Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

non-occurrence of

alternative circumstances, the occurrence or mountains, and, as was well known to all concerned, the country had never been topographically surveyed. The note ended by a distinct disavowal on the part of Her Majesty's Government of the correctness of the line shown.

In view of the importance which has been attached in the present controversy to the location of the line in a number of maps (to be referred to elsewhere in this Case), it is important to direct attention to the language held by Lord Iddesleigh on this, the first occasion, when such a map was handed by a Representative of the British to a Representative of the United States' Government, and immediately after the problems presented by the topography had attracted attention. In fact, the line depicted upon this map was of the character which had been recently described by Mr. Bayard as conjectural and theoretical.

No survey was made as suggested by Mr. Phelps.

In 1887 the attention of Her Majesty's Government was drawn to the report made by Lieutenant Schwatka, of the United States' army, of a military reconnaissance conducted by him in Alaska in 1883, in which he stated that he had traversed Perrier Pass, and used language implying that it defined the boundary. Acting on instructions from his Government, Sir Lionel West, the British

Ambassador at Washington, by a note dated the 14th Septem37 ber, 1887, pointed out to Mr. Bayard that this was not admitted by Great Britain.

During the Fisheries negotiations between Great Britain and the United States, held at Washington in 1887-88, several informal Conferences took place, at the request of the British Commissioners, between Messrs. Dall and Dawson, at which the possibility of agreement upon certain conventional lines was discussed, but no result was reached from the report of these experts, the United States' Commissioners taking the ground that their powers did not authorize them to treat for an adjustment of the Alaska boundary. The Report of these Conferences was laid before Congress by the President of the United States, and this document included a letter from Dr. Dawson, in which the Canadian contention as to the line crossing inlets is clearly put forward, and a letter in which this contention is combated with vigour by Mr. Dall, the American expert.

This Report contained a map showing how the boundary would run in accordance with the views presented by Dr. Dawson. On it the line is clearly marked as crossing the Lynn Canal in the vicinity of Berner's Bay.

This was the first occasion on which the boundary question had been discussed from the point of view of strict right since the topographical questions had emerged.

In June, 1888, information reached the Canadian Government to the effect that certain persons were about to receive a charter from the Alaskan authorities to construct a trail from Lynn Canal by way of the White Pass to the interior of Alaska. In bringing this rumour to the attention of Sir John Macdonald, the then deputy of the Minister of the Interior observed:

"In view of the well-based contention on our part that the heads of the larger inlets which penetrate that portion of Alaska which consists of the coastline from Mount St. Elias to Portland Channel, and more particularly the head of Lynn Canal, are within our territory, it would appear to be important to protest against the granting of any rights by the United States or Alaskan Governments at the heads of these inlets."

38

The attention of Lord Salisbury was at once called to this matter, and Her Majesty's Minister at Washington instructed to inform the United States' Government that this Report had reached Her Majesty's Government, by whom it was presumed to be unfounded, "as the territory in question is part of Her Majesty's dominions."

Sir Lionel West, in communicating upon this matter with the United States' Government, omitted to specify precisely the locality to which the report had reference, and Mr. Bayard replied that neither his Department nor, as he stated in a subsequent note, the Department of the Interior had any information as to any proposed action of the character described.

In April, 1891, the attention of the Canadian Government was drawn to a Report of the United States' Coast and Geodetic Survey, in which it was stated that a survey was about to be made under the authority of Congress, which would involve the marking by monuments of a line through the Portland Canal to the 56th degree of latitude, thence north-westerly following as nearly as might be practicable the general trend of the coast at a distance of about 35 miles from it to the 141st degree of west longitude, thence due north to the Arctic Ocean.

Upon this Sir Julian Pauncefote was instructed to remind the United States' Government that the boundary at this point was at that present time the subject of some difference of opinion and of considerable correspondence, and that the actual boundary-line could only be properly determined by an International Commission. Sir Julian Pauncefote accordingly, on the 5th June, 1891, addressed a note to Mr. Blaine in conformity with these instructions.

In February 1892 a Conference took place between Delegates from the Canadian Government and the United States' Secretary of State, relating primarily to the extension and development of trade between the United States and the Dominion. At this Conference an agreement was reached respecting the Alaska boundary, which was embodied in a Convention signed at Washington on the 22nd July, 1892.

The preamble of this Convention recited that the parties were equally desirous of providing for the removal of all possible causes of difference between the respective Governments thereafter in regard to the delimitation of the existing boundary between their

39

possessions in America in respect to such portions of said boundary as might not, in fact, have been permanently marked in virtue of Treaties theretofore concluded. Article I provided as follows:

"ARTICLE I.

