250

modern geographers. On a majority of such charts, as, for example, those of Staff Commander D. Pender's survey for the Admiralty in 1868, and those of the geological survey of Canada recently published, the boundary follows the central line of the main channel known as Portland Inlet, while in other charts prepared by British geographers the line deflects to the northward from the broad waters of Dixon Entrance and passes through a narrow and intricate channel lying north-westward from Portland Inlet, known on the United States Coast Survey chart of 1885 as Pearse Channel, until it suddenly deflects southward again at right angles to re-enter Portland Inlet, thereby appearing to make British territory of Pearse and Wales Islands, and throwing doubt on the nationality of several small islands at the south-western extremity of Wales Island. This latter construction is at the outset in manifest contradiction with the treaties, which provided "that the island called Prince of Wales Island shall belong wholly to Russia" (now, by cession in 1867, to the United States).

There would seem to be ground in the text of Vancouver, the original explorer and geographer of the region, for supposing that he at one time regarded Pearse Canal of later geographers as the lower part of Portland Canal. But there are very evident reasons for believing that this was not the construction intended by the authors of the Anglo-Russian treaty of 1825, and that their purpose was the location of the natural boundary line in the broader channel called Portland Inlet on the Admiralty and United States Coast Survey charts. For a clear understanding of the subject, chart No. 7 of Vancouver's atlas, the British Admiralty chart No. 2431, corrected to June, 1882, or any later edition, the United States Coast Survey chart No. 700, of 1885, and the charts of the Coast Pilot of Alaska recently issued by the United States Coast Survey should be consulted. Of these, photographic copies of Vancouver's atlas chart No. 7 and copies of the Coast Survey publications are herewith sent you. You can doubtless obtain copies of the British Admiralty chart by application in the proper quarter.

The language of the treaties is:

Commencing from the southernmost point of the island called Prince of Wales Island, which point lies in the parallel of 54 degrees 40 minutes north latitude, and between the one hundred and thirty-first and the one hundred and thirty-third degree of west longitude (meridian of Greenwich), the said line shall ascend to the north along the channel called Portland Channel as far as the point of the continent, where it strikes the fifty-sixth degree of north latitude.

.. So far the treaties relate to the water boundary, and it is to be remembered, as already remarked, that the line so described was intended to leave Prince of Wales Island Russian territory in 1825, and a possession of the United States in 1867. No record has been found, in print or otherwise, so far as sought, of the circumstances attending the drawing up of the Anglo-Russian convention of 1825, which would throw light on the understanding of the negotiators on this point, but it may be assumed with confidence that the charts employed in the negotiation were those of Vancouver. They were made by a British officer under the direction of the British Government, and would therefore be acceptable as a standard by that party to the convention. They were the most recent charts then extant, and for half a century they remained the only authentic charts of that region, the Russians having at that time made no original surveys of importance in this district.

Moreover, the wording of the convention of 1825 is found to be in complete accord with the features presented by Vancouver's chart, and especially with chart No. 7 in the atlas accompanying the narrative of his voyage. The description in the convention seems to be a faithful reproduction of the picture actually present to the eyes of the negotiators in that chart.

The first discrepancy that meets us is, that neither on Vancouver's nor on any other chart known does the water-way of Portland Channel strike "the fifty-sixth degree of north latitude." On Vancouver's chart No. 7 it ends in a cul-de-sac, about 15 miles before the fifty-sixth degree is reached. This, however, is of little importance, for, with the better topographical knowledge we now possess, we know that a conventional line, in continuation of the general trend of the midchannel line, would strike the fifty-sixth degree of north latitude at a distance of some four or five miles inland.

While Portland Channel, Portland Canal, or Portland Inlet, as it is indifferently styled on the several charts, is and has long been readily identified as the main passage inland from the southernmost point of Prince of Wales Island, the intricate and narrow passage separating Pearse Island from the mainland is practically unsurveyed. It does not appear at all on the Pender Admiralty charts of 1868. In the United States Coast Survey charts it is conjecturally marked by dotted lines.

251 The facts that the parallel of 54° 40', by the most recent surveys, enters the mouth of Portland Inlet, that the most navigable channel trends thence directly inland in an almost straight line, that Prince of Wales Island is in terms excluded from British territory, and that the name used in the Anglo-Russian convention of 1825 is found on all existing maps possessing authority applied to Portland Inlet or Channel, and not to Pearse Channel, lend reason and force to the conviction that it was the intention of the negotiators that the boundary line should directly follow the broad and natural channel midway between its shores, and extend, if need were, inland in the same general direction until the range of hills, hereafter to be considered, should be reached (as appears in Vancouver's chart), at or near the fifty-sixth parallel.

