« VorigeDoorgaan »
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 have been before the negotiators at St. Petersburg and London. In the Russian map of 1802, the Faden map of 1823,4 the Vancouver charts, and in one of the Arrowsmith maps" (the others showing no mountains) there is a clearly defined 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, 1824, the phrase "la chaîne de montagnes” 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 “une chaîne de 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 '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”.
al. S. Counter Case, App., p. 194.
s Ibid., No. 8.
CU. S. Case, Atlas, No. 6.
In the last quotation from Mr. Pelly it is apparent that the phrases "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", 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 detinition 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.!
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
a British Case, p. 81.
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. ŠU. S. Case, App., pp. 7, 8. g Ibid., pp. 529-538; L'. S. Counter ('ase, pp. 257, 262–265.
1 p. 45.
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 lisière, 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, 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.""
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 lisière 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, for which Great Britain is now contending, the assumption that mount St. Elias is within British territory' is, it is submitted, entirely unwarranted. Throughout the negotiations it is apparent that that mountain was to form a conspicuous landmark of the frontier;' and the northern boundary, along the 139th meridian of west longitude, which had been substantially agreed upon by the negotiators, was changed to the 1+1st in order that its lofty peak might mark the termination of the lisière, since the latter meridian more nearly approached the mountain.
a British Case, p. 75.
b Ibid, p. 19.
Mount St. Elias lies within ten marine leagues of the ocean and overtops all other mountains intervening between it and the coast. The United States submits that to draw the line of demarcation along the southern spurs of the great mountain would be in conflict with the evidence and with the manifest intention of the parties to the treaty of 1825.
The extent of the lisière, as interpreted by both of the treaty powers and by other nations for substantially seventy-five years is directly opposed to the present contention of Great Britain. The particular attention of the Tribunal is directed to the following British, Canadian, and British Columbian Maps: the Arrowsmith map of 1833; the Bouchette map of 1853;/ the Cauchon map of 1857;9 the British Admiralty chart of 1861, corrected to 1866;" the Hudson's Bay Company's map of 1850; · the Arrowsmith map of 1863; the official map of British Columbia, 188+;k the map of the Canadian Geological Survey of 1884;! Sir George Simpson's map of 1817;" map of Select Committee of House of Commons, 1857;” official map of British Columbia, 1859; 4 the British Admiralty chart of 1878;' and the official Canadian map of 1883.
a British Case, p. 6.
. S. Case, App., pp. 163, 178, 180, 181; See also V. S. Counter Case, App., pp. 178, 200.
CU. S. Counter Case, App., p. 211.
dU. S. Case, App., pp. 511-523; C. S. Case, Atlas; British Case, Atlas; U. S. Counter Case, App., pp. 243-250; C. S. Counter Case, Atlas.
U. S. Case, Atlas, No. 12. $ Ibid., No. 17. 9 Ibid., No. 19. Ibid., No. 23. i British Case, Atlas, No. 19. j Ibid., No. 22.
Ibid., No. 31. 1 Ibid., No. 32. In l'. S. Counter Case, Atlas, No. 33. * Ibid., No. 35.
On examination of these maps, together with the others offered in evidence, although they may differ in minor details, it will be found that they all agree in the fundamental principle of drawing the boundary line about the heads of all inlets from Portland Canal to the 1+1st meridian of longitude. L'pon this point there is no disagreement. It was universally understood that such was the meaning of the treaty, and the same method of demarking the line was pursued by both the British and Canadian Governments in their official publications. Great Britain thus openly and unreservedly proclaimed to the world the intention of the parties to the treaty of 1825 and the meaning of its terms.
Besides the maps and charts, which were officially issued by the Imperial and Dominion Governments, every act of those governments up to a comparatively recent period was in accord with the meaning of the treaty as interpreted in their maps and charts.
THE LEASE OF THE LISIÈRE BY THE HUDSON'S BAY COMPANY.
The controversy known as “the affair of the Dryad” has been discussed in the Case of the l'nited States, and its result, the leasing of the lisière to the Hudson's Bay Company noted. The claim of the Hudson's Bay Company for £22,150 had been presented and pressed with much earnestness by the British Government through its minister at St. Petersburg. The Russian Government finally, in the latter part of the year 1838, directed the Russian American Company, as there seemed no further pretext for avoiding payment of the claim, to “enter into friendly negotiations with the Hudson's Bay Company's looking towards a settlement. The Russian company at once took steps to comply with the directions of its government.
Preliminary to official negotiations Baron Wrangell communicated privately with Governor Simpson of the Hudson's Bay Company suggesting a lease of the lisière for a term of years to the British company in consideration of a fixed annual rental and the abandonment of the claim for damages in the affair of the Dryad.. To this
a l'.S. Counter Case, Atlas, No. 36.
l'. S. Case, App., pp. 285-307.
Ibid., p. 308. 9 Ibid., p. 311; V. S. Counter Case, App., p. 4.