Treaty here that the limit between the British possession and the lisière was to be formed by a line parallel to the windings of the coast from the 56th parallel up to the 141st meridian? Pray allow me to call your attention to the preface to Article III:

"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. * *

There it states that the line was to be drawn between the British and the Russian possessions. Well now, why did they repeat that language in the latter part of Article IV unless it contemplated the possibility that the whole 10-marine-league line would have to be used instead of the mountains? And yet it does repeat it and puts it there in so many words, and I submit, unless you violate the rule of construction which I have before referred to, that you must give a due fair meaning to each word used, you must come to the conclusion that this 10-marine-league line is a possible line for the entire distance as well as for any portion of the distance. But I wish to be permitted to say that when that argument was made by our friend on the other side, that this 10-marine-league line did not apply in the case of the absence altogether of the mountains, I was somewhat confused, because I thought that I had read in the British Case directly the contrary construction of Article IV, and I ask the Tribunal to turn to pp. 80 and 81 of the British Case, and allow me to read to them my authority for that construction:

430

"Where a gap of this character is found in the mountains on the occurrence of a river, a narrow inlet, or a narrow valley, the line should be continued across that gap, and should not be suddenly set back up the gorge of the river or the course of the inlet or valley to the 10-marine-league point. The 10-marine-league line applies to supersede the mountain only where the mountains cease altogether or recede beyond the 10 marine leagues."

I surely cannot be mistaken in saying that the position of the British Case is that if the mountains recede altogether, or receded more than the 10-marine-league limit, then the 10-league-limit line applies; and I submit that the position that is now taken up by Great Britain is entirely inconsistent with the position they took in their Case. But not only that--if you have any doubt on Article IV as to whether this 10-marine-league line was not intended to apply for the entire distance, Article III of the Treaty of 1903 says that then you must go not that you may, but that you must go to the negotiations between the parties which preceded the Treaty, and if you do that and you go to the declaration of the man who suggested the 10marine-league line, to wit, Mr. Pelly, and read from his declaration on p. 110 of the British Case, you find there he says, in the most unequivocal language, that this line was intended to apply to the entire length.

If the summit of those mountains exceed 10 leagues the said distance is to be substituted instead of the mountains, in language most unequivocal, including the entire mountain range; and then if you go to Mr. George Canning and you read why he wanted this line, I submit that you have a process of argument which arrives at a conclusion that is totally inconsistent with any other construction of this Article, except that it might provide for the entire 10-marine-league line. On p. 210 of the United States' Appendix I read from Mr. George Canning's letter to Mr. Stratford Canning, the last letter that

he wrote, on 8th December, 1824, the reasons why he wanted the 10-marine-league limit, and, notwithstanding that I have read this already to the Tribunal, I ask you to pardon me for two minutes until I read it over again on this point. He says:

"The Russian Plenipotentiaries propose to withdraw entirely the limit of the lisière on the coast, which they were themselves the first to propose, viz., the summit of the mountains which run parallel to the coast, and which appear, according to the map, to follow all its sinuosities, and to substitute generally that which we only suggested as a corrective of their first proposition.

"We cannot agree to this change. It is quite obvious that the boundary of mountains, where they exist, is the most natural and effectual boundary. The inconvenience against which we wished to guard was that which you know and can thoroughly explain to the Russian Plenipotentiaries to have existed on the other side of the American continent, when mountains laid down in a map as in a certain given position, and assumed in faith of the accuracy of that map as a boundary between the possessions of England and the United States turned out to be quite differently situated, a discovery which has given rise to the most perplexing discussions. Should the maps be no more accurate as to the western than as to the eastern mountains, we might be assigning to Russia immense tracts of inland territory."

Is not that totally inapplicable to the British Argument, that this line was only to apply in case of there being any horse-shoe? What did Mr. Canning care whether a little horse-shoe came into that mountain line which would give Russia a little more strip of territory. It is "immense tracts of territory " he talks about that might be conceded to Russia,which Great Britain did not intend to concede if those mountains which they supposed, according to the Faden map, to be within 10 marine leagues of the sea, went back afterwards 30 marine leagues.

Now, take the reason Mr. Canning asserts here for putting in that provision. How can you possibly take that and give to it any weight in construing this if you say that the IVth Article was intended only to apply as to horse-shoes? That would not be assigning immense tracts of inland territory. Supposing there were twenty horse-shoes in the line through its entire distance from the 56th parallel to he 141st meridian, that would not be assigning to Russia immense tracts of territory. It could only be a few miles at the most; but does not that language most forcibly apply to the argument that I am making, that this IVth Article did contemplate that the line of demarcation, this 10-marine-league line, might apply as to the entire mountains, and not merely as to part of them.

