Island, then bending round between Ramsden Point and Pearse Island, and so running to the north and joining the other channel and so running away to the north to near the point of latitude that I have designated. That is a simple question of identity, and for this purpose, of course, the materials which were before those who concluded the Treaty must be looked at in order to identify what is the channel which they designated when they themselves used these words.

The third question is:

"What course should the line take from the point of commencement to the entrance to Portland Channel?

Well, I submit that that question really answers itself. You have the point of commencement-the southernmost point of Prince of Wales Island. As soon as you have ascertained what is the entrance to Portland Channel, which is designated by the Treaty, the line must be drawn from the one point to the other. That remark is so obvious that I almost apologise for making it, but the Tribunal will find that it is a remark which not only had to be made, but which will require development, because the great part of the Argument of the United States a considerable part-is devoted to asserting that the governing factor in determining this line is not the two points which are designated by the Treaty, but the parallel of 54° 40'. That is a matter which may be of importance, and to which I shall have to recur with some detail, I am afraid, at a later period of the case. At present I only point out what our answers are.

Fourth: "To what point on the 56th parallel is the line to be drawn from the head of the Portland Channel, and what course should it follow between these points?" Well, with regard to that, the answer is a very short one. From the head of the Portland Channel the line must on the ordinary principle be taken by the shortest route to the point of commencement of what is specified as the next mark in the chain of boundary.

Then comes the fifth question:

"In extending the line of demarcation northward from said point on the parallel of the 56th degree of north latitude following the crest of the mountains situated parallel to the coast until its intersection with the 141st degree of longitude west of Greenwich, subject to the condition that if such line should anywhere exceed the distance of 10 marine leagues from the Ocean then the boundary between the British and the Russian territory should be formed by a line parallel to the sinuosities of the coast and distant there from not more than 10 marine leagues, was it the intention and meaning of the said Convention of 1825 that there should remain in the exclusive possession of Russia a continuous fringe, or strip, of coast on the mainland, not exceeding 10 marine leagues in width separating the British possessions from the bays, ports, inlets, havens, and waters of the Ocean, and extending from the said point on the 56th degree of latitude north to a point where such line of demarcation should intersect the 141st degree of longitude west of the meridian of Greenwich? "

I ask the Tribunal to return a simple negative to that question. I shall submit that when the Treaty is examined by the light of the negotiations and the surrounding circumstances so far as they are admissible for this purpose, there is no ground for the assertion that there was to be a continuous frontier separating the British

possessions from the inlets on that coast. That is, I need hardly say to the members of this Tribunal, one question of very great importance in this case—of capital importance in this case. Is any part of the inlets which diversify this coast to belong to Canada, or are the whole of the inlets to go to the United States?

Now, the Tribunal is familiar with the general description of the region. It is a very mountainous region; it is intersected by a great number of inlets. I was about to say "lochs," but the expression

perhaps is one which the Tribunal would not accept as prop10 erly applicable to this territory. But it bears a very striking resemblance to a coast which is more familiar to some of usthe west coast of Scotland. You have a very mountainous region; you have a number of inlets which are of very great depth in comparison with their width, and the question which is put here is whether the line which was to be drawn under the Treaty was to interpose a belt of land between the Canadian dominions and the heads of all these inlets. I say emphatically no. The intention of the Treaty was this. The line is to be drawn as described. Whether it crosses any inlet or not must depend upon the nature of that inlet, having regard to the physical features with which you have to deal, and upon the distance from the point from which the 10 leagues as a maximum were to be measured-that being, as we say in answer to the next question, the general line of the coast, and not the impossible line which is created if you follow the windings of every inlet, the depth of which is altogether out of proportion to its breadth.

66

Then comes the sixth question. And I ask the Tribunal to look carefully at its terms, because it depends upon a double contingency. The hypothesis upon which the sixth question is put is a double one:"If the foregoing question should be answered in the negative that is to say, in the event of the fifth question being answered as I ask the Tribunal to answer it-" and in the event of the summit of such mountains proving to be in places more than 10 marine leagues from the coast, should the width of the lisière which was to belong to Russia be measured (1) from the mainland coast of the ocean, strictly so-called, along a line perpendicular thereto, or (2) was it the intention and meaning of the said Convention that where the mainland coast is indented by deep inlets forming part of the territorial waters of Russia, the width of the lisière was to be measured (a) from the line of the general direction of the mainland coast, or (b) from the line separating the waters of the Ocean from the territorial waters of Russia, or (c) from the heads of the aforesaid inlets?"

