description of the southernmost point of the island called Prince of Wales Island. If the latitude turns out not to be quite accurate, that does not in the slightest degree affect the result. You start from the

13

southernmost point and then you proceed to your next point:

"Then the said line shall ascend to the north along the channel called Portland Channel."

And I may just remark, in passing, that the French of the original Treaty is:

"La dite ligne remontera au nord le long de la passe dite Portland Channel." I apprehend that there is no doubt that the natural meaning of the words, "le long de la passe dite Portland Channel," is "along the Portland Channel.”

It is not a line to be drawn necessarily in the middle of the Channel, it is a line to be drawn along the Channel as far as the point of the continent where it strikes the 56th degree of north latitude:

"Jusqu'au point de la terre ferme où elle atteint le 56° degré latitude nord." Well, great controversy has raged over the question of what the pronoun "elle" refers to. One theory has been that it refers to the that "elle" refers to "la passe"; the gender suits either, and it is very north. Two other theories are that "elle" refers to "la ligne," or that "elle" refers to "la passe;" the gender suits either, and it is very fortunate that it does not seem to make any difference whether it refers to the line or the pass-"la ligne" or "la passe "-for if the line is being drawn along the pass it is quite clear that the two must reach the point designated at the same time, so that this very interesting question, on which some light is thrown by the negotiations, is one perhaps more of curiosity than of practical utility for the purposes of the present decision. But I cannot pass it altogether unnoticed, because undoubtedly it has excited an amount of scientific interest which is perhaps out of proportion to its practical value. Mr. AYLESWORTH. Some of the earlier drafts of the Treaty seem to show that it was 66 la ligne."

Sir ROBERT FINLAY. Yes, sir. Sometimes it is designated in terms to show that it was "la ligne "; at other times in correspondence it is spoken of as if it were "la passe.' But I do not desire to lay any great stress upon that point. If anything should be found to turn upon it I shall revert to it and deal with it by the light of what passed. "From this last-mentioned point, as far as the point of the continent where it strikes the 56th degree of north latitude." Well, the Portland Channel does not strike the 56th degree of north latitude; it gets near it, but it does not strike it, and yet the language of the Treaty would seem to imply that even with the maps before the negotiators, which showed that the Portland Channel fell short of the 56th degree, they regarded the 56th degree as a point which would. be reached by a line which was going along the Portland Channel. "From this last-mentioned point the line of demarcation shall follow the summit of the mountains situated parallel to the coast. The words are "suivra la crête des montagnes situées parallèlement à la côte "situated in a parallel direction to the coast as far as the point of intersection of the 141st degree of west longitude of the same meridian, and finally along the meridian line of the 141st degree.

Now, that Article is qualified in its application by the following

Article, but what I want to call the attention of the Tribunal at once to is that the basis of the Treaty is the existence of a line of mountains. If that Article stood by itself, every one would say: If the mountains do not exist, the Treaty is incapable of application, because the Treaty only provides for a mountain boundary. Now, I shall call attention presently to the qualification introduced by the Article IV, and I shall submit that the qualification is very much less extensive than is supposed in the case of the United States of America. But what I do desire to put to the Tribunal is this that Article III, when it is read by the light of Article IV, as I am presently going to do, indicates that in order to make the Treaty capable of application at all, you must have a line of mountains.

14

Now the Case for the United States, which I have spent a great deal of time in reading and in studying by the light of the Counter-Case and of the Argument, as I understand it, says definitely that in this region these mountains are not to be found at all that the Tribunal is to give up the attempt to find mountains. Well I say that if that contention be well founded, the Treaty really ceases to have matter on which it can operate, because Article IV will not be found to have the effect of supplying another basis on which, in the entire absence of mountains, you can draw a line. Now, Article IV is this:

"With reference to the line of demarcation laid down in the preceding Article it is understood:

66

1st. That the island called Prince of Wales Island shall belong wholly to Russia."

Now, that calls for a word of observation in passing. The degree of latitude for which Russia was contending was 55 north. That was the degree of latitude which had been mentioned as the limit of the Russian dominions in the Ukase of 1799. It was a Ukase which Russia contended had not been disputed by other Powers, and it was a Ukase on the maintenance of which, as regards territorial extent, Russia felt that a great deal depended from the point of view of national dignity. The variation to the southward of 55 was introduced, as the Treaty itself says, and as the negotiations will show more in detail, for one purpose and for one purpose only. It was to give to Russia the whole of Prince of Wales Island. It would, of course, have been a very awkward and inconvenient thing if, while the bulk of Prince of Wales Island which lies to the north of latitude 55 had belonged to Russia, the southern end of it had belonged to Great Britain, and for the purpose of avoiding that contingency, and for that purpose only, the latitude of 55 was departed from, and the southern point of Prince of Wales Island, which lies a short way to the south of 55, something near 54 degrees 40 minutes, although not exactly at that point, was introduced.

