Pagina-afbeeldingen
PDF
ePub
[ocr errors]

The Hudson's Bay Company, if the line of demarcation contended for in the British Case was the correct one, would have gained no advantage by the lease that it did not already possess. The reciprocal trade privilege had expired and it could have retained a monopoly of the trade in river beaver and land furs, without paying large sums for the exclusive right. That the company did not possess such monopoly except by title from Russia through the lease is apparent.

It is asserted in the British Case that the lease of the lixière to the Hudson's Bay Company “cannot be put forward as affecting the boundary ", that the “lease sets up no boundary", and that it is "impossible to detect the recognition of any sovereignty on the part of Russia, except over the portion of the territory given her by the Treaty”. To the last proposition the United States agrees, but from the others it dissents. It has already been shown that a boundary was set up in the lease, the southern boundary of 54° 10' north latitude. It is submitted that the lease, interpreted by the acts and utterances of the parties, directly bears upon other portions of the line in controversy.

Two years after Governor Simpson signed the lease at Hamburg he visited the ceded territory. A narrative of his journey was published in 1817, in which he mentioned the lease, and added: “Russia, as the reader is, of course, aware possesses on the mainland, between lat. 54° 40' and lat. 60°, only a strip, never exceeding thirty miles in depth; and this strip, in the absence of such an arrangement ax has just been mentioned, renders the interior country comparatirly useless to England. If Great Britain had possessed the heads of the inlets, Governor Simpson would never have written the last clause of the foregoing sentence.

The summer before the lease was executed the Russians made surveys of the mouth of the Chilkat River and of Taku Inlet. This region came within the leased territory and, therefore, the Russian American Company was prohibited from trading with the natives of that region. The chief factor of the Hudson's Bay Company in 1810 complained to the Russian governor that he had been informed that the Indians in the neighborhood of Cross Sound had been selling their peltry to a Russian trading vessel, and that, if it was true, it was sufficient reason for the lessee to withhold its rental. This charge Governor Etholine

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]

denied, but stated that, through some of the tribes living on the islands, furs had been purchased which came originally from Chilkat, and that these would be kept for the Hudson's Bay Company." Later in the year, he wrote: “After June 1, there came only one canoe here from Chilcat, from which we bought 18 river beavers (sent to you with the last steamer).")

This action of the Russian governor was in compliance with the provisions of the lease, that the Russian American Company “shall not have any communication for the purposes of trade with any of the tribes of Indians occupying or inhabiting that Coast or Interior Country [described as between Cape Spencer and 5+' 40']. And shall not receive in trade, barter or otherwise any of the Furs, Peltries or produce whatsoever of the Mainland Coast or Interior Country already described.” If Chilkat was not within the leased "mainland coast and Interior country belonging to Russia,” then the Russian American Company was not violating its covenants by trading through other Indians for the furs secured there; and, if Chief Factor Douglass had not, likewise, understood the head of Lynn Canal to be within the Russian possessions, he would not have entered his complaint against the Russian traders. Both parties to the lease thus recognized that it embraced that inlet and its branches.

The agreement was renewed in 1819, the Russian American Company having secured imperial sanction for its continuance" and was subsequently extended by several renewals until the territory was transferred to the United States.

In the year 1857 a select committee of the House of Commons conducted an investigation of the affairs of the Hudson's Bay Company. During the sessions of the committee a map was produced, which was later published as part of the report of the committee (Map No. 35 in the Atlas accompanying this Counter Case). The territories occupied by the company were an essential part of the investigation, and this map was referred to and relied upon constantly. It distinctly shows the extent of the lisière leased from Russia, the boundary line being drawn about all the inlets and approximately ten marine leagues from their heads.

a U.S. Counter Case, App., p. 10.

p.

12.
€ British Case, App. p. 150.

b) Ibid.,

d C. S. Counter Case, App., pp. 12-14. · Ibid., p. 36.

The lease and the leased territory were investigated by the committee and the evidence in regard to them was published as part of the report made to the House of Commons. John Rae, Esq., one of the witnesses before the committee, stated that the “strip of land" leased was shown on the charts “ running along the shore."a Sir George Simpson was asked: - Besides your own territory, I think you administer a portion of the territory which belongs to Russia, under some arrangement with the Russian company?". To which question he replied: “ There is a margin of coast marked yellow in the map from 54 40' up to Cross Sound, which we have rented from the Russian American Company for a term of years."

In response to another question he replied: - The British territory runs along inland from the coast about 30 miles; the Russian, territory runs along the coast; we have the right of navigation through the rivers to hunt the interior country." It is apparent that Sir George Simpson, who had visited the region and was thoroughly familiar with its topography, believed that the only way to reach the British territory lying bebind the lisière, was by the rivers.

