1823, from Mr. Canning to Sir Charles Bagot“ modifying a minor point in the instructions given the latter on July 12, 1823. It in no way affects any statement made in the Case of the United States.

The third document is the text of the full power of the United States minister at St. Petersburg. It establishes no new fact, only emphasizing the object sought by the l'nited States in its negotiations with Russia, as set forth in the Case.

The fourth document is an unsigned memorandum dated January 13, 1824, and addressed to Mr. Canning. In this memorandum there appears to have been enclosed “a Russian Chart (copied from Vancouver's survey)" for the purpose of proving that Sitka was located upon an island. From the suggestion as to a boundary line through Chatham Strait and Lynn Canal being similar to the one proposed by Mr. Pelly, January 8, 1824, it would appear that this memorandum, like others utilized by the British Government, originated with the Hudson's Bay Company, the real party in interest. The chart mentioned is not produced, but it establishes the important fact, that there were Russian copies of Vancouver's charts, which, it may be presumed were consulted by the Russian representatives during the negotiations, and from which by retranslation were derived the names used in the correspondence and treaty drafts.

The fifth document is also a memorandum from the Hudson's Bay Company, dated January 16, 1821. It appears in the British Case as an enclosure to Sir Charles Bagot's instructions, though the latter are dated January 15, 1824,9 one day previous to the date of the memorandum. It is to be presumed, however, that if the document was not enclosed in that letter, it was forwarded in the letter of January 20, 1824," from Mr. Canning to the British minister at St. Petersburg, which "enclosed certain information and suggestions" respecting the negotiation, which Mr. Canning stated he had received since his “despatch on that subject was prepared".

In this memorandum the writer, Mr. Pelly, said that, “as in the conversation he had with Mr. Canning, he [Mr. Canning) seemed to consider Mr. Faden's map as the most authentic (an opinion which in so important a question as that of settling a national boundary, it may, perhaps, be dangerous hastily to admit) Mr. Pelly has had the posts of the Hudson's Bay Company, in that part of the territory under consideration, marked on it; he has likewise had coloured the proposed line from Lynn Canal, the northern extremity of Chatham Strait, as well as the less objectionable one from Mount Elias."

a British Case, App., p. 43.
bl. S. Case, App., p. 123.
© British Case, App., p. 48.

p. 59.

Ibid., p. 64. s Ibid , p. 65. 9 Ibid., p. 59. h Ibid., p. 65.

d Ibid.,

The map, which was thus endorsed by Mr. Canning and which he, on account of his opinion as to its authenticity, doubtless forwarded to Sir Charles Bagot, would appear to have been the one published by James Wyld, the successor of W. Faden, London, June 1, 1823. The other so-called Faden map was not published until June 1, 1824, at which time the boundary line had been substantially agreed upon up to 56 north latitude. The first of these maps, therefore, was undoubtedly consulted both at London and at St. Petersburg as to the entire boundary, while the second could only bave been used in determining the line northward from the 56th parallel. These two maps will be considered more in detail in the discussion of the line of demarcation drawn by the treaty.

The sixth document is the letter of Mr. Canning to Sir Charles Bayot of January 20, 1924, to which reference has just been made. The enclosures, which are not produced, appear to have been additional memoranda, containing information and suggestions, which, because of the extravagance of the views expressed, Mr. Canning was unwilling to endorse, as he was also unwilling to modify, in accordance therewith, his instructions of January 15, 1824. The nature of these suggestions can only be conjectured from the colors placed upon the Faden map, which made Cross Sound and Lynn Canal the southeastern boundary of the Russian possessions.

The seventh document is a letter from the Hudson's Bay Company to Mr. Canning under date of April 19, 1824." Mr. Pelly had received from Mr. Caming a few days previously the despatch and paper's sent to the Foreign Office on March 29. These he laid before the ('ommittee of the Hudson's Bay Company, and he stated to Mr. ('anning in this letter, that, if the British Government considered it advisable to accede to the last proposition made by Russia, his committee could see no reason to object to it. He suggested, however, that, on account of the lack of accurate geographical information, there should be inserted in the article of the treaty, “providing

d' Ibid., p. 78.

« British Case, Atlas, Vo. 10.
v Ibid., No. 11.
€ British (ase, App., p. 65.


P. 66.

for the boundary on the mainland the nearest chain of mountains, not exceeding a few leagues of the coast."

The eighth document is another letter from the Hudson's Bay Company to the Foreign Office, dated May 26, 1824.“ To Mr. Pelly had been submitted for comment, on May 25, the copy of a communication, presumably, from the context, the one sent on May 29, 1824, by Mr. Canning to the Russian minister at London. This letter, containing his views, states that the proposed communication embraced all the points which appear necessary to secure the objects of the Hudson's Bay Company, with the exception of a more particular description of how the mountains range with the sinuosity of the coast, as it is possible that those mountains represented in the charts as closely bordering on the sea, and described by the Russians as a 'très-petite distance,' may really be at a very considerable distance from the coast; and to provide for which case the distance ought to be limited, as Sir Charles Bagot proposed, to a few leagues, say, not exceeding 10 from the shores.

