« VorigeDoorgaan »
(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".
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 tinally signed.
It is a signiticant 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 emploved 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.
115. (l'. 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") in the negotiations. The importance of this fact, now conclusively established, is that the Foreign Office and the British minister at St. Petersbury 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 1923 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 ('ompany enclosed to the British minister, and also showed the boundary desired by the Company. It undoubtedly played an important part in the negotiations of February and March, 192+, as well as in the subsequent conferences which took place and in the preparation of draft conventions at London and at St. Petersbury.
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 fifty-fourth degrees, and it can not be proved that they reach the Great Ocean at any point“. So 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
«L'. S. ('ase., pp. 59–60.
al'. S. Case, App., p. 161.
British (ase, PP p. 65.
1802, published by the Russian quartermaster-general's department, probably Vancouver's charts (either a Russian, English, or French edition), one or more maps by Arrowsmith, and possibly the Langsdortf map of 1803-1805. Other than these publications there is no evidence that any were consulted or examined during the negotiations. Nevertheless the following statement is made in the British Case:
The answer [to what was Vancouver's Portland Canal] must depend on the evidence to be found in Vancouver's book and charts, known to hare bern before the negotiutors, and the sole, or, at any rate, the main and best sources of information on this head.
No citation is given to substantiate the assertion that Vancouver's book was kworu to have been before the negotiators" or that it and
” the charts were probably the xole“ sources of information as to Portland Canal. The fact and the presumption as well are unsupported by any evidence as yet produced by either the l'nited States or Great Britain. An assertion of such importance in the present controversy demands affirmative and conclusive proof. l'pon the establishment of the fact that Vancouver's narrative was read and relied upon by the Russian negotiators rests the entire materiality of the extracts from that work which appear in the Appendix to the British Case."
The United States denies that evidence of any nature whatsoever, from which this assertion can be deduced, has been presented to the Tribunal. On the contrary there is proof that Sir Charles Bagot, the British minister at St. Petersbury, was not familiar with the Vancouver narrative.
The expedition under the command of Captain George Vancouver was sent out to acquire accurate information is to the existence of any water-communication" between the Northwest Coast and the British territory on the opposite side of the continent by means of any considerable inlets of the sea, or even of large rivers."I He was instructed especially to survey " the direction and extent of all such considerable inlets, whether made by arms of the sea or by the mouths of large rivers." And he was informed that the discovery of a year communication between any such inlet or strait and any river running into, or from the lake of the woods, would be particularly useful."
«C'. S. (ase, App., p. 127; British
Case, Itlas, No. 5. C'. s. (ase, Atlas, Sos. Hand . (Ilid., Sos. 8 and 10. « British (ase, Atlas, No. 7.
British (ase, p. 50.
With fidelity and perseverance Vancouver accomplished the task set before him; and in the dedication of his published narrative it is announced that, within the limits of his researches, there was no .navigable communication" with the Atlantic seaboard."
There had existed for many years prior to his voyage the tale of a great river of Northwestern America up which De Fonta was said to have sailed 60 leagues after passing for 260 leagues through the tortuous channels of a vast archipelago. This river, known as “Rio de los Reyes," was placed by English geographers in latitude 53 north. For it Vancouver sought. At the close of his narrative he commented upon this traditional river. He stated that the archipelago did exist between 7 and 57 of north latitude, yet the evidence of a navigable river flowing into it, is still wanting to prove its identity; and the scrupulous exactness with which our survey of the continental shores has been made within these limits precludes the possibility of such a river having been passed unnoticed by us, as that described to be Rio de los Reyes.”
Turning now to the amended proposal of Sir Charles Bagot it is found that he opposed the granting of the continental shore below the 56th parallel to Russia, because it would deprive Great Britain of the bays and inlets between that parallel and 5+ +5' " whereof several (as there is erery reason to believe) communicate directly with the establishments of the Hudson's Bay Company and are, consequently, of essential importance to its commerce.""
Again, in his reply to the observations of the Russian plenipotentiaries, Sir Charles Bagot said: “The head of Portland Channel may be as there is reason to believe, the mouth of some river flowing through the midst of the country occupied by the Hudson Bay Company, and it is, consequently, of great importance to Great Britain to possess the sovereignty of the two shores thereof.",
Both of these statements show an ignorance of Vancower's narrative, of the purpose of the expedition, and of the careful execution of its object. But as further proof that the British negotiator was unfamiliar with the text of Vancouver, when he made the above statement in regard to Portland Canal, attention is called to the fact that the explorer in his description of his reconnaissance of that inlet
aU. S. Counter Case, App., p. 250.
(L'. S. Case, App., p. 159.
specifically stated that “it vrux found to terminate in lour marshy land, in latitude 55 15', longitude 230 6'.".
Furthermore, it should be noted that throughout the correspondence between the negotiators and in the treaty the astronomical locations are given in longitude rest of Greenwich, while in the narrative of Vancouver the longitude given is vast. On all the English maps referred to in the negotiations the longitude appears as went of Greenwich.
In addition to this evidence that the Vancouver narrative was not a source of information to the plenipotentiaries of Great Britain and Russia, much less one of “the main and best sources," the following pertinent questions may be asked: Would not the negotiators, if drawing the southern boundary with Vancouver's technical description before them, have stated accurately the astronomical locations! Would they not bave traced the line from the place of beginning to the head of Portland ('anal by landmarks, especially as the field notes of Vancouver did not appear to correspond with any one of the maps before them? Would not some reference to the Vancouver text have been made during the negotiations?
In the light of the evidence produced and in view of the silence of the correspondence upon the subject, the United States asserts that the text of Vancouver's narrative becomes irrelevant and immaterial in interpreting Articles III and IV of the treaty of 1825; and that, unless it can be shown that the representatives of both powers had the narrative as a guide in fixing names and places, allegations and arguments which rest upon Vancouver's text are valueless in determining the intention of the negotiators or the meaning of the treaty.
The chief omissions of Great Britain in the Case presented to the Tribunal are the documents (the majority of which had been made public) which relate to the treaty of April 5 17, 1821, between the United States and Russia. The negotiations which resulted in this treaty were conducted by the same Russian plenipotentiaries who conferred with Sir Charles Bagot and were carried on at the same time as the negotiations with Great Britain, namely during February and March, 1874. While the American negotiation directly affected the trading privileges secured for a term of ten years by Great Britain, it is principally important in determining what the Russian negotiators,
« British Case, App., p. 143.