« VorigeDoorgaan »
the Tribunal. Their contents, therefore, can only be conjectured from the localities in which the parties operated. These are shown by the charts of their survey," and the joint report of the Commissioners. The signiticant fact is, that they surveyed the shores and head of Lynn Canal. It appears, therefore, that the Canadian officials deemed it essential to obtain data for determining the boundary far beyond a line drawn ten leagues from the coast", which is now contended for in the British Case.
It is neeilless to cominent further upon the argument in the British Case, founded upon Dr. Mendenhall's words the general trend" of the mainland coast. His instructions of 1894 are conclusive against the interpretation placed upon them by Great Britain; and the acts of the Canadian surveyors in operating about the head of Lynn Canal are far more confirmatory of the position of the United States than Dr. Mendenhall's inadvertent expression is of the British contention.
The “argument in support of the British contention based upon Article VII of the Treaty" is that the inland seas, gulfs, havens and creeks of the possessions of each power, to which the subjects of the other could resort for the term of ten years, were contined to the mainland coast of the lisière, and that it was, therefore, implied that some of these waters were within the British dominions. This assertion rests upon interpreting “the coast mentioned in article three" to be the coast used in determining the limits of the lisièrr and not "the coast of the continent and islands of America to the Northwest ",' which is the use of the word in its descriptive sense and refers to the region commonly known as the “ Northwest Coast".
Article VII of the British treaty is merely a repetition of Article IV of the American treaty of 1824. Mr. George Canning, in bis instructions to Mr. Stratford Canning, said that the stipulation for reciprocal privileges of trade could“ be best stated precisely in the terms of article 4 of the American convention."ị The two articles are as follows:
a British Case, Portfolio of Charts.
British Case, App., p. 282–286. € Ibid., p. 281. dl'. S. Case, App., p. 16.
Ibid., s Ibid., p. 211.
VII. Il est aussi entendu que, pendant Il est néanmoins entendu que pendant l'espace de dix Ans, ii dater de la signa- un terme de dix années à compter de la ture de cette Convention, les Vaisseaux signature de la présente convention, les des deux Puissances, ou ceux apparte
Vaisseaux des deux Puissances, ou qui nans à leur sujets respectifs, pourront appartiendraient à leur citoyens ou sujets réciproquement fréquenter, sans entrave respectifs, pourront réciproquement fréquelconque, toutes les Mers intérieures, quenter sans entrave quelconque, les mers les Golfes, Hâvres et Criques sur la côte intérieures, les golfes, hâvres et criques mentionníe dans l'Article III, afin d'y faire sur la Côte mentionée dans l'article précéla pêche et le commerce avec les Indi- dent, atin d'y faire la pêche et le comgènes.a
merce avec les naturels du pays.
The coast mentioned in the “preceding article” of the American treaty is "la Côte nord ouest d'Amérique," which is stated to be both north and south of the parallel 5° 40'. It is evident that the intention of these articles is the same. British subjects were privileged to frequent the waters of the Russian possessions north of 51° 40'; Russian subjects had a similar privilege in regard to the waters of the possessions of Great Britain south of that line.
It should be added that the position now assumed in the British Case is directly opposed to that taken by Great Britain in the Fur Seal Arbitration. The British Counter Case, filed in that arbitration, stated, that it had been proved in the British Case "that the words * northwest coast' were used, throughout the negotiations, to include not less than the whole of the North American coast from Behring Strait to latitude 51° north.” After referring to the words of Mr. Canning, which are quoted above, it is asserted: “This shows that Mr. Canning did not understand the term "northwest coast' to be confined to the lisière,' the proposals relating to which had one unvarying condition, namely, that it was to belong to Russia."
In the printed argument of Great Britain submitted to the tribunal at Paris, the following appears: “ Article VI dealt only with the lisiere
Article VII, on the other hand, dealt with the coast of the continent mentioned in Article III: it gave to the two parties a reciprocal right of visit to all the inland waters, harbours, etc., on this coast: it applied, therefore, to the coast of the whole Russian possessions, as well as to the whole of the coast of the British posses
a C. S. Case, App., p. 13. • Ibid., p. 9.
cl'. S. Counter (ase, App., p. 191. « Ibid., p. 192.
sions." In the oral argument before the tribunal, one of the learned counsel on behalf of Great Britain was asked: “What do you say is the point of the shore referred to as the coast' in article VII?" To which he replied: “The 'coast' is the whole of coast up to Behring Straits.") It is needless to point out further that the present position of Great Britain is utterly inconsistent with that taken ten years ago in the Fur Seal Arbitration.'
As to the course of the boundary described in the treaty, the C'nited States asserts that it must be read in connection with the maps which were known to bave been before the negotiators at St. Petersburg and London. In the Russian map of 1802, the Faden map of 1823," the Vancouver charts,' and in one of the Arrowsmith maps' (the others showing no mountains) there is a clearly detined continuous range of mountains extending from 56 north latitude, in the neighborhood of the head of Portland Canal, to 141° west longitude and following approximately the physical coastline of the continent around all the inlets. It was, beyond controversy, to this range of mountains, shown on the maps, that the negotiators referred in their conferences and correspondence and along the crest of which they intended that the line of demarcation should run.
