thinking, you know, and having the things before him, would have drawn such a thing; but I think it simply means, "Go to Portland Channel, and go north along it."

You cannot go north along Portland Channel till you get to it, and you are told to go north along it. Well, it seems to follow that it is an invitation to go to Portland Channel, and then go north along it. And that is the way in which I should have looked at that without any question.

Now, for me to attempt to add anything to that argument would be like gilding refined gold. I shall not attempt to do so. It takes away whatever force there may be in the contention that the provision to go north is demonstrative of what they meant by the Portland Channel.

66

The second proposition advanced at very great length by the Attorney-General to sustain the view that by Portland Channel they meant the northern passage, was that Vancouver's narrative was before the negotiators. And I take it that he meant not merely that it was known to the negotiators and before the negotiators, but that it was before them in such a sense that this Tribunal would be authorized in saying that it affected their minds, and that they were guided by it in using the language which they did, for otherwise there would be no value in the suggestion. To say that anything is known to a man, or that it is before him, in an argument of this sort, it must be shown that it was before him in such a sense that we can assume that he was instructed and influenced by it. The Attorney-General says on the 9th page (83) of his argument:

Now, what is suggested on the other side? It is said there is no evidence that Vancouver's narrative was before the negotiators, and that the narrative may be rejected that only the charts are what the negotiators probably looked at. Now, in the first place, I submit that the probability is absolutely overwhelming that Vancouver's narrative was not only before the negotiators, but had been most carefully considered by them.

And then at p. 85 he says:

I think I can give the Tribunal affirmative evidence that that narrative was before the negotiators.

Now, mark the words "carefully considered by them." That is the proposition that he started out to prove, and I take it that it is an important one in connection with this argument. If he has demonstrated to this Tribunal that the negotiators did have the narrative before them and that they carefully considered it, of course it goes a long way to sustain the British contention in regard to Portland Canal. I think that I will be able to show that no such demonstration has been made; that it is either of a purely negative character, or at least insignificant so far as it tends to sustain that proposition. The first evidence that he adduced was based upon a letter written by Baron Tuyll, in October 1822. That letter has been read. I shall not trouble the Tribunal by reading passages from it now that are familiar to them, but the letter, which is at p. 112 of the United States' Case Appendix, mentions Observatory Inlet, and, after suggesting another line, it suggests that the line be drawn-

* better still, at the southern point of the archipelago of the Prince of Wales and the Observatory Inlet, which are situated almost under that parallel. Now, let us see how that sustains the proposition that the narrative was not only before the negotiators, but "carefully considered by them." In the first place, is there any evidence that Baron Tuyll

had ever read Vancouver's narrative? The Attorney-General says on p. 27:

But I call attention to this passage, not merely for that purpose, but also for the purpose of showing that Baron Tuyll had really read Vaucouver's narrative. Observatory Inlet was described minutely by Vancouver, and named by him as extending to the sea; and we find the Russian Minister as early as October 1822, proposing as the two points the southern point of Prince of Wales Island and Observatory Inlet. That must be the mouth of Observatory Inlet.

665

It cannot be any point of Observatory Inlet opening into another inlet or away from the sea. It must be the mouth where it opens into the ocean. That he must have got from Vancouver, and that proposal was thrown out.

Let us see if that is a sound proposition. He says:

The mouth of Observatory Inlet must be where it opens into the ocean. Well, suppose it was, in fact, away from the ocean, as we contend. The mouth would be wherever the mouth was, and if the mouth of that inlet was sixty or seventy miles from the great ocean, it is useless talking about it not opening into any arm of the sea, and saying that it must have opened into the ocean. I contend, so far as this letter is concerned, that everything he says there he could have got from the examination of Vancouver's map. Look at Vancouver's map, and then look at the letter of Baron Tuyll's. He says that Observatory Inlet lies under the 55th parallel. Look at the 55th parallel, and look at Vancouver's map, and you will see that the mouth of Observatory Inlet falls on that map exactly under the 55th degree. It is true that Baron Tuyll also says that the southern part of Prince of Wales Island falls under the 55th degree, but, as a matter of fact, it does not. It did not on the Vancouver map, and it does not on any map. If he properly designated one place where it fell, why should we not take it as conclusive that he got at least that much from the map, and not undertake to show that he meant some other inlet by pointing out and relying upon a mistake as to the location of Prince of Wales Island in reference to the parallel? He could have got that location of Observatory Inlet from the map. There is no evidence there that he ever got it from Vancouver's narrative at all.