431

Then may I call your attention again for one moment as to how Mr. Canning emphasized that? Surely Mr. Canning did not understand that the language he had used was intended to apply merely to horse-shoe formations? Mr. Canning said-I am reading from the letter of Count Lieven, at p. 178:

"The proposition of our Court was to make this frontier run along the mountains which follow the windings of the coast, to Mount Elias. The English Government fully accepts this line as it is laid off on the maps, but, as it thinks that the maps are defective, and that the mountains which are to serve as a frontier might, by leaving the coast beyond the line designated, inclose a considerable extent of territory, it wishes the line claimed by us to be described with more exactness, so as not to cede, in reality, more than our Court asks, and more than England is disposed to grant."

And I submit, with all due respect, to any person who shall differ from me on the construction of that Article, that you cannot give the full effect to the reasons why Mr. Canning inserted that provision

in the Treaty unless you say that it applies both in the cases where there might be horse-shoe formations, and also in the cases where the mountains might be removed more than 10 marine leagues from the

sea.

Allow me now, just for a moment, to illustrate that to the Court. Supposing it were a fact that this mountain chain in the Faden map was removed 10 leagues from the sea, and there stood in all its grandeur, does anyone pretend to argue that, if that was true, that this 10-marine-league limit would not apply, merely because there was not a definite part of the mountain that came within the 10 marine leagues? Is it possible that the parties could have meant that; and especially is it possible that they could have meant it when, beyond all question, they intended by this Treaty to fix provision for a line which would be absolutely certain and definite in all contingencies, as Mr. Canning said to Count Lieven, not to leave a question open for discussion? And then let me put it in another shape, if it said that this line, this 10-marine-league line, is to apply as to the horse-shoe projections from the 56th parallel to the 141st meridian, I ask my friends on the other side how many horse-shoes will it apply to. Well, if it will apply to one, it will apply to 50, will it not? It would apply to 500.

Supposing there should turn out to be from the 56th parallel to the 141st meridian a horse-shoe formation which runs for 999-thousandths of this line outside the 10-marine-league limit it still would apply under their Argument. Is it not perfectly apparent that the negotiators of this Treaty certainly could not have meant any such construction as would in that case make the 10-marine-league line apply, and would not make it apply if the whole mountain range was just 10 leagues distant?

And then, allow me to show what a curious divergence from the British position this IVth Article takes; it was intended to be a general corrective Article. That is the reason Mr. Canning put it in. It was intended to make a certain defined line. Now my friend says it applies only to horse-shoe formations. Look now what a most curious position that puts them in. Here we say now there are two horseshoe formations to which it will apply. According to them the limit between the British possessions and the line of the lisière of Russia, which is above described and is described in the IIIrd Article, would only mean a horse-shoe formation. You put in this whole Article to cover nothing but the few horse-shoe formations that could not possibly make a difference of 50 square miles either to Russia or Great Britain with reference to the territory.

And then again, look how irreconcilable with the fair construction of this Article this is. In the contingency that this 10-marine-league line applies, how is the line to be drawn? It is to be drawn parallel to the sinuosities of the coast. Why did they put the sinuosities of the coast in? Certainly not to meet the horse-shoe formation-and why? Because it is perfectly obvious that if there was a horse-shoe formation which projected more than 10 marine leagues from the sea-the 10-marine-league line came just exactly at the distance, and it became a homogeneous part of the mountain chain, and there would be no necessity of describing that particular portion of the line as parallel to the sinuosities of the coast. The Treaty says it

432

is to be parallel to the sinuosities of the coast-referring to the entire coast. So that it does seem to me, whoever shall differ from me, that there is a demonstration that this IVth Article refers to the entire eastern line; and not only that, if the Court pleases, but is it not a fact that ever since this Treaty was made in 1825, down until this controversy got quite warm no person questioned that construction?

Russia adopted it and she drew her 10-marine-league line from the 56th parallel to the 141st meridian. Arrowsmith in his map of 1833 drew his 10-marine-league line from the 56th parallel to the 141st meridian, and the Hudson's Bay Company, in the map published by the House of Commons in 1857, drew the line the same way for the entire distance in direct accordance with what I think is the meaning of the IVth Article, and utterly inconsistent with the position that Great Britain takes on this argument. Lord Salisbury, in his letter on p. 298 of the British Case, evidently contemplates that this 10-marine-league line might apply for the entire distance from the 56th parallel to the 141st meridian.

