nized. It further repeats its contention that Vancouver's narrative was not before the negotiators, and that all reference to it is, there fore, irrelevant to the question at present under discussion.

The quotation from the amended proposal of Sir Charles Bagot in his negotiations at St. Petersburg in February and March, 1824, does not end, as quoted in the British Case, with a period." The remainder of the sentence is most material in determining the application. He stated that the line proposed by the Russian plenipotentiaries through Portland Canal "would deprive His Britannic Majesty of sovereignty over all the inlets and small bays lying between latitudes 56° and 54° 45', [thus far the quotation from the British Case] whereof several (as there is every reason to believe) communicate directly with the estab lishments of the Hudson's Bay Company and are consequently of essential importance to its commerce; while on the other hand, the RussianAmerican Company possesses no establishment on the mainland (terre ferme) between the two above-mentioned parallels, or even on Prince of Wales Island, or the islands located between the latter and the mainland."

The maps before the negotiators, that located the strait now known as Pearse Canal, showed that its eastern extremity opened into Portland Canal. It could not, therefore, have been said to be one of "the inlets and small bays," of which there was every reason to believe several communicated directly with the establishments of the Hudson's Bay Company" and were "consequently of essential importance to its commerce."

Sir Charles was directing attention to the possibility of water communication with the interior, and it was therefore the coast of the mainland and supposed rivers emptying into its inlets and bays to which he referred, not to a narrow channel separating from the adjoining shores islands lying in an estuary. Under these circumstances the quotation has no bearing upon the location of the Portland Canal of the negotiators, but only fixes the southern limit of the mainland.

It is noted in the British Case that the "appellation, given in the Treaty to the canal, of 'passe', is in itself indicative of a narrow channel". The United States does not conceive that this statement

can be seriously relied upon by Great Britain, since on the preceding page of the British Case the quotation from Sir Charles Bagot above discussed contains the expression "de la par le milieu de ce canal“, referring to Portland Canal.

Attention might also be called to the fact that Count Nesselrode used the expression "la passe dite Duke of Clarence Sound""; that the expression "the channel called Portland Channel", in Mr. Canning's draft convention of July 12, 1824, was rendered into the French "la passe dite le Portland Channel"; and that in the draft accompanying the instructions to Mr. Stratford Canning are the words, "along the channel called Portland Channel". If there is any significance to the use of "passe", "canal" or "channel", the United States may confidently assert that such usage in the negotiations is strongly in favor of the broad and natural channel south of Wales Island. In this connection the following statement appearing in L'Univers (Paris, 1849) is material. The boundary is said to begin at the most southern point of Prince of Wales Island and "to proceed eastward along the parallel of 54 40' as far as the great inlet of the continent which is called Portland Channel". And Dr. Henry Wheaton in describing the line of demarcation said that it was drawn "eastward to the great inlet" named Portland Channel.

In regard to the fourth point upon which Great Britain relies, that by establishing a military post at Tongass Island the United States practically admitted that the boundary line passed through Pearse Canal, then unnamed and unsurveyed, the sketch map accompanying Lieutenant Colonel R. N. Scott's report, upon whose recommendation the Tongass post was located, names the broad inlet "Portland Channel." An examination of the report shows that Tongass Island was selected by Lieutenant Colonel Scott as a convenient location, because it was peculiarly fitted for the establishment of a military station." In "Schedule A" of the report appears the statement: "Naas River empties into Portland Channel at about 55 north latitude and about thirty miles to the northward and eastward of Fort Simpson.”¿ From these statements and the tracing accompanying the report, it is appar

ent that the selection of Tongass Island was not from any belief that the boundary line passed through the narrow channel immediately south of that island.

In view of the evidence submitted on behalf of the United States and also on behalf of Great Britain, the United States contends that the Portland Canal of the negotiators was the broad navigable channel, recently termed "Portland Inlet;" that the British Government has never officially questioned that fact until the submission of its Case in the present controversy; and that the position now assumed by Great Britain fails completely through want of evidence to support it.

Besides the definite claim advanced in the British Case as to the location of Portland Canal, the statement is made that any argument based upon the facility of navigation of the main channel east of Pearse and Wales Islands in comparison with that to the westward of those islands "must be dissipated by the precise and unmistakable description of Portland Channel already given; to overbear which, on any such ground, would be to refuse all respect for, or adherence to, the terms of the treaty".a

It is fair to presume from this statement that, in case the precise and unmistakable description of Portland Channel" should fail, Great Britain concedes that a legitimate argument might be advanced as to the comparative navigability of the two channels in question. The United States, having shown that "Vancouver's Portland Canal" was not the same as "the negotiators' Portland Canal" and that it is the former and not the latter which has been so precisely and unmistakably described in the British Case, claims that a statement as to the navigability of these waters should receive due consideration in determining the southern boundary of Alaska.

