by Congress, save those that relate to the preservation of seals, the collection of revenue, and the sale of fire-arms and fire-water."

and

"As there was no legal title to land in Alaska, there could be no legal conveyance nor mortgage, though conveyances were made occasionally and recorded by the Deputy Collectors at Wrangel and Sitka, the parties concerned taking their own risk as to whether the transaction might at some distant day be legalized. "Miners and others whose entire possessions might lie within the territory, and who might have become residents, could not bequeath their property, whether real or personal, for there were no Probate Courts nor any authority whereby estates could be administered. Debts could not be collected except through the summary process by which disputes are sometimes settled in mining camps. In short, there was neither civil nor criminal jurisdiction in any part of Alaska."

90

Schools have not been maintained in Alaska from the time of the Treaty of Cession, or to any extent during any considerable period. Petroff, Special Agent of the United States, in his Report of the 7th August, 1882, to the Superintendent of the Census, says:

"At present the only schools in all western Alaska where English is taught are on the Pribilof Islands and Iliuliuk settlement, Unalaska, both being maintained at the expense of a trading firm."

Later on in the same Report he says:

"At the location of all parish churches it is supposed or expected that schools will be maintained by the Church authorities, but as already mentioned, there is much laxity in this respect, and at least 20,000 natives are entirely without the remotest influence of church or school-a fact our Board of Foreign Missions might take into consideration.

This appears, then, to have been the condition of educational development seventeen years after the Treaty of Cession.

Presbyterian missionaries, according to Petroff, had established schools on several of the outlying islands and at some of the Chilkat villages on Lynn Canal, but he nowhere claims that they were recognized by the United States' Government or supported by public money.

The very slight nature of the control occasionally exercised by the United States over the inhabitants of Alaska may be illustrated by reference to the incidents of 1869 and 1890.

The events of 1869 are described in the Report of Ivan Petroff, Special Agent of the United States, before referred to:

"On the 1st January, 1869, the Chief of the Chilkat tribe was on a visit to Sitka with sixty or seventy warriors, and paid his respects to General Davis, who made him a present of a few bottles of whisky.”

The Special Agent proceeds to describe the effects of the whisky on the Chief, the subsequent collision with the military, the shooting of some Indians and prospectors, the excitement caused by the news that the crew of the wrecked schooner "Louisa Downs" had been massacred, the prompt burning of three deserted villages in which "not a hostile warrior was seen," and adds:

91

"Some time later it was discovered that the shipwrecked crew had not been killed, but rescued by these savages and treated kindly."

The only other reference to 1869 is the following:

"In the month of July of the same year, the Chilkat Indians, who had still a life to their credit on account of the trouble in Sitka in the month of January, boarded a small trading vessel, and demanded a life or money. A written guaranty for the settlement of the claim was given, and the matter reported to the Commanding Officer at Sitka, who, however, refused to have anything to do with it. Upon this, the trader who had given the security paid the claim, thus securing peace to the country, and after this the Indians submitted to the General's demands."

It does not appear that any even of these events occurred on the territory now in dispute. The United States' trading vessel does, however, appear to have submitted to the Indian demands, and another United States' trader seems to have paid the Indian bill.

In 1890, as it has been alleged, some cannery owners sent to Sitka for aid against some Indians in Lynn Canal. A vessel arrived, and the Indians were invited on board and feasted. ing further appears to have been done.

Noth

Another passage from Petroff may be quoted in this connection:— "In 1878 the Sitka Indians began to comport themselves in the most insolent manner, defacing the graves in the Russian cemetery, pulling down the stockade, separating the town from the Indian Settlement, and committing other similar outrages. At that time not even a revenue cutter was present in the harbour, and the inhabitants, becoming very much alarmed, sent an appeal for immediate protection to the Commander of an English man-of-war in the harbour of Victoria. The assistance was promptly rendered, just in time, it was claimed, to prevent disaster; opinions on that subject were, however, divided. In due time the English man-of-war was relieved by a similar vessel of the United States' navy, and since that time a vessel of that class has been constantly stationed in the harbour of Sitka, affording protection and assisting the inhabitants of SouthEastern Alaska in various ways."

It thus appears that an American ship interfered to save 92 life on Lynn Canal, and a British ship performed the same office for the Americans at Sitka. Both England and Canada were unaware of these events; nor does Great Britain lay claim to Sitka because of the timely aid her vessel was able to afford.

With reference generally to the claims of occupation set up by the United States because of certain isolated acts of her citizens, as, for instance, the establishment of a mission school by the Presbyterians at Pyramid Harbour about 1881, a private store at Taiya Inlet in 1882 or 1883, and of one or two canneries at Pyramid Harbour about 1883, it cannot be contended that these individual acts of possession are of any importance as bearing on the Case. The United States had officially declared that "all claims of preemption and settlement in Alaska were not only without the sanction of law, but were in direct violation of laws applicable to the public domain." Individual acts of possession in Alaska therefore would be in violation of American law. It cannot be presumed in the absence of proof that the people who located in the territory now in dispute did so in assertion of or in reliance on the sovereignty of the United States.