"The High Contracting Parties agree that a coincident or joint survey (as may be found in practice most convenient) shall be made of the territory adjacent to that part of the boundary-line of the Dominion of Canada and the United States of America, dividing the Province of British Columbia and the North-west Territory of Canada from the territory of Alaska from the latitude of 54° 40′ north to the point where the said boundary-line encounters the 141st degree of longitude westward from the meridian of Greenwich by Commissions to be appointed severally by the High Contracting Parties, with a view to the ascertainment of the facts and data necessary to the permanent delimitation of said boundary-line in accordance with the spirit and intent of the existing Treaties in regard to it between Great Britain and Russia and between the United States and Russia.

"Application will be made without delay to the respective Legislative Bodies for the appropriations necessary for the prosecution of the survey, and the Commissions to be appointed by the two Governments shall meet at Ottawa within two months after said appropriations shall have been made, and shall proceed as soon as practicable thereafter to the active discharge of their duties.

"The respective Commissions shall complete the survey and submit their finai Reports there of within two years from the date of their first meeting.

"The Commissions shall, so far as they may be able to agree, make a Joint Report to each of the two Governments, and they shall also report, either jointly or severally, to each Government on any points upon which they may be unable to agree.

"Each Government shall pay the expenses of the Commission appointed by it. "Each Government engages to facilitate in every possible way any operations which, in pursuance of the plan to be agreed upon by the Commissions, may be conducted within its territory by the Commission of the other.

"The High Contracting Parties agree that, as soon as practicable after the Report or Reports of the Commissions shall have been received, they will proceed to consider and establish the boundary-line in question."

Mr. W. F. King was appointed Her Majesty's Commissioner, and the United States appointed Dr. T. C. Mendenhall, afterwards succeeded by General William Ward Duffield. The period for 40 making this Report was afterwards enlarged to the 31st December, 1895, by a Supplementary Convention signed in February 1894.

It is to be observed that the Convention of the 22nd July, 1892, has reference to an existing boundary, and that it provided for the ascertainment of the facts and data necessary to its permanent delimitation in accordance with the spirit and intent of the existing Treaties. In view of contentions which have since been put forward in the course of this controversy, that the claim of the United States receives support from effect having before this date been given to their interpretation of the Treaty of 1825 by maps published or acts done with the acquiescence of Great Britain, it is important to observe that by this Convention the rights of the two Governments concerned are by agreement referred back to the Treaties. The facts and data to be ascertained were to be so ascertained by a joint survey. Previous cartography or acts of settlement were not embraced in the work authorized by the Convention, nor did the Commissioners, who properly confined themselves to the Convention under which they were appointed, report upon such cartography or acts of settlement, if any existed.

The Commissioners presented their Joint Report on the 31st December, 1895, followed in March, 1896, by elaborate maps, a reproduction of which accompanies this Case. The topographical results of their survey are examined elsewhere.

Gold having been discovered in the Valley of the Yukon beyond the passes lying at the head of Lynn Canal, great traffic was attracted to that region in the year 1897. The circumstances of settlement of

the disputed territory, and claims based thereon, arising out of this movement, are treated elsewhere. Following these events, Sir Julian Pauncefote, on the 23rd February, 1898, proposed to Mr. Sherman that the determination of the boundary should be referred to three Commissioners, one to be appointed by each Government and the third by an independent Power. He also expressed the hope that, pending such settlement, a modus vivendi could be amicably arranged. The latter proposal was acted upon, and by exchange of notes, it was provided that a provisional boundary should be established. Reference to this instrument will show that it was therein expressly provided that it should not affect the rights of either party in reference to the permanent delimitation of the boundary.

41

A provisional boundary was subsequently arranged on this basis, which is still being acted upon.

In the autumn of 1898 a Joint High Commission, comprising Representatives of Great Britain and the United States, met at Quebec, and afterwards adjourned to Washington, where it sat till February, 1899. The Commission was constituted with a view to the discussion and adjustment of a number of matters then in question between the two Governments. The business which was to occupy the Commission was arranged at a series of Conferences held at Washington in May, 1898. The Protocol of these Conferences recorded that it was expedient to come to an agreement upon (among other subjects) "provisions for the delimitation and establishment of the Alaskan-Canadian boundary by legal and scientific experts, if the Commission should so decide, or otherwise."

The Protocol further provided that each Government should communicate to the other, in advance of the meeting of the Commission, a Memorandum of its views on each of the subjects to be discussed.

In accordance with the above provision, Sir Julian Pauncefote was instructed to deliver to the Secretary of State at Washington a copy of a despatch of the 19th July, 1898, addressed by the Marquis of Salisbury to the British Commissioner, setting forth the views of Her Majesty's Government. This despatch, after adverting to the existing arrangement at the head of Lynn Canal, pointed out that, as the line there adopted was more than 100 miles from the ocean, Her Majesty's Government could not reasonably be expected to continue to accord it provisional recognition for an indefinite period; and, pending a definite settlement of the question, a

« AnteriorContinuar »