« AnteriorContinuar »
In the discussions of this question which have taken place, a number of maps have been at different times referred to. Of these maps those that are in the possession or control of the Representative of the British Government, so far as known, are reproduced in the Atlas which accompanies this Case, except such as are mere copies or reproductions of those which are so included in the Atlas. Many of the maps referred to in the discussions are in such custody as not to be readily procurable for the purpose of having copies made. In such cases they have not been included in the Atlas. It is believed, however, that sufficient have been included to make clear the arguments which are based upon the action of cartographers in relation to the subject in dispute.
The bearing of the maps, which have been compiled at various dates, upon the identification of the Portland Canal mentioned in the Treaty, has already been alluded to in this Case. It only remains to comment on such bearing as they may have on the line which runs from the head of Portland Channel.
With regard to maps generally, it is to be observed in the first place that their authority depends upon the degree of information to be attributed to their authors.
In considering whether the map makers who have shown upon their maps lines indicating a boundary had any adequate information to guide them, it is to be borne in mind that the question how the Treaty of 1825 affects the inlets on this coast has always been a question, not of the interpretation of the Treaty in the abstract, but of its application to the topography. Whether the line crossed any, and if so, what inlets was a matter which could not be decided till it was ascertained what was the true line of the coast, and what was the relation thereto of the various inlets and of the mountains bordering the coast. If this is the correct view of the question it is obvious that the information within reach of the map makers in question was nil. There had been no survey, and the country was unfrequented and unknown.
It is contended that the line shown on these maps is really a theoretical line drawn to indicate broadly that a boundary existed in that region. This is not a case where a map maker is identifying natural features of the country as answering to any particular name; in which case the map might be evidence to show that at that time some persons, at any rate, understood such name as applying to such natural features. Nor is it a case where the map maker purports to depict the sites of settlements, the extent of discovery, or the like; in which cases the map might afford evidence of reputation or tradition. The maps of North-West America now under discussion simply purport to show the general course of a boundary existing, as yet, only on the paper of the Treaty which recorded it, deprived during all the years for which the lisière was under lease to the Hudson's Bay Company of any practical importance, traceable with reference to no local names, and resting on no facts known to the map maker. It is submitted that the Government of Great Britain should not be expected, before the question arose, to make any disavowal of the correctness of such maps. It would have been impossible for any one. whether Government official or private map maker, to pretend to trace the exact course of the boundary. As a matter of fact, everyone in any way brought into contact with the matter knew that the boundary was undetermined, and was incapable of being determined except by survey and by joint international action. No one, therefore, regarded the appearance of conventional and obviously inaccurate lines upon maps as having any significance.
The appearance of these lines seems to be accounted for by the fact that the known point of commencement in the continent was the head of Portland Canal. The line was, therefore, roughly drawn from the head of Portland Canal as an indication that there was a boundary somewhere in that neighbourhood, it being impossible to lay it down exactly by reference to the particular definition in the Treaty owing to complete lack of information in regard to the ground. When one cartographer adopted this plan, others having no knowledge of the topography, and in the absence of any official interpretation of the Treaty, naturally followed the example of the first.
That these lines were wholly without authority and that they could not be considered as drawn in accordance, or even approxi
mately in accordance with the Treaty, is clearly shown by Mr. Bayard, United States' Secretary of State, in his letter to Mr. Phelps, United States' Minister at St. James', of November 20, 1885, already referred to in this Case. Mr. Bayard first quotes, with approval, a letter of Mr. Dall, the United States' Expert Officer, in which Mr. Dall says:
"We have no good topographical maps of this part of Alaska
"We may then fall back on the line parallel with the windings of the coast. Let any one with a pair of drawing compasses, having one leg a pencil point, draw this line on the United States' Coast Survey Map of Alaska (No. 960, of 1884). The result is sufficient to condemn it. Such a line could not be surveyed: it crosses itself in many places, and indulges in myriads of knots and tangles. The line actually drawn as a boundary on that map omits the intricacies, and is intended merely as an approximation."
Mr. Bayard then says:
"The line traced upon the Coast Survey Map of Alaska (No. 960), of which copies are sent to you herewith, is as evidently conjectural and theoretical as was the mountain summit line traced by Vancouver. It disregards the mountain topography of the country, and traces a line on paper about 30 miles distant from the general contour of the coast."
Mr. Bayard then specifically instructs Mr. Phelps to "bring the foregoing considerations to the attention of the Marquis of Salisbury," instructions which were carried out in due course. It is demonstrated, therefore, that in 1885 the United States' Government officially disavowed to the British Government the correctness of this conventional line, adopted by their own and other cartog raphers, and declared that the line was not in accordance with the Treaty, and was merely conjectural.
