• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Front Cover
 Front Matter
 Half Title
 Title Page
 Table of Contents
 Regelung der Alaska-Grenzfrage...
 Aus dem Bericht der kgl. Untersuchungskommission...
 Die mazedonische Frage 1903
 Bundnisse, Vertrage, Protokolle,...
 Back Matter
 Back Cover














Group Title: Staatsarchiv
Title: Das Staatsarchiv
ALL VOLUMES CITATION PDF VIEWER THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00098568/00037
 Material Information
Title: Das Staatsarchiv
Physical Description: v. : ; 24-25 cm.
Language: German
Creator: Institut für Auswärtige Politik (Germany)
Institut für Ausländisches Öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht (Germany)
Germany -- Auswärtiges Amt
Publisher: Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft etc.
Place of Publication: Leipzig etc
Leipzig etc
 Subjects
Subject: History, Modern -- Sources -- Periodicals   ( lcsh )
Genre: periodical   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Additional Physical Form: Also issued online.
Dates or Sequential Designation: 1.-86. Bd., Juli 1861-1919; n.F., 1.- Bd., 1928-
Numbering Peculiarities: Publication suspended 1920-1927.
General Note: "Sammlung der offiziellen Aktenstücke zur Aussenpolitik der Gegenwart."
General Note: "In Verbindung mit dem Institut für Auswärtige Politik, Hamburg, und dem Institut für Ausländisches Öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht, Berlin, und mit Unterstützung des Auswärtigen Amtes herausgegeben von Friedrich Thimme.
General Note: Has occasional supplements.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00098568
Volume ID: VID00037
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 01766397

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:

PDF ( 22 MBs ) ( PDF )


Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Front Cover 1
        Front Cover 2
    Front Matter
        Front Matter 1
        Front Matter 2
        Front Matter 3
        Front Matter 4
    Half Title
        Page i
        Page ii
    Title Page
        Page iii
        Page iv
    Table of Contents
        Page v
        Page vi
        Page vii
        Page viii
        Page ix
        Page x
        Page xi
        Page xii
    Regelung der Alaska-Grenzfrage zwischen Kanada und den Vereinigten Staaten 1899-1903
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Page 50
        Page 51
        Page 52
        Page 53
        Page 54
        Page 55
        Page 56
        Page 57
        Page 58
        Page 59
        Page 60
        Page 61
        Page 62
        Page 63
        Page 64
        Page 65
        Page 66
        Page 67
        Page 68
        Page 69
        Page 70
        Page 71
        Page 72
        Page 73
        Page 74
        Page 75
        Page 76
        Page 77
        Page 78
        Page 79
        Page 80
        Page 81
        Page 82
        Page 83
        Page 84
        Page 85
        Page 86
        Page 87
        Page 88
        Page 89
        Page 90
        Page 91
        Page 92
        Page 93
        Page 94
        Page 95
        Page 96
        Page 97
        Page 98
        Page 99
        Page 100
        Page 101
        Page 102
        Page 103
        Page 104
        Page 105
        Page 106
        Page 107
        Page 108
        Page 109
        Page 110
        Page 111
        Page 112
        Page 113
        Page 114
        Page 115
        Page 116
        Page 117
        Page 118
        Page 119
        Page 120
        Page 121
        Page 122
        Page 123
    Aus dem Bericht der kgl. Untersuchungskommission uber den Sudafrikanischen Krieg
        Page 124
        Page 125
        Page 126
        Page 127
        Page 128
        Page 129
        Page 130
        Page 131
        Page 132
        Page 133
        Page 134
        Page 135
        Page 136
        Page 137
        Page 138
        Page 139
        Page 140
        Page 141
        Page 142
        Page 143
        Page 144
        Page 145
        Page 146
        Page 147
        Page 148
        Page 149
        Page 150
        Page 151
        Page 152
        Page 153
        Page 154
        Page 155
        Page 156
        Page 157
        Page 158
        Page 159
        Page 160
        Page 161
        Page 162
        Page 163
        Page 164
        Page 165
        Page 166
        Page 167
        Page 168
        Page 169
        Page 170
        Page 171
        Page 172
        Page 173
    Die mazedonische Frage 1903
        Page 174
        Page 175
        Page 176
        Page 177
        Page 178
        Page 179
        Page 180
        Page 181
        Page 182
        Page 183
        Page 184
        Page 185
        Page 186
        Page 187
        Page 188
        Page 189
        Page 190
        Page 191
        Page 192
        Page 193
        Page 194
        Page 195
        Page 196
        Page 197
        Page 198
        Page 199
        Page 200
        Page 201
        Page 202
        Page 203
        Page 204
        Page 205
        Page 206
        Page 207
        Page 208
        Page 209
        Page 210
        Page 211
        Page 212
        Page 213
        Page 214
        Page 215
        Page 216
        Page 217
        Page 218
        Page 219
        Page 220
        Page 221
        Page 222
        Page 223
        Page 224
        Page 225
        Page 226
        Page 227
        Page 228
        Page 229
        Page 230
        Page 231
        Page 232
        Page 233
        Page 234
        Page 235
        Page 236
        Page 237
        Page 238
        Page 239
        Page 240
        Page 241
        Page 242
        Page 243
        Page 244
        Page 245
        Page 246
        Page 247
        Page 248
        Page 249
        Page 250
        Page 251
        Page 252
        Page 253
        Page 254
        Page 255
        Page 256
        Page 257
        Page 258
        Page 259
        Page 260
        Page 261
        Page 262
        Page 263
        Page 264
        Page 265
        Page 266
        Page 267
        Page 268
        Page 269
        Page 270
        Page 271
        Page 272
        Page 273
        Page 274
        Page 275
        Page 276
        Page 277
        Page 278
        Page 279
        Page 280
        Page 281
        Page 282
        Page 283
        Page 284
        Page 285
        Page 286
        Page 287
    Bundnisse, Vertrage, Protokolle, usw.
        Page 288
        Page 289
        Page 290
        Page 291
        Page 292
        Page 293
        Page 294
        Page 295
        Page 296
        Page 297
        Page 298
        Page 299
        Page 300
        Page 301
        Page 302
        Page 303
        Page 304
        Page 305
        Page 306
        Page 307
        Page 308
        Page 309
        Page 310
        Page 311
        Page 312
        Page 313
        Page 314
        Page 315
        Page 316
        Page 317
        Page 318
        Page 319
        Page 320
        Page 321
        Page 322
        Page 323
        Page 324
        Page 325
        Page 326
        Page 327
    Back Matter
        Page 328
        Page 329
        Page 330
        Page 331
        Page 332
    Back Cover
        Page 333
        Page 334
Full Text

















Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2010 with funding from
University of Florida, George A. Smathers Libraries















http://www.archive.org/details/staatsarchiv70inst



















Das Staatsarchiv.

70. Band.









Das Staatsarchiv.



Sammlung

der offiziellen Aktenstiicke
zur

Geschichte der Gegeniwart.



Begriindet
voll
Aegidi und Klauhliold.

Herausgegeben
voll
G-.. s t a 1"E oloff.


Siebzigster Band.










Leipzig,
Verlag von Duncker & liumblot.
1905.
4























Inhaltsverzeichnis.


Biindnisse, Vertrige, Protokolle usw.
Nr. Seite
1900. Novbr. 7. Vereinigte Staaten und Spanien, Abtretung der Inseln
im Philippinischen Archipel an die Vereinigten
Staaten, soweit sie im Friedensvertrag von 1899
noch nicht abgetreten sind . . . . . 13329. 315
Dezbr. 19. Griechenland und Rumnien. Freundschafts- und
Handelsvertrag . . . . 13320. 290
1901. Mai 14. Italien.und Uruguay. Postvertrag . . . . 13321. 293
Novbr. 6. Grofsbritannien und Brasilien, Vertrag ber Einsetzung
eines Schiedsgerichts zur Grenzregulierunug in
Guiana . . . . . . . . . . . 13326. 305
1902. Januar 23. Spanien und Uruguay, Schiedsgerichtsvertrag . . 13325. 304
Juli 3. Vereinigte Staaten und Spanien, Freundschaftsvertrag 13330. 316
1903. Januar 29. Mittel- und Sdamerikanische Staaten, Schiedsgerichts-
vertrag . . . . . . . . 13323. 297
Fuhebr. 13. Belgien und Venezuela, Schiedsgerichtsvertrag ber
Forderungen belgischer Untertanen an Venezuela.
(Vgl. Bd. 6S.) . . . . . . . . 13322. 295
17. Spanien und 0olumbia. Schiedsgerichtsvertrag . .13324. 302
Juli 1. Niederlande und Belgien, Post- und Sparkassenvertrag 13319. 288
Novbr. 21. Grofsbritannien und Vereinigte Staaten. Einrichtung
einer Paketpost zwischen den Vereinigten Staaten
und Hongkong . . . . . . .. 13328. 310
1904. Febr. 27. Grofsbritannien und Spanien, Schiedsgerichtsvertrag 13327. 309


Regelung der Alaska-Grenzfrage zwischen Kanadai
und den Vereinigten Staaten. 1899-1903.
Nr, Seite
1399. Juli 1. Grofsbritannien. Der Minister des Ausw. an den Bot-
schafter der Vereinigten Staaten in London. Schlgt
die Entscheidung der Alaskafrage durch ein Schieds-
gericht vor . . . . . . 13213. 1
*







VI -
Nr. Seite
1899. August 2. Grofsbritannien. Der Minister des Ausw. an den Bot-
schafter in Washington, Besprechung mit dem
amerikanischen Botschafter ber die Mglichkeit
eines Schiedsgerichts . . . . . . . 13211. 2
Oktbr. 14. Der Minister des Ausw. an den Botschafter in
Washington. Begrndet noch einmal den Vorschlag
eines Schiedsgerichts . . . . . . . 13215. 6
1900. Januar 22. Vereinigte Staaten. Der Botschafter in London an den
englischen Minister des Ausw. Historische Dar-
stellung der Streitfrage. Einwnde gegen das
Schiedsgericht . . . . . . . . 13216. 14
1901. Mai 10. Vertragsentwurf. Convention between the United
States of America and the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Ireland for determining by Arbitration
the true Treaty-boundary between the Territory
of Alaska and the British Possessions in North
America . . . . . . . . . 13217. 37
1902. Febr. 5. Grofsbritannien. Der Minister des Ausw. an den Bot-
schafter in Washington. Ansicht der englischen
Regierung iber das vorige . . . . . 13218. 42
Aug. 18. Der Minister des Ausw. an den Botschafter in
Washington. Stand der Verhandlung. Antwort auf
Nr. 13216 ..... .... ....... 18219. 40
Oktbr. 17. Der Botschafter in Washington an den Minister des
Ausw. Die Vereinigten Staaten machen einen
Schiedsgerichtsvorschlag . . . . . . 13220. 54
Dczbr. 6. Der Minister des Ausw. an den Botschafter in
Washington. Nimmt den Vorschlag an . . 13221. 51
1903. Januar 24. Grofsbritannien und Vereinigte Staaten. Vertrag ber
ein Schiedsgericht zur Regelung der Alaskafrage 13222. 55
Mrz 6. Grofsbritannien, Der Generalgouverneur von Kanada
an das Kolonialamt. Wnsche Kanadas fr die
Ernennung des Schiedsrichters . . . .. 13223. 60
7. Derselbe an Denselben. Dasselbe . . . .. .13224. 61
S9. Das Kolonialamt an das Ausw. Amt. Zusammen-
setzung des Schiedsgerichts . . . . . 13225. 61
11. Das Ausw. Amt an das Kolonialamt. Antwort auf
das vorige . . . . . . . . 1322 62
17. Der Generalgouverneur von Kanada an den Kolonial-
minister. Ernennungen der Schiedsrichter . . 13227. 62
Oktbr. 17. Meinung Mr. Aylesworths . . . . . . 13230. 74
20. Grofsbritannien und Vereinigte Staaten, Schiedsspruch 13228. 63
20. Meinung Lord Alverstones . . . . . . 13229. 66
20. Vereinigte Staaten, Meinung der amerikanischen Be-
vollmchtigten . . . . . . . . 13232. 103
22. Grofsbritannien, Meinung von Sir Louis Jette . . 13231. 87


Aus dem Bericht der kgl. Untersuchungskonnmission
biler den Siidafrikanischen Krieg. r. Seite
1903. Juli 0. Grofrsbritannien, Bericht . . . . . . . 13233. 124







VII -

Die miazedonische Frage 190"3.
1903. 'clr. 21. Bulgarien, Zirkular der Regierung an die Handels-
agenten in der Trkei. Mahnung zur Ruhe . 13243. 18l
25. Grofsbritannien, Der Generalkonsul in Saloniki an den
englischen Botschafter in Konstantinopel. Bericht
ber den Zustand in Mazedonien . . . . 13234. 174
28. Derselbe an Denselben. Dasselbe . . . . 13235. 175
1 Mrz 11. Der Generalkonsul in Saloniki an den Botschafter in
Konstantinopel. Erfolge der Amnestie in Maze-
donien; Notwendigkeit auswrtiger Gendarmerie-
offiziere . . . . . . . . . . 18237. 179
14. Trkei, Der Botschafter in London an den englischen
Minister des Ausw. Kmpfe mit bulgarischen
Banden .. . . .. .. . . . . . 13236. 179
18. Grofsbritanuien. Der Botschafter in Petersburg an den
Minister des Ausw. Unterredung mit Lamsdorff
ber die Haltung der bulgarischen Regierung . 13238. 181
19. Der Gesandte in Belgrad an den Minister des Ausw.
Die Serbische Regierung verspricht eine ruhige
Haltung ..... ... .. . ..... .. 13240. 182
21. Der Botschafter in Konstantinopel an die englischen
Konsuln in der Trkei. Instruktion, die Ausfhrung
der Reformen zu untersttzen . . . . 13241. 183
,, 24. Trkei, Der Botschafter in London an den englischen
Minister des Ausw. Drohungen der bulgarischen
Revolutionre . . . . . . . . 13239. 182
S 25. Grofsbritannien, Der Botschafter in Konstantinopel an
den Minister des Ausw. berschickt einen Auszug
aus Konsularberichten. Aufstnde stehen in Maze-
donien bevor . . . . . . . . 13212. 184
2 25. Trkei, Instruktion fr die Ausfhrung der maze-
donischen Reformen. Den Mchten am 25. Mrz
mitgeteilt . . . . . . . . . 13245. 188
S 28. Der Botschafter in London an den englischen Mi-
nister des Ausw. Nachrichten ber bulgarische
Banden . . . . . . . . . . 13244. 187
April 1. Rufsland. Mitteilung des Journal de St. Pdtersbourg"
ber.den Terrorismus der Bulgaren . . . 13216. 190
3. Konsularberichte ber die Revolution in Mazedonien
und Albanien . . . . . . . . 13247. 103
4. Grofsbritannien, Der Botschafter in Konstantinopel an
den Minister des Ausw. Unterredung mit dem
Sultan. Der Sultan will einstweilen nur wenige
fremde Offiziere anstellen . . . . . 13248. 195
8. Der Gesandte in Sofia an den Minister des Ausw.
'sterreich-Ungarn und Ruland haben die bulga-
rische Regierung abermals gewarnt, etwas zu
unternehmen . . . . . . . . 1324 19r
S 20. Trkei, Der Botschafter in London an den englischen
Minister des Ausw. Zustand in Mazedonien. Die
bulgarische Regierung untersttzt die Banden . 13250. 197






VIII -
Nr. Seite
1903. April 21. Grofsbritannien, Der Botschafter in Konstantinopel
an den Minister des Ausw. bersendet einen Aus-
zug ans mazedonischen Konsularberichten. Kmpfe
mit den bulgarischen Banden vom 15. Mrz bis
15. April . . . . . . . . . 13251. 203
25. Tiirkei, Der Botschafter in London an den englischen
Minister des Ausw. Verbrecherische Plne der
Revolutionre gegen Europer . . . . 13252. 205
28. Grofsbritannien, Der Vizekonsul in Monastir an den
Generalkonsul in Saloniki. Bericht ber die bul-
garischen Banden . . . . . . . 13259. 210
30. Der Botschafter in Konstautinopel au den Minister
des Ausw. Bulgarischer Bombenanschlag . . 13253. 205
30. Derselbe an Denselben. Dasselbe . . . . 13254. 206
Mai 1. Trkei, Der Botschafter in London an den englischen
Minister des Ausw. Bericht ber die Attentate in
Saloniki . . . . . . . . . . 13255. 20 0
2. Grofsbritannien. Der Generalkonsul in Saloniki an den
Botschafter in Konstantinopel. Bericht ber die
Attentate . . . . . . . . . 13258. 207
G. Der Botschafter in Wien an den Minister des Ausw.
Graf Goluchowski sieht die Balkanvorgnge opti-
mistisch an . . . . . . . . 13256. 207
7. Der Botschafter in Petersburg an den Minister des
Ausw. Anschauung Lamsdorffs . . . . 13257. 207
26. Der Gesandte in Sofia an den Minister des Ausw.
Die Stimmung in Bulgarien ist sehr gereizt . 13260. 212
Juni 5. Der Botschafter in Konstantinopel an den Minister
des Ausw. Die bulgarische Regierung hat eine
Spezialyerhandlung ber Mazedonien mit der Pforte
begonnen. Der bulgarischen Regierung gehen die
Reformen nicht weit genug . . . . . 13261. 213
14. Derselbe an Denselben. Die trkisch-bulgarische
Verhandlung hat zu nichts gefhrt . . .. 13262. 216
27. Der Gesandte in Sofia an den Minister des Ausw.
Trkische Grenzverletzungen. Besorgnisse der bul-
garischen Regierung . . . . . . . 13263. 218
20. Derselbe an Denselben. Dasselbe . . . . 13264. 219
,, 29. Bulgarien, Der Minister des Ausw. an die Vertreter
in Paris, Petersburg, Wien. Sollen sich ber die
trkischen Truppenansammlungen beschweren . 13265. 219
Juli 6. Grofsbritannien. Der Gesandte in Sofia au den Mi-
nister des Ausw. Antworten der Mchte auf das
. .. vorige . . . . . . . . . . 13266. 221
7. Der Botschafter in Konstantinopel an den Minister
des Ausw. Proben von den bulgarischen Agita-
tionsschriften . . . . . . . ... 13267. 222
25. Der Botschafter in Petersburg an den Minister des
Ausw. sterreich-Ungarn und Ruland haben Vor-
stellungen in Konstantinopel erhoben . . . 13268. 224








IX -
Nr. Seite
1903. Aug. 6. Trkei, Der Botschafter in London an den englischen
Minister des Ausw. Greuel der bulgarischen Ban-
den. Die bulgarische Regierung soll sie unter-
drcken . . . . . . . . 13269. 221
6. Grofsbritannien, Der Botschafter in Konstantinopel an
den Minister des Ausw. Neue Unruhen . . 13270. 225
11. Der Gesandte in Athen an den Minister des Ausw.
Die griechische Regierung frchtet Mihandlungen
der mazedonischen Griechen durch die Bulgaren 13273. 227
11. Der Botschafter in Konstantinopel an den Minister
des Ausw. bersendet Konsulatsberichte ber den
Aufstand stlich von Saloniki und in Kossovo . 13278. 231
12. Der Gesandte in Sofia an den Minister des Ausw.
bersendet eine Mitteilung des mazedonischen Ko-
mitees, die den Aufstand rechtfertigt und Ein-
schreiten der Mchte fordert . . . . . 1327.1. 228
,, 14. Der Botschafter in Petersburg an den Minister des
Ausw. Die russische Politik bleibt unverndert.
Genugtuung fr die Morde . . . . . 13271. 220
14. -- Der Botschafter in Konstantinoplel an den Minister
des Ausw. Unterredung mit dem Sultan . . 13272. 220
, 15. Der Gesandte in Sofia an den Minister des Ausw.
Ruland und sterreich-Ungarn haben die bulga-
rische Regierung zum Vorgehen gegen die Komi-
tees gedrngt . . . . . . . . 13276. 229
S 17. Der Botschafter in Petersburg an den Minister des
Ausw. Rufsland und sterreich-Ungarn lehnen die
Sendung von Bevollmchtigten zu den trkischen
Truppen ab ..... ... .. ... ... .. 13275. 229
S 1. Der Gesandte in Belgrad an den Minister des Ausw.
In Serbien wird die Bevlkerung unruhig. Ver-
wicklungen mit der Trkei drohen . . . 13277. 230
26. Bulgarien, Beschlu einer Versammlung von Mazedoniern
in Sofia . . . . . . . . . . 13285. 242
27. Trkei. Der Botschafter in London an den englischen
Minister des Ausw. Protest gegen einen Bericht
der ,Times" ber eine Metzelei in Adrianopel . 13279. 2-10
27. Grofsbritannien, Der Botschafter in Petersburg an den
Minister des Ausw. Graf Lamsdorff will in Sofia
ernste Vorstellungen erheben . . . . . 13280. 240
28. Griechenland. Beschlu einer Versammlung von Maze-
doniern in Athen. Protest gegen die bulgarischen
Banden . . . . . . . . 13288. 246
30. Grofsbritannien, Der Minister des Ausw. an den Bot-
schafter in Petersburg. Antwort auf das vorige.
Wnscht nhere Mitteilung ber die russischen
Absichten. . . . . . . . . 13281. 241
30. Serbien, Beschlu einer mazedonischen Volksversamm-
lung in Belgrad. Alle Balkanslaven sollen gemein-
same Sache machen . . . . . . . 13289. 247
> 31. Grofsbritannien, Der Botschafter in Petersburg an den
Minister des Ausw. Antwort auf das vorige . 13282. 241








Nr. Seite
903. Aug. 31. Grofsbritannien, Der Minister des Ausw. an den Bot-
schafter in Wien. Erwartet sterreich-Ungarn
Untersttzung der Vorstellungen in Sofia durch
England? ..... ............ . 13283. 242
Septbr. 1. Der Botschafter in Wien an den Minister des Ausw.
Antwort auf das vorige. . . . ... 13284. 242
2. Der Botschafter in Petersburg an den Minister des
Ausw. Ruland plant keine Zwangsmafsregeln gegen
Bulgarien . . . . . . . .. 13286. 244
4. Mazedonisches Komitee, Projekt einer mazedonischen
Autonomie unter europischer Garantie . . 13287. 244
S4. Grofsbritannien, Der Botschafter in Konstantinopel an
den Minister des Ausw. Sendung europischer
Offiziere in die tiirkische Gendarmerie . . . 13291. 248
". Der Minister des Ausw. an den Botschafter in Peters-
burg. Antwort auf Nr. 12286 . . . . 13200 248
8. Trkei. Der Botschafter in London an den englischen
Minister des Ausw. Die Lage im Aufstandsgehiet
ist gnstig . . . . . . . 13292. 249
10. Grofsbritannien, Der Botschafter in Petersburg an den
Minister des Ausw. Vorbereitung einer Vorstellung
in Sofia . . . . . . . . 13293. 250
10. Der Gesandte in Sofia an den Minister des Ausw.
bersendet einen Notenwechsel zwischen der Pforte
und Bulgarien ber die Ursachen der Rebellion bei
Adrianopel, Unterstfitzung der lasurgenten durch
Waffen und Geld . . . . . . . 13294. 250
17. Tiirkei, Note liber das Dynamitattentat der Bulgaren 13295. 2601
S 23. Bulgarien, Denkschrift iber Ausschreitungen der tr-
kischen Truppen im Vilajet Adrianopel . . 13296. 262
26. Grofsbritannien, Der Generalkonsul in Saloniki an den
Botschafter in Konstantinopel. Erla einer tr-
kischen Amnestie . . . . . . . 13300. 268
S 30. Der Minister des Ausw. an den Botschafter in Kon-
stantinopel. Unterredung mit dem trkischen Bot-
schafter ber die Untersttzung der mazedonischen
Flchtlinge . . . . . . . . . 13297. 265
30. Der Konsul in Philippopel an den Gesandten in Sofia.
Plne der Insurgenten . . . . . . 13299. 267
Oktob. 1. Trkei, Denkschrift ber die Lage in den europischen
Provinzen. Der englischen Regierung am 1. Okt. 1903
berreicht . . . . . . . . . 13298. 266
,, 7. Grofsbritannien. Der Minister des Ausw. an den Bot-
schafter in Konstantinopel. Bedenken der Pforte
gegen die Untersttzung der mazedonischen Flcht-
linge . . . . . . . . . . 13301. 269
,, 10. Trkei. Bericht des Gouverneurs von Mazedonien ber
die Ausfhrung der Reformen . . . . 13309. 280
14. Grofsbritannien. Derselbe an Denselben. Dasselbe . 13302. 269
17. Trkei. Iradd ber Reformen in Rumelien. (Auszug
aus dem ,Levante Herald") . . . . . 13305. 274