It is not, therefore, conceived that this water part of the boundary ine can ever be called in question between the two Governments.

There is, however, ample ground for believing that the erroneous premises upon which the negotiators apparently based their fixation of the inland boundary line along the coast, render its true determination and demarcation by monuments, a matter of doubt and difficulty n carrying it into practical effect, and that, in prevision of the embarassments which may follow delay in the establishment of a positive Frontier line, it is the interest and the duty of the two Governments o reach a good understanding, which shall forthwith remove all -hance for future disagreement.

The convention of 1825 continues from the point where the quotaion above given ceases, as follows:

From this last-mentioned point

The intersection of the mid-channel line of Portland Channel with he fifty-sixth north parallel

he line of demarcation shall follow the summit of the mountains situated parallel to he coast as far as the point of intersection of the one hundred and forty-first degree

of west longitude (of the same meridian), and finally, from the said point of intersection, the said meridian line of the one hundred and forty-first degree, in its prolongation as far as the Frozen Ocean.

Provided

As the convention proceeds to stipulate in the second paragraph of the following article, IV

that whenever the summit of the mountains which extend in a direction parallel to the coast from the fifty-sixth degree of north latitude to the point of intersection of the one hundred and forty-first degree of west longitude shall prove to be at the distance of more than ten marine leagues from the ocean, the limit between the British possessions and the line of coast which is to belong to Russia as above mentioned (that is to say, the limit to the possessions ceded by this convention) shall be formed by a line parallel to the winding of the coast, and which shall never exceed the distance of ten marine leagues therefrom.

Here, again, there is conclusive internal evidence that the negotiators accepted as a fact and described in words the picture presented to their eyes by the chart actually spread before them. If we examine Vancouver's charts we find the evident reason for the language employed in the convention. Vancouver, who to his integrity and zeal as a navigator joined an excellent hydrographic faculty, seems to have been but a poor topographer, and represented an impossibly regular land formation such as could not well exist, and has not been discovered to exist anywhere on the world's surface. His charts exhibit, at a moderate distance from the shore, a uniformly serrated and narrow range of mountains, like an enormous caterpillar, extending, with a general parallelism to the shore from one end of the region in question to the other, except at scattered points where valleys intervene, which we now know to be the valleys of the Taku, Stikine, and other rivers. The line projected from the mid-channel line of Portland Channel intersects, at about the fifty-sixth degree of north latitude, the backbone range in question, and were the features of Vancouver's chart a correct representation of the topography, no more excellent and convenient boundary could be imagined than that following the depicted serrated ridge. It is not singular that, assuming the chart to be correct, both parties should have agreed to accept this remarkably uniform feature as marking the boundary. The better knowledge of that region now possessed shows that Vancouver's topography is not correct. There is no such range of hills as indicated on Vancouver's charts, and as assumed by the negotiators of the convention of 1825. The topography of the region in question has not as yet been accurately charted, but enough is known of its natural features to wholly disprove the conjectural topography of Vancouver. 252 Prof. William H. Dall, whose researches in Alaska are well

known, and whose explorations have so largely contributed to our present knowledge of the geographical and geological character of that country, upon being invited by me to report as to the accuracy of Vancouver's charts, writes as follows:

We have no good topographical maps of this part of Alaska, but having been engaged nearly nine years exploring and surveying the territory, I assert, without fear of contradiction, that nothing of the sort [depicted by Vancouver] exists. We have instead what has been aptly called a sea of mountains," composed of short ranges with endless ramifications, their general trend being parallel with the general curve of North-Western America, but, so far as their local parts are concerned, irregular, broken, and tumultuous to the last degree. In certain places, as from Cape Spencer to Yakutat Bay, we have the nearest approach to such a range, but even here there are broad valleys penetrating an unknown distance, and lateral spurs given off in

many directions. These Alps rise conspicuously above their fellows, but to the eastward. Another peculiarity of the topography is that the hills or summits are nearly uniform in height, without dominating crests, and few higher peaks.

The single continuous range being non-existent, if we attempt to decide on the "summit" of the mountains we are at once plunged into a sea of uncertainty. Shall we take the ridge of the hills nearest the beaches? This would give us in many places a mere strip of territory not more than 3 miles wide, meandering in every direction. Shall we take the highest summit of the general mass of the coast ranges? Then we must determine the height of many thousands of scattered peaks, after which the question will arise between every pair of equal height and those nearest to them. Shall we skip this way or that with our zig-zag boundary, impossible to survey except at fabulous expense and half a century of labour? These peaks are densely clothed with trees and deep, soft moss, and thorny underbrush, as impenetrable and luxuriant as the savannahs of Panama.