Now, the Tribunal will observe that the first branch of the question very nearly corresponds with the first sub-head of the second branch, and I apprehend that the true way of reading this question is not that (1) and (2) are alternative answers, but that (2) is really an explanation and development of the question put in (1), showing the various cases with which the Tribunal may have to deal in answering the question. I say that for this reason. The first case put is: Was it to be drawn from the mainland coast of the ocean, strictly so called, along a line perpendicular thereto? which is the first branch; and the second case is this: Where the mainland coast is indented by deep inlets forming part of the territorial waters of Russia, was the width of the lisière to be measured from the line of

the general direction of the mainland coast? That is substantially the same thing, I submit, as the case put under the first head; so that I submit to the Tribunal that the true way of looking at this question is to regard the second branch as an explanation and development of the first. But however that may be, the answer that I ask the Tribunal to give is this that in the case where there are deep inlets the measurement is to be from the line of the general direction of the mainland coast, and that whether the inlets belong to the United States or to Canada will depend upon the situation of the mountains, which are the cardinal feature under this Treaty, or at any point where the mountains recede more than the distance of 10 leagues, which is given as a maximum as measured from the general line of the coast.

As regards the second head of the second branch of the question"or from the line separating the waters of the Ocean from the territorial waters of Russia "I think that the question of territorial waters may be found to be of considerable value as throwing light upon what is the general line of the coast, and it is in that way that I should desire to use it in the course of the observations which, byand-bye, I shall have to submit to the Tribunal. But the broad answer that I give to this question is that the distance must be measured from the general line of coast.

The seventh question is:

"What, if any exist, are the mountains referred to as situated parallel to the coast, which mountains, when within 10 marine leagues from the coast, are declared to form the eastern boundary?

11

With regard to that, I ask the Tribunal to say that mountains do exist, and that the line of mountains is that shown on a line delineated by Mr. King and identified in his declaration which is annexed to the case to which I shall have to call attention by-andbye-that line of mountains running very near the coast and crossing the heads of certain inlets. And in that connection I should emphasize what I alluded to when I read Question No. 6-that if we are right in our view that there are mountains within the 10 leagues limit all the way along, Question No. 6 does not arise, because the hypothesis upon which Question No. 6 is put is a double one: "in the event of the summit of such mountains proving to be in places more than 10 marine leagues from the coast.' If there be mountains within 10 marine leagues of the general line of the coast all the way along, Question No. 6 really does not arise.

Now I do not know that any useful purpose will be served by saying anything more at this stage with regard to these preliminary matters or upon the Treaty of Arbitration itself. I may have to recur to it by-and-bye, but what I have said may suffice by way of general observation in introduction.

I

Now, it might be convenient to the Tribunal if I indicated the order in which I propose to deal with this somewhat complicated case. can do so at present to advantage only in a very general way; but what I should desire to do is this: first, to deal with the Treaty of 1825, not going into any very great detail, but calling attention to its material provisions, and indicating the view which I ask the Tribunal to take of those provisions; secondly, to give a general and connected view of the negotiations which preceded the Treaty of 1825; and, thirdly, to deal with the specific questions which are put, and which

will be found to fall under two groups. The first four questions may, I think, be very conveniently dealt with together; that is to say, they are very closely connected; and I shall, after answering the first question very shortly, deal with the second and third questions really as one-for I think they are one-and then deal, in connection with that, with the fourth question, which is a sort of pendant to the first three.

Then the fifth, sixth, and seventh will fall to be dealt with as the second group, and, in connection with each of those groups, I shall have to call attention in detail, not only to the provisions of the Treaty, but to the various passages in the negotiations which may legitimately be used to throw light upon the meaning of the Treaty. I shall have to deal in connection with each of these groups with the question of subsequent action under the limitation which I have already indicated that that subsequent action must be action tending to show the understanding of both parties with regard to the meaning of the Treaty; and, in dealing with the negotiations, I, of course, do not for one moment intend to ask the Tribunal to depart from the terms of the Treaty or to vary the Articles of the Treaty by anything in the negotiations. I submit to the Tribunal that the Treaty must speak for itself. The negotiations you may look at to throw light upon what the parties meant by various objects designated in the Treaty or to give help in the elucidation of what may be obscure when taken by itself and without the surrounding circumstances. But the negotiations cannot be invoked for the purpose of varying that which the parties have embodied in the Treaty. And I venture again with respect to submit that a very considerable part of the case of the United States will, I think, be found to trench upon that canon, which I submit is fundamental in construing any document either as between nations or as between individuals.