It is not to be understood that the United States presents this statement because of the failure of Great Britain to make the Portland Canal of Vancouver and that of the negotiators coincide, but rather because mutual convenience and principles of international comity guided the plenipotentiaries of Great Britain and Russia in the negotiation of the treaty of 1825.

An examination of the map of the region shows that Dixon Entrance and its inland continuation between Point Wales and Comp

a British Case, p. 57.

U. S. Counter Case Atlas, No. 30.

ton Island is a natural sea boundary between the coast and islands to the north and those to the south. The channel to the east of Pearse and Wales Islands is broad and deep and suitable at all times for the passage of vessels. It is, moreover, the natural outlet of the upper portion of Portland Canal, for at least ninety per cent. of the tides in the latter ebb and flow between Point Ramsden and Portland Point. " Pearse Canal, through which Great Britain claims the boundary should pass, is a narrow and tortuous strait with no well defined channel. It is at several places less than a quarter of a mile wide. and at one point immediately south of Tongass Island the channel is less than 250 yards across and does not exceed five fathoms in depth. Furthermore, the canal, particularly north and west of Wales Island. is made exceedingly perilous by the presence of numerous rocks, some exposed, others submerged, rising abruptly in mid-channel. while the tidal currents have often a velocity of three or four miles an hour, causing dangerous eddies and swirls at the junctions of the various channels. The best pilots in Alaskan waters have declined to take steam vessels through these narrows on account of the known and unknown dangers. These conditions, to which should be added the prevalence of fogs and bad weather in those regions, make the waters, through which Great Britain proposes to draw the boundary line, impassable for sailing craft and practically so for steam vessels. € Thus the only way the United States could reach the upper portion of Portland Canal, if the contention of Great Britain were allowed, would be through the territorial waters of that power. According to the rule announced by the British commissioners during the negotiation of the treaty of Washington in 1871, the navigation of inland waters by the citizens of another nation could not be claimed as a right. Thus to draw the boundary line through Tongass Narrows and Pearse Canal would substantially debar the United States from all communication with its territory lying along the western shores of Portland Canal above 55 north latitude.

That such was the intention of the negotiators of the treaty, it is

a U. S. Counter Case, App., p. 239.

U. S. Counter Case, Atlas, No. 30.

C U. S. Counter Case, App., pp. 239, 242; British Case, App., p. 144.

d U. S. Counter Case, App., p. 240.

Ibid., p. 242.

f British Case, App., p. 211.

not believed Great Britain will contend. Sir Charles Bagot in the negotiations at St. Petersburg vigorously urged that it was of great importance to Great Britain to possess the sovereignty of the two shores of Portland Canal." His attempt to secure the desired boundary failed and the Russian proposal was accepted by the British Government. But, if the line of demarcation should now be drawn through the narrow strait from Tongass Island to Portland Canal, Great Britain would as practically control the two shores of Portland Canal as if she had obtained the title to them for which Sir Charles Bagot unsuccessfully contended.

To demark the southern boundary as claimed in the British Case would, therefore, be contrary to the intention of the negotiators of the treaty of 1825 and against the meaning of its provisions.

The statement made in the British Case, that the admission of the United States to the sovereignty of Pearse and Wales islands and to the navigation of the channel southeast of them "would give [that government] domination of the continental coast opposite, and the important point of Port Simpson, to the great prejudice of Great Britain," is substantially a declaration that in case both shores of that inlet come under British sovereignty the United States will be excluded from navigating those waters.

As to the argument advanced that these islands are valuable to Great Britain for defense, it seems needless to point out that they are of far greater importance to the United States. Excluded from its possessions along Portland Canal, with the possible establishment of a British military post at the southern entrance to its inland waters, the territory of the United States would be menaced far more than the British possessions would be by a mutual right of navigating the broad arm of the sea extending inland from Dixon Entrance.

The British Case presents to the Tribunal several other ways of running the boundary line from Cape Muzon to the 56th parallel, if its definition of Portland Canal is rejected. They are based upon the theories and speculations of Canadian writers, to which reference has already been made. As they are manifestly the very propositions, in substance, which Sir Charles Bagot made in his negotiations and which were rejected by Russia, and as they are chiefly based in

a U. S. Case, App., p. 163.
a British Case, p. 58.

e Ibid., pp. 61-63.