The lease, which had been extended from time to time, was to expire May 31, 1867." In March the Russian American Company made a report upon the subject to its government. By this report it appears that the minister of the United States at St. Petersburg, acting on behalf of a Californian company, had proposed to obtain the grant of exclusive fishing, hunting and trading within certain limits. This area included Lynu Canal and the region north of it to the boundary between Russian and English possessions." The territory desired by the American company, the report stated, was, with the exception of the islands, "exactly that which is now leased to the Hudson's Bay Company."! It is apparent, and there is no evidence to the contrary, that all parties to the lease fully understood that the boundary line of the lisière extended around all the inlets and indentations of the coast, and that for over twenty-five years they acted in accord with that understanding

But there is even stronger proof that the Hudson's Bay Company considered all the inlets within Russian domain. Every year during the latter years of the lease the trading vessels of the company made three or four visits to Taku, Lynn Canal and Chilkat. When the United States came into possession of the region under the treaty of 1867, the company ceased its operations, withdrew from the territory and sent out an agent to close all accounts with the natives. If the Chilkat, Chilkoot and Taku Inlets, the great highways of trade into the interior, had been, as Great Britain now claims them to be, within the British possessions, the Hudson's Bay Company would never have abandoned them, but would have taken steps for their permanent occupation.

01'.S. Counter Case, App., p. 37.
b Ibid., p. 38.
(Ibid., pp. 39, 41.

1 Ibid., p. 34.
€ Ibid., p. 33.

The British Case, anticipating that the events in connection with the lease and occupation by the Hudson's Bay Company of the lisière under that instrument could be employed as evidence to substantiate the position of the United States, has endeavored to weaken their force by declaring that the Hudson's Bay Company was not, “ during the period in question, in any sense a representative of the British Government, and no action of the Company could possibly affect the question at issue.")

From this declaration in regard to the materiality of evidence relating to the lease of the lisière, the United States dissents; and affirms that such evidence is material, not only because it shows the interpretation placed upon the treaty by the party most in interest, but because west of the Rocky Mountains the company was the de facto government and, therefore, the agent and representative of Great Britain upon the Pacitic coast.

It has been shown in the Case of the United States that the Hudson's Bay Company was substantially the directing power in the negotiations which related to the boundary and which resulted in Articles III and IV of the treaty of 1825; and the proof of this fact has been materially strengthened by the additional correspondence published, for the first time, in the British Case.

Mr. R. M. Martin, whose work on the Hudson's Bay Company was published in 1819, stated that the company materially aided Mr. Canning in 1925, in the restriction of the Russians to their present northern territories"; and that but for it "Great Britain would probably have been shut out from the Pacitie” through the operation of the treaty of 1824 between the C'nited States and Russia. It has been shown that Mr. Canning was indifferent to the delimitation of the boundary, and that it was the Hudson's Bay Company which was the active force in urging British interests in this particular.

al'. S. Counter Case, lpp., p. 228.

1) British Case, p. 87.

In all the vast area, lying westward of Hudson's Bay and extending from the ('olumbia River to the Arctic Ocean, the Hudson's Bay Company was the only representative of British sovereignty. Lieutenant Colonel Scott in 1867 in reporting on the Indian policy of the company declared: “There is not a regular soldier in all British Columbia (excepting marines on shipboard and at Esquimalt).” Throughout the entire region the government was in the hands of the governor of the company and a council composed of its chief factors who made ordinances and directed the territorial atlairs. Justice was adminis tered in accordance with the laws of England by the factors, whose commission as such was "understood to answer the purpose of a commission as magistrates."! Over the Indians of those territories the company exercised absolute authority, arresting and punishing offenders. These facts were brought out in the investigation conducted by the select committee in 1857. And, knowing that the company had been the only representative of British sovereignty in “those extensive regions, whether in Rupert's Land or in the Indian Territory," the committee declared it to be its opinion that the privileges of the Hudson's Bay Company should be continued, the primary consideration being, “the great importance to the more peopled portions of British North America that lar and order should,

possible, be maintained in thexe territories." In fact the region west of the Rocky Mountains was known in 1823 as the possessions of the North-West Company "i and was, in 1854, desig. nated by the British Foreign Office "possessions of the Hudson's Bay Company.";

[ocr errors]

a U.S. ('ounter Case, App., p. 47, also p. 48.
bU. S. Case, p. 59.
('. S. (ase, App., p. 350.
(C'. S. Counter Case, APP., pp. 37, 40.
€ Ibid., p. 41.
f Ibid., pp. 38, 42, 15.
9 Ibid., p. 38; 1'. S. ('ase, App., p. 350.
"l'. S. ('ounter Case, APP, p. 36.
i British Case, Atlas, No. 10.
jl'. S. ('ounter Case, App., p. 18.

« VorigeDoorgaan »