Now, the Treaty of 1825, with which I propose in the first instance to deal, will be found on p. 37 of the Appendix to the British Case. The first two Articles it is necessary to refer to, although they are of a general nature bearing upon another subject than that with which the Tribunal is at present conversant. The first and second Articles were no doubt inserted on account of the pretensions which had been made by Russia to assert dominion over the Pacific to a distance of 100 Italian miles from the coast, under a Ukase to which reference will have to be made. They provide as follows:

"Article I. It is agreed that the respective subjects of the High Contracting Parties shall not be troubled or molested, in any part of the Ocean commonly called the Pacific Ocean, either in navigating the same, in fishing therein, or in landing at such parts of the coast as shall not have been already occupied, in order to trade with the natives, under the restrictions and conditions specified in the following Articles :

12

“‘II. In order to prevent the right of navigating and fishing, exercised upon the Ocean by the subjects of the High Contracting Parties, from becoming the pretext for an illicit commerce, it is agreed that the subjects of His Britannic Majesty shall not land at any place where there may be a Russian establishment, without the permission of the Governor or Commandant; and, on the other hand, that Rusian subjects shall not land, without permission, at any British establishment, on the North-West Coast.""

Now, there are two provisions really contained in these Articles. One is for freedom of use of the ocean. Well, that was wanted in

S. Doc. 162, 58-2, vol 6

consequence of the Ukase to which I have already made reference. The other provision is that subjects of the respective Powers might land on such portions of the coast as shall not have been already occupied, in order to trade with the natives. That is a provision with regard to the use of territory appropriated by any Power which would not have been carried by the general provision as to the use of the ocean, and the Tribunal will see that on the general provision rebutting the claim which had been advanced by Russia to a distance of 100 miles from the coast, as to the right to use the ocean, is ingrafted the further provision that the subjects of the respective Powers may land for the purpose of trading with the natives at any point where the coast has not been already occupied. That is the effect of these general Articles I and II.

Then we come to Articles III and IV, which are the crucial Articles in the present controversy:

"The line of demarcation between the possessions of the High Contracting Parties, upon the coast of the continent and the islands of America to the north-west, shall be drawn in the manner following: 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 131st and 133rd 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 56th degree of north latitude; from this last mentioned point the line of demarcation shall follow the summit of the mountains situated parallel to the coast as far as the point of intersection of the 141st degree of west longitude (of the same meridian); and, finally, from the said meridian line of the 141st degree, in its prolongation as far as the Frozen Ocean, shall form the limit between the Russian and British possessions on the continent of America to the north-west."

Now with regard to the words which occur very early in the despatch designating the point of commencement I call the attention of the Tribunal to this. It is designated by a point of land—a definite point by designation-the southernmost point of the Island called Prince of Wales Island. At that time it does not appear to have been accurately known-in fact it was known only very recently-which was the most southerly point of Prince of Wales Island. They say that you are to take whatever is the most southerly point of Prince of Wales Island as your starting point. They go on to say:

66

'Which point lies in the parallel of 54 degrees 40 minutes north latitude, and between the 131st and 133rd degree of west longitude (meridian of Greenwich)."

These words are mere description. You are to find the point which answers to the words "the southernmost point of the island called Prince of Wales Island." You will find that point, they believe, between the 131st and 133rd degrees of longitude west, which gives you some area over which to range, and they believe that you will find it in the parallel of 54 degrees 40 minutes north latitude. But that is mere description, and if there is any error in the description it does not in the slightest degree vitiate the result which the designation of the point itself clearly indicates. I call attention at once to this point owing to the use which is attempted to be made of it on the other side with reference to the direction in which the line is to be drawn, and I at once invite the Tribunal to advert to the circumstance that the latitude, like the longitude, is mentioned only as a