66

Second: That whenever the summit of the mountains, which extend in a direction parallel to the coast, from the 56th degree of north latitude to the point of intersection of the 141st degree of west longitude, shall prove to be at the distance of more than 10 marine leagues from the Ocean, the limit between the British possessions and the line of the coast which is to belong to Russia, as above mentioned, shall be formed by a line parallel to the windings of the coast, and which shall never exceed the distance of 10 marine leagues therefrom."

Now, I submit to the Tribunal that the contingency contemplated by that provision which I have just read was this: You must have

your mountains, but at certain points you may find that the summit of the mountains is at a distance of more than 10 marine leagues from the ocean. Wherever that takes place, wherever the mountains recede more than 10 marine leagues from the ocean, then you are to take the limit between the British possessions by a line parallel to the windings of the coast not exceeding the distance of 10 marine leagues therefrom. Now, the coast to be there taken is, I submit, as I have already shortly indicated, the general trend of the coast. In fact, anything else is really impossible if one comes to try to carry it out, and the proposition for which I am going to contend was very clearly enunciated by officials of the United States a great many years ago, before the year 1891 and in the year 1893. I will merely read a few words at present, but I shall recur by-and-bye to this point, because it is one of great importance. At p. 268 of the British Case Appendix, the Tribunal will find a passage set out from the last published report of the United States' Coast and Geodetic Survey, where the Director writes as follows (it is the quotation contained in the letter that I am going to read) :

15

"By recent Congressional Enactments, a preliminary survey of the frontier line between Alaska and British Columbia, in accordance with plans or projects approved by the Secretary of State, has been placed in charge of this Bureau. Such a preliminary survey, involving the determination of a number of points in geographical position and their complete marking by permanent monuments, will have to be carried from Cape Muzon through the Portland Canal to the 50th degree of north latitude, thence north-westwardly, following, as nearly as practicable, the general trend of the coast, at a distance of about 35 miles from it, to the 141st degree of west longitude, and thence due north to the Arctic Ocean, a total distance of about 1,400 miles."

The question of the 35 miles from it raises another matter which I am not dwelling upon at the present moment. The purpose for which I refer to this extract is to show that what is taken is the general trend of the coast.

Mr. TURNER. Sir Robert, do you not understand that there is a distinction between the "general trend of the coast" and the "trend of the general coast?" I understand you to be interpreting that, as if it read "the trend of the general coast."

Sir ROBERT FINLAY. The general trend of the coast?

Mr. TURNER. Yes. Is there not a distinction between that and the trend of the general coast, which would be more conformable to the meaning which you are puting on it?

Sir ROBERT FINLAY. If there be a distinction, it is an extremely subtle one. I submit that "the general trend of the coast" is that you take a coast generally and you see what its trend is.

Mr. TURNER. The general trend of the coast would be measured by what the coast was, which, of course, is the crux of this very case.

Sir ROBERT FINLAY. Yes; but in either case, whether you take "the general trend of the coast" or read it "the trend of the general coast," you must exclude the inlets, because if you take an inlet 70 miles long-70 miles deep-and no more than six miles wide, and a great deal narrower at the top, that is not either the general trend of the coast or the trend of the general coast.

Mr. TURNER. But you are now giving an application to words which are not in the letter, in which it is directed that the survey shall be made according to the general trend of the coast.

Sir ROBERT FINLAY. Yes.

Mr. TURNER. If Mr. Mendenhall considered these inlets as a part of the coast, there would not be any incompatibility between that idea and that conveyed by the use of the language "the general trend of the coast," because the latter would include the inlets. But if he had said "the trend of the general coast," then it might mean the general mainland coast.

Sir ROBERT FINLAY. I submit that they come substantially to the same thing, and I think an answer to some extent to the observation which the Senator has been good enough to make to me will be found at page 276 of the British Case, Appendix, in the directions given by Mr. Mendenhall as Superintendent. This is in 1893-directions as to the mode in which the survey is to be carried out, to Mr. McGrath. It begins at page 275. The passage I refer to, merely as suggested by the question which the Senator has been good enough to put to me, is this:

"The other Taku party will be under the charge of Assistant H. G. Ogden, and you will confer with him and arrange for the proper division of the work between the two parties. The chiefs of parties will themselves execute the triangulation from the Taku astronomical station (which will also be connected with one or more points of the coast triangulation) to a point on the inlet or river, distant not less than 30 nautical miles from the coast of the mainland in a direction at right angles to its general trend."