XI -

1903. Okt. 22. sterreich Ungarn und Rufsland. Identische Noten Nr. soite
an ihre' Botschafter in Konstantinonel. Reformen
fr Mazedonien . . . . . . . .. 130. 27o
11 26. Grofsbritannien, Der Minister des Ausw. an den Bot-
schafter in Wien. Unterredung mit dem ster-
reichisch-ungarischen Botschafter ber das vorige. 13304. 272
1 12!). Der Minister des Ausw. an den Botschafter in Kon-
stantinopel. Die englischeRegierung billigt Nr. 13303
mit einigen Vorbehalten. Die Pforte soll es im
Prinzip annehmen . . . . . 13306. 275
1 Nov. 2. Derselbe an Denselben. Dasselbe . . . . 13307. 276
S1 5. -- Der Botschafter in Konstantinopel an den Minister
des Ausw. Unterredung mit dem trkischen Minister
ber die Reformfrage. Antwort der Pforte auf
Nr. 13303 . . . . . . . . . 13308. 276
9. sterreich-Ungarn und Rufsland. Denkschrift an die
Pforte. Verlangen Antwort auf Nr. 13303 . . 13311. 283
S 13. Grofsbritannien. Der Minister des Ausw. an den Bot-
schafter in Konstantinopel. 'Die Reorganisation der
Gendarmen ist dringend . . . . . . 13310. 282
24. Der Minister des Ausw. an den Botschafter in Kon-
stantinopel. Vorschlag, ein Aufsichtskomitee in
Konstantinopel einzusetzen . . . . ... 13312. 284
24. Trkei. Annahme von Nr. 13303 . . . . .. 13315. 285
25. Grofsbritannien. Der Minister des Ausw. an die Bot-
schafter in Paris und Rom. Reorganisation der
mazedonischen Gendarmerie. . . . . .. 13313. 284
210. Denkschrift an den russischen, deutschen undlster-
reichisch-ungarischen Botschafter ber die Reorgani-
sation der mazedonischen Gendarmerie . . 13314. 285
S Dzbr. !i. Der Botschafter in Konstantinopel an den Minister
des Ausw. Ernennung der europischen Beirte
fr die Ausfhrung der mazedonischen Beformen 13316. 2S0
i1G. Der Botschafter in Petersburg an den Minister des
Ausw. Ein italienischer General soll Kommandeur
der Gendarmerie werden . . . . . . 13317. 287
23. Der Botschafter in Wien an den Minister des Ausw.
DiePforteverzgertdieErnennung eines italienischen
Generals . . . . . . . . ... 13318. 287

















Regelung der Alaska-Grenzfrage zwischen
Kanada und den Vereinigten Staaten.
1899-1903.*)

Nr. 13213. GROSSBRITANNIEN. Der Minister des Ausw. an
denBotschafter der Vereinigten StaateninLondon.
Schlgt die Entscheidung der Alaskafrage durch
ein Schiedsgericht vor.
Foreign Office, July 1, 1899.
Your Excellency, || The correspondenee which has passed between
the United States' Goverument and that of Her Majesty, as well as the
negotiations and other diplomatie intercourse which have taken place
both here and at Washington, have left on the minds of Her Majesty's
Ministers a strong impression that no effeetive progress will be made in
coming to an agreement upon the subjects which divide the two countries
without the assistance of arbitration. This appears to be especially the
case with respeet to the Alaska boundary. The different signification
which the two Governments attach to the language of the Treaty of
1825 is not of a character which appears likely to be adjusted by the
mnethod of explanation or argument on the two sides. Some of the ablest
men belonging to both nati( have now for several mnonths devoted the
utmost erudition and acumen to this discussion, but the attainment of
an agreement seems to be no nearer than when the communications began.
Her Majesty's Government feel that no satisfactory agreement between
the two countries can be arrived at until the difference with respect to
the Alaska boundary has been adjusted, and that this adjustment can
only bce attained by the process of arbitration. |I Much, of course, will
depend upon the manner in which the subject of controversy is presented
to the Tribunal seleeted for arbitration, and upon the conditions by which
the Arbitrator's deeisions are shaped and limited. Upon this matter some

*) Blaubuch Cd. 1877. Red.
Staatesarchiv LXX. 1






2 -

preliminary discussion has already taken place between the two Govern-
ments, but no formal expression of opinion on either side in this respect
has as yet been arrived at. In order to ascertain whether any formal
difference exists between them in this respect, and to pave the way, if
possible, for an ultimate agreement, I have, on behalf of Her Majesty,
to propose to your Excellency that the Treaty of Arbitration adopted
between this country and Venezuela, with the assent, and largely at the
instance of, the United States, shall be applied to the determination of
the Alaska boundary which is now under discussion. That Treaty is
now receiving its application at Paris, and during the three years which
have elapsed since its conclusion no question as to its fairness or applica-
bility has arisen between the Contracting Parties. I am not able to find
in its terms anything which is inapplicable to, or which would be incon-
sistent with an equitable and conclusive solution of, the Alaskan contro-
versy. It is possible that in some respects its details may be improved,
but, such as they are, they appear to Her Majesty's Government to be
adequate for the purpose which we have in hand; and I have to request
that your Excellency will lay before the President the proposal of Her
Majesty's Government that the Venezuela Treaty, as it stands, shall be
applied to the determination of the Alaska boundary between the Dominion
of Canada and the United States. Salisbury.


Nr. 13214. GROSSBRITANNIEN. Der Minister des Ausw. an
den Botschafter in Washington. Besprechung
mit dem amerikanischen Botschafter ber die
Mglichkeit eines Schiedsgerichts.
Foreign Office, August 2, 1890.
Sir, li The United States' Ambassador called upon me to-day in order
to discuss the proposal recorded in my note to bis Excellency of the
Ist ultimo, that the Alaska boundary question should be submitted to
arbitration, and that the Treaty of Arbitration adopted between Great
Britain and Venezuela should be applied to the determination of the
present case. II Mr. Choate said that this proposal was being attentively
considered by his Government, but that on several grounds, which he
proceeded to explain to me, the President felt unable to assent to the
proposal as it stood, and desired a further exchange of views before
formally responding to my communication. |1 As the question of the or-
ganization of the proposed Arbitral Commission is subordinate to that
concerning the subject-matter to be arbitrated, and the terms and con-






-3-

ditions on which its action is limited, and ought easily to be agreed upon
when the latter are once settled, Mr. Choate said he would confine what
he had to say to some of the reasons which, in the President's judgment,
make the terms of the Venezuelan Treaty, as it stands, wholly inappli-
cable to the present subjcct of controversy, in which the issues involvcd
are radically different. |1 Tle case of the Alaska boundary was, his Excellency
said, entirely unlike the controversy with Venezuela, in that'it was a
new question, raised for the first time after the Joint High Commission
had been agreed upon, up to which date the claim which it was now
asked should be submitted to arbitration had never been; put forward
either by Great Britain or by Canada; whereas, in the case of Venezuela
the controversy originated a century and a-half ago, and had been in its
entirety a subject of dispute and protest for sixty years. |1 The coast-line
of the mainland (the lisibre of the Treaty), including the inlets, had been
in the possession, or under the control, of Russia and the United States
since the Treaty between Russia and Great Britain in 1825, and the
Settlements on the inlets, especially those about the head of the Lynn
Canal, had been made with the authority, and under the jurisdiction of,
the United States, without any protest or claim of territorial ownership
on the part of Great Britain; whereas, in the Venezuelan case, the British
occupation and Settlements involved were upon territory claimed by Vene-
zuela, and against the constant protests of Venezuela, thus constituting,
as Venezuela alleges, a series of advancing encroachments upon what
that country claimed to be her territory. |I In support of the proposition,
that from the Treaty of 1825 to the cession to the United States in 1867,
the Russian Government steadily maintained its elaim to a strip of terri-
tory 30 miles in width on the mainland of the continent, beginning at
50 40' and extending north-west around all the inlets and interior waters
to the 141st degree of west longitude, his Excellency called attention to
the maps issued by the Russian Government, to its lease or licence,
contained in the Treaty with the United States of 1824, for the eitizens
of the latter to frequent with their ships, for ten years, ,the interior
seas, gulfs, harbours, and creeks upon the coast" for the purpose of fishing
and trading with the natives, and to Russia's refusal in 1835 to renew
the privilege. || During the whole period of Russia's occupation of this
strip of territory, Great Britain had, Mr. Choate said, made no claim to
it and entered no protest; on the contrary, there were aets on her part
of express recognition of the elaim of Russia. By the Treaty of 1825
she took from Russia the same privilege for British subjects to frequent
the same inland seas, gulfs, harbours, and creeks, for ten years, as had
1*






4 -

been granted to American citizens by the Treaty of 1824, and, after the
expiration of the ten years' privileges, British subjects and vessels were
excluded from these interior waters, and the British Government acquiesced
in this without a protest. ]| In the same connection his Excellency called
attention to the case of the ,Dryad", where the British Government
presented and pressed upon the Russian Government a claim of the
Hudson Bay Company for damages sustained by the detention of the
vessel destined for some point on the Stikine River, which resulted in
the Hudson Bay Company taking in 1839 a lease from the Russian-
American Company (these two Companies representing their respective
Governments in the control of the country, along the north-west coast)
of the strip of territory, or lisihre of the Treaty, for ten years, in con-
sideration of an annual rent and the extinction of the claim. This lease
was made with the authority and approval of the two Governments.
The Hudson Bay Company entered and occupied under it for the term
of the lease, and for an extension of another term, and then surrendered
possession without objection or protest from any one. |1 Mr. Choate also
called my attention to the special Parliamentary inquiry into this trans-
action in 1857, to the map submitted to the Committee, and to the testi-
mony of the Governor of the Hudson Bay Company, showing the strip leased
to have been 30 miles in width, and to extend around the head of all
the inlets, including Lynn Canal. || In the opinion of the President, the
action of the two Governments during Russia's occupation of the strip
of territory now in controversy makes a wholly different condition of
affairs from that between Great Britain and Venezuela, and this difference
has been maintained and made more distinct since the cession by Russia
to the United States. 1| In support of this his Excellency called my atten-
tion to the map prepared and published by the United States in 1867
which delimited the boundary, and which traced the limits of the strip
on the mainland in accordance with the uniform claim which Russia
had made. Not only was no protest made against this map by the
British Government, but the British map publishers and the Canadian
Government had adopted the same boundary-line in their publications.
And, in accordance with this delimitation, the United States had, he said,
exercised acts of sovereignty such as control of Indian tribes, establish-
ment of post-offices and schools, and the policeing of the waters of the
inlets by Government vessels, and the enforcement of revenue and other
Federal laws. 11 Mr. Choate then called attention to the fact that, up to
a very recent period, the boundary-line has only twice been the subject
of correspondence or discussion between our two Governments: first in






-5-

1873-74, when there was a movement for having the boundary-line
marked by a Commission of scientific experts, and it was then understood
that the boundary-line erossed tho Rivers Skoot, Stikine, Taku, Islecat, and
Chilcat at some place above the point where they respectively empty into the
inlets of the ocean, and, shortly after that, when there was some question
as to where the boundary crossed the Stikine. |] His Excellency referred
incidentally to the case of Peter Martin, 1877, the correspondence in res-
pect to which appears in ,Foreign Relations of the United States, 1877",
pp. 266-271, and to the Provisional Agreement for Customs purposes
in 1878, the correspondence in respect to which appears in ,Foreign
Relations of the United States, 1878", pp. 339-346. |1 The slight conflict
of jurisdiction in the vicinity of Lake Lindeman, shortly after the dis-
covery of gold in the Yukon district, seemed, he said, to have but little
bearing, as it related to territory between Lake Lindeman and the White
Pass. 1I It appeared clear that not until after the Joint High Commission
was created (30th May, 1898) did either Great Britain or Canada ever
advance the claim to any portion of territory lying adjacent to the in-
lets of the ocean, nor to the waters thereof; nor had they objected to
the occupation of the same by the Government of the United States or
its citizens, and at no time had any part of the territory so lately put
in dispute been held or occupied by Canadian or British authorities. |1
The towns, settlements, and industries about the head of Lynn Canal
and the other inlets embraced in this strip of territory having been
established under these cireumstances, a wholly different situation had, in
the opinion of the President, been created in regard to them from that
involved in the Venezuela Case, so utterly different that the Government
of the United States would feel that it was not properly guarding the
rights of its citizens if it should consent to put these settlements in peril
by applying to them the terms of the Venezuela Treaty, which was de-
signed for a wholly different state of affairs; nor would the President feel
justified in submitting the questions involved to any arbitration unless
United States' settlements, made in good faith before this new claim was
presented on the part of Canada, were expressly exempted from its operation. L
Mr. Choate further ealled attention to a material difference between the ques-
tions to be decided by the two Tribunals. In the one case the disputed
interpretation of a Treaty definition of a boundary-line, in a Treaty made
seventy-four years ago, and remaining undisputed through the long period of
the Russian occupancy and administration of the lisiire, and through nearly
all the time that the territory had been held by the United States under the
cession from Russia, and only very lately brought in question; in this case the






6 -

interpretation was to be made in the light of prior and subsequent his-
torical facts of occupation, administration, and recognition, and of the
acts and Commissions of the parties concerned. Here, while the question
of actual settlement and administration is collateral to the main subject
of arbitration, and, being of great importance, is rightly to be guarded
by the distinct understanding suggested by the President, it is not, as
in the Venezuelan Case, the essential point directly at issue. In the
other case the controversy rested, he said, not upon the interpretation of
any such Treaty definition of the boundary line, but essentially upon
the historical facts of occupancy and possession, out of which the Arbi-
trators were to determine the boundary-line in conformity to the rules
prescribed to thein. |1 The proposal of Her Majesty's Government for an
arbitration would, Mr. Choate said, be entertained by the President with
that earnest consideration which its importance and the high source from
which it came deserved; and having thus laid before me Mr. Mc Kinley's
reasons for his judgment, that the two cases are radically different, and
the terms of the Venezuelan Treaty, as it stands, are utterly inapplicable
to the present case, he was instructed to express the opinion of the Pre-
sident that it would be wise, at this stage of the negotiation, to have a
comparison of views, and to state that he would be much gratified if I
would give my views in return upon the matter now presented, and
would communicate the grounds upon which Her Majesty's Government
base their opinion, that ,there is nothing in the Venezuelan Treaty
which is inapplicable to or which would be inconsistent with, an equitable
solution of the Alaska controversy." |1 Mr. Mc Kinley hoped that, when
the conflicting views of the parties were thus disclosed, they might, per-
haps, be reconciled or adjusted by mutual concession, and that the way
might thus be paved for an ultimate agreement. Salisbury.


Nr. 13215. GROSSBRITANNIEN. Der Minister des Ausw. an
den Botschafter in Washington. Begrndet noch
einmal den Vorschlag eines Schiedsgerichts.
Foreign Office, October 14, 1899.
Sir, l In my despatch of the 2nd August I informed you of a com-
munication made to me by the United States' Ambassador, stating the
grounds upon which the President felt himself unable to assent to my
proposal for the reference of the Alaska boundary question to Arbitra-
tion on the terms adopted in the Treaty of the 2nd February, 1897, bet-
ween Great Britain and Venezuela. I Mlr. Choate said, in conclusion, that








he was instructed to express the opinion of the President that it would
be wise at this stage of the negotiation to have a comparison of views,
and to state that he would be much gratified if I would give my views
in return upon the matter presented and communicate the grounds upon
which Her Majesty's Government base their opinion that ,there is nothing
in the Venezuelan Treaty which is inapplicable, or which would be in-
consistent with an equitable solution of the Alaska controversy". 1 I would
observe at the outset that there appears to be some misapprehension on
the part of the United States' Government as to the nature and scope
of the proposal submitted to his Excellency, who has treated it as if it
only applied to the determination of the boundary in the neighbourhood
of the Lynn Canal, instead of to the whole frontier of the lisi&re of coast
defined in the IIIrd and IVth Articles of the Treaty of 1825. |I No doubt
it is in regard to that part of the boundary that the widest divergence of
views has arisen between the two Governments, but it only needs a reference
to the maps which purport to mark the boundary as claimed by the res-
pective Governments to show that the difference is by no means confined
to the region of the Lynn Canal, but extends throughout the whole length
of the strip from Portland Channel to Mount St. Elias. 1I The events of
the last two or three years arising out of the Yukon gold discoveries have
given exceptional prominence and importance to that part of the boundary,
but it will hardly be maintained that prior to these events there was
any reason why, while the whole line was undetermined, and its settle-
ment was not regarded on either side as a matter of pressing importance,
special attention should have been devoted by Her Majesty's Government
to that particnlar region. 1| It is necessary to bear this in mind in con-
sidering tle various reasons put forward by the United States' Govern-
ment, on account of which they claim to distinguish the present dispute
from that recently discussed before the Tribunal of Arbitration at Paris. II
The general effeet of the United States' contention is that the claim put
forward by Her Majesty's Government that the boundary-line should
eross the Lynn Canal in the neighbourhood of Berner's Bay, following
the general line of the coast range of mountains indicated by the Treaty
as the position of the boundary, is a new one first put forward after
the Joint High Commission had been created, and that before then Her
Majesty's Government had made no claim to the head waters of the
eanal, or any protest against various acts on the part of Russia and
the United States inconsistent with that claim, and that the United
States' Government are therefore justified in refusing to allow the ques-
tion of the possession of theee waters to be adjudieated upon by an in-






8 -

dependent Tribunal. |1 I wish to point out in the first place that there
has been but little discussion of the boundary question between the two Go-
vernments, but whenever it has been referred to it has been on the admitted
basis that the whole line was undetermined, and that the interpretation
of the boundary Artieles of the Treaty was entirely an open question-
as to which each Government was free to urge its own views. || This
was the view accepted by President Grant in bis Annual Message to
Congress of the 2nd December, 1872, and by mr. Secretary Bayard in
bis despatch to Mr. Phelps of the 20th November, 1888, and, as was
pointed out in that despatch, no question coneerning the true location
of the line stipulated in the Treaty had ever arisen between Great Britain
and Russia prior to the cession of Alaska to the United States. The
only value of the region during that period lay in the fr trade, and
during the first ten years after 1825 that trade was thrown open on
equal terms to the subjects and eitizens of Great Britain, Russia, and
the United States by Artiele VII of the Treaty between Great Britain
and Russia of 1825, and Artiele IV of the Treaty of 1824 between the
United States and Russia, and before the expiry of the ten years the
negotiations between the Hudson's Bay Company and the Russian American
Company which resulted in the lease to the former of the trade of the
whole of the lisiere soutlward and eastward of a line joining Cape
Spenceer and Mount Fairweather had been initiated. By that lease the
exelhsive right of trade and commerce in the lisiare outside the line
mentioned, covering practically the whole territory the boundary of which
is in dispute, became vested in the Company which enjoyed a similar
monopoly in the territory on the British side of the frontier, wherever
it might be, and, as it was a matter of indifference to it whether it
derived its rights from its British Charter or its Russian lease, no ques-
tion as to the true location of the line could arise. The lease, though
originally for ten years only, was renewed from time to time and ter-
minated only on the date when Alaska was ceded to the United States. j|
When subsequently to that cession, the gold discoveries in the Cassiar
distriet of British Columbia, to which the most convenient access lay
through the Stikine River traversing the lisibre, rendered it desirable to
locate the boundary in that region, the discussion between the two Go-
vernments was entirely confined to the question of a joint survey, an in-
dispensable preliminary to any attempt to fix the boundary, and never
touched on the interpretation of the Treaty. Indeed, in the complete
absence of topographical information as to the country, it was obviously
impossible to discuss that question, and it was taeitly avoided by both








sides. Even when later Mr. Secretary Fish threw out the suggestion
referred to by Mr. Choate that the points where the boundary crosses
certain rivers might be surveyed with a view to a partial delimitation,
he declared that it was doubtful whether Congress would vote the money
necessary for the purpose, doubts which were speedily verified by the
action of that body, and it can scarcely be a matter of surprise that a
suggestion made in such circumstances failed to receive critical examina-
tion at the hands of the British or Dominion Governments, and that no
attempt was made to initiate a discussion as to the interpretation of the
Treaty which, in the absence of a survey, must have been of a purely
academic nature. || The case of Peter Martin in 1877, to which Mr. Choate
also refers, does not appear to have any bearing on the matter, as it
turned on the question of bis unauthorized conveyance as a prisoner
through United States' territory, and Her 3ajesty's Government have
never questioned the right of the United States' Government to territory
at the inouth of the Stikine River, though the question how far inland
that territory extends remains in dispute. !| Mr. Choate made no reference
to the correspondence initiated by Mr. Bayard in his note to Mr. Phelps
of the 20th November, 1885, which has already been mentioned. That
note made no claim that the interpretation of the Treaty as regards any
particular part of the boundary-line was no longer open, and the Earl
of Iddesleigh, in his note to Mr. Phelps of the 27th August, 1886, in-
closing copy of the map of the Dominion of Canada, geologically coloured
for which Mr. Phelps had asked, and on which a line was shown separating
the lisi&re from Canadian territory, stated clearly the attitude of Her
Majesty's Government in regard to the position of the disputed boundary
in the following words: -
~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 thereon is merely an indication of the occurrence of such a dividing
line somewhere in that region. It will, of course, be readily understood
that no weight could attach to the map location of the line now noticed,
inasmuch as the Convention between Great Britain and Russia of the
28th February, 1825, which defines the line, makes its location depend
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. Her Majesty's Government therefore feel
that they are bound distinctly to disavow the recognition of the correct-
ness of the line shown, on the edition of the map in question forwarded
herewith, as the boundary-line between the Province of British Columbia






10 -

and Alaska." 11 The United States' Government took no exception to this
declaration, which was followed later by the statement in the Memoran-
dum given to Mr. Bayard by Sir L. Sackville West on the 14th Sep-
tember, 1887, as to the action of Lieutenant Schwatka during his recon-
naissance of 1883 in purporting to fix Perrier's Pass at the head of the
Lynn Canal as a point on the boundary. It was there stated that ,al-
though Her Majesty's Government have agreed in principle to take part
in a preliminary investigation of the Alaska boundary question, they are
not preparcd to admit that the points referred to by Lieutenant Schwatka
in any way fix where the line should be drawn. It is not sought to
raise any discussion at the present moment in regard to the position of
the boundary between Alaska and British Columbia; but in order that
it may not be prejudiced hereafter by absence of remark on the points
alluded to above, Her Majesty's Government have thought it expedient
to call the attention of the United States' Government to the foregoing
observations".
Shortly after in the informal discussion of the boundary question
between Dr. Dawson, on the part of Her Majesty's Government, and
Dr. Dall, on the part of the United States' Government, during the
sittings of the Joint High Commission of 1888, the former made it dis-
tinctly clear that Her Majesty's Government claimed that the boundary
should, in accordance with the terms of the Treaty, be drawn along the
summits of the coast range, erossing all narrow waters which were of
such width as to be within territorial jurisdietion. || When the Conference
between the British Delegates and Mr. Secretary Blaine was held in Fe-
bruary 1892, the views of Her Majesty's Government as to the boundary
were fully stated, and it was proprosed on the part of the British Re-
presentatives ,that a reference to somce impartial authority be made by
Great Britain and the United States for the purpose of ascertaining and
deeiding finally the true boundary, rcgard being had to the Treaties
relating to the subject, and likewise to the case which may be presented
by either Government, and to the testimony which may be adduced as
to the physical features of that country", &c. i| The Representatives of the
United States, Ar. Blaine and General Foster, considered that it was
premature to provide for a reference to arbitration until a survey had
been made, and the two Governments had had an opportunity of consi-
dering and discnssing the question in the light of the facts revealed by
that survey, and they handed in a proposal which was accepted and
embodied with slight verbal amendments in Article I of the Treaty of
the 22nd July, 1892. That Article provided for a coincident or joint






11 -

survey ,with a view to the ascertainment of the facts and data necessary
to the permanent delimitation of said boundary-line in accordance with
the spirit and intent of the existing Treaties in regard to it between
Great Britain and Russia and between the United States and Russia",
and further, that ,The High Contracting Parties agree that, as soon as
practicable after the Report or Reports of the Commnissions shall have
been received, they will procced to consider and establish the boundary-
line in question". |I It is clear from this that the whole question of the
interpretation and application of the Treaty was, by common consent,
left over for discussion, after the completion of the survey in the light
of the facts which it disclosed, and it might fairly be argued from the
express terms of the Convention that both Governments had estopped
themselves from contending that the boundary should be run otherwise
than in accordance with the ,spirit and intent" of the existing Treaties
in regard to it between Great Britain and Russia and between the United
States and Russia. |l It is evident in any case that, at any rate in 1892,
neither Government claimed to have any rights in the disputed territory
arising out of possession, occupation, or political control. Nor does it
appear that any such claims were preferred on the part of the United
States until the meetings of the Joint High Commission. |] The elaborate
series of maps on which the results of the joint survey were embodied
were not received by Her Majesty's Government until March 1898, but
in the meantime Her Majesty's Government, realizing the improbability
of a settlement being reached by diplomatic discussion, as contemplated
by the Convention of 1892, and the need of an early settlement, owing
to the new conditions created by the Yukon gold discoveries, had in-
structed Sir J. Pauncefote to propose to the United States' Government
a reference of the question to three jurists of high standing, one nomi-
nated by each of the two Powers, and the third by an independent
Power, and that this Commission should proceed at once to delimit the
boundary at the heads of the inlets through which the traffic for the
Yukon entered, principally at the head of the Lynn Canal. I| This pro-
posal was made by Sir J. Pauncefote to Mr. Sherman on the 23rd Fe-
bruary, 1898, and in making it he specifically alluded to the divergence
of views revealed by the informal discussion which took place in 1888.
On the 2nd March he reported to me that the United States' Govern-
ment were anxious for a provisional boundary, the rights of both parties
being reserved pending a final settlement, but were unwilling to proceed
with a new Convention providing for arbitration until diplomatic dis-
eussion had failed to seccure a settlement. 1| A proposal for a provisional