In the “observations " of the Russian plenipotentiaries handed to Sir Charles Bagot on March 7, 1821,9 the phrase "la chaine de montagmes” twice appears. Count Nesselrode in commenting upon the boundary tixed by the treaty wrote to the Russian Minister at London on May 20, 1825, of “ume chaîne ile montagnes". In his letter of April 19, 1824," Mr. Pelly of the Hudson's Bay Company, having examined the despatch of Sir Charles Bagot giving an account of the negotiations at St. Petersburg, used the phrases “the supposed chain of mountains" and "the nearest chain of mountains”. Again Mr. Pelly, in commenting upon the Russian counter draft, which had been submitted to him for criticism, wrote on October 20, 1824, to the Foreign Office, i objecting to the second article on the ground that it “ should more accurately define the eastern boundary from the Portland Canal to the 61st degree of north latitude to be the chain of mountains at a
al. S. Counter Case, App., p. 194.
British Case, Atlas, No. 10.
s Ibid., No. 8.
'très-petite distance de la côte,' but that if the summit of those mountains exceed 10 leagues, that the said distance be substituted instead of the mountains".
In the last quotation from Mr. Pelly it is apparent that the phrases 6. the chain of mountains", "those mountains" and "the mountains" are used synonymously; and this same use is observable throughout the correspondence prior to the signature of the treaty.
It is submitted that the British contention that “the phrase "la crête des montagnes' signifies the tops of the mountains adjacent to the sea"a is directly opposed to the evidence before the Tribunal, and that the use in the British Case of the plural ** summits", thereby conveying the idea of distinct and separate mountains rather than a continuous mountain ridge, is unwarranted. Throughout the correspondence the singular only is employed. The phrases used are “la crête",( “la cime", a and the summit". The literal translation of crête in the Russian version of the treaty is “backbone", which implies extension and can only be applied to a mountain range or chain and not to isolated mountains. It is, moreover, impossible to conceive of mountains, except in a range, paralleling a coast. The word "parallel" conveys the idea of extension and continuity.
The United States does not understand that it is asserted in the British Case that the line of demarcation proposed therein follows a continuous chain of mountains, but that it rests upon the contention that “la crête” signifies “tops." If this definition fails, the boundary between the 56th parallel and the 141st meridian as now drawn by Great Britain must be abandoned, for no evidence has been adduced of the existence of a continuous dominant range of mountains approximately paralleling the physical coast of the continent and within ten leagues therefrom, while on the contrary the proof that no such range exists is conclusive. I
The purpose of Russia in demanding a lisière on the continent was, as has been shown in the Case of the United States, to prevent the Hudson's Bay Company from securing a foothold on the seashore, from which their trappers and traders could successfully compete with the Russian American Company and their Indian hunters along the mainland and among the islands. An examination of the frontier of the lixière, now proposed by Great Britain (Map No. 26 in the Atlas accompanying this Counter Case), shows that every important inlet and bay would, by such demarcation, have belonged to Great Britain, and only the peninsulas and promontories would have been Russian territory. Great Britain shows that the force of this fact, so evident in the negotiations, is appreciated; and to meet it declares that “the truth is that the only difficulty is that caused by reading into the Treaty a controlling principle that British territory shall nowhere touch salt water, and by rejecting every application of the Treaty which does not produce a result in conformity with that assumption. It is submitted that no vestige of any such principle is to be found in the Treaty."
a British Case, p. 81.
Ibid., p. 27. CU. S. Case, App., pp. 13, 213, 214, 218, 219, 226, 229. d Ibid., pp. 185, 188. • Ibid., p. 211; British Case, App. pp. 110, 116. I U. S. Case, App., pp. 7, 8. g Ibid., pp. 529-538; L'. S. Counter ('ase, pp. 257, 262–265. ki p. 45.
The Cnited States asserts that the intention of the parties to the treaty is vital to its true interpretation; that such intention between nations is the very essence of the agreement; and that any material variance from the intention must give place to an interpretation in accordance with it. Besides the facts which have been set forth in the Case of the United States, a statement in the British Case shows that substantially the same opinion as that held by the United States concerning the purpose of the lixiire has been reached by Great Britain. It reads as follows: “In the third place, the extent and the function assigned to the lisière which Russia desired to possess, are worthy of note. It was to be a mere fringe, as a protection and a point d'appui.' It will be found that this conception of the lisière was not departed from“.! How the “mere fringe,” which Great Britain now claims to have been the extent of Russia's continental possessions below mount St. Elias, was to form “a protection and a 'point d'appui’” is not explained.
The United States agrees that the lisière was to protect and support the interests of Russia in the archipelago and inland waters along the mainland shore, but it denies that the lisière of the British Case would have performed those services.
Incidental to a consideration of the inland boundary of the lisière,
a British Case, p. 75.