16

The PRESIDENT. Mr. Attorney-General, I think everybody understands the expression you are referring to "general trend of the coast." Do these lines amount to more than directions to the surveyors giving expression to that opinion or that view?

Sir ROBERT FINLAY. Well, this passage which I read last amounts to a good deal more, because you will observe that he says this:—

66

The chiefs of parties will themselves execute the triangulation from the Taku astronomical station (which will also be connected with one or more points of the coast triangulation) to a point on the inlet or river."

He is dealing with the Taku inlet.

Mr. AYLESWORTH. What page is that?

Sir ROBERT FINLAY. Page 276 of the British Case, Appendix I, 66 * * * to a point on the inlet or river distant not less than 30 nautical miles from the coast of the mainland in a direction at right angles to its general trend."

Ï submit that that amounts to a demonstration that Mr. Mendenhall was speaking of. I am ready to adopt either form of language, either "the general trend of the coast or" the trend of the general coast," they come to the same thing; in either case they exclude the inlets, and that was the view which in 1893 Mr. Mendenhall, the Superintendent, held in giving his directions. Then there are other passages in Mr. Mendenhall's directions which tend in the same way, but I will not occupy time at present by reading them, because I am at this moment only engaged in endeavouring to enunciate as clearly as I can with reference to the Terms of the Treaty, as I read it, the view which we take. Now, in Article III the word is "coast," in 66 ocean." Of course, Article IV the word is coast and ocean are not the same thing, but they must denote here the same line. In Article III it is to be parallel to mountains situated in a parallel direction to the coast," situées parallèlement à la côte "; then în Article IV, "wherever the summit of the mountains shall prove to be at the distance of more than 10 marine leagues from the ocean." Well,

66

66

there the line of the coast and the line of the ocean must be the same thing. The ocean, of course, denotes the body of water, the coast denotes the land, and the land where it meets the water, in the sense which I have endeavored to submit to the Tribunal, but they both must designate the same line which runs along and to which roughly the mountains are situated parallel. Now, wherever the line of mountains recedes so as to be more than 10 leagues from the coast or from the ocean, whichever phrase you choose to use, then the limit shall be formed by a line parallel to the windings of the coast, and which shall never exceed the distance of 10 marine leagues therefrom.

Now I invite the attention of the Tribunal to the point that the provision is that the line is never to exceed the distance of 10 marine leagues therefrom. That has been read by the United States as if it were that it was never to be less than 10 marine leagues from the line of the coast. Now I call the attention of the Tribunal at once to the map put forward by the United States showing their line. It is Map No. 3 in the case for the United States. The same line is shown on Map No. 25.

The PRESIDENT. And No. 26, yes, quite so.

Sir ROBERT FINLAY. Now, the first observation I desire to make upon that—and I refer to it at this stage for the purpose of illustrating our construction of the Treaty-the first observation I wish to make is that that map assumes that there are no mountains at all. The PRESIDENT. Disregards them?

Sir ROBERT FINLAY. Disregards them absolutely. There is a dispute as to the existence of mountains in the southern part of the

territory. It is a highly mountainous region. It is contended 17 by the United States that you cannot find any mountains there which will answer the description. I say that you can. But whatever controversy there may be as to the southern part of this territory, as to the northern part in point of physical geography there is absolutely no controversy; it is beyond the possibility of dispute that from Mount Elias to Mount Fairweather you have got a continuous chain of mountains with many of the summits very high indeed. Mount Elias is an enormously high mountain, and Mount Fairweather is a high mountain, and you have a number of mountains you have got a continuous line. Between these two points the existence of that chain of mountains is a physical fact which cannot be disputed. I call the attention of the Tribunal to the way in which the line is drawn on this map which represents the American claim. These mountains are, I suppose, about 10 miles from the sea. Well, the line is double that distance from the sea, and in some points a great deal more than double that distance from the sea. The line takes in a large amount of territory which may or may not be of value, which may be of great value in the future, a large amount of territory which is situate to the north and to the east of a well-marked line of mountains which are shown on almost every map, which are described in detail in the Surveys by the United States officials, and which, whatever may be said of other points, supply here a definite mountain boundary. It was, I think, a French king who said, "There are no more Pyrenees," but that is nothing to the exploit of the framer of this line who has succeeded in sweeping away the Mount Elias Alps for the purpose of taking in a belt of territory situated to the north and east of that line of