12 -

boundary was inade by Sir J. Pauncefote on the 18th April in a Memor-
andum in which he stated that, ,in view of the wide divergence of views
existing on the subject of the Alaska-Canadian boundary, the Dominion
Government fear that the suggestion to proceed with the demareation
under the Convention of 1892 would lead to no result. They are, how-
ever, prepared to agree that a provisional line should be fixed without
prejudice to the claims of either party at the watershed of the first
summit north of Dyea. Such a provisional boundary would be at a
distance of considerably more than 10 leagues from the coast". In ans-
wering this Memorandum, on the 9th May, Mr. Day stated: ,In con-
senting to the temporary marking of the boundary-line in the method
just indicated, this Government desires it to be distinctly understood, on
the part of both Governments, that this arrangement is not to be con-
strued as affecting in any manner rights under existing Treaties for the
ultimate consideration and establishment of the boundary-line in ques-
tion." II When, therefore, the Joint High Commission met in August 1898
to discuss the question, it was clearly understood on both sides that the
line was to be determined ,in accordance with the spirit and intent" of
the Treaty, without restriction, the rights of both parties having been
fully and distinctly reserved whenever any question of the interpretation
or application of the Treaty was discussed, and the fact of such reser-
vation expressly recognized on both sides. 1l It has already been fully
explained why no question as to the interpretation of the Treaty was
raiscd by either party until 1885, and that on the first occasion when
the discussion of the matter was approached, Her 3Majesty's Government
gave distincet notice that they entirely disavowed the correctness of the
line shown on the maps to which the United States' Government appealed.
In view of these facts Her Majesty's Government are fairly entitled
to claim that as a settlement of the question cannot be reached diplo-
matically, the interpretation of the Treaty and its application to the facts
aseertained by the survey should be submitted unreservedly to an im-
partial Tribunal, without any such restrictions as were contained in the
Venezuelan Treaty, and in proposing to allow, as provided by that in-
strument, continuous adverse possession for fifty years, if such can be
proved, to override Treaty right, they have made a distinct concession
to the United States. || They do not, of course, admit that there has
been any such adverse possession, by way either of exereise of jurisdic-
tion or of politieal control, and if the United States' eitizens have settled
recently at the head of the Lynn Canal, they have done so in the full
knowledge, as given in the documents inclosed in President Cle.veland's






13 -

Message to Congress of the 2nd March, 1889, that they were settling in
disputed territory, and Her Majesty's Government are unable to see any
reason why such settlement should receive further or greater recognition
and protection than the United States' Government considered should be
accorded to British subjects who had settled in the area in dispute bet-
ween this country and Venezuela. li It is not necessary to discuss in de-
tail each of the various points advanced in 3r. Choate's communication
in favour of the United States' interpretation of the Treaty. Facts and
arguments of equal cogency can be advanced on the other side by Her
Majesty's Government, and they are all points which can be submitted
to an Arbitration Tribunal under the Rules laid down in the Venezuelan
Treaty, and unless there are other facts and circumstances upon which
the United States' Government rely, but which might be excluded from
the consideration of the Tribunal by these Rules, Mr. Choate has not,
so far as can be seen, advanced any reason to warrant Her Majesty's
Government in departing from the view expressed in my note of the
Ist July, that there is nothing in the terms of the Venezuelan Treaty
,which is inapplicable or which would be inconsistent with an equitable
solution of the Alaskan controversy". [| The question immediately under
discussion is whether or not the dispute as to the boundary should be
referred to arbitration, and it is difficult to understand why the length
of time during which the rival claims to disputed territory have been
matters of controversy should form an element to be taken into considera-
tion in that connection. If it be desirable on other grounds to employ
the assistance of an impartial Tribunal as the best means of terminating
the dispute, the length of the period of previous controversy appears to
be immaterial. || The excercise of the rights of sovereignty within the
area in dispute by control of the Indian tribes and establishment of ad-
ministrative machinery therein was, as the United States' Government
are aware, one of the principal grounds put forward by Great Britain
in support of her right to the territory claimed by Venezuela, and such
grounds, if put forward by the United States' Government with reference
to the Alaska boundary, would, no doubt, be fully considered by a Tri-
bunal of Arbitration, and if found to be established for the period pres-
cribed in the Treaty, might settle the controversy in their favour. |1 But
it is not admitted that such control was exercised by the United States
until very recently, and after due notice of the claim of Her Majesty's
Government, and in these eireumstances, the fact of its exercise appears
to be a reason in favour of, rather than an obstacle to, arbitration. |1
The fact that the starting-point in the present controversy is a Treaty,






14 -

and that, in the dispute with Venezuela, the claims on either side were
based on discovery and occupation, cannot, in the opinion of Her Ma-
jesty's Government, constitute any essential difference between the two
cases. The Rules agreed to by Great Britain and the United States for
the guidance of the Tribunal were intended to provide for the admission
in argument of every ground upon which an equitable claim to disputed
territory may be based. As has already been pointed out, it is the Go-
vernment of the United States who have imported into the present dis-
cussion other considerations than that of strict Treaty right, and I trust
that on full consideration they will not continue to object to these con-
siderations being tested by Rules which, with their approval, and with
the consent of Her Majesty's Government, have been applied to a similar
case. II If, however, the United States' Government still consider that the
terms of the Venezuelan Treaty are in any respecet inadequate to provide
for an equitable settlement of the present controversy, such suggestions
as they have to offer will receive attentive consideration from Her Ma-
jesty's Government. |1 You are authorized to read this despatch to Mr. Hay,
and to leave a copy of it with hirn if he should so desire.
Salisbury.


Nr. 132 16. VEREINIGTE STAATEN.- Der Botschafter in London
an den englischen Minister des Ausw. Historische
Darstellung der Streitfrage. Einwnde gegen das
Schiedsgericht.
American Embassy, London, January 22, 1900. (January 22.)*)
My Lord, |1 Your Lordship's despatch to Mr. Tower of the 14th Oc-
tober, 1899, has been placed in my hands, with instructions to respond
to your Lordship's courteous request to make further suggestions in reply
bearing upon the question under discussion. [| The United States' Govern-
ment is not to be understood as refusing to submit to the adjudication
of an independent Tribunal the real question at issue between us in res-
pect to the Alaska boundary. On the contrary, as I understand it, the
present discussion contemplates the probability of such a submission. As
I stated in my note of the'9th August**), to which your Lordship's note
to Mr. Tower is an indirect reply, the President was prevented by the
considerations there stated from assenting to the proposal that the

*) Die eingeklammerten Daten ergeben (las Empfangsdatum. Red.
**) The terms of this note were similar to the communication made by Mr. Choate
on the 2nd August and recorded in the despatch to Mr. Tower of that date (Nr. 13214).






15 -

Venezuela Treaty, as it stands, should be applied here, and that the
subject matter to be adjudicated and the terms and conditions by which
its action should be limited ought, if possible, first to be decided. |I The
Venezuela Treaty was calculated, and, as the result has shown, well and
properly calculated, to enable the Tribunal to make by compromise a
boundary-line in respect of which there has never been an agreement
between the parties, and to evolve a fair adjustment of their respective
claims out of the facts of discovery, occupation, and other historical cir-
cumstances in which their dispute as to the boundary had been involved
for more than a century, during which the question had been always
open. But in the present instance there is an express agreement of the
parties defining the boundary in the Treaty of 1825 which has
subsisted ever since, practically without dispute as to its interpretation
on the prineipal point. A clear and distinct interpretation on this point
was put upon it by both parties in the written negotiations which re-
sulted in the meeting of their minds upon it. This interpretation was
regarded by both parties as vital and very important to their respective
interests. It was publicly declared and acted upon by Russia from the
date of the Treaty until she conveyed to the United States in 1867, and
all that time, at any rate, it was acquiesced in by Great Britain. The
United States continued publicly to maintain and act upon the same
interpretation, with the acquiescence of Great Britain, confessedly until
1885, and, as we claim, until 1898, when a new and wholly different
interpretation on this main point is put forward by Great Britain. The
two interpretations thus presented are absolutely distinct, and are not
involved in any confused or doubtful historical explorations. One or the
other is right, and can and should he ascertained and determined so to
be, to the exclusion of the other, and neither party wishes to acquire an
inch of the territory rightly belonging to the other. Surely the Tribunal
which is to pass upon such a question should not be enabled to com-
promise it, but should be required simply to decide it. If the difference
thus raised is to be compromised, it should be compromised by the par-
ties themselves, so that they can know exactly what they are doing. [
I have spoken of the interpretation of the Treaty upon the principal
point. By this, I mean the question whether the strip of coast (,la
lisiere de cte") which, by the Treaty, is to belong to Russia, runs around
the shores of the inlets or across their mouths the former construc-
tion necessarily excluding Great Britain from the salt water at all points
to a distance measured by the crests of the mountains parallel to the
coast, if there are such, or by 10 leagues in the absence of such moun-






16 -

tains, while the latter construction as necessarily gives to Great Britain
so much of each inlet as extends above a point crossed by a line drawn
from the crest of the mountains nearest to the coast. This is a ques-
tion of construction between the two Parties, to be determined in the
usual way by the language of the Treaty interpreted in the light of the
acts of the Parties before and after, and including any claim of either
that the other is estopped to dispute the construction which it asserts.
It is eminently a question for jurists to determine judicially, and it was
with this view that the United States, through its Commissioners in the
Joint High Commnission, offered to submit it to a perfectly independent
Tribunal, to be composed of six learned jurists, three to be named by
each Party, and a majority of them to decide. It is not casy to see how
any judicial Tribunal could compromise it, unless expressly commissioned
to do so, as in the Venezuela Case. They must decide it one way or
the other. || This is the question which we maintain was never raised
by Her Majesty's Government until 1898. Russia and the United States
claimed the former interpretation from first to last; Great Britain realized
its intrinsic importance from the beginning, but never disputed our
interpretation, which was open, public, and uniform. These features of
the case now presented differentiate it radically from the Venezuela Case.
Your Lordship states that ,no question as to the interpretation of the
Treaty was raised by either Party until 1885". It would be more in
harmony with my view of the situation to say that Bussia and the
United States uniformly and publicly asserted an interpretation of the
Treaty which Great Britain did not dispute. 11 But assuming this funda-
mental and very important question, to be decided either by an indepen-
dent Tribunal or by agreement of the Parties, another question remains
still to be determined one of great importance and which has always
been open namely, the exact location of the poundary-line according
to the spirit and meaning of the Treaty and its precise distance at every
point from the coast. This is a question of no small difficulty, growing
out of the alternative provisions of the IIIrd and IVth Articles of the
Treaty, by the former of which the width of the strip or the distance
of the British possessions from the coast is to be measured to the crests
of the parallel mountains, but by the latter, if no such mountains are
found within 10 leagues, then by that distance or by a distance never
exceeding that. || This minor or secondary question might, of course, also
be referred to an arbitration; but it is obviously not, like the first, a
question for jurists. It would properly be disposed of by a joint survey.
And it is a question of such minor importance, after the first question






17 -

has been once determined, that neither party would probably desire to
go to the great expense and trouble of an arbitration about it, but they
would either run the line by agreement or leave it to be run by a joint
survey, as was once agreed between them. For if the first question were
once determined in accordance with the present contention of Her Ma-
jesty's Government, Great Britain or Canada would have in her own
possession such a wide and ample stretch of sea-coast, being the entirety
of all inlets beyond a point crossed by a line drawn from the crests of
the mountains nearest the coasts, that a few miles, or even leagues,
more or less, would make no substantial difference; while, on the other
hand, if that question were onoe determined in accordance with the uni-
form contention of Russia and the United States since 1825, Great Bri-
tain or Canada having no possible foothold on the sea-coast through the
whole length of the strip or lisibre, a few miles, or even leagues, more
or less, in its width at any point, would make no very important difference
to either party.
The difficulty of locating the exact boundary-line according to any
interpretation of the Treaty was in great measure removed by the Report
and maps of the joint survey created by agreement of Great Britain
and the United States in 1892. || Before taking up your Lordship's review
of tho facts and incidents since the date of the Treaty between Great
Britain and Russia, which are cited as confirming the view that the
question of the interpretation of the Treaty has been always open, I
venture, with deference, to ask whether, in that review, the distinction
which I have drawn between the question of the interpretation of the
Treaty and the question of the acetual demareation of the boundary-line
has not been lost sight of, for it appears very clearly to me that nearly
all of them recognize as an open question the actual demarcation of the
line, which must remain open until it is actually accomplished, and that
they do not suggest or assume that the question of the interpretation
of the Treaty now raised and insisted upon by Great Britain was open.
It would be strange, indeed, if Her Majesty's Government, at the time
of the exchange of the Treaty with Russia or the Russian Govern-
ment of that day could have regarded the question now raised by
Great Britain as left open, or that any question under the Treaty was
left doubtful or open for future determination, except the actual demar-
cation of the boundary-line so as to carry out the spirit and intent of
the Treaty as well known to them both and freshly in their minds from
the protracted and very earnest struggle which they had had over its
terms. || One persistent effort of Her Majesty's Representatives in that
Staatsarchiv LXX. 2






18 -

negotiation was to get to the sea, in the interest of the Hudson's Bay
Company. The equally persistent effort of the Representatives of Russia
was to set up a barrier in a strip of land which should keep Great
Britain away from the sea at all points from the southern end of Prince
of Wales Island to Mount St. Elias, so that the Russian establishments
on the islands and the coast belonging to the Russian-American Company
could by no possibility be interfered with, a point whieh the negotiators
on behalf of Great Britain expressly and finally yielded. |1 I may not
properly here enter npon an analysis of the protraeted negotiations which
culminated in the Treaty of 1825. They are now very familiar, and as
we claim the whole course of the negotiation shows that the British
Plenipotentiaries, and Mr. Seeretary Canning as well, had a perfectly
clear conception of the lisiare upon which Russia insisted so strenuously
- that it was to be Russia's impenetrable barrier to any alien access
to or from the inner region of the mainland, a strip of territory running
parallel to the sinuosities of the coast, and necessarily around the inlets
and not across their mouths, extending at all points from the water's
edge to the interior possessions of Great Britain, beginning at the point
of the continent where the line, aseending to the north along Portland
Channel, strikes the 56th degree of north latitude and extending to the
interseetion of the 141st meridian. It constituted a definite expanse of
territory over which, and over the tide water along it, as well as over
the islands outside of it, Russia possessed an exelusive jurisdiction -
the same which she afterwards conveyed in its entirety to the United
States. It could be piereed in favour of Great Britain only by rivers
having their origin in British dominions, and flowing through the Russian
territorial strip to tide water; and as to these, no lodgment on the Russian
shore, but only access to the interior, was granted to Great Britain. The
provisions as to this strip of land in the Vth and VIth Artieles of the
original Treaty, where it is referred to as ,la lisiere de terre ferme" and
,lisiere de la cte," must have been understood by the negotiators on
both sides in the same sense. |1 And the fact that, by the VIIth Artiele
of the Treaty, Russia gave, and Great Britain took, a licence for British
vessels for ten years from the date of the Treaty to frequent ,toutes les
mers int6rieures, les golfes, havres, et eriques sur la cte" proves that
the negotiators on both sides must have understood that all these interior
waters, &c., were in Russian territory. || In view of this, we elain and
insist that when the Treaty was signed the question now raised and
pressed by Her Majesty's Government whether the lisi&re ran around the
inlets or sinuosities of the coast or across their mouths was not left






19 -

open or understood by the negotiators on either side, or by either Go-
vernment for which they acted, as an open question, and if not then
left open, it was certainly never attempted to be opened until 1885 -
and, as we claim, not until 1898. Of course, the actual demarcation of
the line, with whatever difficulties pertained to it, according to the spirit
and meaning of the Treaty, was necessarily left open, and could only
be determined after the country was explored by competent survey. j|
Coming now to the references to the boundary question in subsequent
correspondence between the Governments, which your Lordship regards
as having been always upon the admitted basis that the whole line was
undetermined, and that the interpretation of the boundary Artieles of
the Treaty was entirely an open question, I submit that in each instance,'
especially in view of what had preceded during Russia's ownership, these
references indicated or assumed no more than that the whole line was
undetermined in the sense of not having been surveyed and marked, but
not that the interpretation of the Treaty on the main point now under
consideration was in any sense open. 11 Immediately after the making of
the Treaty, the Russian Government proceeded with the preparation of
a map, showing the respective possessions of Russia and Great Britain
as fixed by the Treaty. This map was published in St. Petersburgh in
1827 by order of His Imperial Majesty. It runs the boundary-line from
the head of Portland Channel at a distance of 10 marine leagnes from
tide water around the head of all the inlets to the 141st meridian. And
along this line upon the map is inseribed the words: ,Limites des
possessions Russes et Anglaises d'apres le Trait6 de 1825." There could
have been no more direct and peremptory challenge to Great Britain, if
its Governmneut at that time regarded the interpretation of the Treaty
as having been left an open question at the time of its signature, or as
being then an open question as to which each Government was free to
urge its own views. |1 The great importance of this location of the boun-
dary as between the two nations, as represented respectively by the Hud-
son's Bay Company and the Russian-American Company, must have been
still very fresh and vivid upon the minds of His Majesty's Ministers
who had negotiated and concluded the Treaty, Rnussia thus proclaiming
to them and to the world a clear and emphatic interpretation of the
Treaty which conformed to that which the negotiators on both sides had
put upon it. Was not that the time and the last time for Great Britain
to speak? Could her Govermnent lie by without a protest, and at any
time afterwards claim a different interpretation which would nullify the
whole object of Russia in making the Treaty? But Great Britain did
2*






20 -

not merely lie by without a protest: she and Canada also expressly
adopted this location of the boundary exactly as Russia had defined
it. 1 In 1831 the map prepared by Bouchette, Deputy Surveyor-General
of the Province of Lower Canada, ,published as the Act directs by
James Wild, Geographer to the King, London, the 2nd May, 1831,"
traces the Russian boundary on the continent exactly according to the
Russian Imperial Map of 1827. And in 1832 the map of Arrowsmith,
the most authoritative cartographer of London, whose earlier map had
been used by the negotiators of the Treaty, does exactly the same thing,
stating upon its face that it contains the latest information which the
documents of the Hudson's Bay Company furnish. And it will hardly
be questioned that at that time the Hudson's Bay Company possessed
all powers of Government in the British territory in that region, and
was in fact the only British authority there. Can it be claimed that
at the time of the publication of that map, apparently by the authority
of the Hudson's Bay Company and of the British Government at
any rate, withont a protest from either they then regarded the inter-
pretation of the Treaty on this cardinal point as an open question? ?
And on Canadian authority maps were subsequently published defining
the boundary in the same way, excluding Great Britain from all access
to tide water along the whole extent of the line notably, Devine's
Map, published ,by order of the Honourable Joseph Cauchon, Commis-
sioner of Crown Lands, Crown Department, Toronto, March, 1857." All
the map makers of the world followed suit, and a careful search has
failed to discover any map published anywhere prior to 1884, in which
this boundary-line did not conform to the original Russian Imperial Map
of 1827.
Your Lordship suggests that the only value of that region during
the period from 1825 to 1867 lay in the fur trade; that by the terms
of the Treaty that trade was thrown open on equal terms for ten years
to the eitizens of Great Britain, Russia, and the United States; that
before the ten years expired the negotiations between the Hudson's Bay
Company and the Russian-American Company, which resulted in the
lease by the latter to the former of the lisiare, had been initiated; and
that as that lease, though made at first for ten years, by renewals ter-
minated on the date when Alaska was ceded to the United States, it
was a matter of indifference to that Company whether it derived its
rights from its British Charter or from the Russian lease. But to me
it is hardly conceivable that the Hudson's Bay Company, backed by the
whole power and prestige of the British Government, would, with its






21 -

approval, have accepted that lease if either the Company or the Govern-
ment had had the least idea that, under the Treaty of 1825, they were
entitled, as of right, to what they took by lease and to what Canada
now claims; and so I insist, with renewed earnestness, that the takings
of that lease and the renewals were declarations to the world that neither
regarded as open the contention now made on behalf of Canada. j| The
information conveyed in your Lordship's note, that before the expiration
of the ten years' licence provided in the VIIth Artiele of the Treaty,
negotiations had been initiated between the Hudson's Bay Company and
the Russian-American Company for the lease of the lisiNre, which appears
to have been signed at Hamburg on the 6th February, 1839, and that
by renewals it was terminated only on the date when Alaska was ceded
to the United States, is the first to that effect that my Government has
received. All the data in its possession, ineluding the Alaska archives
now in the State Department, had indicated that the negotiations for the
lease had been brought- abont in the latter part of the year 1838, three
years after the expiration of the ten years, by a note from the British
Ambassador in St. Petersburgh, revising the claim of the ,Dryad"-and
the last record in the Alaskan archives of a renewal of it only extends
it to 1865. But assuming your Lordship's information to be more accu-
rate, we snbmit that both cireumstances show that neither before the
commencement of the lease, nor at its termination, did the Hudson's Bay
Company or the British Government, which is so fully represented, regard
the question now under consideration as open, or that the premises
covered by the lease were in British territory: for in the one case they
would have entered upon no negotiations before the expiration of the
licence, and in the other would not have yielded possession without protest
or murmur, but in both cases would have held on as of right. || What
took place in 1857, following the appointment of a Select Committee in
the House of Commons, ,to consider the state of those British possessions
in North America which are under the administration of the Hudson's
Bay Company, or over which they possess a licence to trade," is extre-
mely significant to show that no one concerned on the part of the Com-
pany or the Committee had any doubt about the interpretation of the
Treaty on the point now being discussed. Among the members of the
Committee were Lord John Russell, Lord Stanley, Mr. Roebuck, lf. Glad-
stone, and Mr. Ellice, who was a native of Canada and a Director of the
Hudson's Bay Company. Chief Justice Draper, of Canada, attended its
session as the Representative of the Government of Canada; Sir George
Simpson, Governor of the territory and President of the Company, was






22 -

a principal witness. In connection with his testimonies he produced a
map of the territory leased, saying, ,There is a margin of coast marked
yellow on the map from 54 40' up to Cross Sound which we have
rented from the North American Company for a term of years," and
the boundary as laid down on that map conforms to the present claim
of the United States, being carried around all the inlets and interior
waters. The map was printed by order of Parliament, and no objection
to the validity of the lease or to the correctness of the map was sug-
gested by anybody. The lease itself was not only made with the approval
of both Governments represented by the two Companies, but shortly
before this Parliamentary inquiry, it had been ratified anew by both
Governments. During the Crimean War, at the request of the two Com-
panies, the territory covered by the lease was by the order of both Go-
vernments exempted from the operation of the war. 1 I have thus carefully
reviewed all the eircumstances that intervened from the negotiations of
the Treaty in 1825 till the cession to the United States in 1867, a period
during which, I think, we may reasonably claim that this main question
was not regarded as open by either Russia or Great Britain, but that
the acts of both solidly confirmed the interpretation put upon the Treaty
at the beginning by Russia and ever since by her and by the United
States, not only because of their conclusive effect, but because it is ne-
cessary to bear this prior history in mind in considering the subsequent
facts relied upon by your Lordship as indicating that both parties sub-
sequently regarded this question as open, and also to keep clearly in
mind the distinetion between this fundamental question and the actual
demarcation in accordance with the spirit and intent of the Treaty as
thus uniformly interpreted by both parties, which was always open and
never could be accomplished until after a complete survey of the region
through which the line ran. || Bearing these things in mind, I submit to
your Lordship that it is impossible to sustain the suggestion that Presi-
dent Grant, in his Annual Message to Congress in December 1872, accep-
ted the view that ,the interpretation of the boundary Artieles of the
Treaty was entirely an open question as to which each Government was
free to urge its own views." On the contrary, no such idea can be read
even between the lines of bis message. Indeed, he asserts the boundary
to be an ,admitted boundary," and only alludes to the line as being
undetermined in the sense of its never having been surveyed and marked
down; and the message furnishes a very strong argument in support of
our present contention that the main question was not open. l It will be
remembered that the Award of the Emperor of Germany in the Pan Juan






23 -

Case had just then been made. The questions involved were in some
respects singularly like those involved here: first, whether the water
boundary described in the Treaty ran through Rosario Channel or through
Haro Channel; and, second, whichever channel was decided to be the one,
to survey and mark it out according to the spirit and intent of the
Treaty. The British Commissioners had proposed that the Arbitrator
should have the right to draw the boundary through an intermediate
channel. The American Commissioners declined this proposal, stating
tliat they desired a decision and not a compromise; and the submission
to the Emperor was to determine whether it ran through one channel
or the other, and bis Award hat been that it was most in accordance
with the true interpretation of the Treaty that the boundary-line shonld
be run through the Haro Channel; but this left still undetermined the
tracing out and marking of the line in conformity with the Award.
President Grant, having in his Message stated the history of the
case and his satisfaction with the Award, and with the prompt and spon-
taneous action of Her Majesty's Government giving effect to it, and having
already said, ,The Award leaves us, for the first time in the history of
the United States as a nation, without a question of disputed boundary
between our territory and the possessions of Great Britain on this contwiiet,"
proeeeds:- 1| ,It now becomes necessary to complete the survey and
determination of that portion of the boundary-line (through the Haro
Channel) upon which the Commission which determined the remaining
part of the line were unable to agree. I recommend the appointment of
a Commission to act jointly with one which may be named by Her
Majesty for that purpose. 1| ,Experience of the difficulties attending the
determination of our admitted line of boundary, after the occupation of
the territory and its settlement by those owing allegiance to tbe respective
Governments, points to flie inmportance of establishing by natural objeets
or other monuments the actual line between the territory acquired by
purchase from Russia and the adjoining possessions of Her Britannic
Majesty. The region is now so sparsely occupied that no conflieting
interests of individuals or of jurisdiction are likely to interfere to the
delay or embarrassment of the actual location of the line. If deferred
until population shall enter and occupy the territory, some trivial contest
of neighbours may again array the two Governments in antagonism. I
therefore recommend the appointment of a Commission to act jointly
with one that may be appointed on the part of Great Britain, to deter-
mine the line between our territory of Alaska and the conterminous
possessions of Great Britain. (For. Rel., U. S., 1897)." || Is it not abso-