Mr. AYLESWORTH. Let me. Mr. Dickinson, direct your attention to what I conceive the Attorney-General was arguing from that letter. I might premise by saying it does not occur to me that there is anything in that letter which he could not have got from Vancouver's map, but he seems to be suggesting two alternative lines to his principal, Count Nesselrode. He says: "Get as far south as 55 degrees if you can, or, better still, go to the southernmost point of Prince of Wales Island and Observatory Inlet "; and I understood the Attorney-General's point was that that was a line practically parallel to the 55th degree, and shows that Baron Tuyll, the writer of the letter, understood the mouth of Observatory Inlet to be opposite the southernmost point of Prince of Wales Island. In other words, at

the sea.

Mr. DICKINSON. That is hardly consistent with his very positive statement that the mouth of Observatory Inlet is situated almost under that parallel, and if we look at Vancouver's map we see that it is exactly that way.

Mr. AYLESWORTH. But he says the two of them-that is, the southernmost point of the archipelago and the inlet are situated

almost under that parallel, and one is, in fact, just as near to the parallel as the other.

Mr. DICKINSON. But neither the southernmost point of the archipelago nor the mouth of the channel that Great Britain contends was Observatory Inlet was situated under the parallel.

Mr. AYLESWORTH. That is certainly true.

666 The PRESIDENT. However, you say you may take 55 degrees for Observatory Inlet, and neglect it for the Prince of Wales Island. That is your argument.

Mr. DICKINSON. I say if he looked at the map he saw that Observatory Inlet falls just under 55 degrees. If he had wanted to designate that body of water he could do it by looking to the map alone, and therefore he designates it, looking at the map, as Observatory Inlet, which falls exactly under the 55th degree.

The PRESIDENT. Very well.

Mr. DICKINSON. But I do not regard that matter as one of very great consequence, because Baron Tuyll was not one of the negotiators, and, even if he had read the narrative, and made this statement to Count Nesselrode, it would not be proof that Count Nesselrode had ever read the narrative at all, and it seems to me a matter of the utmost insignificance, because one man had read the narrative and made a statement to another man, that it goes to prove that the latter had read the narrative. If we are going to assume the erudition of people in that way, we would, all of us perhaps, get the reputation of being more learned than the greatest pundits. If, when people have told us of things in the books they had read, all the knowledge that is contained in those books is then to be imputed to us, the British Museum would hardly contain all the information that we would be supposed to possess. But that evidence would not be considered for a moment in any issue-I do not care if the matter in dispute was less than 5 dollars-to prove that one man knew what was in a book because another man had read the book and mentioned something that was in the book to him.

I then pass to the next evidence, that Vancouver's narrative was not only read, but carefully considered, by the negotiators, because that is the proposition that I am dealing with-and that is a letter by M. de Poletica. Of this the Attorney-General says, on p. 87 of his argument:

Now, the next point that I desire to bring forward in this connection, as showing that the narrative must be taken to have been before the negotiators, is the despatch of M. Poletica to Mr. Adams, dated the 28th of February, 1822. That will be found in the United States' Case Appendix, p. 33. It begins at p. 32. It is a paragraph in the middle of p. 33. It begins:

In 1763 the Russian establishments had already extended as far as the Island of Kodtak (or Kichlak). In 1778 Cook found them at Ounalaska, and some Russian inscriptions of Kodiak. Vancouver saw the Russian establishment in the Bay of Kinai. In fine, Captains Mears, Portlock, and La Peyroux unanimously attest the existence of Russian establishments in these latitudes.” Now, Kenai" is the Russian name for Cook's Inlet."

