tentiaries had proposed to Sir Charles Bagot to draw the boundary so as to make the southern extremity of Prince of Wales Island Russian territory. From this significant circumstance, from the fact that the subject of each negotiation was the same, namely, the Northwest Coast, from the fact that Russia recognized that the United States had as valid claims to the coast south of the Russian possessions as Great Britain had, and from the statement of Count Nesselrode that in his negotiations with the British minister he "proposed to carry the southern frontier of our domains to latitude 54 40'", it is manifest that it was the intention of the Russian plenipotentiaries to make the line of their southern boundary in the negotiation with Great Britain coincident with that agreed upon with the United States.

The geographical data which, according to the evidence, were before the negotiators, were the maps already mentioned. It is true that Sir Charles had been furnished by the Foreign Office with memoranda prepared by Mr. Pelly, the deputy governor of the Hudson's Bay Company; but when the memoranda were prepared Portland Canal had not become a factor in the negotiations, and, when the Hudson's Bay Company was again consulted by the British Government, it had ceased to be a subject of controversy. There is, therefore, in none of Mr. Pelly's correspondence any discussion of that channel.

The Russian map published in 1802 by the quartermaster-general's department shows a broad inlet, in which are several islands and from which two branches penetrate inland. Neither the inlet nor the branches are named, and it was not, therefore, from this map that the description of the line from Prince of Wales Island to the head of Portland Canal was derived, although it is probable that it was used to test the accuracy of others.

Incidentally, the purpose of Great Britian in reproducing a section of this map with a colored outline, is not understood, the color showing merely native tribal divisions, as is demonstrated by an examination of the large map, on which the dotted line running inland from Behm Canal, and which in the section reproduced is colored, is the supposed southern limit of the Kolosh tribes on the coast.

The Langsdorff map, if it were ever at St. Petersburg, could hardly

have been consulted by the negotiators, because it was so so rudely drawn.

What Arrowsmith maps were examined during the negotiations it is difficult to determine. Four have been offered in evidence; two on behalf of the United States, one of 1818," the other of 1822 with additions to 1823; and two on behalf of Great Britain, one listed as "up to 1822," but showing on its face that it was corrected to 1824; the other, "up to 1824." Of these maps, the one of 1818 is on a small scale, but shows substantially the same details as the larger maps. In all these it is noticeable that the channel westward of Pearse Island is almost closed and the main course of Portland Canal runs between Point Ramsden and Pearse Island. The name "Portland Canal" extends along the shore of the channel "beyond the head of Pearse Island," as stated in the British Case."

One of two views must have been taken by the negotiators after examining the region about 54° 40′ as shown on the maps. Either that the whole estuary bounded by the mainland on either side and comprising both Portland Inlet and Pearse Canal, was to be considered as Portland Canal, in which lay Pearse, Wales, and other islands; or that the estuary as far inland as Point Ramsden was an unnamed arm of the sea, from which diverged two branches, Portland Canal and Observatory Inlet.

The Arrowsmith maps, relied upon at St. Petersburg, would have conveyed the idea that the entire estuary was named "Portland Canal". No method of reasoning would have applied the name "Observatory Inlet", which extends at right angles to that branch from a point far above Ramsden Point, to any portion of the waters below that headland.

On the other hand the Vancouver chart of this region appears to name each branch without giving a name to the main inlet below their junction. But in any event an examination of this latter chart would never suggest that the name "Observatory Inlet", which appears in small letters on the western side of that channel and above Point

ƒ For a large map of this region see U. S. Counter Case, Atlas, No. 30.

9 U. S. Case, Atlas, No. 4.

Ramsden, was intended to be applied to the body of water below the point. Nor would such an examination indicate that the name "Portland Canal", placed to the west of the channel, which is clearly delineated as passing Point Ramsden, was applicable to the passage behind Pearse and Wales Islands.

The Faden map" which has already been referred to, conveys the idea which is suggested by the Arrowsmith maps. There is no distinct channel shown above Wales Island. The name "Portland Canal" begins on the western shore opposite Pearse Island. The words "Observatory Inlet" are placed at right angles to that branch about half way between its head and the Naas River. Another feature confirmatory of this view is that the character and size of the lettering of the two names indicate that Portland Canal was the main inlet and Observatory Inlet but a branch.

The United States, relying upon the maps known to have been before the negotiators, asserts that the position taken in the British Case is entirely untenable and does not conform to the established facts; and that the Portland Canal of the negotiators was either the whole inlet from mainland to mainland, or that branch entering between Pearse Island and Point Ramsden into the unnamed estuary. It is immaterial which of these two conclusions is reached, for in either case the line of demarcation between Cape Muzon and the head of Portland Canal would follow the course contended for by the United States in its printed Case.