24 -

lutely certain that no idea of there being any opon question about the
interpretation of the Treaty had ever entered the President's mind? He
declares it to be ,an admitted line of boundary," and recommends, exactly
as in the San Juan Case upon the footing of the Award, ,a Joint Com-
mission to determine the line." || President Grant's recommendation was
occasioned by personal conference between the British Minister, Sir
Edward Thornton, and the Secretary of State, Mr. Fish, in the preceding
month, in which the former, under instructions from the Foreign Office,
proposed the appointment of a Joint Commission for. the purpose of
defining the boundary between Alaska and British Columbia, and he
reported, under date of the 25th November, that Mr. Fish stated that
the President had determined to recommend in bis Annual Message that
a Joint Commission be appointed ,for the purpose of laying down the
boundary." I1 On the 23rd December of the same year Sir Edward Thorn-
ton, referring to his previons conference with Secretary Fish, transmitted
to the Foreign Office a copy of the Bill introduced in Congress ,autho-
rizing the survey and marking of the boundary" (see Canadian Session
Papers 1878, No. 125, pp. 6, 7, 8). In no part of this correspondence is
there any intimation that the interpretation of the Treaty was in dispute.
It was merely a movement to have the boundary fixed by the Treaty
surveyed and marked. 11 When gold was discovered in the Cassiar region,
which was reached through the Stikine, and the passage of miners
up that river ensned, it was deemed wise to have the eastern boun-
dary of the lisibre where it crosses that river more accurately defined,
which led to the movement in 1873-74 on the part of the two
Governments for a joint survey. The cost of a survey of the entire
boundary being objected to, it was suggested in a conference between
Sir Edward Thornton and Secretary Fish, that it would be sufficient
to fix the boundary at certain named points, viz., the head of the
Portland Canal, ,the points where the boundary-line crosses the Rivers
Skoot, Stikine, Taku, Islecat, and Chilkat, Mount St. Elias, &c." The
Legislative Assembly of British Columbia, in petitioning the Canadian
Government for a survey, refers to it as ,the boundary of the 30-mile
belt of American territory." Dennis, Surveyor-General of Canada, to
whom the matter was referred, restated the points to be determined, and
named the rivers, viz., Skoot, Stikine, Taku, Isleeat, and Chilkat. The
Skoot was at no point nearer than 25 miles to tide water, and the points
of erossing of the rivers were far above the heads of inlets into which
they emptied. The survey was agreed upon, but failed because Congress
made no appropriation; but it is clear that the British and Canadian






25 -

authorities understood that the eastern boundary of the strip crossed tbe
rivers named at some point above their mouths, which are at the head
of inlets, ineluding Lynn Canal, and that the boundary could not there-
fore cross any of those inlets, which is quite inconsistent with the theory
that the question was then regarded as open whether the lisiere ran
around the inlets or crossed their mouths. || In the years 1874 to 1876
questions arose as to the proper location of customhouses of the two
Governments on the Stikine River, and the point in dispute centered
around the crossing of the river by the boundary-line 30 miles in a direct
line from the coast. The British Minister, reciting the complaint, stated
that the British customhouse was ,supposed to be within the United
States' territory that is, within the 10 marine leagues from the coast."
The Privy Council of the Dominion of Canada, in moving the Governor-
General to bring the subject of the survey again to the attention of the
United States, recites that ,the Stikine River intersects the international
boundary in the vicinity of the 57 th degree of north latitude", that is,
30 nautical miles from the coast in a direct line. 1t It is admitted by your
Lordship that in 1873 the discussion between the two Governments was
entirely confined to the question of a joint survey, an indispensable pre-
liminary to any attempt to fix the boundary, and ,never touched upon
the interpretation of the Treaty." But my Government eannot agree to
the proposition that ,in the complete absence of topographical information
as to the country, it was obviously impossible to discuss that question,
and that it was tacitly avoided by both sides." What could the absence
or presence of topographical information as to the country have to do
with the question whether the lisi&re, by the true interpretation of the
Treaty, ran around the inlets or across their mouths? Whether it was
intended to be a continuous border of solid land, which should serve as
an effeetual barrier against the access of the Canadians to salt water, or
should be no strip at all, but a broken series of portions of the coast,
admitting Canada to full possession and enjoyment of the interior waters
in many places? And how could the suggestion of Secretary Fish as to
the points where the boundary described in the Treaty crossed the rivers,
all of which were points of considerable distance above the inlets, fail
to command the attention of Her Majesty's Government if it had all this
time been of opinion that the upper part of these inlets was in each case
in British territory? If, as your Lordship concedes, the subjeet of the
interpretation of the Treaty was in that correspondence taeitly avoided
on the side of Great Britain, may we not fairly claim that the reason
for silence on the part of the United States was because the positive






26 -

interpretation which had been publicly and uniforuily asserted by Russia
and themselves for nearly fifty years had never been questioned in
other words, because there was no question? Certainly the United States
never avoided it, tacitly or otherwise.
My Government does not regard what took place between the two
Governments in 1876-77 in the case of Peter Martin as having any
conclusive bearing. My reference to it in my note of the 9th August
was quite casual, as to one of the very few instances in which there had
been any correspondence on the subject of the boundary; but there are
certain features in that case which are relevant. No one can read the
notice of Seeretary Fish to Sir Edward Thornton of the lOth January,
1877, and impute to hirn any suspicion that the interpretation of the
Treaty definition of the boundary on the point now under consideration
was open, or that anything was left undetermined except the exact loca-
tion of the admitted boundary-line. He says: \\ ,The absence of a line
defined and marked on the surface of the earth as that of the limit or
boundary between the two countries cannot confer upon eitlher a juris-
diction beyond the point where such line should in fact be that is,
the boundary which the Treaty makes the boundary. Surveys make it
certain and patent, but do not alter rights or change rightful jurisdiction." ||
It is quite true that the Minister of Justice recommended that the release
of Martin be put upon the ground of the conveyance of the prisoner
through American territory. But the British Charg6, in his note to Mr.
Fish, did not state the ground upon which the release was ordered; and
the proceedings seemed to involve a tacit coneession on the part of Great
Britain that the place of the assault was in American territory. The
demand for his release was upon that ground, and the British Minister
so understood it. In examining the Canadian documents in relation to
the case, it appears that the Snrveyor, who was sent by the Canadian
Surveyor-General to visit the locality, reported four months before the
release of Martin that the assault for which Martin was tried was com-
mitted in the territory of the United States 13 miles from the mouth of
the Stikine River; and the Minister of Justice, to whom the case was
referred for investigation, reported to the Privy Council that the assault
was upon American territory, and no suggestion to the contrary was
made by any one on the part of Great Britain. 1| In my note of the
9th August I made no reference to Mr. Bayard's note to Mr. Phelps of
the 20th November, 1885, and to the correspondence which that note
initiated. This omission was not from overlooking that note and corre-
spondence, but because a careful reading of it had satisfied nie; and now






27 -

that your Lordship has brought it up, 1 submit to yonr candid judgment
that Mri. Bayard did not there take the view that the interpretation of
the boundary Articles of the Treaty was an open question, but only that
the demareation of the line was undetermined and was full of difficulties
in the then state of topographical knowledge. Of course Mr. Bayard in
that note made no claim that the interpretation of the Treaty as regards
any particular part of the boundary-line was no longer open, for nobody,
so far as we can discover, had up to that date claimed that it was open.
Certainly no one on the part of Her Majesty's Government had done so. 1|
Undoubtedly Mr. Bayard did point out in that note that ,no question
concerning the true location of the line stipulated in the Treaty had ever
arisen between Great Britain and Russia prior to the cession of Alaska
to the United States." But in the same paper and in the same connection
he had already said, ,It is certain that no question has arisen since 1867
between the Governments of the United States and Great Britain in regard
to this boundary," thus covering the whole period from 1825 to 1885. [1
In view of these emphatic declarations, my Government is at a loss to
understand how he can be held to have sustained the view that at the
latter date the interpretation of the Treaty as to the boundary was an
open question between the two Governments. 11 All the statements of Mr.
Bayard and Mr. Phelps in the correspondence that followed must be
read in the light of these declarations and the view of the object at
which they were aiming, viz., to obtain, not an arbitration to interpret
the Treaty, but a Joint Commission which should make a survey of the
line stipulated by the Treaty, or, as Mr. Bayard afterwards limited it (in
his subsequent instruction of the 19th March, 1886, to Mr. Phelps), to
an Agreement for a preliminary survey of the Alaska boundary with a
view to the discovery of such natural outlines and objects as may be
made the basis for a future formal Convention for the survey of the
boundary-line." 11 He was deeply impressed with the extreme difficulty and
enormous expense of a survey of the boundary-line difficulties and
expense which we think have been very greatly reduced by the Report
of the Joint Commission appointed in 1892 and the maps prepared by
that Commission but all that Mr. Bayard and Mr. Phelps said may
be read in vain for any indications of a doubt in the mind of either,
whether the lisibre was a continuous and solid strip of land running
around the inlets, and exeluding Great Britain from access to the sea in
every part of its length, or a congeries of broken strips interrupted at
the mouth of every inlet and admitting her to exclusive possession of all
parts of every inlet above a point crossed by a line drawn from the






28 -

crests of the mountains nearest to the coast. The diffieulties of which
3Mr. Bayard treated at great length were the same which Mr. Fish and
the experts of both Governments then consulted had encountered in 1872,
but neither then nor in 1885 did they suggest a divergence of views as
to the interpretation of the Treaty. 11 When the Earl of Iddesleigh sent
the Canadian Map to Mr. Phelps with bis note of the 27th August, 1886,
and felt ealled upon to disavow the correetness of the line of boundary
as marked on it, he raised no question about the interpretation of the
Treaty of 1825 certainly none as to whether the lisir'e ran around
the inlets, so as to keep Canada at all points 30 marine miles from salt
water but pointed directly and exelusively to the doubt which had always
existed as to the exaet location of the boundary-line, the eastern edge of
the lisiere, occasioned by the alternative elauses of the Treaty defining it
by parallel mountain summits, or in their absence by the 10 leagues. He
says that the boundary-line shown on the map ,is merely an indication
of the occurrence of a dividing line somewhere in that region;" and he
goes on to explain what he means by that and why no weight could be
attached to it, inasmuch as the Treaty ,,which defines the line makes its
location depend on alternative eireumstances the occurrence or non-
occurrence of monntains, and, as is well known to all concerned, the
country has never been topographically surveyed." Surely, considering that
at that time, more than sixty years since the Treaty, the question now raised
had never been suggested, nor any question about the meaning of ,the
coast" or ,the sinuosities of the coast," the phrases employed in the
Treaty, he could not have intended covertly to raise it for the first time
by the languages used, nor could he have believed that our Government
would so understand that language, which by the ordinary rules appli-
cable to diplomatie correspondence, or to any correspondence, must be limited
to its obvious meaning; for after sixty years of silent acquieseence, and occa-
sional active coneurrence in the interpretation publiely asserted by Russia
and the United States, if he intended to raise such a radical question to
the contrary, he should have done it in unmistakable terms. The Earl
of Iddesleigh's language is in exact conformity with the inseription upon
the map itself, which he inclosed, and which doubtless suggested to himrn
the eaution which he gave. | ,The boundary between British Columbia
and Alaska, as shown upon this map, is taken from a map of British
Columbia published in 1871, under the direction of . . Surveyor-
General for the Province of British Columbia; but no steps have yet
been taken by the Canadian Government to verify what degree of accuracy
may be attached to the boundary thus laid down."






29 -

The same observations apply in full force to the language quoted
by your Lordship from the Memorandum given to Mir. Secretary Bayard
by Sir L. S. Sackville West in September 1887. There was no more
reason why the United States' Government should take exception to this
declaration than to that of Lord Iddesleigh, already discussed. |I In April
1886, Sir L. West had been instrncted by Lord Rosebery to inform the
Government of the United States that Her Majesty's Government are
prepared to take part in the preliminary investigation of the boundary
question. And Lord Rosebery had notified Mr. Phelps that he did not
propose to move firther in the matter until he knew what action was
taken towards an appropriation by Congress. |1 In the meantime, Lieute-
nant Schwatka having been sent to Alaska, not by the United States'
Government, but by General Miles, then commanding the Departement
of the Columbia, and not to make any survey, but to gather information
for military purposes, had made his Report, and neither the Report nor
the map which accompany it delineating his route disclose any boundary
survey on his part or the fixing of any points for the boundary. His
Report, however, casually stated that ,the country beyond Perrier Pass,"
which by his map appears to be more than 20 leagues beyond the head
of Lynn Canal, ,lying in British territory, lessens the interest of this
trail beyond the pass to the military authorities of our Government."
This remark, which from the context is shown to be merely incidental
to the narrative of his journey, hat no further significance than an
assertion on his part that the Kotush mountains are situated in British
territory. || And Sir L. West, in his Memorandum, so far from raising
any question about the interpretation of the Treaty, or claiming that the
question now presented was open, expressly declined to raise any dis-
cussion even in regard to the position of the boundary, but merely called
attention to Lieutenant Schwatka's statement, so that no prejudice might
come from silence about it. There is no indication that either he or
Lord Rosebery had any idea that any question of interpretation existed.'1
I venture to suggest that your Lordship may have inadvertently, and
without full consideration of the circumstances, laid too much stress upon
Dr. Dawson's letter of February 1888, which comes next in order of
time. Your Lordship draws the conclusion that ,Dr. Dawson, during the
sittings oft the Joint High Commission of 1888, made it distinctly elear
that Her Majesty's Government claimed the boundary should, in accordance
with the terms of the Treaty, eross all narrow waters that were of such
width as to be within territorial jurisdiction," and ,,that United States'
eitizens who have settled recently at the head of the Lynn Canal have






30 -

done so with the full knowledge," as given in that letter, ,that they
were settling in disputed territory." II It appears by the documents trans-
mitted to Congress by President Cleveland, the 2nd March, 1889, that
Secretary Bayard reported that dcluring the session of the Fisheries Con-
ference of 1887 88 in Washington it was suggested that an informal
consultation between some person in this country possessing knowledge
of the question in dispute and a Canadian similarly equipped might tend
to facilitate the discovery of a basis of agreement between the United
States and Gread Britain upon which a practical boundary-line could be
established. 11 Mr. Bayard then proceeds to state that to this end several
conferenees were held between Professor Dall, of the United States'
Geological Survey, and Dr. Dawson, an eminent Canadian authority, but
without any other result than that each of these gentlemen had given
his acceount of these Conferences the former to the Secretary of State,
the latter to Sir Charles Tupper which, together with other docut-
ments, including a letter of Dr. Dawson to Sir Charles Tupper on the
boundary question and Memorandum of Professor Dall on the same
subjcct, with maps, were submitted. Professor Dall, in his report of the
interviews, says:- II ,It was mutually announced and agreed that the
meeting was entirely informal; that neither party had any delegated
authority whatever," and it is quite elear that they had no governmental
authority whatever on either side. ,lt was thought that if Dr. Dawson
and myself could unite in recommending some plan as praeticable, that
opinion or plan would be entitled to some consideration." These Con-
ferenees were not held ,during the sittings of the Joint High Commission
of 1888," and this, the first suggestion that has come to our knowledge
that the boundary should, in accordance with the terms of the Treaty,
eross" any waters, was not presented before the Commission, but in this
informal meeting" where ,neither party had any delegated powers
whatever." It appears by Dr. Dawson's letter, upon which your Lordship
relies, that he did not put forward this idea as originally his own, or
one for which he was responsible, or as a claim in any sense of Her
Majesty's Government, but as the view of a Canadian land surveyor,
General Cameron, which he says in his letter to Sir Charles Tupper
may be substantially adopted," and he courteously furnisehes Professor
Dall with a eopy of the letter as stating clearly General Cameron's views.
It was wholly immaterial whether Dr. Dawson adopted General Cameron's
views or not; but Sir Charles Tupper, who was then in Washington,
and was keenly alive to the importance of everything bearing on the
Alaska boundary was in no mood to adopt them. He appears purposely






31 -

to have refrained from doing so; for in communicating to the Secretary
of State a copy of this letter of Dr. Dawson, he refers to it as explana-
tory, not of the views of himself, or of the Canadian or the Imperial
Government, but of Dr. Dawson's own views. |1 I annex a copy of Sir
Charles Tupper's letter. |I Professor Doll describes them as ,some very
surprising claimt' and as ,the singular hypotheses regarding the boundary-
line which have been emitted by General Cameron of Canada, and which
are formulatet in the accompanying letter to Sir Charles Tupper." And
Mr. Bayard refers to them as ,,certain views of General D. R. Cameron,
as submitted in the letter of Dr. Dawson." Certainly, therefore, Her
Majesty's Government made no such claim. And if there was any pur-
pose on the part of the Canadian Government of making it, such purpose
was very studiously and successfully disguised. I think it will appear
that neither the Canadian nor the Imperial Government adopted or put
forward this claim until after the Protocol of the 30th May, 1898. Il If
the views of Her Majesty's Government as to the boundary were fully
stated at the Conference held in Washington in February 1892, with
members of the Canadian Cabinet and the British Minister, and a sug-
gestion was submitted for a reference of the question to arbitration, it
does not appear of record in the Department of State, and no informa-
tion of such a proposition is in its possession. No Protocol of the Con-
ferences was made, as it was understood in advance that they were to
be of an informal and private character; but Seeretary Blaine submitted
to the President a Report of some length in regard to the February
Conference, as did Mr. Foster with respect to the second Conference in
June both of which were transmitted to Congress, and published
(Senate Ex. Doc. 114, fifty-second Congress, first Session, pp. 3-43).||
These Conferences were brought about beeause of the Canadian Govern-
ment against a Reciprocity Treaty with Newfoundland; and in the preli-
minary arrangements for the meeting, while a number of subjects were
suggested for consideration, the Alaska boundary was not mientioned. Al-
most the entire time was taken up with commercial questions, of which
Mr. Blaine makes full report, and very briefly refers to other questions,
among them ,a commission to fix the boundary separating Alaska from
British territory," but there is no intimation of so serious a proposition
as an arbitration of that question. 11 I am not able to perceive, therefore,
that a proposition on the part of the British Representatives, assuming
it to have been made at such an informal Conference in the terms quoted
by your Lordship, bhut which the American Representatives refused to
consider, can be regarded as raising or opening the question of the






32 -

interpretation of the Treaty now under consideration. Undoubtedly, if
that suggestion had been adopted and carried into an executed agreement,
it might have been possible under it to raise before the Tribunal any
question whatever; but as a rejected proposition in the form stated it
opened nothing, certainly not the question of interpretation of the Treaty
raised by Canada's present claim.
It is suggested by your Lordship that the Treaty which was soon
afterwards signed by the Secretary of State, Mr. Foster, and the British
Charge, Mr. Herbert, was, and was expressed to be, ,with a view to the
ascertainment of the facts and data necessary to the permanent delimi-
tation of said boundary-line in accordance with the spirit and intent of
the existing Treaties;" and that it was ,agreed that as soon as practi-
cable after the Report of the Commission shall have been received, they
will proceed to consider and establish the boundary-line in question."
These facts and data were to be the result of the surveys of seientifice
experts, and no inference can be drawn from this Convention that there
existed any divergence of views as to the interpretation of the Treaty
of 1825, especially as to the point now under consideration. It brought
no such elaim to the attention of the American Government. What was
postponed, to be taken up after the Reports of the Commission should
come in, and upon the facts and data derived from such Reports, was
the consideration and establishment of the boundary-line. And it is now
believed that with the light thrown upon the topography of the country
by the elaborate series of maps on which the results of the joint survey
were embodied, if the question now raised whether the lisi&re runs
around the inlets or across their mouth were decided, the actual loca-
tion of the boundary in either view could be easily made by agreement
or by the present Joint High Commission. I| So far as the records of
the State Department disclose, the first proposition submitted by the
British Government for an arbitration of the Alaska boundary was con-
tained in the, note of the British Ambassador, Sir Julian Pauncefote, to
Secretary Sherman, which it now appears by your Lordship's despatch
he was directed to write before Her Majesty's Government had received
the maps referred to. It is true that in this note he refers to ,the wide
divergence of views existing," but when he comes to explain this by
particularizing the line respecting which his Government is most con-
cerned, he says: ] ,,The great traffic which is now attracted to the
valley of the Yukon, in the North-West Territory, by the recent disco-
very of gold in that region, finds its way there from the coast princi-
pally through certain passes at the head of Lynn Canal, and it becomes






33 -

more important than ever for jurisdictional purposes that the boundary,
especially in that particular loeality, should be aseertained and defined." [|
This was the last statement of the views of the British Government le-
fore the creation of the Joint High Commission, and it developed the
fact that up to that time the divergence now so much emphasized was
more apparent than real, as it recognized that the line in dispute about
the head of Lynn Canal was in the neighbourhood of the passes. And
this is the case in every instance cited in your Lordship's despatch
where the British Government has made any daelaration of its views. I
have already commented on the Earl of Iddesleigh's letter to Mr. Phelps
in 1886. In 1887-88 when the British and American Customs officials
came into conflict on the Stikine River, and Sir Edward Thornton sub-
mitted a proposition for a settlement, the question was whether the line
in accordance with the Treaty should be drawn across the river where
the Canadian surveyor had placed it 20 miles from tide water, or 30
miles. In 1872, when the effort was made for the creation of a Corm-
mission to mark the boundary, it has been shown that there was a con-
currence of opinion between the two Governments that the line should
be drawn across the rivers named, among which was the Skoot, which at
no point was less than 25 miles from tide water. It is clear that in
every instanee when up to the ereation of the Joint High Commission
the British Government has made any representation to the Government
of the United States respecting the boundary, it has related to the eastern
or interior line of contact with Canadian territory, either on the rivers
or in the mountain passes, and that whatever uncertainty or difference
of views was manifested arose from the want of precise knowledge as
to the topography of the country, and did not concern the interpretation
of the Treaty. It is also clear that at no time previous to the 3rd August,
1898, has the British Government intimated to the Government of the
United States a claim to the waters of the inlets extending into the strip
of mainland set off to Russia by the Treaty of 1825. I1 Certainly, until
such elaim was made, and the rights of the United States under the
Treaty in the territory now disputed were challenged, there was no oc-
casion for them to refer to the subject of possession, occupation, or
political control in any eorrespondence with Great Britain: but we main-
tain that possession, occupation, and political control of the territory
now disputed were exercised continuously from 1825 to the present time
by Russia and the United States in succession, and such exereise is in
its nature claim of title. |1 I have refrained in this comnmunication from
importing any extraneous considerations and arguments in support of an
Staatsarchiv LXX. 3






34 -

interpretation of the Treaty of 1825, but have limited it to what seems
to me to be cogent and conclusive grounds for the assertion that its
interpretation on the point presented has not been open in the long
period from 1825 to 1898. It is true that these views would be entitled
to equal consideration before a Tribunal appointed to interpret the Treaty
and settle the boundary, but the uniform acquiescence and occasional
concurrence of one party in an interpretation openly proclaimed and acted
on by the other, seems to be a complete answer to the claim that that
interpretation continues open. || If the British or Canadian Government
had at any time desired to enter a protest against the elaim of the
United States, abundant official data existed upon which such a protest
might have been based. In 1867, immediately after the signing of the
Treaty of Cession, the Department of State issued an official map of the
territory of Alaska, on which the international boundary was traced,
carrying it well beyond the sources of the streams emptying into Lynn
Canal, and this line has been accepted in all the cartographic publications
of our Government since that date. In 1883 the Secretary of State sent
to the British Minister in Washington, at bis request, copies of the An-
nual Reports of the United States' Coast and Geodetic Survey for 1874
and for other succeeding years, containing boundary limits of a similar
character. || The Census publications of 1880 and 1890 not only contained
a similar map, but also an enumeration of the Indian tribes of the terri-
tory, including those inhabiting the country about the head of the Lynn
Canal. Many other publications of a similar charaeter might be cited.
Her Majesty's Government, however, held its peace during the time of
these publications, and entered no claim to any part of the Lynn Canal
until after the Protocol had been signed in 1898, providing for a Joint
High Commission to adjust unsettled Canadian questions. I| The first
presentation by Her Majesty's Government of the present elaim of Canada
was made in the instructions issued by the Foreign Office to the British
members of that Commission, bearing date the 19th July 1898, which
was received by the Secretary of State on the 3rd August in that year.
During the Conferences of that Commission, the American Delegates
asserted that no such elaim had ever been put forward by the British
Government previous to the ereation of the Commission, and the asser-
tion was not ealled in question. Chairman Fairbanks, in bis letter to
Lord Herschell of the 14th February, 1899, referring to this claim, used
this language: |] ,,Our first advices on this subject were reeeived at
your hands since our Sessions began at Quebec . . If the views you
now present have been trged upon the attention of the United States at






35 -

any time prior to tho original Protocol (30th May, 1898), wo shall esteem
it a favour if you will be good enough to direct us to the fact and dateo;
further, we shall be pleased if you will advise us at what time since
1825 the British Governmnent made claim on either Russia or the United
States to any territorial rights round the upper part of Lynn Canal." ||
To this Lord Herschell, in his letter of the 15th February, 1899, re-
plied: jI ,,The statement that the views of the British Government had
not been made known till that time (the assembling at Quebec the
23rd August, 1898) is erroneous. The instructions given us by the British
Government made it perfeetly elear that the upper part of the Lynn
Canal was claimed as British territory . . . A copy of these in-
structions were sent on the 1st August, 1898, to the United States'
Secretary of State." || To this letter Chairman Fairbanks, under date of
the 16th February, 1899, responded as follows: I1 It is quite true, as
stated in your letter of yesterday, that the instructions of your Government
were sent to ounr Government a few days before tlie Quebec meeting, but
they did not, in fact, come to the attention of the Commissioners until
they assembled at Quebec. You will no doubt recall the observation
made by General Foster, during your presentation of the British Case
upon the boundary, that the view then advanced by you respecting the
head of the Lynn Canal was the first distinet statement of the British
elaim. I do not recall that you seriously disputed it."
Thus the exact punmctum temporis of the first assertion of this claim
of Canada by Her Majesty's Government is fixed. Your Lordship says
that ,the question immediately under discussion is whether or not the
dispute as to the boundary should be referred to arbitration, and it is
difficult to understand why the length of time during which the rival
claims to disputed territory have been matters of controversy should form
an element to be taken into consideration in that connection." But 1
may be pardoned, at the expense perhaps of painful repetition, for saying
Ihat the prucise question under immediate disscussion is not whether
there should be an arbitration, but assuming both sides to be so dis-
posed, whether the terms and scope of the Venezuelan Arbitration, where
the Arbitrators were left free to wander over the whole breadth of
territory which had been the subject of constant and open dispute for
more than a century, and to make the boundary which they could not
lind, should be applied to this case, where a line fixed by a Treaty in
1825, a plain interpretation of which has been uniformly and publiely
asserted by ohne party without question or protest by the other for
seventy-three years, is at the end of that time assailed and a new line
3*






36 -

claimed and where the one claim or the other must be right leaving
no middle ground on which to create a boundary in the place of the one
fixed by the Treaty. |i I am sure that these views, offered at your
Lordship's suggestion, will receive consideration at the hands of Her
Majesty's Governinent. 11 I beg to assure your Lordship that the Govern-
ment of the United States is under no misapprehnsion as to the nature
and scope of the proposal for arbitration submitted by Her Majesty's
Government. If I dwelt almost exclusively in my note of the 9th August,
as I have done in this communication, "upon the boundary in the ncigh-
bourhood of the Lynn Canal," it was because I took that as the most
striking example of all the inlets, and because I rcgarded the question
whether the boundary of the Treaty runs around them or across their
mouths as the most important and as the ohne which keeps us so far
apart. For, if this question were once solved, neither the question of
the water boundary, described in the Treaty as ,ascending to the north
along the channel called Portland Channel," nor the actual demarcation
of the land line by mountain crests or by the 10-league measure would,
I think, be difficult to tettle either by Convention or by the aid of the
Joint High Commission. While the elaim of Her Majesty's Government
is not stated with absolute distinctness in your letter of instruction of
the 19th July, 1898, it was to be inferred from its perusal that the
British Commissioners would maintain that under the Treaty Great
Britain should at least be entitled to a portion of Lynn Canal. And in
the conferences of the Commission a map was submitted by them (doubtless
the one referred to by your Lordship) with a boundary-line traced upon
it setting forth the British elaim, which developed a divergenze of views
as to the line, not only in the region of the Portland Canal, but along
the entire mainland of the lisi6re. It is therefore distinctly understood
that the British proposal of arbitration relates not only to the entire
line of the strip of territory from Portland Canal to Mount St. Elias on
the mainland, but that it embraces in the submission the British elaim
to a portion of all the inlets extending into the mainland, and to the
greater part of Lynn Canal." II I need not repeat what I said in my note
of the 9th August, as to the necessity of excepting from the perils of
any arbitration settlements made by American eitizens in good faith under
the authority and actual jurisdiction of the Government of the United
States before the claim now made on the part of Canada was ever presented
by Her Majesty's Government. Such necessity and the injustice of involving
them in an arbitration are too obvious. Joseph H. Choate.