The PRESIDENT. What page, Mr. Watson?

Mr. WATSON. 298; and your Honours will remember that this was the instruction to the Commissioners who had this matter in charge:

66

With regard to the southern portion, however, wide divergence exists between the views of the two Governments. From Portland Channel to Glacier Bay there is no such continuous range of mountains running parallel to the coast as the terms of the Treaty of 1825 appear to contemplate. That Treaty, again, provides that the line should be parallel to the sinuosities of the coast, and that it should never exceed the distance of 10 leagues from the Pacific Ocean. Considering the number and size of the projections and indentations along the coast, it would be difficult to trace the boundary according to the Treaty."

Does not Lord Salisbury there say that the continuous mountain range is not there, and consequently does he not contemplate that this 10-marine-league line is to take the place of the entire mountain range?

Then, Lord Iddesleigh, in sending to Mr. Phelps a copy of the map, which had on it this entire 10-marine-league line, says:—

"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 dividing line somewhere in that region."

And that must apply to the whole line.

"It will, of course, be clearly understood that no weight could attach to the map location of the line now denoted, inasmuch as the Convention between Great Britain and Russia of the 28th February, 1825, which defines the line making its location dependent on alternative circumstances, the occurrence, or the non-occurrence, of mountains, and, as is well known to all concerned, the country has never been topographically surveyed." (British Appendix, p. 255.) Certainly; Lord Iddesleigh, in sending that map, and in that letter, thought that the rule was to apply if the mountains altogether failed.

I therefore submit that, in the third place, the position of the United States should be asserted and maintained by the Tribunal, and, if the mountains are removed further than the 10 leagues from the sea-the whole eastern line of demarcation is the 10-marine

league line the whole of it would be drawn exactly where and as the Faden Mountains appeared on the maps of the negotiators, except that now, instead of being the exact distance, the Faden mountains show it was to be a distance of 10 marine leagues

433

from the coast.

Our friends say you cannot draw your 10-marine league line. Why cannot it be drawn? It was drawn on the Faden map as the mountain line. What is the 10-marine-league line for? To be substituted for that chain of mountains. It would make absolutely no difference at all, except that you carry it at all points 10 marine leagues from the sea. Its formation is the same as that chain of mountains. Its location at the head of bays and inlets is the same, and the only possible difference is that now it must have an invariable distance, as I shall argue to you in a moment, of 10 marine leagues from the sea, but, whatever the distance is, it must run around the heads of the bays and inlets absolutely for so the chain of mountains did.

And now I come to one other question, and so far I hope the argument has convinced the Tribunal that the line of demarcation between Russia and Great Britain must be a line that runs around the heads of the bays and inlets just exactly as the chain of mountains did.

I come now to the fourth question, which I do not know is absolutely necessary for discussion, but I do discuss it because it has been discussed on the other side, and is thought to be of some importance, and that question is, what is the width of the lisière to be? And I turn and read the language of that article IV. According to that it says that the limit between the British possessions and the line of coast which is to belong to Russia as above mentioned should be formed by a line parallel to the sinuosities of the coast, and which shall not exceed a distance of 10 marine leagues therefrom. That is put, I agree, in the negative form, but allow me now for a few minutes to call your attention to the fact that this apparently negative form here fixes absolutely and invariably the distance of 10 marine leagues, and it must do so under the words of the Treaty.

Now, let me see if I can prove that. Our friends on the other side say that this 10-marine-league line was to apply in the case of horseshoe formations, and I agree with them that it was to apply in that case, and the only point in which I differ from them is that I say that it also applies if the entire mountains are not there. Very well then, here we will say we have a projection which is 11 leagues from the shore, how do you draw now your 10-marine-league line? You draw it of course to extend to a distance of 10 leagues, do not you? Now, I am not talking at present about where you draw it from, I am talking about the width. You fix absolutely the 10 leagues. It is only when the mountains extend to a distance of more than 10 leagues from the shore that you are to draw it. If the mountains were exactly on the 10-marine-league line you would not have to draw it; it was only in the case of the horse-shoe projection that you were to draw it. You draw a line along here [indicating] a 10-marineleague line that is perfectly plain, is it not? Then if that is so as to the part why is it not so as to the whole? How can you say it does not apply to the whole 10-marine-league line? You would