The maps published since the treaty are, with scarcely an exception, corroborative of the southern boundary claimed by the United States. It is unnecessary here to refer to them all in detail, but an examination of those produced will confirm this assertion. Special attention is directed to the Arrowsmith map of 1833, dedicated to the Hudson's Bay Company," the Arrowsmith map produced in 1857 before the select committee to investigate the Hudson's Bay Company and ordered printed by the House of Commons, the British Admiralty map of 1865, the map prepared by the United States Coast Survey in 1867 for the Department of State at the instance of Senator Sumner, and the two charts of the British Admiralty of 1868, which cover the region under discussion.

a British Case, Atlas, No. 10.

U. S. Case, Atlas No. 12.

U. S. Counter Case, Atlas No. 35.

U. S. Case, Atlas No. 23.

e Ibid., No. 24.

f British Case, Atlas Nos. 23, 25.

The survey, the results of which are laid down in the two charts last mentioned, was undoubtedly made pursuant to specific instructions from the British Government as to the waters which it was to cover. It is therefore a significant fact that Pearse Canal and the channel between Wales and Pearse Islands were not surveyed, but are represented by dotted lines without pretense to accuracy. In the second of these charts the name "Portland Canal" appears in the channel between Pearse Island and Point Ramsden. In connection with the position taken in the Admiralty charts the following from the ** Sailing Directions for Bering Sea and Alaska" published by order of the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty" in 1898 is important as showing the course of the southern boundary: "The boundary line between British Columbia and Alaska runs east and arest through Dixon entrance." a

A comparison of the maps produced shows that the cartographers in the years immediately following the treaty of 1825 and for a considerable time thereafter evidently considered Wales and Pearse islands as lying in Portland Canal, but that, later investigations having disclosed the narrow and insignificant character of the strait along the eastern shore of the continent, the two islands became recognized as part of the western limits of the waterway. It should be added that the application of geographic names, referred to in the treaty, on maps made subsequent to its signature, is of far more value in determining the intention of the parties, than any designation given by writers or map-makers prior to the negotiations, unless it can be established beyond controversy that such nomenclature was not only known to the negotiators but was relied upon by them in describing the boundary in the treaty.

Attention has already been directed to the influence which the nego tiations and treaty between the United States and Russia had upon the negotiations and treaty between Great Britain and Russia, and to the fact that Russia intended, and the British minister understood that it was intended, to make the parallel 54° 40', the southern boundary. In this connection the following statement of Mr. Middleton, the United States minister, in reporting the course and result of his negotiations at St. Petersburg, is important: "It was urgently pressed by the Russian plenipotentiaries [because the 55th parallel cut through Prince of Wales Island] to make the line of delimitation run upon the

a U. S. Counter Case, App. p. 261; see also Ibid., p. 205.

parallel of 54 40', a small deviation from the instructions I had received. To this I thought I could, without impropriety, accede. To show how much importance they [the Russians] attach to the parallel 54° 40′ it may now be mentioned that it is only upon this point that the negotiation with Great Britain has been broken off."a

Count Nesselrode in his letter of August 31, 1824, to the Russian minister at London, stated that the coast which then was the subject of discussion extended from "59 of north latitude to 54 40' In the same letter the following expressions appear: "We have, consequently, confined them [Russia's rights of sovereignty] to the 54-40′;" c "it must be well understood that this concession [of hunting and trading] will only comprise the space inclosed between latitude 59 and the southern boundary of our territory to wit, latitude 54° 40′;" "our counter draft carries our boundary from the fifty-first degree of north latitude to 54° 40'." It is to be noted that the subject under discussion is the coast, not the islands, and that the boundary referred to is that upon the coast, which is repeatedly stated to be 54° 40'.

Count Lieven was directed to read this letter to Secretary Canning and to furnish him with a copy, and the latter undoubtedly gave a copy to Mr. Pelly."

A copy was also furnished to Mr. Stratford Canning upon departing on his mission to St. Petersburg. Thus the British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, the officer of the Hudson's Bay Company who had been directing the boundary negotiations, and the British plenipotentiary who negotiated the treaty, examined these statements, which so clearly set forth the intention of Russia as to the southern line. Yet there was no protest against and no comment upon the subject by any of them. The treaty was signed and ratified with the understanding upon both sides that the southern boundary of the Russian possessions reached Portland Canal at 54° 40′.

During the correspondence which took place at the time of the lease of the lisière to the Hudson's Bay Company in 1839, which will be considered later, the subject of the southern limits of the Russian territory is several times mentioned. It should be borne in mind that