37 -

Nr. 13217. VEREINIGTE STAATEN. Vertragsentwurf.

Convention between the United States of America and the United Kingdom
of Great Britain and Ireland for determining by Arbitration the true
T'rcaty-boundary between the Territory of Alaska and the British Posses-
sions in North America.
(Communicated unofficially by Mr. Hay and forwarded by Lord Pauncefote,
May 10, 1901.)
The United States of America and Her Majesty the Queen of the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, equally desirous for the
friendly and final adjustment of the differencces which exist between them
in respect to the true meaning and application of certain clauses of the
Convention between Great Britain and Russia, signed the 16th (28th
February, 1825, which clauses relate to the delimitation of the boundary-
line between the British possessions in North America and the territory
of Alaska, now a possession of the United States, in virtue of the cession
thereof to the United States by Russia by the Convention between the
last-named Powers, signed at Washington, the 30th March 1867, wherein
said clauses are embodied as defining the said territory so ceded, have
resolved to provide for the submission of the questions as hereinafter
stated to arbitration, and to that end have appointed their respective
Plenipotentiaries as follows: ]| The President of the United Staates
of America, the Honourable John Hay, Sccretary of State of the United
States; and ] Her Britannic Majesty, the Right Honourable Lord Paunce-
fote, G.C.B., B.C.M.G., Her Britannic Majesty's Ambassador Extraordinary
and Plenipotentiary: 11 Who, after an exchange of their full powers, which
were found to be in good and due form, have agreed upon the following
Articles: -
Article I.
An Arbitral Tribunal shall be immediately appointed to consider
and decide the questions set forth in Article IV of this Convention. The
said Tribunal shall consist of six impartial jurists of repute, each of
whom shall before entering upon his duties subscribe an oath that he
will impartially consider the arguments and evidence presented to the
Tribunal and decide thereupon according to his true judgment. Three
members of the Tribunal shall be appointed by the President of the
United States and three by Her Britannic Majesty. All questions consi-
dered by the Tribunal, including the final Award, shall be decided by a
majority of all the Arbitrators. |I In case of the refusal to act, or of the
death, incapaeity, or abstention from service of any of the persons so






38 -

appointed, another impartial jurist of repute shall be forthwith appointed
in his place by the same authority which appointed bis predecessor. |I
The Arbitrators may appoint a Secretary, and such other officers as may
be requisite to assist them, and may employ scientific experts, if found
to be necessary; fixing a reasonable compensation for such officers and
such experts. The Tribunal shall keep an accurate record of all its
proceedings. |I Each of the Higl Contracting Parties shall make compen-
sation for the services of the Arbitrators of its own appointment, and of
any Agent, Counsel or other person employed in its behalf, and shall
pay all costs incurred in the preparation of its Case. All expenses rea-
sonably incurred by the Tribunal in the performance of its duties shall
be paid by the respective Governments in equal moities. 1| The Tribunal
may, subject to the provisions of this Convention, establish all proper
rules for the regulation of its proceedings.

Article II.
Each of the High Contracting Parties shall also name one person
to attend the Tribunal as its Agent to represent it generally in all matters
connected with the arbitration. |I The written or printed Case of each of
the two Parties, accompanied by the documents, the official correspon-
dence, and all other evidence in writing or print on which each Party
relies, shall be delivered in duplicate to each of the Arbitrators, and to
the Agent of the other Party, as soon as may be after the organization
of the Tribunal, but within a period not exceeding months from
the date of the exchange of ratifications of this Treaty. || Within four
months after the dclivery on both sides of the written or printed Case,
either Party may, in like manner, deliver in duplicate to each of the
Arbitrators, and to the Agent of the other Party, a Counter-Case, and
additional documents, correspondence, and evidence in reply to the Case,
documents, correspondence, and evidence so presented by the other Party.
The Tribunal may, howLver, extend this last-mentioned period when, in
their judgmnent, it becomcs necessary by reason of special difficulties which
may arise in the procuring of such additional papers and evidence. 1| If,
in the case submitted to the Tribunal, either Party shall have specified
or referred to any report or document in its own exclusive possession
without annexing a copy, such Party shall be bound, if the other Party
shall demand it, to furnish to the Party applying for it a duly certified
copy thereof; and either Party may eall upon the other, through the Tri-
bunal, to produce the original or certified copies of any papers adduced
as evidence, giving in uach instance such reasonable notice as the Arbi-








trators nuay require. |I Eaech Party may present to the Tribunal all perti-
nent evidence, docmnentary, historical, geographical, or topographical, in-
eluding maps and charts, in its possession or control which it may deem
applicable to the rightful decision of the questions submitted; and if it
appears to the Tribunal that tliere is evidence pertinent to the case in
the possession of either Party, and which has not been produced, the
Tribunal may in its diseretion order the production of the same by the
Party having control thereof. l| It shall be the duty of each Party through
its Agent or Counsel, within two months from the expiration of the time
limited for the delivery of the Counter-Case on botli sides, to deliver in
duplicate to each of the said Arbitrators and to the Agent of the other
Party a written or printed Argument showing the points and referring
to the evidencee upon which his Government relies. The Tribunal may,
if they shall deem further elucidation with regard to any point necessary,
require from either Party a written, printed, or oral Statement or Argu-
ment upon the point; but in such case the other Party shall have the
right to reply thereto.
Artiele III.
lt is agreed by the High Contracting Parties that the Arbitral Tri-
bunal shall consider in the settlement of the questions submitted to its
deeision the Conventions respeetively coneluded between His Britannic
Majesty and the Emperor of All the Russias under date of the 16th
(28th) February, A. D. 1825, and between the United States of Ameriea
and the Emperor of All the Russias coneluded under date of the
18th (30th) Mareh, A. D. 1867; and partieularly the Artieles III, IV, V,
and VII of the first-mentioned Convention, which in the original text
are word for word as follows: -
III. La ligne de demarcation entre les possessions des Hautes Parties
Contractantes sur la cte du Continent et les Iles de l'Amdrique Nord-
Onest, sora trac&e ainsi qu'il suit: 11 A partir du point le plus mdridional
de lile dite Prince of Wales, lequel point se trouve sons le parallele du
54 40' de latitude nord, et entre le 1330 et le 1310 degre de longitude ouest
(miridien de Greenwich), la dite ligne remontera au nord le long de la
passe dite Tortland Chmnnel, jusqu'au point de la terre ferme o elle
atteint le 565 degrd de latitude nord; de ce dernier point la ligne de
ddmareation suivra la crete des montagnes situdes paralllement h la ete,
jusqu'au point d'intersection du 141 degrd de longitude ouest (nmene
meridien): et, finalement, du dit point d'intersection, la myme ligne mnri-
dienne du 1411 degre formera, dans son prolongement jusqu'a la Mer
Glatiale la linite entre les possessions Russes et Britanniques sur le Con,-






40 -

tinent de l'Amirique Nord-Onest. 11 IV. I11 est entendu, par rapport a la
ligne de ddmarcation ddterminde dans 1'Article prkc6dent: [! 1. Que 1'ile
dite Prince of WVales appartiendra toute entiere a la Russie. |1 2. Que par-
tout o la crte des montagnes qui s'6tendent dans une direction paralle
a la cte depuis le 56e degrd de latitude nord au point d'intersection du
141e degrd de longitude ouest, se trouverait la distance de plus de 10
lieues marines de l'ocean, la limite entre les possessions Britanniques et
la lisire de cte mentionn6e ci-dessus comme devant appartenir la
Russie, sera formne par une ligne parallele aux sinuositMs de la cte, et
qui ne pourra jamais en etre 61loignge que de 10 lieues marines. 1| V. II est
convenu, en outre, que nul gtablissement ne sera form6 par l'une des deux
Parties dans les limites que les denx Artieles precedens assignent aux
possessions de l'autre. En cons4quence, les sujets Britanniques ne forme-
ront aucun 6tablissement soit sur la cte, soit sur la lisire de terre ferme
comprise dans les limites des possessions Russes, telles qu'elles sont
designdes dans les deux Artieles pr6c6dens; et, de meme, nul 6tablissement
ne sera forme par des sujets Russes au del des dites limites. |1 VII. II est
aussi entendu que, pendant l'espace de dix ans, dater de la signature
de cette Convention, les vaisseaux des deux Puissances, ou ceux appartenans
leurs sujets respectifs, pourront reciproquement frdquenter, sans entrave
quelconque, toutes les mers intdrieures, les golfes, havres, et criques sur
la cte mentionnee dans 1'Article III, afin d'y faire la p&che et le commerce
avec les indigenes."
The Arbitrators shall also take into consideration any action of the
several Governments, or of their respective Representatives, preliminary
or subsequent to the conclusion of said Treaties, so far as the same tends
to show the intendment of the Parties in respect to the limits of their
several territorial jurisdietions under and by virtue of the provisions of
said Treaties.
Artiele IV.
The said Tribunal shall answer and decide the following questions:-
1. Referring to Artiele 111 of said Treaty of 1825 between Great Britain
and Russia, was it intended thereby that the line of demarcation should
be traced from the southernmost point of the island, now known as the
Prince of Wales Island, along the parallel of 54 40' north latitude to the
passage now commonly known and marked on the maps as the ,Portland
Channel," and thence along the middle of said channel northward until
said northward line shall reach on the mainland of the continent the 56th
degree of north latitude? |j If not, how should said line be traced to con-
form to the provisions of said Treaty? [I 2. In extending the line of de-






41 -

mareation northward from said point on the parallel of the 56th degree
of north latitude, following the crest of the monntains situated parallel
to the coast until its intersection with the 141st degree of longitude
west of Greenwich, subject to the condition that when such line should
exceed the distance of 10 marine leagues from the ocean, then the boun-
dary between the British and the Russian territory should be formed by
a line parallel to the sinuosities of the coast, and distant therefrom not
more than 10 marine leagues, was it the intention and meaning of said
Convention of 1825 that there should remain in the exclusive possession
of Russia a continuous fringe or strip of coast on the mainland, 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 de-
marcation should interseet the 141st degree of longitude west of the
meridian of Greenwich? |i If not, how should said line of demarcation be
traced to conform to the provisions of said Treaty?

Article V.
The Arbitrators shall assemble for their first meeting at
so soon as practicable after receiving their commissions, and shall them-
selves fix the times and places of all subsequent meetings. || The deeision
of the Tribunal shall be made so soon as possible after the conclusion of
the arguments in the Case, and within three months thereafter, unless
the President of the United States and Her Britannic Majesty shall by
common accord extend the time therefor. The decision shall be made in
writing and dated, and shall be signed by the Arbitrators assenting to
the same. It shall be signed in duplicate, one copy whereof shall be given
to the Agent of the United States of America for his Government, and
the other to the Agent of Her Britannic Majesty for his Government.

Article VI.
When the High Contracting Parties shall have rceived the decision
of the Arbitrators upon the questions submitted, as provided in the
foregoing Articles, they will at onee proceed with negotiations for the
final adjustment and demarcation of the said boundary-line in confor-
mity with such decision. 1[ Should there be unfortunately a failure by the
Smajority of the Arbitrators to agree upon any of the points submitted
for their deeision, it shall be their duty to so report in writing to the
respective Governments through their respeective Agents. Should there
be an agreement by a majority upon a part of the questions submitted,






42 -

it shall be their duty to sign and report their decision upon the points
of such agreement in the nianner hereinbefore prescribed.
Article VII.
The present Treaty shall be ratified by the President of the United
States, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, and by Her
Britannie Majesty, and the ratificeations shall be exehanged in Washington
or in London so soon as the same may be effected. || In faith whereof
we, the respective Plenipotentiaries, have signed this Treaty, and have
hereunto affixed our seals. || Done at Washington, in duplicate, this
day of A.D. nineteen hundred.

Nr. 13218. GROSSBRITANNIEN. Der Minister des Ausw. an
den Botschafter in Washington. Ansicht der eng-
lischen Regierung ber das vorige.
Foreign Office, February 5, 1902.
My Lord, Ilis Majesty's Government have carefully considered, in
communication with the Government of Canada, the draft Convention
communicated to your Excellency, unofficially, by Mr. Hay in May last,
which provides for the submission to arbitration of the Alaska boundary
dispute. While most anxious to reach a solution of this long-pending
question by means of arbitration, thcy find themselves compelled to
dissent froin the terms proposed in the following. points: | Artiele I.
As regards the composition of the Tribunal, His Majesty's Government
have always been averse froln referri ngthis important subject to a Court
so constituted as not to insure a final award. |1 Tlheir objection in the
present instance springs from the fact that an even number of Arbi-
trators drawn from either side does not afford security in the event of
differenees of opinion for a binding decision on the points submitted to
the Tribunal. |I Some doubt is felt, however, as to how far the United
States' Government regard the constitution of the Tribunal by an equal
number of Arbitrators appointed by each of the Parties as vital. Mr.
Choate, in bis note of the 9th August, 1899,*) stated that bis Government
regarded ,the question of the organization of the Tribunal as subordinate
to that concerning the snbject-matter to be arbitrated, and the terms
and conditions on which its action is limited." The advantage of having
a Tribunal constituted of an odd number of Judges seems obvious, and
His Majesty's Government would much prefer such an arrangement.
*) The termis of this note wure similar to the communication made by Mr. Choate
on the 2nd August aud recorded in the despatch tn Mr. 'Tnwer of that date INr. 13203).






43 -

Animated, however, by a strong desire to secure a reference to arbitra-
tion, they are willing t'o acquiesco in the proposed numnber of six, pro-
vided that at least one of the United States' Arbitrators shall not be a
eitizen of the United States, or a citizen or subjeet ofany State directly or indi-
rectly under the protection of the United States, and that at least one of the
British Arbitrators shall not be a British subject, or a subject or citizen ofany
Power or State directly or indirectly under the protection of His Britannic
Majesty. || The presence of two neutral Arbitrators would seem to inerease
the chances of receiving a majority Award; but this alternative would
be adopted with reluctance, and the suggestion should only be put for-
ward on behalf of His Majesty's Government in the event of the United
States adhering fixedly to their proposal for a Tribunal of an equal
number of Judges nominated by each side. |1 Artiele III. The final para-
graph of this Artiele provides that ,the Arbitrators shall also take into
consideration any action of the several Governments or of their respec-
tive Representatives preliminary or subsequent to the conclusion of said
Treaties, so for as the same tends to show the intendment of the Parties
in respeet to the limits of their several territorial jurisdictions under
and by virtue of the provisions of the said Treaties." This provision
appears to His Majesty's Government unnecessary, and they would prefer
that it should be omitted, though the point is one which they are pre-
pared to yield if the United States attach importance to it. |1 Article IV.
Sub-section 1 of this Article, which prescribes the terms of the reference,
runs as follows: | ,Referring to Artiele III of said Treaty of 1825
between Great Britain and Russia, was it intended thereby that the line
of demarcation should be traced from the sonthernmost point of the is-
land, now known as the Prince of Wales Island, along the parallel of
540 40' north latitude to the passage now commonly known and marked
on the maps as the ,Portland Channel', and thence along the middle of
said channel northward until said northward line shall reach on the
mnainland of the eontinent the 56th degree ofnorth latitude?" || His Majesty's
Government take exception to the terms of this sub -seetion on the ground
that the contention of the United States with respect to the course the
line of demarcation should take between Prinee of Wales Island and
Portland Channel is put forward as the natural and primary interpre-
tation of Article III of the Convention of 1825, whereas, so far from this
being the case, the words ,allong the parallel of 540 40'" do not occur
in the Treaty as indicating the direction of the line between the points
naied above. |1 They also feel bound to deinur to the language of the
second sub-section, which reads as follows: [ ,In extending the line






44 -

of demarcation nothwards 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 when such
line should 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
therefrom not more than 10 marine leagues, was it the intention and
meaning of said Convention of 1825 that there should remain in the
exclusive possession of Russia a continuous fringe or strip of coast on
the mainland, 10 marine leagues in width, separating the British posses-
sions 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? |II If not, how should
said line of demarcation be traced to conform to the provisions of said
Treaty?" | It is assumed in the recital that the line of demareation might
at places exceed the distance of 10 marine leagnes from the ocean, and
they regard the placing of the extreme contention of the United States
with respect to the location of the line in the forefront of the reference
as open to the same objection which they take in regard to the first
sub-seetion. |[ In the opinion of Ilis Majesty's Governmnent, the terms of
reference should not give prominence to one eontention over the other,
but rather should state in clear and unambiguous terms the questions
whose determination can alone deeide the issue.
Though not wedded to any particular form of words, they submit
that these questions might preferably be formulated as follows: |I Re-
ferring to Artieles III and IV of the Convention of 1825 -" || 1. What
is intended as the point of commencement? I| 2. What channel is Port-
land Channel? |[ 3. What course should the line take fromin the point of
commencement to the entrance to Portland Channel? 1| 4. To what point
on the 56th parallel is the line to be drawn from the head of Portland
Channel, and what course should it follow between these points? || 5. What
are the mountains referred to as situated parallel to the coast, which moun-
tains, when within 10 marine leagues from the coast, are declared to
form the eastern boundary? |I 6. 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 lisi'ee which was to belong to Russia
be measured (1) from the coast of the ocean strictly so-called, along a
line perpendicular thereto, or (2) was it the intention and mcaning of






45 -

the said Convention that where the coast is indented by deep inlets,
forming part of the territorial waters of Russia, the width of the lisitrc
was to be measured (a) from the line of the general direction of the
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 in-
lets? 11 These questions appear to His Majesty's Government eminently
fair. They are framed with the object of placing the case before the
Arbitrators in such a manner as to secure a deeision upon all the points
at issue without bias or favour to one side or the other. |l Artiele VI
provides that ,when the High Contracting Parties shall have received
the decision of the Arbitrators upon the question submitted, as provided
in the foregoing Artieles, they will at once proceed with negotiations for
the final adjustment and demarcation of the said boundary-line, in con-
formity with such decision." |1 His Majesty's Government doubt whether
any negotiations between the respective Governments should be considered
necessary after the decision of the Arbitrators has been received by
thein. They are disposed to regard this proviso as opening the door to
further difficulties and delays, and would suggest that Article VI should
rather be remodelled as follows: | ,,When the High Contracting Parties
shall have received the decision of the Arbitrators upon the questions
submitted, as provided in the foregoing Artieles, which decision shall be
final and binding upon all Parties, they will at once appoint, each on
its own behalf, one or more scientific exports, who shall with all con-
venient speed proceed together to lay down the boundary-line, in con-
formity with such decision." 11 His Majesty's Government, recalling the
disposition of United States' Representatives, on the International Joint
High Commission of 1898 99, to limit to certain portions of the line
the scope of the arbitration then proposed, consider that the draft Treaty
under consideration should contain a stipulation in precise and positive
terms, to the effect that the reference is intended to include, and does
inelude, the definition of the entire boundary at every point between the
southernmost point of Prince of Wales Island and Mount St. Elias. 11 His
Majesty's Government do not overlook the possibility of an Award by
such a Tribunal as is contemplated by the present negotiations being ab-
solutely against Canada or absolutely against theUnited States, and that, in the
latter event, certain portions of the disputed territory which have been settled
under the authority of the United States' Government might turn out to be
British territory. They realize that the ownership of these localities is the
main contention at the present time, and they aru willing to agree to any
arrangement which shall equitably provide for the contingency above in-






46 -

dicated. |1 The precedent of Treaty between Great Britain and Venezuela,
in Artiele IV of which provision was made for the case of previous
occupation and for the recognition of other rights and elaims, appoars
to them exactly in point, and its application to this almost identical case
singularly appropriate. They recognize, however, that owing to the
peculiar features of the American Constitution concerning the Treaty-
making power, a settlement on the lines of that precedent might prove
in the end impracticable of attainment. They therefore refrain from
suggesting any express stipulations on this head, preferring to leave
your Excellency full latitude to provide by some means that if either of
the Contracting Parties should be found to be in possession of territory
belonging to the other, the Arbitrators should be empowered to deal
with such a condition of things as might seem to them best fitted to
meet the equities of the case. 1] I should wish your Excelleney to communi-
cate to Mr. Hay in such form as you may consider most suitable the
views of His Majesty's Government as above indieated, and to discuss
with him the points in which the proposals of His Majesty's Government
diverge from those of the United States.
Lansdowne.


