Imágenes de páginas

to the note, addressed by Her Majesty's Minister at Washington to the United States' Secretary of State on the 5th June, 1891. Mr. Raikes, in his letter, said :

“In view of a certain passage in the Report of the United States Coast and Geodetic Survey, your Government was reminded in this note, at the desire of the Government of Canada, that the question of the boundary in the neighbourhood referred to was the subject of some difference of opinion, and that the actual line could only be properly determined by an International Commission.

“The Canadian Government point out that shortly after that date provision was made in the Convention of the 22nd July, 1892, for the delimitation of the boundary-line in accordance with the spirit and intent of the Treaties,' and an agreement was entered into 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' Congress early in 1896; but in the same year, before the High Contracting Parties had met to consider the boundaryline, and while the matter was still sub judice, the United States erected the storehouses on part of the ‘territory adjacent,' which was the subject of the operations of the joint survey and of the diplomatic negotiations.

"The Canadian Government conceive that occupation effected under such 99 circumstances would not, in international law, have any validity, but they

are of the opinion that, nevertheless, the matter should not be allowed to pass without protest, and they have, therefore, expressed the desire that your Government should be informed of their views on the subject."

On the 16th September, 1902, the Acting Secretary of State of the United States formally acknowledged receipt of the above communication.

Summarised, the matter of these storehouses stands as follows:

Wales Island is close to Tongass Island, where for some years the United States had a military post, being separated therefrom by a narrow channel.

While the whole question of the boundary was sub judice under the Treaty of 1892, the United States formally sent a revenuecutter to take possession of Wales and Pearse Islands, and did so take possession in the year 1896.

Of this action Canada knew nothing until 1901, when it was observed by an examination of the United States' chart; Canada then at once protested, and was informed:

1. That the storehouses were not shown on the United States'


S. Doc. 162, 58–2, vol 3—7

2. That the islands had been in the possession of the United States since 1867.

It thereupon transpired that although possession had been taken and reported, and the storehouses marked on one chart, the charts which followed did not show the storehouses. The accident of a Canadian official happening to see the one particular chart upon which the storehouses were marked, alone brought the incident to the attention of the Canadian Government five years after it had occurred.

[blocks in formation]

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 ques101 tion 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 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 102 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 approximately 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 cartographers, 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

« AnteriorContinuar »