States' Government in this territory previous to 1872? I will give a short résumé. As I stated, I shall go more into detail in regard to that when I come to deal with the question of actual occupation. Previous to 1872 the following events had occurred:-The enumeration of the Indian tribes in the lisière had been made in 1867, and published, in which list there appeared as in American territory the Indians along the Stikine River, Taku Inlet and River, and about the head of Lynn Canal. The American flag had been raised at the head of Lynn Canal, and