Nr. 13219. GROSSBRITANNIEN. Der Minister des Ausw. an
den Botschafter in Washington. Stand der Ver-
handlung. Antwort auf Nr. 13216.
Foreign Office, August 18, 1902.
Sir, I| The communication relative to the Alaska boundary, addressed
to me by the American Ambassador on the 22nd January, 1900, received
careful attention and a reply had been prepared, when Lord Pauncefote
reported that Mr. Hay had handed to him the draft of a Treaty for
determining the question by arbitration. 1| This important proposal appea-
red to denote the commencement of a new phase in the negotiations,
and it seemed to His Majesty's Government that in the end no useful
purpose would be served by presenting, at such a moment, a rejoinder
to the Ambassador's argument. [| The Government of Canada were accor-
dingly consulted with regard to the draft Treaty, and, in March last,
Lord Pauncefote, in accordance with his instructions, presented to Mr.
Hay a Memorandum stating that His Majesty's Government, while most
anxious to reach a solution by means of arbitration, felt bonnd to indi-
cate some points on which they dissented from the terms of the draft. 1
No definite reply was returned to this communication, but His Majesty's






47 -

Government were given to understand that thc President was not disposed
to continue negotiations on the basis of 3r. Hay's draft. It was, there-
fore, considered desirable to take advantage of the presence in this country
of the Governor-General of Canada and of Sir Wilfrid Laurier and some
of bis colleagues to discuss the present position of the question. |1 I took
an opportunity of montioning this to the American Ambassador, and, in
the course of our conversation, he reminded me of his note of January
1900, and remarked that, so far as he was aware, no reply had ever
been made to it. |i As the absence of a rejoinder might be considered to
imply inability to meet the arguments advanced, it is desirable that I
should place on record the following observations: |1 His Majesty's
Government learned with satisfaction from his Excellency's note that the
Government of the United States were not averse to a reference of the
main difference between Great Britain and the United States to the ad-
judication of an independent Tribunal, but rather contemplated the pro-
bability of such a mode of settlement of this long-pending controversy.
They agree that what the Ambassador deseribes as the paramount issue
- namely, whether the line should be drawn across inlets or round their
heads can best be decided by this means, but they are unable to share
the view that the particular course which the line is to take when the
above question has been settled can be satisfactorily determined by a
joint survey. A joint survey has already been made, and if the diffe-
rences between the two Governments could not be settled by the aid of
the very complete maps thereby afforded, it is scarcely to be anticipated
that a fresh survey would achieve a more definite result. It seems rather
that the ,minor or secondary" though ,highly important" questions,
namely, the exact location of the boundary-line and its precise distance
from the coast, are analogous to those involved in the main issue, and
can only be determined by a similar process. For instance, assuming that
the question of inlets had been decided, and a joint survey dispatched
to lay down the boundary in conformity with the provisions of the Treaty
of 1825, which preseribes that the line shall follow the summit of the
mountains situated parallel to the coast, the British surveyors would
naturally interpret this to mean the summit of the mountains nearest
the coast, while it is possible that the United States' surveyors might
contend for the highest range. How could this point be decided? Yet
upon the deeision would depend the possession of part of the town of
Skagway, even supposing the ownership of the heads of inlets was decided
adversely to the British contention. Again, it there should be a break
in the mountain range which it is decided to follow, shonld the line






48 -

across the break be drawn parallel to the coast-line between the same
degrees of latitude as the terminals of the break or parallel to the
general trend of the coast-line. Controversies over these points, and
others of a similar character, the least of which might turn out to be
of farreaching importance, would, it is to be feared, arise, and it is scar-
cely to be expected that surveyors in the field could reach an agreement
upon them, nor, indeed, would it be expedient to allow them such latitude.
With regard to the question relative to the heads of inlets, AMr. Choate
observed that of the two absolutely distinct interpretations which have
been presented by Great Britain and the United States, ,one or the other
is right, and can and should be ascertained and determined so to be to
the exclusion of the other." The same argument is equally applicable to
many occasions of difference which surveyors sent to lay down the boun-
dary would encounter. For these reasons His 3Majesty's Government aro
of opinion that all questions which depend for their solution upon the
interpretation of the Treaty should be simultaneously referred to arbitra-
tion, to determine the true meaning of that instrument, and this, not
nierely with regard to the Lynn Canal or any other particular point, but
in respect of the whole line, throughout its entire length, from the
southernmost point of Prince of Wales Island to Mount St. Elias. What
is desired by both Governments is the termination of the dispute, and
this appears to be the only way in which it can be satisfactorily and
permanently settled.
The objection recorded by Mr. Choate to the application of the
Venezuela Treaty to the adjustment of the present controversy seems to
be directed against the provision for compromise which that arrangement
affords, and the latitude given to the Tribunal constituted under it; but,
for the reasons which have been already adduced in Lord Salisbury's
despatch of the 14th October, 1899, His Majesty's Government still con-
sider that the circumstances of the Alaska boundary controversy are such
as to warrant an unqualified submission to an impartical Tribunal, and
it was solely with the desire to meet the objections of the United States'
Representatives that the British members of the Joint High Commission
of 1898-99 proposed to allow that continued adverse possession should
be recognized, and full regard had to the equities of the case. With this
object in view, it appeared to them that the Venezuela Treaty offered a
convenient and suitable precedent. Accordingly, they proposed arbitration
on those lines; but His Majesty's Government are not wedded to a parti-
cular formula, and are prepared to consider any reasonable modifications
to the rules suggested (not inconsistent with finality of decision) which






-- 49 -

the United States inay consider thhe special ecirciistances of thl case to
call for. Towards such questions as the composition of the Tribunal and
its organization, as well as the terms of reference, His Majcsty's Govern-
ment have, with the qualification above mentioned, adopted no fixcd
attitude, nor have they declined to recconsider the original proposal of
tho British side of the Joint High Commission, which, at the same time,
they conceive to be eminently fair to the United States. j| But while they
are thns prepared to acquiesce in every reasonable concession, it would
be difficult to include in that category without some reciprocal concession
or compensation the stipulation contained in the last paragraph of the
Amibassador's note, to the effect that all settlements made by American
citizens in the disputed territory under the authority of their Governmont
up to a very recent period shall remain the property of the United
States. The main question in this controversy is that which involves the
ownership of the heads of inlots in general, and of the Lynn Canal in
particular. That canal derives its present importance from the fact of
its forming the natural approach to the gold-bearing regions of the
Canadian interior, which are accessible by sea in those latitudes through
the ports of Dyea, Skagway, and Pyramid Harbour. The valleys in the
rear of these ports are the only known avenues of approach to the in-
terior which come down to the Lynn Canal, and are consequently the
measure of its value. Their ownership must therefore constitute, in the
view of the United States' Government, the chief object of the arbitration.
There cannot be a doubt that the proposal of the United States' Pleni-
potentiaries at the meeting of the Joint High Commission, renewed by
Mr. Choate, to except from the ,perils of any arbitration all towns or
settlements on tide water settled under the authority of the United States
and under the jurisdiction of the United States at the date of this Treaty,"
was put forward with the object of securing Dyea, Skagway, and Pyramid
iHarbour, for they are the only settlements on tide-water that can pos-
sibly be embraced by the definition. The suggested reservation, therefore,
seems equivalent to a declaration on the part of the United States' Go-
vernment that they will accept arbitration only on condition that the
principal objects of the reference shall be theirs in any event, and that
Great Britain will so covenant before the parties go into Court. || The
proposal secms based on the assumption that the settlements at the head
of the Lynn Canal were estahlished under the authority of the United
States prior to the annonncement of any claim to the territory in question
on the part of Great Britain. So confidently is the soundness of this
contention assumed, that several times in his Excellency's note it is em-
Staatsarchiv LXX. 4






50 -

phasized by the express inclusion of Canada, as distinct from the mother-
country, in the charge of having said or done nothing prior to 1898 to
indicate her claim. |1 I will not recapitulate the arguments to the contrary
which have been previously advanced. There is one point, however, with
which I must deal in some detail. Mr. Choate suggested that too much
weight had been given to Mr. Dawson's letter of the 7th February, 1888,
laid before the Fisheries Commission of that year, and argues that the
meetings between that gentleman and Professor Dall were wholly in-
formal; that neither possessed any delegated authority whatever, and
that their opinions could not be held to commit anybody but themselves.
While it is true that the conferences between Messrs. Dawson and Dall
were informal, these gentlemen were experts specially selected by their
respective Governments, and their views must therefore be held to beo
those of the Governmnents which they represented. That this was so
understood at the time is evident from the map (No. 16) which accom-
panies the Reports of both experts submitted to Congress by President
Cleveland o the 2nd March, 1889. That map is a reproduction of one
prepared in Ottawa for the purposes of the Conference of 1887-88. As
originally published it showed no boundary-lines, but upon a few copies
lines were drawn in ink by Dr. Dawson, showing (1) a boundary-line as
given on the United States' Coast Survey Map of Alaska, 1884; (2) a
boundary-line approximately following the summits of mountains parallel
to the coast, in presumed conformity with the text of the Convention of
1825, as understood by the Canadian Government; (3) one of the con-
ventional \ines discussed during the conferences, and referred to in the
printed correspondence between Dr. Dawson and Sir C. Tupper, which
the latter laid before the Commission. It was not possible to draw the
second conventional line, as this depended upon geographical details not
determined at the time. A note upon the face of the map states that
the line from the United States' Coast Survey Map ,,disregards both the
Treaty reference to mountains and that to the ocean coast." A copy of
the lithographed map, with the lines and notes above referred to, was
supplied to Professor Dall, and is reproduced in fac-simile as Map No. 16
above referred to. ]1 That the line following the mountains parallel to
the coast, crossing all the larger inlets, must at the time have been ac-
cepted as embodying the Canadian view of the meaning of the Treaty
of 1825 is shown by the addition by the United States' authorities to
the fac-simile (at the top and outside the horder of the map) of the
words ,Dawson's Canadian Map, 1887, showing conventional lines pro-
posRd by Canada." This map, as originally prepared, and also with






51 -

Dr. Dawson's additions, was publislicd by the United States' Government
and submitted to Congress.
The statement by Mr. Choate that the meetings between Messrs.
Dawson and Dall were not held during the sittings of the Joint High
Commission of 1888 seems to have been made under a misapprehension.
An examination of the Protocols of the Commission discloses that on
the 9th January, 1888, Mr. Chamberlain suggested that Dr. Dawson and
Professor Dall should meet and endeavour to agree upon some definite
suggestions for the consideration of the Conference. On the 23rd January
Mr. Bayard coneurred in this suggestion, and on the 30th it was arranged
that Dr. Dawson should be summoned by telegraph. On the 2nd February
Mr. Camberlain announced that Dr. Dawson had arrived at Washington,
and Mr. Bayard informed the Conference that the necessary arrangements
would be made at once for him to meet Professor Dall. On the 7th
February Mr. Chamberlain reported to the Commission that Dr. Dawson
and Professor Dall had not made any progress on the question of the
Alaska boundary. The Commission sat on the 2nd, 3rd, 6th, and 7th
February. The conferences between Messrs. Dall and Dawson were
therefore held during the sittings of the Joint High Commission. The
inference that Sir C. Tupper dissociated himself from Dr. Dawson, because
in the former's note of transmission he referred to the latter's views as
his" i. e., Dr. Dawson's ,,own," appears to be based upon a mis-
conception of Sir C. Tupper's meaning. Bearing in mind that on the
same day on which Dr. Dawson's letter was written, Mr. Chamberlain
reported to the Conference that the two experts had failed to come to
any agreement, it is not surprising that Sir C. Tupper should allude to
Dr. Dawson's views as ,his own," meaning thereby his own, not as distinct
from those of the Government which he was there to represent, but from
those of his fellow-expert with whom he could not reach any agreement.
They were his individual views in the sense that they were not shared
by Professor Dall. These views were known to the Government of which
Sir C. Tupper was a member before Dr. Dawson was summoned to
Washington. If the Canadian Government were not in accord with them
it is scarcely likely that he would have been selected to confer with the
American export, nor is it probable that Sir C. Tupper would have placed
them before Mr. Bayard without, at any rate, some distinet and explicit
disavowal of responsibility for them. Moreover, as His Majesty's Go-
vernment ean confidently state, it is not the case, as suggested, that Sir
C. Tupper was in no mood to adopt General Caineron's opinions on the
subjeet of the Alaska boundary, for it was at the instance of Sir
4*






52 -

C. Tupper, at the time High Commissioner for Canada, that General Cameron
what selected by the Secretary of State for the Colonies to investigate
and report upon this question of the Alaska boundary. Sir C. Tupper,
in the year 1888, attached great weight to General Cameron's views on
the subject of the Alaska boundary, and, in a letter addressed to the
Secretary of State for the Colonies on the Ist August, 1888, he entirely
concurred in protesting against any attempt on the part of the United
States to disregard Canada's claim to the heads of inlets. He fortified
the protest of the Canadian Government by a Memorandum from General
Cameron's pen, of which a copy is herewith inclosed. 11 Attention mnst
also be given to the Message of the President of the United States,
transmitting these Reports and Maps of Dr. Dawson to Congress, and
to the Memorandum of his Seeretary of State, which accompanied them,
in which Mr. Bayard expresses the opinion that these doeuments are ,of
valne as bearing upon a subject of great international importance, and
should be put in shape for public information." I| It appears to His
Majesty's Government that the President thus publicly acquainted the
people of the United States of Canada's elaim to the heads of the inlets
more than eight years before anything in the nature of settlement was
begun at the head of the Lynn Canal, for beyond a few trifling acts of
occupation on the part of private individnals, at periods separated by
considerable intervals of time, no settlement was attempted in those
localities until the mining rush to the Klondike in the spring of 1897. |i
It is desirable, before concluding this despateh, to allnde to the statement
in Mr. Choate's communication that the United States' Government are
not aware that at the Conference held in Washington in February 1892
the Canadian Ministers proposed, as recorded in Lord Salisbury's despateh
of the 14th October, 1899, ,that a reference to some impartial authority
be made by Great Britain and the United States for the purpose of
aseertaining and deciding finally the true boundary, regard being had to
the Treaties relating to the subject, and likewise to the ease which may
be presented by either Governmnent, and to the testimony which may be
adduced as to the physical features and conditions ot that country." li
The accuracy of this record is confirmed by the Minutes of the proceedings
of this Conference, signed by the Canadian Delegates and concurred in
by Her Majesty's Minister at Washington. These Minutes, which were
published by order of the Canadian Parliament in the Sessions of 1892
and 1893, also record that on the 12th Febrnary, 1892, ,the various
contentions relating to the boundary were then explained," thereby in-
dieating that the existence of a divergence between the views of the re-








spective Governments as to the true meaning of the Treaty was recognized
at that date, and that each Government was acquainted with the claim
of the other. || The main facts in support of the British elaim have
already been fully set forth in previous commnunications, and it seems
unnecessary, as I have before said, to repeat thein; but His Majesty's
Government desire to place on record the foregoing supplementary obser-
vations in further elucidation of sonie points of their contention, and in
disproof of the suggestion that neither the Imperial nor the Canadian
Government adopted or put forward the British claim to the heads of
the inlets ,until after the Protocol of the 30th May, 1898." 1| You are
authorized to read this despatch to Mr. Hay, and to hand him a copy
of it should he so desire. Lansdowne.


Anlage.
Memorondum.
By way of Lynn Canal, of which the entrance is about 135 west
longitude, 58 20' north latitude, is at present the only practical route
to gold mines being worked on tributaries of the Pelly River, some in
British and some in United States' territory. |I The northern extremity
of Lynn Canal forks the western and eastern branches being formed
repectively by the inflow of the Chilkat and Chilkoot Eivers. |i The route
hitherto followed by rminers entering the country has been by the valley
of the Chilkoot across the height of lands called Perrier or Payer
portage. 1| The aseent to the portage is extremely tedious, but once
overcome, there is gained navigable water connected with the Pelly River
and the Ynkon River. Lieutenant Schwatka noted Perrier portage as
the point at which the boundary between United States' and British
territory passed, the United States' territory lying seaward, the British
territory inland. Lieutenant Schwatka had been employed to make a
reconnaissance in Alaska, but finding that country most accessible through
Lynn Canal, continued his exploration down the Pelly River in British
territory until it passed the meridian of 141 west longitude into United
States' territory. Lieutenant Schwatka's Report was published as a
Congressional Paper. II It is not known that there has been any other
official claim to Perrier Pass as the point at which the international
boundary runs. || From the ocean entrance to Lynn Canal, the head of
boat navigation up to the Chilkoot is about 80 iniles; from this point
tu Perrier Pass is somcwhliat in exceess of 30 miles, or 10 marine leagues. |I
Lynu Canul has water-wvays of less than 6 miles in breadth at no great






54 -

distance from its entrance. |1 It is contended on the Canadian side that
the 10 marine leagues given as the maximum breadth of the United
States' coast territory in the second sub-section of Article IV, Russo-
British Convention of 1825, may not be measured from any point within
an inlet not exceeding 6 miles in breadth, and that, consequently, it is
not, under any circuzmstances, possible that the international boundary
ean be anywhere so far inland as Perrier Pass. |I To avoid the incon-
venience of the ascent to the Perrier portage a diverging route, called
White Pass, a little to the eastward of Perrier Pass route, has recently
been explored. II Speculators interested in the gold mines in the interior,
and in transit of miners and their goods have for some time had their
attention turned to the desirability of opening up the White Pass route. ||
The greater part, if not all, of this divergent line is, it is contended,
within British territory; and as affecting the principles which are ulti-
mately to determine the whole of the British Alaskan boundary, as well
as seriously affecting a British route which may hereafter, with advantage
of the greatest importance, be opened through the Taku River Valley, it
is submitted that the United States' contention should be emphatically
protested against,


Nr. 13220. GROSSBRITANNIEN. Der Botschafter in Was-
hington an den Minister des Ausw. Die Ver-
einigten Staaten machen einen Schiedsgerichts-
vorschlag.
Washington, October 17, 1902. (October 17.)
(Telegraphic.) >| In a short conversation of unofficial character which
I had to-day with the Secretary of State, he alluded to the question of
the Alaska boundary. i| He renewed the proposal made to Lord Pauncefote
last March, viz., that a Tribunal should be appointed, the members of
which should merely place their reasoned opinions on record. I[ He still
held the opinion he had expressed to Lord Pauncefote that a settlement
would be facilitated by the appointment of such a Tribunal.


Nr. 13221. GROSSBRITANNIEN. Der Minister des Ausw. an
den Botschafter in Washington. Nimmt den Vor-
schlag an.
Foreign Office, December 0, 1902.
(Telegraphic.) 1| Alaska Boundary. |I With reference to your Excellency's
telegram of the 17th October, His Majesty's Government are ready to






55 -

give their favourable consideration to the pruposal again put forward by
Mr. Hay for the appointment of a Tribunal of Arbitration, of which the
members should merely record their reasoned opinions. This would
however, be on the understanding that the terms of reference are drawn
up, like those suggested in my despatch of the 5th February last, in
such a way that all aspects of the question are included.


Nr. 13222. GROSSBRITANNIEN und VEREINIGTE STAATEN. -Ver-
trag ber ein Schiedsgericht zur Regelung der
Alaskafrage.
Convention between the United Kingdom and ihe United States of America
for ihe Adjustment of the Boindary between the Dominion of Canada and
the Territory of Alaska.
His Majesty the King of the United Kingdoin of Great Britain and
Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor of India,
and the United States of America, equally desirous for the friendly and
final adjustment of the differenees which exist between them in respeet
to the true meaning and application of certain clauses of the Convention
between Great Britain and Russia, signed under date of the 28th (16th)
February, A.D. 1825, which elauses relate to the delimitation of the
boundary-line between the territory of Alaska, now a possession of the
United States, and the British possessions in North America, have resol-
ved to provide for the submission of the questions as hereinafter stated
to a Tribunal, and to that end have appointed their respective Pleni-
potentiaries as follows: || His Britannic Majesty, the Right Honourable
Sir Michael H. Herbert, K. C. M. G., C. B., His Britannic Majesty's Am-
bassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary; and |1 The Presidentof the Uni-
ted States of America, John Hay, Secretary of State of the United
States; I[ Who, after an exchange of their full powers, which were found
to be in good and due form, bave agreed upon the following Articles: -

Article I.
A Tribunal shall be immediately appointed to consider and deeide
the questions set forth in Artiele IV of this Convention. The Tribunal
shall consist of six impartial jurists of repute, who shall consider judi-
cially the questions submitted to them, each of whom shall first sub-
seribe an oath that he will impartially consider the argumnents and
evidence presented to the Tribunal; and will decide thereupon according
to his true judgment. Tiree meinbers of the Tribunal shall be appoiuted






56 -

by His Britannic Majesty and three by the President of the United States.
All questions considered by the Tribunal, including the final Award, shall
be deeided by a majority of all the members thereof. || In case of the
refusal to act, or of the death, incapacity, or abstontion from service of
any of the persons so appointed, another impartial jurist of repute shall
be forthwith appointed in his place by the same authority which appointed
bis predecessor. |1 The Tribunal may appoint a Secretary and a Bailiff
-to perform such duties as they may prescribe, and may employ scientific
experts, if found to be necessary, and may fix a reasonable compensation
for such officers. The Tribunal shall keep an accurate record of all its
proceedings. || Each of the High Contracting Parties shall niake compen-
sation for the services of the members of the Tribunal of its own
appointment, and of any Agent, Counsel, or other person employed in its
behalf, and shall pay all costs incurrcd in the preparation of its Case.
All expenses reasonably incurred by the Tribunal in the performance of
its duties shall be paid by the respective Governments in equal moieties. ]
The Tribunal may, subject to the provisions of this Convention, establish
all proper rules for the regulation of its proceedings.

Article II.
Each of the High Contracting Parties shall also name one person to
attend the Tribunal as its Agent. 1| The written or printed Case of each
of the two Parties, accompanied by the documents, the official corrc-
spondence, and all other evidence in writing or print on which each
Party relies, shall be delivered in duplicate to each member of the
Tribunal and to the Agent of the other Party as soon as may be after
the organization of Tribunal, but within a period not excecding two
months from the date of the exchange of ratifications of this Con-
vention. || Within two months after the delivery on both sides of the
written or printed Case, either Party may, in like manner, deliver in
duplicate to each member of the Tribunal, and to the Agent of the
other Party, a Counter-Case, and additional documents, correspondence,
and evidence in reply to the Case, documents, correspondence, and evi-
dcnce so presented by the other Party. The Tribunal may, however,
extend this last-mentioned period when, in their judginent, it becomes
necessary by reason of special difficulties which may arise in the pro-
euring of such additional papers and evidence. ]| If, in the case submittcd
to the Tribunal, either Party shall have speecified or referred to any report
or document in its own exclusive possession without annexing a copy,
such Party shall be bound, if the other Party shall deimind it, within






57 -

thirty days after the delivery of the Case, to furnish to the Party applying
for it a duly certified copy thereof; and either Party may call upon the
other, through the Tribunal, to produee the original or certified copies
of any papers adduced as evidence, giving in eaclih instancee such reasonable
notiee as the Tribunal may require; and the original or copy so requested
shall be delivered as soon as may be, and within a period not exceeding
forty days after receipt of notice. || Each Party may present to the
Tribunal all pertinent evidence, documentary, historical, geographical, or
topograpliieal, ineluding maps and charts, in its possession or control,
and applicable to the rightful decision of the questions submitted; and
if it appears to the Tribunal that tliere is evidence pertinent to the Case
in the possession of either Party, and which has not been produced, the
Tribunal may, in its discretion, order the production of the same by the
Party having control there of. |1 It shall be the duty of each party, through
its Agent or Counsel, within two months from the expiration of the time
limited for the delivery of the Counter-Case on both sides, to deliver in
duplicate to each member of the said Tribunal and to the Agent of the
other Party a written or printed Argument showing the points and
referring to the evidence upon which his Government relies, and either
Party may also support the same before the Tribunal by oral argument
of Counsel. The Tribunal may, if they shall deem further elueidation
with regard to any point necessary, require from either party a written,
printed, or oval statement or argument upon the point; but in such case
the other Party shall have the right to reply thereto.

Artiele III.
It is agreed by the High Contracting Parties that the Tribunal shall
consider in the settlement of the questions submitted to its decision the
Treaties respectively concluded between His Britannic Majesty and the
Emperor of All the Russias, under date of the 28th (16th) February, A.D
1825, and between the United States of America and the Emperor of All
the Russias concluded under date of the 18th (30th) March, A.D. 1867;
and particularly the Artieles III, IV, and V of the first-mentioned Treaty,
which in the original text are, word for word, as follows: -
III. La ligne de dUmareation entre les possessions des Hautes Parties
Contractantes sur la cte du Continent et les Iles de l'Amnrique Nord-
Ouest sera traede ainsi qu'il suit: 1 ,,A partir du point le plus mrridional
de l'ile dite Prince of lYdes, lequel point se trouve sous le parallele du
54 40' de latitude nord, et entre le 131 et le 133l degre de longitude
ouest (nturidien du Greenwich), la dite ligne remonlltera an nord le lhng





8 -

de la passe dite Portlawl Channel, jusqu'au point de la terre ferme oH
elle atteint le 560 degre de latitude nord; de co dernier point la ligne
de d4marcation suivra la crete des mnontagnes situdes paralllement
la cte, jusqu'au point d'interseetion du 141e degr6 de longitude onuest
(mAme miridien); et, finalement, du dit point d'intersection, la mime ligne
m6ridienne du 1410 degr6 formera, dans son prolongement jusqu' la Mer
Glaciale, la limite entre les possessions Russes et Britanniques sur le
Continent de l'Ainrique Nord-Onest. 1 JIV. 11 est entendu, par rapport
la ligne de d6marcation determinde dans 1'Article pr6edent: ji ,1. Que
l'ile dite Prince of Wales appartiendra tont entiere la Russie; I| ,2. Que
partout oh la crete des montagnes qui s'gtendent dans une direction
parallele la cte depuis le 566 degr6 de latitude nord au point d'inter-
seetion du 1410 degr6 de longitude ouest se trouverait h la distance de
plus de 10 lienes marines de l'oegan, la limite entre les possessions Britanni-
ques et la lisibre de ete mentionn6e ci-dessus comme devant appartenir
a la Russie, sera formco par une ligne parallele aux sinuosit&s de la cte,
et qui ne pourra jamais en Utre loignde que de 10 lieues marines. 11 V. 11
est convenu, en outre, que nul 6tablissement ne sera form6 par l'une des
deux Parties dans les limites que les deux Articles pr9c6dens assignent
aux possessions de l'autre. En cons6quence, los snjets Britanniques ne
formeront aucun 6tablissement, soit sur la cte, soit sur la lisiere de
terre ferme comprise dans les limites des possessions Russes, telles qu'elles
sont ddsign6es dans les deux Artieles pr6ecdens; et, de mdme, nnl 6tablisse-
ment ne sera forme par des sujets Russes au del des dites limites."
The Tribunal shall also take into consideration any acetion of the several
Governments, or of their respective Representatives, preliminary or subse-
quent to the conelusion of said Treaties, so far as the same tends to show
the original and effeetive understanding of the Parties in respeet to the limits
of their several territorial jurisdietions under and by virtue of the provi-
sions of said Treaties.
Artiele IV.
Referring to Articles III, IV, and V, of the said Treaty of 1825, the
said Tribunal shall answer and decide the following questions: i 1. What
is intended as the point of commencement of the line? |1 2. What channel
is the Portland Channel? |1 3. What eourse should the line take from the
point of commencement to the entrance to Portland Channel? I 4. To
what point on the 56th parallel is the line to be drawn from the head
of the Portland Channel, and what eourse should it follow between these
points? I 5. In extending the line of demareation northward from said
point on the parallel of the 56th degree of north latitude, following the






59 -

erest of the mountains situated parallel to the coast until its interseetion
with the 141 st degree of longitude west of Greenwich, subjeet to the
condition that if such line should anywhere exceed the distance of 10
marine leagues fromi 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 therefrom not more than 10 marine
leagues, was it the intention and meaning of said Convention of 1825
that there should remain in the exclusive possession of Russia a conti-
nuous 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 watcrs of the ocean, and extending from the said point
on the 56th degree of latitude north to a point where such line of de-
marcation should intersect the 141st degree of longitude west of the
meridian of Greenwich? il| 6. If the foregoing question should be answered
in the negative, and in the event of the summit of such mountains pro-
ving to be in places more than 10 marine leagues from the coast, should
the width of the lisiire which was to belong to Russia be measured (1)
from the mainland coast of the ocean, strictly so-called, along a line per-
pendicular thereto, or (2) was it the intention and meaning of the said
Convention that where the mainland coast is indented by deep inlets for-
ming part of the territorial waters of Russia, the width of the lisibre was
to be measured (a) from the line of the general direction of the main-
land 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? 1 7. 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?