In short, the "summit of the mountains" is wholly impracticable. 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 the boundary on that map omits the intricacies and is intended merely as an approximation. It would be subject to almost insuperable difficulties for the surveyor, simplified as it is, and the survey would cost more than the whole territory cost originally. These are the false geographical assumptions on which the language of the treaty was based, and the difficulties they offer when it is proposed to realise, by survey, the verbal boundary.

The words of Mr. Dall are those of a practical man, conversant with the region, and experienced in the class of difficulties in the way of an actual demarcation of the conventional frontier.

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. The line is a winding one, with no salient landmarks or points of latitude and longitude to determine its position at any point. It is, in fact, such a line as is next to impossible to survey through a mountainous region, and its actual location there by a surveying commission would be nearly as much a matter of conjecture as tracing it on paper with a pair of dividers.

If the coast and interior country from Dixon Entrance to Mount Saint Elias were already accurately surveyed, its topography charted, and the heights of all its "summits" determined, it would even then be impossible, except by conventional compromise, to locate such a line as the treaties prescribe. To illustrate this, a case nearer home may be supposed. Examine, for instance, an Ordnance Survey map of Scotland, and attempt to mark out upon it a line which, starting from the intersection of the mid-channel line of the Firth of Solway and the fifty-fifth parallel shall thence follow the "summit of the mountains" northward as far as the fifty-eighth parallel, and which, where such "summit" shall be more than ten marine leagues" from the Atlantic coast, shall follow the "winding" thereof. If the tracing of such a line on paper, when every material fact of contour and altitude is precisely known, were found to offer difficulty, the obstacles to the delimitation of an actual frontier, with landmarks and monuments, through a wholly unexplored country much more broken than Scotland is, and with a sea-coast scarcely less intricate, could not fail to be many fold greater.

S. Doc. 162, 58-2, vol 3- -28

As a rule, a theoretical frontier based on the assumed contour of mountain chains, is more difficult to determine with accuracy than one following known water-courses or bounded by right lines having geodetic termini.

Rude and inaccessible as is the "sea of mountains" of south253 eastern Alaska, and forbidding as it may appear for ordinary purposes of inland settlement, it should be remembered that it is a mineral-bearing region, the geological continuation of the gold and silver belt of California and Nevada, and may at any time spring into an importance not now calculable. It is of evident advantage to both countries to agree upon some boundary line capable of survey at a reasonable cost, yet so precisely and practically described, that in case of need any given point thereon may be readily determined in advance of a general survey, and to do this while the whole question of local values is in abeyance.

You will bring the foregoing considerations to the attention of the Marquis of Salisbury, and invite an early expression of his views touching the expediency of appointing an international commission at the earliest practicable day to fix upon a conventional boundary line, which, while in substantial accord with the presumed intent of the negotiators of the Anglo-Russian convention of 1825, shall be fixed and readily determinable in whole or in part under the ordinary conditions of astronomical and topographical surveys.

I am, Sir, your obedient servant,

T. F. BAYARD.

Mr. Phelps to the Marquis of Salisbury.

LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES,
London, January 19, 1886.

My LORD: Referring to the conversation held with your Lordship on the 12th instant relative to the boundary between the British possessions in North America and the territory of Alaska, I have the honour to transmit herewith a copy of the statement of the facts contained in the instructions sent me by my Government, together with copies of the maps therein referred to.

I think your Lordship will find in these documents the confirmation of the statements I made in the conversation above mentioned.

In the Treaty between the United States and the Emperor of Russia, of the 30th March, 1867, whereby the territory of Alaska was ceded to the United States, the eastern boundary of that territory, which divides it from the North American possessions of Her Majesty, is designated by embodying in the Treaty, in terms, the language of Articles III and IV of the Convention between Great Britain and Russia, of the 28th February, 1825, whereby that boundary is established. Those articles are as follows:

Commencing from the southernmost point of the island called Prince of Wales Island, which point lies in the parallel of 54° 40′ north latitude, and between the 131st degree and the 133rd degree of west longitude (meridian of Greenwich), the

a Mr. Phelps apparently did not enclose the copy of the statement of facts as mentioned in his letter, but did enclose in lieu thereof copy of the foregoing letter from Mr. Bayard to himself, dated 20th November, 1885, with the exception of the concluding paragraph thereof.