The Earl of Iddesleigh in his letter of August 27, 1886, to Mr. Phelps, some months later, expressed substantially the same view on behalf of Great Britain. He said:
"In the note which you addressed to the Marquis of Salisbury on the 103 19th January last, you requested that you might be furnished with a copy of the map of the Dominion of Canada, geologically coloured, from surveys made by the Geological Corps, 1842-1882, alluded to in Mr. Bayard's statement of the 20th November, 1885, with reference to the question of the Alaska frontier.
"In forwarding to you a copy of the map in question, I have the honour to invite your attention to the fact that the Alaska boundary-line shown therein is merely an indication of the occurrence of such a dividing line somewhere in that region. It will, of course, be clearly understood that no weight could attach to
the map location of the line now denoted, inasmuch as the Convention between Great Britain and Russia of the 28th February, 1825, which defines the line, making its location dependent on alternative circumstances, the occurrence, or the non-occurrence, of mountains, and, as is well known to all concerned, the country has never been topographically surveyed.
"Her Majesty's Government, therefore, feel that they are bound distinctly to disavow the recognition of the correctness of the line shown on the edition of the Map in question, forwarded herewith, as the boundary-line between the Province of British Columbia and Alaska."
The positions of the United States and Great Britain upon this subject are therefore identical. In view of this fact, it becomes unnecessary to make any extended statement in reference to the appearance of this conjectural line on the various maps reproduced in the Atlas and on other maps which may be brought forward
With a view to showing the diversity of the conventional and unauthorized lines drawn upon maps by the various cartographers, attention is drawn to the following:
A map of Alaska and adjoining regions was compiled by Ivan Petroff, Special Agent of the United States, tenth census 1880, published in United States' Census Report. This map shows a waving line not following the parallel of latitude, entering the mouth of Observatory Inlet, and crossing up into Portland Canal, running from the head of Portland Canal about 30 miles from the general line of the coast up to Lynn Canal, and then running a similar distance around the head of Lynn Canal. This line in some places treats the inlets as not forming part of the coast, and it measures the approximate 30 miles from the mouth of the inlets until it reaches Taku Inlet and Lynn Canal, when it adopts a different principle and appears to treat Lynn Canal as part of the Ocean.
Another map, printed in volume viii, 10th Census, United States, 1880, compiled by the same Ivan Petroff, Special Agent, has a line indicating the boundary which follows the same general principle as that immediately preceding, except that it assumes some point in Lynn Canal as the point where the coast stops, and shows the boundary-line apparently crossing the head of Lynn Canal, leaving a portion of it on the British side of the boundary-line.
In the library of the United States' Congress at Washington there exist maps opposed to the United States' contention. The following may be mentioned:
A map published by A. Bertrand of Paris in 1826, giving a delineation of the west coast of America, shows Alaska as a peninsula only.
Again, Sharp's Student's Atlas (Chapman and Hall of London), 1850, shows the coast strip about 10 marine leagues wide from Mount St. Elias to latitude 56° 15', thence south-west to Burrough's Bay. Revillagigedo is coloured as being British territory.
Another map showing the world on Mercator's projection in the same Atlas shows Russian America as confined to the mainland west of the 141st meridian.
A comprehensive Atlas, published by W. G. Tichnor of Boston, 1835, shows the boundary between the Russian and British possessions by a dash line, on the 141st meridian Arctic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean, marked "boundary settled in 1825." Upon this map a coloured line is drawn, apparently by hand, showing the boundary from the 141st meridian north of St. Elias, running along approximately parallel to the general line of coast to the head of Portland Canal. Another copy of the same Atlas, apparently older, shows the same dash line; but the coloured line added by hand runs into Lynn Canal on the west side near the head, and emerges near Endicott Arm, and from this point to latitude 56°, where it ends, leaves a very narrow strip between line and shore. From 56° to 54° 40′ the mainland is all shown as British territory.
In another Atlas published by Chapman and Hall, of London, 1844, described as an Atlas published by the Society for the discussion of useful knowledge, is a map of British North 105 America, which shows the boundary-line approximately 10
leagues from the shore to Burrough's Bay.
These maps are cited for the purpose of showing that the boundry-line shown upon the maps were all hypothetical, and differed greatly as between themselves.
Finally, on this subject, reference is made to the Convention which was concluded between Great Britain and the United States on the 22nd July, 1892. This Convention has been already referred to, and is set out in the Appendix. It must be remembered that it was concluded after the diplomatic correspondence and communications which had taken place from 1825 to 1892, and followed not long after the letters of Secretary Bayard and the Earl of Iddesleigh, cited above. It provided for a determination of the boundary to follow the ascertainment of facts and data by joint survey, but made no reference to previous cartography.