Artiele V.
The Tribunal shall assemble for their first meeting at London so
soon as practicable after receiving thcir commissions, and shall themselves
fix tle times and places of all subsequent meetings. |] The deeision of the
Tribunal shall be made so soon as possible after the conclusion of the
arguments in the Case, and within three months thereafter, unless His
Britannic Majesty and the President of the United States shall by common
accord extend the time therefor. The deeision shall be made in writing
and dated, and shall be signed by the members of the Tribunal assenting
to the same. It shall be signed in duplicate, one copy whereof shall be
given to the Agent of Ilis Britannic Majesty for hlis Governient, and the
other to the Agent of the United States of America for his Government-






60 -

Article VI.
When the High Contracting Parties shall have received the decision
of the Tribunal upon the questions submnitted as provided in the fore-
going Articles, which decision shall be final and binding upon all Parties,
they will at once appoint, each on its own behalf, one or more seientific
experts, who shall, with all convenient speed, proceed together to lay
down the boundary-line in conformity with such deeision. || Should there
be, unfortunately, a failure by a majority of the Tribunal to agree upon
any of the points submitted for their deeision, it shall be their duty to
so report in writing to the respective Governments through their respec-
tive Agents. Should there be an agreement by a majority upon a part
of the questions submitted, it shall be their duty to sign and report their
decision upon the points of such agreement in the manner hereinbefore
prescribed.
Article VII.
The present Convention shall be ratified by His Britannic Majesty
and by the President of the United States, by and with the advice and
consent of.the Senate, and the ratifications, shall be exchanged in London
or in Washington so soon as the same may be effected. |1 In faith wherof
we, the respective Plenipotentiaries, bave signed this Convention, and
have hereunto affixed our seals.
Done at Washington, in duplicate, this 24th day ofJanuary, A D. 1903
Michael H. Herbert.
John Hay.

Nr. 13223. GROSSBRITANNIEN. Der Generalgouverneur von
Kanada an das Kolonialamt. Wnsche Kanadas
fr die Ernennung des Schiedsrichters.
Ottawa, March 6, 1903.
(Telegraphic.) || My Ministers regard the situation with much anxiety.
They desire to emphasize the fact that their assent to a Treaty which
provided for the creation of a Tribunal so composed as not to insure
finality was obtained on the stipulation in the Treaty that the members
of the Court would be impartial jurists of repute. . Their doubts as
to the effeetiveness of the contemplated arrangement as a means of sett-
lement were in some degree modified by the assurance that the members
of the Tribunal would approach the subject with unbiassed minds, and
that a judical interpretation of the Treaty of 1825 would be obtained.
The appoiutment to the Tribunal by the Unitcd States' Government of






61 -

gentlemen who are not Judges, and whose known views leave no room
for expectation of a judical consideration of the question, changes the
whole situation. If the whole question were now open to be dealt with
entirely from the point of view of Canadian interests, my Ministers would
licsitate to advise any further partieipation in proceedings. . j~ My
Ministers iave observed from the public press, and have also been offi-
eially informed that while the matter is still'under their consideration,
the Treaty has been confirmed by His Majesty's Government, and an ex-
change of ratifications has already taken place at Washington. It is
presumed that this faet precludes further discussion, and my Ministers
will, therefore, proceed to do whatever is necessary on thecir part to make
good the engagements of His Majesty's Government, but they must reserve
the right to submit to the Canadian Parlianient the whole correspondence,
or such statement of the case as will fully explain the whole matter, and
cspecially the manner in which the assent of Canada was obtained. II My
Ministers do not agree with the suggestion that the altered eircumstances
justify a departure on the British side from the disposition previously
manifested respecting the composition of the Tribunal. If members of
tle Tribunal are to be appointed by His Majesty's Government, my Mi-
nisters are of opinion that only Judges of the higher Courts, who in the
best sense of the words would be impartial jurists of repute, should be
chosen.


Nr. 13224. GROSSBRITANNIEN. Derselbe an Denselben. Das-
selbe.
Ottawa, March 7, 1903.
(Telegraphic.) || In view of the short time given for preparation of
the case, my Ministers desire to proceed immediately, and therefore suggest
an early settlement of proliminaries. 11 As to the composition of Tribunal,
my Ministers suggest Chief Justiee of England and two Canadian Judges,
names to be telegraphed hereafter.


Nr. 13225. GROSSBRITANNIEN. Das Kolonialamt an das
Ausw. Amt. Zusammensetzung desSchiedsgerichts.
Downing Street, March 9, 1903. (March 9.')
(Extraet.) || With reference to the letter from this Department of the
7 th instant respecting the composition of the Alaska Boundary Commission,
1 am directed to transmit to you, to be laid before the Marquess of Lans-
downe, eopyof atelegram from th e Governor-General of Canada, suggesting tho






62 -

appointment of the Lord Chief Jnstice of England and two Canadian
Judges as the British members of the Tribunal. |1 It is presumed that
Lord Lansdowne will coneur in this suggestion, and that he will take
the necessary steps to aseertain whother Lord Alverstone will be willing
to aet as the senior British member of the Tribunal.


Nr. 13226. GROSSBRITANNIEN. Das Ausw. Amt an das Kolo-
nialamt. Antwort auf das vorige.
Foreign Office, March 11, 1903.
Sir, 11 With reference to your letter of the 9th instant, I am directed
by the Marquess of Lansdowne to state, for the information of the Se-
cretary of State for the Colonies, that the Lord Chief Justice has con-
sented to serve as one of the British members of the Alaska Boundary
Tribunal. I am therefore to suggest that a telegram should at once be
addressed to the Governor-General of Canada, informing him that His
Majesty's Goverument agree to the proposal of the Dominion Government
that the Lord Chief Justice and two Canadian Judges should be appoin-
ted. Ij I am further to state that Lord Lansdowne has no objection to the
Canadian Government retaining the control and proparation of the British
Case and its defence and prosecution before the Tribunal, and they might
be informed that every facility will be given to the gentlemen nominated
by thlem as Counscl and Agent. I| Lord Lansdowne thinks that it will no
doubt be desirable to obtain the assistance and co-operation of the Law
Officers of the Crown. He presumes the Secretary of State for the Colo-
nies will deal with this point. F. H. Villiers.


Nr. 13227. GROSSBRITANNIEN. Der Generalgouverneour von
Kanada an den Kolonialminister. Ernennungen
der Schiedsrichter.
Government House, Ottawa, March 17, 1903.
Sir, 11 In confirmation of my telegrams, I have the honour to inform
you that my Government has appointed his Honour Sir Louis Amable JettC,
K.C.M.G., Lieutenant-Governor of the Province of Quebec, and Mr. Justice
Armour, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, as the Canadian
members of the British Tribunal under the recently ratified Alaska Bonn-
dary Treaty. jj My Government has also appointed the Honourable Clifford
Sifton, Minister of the Interior, as Agent; and Mr. Edward Blake, M.P.,
of London, and Mr. Christopher Robinson, K.C., of Toronto, as Counsel. i






63 -

Mr. Joseph Pope, C.M.G., Under-Secretary of State, Mr. W. F. King, Chief
Astronomer, and 3r. Wade, K.C., will be attached Lo the Commnission,
and, together with Mr. Sifton, will sail for England by the steam-ship
,,Codric," leaving New York on the 25th instant. Minto.


Nr. 13228. GROSSBRITANNIEN und VEREINIGTE STAATEN. -
Schiedsspruch.
Whereas by a Convention signed at Washington on the 24th day of
January, 1903, by Plenipotentiaries of and on behalf of His Majesty the
King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the
British Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor of India, and of and on
behalf of the United States of America, it was agreed that a Tribunal
should be appointed to consider and decide the questions hereinafter set
forth, such Tribunal to donsist of six impartial Jurists of repute, who
should consider judicially the questions submitted to them, each of whoni
should first subscribe an oath that he would impartially consider the
arguments and evidence presented to the said Tribunal, and would decide
thereupon according to his true judgment, and that three members of
ithe said Tribunal should be appointed by His Britannic Majesty and
three by the President of the United States: 11 And whereas it was further
agreed by the said Convention that the said Tribunal should consider in
the settlement of the said questions submitted to its deeision the Treaties
respectively concluded between His Britannic Majesty and the Emperor
of All the Russias, under date of the 28th (16th) February, A.D. 1825,
and between the United States of America and the Emperor of All the
Russias, concluded under date of the 18th (30th) March, A.D. 1867, and
particularly the Articles III, IV, and V of the first-mentioned Treaty,
and should also take into consideration any action of the several Govern-
ments or of their respective Representatives, preliminary or subsequent
to the conlusion of the said Treaties so far as the same tended to show
the original and effective understanding of the parties in respect to the limits of
their several territorial jurisdictions under and by virtue of the provisions of the
said Treaties: i| And whereas it was further agreed by the said Convention,
referring to Articles III, IV, and V of the said Treaty of 1825, that the
said Tribunal should answer and decide the following questions: 1
1. What is intended as the point of commencement of the line? | 2. What
ehannel is the Portland Channel? |1 3. What course should the line take
from the point of connmencement to the entrance to Portland Channel? ||
4. To what point on the 56th parallel is the line to be drawn from the






61 -

head of the Portland Channel, and what conrse should it follow between
these points? |i 5. 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 monntains situated parallel to the coast until its inter-
section with the 141st degree of longitude west of Greenwich, subject
to the conditions that if such line should anywhere exced the distanee
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 therefrom not more than 10 marine
leagues, was it the intention and meaning of the said Convention of 1825
that there should remain in tke exelusive possession of Russia a con-
tinuons 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 50th 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? 11 6. If the foregoing question should be answered
in the negative, and in the event of the summit of such mountains pro-
ving to be in places more than 10 marine leagues from the coast, should
the width of the lisiere, 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 terrritorial waters of Russia, the width of the lisibre
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? Il 7. 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?
And whereas His Britannic Majesty duly appointed Richard Everard,
Baron Alverstone, G.C.M.G., Lord Chief Justice of England, Sir Louis
Amable Jett6, K.C.M.G., Lieutenant-Governor of the Provinee of Quebee,
and Allen Bristol Aylesworth, one of His Majesty's Connsel; and the
President of the United States of America duly appointed the Honourable
Elihn Root, Secretary of War of the United States, the Honourable Henry
Cabot Lodge, Senator of the United States from the State of Massachusetts,
and the Honourable George Turner, of the State of Washingten, to be
members of the said Tribunal: 11 Now, therefore, we, the Undersigned,
having each of ns first suberibed an oath, as provided by the said Con-






65 -

vention, and having taken into consideration the matters directed by the said
Convention to be considered by us, and having judicially considered the said
questions submitted to us, do hereby make Answer and Award as follows: -
In answer to the 1st question ]| The Tribunal unanimously agrees
that the point of commencement of the line is Cape Muzon.
In answer to the 2nd question |1 The Tribunal unanimously agrees
that the Portland Channel is the channel which runs from about 55 56'
north latitude, and passes to the north of Pearse and Wales Islands. 11
A majority of the Tribunal, that is to say, Lord Alverstone, Mr. Root,
Mr. Lodge, and Mr. Turner, decides that the Portland Channel, after
passing to the north of Wales Island, is the channel between Wales Is-
land and Sitklan Island, called Tongass Channel. The Portland Channel
above mentioned is marked throughout its length by a dotted red line from
the point B to the point marked C on the map signed in duplicate by
the Members of the Tribunal at the time of signing their decision.
In answer to the 3rd question jj A majority of the Tribunal, that
is to say, Lord Alverstone, Mr. Root, Mr. Lodge, and Mr. Turner, deeides
that the course of the line from the point of commencement to the
entrance to Portland Channel is the line marked A B in red on the
aforesaid map.
In answer to the 4th question 11 A majority of the Tribunal, that
is to say, Lord Alverstone, Mr. Root, Mr. Lodge, and Mr. Turner, decides
that the point to which the line is to be drawn from the head of the
Portland Channel is the point on the 56th parallel of latitude marked D
on the aforesaid map, and the course which the line should follow is
drawn from C to D on the aforesaid map.
In answer to the 5th question || A majority of the Tribunal, that
is to say, Lord Alverstone, Mr. Root, Mr. Lodge, and Mr. Turner, deeides
that the answer to the above question is in the affirmative.
Question 5 having been answered in the affirmative, question 6 re-
quires no answer.
In answer to the 7th question i| A majority of the Tribunal, that
is to say, Lord Alverstone, Mr. Root, Mr. Lodge, and Mr. Turner, decides
that the mountains marked S on the aforesaid map are the mountains
referred to as situated parallel to the coast on that part of the coast
where such mountains marked S are situated, and that between the points
marked P (mountain marked S, 8,000) on the north, and the point mar-
ked T (mountain marked S, 7,950), in the absence of further survey, the
evidence is not sufficient to enable the Tribunal to say which are the
mountains parallel to the coast within the meaning of the Treaty.
Staatsarchiv LXX. 5





66 -

In witness whereof we have signed the above-written decision upon
the questions submitted to us.
Signed in duplicate this 20th day of October, 1903.
(Signed) Alverstone.
Elihu Root.
Henry Cabot Lodge.
Witness: George Turner.

(Signed) Reginald Tower,
Secretary.

Nr. 13229. GROSSBRITANNIEN. Meinung Lord Alverstones
20. Oktober 1903.
I.
Second Question.
What Channel is the Portland Channel?
The answer to this question, as indicated by the learned Counsel on
both sides, depends upon the simple question: What did the Contracting
Parties mean by the words ,the channel called the Portland Channel" in
Article III of the Treaty of 1825? This is a pure question of identity.
In oder to answer it one must endeavour to put oneself in the position
of the Contracting Parties and ascertain as accurately as possible what
was known to them of the geography of the distriet so far as relates
to the channel called the Portland Channel. || There are certain broad
facts which, in my opinion, establish beyond any reasonable question
that the negotiators had before them Vancouver's maps, the Russian
map (No. 5 in the British, No. 6 in the American Atlas), Arrowsmith's
maps (probably the map numbered 10 in the American Atlas), and
Faden's maps (British Appendix, pp. 10 and 11). |1 I have, moreover, no
doubt that the negotiators were acquainted with the information contained
in Vancouver's narrative. I do not think it necessary to state in detail
the evidence which has led me to this conclusion beyond stating that,
quite apart from the overwhelming probability that this was the case,
there are passages in the documents which, in my judgment, establish it
to demonstration, but, for the purpose of my reasons, it is sufficient to
say that I have come to that clear conclusion after the most careful
perusal of the doceuments. l] I will now endeavour to summarize the facts
relating to the channel called Portland Channel, which the information
afforded by the maps and documents to which I have referred, establish.
The first and most important is that it was perfectly well known before,
and at the date of the Treaty, that there were two channels or inlets,






67 -

the one called Portland Channel, the other Observatory Inlet, both of
them coming out to the Pacific Ocean. |i That the seaward entrance of
Observatory Inlet was between Point Maskelyne on the south and Point
Wales on the north. | That one entrance of Portland Channel was
between the island now known as Kannaghunut and Tongas Island. |
That the latitude of the mouth or entrance to the channel called Port-
land Channel, as described in the Treaty and understood by the nego-
tiators, was at 54 45'. || The narrative of Vancouver refers to the
channel between Wales Island and Sitklan Island, known as Tongas
Passage, as a passage leading south-south-east towards the ocean-which
he passed in hope of finding a more northern and westerly communication
to the sea, and deseribes his subsequently finding the passage between
Tongas Island on the north and Sitklan and Kannaghunut on the south.
The narrative and the maps leave some doubt on the question whether
he intended the name Portland Canal to include Tongas Passage as well
as the passage between Tongas Island on the north and Sitklan and
Kannaghunut Island on the south. In view of this doubt, I think having
regard to the language, that Vancouver may have intended to include
Tongas Passage in that name, and looking to the relative size of the
two passages, I think that the negotiators may well have thought that
the Portland Channel, after passing north of Pearse and Wales Island,
issued into the sea by the two passages above described. 11 For the
purpose of identifying the channel, commonly known as Portland Channel,
the maps which were before the negotiators may be useful. This is one
of the points upon which the evidence of contemporary maps as to gene-
ral reputation is undoubtedly admissible. It is sufficient to say that not
one of the maps which I have enumerated above in any way contradiets
the precise and detailed situation of Portland Channel and Observatory
Inlet given by Vancouver's narrative, and the other documents to which
I have referred. The Russian map of 1802 shows the two channels
distinetly; and the same may be said of Faden's maps, on which so much
reliance was placed on the part of the United States. 1| I do not attach
partieular importance to the way in which names on the maps are written
or printed, and therefore I do not rely upon the fact that, in the case of
some of these contemporary maps, the words ,Portland Channel" are
i written so as to include, within the name, the lower part of the channel
which is in dispute. From long experience I have found that it is not
safe to rely upon any such peculiarities. 1| After the most careful consi-
deration of every document in this Case, I have found nothing to alter
or throw any doubt on the conelusion to whieh I have arrived, and there
5*






68 -

are certain general considerations which" strongly support it. jj Russia and
Great Britain were negotiating as to the point on the coast to which
Russian dominion should be conceded. It is unnecessary to refer to all
the earlier nogotiations, but it is distinetly established that Russia urged
that her dominion should extend to 550 of latitude, and it was in furthe-
rance of this objeet that Portland Channel, which issues into the sea at
54 45', was conceded and ultimately agreed to by Great Britain. No
claim was ever made by Russia to any of the islands south of 54 45'
except Prince of Wales Island, and this is the more marked because she
did claim the whole of Prince of Wales Island, a part of which extended
to about 54 40'. |I The islands between Observatory Inlet and the
channel, to which I have referred above as the Portland Channel, are
never mentioned in the whole course of the negotiations. l1 It is suggested
on behalf of the United States that Portland Channel included both the
channels, namely, the channel coming out between Point Maskelyne and
Point Wales, and that running to the north of Pearse and Wales Islands,
and that, upon the doctrine of the thalweg, the larger channel must be
taken as the boundary. It is sufficient to say that, in my opinion, there
is no foundation for this argument. The lengths and the points of land
at their entrances are given in the case of each channel by Vancouver
in a way which precludes the suggestion that he intended to include
both channels under one name, and it must be remembered that he was
upon a voyage of discovery, and named these channels when he had dis-
covered and explored thein. 11 Inasmuch as the question submitted to us
only involves the determination of the channel described in the Treaty
by the words already cited ,the channel called Portland Channel," sub-
sequent history can throw no light upon this question; but I think it
right to say that the use in the year 1853 of the name Portland Inlet
in the British Admiralty Chart, upon which much reliance was placed
on behalf of the United States has, in my opinion, no bearing upon the
question, and the references to Tongas Island in 1835 as being on the
frontier of the Russian Straits, and in 1863 as being on the north side
of the Portland Canal, and in 1869 as to Tongas being on the boundary
between Alaska and British Columbia, are strongly confirmatory of the
view at which I have arrived upon the consideration of the materials
which were in existence at the date of the Treaty. || I therefore answer
the Second Question as follows: -
The Channel which runs to the North of Pearse and Wales Islands,
and issues into the Pacific between Wales Island and Sitklan Island.
Alverstone.






69 -

II.
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 therefrom not more than 10 marine leagues, was it the
intention and meaning of said Convention of 1825 that there should re-
main in the exclusive possession of Russia a continuous fringe, or strip
of coast on the mainland not exceeding 10 marine leagues in width, se-
parating 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 inter-
sect the 141st degree of longitude west of the meridian of Greenwich?
Stated shortly, I understand this question to ask whether the eastern
boundary whether fixed by the crest of the mountains or by a distance
of 10 marine leagues, was to run round the heads of the bays, ports, inlets,
havens, and waters of the ocean, or not, I have come to the conclusion
in the affirmative, viz., that the boundary, whether running along the
summits or crests of the mountains, or-in the absence of mountains-at
a distance of 10 marine leagues, was to run round the heads of the in-
lets, and not to cross them. || The language of the Treaty of 1825 does
not of itself enable this question to be answered distinctly-on the con-
trary, it contains the ambiguities which have given rise to the discussion
upon the one side and the other. || Paragraph 2 of Article III states that
the line of demarcation shall follow the summit of the mountains situa-
ted parallel to the coast (,parallMlement la cte"). This is the clause
upon which the question really depends, because in the event of moun-
tains being found to exist, situated parallel to the coast within a distance
of 10 marine leagues, no recourse need be had to Artiele IV. Article IV,
however, is of importance, as it may tend to throw light upon what was
the meaning of the word ,coast" in Artiele III; and the words in para-
graph 2 of Article IV are ,wherever the summits 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 a distance of more than 10 marine leagues from the






70 -

ocean". It is, in my opinion, correctly pointed out, on behalf of the
United States, that the word ,coast" is an ambiguous terni, and may be
used in two, possibly in more than two, senses. I think, therefore, we
are not only entitled, but bound, to ascertain as far as we can from the
facts which were before the negotiators the sense in which they used the
word ,coast" in the Treaty. 11 Before considering this latter view of the
ease, it is desirable to ascertain, as far as possible from the Treaty itself,
what it means, and what ean be gathered from the language of the
Treaty alone. The parties were making an Agreement, as the opening
words of the Treaty show, as to the limits of their respective possessions
on the north-west coast of America, and there eaunot be any question that
the word ,coast" in Artieles I and II refers to the north-west coast of
America. In Artiele III the opening words, ,upon the coast of the con-
tinent," also refer to the north-west coast of America. The first ambiguity
arises upon the word ,coast" in the phrase ,parallel to the coast" in the
description of the boundary in Artiele III, and as to the word ,coast"
in the words ,parallel to the coast" in the second paragraph of Article IV,
and the words ,the line of coast" and ,the windings of the coast" in the
same paragraph. Artiele V does not bear directly upon the question in
dispute, but the words ,or upon the border of the eontinent" (,lisiere de
terre ferme"), whieh follow the words iupon the coast," afford some slight
guide to the meaning of the word ,coast" in Artiele III. The word ,coast"
in Artiele VI evidently means the coast of the continent, as it is in con-
trast with the words ,ocean" and ,the interior." I postpone the consi-
deration of the meaning of the word ,coast" in Artiele VII, as it raises
a very important question, which is in controversy. Considering these
various passages, and the use made of the word ,coast" therein, do they
enable one, without reference to the previous negotiations, to answer the
question as to whether the strip of territory mentioned in Article III was
to run round the heads of the bays and inlets, or to eross them? I am
of opinion that they do not. The broad, undisputed facts are that the
parties were engaged in making an Agreement respecting an archipelago
of islands of the coast, and some strip of land upon the coast itself. The
western limit of these islands extends in some places about 100 miles
from the coast, and the channels or passages between the islands and
the coast are narrow waters of widths varying from a few hundred yards to
13 miles. In ordinary parlance no one would eall the waters of any of
these channels or inlets between the islands, or between the islands and
the mainland, ,ocean". I agree with the view presented on behalf of
Great Britain, that no one coming from the interior and reaching any of






71 -

these channels, and particularly the head of the Lynn Canal or Taku
Inlet, would deseribe himself as being upon the ocean; but, upon the
other hand, it is quite clear that the Treaty does regard some of these
channels as ocean. For instance, to take points as to which no question
arises, between Wrangell Island, Mitkoff Island, and Kupreanoff Island,
all of which are north of latitude 56, it cannot, I think, be disputed that,
for the purpose of the Treaty, the waters between these islands and the
mainland were included in the word ,ocean," and that the coast upon
which the eastern boundary of the lisi&re was to be drawn was the coast
of the continent, and the mountains referred to in Article III were to be
upon that coast, and the line referred to in paragraph 2 of Article IV
was to be measured from those waters. This consideration, however, is
not sufficient to solve the question; it still leaves open the interpretation
of the word ,coast" to which the mountains were to be parallel. I| Now,
it is to be observed that prima facie the eastern boundary is to be fixed
under Article III; as already pointed out, it is not necessary to have re-
course to Article IV unless the mountains which correspond to those
described in Article III prove to be at a distance of more than 10 marine
leagues from the ocean. Assuming that the boundary is being determined
in accordance with Article III, the mountains which are on the continent
are to be parallel to the coast, and a person fixing the boundary under
Artiele III would not leave the line which follows the summits or crest
of the mountains unless that line was situated at more than 10 marine
leagues from the ocean. As I have already pointed out, for a considerable
part of the distance referred to in Artiele III, namely, from the southern
end of Wrangell Island up to the northern end of Kupreanoff Island, the
distance must be measured from the shore of these inland waters, whieh,
and which alone, are the ocean referred to in Article IV. I am unable
to find any words in the Treaty which direct that the mountain line con-
templated by Article III shall cross inlets or bays of the sea. In so far
as the language of Article III of itself is a guide, it does not seem to
me to contemplate such a state of things. Of course, if the main con-
tention of Great Britain can be adopted, viz., that the words ,line of coast"
and ,windings of the coast," in paragraph 2 of Article IV, should it be ne-
cessary to have recourse to that paragraph, mean the general line of coast
or the windings of the general coast, exeluding inlets, the difficeulty would
disappear; but, in order to etablish that position, it seems to me that Great
Britain must show that the Treaty uses the word ,,coast" in the second para-
graph of Artiele III, and in the second paragraph of Article IV, in that sense.
I see some broad objections to this view. In the first place, it