The remainder of the letter contains a discussion of the question in the light of the treaty of April 5 17, 1824, between the United States and Russia. Since Russia had agreed not to establish any settlements below 5° 40', Mr. Pelly stated that she had nothing to concede to Great Britain, and for that reason he was at loss to understand “why Great Britain should cede to Russia the exclusive right to the islands and the coast from lat. 54° 40' northward to Mount Elias.”

The ninth document is a letter of Lord F. Conyngham to Mr. Pelly, dated October 19, 1824, transmitting copies of papers received by the Foreign Office from Count Lieven, the Russian minister at London, with a request for Mr. Pelly's observations upon them. The papers enclosed were undoubtedly Count Nesselrode's important despatch of August 31, 1821," to Count Lieven, which the latter was authorized to communicate to Mr. Canning, together with the enclosures which it contained.

The tenth document is Mr. Pelly's reply to the letter of Lord Conyngham, dated October 20, 1827,9 containing his comments upon the Russian papers.

In it he stated that the counter draft of Russsia” (which was enclosed to him) did not appear to him to be so essentially different from the British draft as to warrant its rejection, except in in the 2nd Article, which should more accurately detine 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".

a British Case, App., p. 80.
l'. S. Case, App., p. 180.
«British Case, App., p. 110.
111'. S. Case, App., p. 200.

Ibid., p. 204.
| British Case, App., pp. 100, 107, 108.
9 Ibid., p. 110.
1 Ibid., p. 94.

Of the ten other documents relating to the negotiations, which are produced on behalf of Great Britain and do not appear in the Appendix to the Case of the United States, but one is important in a review of the correspondence. The one referred to is the treaty draft enclosed in Mr. Stratford Canning's instructions of December 8, 1824, which formed the basis of the draft which he subsequently submitted to the Russian plenipotentiaries. The language of Article III of Mr. George Canning's draft becomes of material value in determining the intent of Great Britain in the negotiations and in ascertaining the meaning of certain words and expressions which appear in the treaty finally signed.

It is a significant fact that of the eleven documents mentioned in. detail seven are communications between the Hudson's Bay Company and the Foreign Office. These not only fully sustain the assertions made in the Case of the United States that in fixing a line of demarca tion the British Government acted solely in the interests of the Hudson's Bay Company, but they establish other facts, which the l'nited States was unable to state with certainty until the production of the documents, ---that is, that every proposal advanced by a British negotiator upon the subject of the boundary originated at the Hudson's Bay House in London; that the historical and geographical facts employed by the British Government were obtained from the memoranda from time to time furnished the Foreign Office by Mr. Pelly, the deputy governor of the company; that all the important correspondence was delivered to the directing committee of the company, and its opinion solicited by the Foreign Office; and that the Hudson's Bay Company advised and in a measure controlled the British Gorernment in each step of the negotiation relating to the boundary.

« British Case, App. (one) p. 110; (three) p. 111; (one) p. 115; (three), p. 117; (one) p. 118; and (one) p. 133.

b) Ibid.,

p. 115.

cl'. s. (ase, pp. 67-66.

As shown in the Case of the United States, the territorial question was, so far as the British Government was concerned, subsidiary to that of maritime jurisdiction, and this newly produced evidence proves the assertion that "it was not the British Government, but the Hudson's Bay Company which had given it such prominence "y in the negotiations. The importance of this fact, now conclusively established, is that the Foreign Office and the British minister at St. Petersburg relied for their information, outside of the maps which they examined, upon the data furnished them by the Hudson's Bay Company. The reference of despatches and papers to Mr. Pelly and his committee by Mr. Canning, before being acted upon by the British Government, shows that it was dependent upon that company for the facts relative to the region in dispute.

The Faden map of 1823 was furnished to the Foreign Office by Mr. Pelly at the time the letter of instructions of January 15, 1824, was prepared and sent to Sir Charles Bagot. It embodied geographical information in accord with the memoranda of the Hudson's Bay Company enclosed to the British minister, and also showed the boundary desjied by the Company. It undoubtedly played an important part in the negotiations of February and March, 1924, as well as in the subsequent conferences which took place and in the preparation of draft conventions at London and at St. Petersburg.

There can be no doubt that this map was before the negotiators. In the memorandum of the Russian plenipotentiaries upon the amended proposal of Sir Charles Bagot appears the following statement: “According to the most recent and best maps published in England the establishments of the Hudson Bay Company approach the coast only along the fifty-third and tifty-fourth degrees, and it can not be proved that they reach the Great Ocean at any point"." No other map, published at that time, shows the posts of the Hudson's Bay Company west of the Rocky Mountains, which had been placed on the Faden map under the direction of Mr. Pelly. This assertion of the Russian representatives could, therefore, have been made only after an examination of this map.

Besides the Faden map there were before the negotiators the map of

a U. S. (ase., pp. 59–60.
bIbid., p. 60.
€ British Case, App., p. 65.

(I'. S. Case, App., p. 161.

British ('ase, App. p. 65.

« VorigeDoorgaan »