Up to this point this account has been taken up with the annals of an unknown region. Apart from the visits of occasional Alaska tourists, who found their way north to escape the summer heat and enjoy the novel scenery of the cloud-drenched coasts, and snow-capped mountains, and beyond the few engaged in the canning industries no one came to disturb the silence of the lisière or the peace of the aboriginal inhabitants. It was as unknown as the interior of Africa or possibly Greenland when Mr. Sumner spoke in 1867. For years conditions remained unchanged, and until 1896 the Governments of Great Britain or Canada knew little or nothing of the movements of the people along that remote north-west coast.

93

Reference will now be made to the cases of Dyea and Skagway, two Settlements at the head of the Lynn Canal. It is understood that it is claimed, on the part of the United States, that their possession of these places arose and continued under circumstances which should influence the Tribunal to so delimit the boundary as to leave these places within United States' territory.

This contention is wholly disputed.

When in the summer of 1896 rich gold-fields were discovered in the Canadian-Klondike district upwards of 500 miles in the interior from the head of Lynn Canal, and the news gradually reached the outer world during the next six months, the eyes of the people

of North America were suddenly turned towards this hitherto unknown and almost inaccessible region. Tens of thousands of people in the early spring of 1897 started for "The Klondike," as the new mining district was popularly termed. The shortest way to it was by the Lynn Canal over the Skagway (White) and Chilcoot Passes and down the Yukon River. The pilgrims were of various nationalities, but mainly United States' citizens. Many stopped at Dyea and Skagway, while others pushed on over the passes to the gold-fields. By this movement of travel Dyea and Skagway came into existence. If there had previously been one or two isolated and temporary squatters at these points, their presence could not, it is believed, be shown to be of such a character as to constitute a settlement by or on behalf of the United States. It is to be particularly noted that this movement of population took place as a movement toward the Canadian Klondike, and the Settlements of Dyea and Skagway were an incident thereof, and came into existence wholly without reference to the question as to whether the sites of these Settlements were in British or United States' territory. In the early summer of 1897, therefore, the position was that some thousands had got over the passes, others were camped at Dyea and Skagway, and the movement was rapidly growing. Food and supplies had to be transported from the cities of the Pacific coast through Lynn Canal and over the passes.

It will be observed that this traffic had to pass from the towns and cities of British Columbia and the Pacific Coast States through the waters which separate the islands and strip of coast owned by the United States to the mouth of Lynn Canal, and thence over the

frontier, wherever it might be, into the Canadian territory. 94 Under these circumstances, the Canadian Government was

forced by the imperious necessities of the case to make provision for the traffic, and this explains their subsequent action. British vessels were met by the fact that the regulations governing the action of the United States' revenue officers in charge of Alaskan ports were interpreted by them as forbidding landing from any British vessel anywhere on the shores of Lynn Canal, Juneau on the Gastineaux Channel being the only port of entry in this part of the territory.

These regulations were put in force, notwithstanding that Canada's claim to the territories at the head of Lynn Canal was at the time well known to the United States' Government. A reconnaissance having been made by Lieutenant Schwatka, of the United States' army, in the year 1883, of the passes from the Lynn Canal to the Yukon, embraced in the disputed territory, the Canadian Government in 1887, as already stated in this Case, shortly after they had official notice of his report, caused a protest to be lodged with the Government at Washington against the implied claim of Lieutenant Schwatka that this pass, called by him Perrier Pass, and now known as the Chilkoot Pass, was in United States' territory. Again, in 1888, the Canadian Government forwarded a further protest to Her Majesty's Government for communication to the United States' Government against a rumoured attempt of the United States to exercise jurisdiction at the White Pass, claiming it as British territory; and in the same year, during the currency of the Fishery negotiations at Washington, Dr. G. M. Dawson, as representing Her Majesty's Government, in an informal conference with Mr. Dall, representing the United States, put forward the contention that the territories surrounding the head of Lynn Canal were British. The report of the conference between Dr. Dawson and Mr. Dall was subsequently laid before Congress by President Cleveland, in his message dated 2nd March, 1889. In recommending to the President the publication of these documents, the Secretary of State observed:

95

"These documents are considered of value as bearing upon a subject of great international importance, and should be put in shape for public information."

Indeed, by the year 1892, such a diplomatic rapprochement had been arrived at between Great Britain and the United States with reference to the ascertainment of the true boundary that on the 22nd July of that year a Convention, herein before referred to, was entered into between the two countries for a survey, with a view to the delimitation of the line in accordance with the spirit and intent of the Treaties. By this Convention, it was agreed that the boundary was to be considered and established as soon as practicable after the receipt of the Report of the Commissioners. That Report was signed on the 31st December, 1895, and laid before the Parliament of Canada and the United States' Con