72 -

necessitates the word ,coast" being used with two different meanings in
the same clause; and, secondly, it makes it necessary to assume a view
of the geographical position as being known to the negotiators, or to
postulate that they assumed some definition, or common understanding,
as to what the general line of the coast was. || There is, as far as I know,
no recognized rule of international law which would by implication give
a recognized meaning to the word ,coast" as applied to such sinuosities
and such waters different from the coast itself. || As I have said more
than once, the locus in quo to which the Treaty was referring precludes
the possibility of coustruing the word ,,coast" in any particular Artiele
in any special way, if it does not refer to the coast-line of the continent.
I think the words, ,upon the border of the continent (lisiere de terre ferme)
comprised within the limits of the Russian possessions," in Article V,
rather confirm the view that Russia was to get a strip all along the
continent, bus I do not think that much reliance can be placed upon this
because of the provision as to rivers and streams in Article VI. || Before
leaving the Treaty, it is, in my opinion, necessary to notice the very
important argument put forward by Great Britain, founded npon Article VII
It was contended by Great Britain that the words ,gulfs, havens, and.
creeks on the coast mentioned in Article III," referred only to the gulfs,
havens, and creeks on the lisiere or strip bounded as described in that
Article. If Great Britain could have made good that contention it would,
in my opinion, have afforded the strongest argument that the Treaty
contemplated that the lisiere or strip might cross bays, inlets, and arms
of the sea; but in my opinion the contention cannot be successfully main-
tained. || The coast mentioned in Article III is, in my opinion, the coast
of the continent, and the coast referred to in the second paragraph of
Article IV is also the coast of the continent. The lisiire, ascertained by
drawing the boundary in accordance with the directions in Article III,
is a strip upon the coast, and would not, I think, be naturally described
by the words ,the coast mentioned in Article III." My view is that the
provisions of Article VII are perfectly general, and gave mutual rights
for a period of ten years to Russia and Great Britain respectively in
respect of their possessions upon the north-west coast of America. 1[ Tur-
ning now from the consideration of the language of the Treaty alone,
what light is thrown upon this question by reference to the negotiations ?
After most careful examination, I have been unable to find any passage
which supports the view that Great Britain was directly or indirectly
putting forward a claim to the shores or ports at the head of the inlets.
This is not remarkable, inasmuch as no one at the time had any idea






73 -

that they would become of any importance. || In March 1824, among the
objects desired to be secured by Great Britain are stated to be the ,em-
bouchures" of such rivers as might afford an outlet. In the proposals
referred to in the same letter the lisibrc is spoken of as a strip of land
on the mainland, also as a strip of land on the coast of the continent.
In the same documents the boundary is spoken of as ,the mountains
which follow the windings of the coast," and in correspondence of July
1824 as ,following the sinuosities of the coast along the base of the
mountains nearest the sea," and ,the base of the mountains which follow
the sinuosities of the coast," and ,,mountains designated as the boundary
shall extend down to the very border of the coast." It is sufficient to
say that these passages certainly do not suggest, or imply, that the line
from summit to summit will cross any substantial arm of the sea; and
that it was not so understood by the negotiators for Great Britain, seems
to me to follow from the passage in the letter of the 24th July, 1824,
in which Great Britain consented to substitute the summit of the moun-
tains for the seaward base, and suggested that a stipulation should be
added that no fort should be established, or fortification erected, by either
party, on the summit or in the passes of the mountains. It is difficult
to see how such words could be applicable if it was contemplated that
there might be a gap of 6 miles between summit and summit crossing
the water. I have only to add upon this point that the language of both
the British and Russian Representatives, in reporting the conclusion of
the Treaty to their respeetive Governments, is in accordance with the
view which I have suggested. || I have felt it my duty to express the
reasons which have led me to the conclusion to which I have come, that
the answer to the Fifth Question should be in the affirmative, because I
am constrained to take a view contrary to that presented by the advo-
cates on behalf of Great Britain; but it must not be thought that I am
insensible to the fact that there are strong arguments which might be
urged in favour of the British view. I have little doubt that, if shortly
after the making of the Treaty of 1825 Great Britain and Russia had
proceeded to draw the boundary provided by the Treaty in accordance
with the terms thereof, the diffieulties, and, in certain events, the im-
possibilities, of drawing a boundary in striet accordance with the Treaty
would have been made evident. If, for instance, it had become necessary
to draw a boundary in accordance with paragraph 2 of Article IV of
the Treaty, I believe that the view expressed by both the American and
British authorities, that it is impossible to do so, would at once have
become apparent. And in the same way, if the contention of the United






74 -

States be well founded that no mountains exist on the coast which cor-
respond with the Treaty, a further diffieulty would have been made ma-
nifest. II 1 can, therefore, well understand and appreciate the contention
of Great Britain, that, under the existing state of cireumstances, diffieulties
in delimiting the boundaries deseribed mnst arise in one view, and might
arise in any view. But these considerations, strong as they are in favour
of a just and equitable modificeation of the Treaty, do not in my opinion
enable one to put a different construction upon the Treaty. I think that
the parties knew and understood what they were bargaining about, and
expressed the terms of their bargain in terms to which effect ean be
given. The fact that when, sixty-five years later, the representatives of
the two nations attempted to draw the boundary in accordance with the
Treaty, they were unable to agree upon its meaning, does not entitle me
to put a different construction upon it. 11 In the view 1 take of the terms
of the Treaty itself, it is not necessary to discuss subsequent aetion. Had
the terms of the Treaty led me to a different conelusion, and entitled me
to adopt the view presented by Great Britain, I should have felt great
difficulty in holding that anything that had been done or omitted to be
done by, or on behalf of, Great Britain, or that any conduct on her part,
prevented her from insisting on the striet interpretation of the Treaty;
nor do I think that the representations of mapmakers that the boundary
was assumed to run round the heads of the inlets could have been pro-
perly urged by the United States as a sufficient reason for depriving
Great Britain of any rights which she had under the Treaty, had they
existed.
I therefore answer this Question in the affirmative.
Alverstone.


Nr. 13230. GROSSBRITANNIEN. Meinung Mr. Aylesworths.
London, 17. Oktober 1903.
As the majority of the members of Tribunal have arrived at a con-
clusion which is entirely opposed to what, ,according to my true judgment,"
is the plain meaning of the Treaty we have to interpret, it appears
necessary that I should state as briefly as I am able a few of the many
reasons which compel me to dissent altogether from their Award. || With
regard to the point of commencement of the boundary line no question
arises, as all parties agree that it is Cape Muzon. j] Upon the second
question I quote the words of the President of this Tribunal, the italies,
except in one instanece, being my own. [1 Among the facts relating to






75 -

Portland Channel he finds 11 ,That the latitude of the mouth or
entrance to the channel called Portland Channel, as described in the Treaty
and u derstood by the ncgotiators, was at 54 45'."
Among the general considerations which support his conclusion he
states that ,,Russia and Great Britain were negotiating as the point
oa the coast to which Russian dominion should be conceded. It is un-
necessary to refer to all the earlier negotiations; but it is distinctly
established that Russia urged that her dominion should extend to 55 of
latitude, and it was in furtherance of this object that Portland Channel,
which issues into the sea at 54 45', was conceded and ultimately agreed to
by Great Britain. No elaim was ever made by Russia to any of the
islands south of 54 45' except Prince of Wales Island, and this is the
more marked because she did claim the whole of Prinee of Wales Island,
a port of which extended to about 54 40'. j] ,The islands between
Observatory Inlet and the channel, to which 1 have referred above as
the Portland Channel, are never mentioned in the whole course of the
negotiations."
These extracts are from Lord Alverstone's Memorandum, expressing
his considered judgment on this branch of the case. These conclusions
have been arrived at after full discussion among ourselves of the answer
which, upon the evidence, should be given to the second question in
which discussion each meniber of the Tribunal has stated, at length, his
individual views. Concurring, as I do, in the findings of fact stated in
this Memorandum, I should have contented myself with differing from the
conclusion reaehed but for the course our proceedings have taken. i| Con-
sideration of the second question has been to-day resumed, and by
unanimous vote of the Tribunal it has been affirmed that each member,
,,according to his true judgment," believes the Portland Channel mentioned
in the Treaty to be the channel extending towards the sea from latitude
55 56', and lying to the north of Pearse and Wales Islands. But,
notwithstanding this unanimous finding of fact, it has been, by the
majority of the Tribunal, decided that the boundary line, starting from
Cape Muzon, shall run to the south, instead of to the north, of Kan-
naghunut and Sitklan Islands, and so shall enter Portland Channel
between Sitklan and Wales Islands. 11 This course for the boundary is
directly opposed to the distinct findings made, and the whole line of
reasoning adopted by the President in his Memorandum of reasons for
the decision. It is a lineof boundary which was never so much as
snggested in the written Cace of the United States, or by Counsel, during
the oral argument befure us. No intelligible reason for selecting it has






76 -

been given in my hearing. No Memorandum in support of it has been
presented by any member of the Tribunal, and I can, therefore, only
conjecture the motives which have led to its acceptance. 1 It is admitted
by everybody as absolutely clear and indisputable that on the occasion
of his naming Portland Canal, Vancouver, in bis exploration of that
channel, traversed it from its head inland to its entrance into the ocean
in latitude 54 45', that, in so doing, he sailed down Portland Channel,
along the passage north of Pearse and Wales Islands, and straight onward
to the sea through the passage north of Sitklan and Kannaghunut Islands.
Every one knows and admits that Vancouver never traversed the passage
between Sitklan Island and Wales Island, through which this boundary
line is now made to run. No more can it be pretended that this passage
(which is now called Tongass Passage) was ever named by Vancouver,
was ever treated by him, or by any mapmaker at any time, as in any
way belonging to Portland Canal, or was ever thought of by those who
negotiated the Treaty of 1825 as being any part of that channel. il The
Lord Chief Justice finds as a fact, which the maps and documents etablish,
that one entrance of Portland Channel was between the islands now known
as Kannaghunut and Tongass. I concur entirely in this finding, but must
add that this entrance to the channel is the only entrance to it ever
known, or in any way treated as part of the channel. 1I There is simply
not the slightest evidence anywhere, that I am able to find, that either
Vancouver or any subsequent explorer or mapmaker ever considered, or
so much as spoke of, Portland Channel as having two entrances to the
ocean, or as including the passage through which this boundary line is
now made to run. 1| But even if there were two or more such entrances,
Vancouver's narrative and maps absolutely fix the one he explored and
named by giving its exact latitude to the minute 54 45'. And the
President finds, as a fact, that this month, or entrance, is the one ,des-
cribed in the Treaty and understood by the negotiators." li By what right,
then, can this Tribunal, sitting judicially, and sworn to so determine and
answer the questions submitted, reject the channel so ,described in the
Treaty and understood by the negotiators," and seek for a totally different
channel, which, until now, no one ever thought of as any part of the
Portland Channel mentioned in the Treaty? 11 I point to the additional
circumstances so forcibly stated by my Lord. The whole negotiations
were as to the ,point on the coast" to which Russia's southern boundary
should be carried. The Treaty fixes as that point the promontory of
the mainland immediately to the north of Kannaghunut and Sitklan Islands,
the latitude of which is 54' 45'. The next point of mainland coast to






77 -

the southward is Point Maskelyne, and it, of course, is undisputably
British territory. The islands which lie between were never asked for
by Russia. As the President's Memorandum says, they were never so
much as mentioned in the whole course of the negotiations. They lie
wholly to the southward of 54 45', wholly to the southward of the en-
trance to Portland Channel which alone is ,described in the Treaty," or
was ,understood by the negotiators," that is to say, wholly to the south-
ward of the true boundary, and yet the majority of this Tribunal is pre-
pared to take two of those islands from Canada and transfer them to
the United States. |1 How can such a determination be reconciled with our
duty to decide judicially upon the question submitted to us?
It is no decision upon judicial principles; it is a mere compromise
dividing the field between the two contestants. 1| The formal answer which
the President's Memorandum makes to the question submitted is alone
sufficient to condemn the boundary the Tribunal is making. Question:
,What channel is the Portland Channel?" Answer: ,The channel which
runs to the north of . . the Islands of Sitklan and Kannaghunut, and
issues into the Pacific between Wales Island and Sitklan Island." il This
language simply disregards entirely the relative position of the islands
in question. Wales Island lies due east of Sitklan. But the channel
which runs to the north of Sitklan and Kannaghunut joins the ocean there,
and, therefore, of necessity issues into the Pacific at that place, and it
is the undoubted mouth of Portland Channel. The Treaty makes Port-
land Channel the boundary, and if, as this answer formally states, Port-
land Channel is that channel which runs to the north of these two is-
lands, such two islands are necessarily British soil. I| The whole truth of
the matter is simply this: that, as to Portland Channel, the case of Great
Britain before us has been demonstrated to be unanswerable. By unani-
mous vote of this Tribunal it has been so declared. It was, therefore,
impossible to avoid awarding to Great Britain the islands called Pearse
and Wales. It is equally impossible upon any intelligible principle for a
Tribunal, acting judicially, to hold that Portland Channel, immediately
on passing Wales Island, makes a turn at right angles to itself, and runs
between the Islands of Wales and Sitklan. The sole question presented
to us for decision on this branech of the case was whether the Portland
Channel of the Treaty lay north of the four islands or south of the
four, and until to-day it has been uniformly admitted by everybody that
all four of these islands belonged, all together, either to Great Britain
or to the United States. Instead of so finding, the majority of the Tri-
bunal have chosen to compromise with the plain facts of the case, and,





78 -

while awarding Pearse and Wales Islands to Great Britain, have deter-
mined to make those islands valueless to Great Britain or to Canada by
giving to the United States the islands called Sitklan and Kannaghunut.
The latter islands are of the utmost consequence, for they lie directly
opposite to, and command the entrance to, the very important harbour
of Port Simpson, British Columbia. 11 Upon such findings of fact as those
above described, and after a solemn adjudication that the Portland
Channel of the Treaty lies to the north of Pearse and Wales Islands,
the taking of the two important islands, Sitklan and Kannaghunut, from
Canada, and giving them to the United States by a proceeding said to
be judicial, is, ,according to my true judgment," nothing less than a
grotesque travesty of justice. 1I In considering Questions 5, 6, and 7, the
practical inquiry before us is where, upon the ground, the line of boun-
dary described in the Treaty ought to be laid down. That line,- from
the 56th parallel to the 141st meridian, is to follow ,la crte des mon-
tagnes situ6es parrallelement i la cte." Our duty is, therefore, to find
what mountains those are which the High Contracting Powers intended
to describe by the words just quoted. |1 To do so we must first determine
the meaning of the words ,la cte," by referenece to which the particular
mountains meant by the Treaty are to be identified. l[ It may be that the
word ,,coast" is generally used as meaning the edge of the land next to
the sea, or the line where the water and the land meet, though the
double word ,coast-line" would more accurately express that idea, but
the word ,,coast" has another well-recognized signification. It frequently
meants the frontier of a country or territories near to the sea.
,Herod . . slew all the children that were in Bethlehem and in
all the coasts thereof." Matthew ii, 16. 1 ,,The Jews . . raised per-
secution against Paul and Barnabas, and expelled them out of their
coasts." Acts xiii, 50.
Exactly the same usage obtains in French in regard to the words
,la cte." II In the Treaty of 1825 the word is used sometimes in the one
sense, sometimes in the other, as the context will readily demonstrate. II
The preamble speaks of the possessions of the two Powers ,on the north-
west coast of America." |i Article I seeures to the subjects of both Powers
the right to land for purposes of trade at any unoccupied places ,on the
coasts." I1 Article II prohibits landing without permission at any establish-
ment ,on the north-west coast." 1 Article III defines a line of boundary
between the possessions of the Powers ,upon the coast of the continent."|i
Articles IV and VI each speak of ,la lisiere de cte" which is to belong
to Russia.






79 -

In all these cases the word is used in its territorial signification. |l
But in Articles III and IV the word is used as well in another sense.
By Article III the boundary line, on leaving the 56th parallel, is to
follow the top of the mountains ,situges la cte." By Article IV, if
these mountains should anywhere turn out to be more than 10 leagues
from the ocean," the line is there to run parallel to the ,sinuosit6s de
la cte," but so as never to be more than 10 leagues away from it. 1[ It
is perfectly plain that ,la cte" here does not mean territorial possessions.
The word is undoubtedly used in the same Treaty and in the same
Article of the Treaty in different senses. 1] With what signification, then,
is the word used in the instances just quoted? ]| Plainly, in Article IV
the meaning is synonymous with the edge ,of the ocean." The 10 leagues
spoken of are to be measured ,from the ocean" or ,from the coast." The
result of the measurement must be the same in either case therefore,
water which is not the ocean cannot have a ,,coast-line" from which the
measurement of the 10 leagues could be made. 1 This consideration alone
seems to me to demonstrate that the head of such an inlet as the Lynn
Canal forms no part of the coast-line within the contemplation of this
Treaty. It would seem to me ridiculous to speak of a ship as making
an ocean voyage while sailing along Lynn Canal. It may be answered
that the waters of Stephen's Passage, or at the mouth of the Stikine, are
not ocean either, and I agree that such waters are, by reason of the out-
lying islands opposite, territorial waters, and not the open ocean, but in
this Treaty the Powers were, with reference to the lisiare, dealing with
mainland coast alone, and, in that regard, speaking and contracting
exactly as though no islands existed, and as though the shore of the
mainland were washed by the open sea. || Lynn Canal, from Point Cou-
verden to Skagway, is some 90 miles in length, and of a width varying
from 2 or 3 to 7 or 8 miles. It is occupied at its mouth by islands
which divide the entrance into three channels, of which the widest is not
more than 3 nautical miles across, and each of the other two less than
half that size. It is simply a land-locked lake of salt water, literally
one of ,les mers interieures" mentioned in Artiele VII of the Treaty. || If
it were a question of determining the coast-line of Lynn Canal itself,
such line would undoubtedly cross these islands at the entrance, just as
the coast-line of Lake Ontario would cross from island to island where
the waters of the lake, flowing through the Thousand Islands, become
the River St. Lawrence. [] Such line, crossing at its narrowest part the
entrance of Lynn Canal from shore to shore, passing over the islands
whiech lie in such entrance and the three intervening channels of water,






80 -

is literally the dividing line between Lynn Canal on the one side of it
and the ocean on the other. Such line, in my opinion, is part of the
line of ,coast" mentioned in Artiele IV, and the deseriptive portion of
Article III, of the Treaty. |1 The whole negotiations leading to the Treaty
of 1825 grew out of the Russian Ukase of 1821, prohibiting foreign
vessels from approaching the coast of North-west America, within 100
miles. The language of the Ukase in which this prohibition is worded
contrasts the coasts with the islands, and shows that the coast of the
mainland was that from which the 100 miles were intended to be mea-
sured, and M. Poletica, writing to Count Nesselrode (November 3, 1823)
so describes it, saying that this Edict had extended the maritime juris-
dietion of Russia to the distance of 100 miles ,des ctes de la terre
ferme." |1 The mainland coast-line within the meaning of this Ukase would,
beyond doubt, eross Lynn Canal at the entrance, and Russia would have
laughed at a foreign navigator contending that his ship of the entrance
to Lynn Canal, at say 30 miles distance, was not transgressing the Ukase,
or that she was not within 100 miles of the coast, because she was
more than 100 miles from the head of Lynn Canal inland. j] Ignoring the
presence of the islands in front of the lisiere, as we must do in con-
sidering what meaning the makers of this Treaty attached to the words
jla cte" when applying them to the mainland of the continent, it is too
plain for argument to the contrary that the waters of Lynn Canal are
territorial or inland waters, as distinguished from the main sea or the
high sea. 11 It is the open uninclosed waters of the ocean, and not waters
within the fauces terre on the sea coast which constitute the high sea. 1|
United States of America v. Grush (1829), 5 Mason 290. 11 Manchester
v. Massachusetts (1890), 139 U.S., 139. 1| So, leaving the islands out of
consideration, the mainland coast-line from wbich, if the islands were
absent, one would have to measure the 3-mile strip of territorial sea
water over which the Power owning the lisiire, would have jurisdiction
would pass from headland to headland, following in a general way the
windings of the natural shore, but never entering long and narrow inlets
or departing substantially from the general trend of the coast.
That the Plenipotentiaries who negotiated the Treaty considered the
coast as not aseending such an inlet as Lynn Canal is abundantly evident
from their language. They considered the head of Lynn Canal as not
ocean, but something very different. This is clearly shown by the language
in which they speak of Portland Channel, an inlet of practically identical
character, though not extending so far inland. I| In their observations on
Sir Charles Bagot's amended proposal (February-March 1824), the Russians






81 -

speak of Portland Channel as having its ,origine dans les terres" at the
56th parallel. 11 In writing Count Lieven, under date the 5th (17th) April,
1824, Count Nesselrode says the Russians were willing to fix as their
southern boundary Portland Canal ,dont l'embouchure dans l'ocean est
la hauteur de l'Ile du Prince de Galles et l'origine dans les terres entre
les 556 et 561 degr6s de latitude." I| It certainly never could have been
Count Nesselrode's idea that the head of Portland Canal, 80 miles from
its ,embouchure dans l'ocean", was none the less ocean, and no more
ought any one now to think he could persuade an impartial mind that
the head of Lynn Canal, still further inland, was the Pacific Ocean. [[
Reference may well be made also to the language of the Russian ,,contre-
projet" of August 1824, by Article 1 of which it is proposed that the
boundary-line shall ascend Portland Channel ,jusqu'au point o cette
passe se termine dans l'int6rieur de la terre ferme." 1| In the draft of the
proposed Treaty forwarded by Mr. George Canning to Mr. Stratford
Canning on the 8th December, 1824, the boundary-line was described as
to ascend Portland Channel till it strikes ,,the coast" of the continent in
the 56th degree of north latitude. Translating this document into the
French language, Mr. Stratford Canning submitted his final ,projet", in
which it is proposed that the boundary-line shall ascend Portland Channel
until it reaches ,la cte de terre ferme" at the 56th parallel. M. Matu-
sevich, for the Russian Government, recognizing the impropriety of de-
scribing the head of such a channel as ,,the coast," changed the phraseo-
logy into ,,1'endroit o cette passe se termine dans l'interieur de la terre
ferme." i] Surely, under such circumstances, Russia could never afterwards
have pretended that the head of Portland Channel, or of any similar
inlet, was upon the coast or formed part of the coast. |[ It seems to me
equally an utter misapprehension and perversion of language to term a
long, narrow flord such as Lynn Canal a mere ,sinuosit6 de la cte",
parallel to the sides of which the Treaty intended this boundary-line to
be drawn. The coast ,parallelement" to which the mountains forming
the boundary are situate is, in my opinion, clearly the general trend or
direktion of the mainland coast-line, disregarding alike narrow inlets and
narrow peninsulas cutting off a headland, it may be, where physical
features justify it, or erossing the mouth of an inlet as readily as though
it were the mouth of a river. And it seeins to me of much importance
to note that this was the view adopted by the Superintendent of the
United States' Coast and Geodetic Survey when issuing to his assistants
instructions for their work of survey under the Convention of the 22nd
July, 1892. It was upon this footing that the work of survey was done
Staatsarchiv LII. 6






82 -

by the United States' and British Governments, and the object of such
survey was to ascertain the facts and data necessary to the permanent
delimitation of the boundary-line. This work, done upon this principle by
the parties now litigating, affords to us by their Convention the infor-
mation upon which the boundary-line must now be established in accor-
dance with the spirit and true intent of the Treaty in regard to it. il
From such general trend of mainland coast-line the inner boundary of
the lisiere can never be more than 10 marine leagues distant; it may be
much less if, nearer to the coast, mountains exist such as the Treaty con-
templates. II Such a coast-line will follow literally the windings of the
coast (,les sinuosit6s de la cte"), but will not depart from such coast
to penetrate the interior 80 or 90 miles along a salt-water inlet any
more than it would ascend for that distance a fresh-water river of pos-
sibly equal width. || If this is the true meaning of the words ,la c6te" as
used in the Treaty in describing the boundary-line, such boundary-line
must inevitably cross any inlet which is deeper than the maximum width
of the lisibre and leave the head waters of such inlet within British
territory, and, in my judgment, the Treaty itself furnishes conclusive
inherent evidence that such result was exactly what the Powers entering
into it contemplated. 1I By Article VII of the Treaty the vessels of the
two Powers were for ten years to be reciprocally at liberty to frequent,
for purposes of fishing and trading, all the inland seas, gulfs, havens,
and bays, ,sur la cte mentionn6e dans l'Article III." |i What waters
then, were these, to frequent which the Russians were accepting from
Great Britain a ten years' licence ? || If it can be shown that these waters
were those of the lisi&re, or that the Russians so understood, it follows
that they contemplated the boundary-line at least possibly crossing inlets,
and leaving the upper waters of such inlets within British territory. |I
The waters are those ,sur la cte mentionn6e dans l'Article III," but
Article III speaks first of the possessions of the High Contracting Parties
sur la cte du continent," and afterwards of the boundary of the lisiere
on the mountains ,situ6es parallMlement la cte." 11 Is it, then, the coast
of the continent or the coast of the lisiere to which Article VII refers? jj
Let the history of the Article as traced from the negotiations give the
answer. 1j Mr. George Canning first proposed it in his letter to Count
Lieven of 29th May, 1824, and in his draft Convention forwarded from
London on 12th July following. || As to the lisiere, the proposal was
(Article III, 2) that British subjects should for ever freely navigate and
trade along its coast, nothing being offered to Russian subjects as to
British waters there. But with regard to the other parts of the north-




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs