LETTER OF SUBMITTAL. The PRESIDENT: The undersigned, the Acting Secretary of State, has the honor to lay before the President, with a view to its transmission to Congress, the report of the agent of the United States before the Alaskan Boundary Tribunal. I respectfully request that Congress authorize the printing of 500 copies of the report and appendices for the use of the Department of State. Respectfully submitted. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, December 17, 1903. FRANCIS B. LOOMIS, Acting Secretary of State. LIST OF ACCOMPANIMENTS. 1. Final report of Hon. John W. Foster, agent of the United States (with appendices). 2. United States case and appendix. 3. United States case atlas. 4. British case and appendix. 5. British case atlas. 6. United States counter case and appendix. 7. United States counter case atlas. 8. British counter case and appendix. 9. United States printed argument. 10. British printed argument. 11. Correspondence since treaty of January 24, 1903 (pamphlet). 12. Oral argument before tribunal. FINAL REPORT OF THE AGENT OF THE UNITED STATES. ALASKAN BOUNDARY TRIBUNAL, AGENCY OF THE UNITED STATES, SIR: I have the honor to submit my report as agent of the United States before the Alaskan Boundary Tribunal, organized in accordance with the provisions of the treaty of January 24, 1903, between the United States and Great Britain, for the settlement of questions between the two countries with respect to the boundary line between the Territory of Alaska and the British possessions in North America. The treaty, the ratifications of which were exchanged March 3, 1903, required that the case of each of the two parties, accompanied by the documents, the official correspondence, and all other evidence in writing or print on which each party relied, should be delivered to each member of the Tribunal and to the agent within a period not exceeding two months from the date of the exchange of ratifications of the convention. Notwithstanding the limited time allotted for the preparation of the case, it was completed within the period fixed. The time for delivery under the treaty expired on July 3, 1903, but as that day fell on Sunday it was agreed that delivery might be made on the 2d, and that delivery of the British case at the United States embassy in London, and of the American case at the British embassy in Washington, would be accepted as a compliance with the requirement of the treaty as to delivery to the members of the Tribunal and the respective agents. The cases of the two Governments were accordingly exchanged in the manner indicated. The treaty creating the Tribunal provided that the members constituting it should be immediately appointed, and that they should assemble for their first meeting at London as soon as practicable after receiving their commissions, and should themselves fix the times and places of all subsequent meetings. Soon after the treaty went into effect the Secretary of State suggested to the British ambassador in Washington that, in order to save trouble and the waste of time involved by two journeys across the Atlantic, the purpose of the convention might be considered as complied with by the presentation of the cases and counter cases, without an actual meeting of the Tribunal in London. This suggestion was accepted by the British secretary of state for foreign affairs, with the added provision of the exchange of the printed argument before the first meeting of the Tribunal. Under date of May 15, 1903, the British agent communicated to me a letter stating that a preliminary examination of the case of the United States made it clear that it would be impossible to prepare a counter case for Great Britain within the period of two months fixed by the treaty, and he suggested that an extension of two months should be given. The letter of the British agent was received by me on May 25, and on the same date I sent him a cablegram stating that it would be impossible for the American members of the Tribunal to consent to the extension of two months for the counter case because of their official engagements. In a note dated June 12 the British ambassador informed the Secretary of State that his Government strongly supported the application of the British agent for the two months' extension of time for the counter case, and that it would be glad to learn that the application was agreed to by the United States. The Secretary of State replied that under the treaty an extension of time was only contemplated when it was shown that it became necessary by reason of special difficulties which should arise in the procuring of additional papers and evidence for the counter case, and that the existence of special difficulties had not been shown nor alleged. The application for an extension of time was accompanied by a notice on the part of the British agent for the production, under paragraph 4 of article 2 of the treaty, of a list of documents in the case of the United States which embraced practically all of that case except such papers as were found in the British case or in British publications, and it was stated that the British agent desired to examine or take photographs of the originals of these documents. The answer of the United States to this application was that the treaty did not provide for either the production or examination of original papers by the agent of the other party upon his own request, nor for permission to photograph any papers; that it was not in consonance with the usual practice in international arbitrations, being a demand for the examination and photographing of almost the entire body of evidence submitted in the case of the United States, except that which had been obtained from British sources and heen published, and without alleging any reason for such a sweeping examination; that such an application would hardly be approved by the Tribunal, if in session; but that, nevertheless, the United States, desirous of affording every proper means of verifying anything relied upon by it in its case, would take pleasure in giving the British agent or his duly authorized representative an opportunity to examine and verify the originals in its possession of anything contained in the case of the United States. Accordingly the British agent sent a representative to Washington, and the examination asked for was made by him during the month of July. Certified copies of the Russian and French texts of documents, of which translations were printed in the case of the United States, were likewise forwarded to the British agent in London. The counter cases of the two Governments were exchanged, in conformity with the terms of the treaty, on July 3, 1903, through the respective embassies, as was done in the case of each Government. Under date of August 10 an application was made by the British embassy in behalf of the British agent for an inspection and photographing of documents in the United States counter case similar to that before made respecting the case. As the documents were then in process of shipment to London, a reply was sent that on arrival in that city the desired inspection would be granted. On August 31 a note was sent by me to the British agent that the documents were then open to his inspection at the rooms of the United States agency in London. But no inspection took place of the documents in the counter case, and no reference was ever made to the inspection had in Washington, either in the British printed argument or in the proceedings before the Tribunal. Copies of the correspondence between the two Governments relating to the extension of time and the examination of documents, as well as to other matters connected with the Tribunal, accompany this report. The printed argument of counsel on behalf of the United States and of Great Britain was exchanged on September 2, 1903. And in accordance with an understanding reached between the two Governments, the Tribunal held its first meeting in the reception room of the British foreign office in London on Thursday, September 3. At this meeting it was determined that the oral argument should be opened by the British counsel and closed by the counsel of the United States, and that during the argument the sessions of the Tribunal should be public. A recess was taken until Tuesday, September 15, when the oral argument was begun, Sir Robert B. Finlay, the attorney-general of England, opening. He was followed by David T. Watson, esq., for the United States; by Mr. Christopher Robinson, K. C., for Great Britain; Hon. Hannis Taylor for the United States; Sir Edward H. Carson, solicitor-general of England, for Great Britain, and Hon. Jacob M. Dickinson closing for the United States. Eighteen days were consumed in the oral argument, ending on October 8, when the Tribunal closed the public sessions and entered upon its private deliberations. On Tuesday, October 20, 1903, the Tribunal concluded its labors by delivering to the agents of the two Governments its final decision or award, accompanied by a series of five maps, duly attested by its members, on which was marked the water boundary as determined by the decision, and also the points on the mainland which were to fix the boundary as determined by the Tribunal. The final decision or award in duplicate, one copy for each Government, was signed by Baron Alverstone and the three American members, Messrs. Root, Lodge, and Turner. The two Canadian members of the Tribunal, Messrs. Jetté and Aylesworth, declined to sign the award, and they pursued the unusual course of causing a statement at some length of the reasons for their refusal to be given to the public press on the same day that the decision was delivered to the agents of the two Governments. In this statement they say: "There is, in our opinion, no process of reasoning whereby the line thus decided upon by the Tribunal can be justified. We do not consider the finding of the Tribunal as to the islands at the entrance to Portland Channel, or as to the mountain line, a judicial one, and we have, therefore, declined to be parties to the award. Our position during the conferences of the Tribunal has been an unfortunate one. * * * We have been compelled to witness the sacrifice of the interest of Canada, powerless to prevent it, though satisfied that the course the majority determined to pursue in * * * |