In the first place, that has no reference whatever to Portland Canal. Vancouver wrote three volumes. M. de Poletica, who took part in these negotiations, was examining into the question of establishments, occupation, ownership by discovery. Now, if, examining as to those features, he had read that part of the narrative, would that any evidence that he had read any other part of it? How often

be

do we go to books to find a particular thing, and when our eye is travelling over the pages in such search we read of many things, but they make no impression upon us. They go through the eye, but they make no impression on the mind. A lawyer's mind would be overburdened if it was loaded with all he saw when he was following the track of a particular inquiry. So there is no evidence in the world that M. de Poletica, because he traced that particular feature, even if he read Vancouver's narrative, and got his information from

it, ever read anything about Portland Canal. Vancouver 667 refers to these settlements in his third volume, p. 140. He

treats of Portland Canal and Observatory Inlet in the second volume at p. 325. Yet the Attorney-General says that that is evidence that the negotiators had not only before them Vancouver's narrative, but carefully considered it; of course, he meant carefully considered it in connection with this question of Portland Canal, for that was the matter of inquiry.

The PRESIDENT. We will break off now. [Adjourned till Monday at 11 a. m.]

668

SIXTEENTH DAY.-MONDAY, OCTOBER 5, 1903.

All the Members of the Tribunal were present.

The PRESIDENT. As some members of the Tribunal will no doubt wish to attend the service at St. James's Palace, and no doubt others who are not members of the Tribunal, at 2 o'clock, we think it will be most convenient if we sit at half-past 10 to-morrow till a quarter past 1, and then do not come back again in the afternon.

Mr. DICKINSON. That will be entirely satisfactory, Mr. President. The PRESIDENT. That will be convenient to you, Mr. Attorney? The ATTORNEY-GENERAL. Certainly, my Lord.

Mr. DICKINSON. Mr. President, when the proceedings adjourned on Friday afternoon I had just closed that part of the discussion which dealt with the argument of the Attorney-General upon the letter of M. de Poletica, which he relied on to show that the negotiators had read Vancouver's narrative, and I was proceeding to discuss the same proposition that he advanced in connection with other proofs that were relied upon by him, and I think it is proper that I should restate it. It was that the negotiators not only had before them Vancouver's narrative, but, as he expressed it, carefully considered it, and the inference was that it influenced them in the determination of the question particularly under consideration, and that was what was intended in the Treaty by the term "Portland Channel."

The next point that he made in this connection appears upon the 25th page of his oral argument, which I will read:

Now, that is important, because in the materials laid by Mr. Pelly, on behalf of the Hudson's Bay Company, before Mr. Canning, there was included the Memorandum inclosed in his letter which is set out at pp. 25 to 28 of the British Case Appendix; and in that Memorandum reference is repeatedly made to the researches and discoveries of Captain Vancouver. Now, a point is made, and if it can be established it would be a very important one in the United States' Case, that the Vancouver narrative was not before the negotiators. It is asserted that it is not shown that it was before the negotiators. Now, in this Memorandum of Mr. Pelly's, reference is over and over again made to Vancouver's narrative in terms which leave no doubt whatever. That Memorandum formed part of the materials laid before the Duke of Wellington, and the Tribunal will find that the very same terms which were laid before the Duke of Wellington were materials afterwards to be supplied to Sir Charles Bagot for his use in the negotiations. Now, in these materials were references to Vancouver's narrative.

And again, on p. 32 of his oral argument, he says:—

Exactly, my Lord, and the particular point I wish to emphasize at present is that he [Bagot] had Vancouver's narrative.

669

I insist that it is a far-fetched conclusion to say that either Sir Charles Bagot or Mr. Canning had Vancouver's narrative, simply because it is shown that they had before them Mr. Pelly's Memorandum, which referred to it. At any rate, taking it as a