that region. Thenceforward, as has been shown in the Case of the United States, the reign of law and the administration of justice, under the undisputed authority of the United States has continued. In view, however, of the statements in the British Case, it has been determined to submit to the Tribunal, in rebuttal of these statements, further evidence relating to the occupation of the districts at the head of Lynn Canal since 1880, and more particularly the depositions of officials as to the character of the authority exercised in that region. It was not deemed necessary to adduce further proof of the absolute control of the Indians, so fully established in the Case of the United States, but there are added certified copies of several documents, still preserved, given to Indian chiefs and others by the officials of the United States which, with those in the Case, show the presence in the inlets of Lynn Canal of naval and other authorities of the United States annually for the first twenty years after the cession. In addition to evidence already submitted, depositions are now produced showing that a trading post was established at Haines on Chilkoot Inlet in 1880, another soon followed, and in 1886 a third trading post was located at a place since called Dyea; that a small permanent settlement of Americans existed at Haines in 1888; and that "during the 80's" from one to two hundred American miners were passing to and from the Yukon region, and making this point their place of supply," and they constantly increased in numbers until the great “rush” occurred about 1897. It is also shown that in 1883 there were three canneries in operation at and in the vicinity of Pyramid Harbor; that by 1888 their annual output amounted to 55,000 cans; and that they were among the first and most important in Alaska. It appears in the Case that immediately after the civil government was established in 1884 the Presbyterian mission at Haines was surveyed and the survey filed in the land office at Sitka. Depositions now submitted show that surveys were made of the early trading posts and notice of their location filed with the United States collector at Sitka, and that various official surveys were made by the United States deputy surveyor from 1889 to 1891, and a map of the surveys in Pyramid Harbor in 1891 will be found in the Atlas accompanying this Counter Case, Map No. 32.4 In 1887 a Canadian exploring survey party to the Yukon, under the direction of William Ogilvie, arrived at Haines. This party was « U. S. Counter Case, App., pp. 212-214, 288. Ibid., pp. 220, 230, 231. ₫ Ibid., pp. 220, 229, 231, 235. operating with another Dominion party under Dr. George M. Dawson, which had entered upon its work through the Stikine route. The boats of the party were towed up from Juneau to Taiya Inlet by the United States naval vessel "Pinta," Commander Newell. While waiting there for supplies Ogilvie made some surveys at the head of the inlets; Commander Newell reported, "having previously asked authority from me to begin these, which request I cheerfully granted." Mr. Ogilvie had much difficulty in inducing the Chilkoot Indians to transport his supplies and instruments over the mountain passes on his way to the interior on account of their anger at the British because the Hudson's Bay people had killed some of the tribe, It appears there was a party of Stick Indians from the interior of British territory trading at Haines, who were ready to do the packing over the trail, but they were not permitted by the Chilkoots who held them to be foreigners. Mr. Ogilvie had to appeal to Commander Newell, who, Ogilvie in his official report says, "kindly aided me in making arrangements with the Indians. Commander Newell told him [the Chilkoot chief] I had a permit from the Great Father at Washington to pass through his country safely, that he would see that I did so, and if the Indians interfered with me they would be punished for doing so. * I am strongly of the opinion that these Indians would have been much more difficult to deal with if they had not known that Commander Newell remained in the inlet to see that I got through without accident." * * b * * * Mr. Ogilvie on his return from the Yukon again passed through Haines where he was joined by Dr. Dawson. United States Deputy Marshall Healy deposes: "I had considerable talk with them during their visit. They made no protest against the occupation at the head of Lynn Canal by Americans, and made no claim to the region as belonging to Canada." e In view of the voluminous official reports of the surveys made by Messrs. Ogilvie and Dawson, and of their visit to the head of Lynn Canal in 1887, it can not be seriously maintained that "until 1896 the Governments of Great Britain or Canada knew little or nothing" of that region, or that they were ignorant of the exercise of sovereignty by the United States over that district. U. S. Case, App. p. 391. U. S. Counter Case, App., pp. 215-217, 234, 235. C Ibid., p. 235. d British Case, p. 92. d In the year 1887 Francis H. Poindexter was appointed justice of the peace for the district in and about Pyramid Harbor, and acted in that capacity until he left Alaska in 1891. In the discharge of his duties he took cognizance of both civil and criminal cases arising on the shores of Chilkat Inlet and in the country adjacent thereto. Poindexter after leaving Alaska resided in California until his death in October, 1898. About the year 1889 John J. Healy was appointed United States deputy marshal, and in 1890 he was also commissioned as deputy collector of customs, and exercised the functions of these offices over the country about the head of Lynn Canal, including Chilkat, Chilkoot, and Dyea Inlets." Other officials in the enforcement of the revenue laws about the same time seized and confiscated liquors in the vicinity of the summit of Chilkoot Pass. In 1897 John U. Smith was appointed by the President of the United States commissioner for the judicial district of Alaska. He states that he reached Dyea, Alaska, in July of that year. Soon after his arrival, being informed that a number of Canadian officials were stationed at Skagway, he went to that place and found them located in tents; that he addressed the person who represented himself to be in charge of the party, and who was dressed in the uniform of a Canadian mounted police, stating that he hoped there would be no difficulty between them as to the exercise of jurisdiction and authority at Skagway and Dyea: that the Canadian official said there should be none. and that he and his party withdrew beyond the mountain pass to Lake Tagish. He further deposes that he was present as United States commissioner when the resident citizens of the United States met to locate the town of Skagway under the United States laws, and likewise at Dyea when similar proceedings were had, and that neither then nor at any time before he ceased to act as commissioner in May, 1898, was any protest made by Canadian officials or subjects who vis ited these localities, against these proceedings, nor any claim made by them that those towns were within Canadian territory. Commissioner Smith states that on the trail which extended from Skagway over White Pass to Lake Bennett, a distance of about thirtyfive miles, and on the trail from Dyea to Lake Linderman a distance of thirty miles he exercised jurisdiction and that on numerous occasions he sent deputy marshals over those trails to make arrests; that GU. S. Counter Case, App., pp. 218, 230, 282. e Ibid., p. 221. b Ibid., p. 235. he has no knowledge that any Canadian officials made arrests on these trails: that Canadian officials often visited Dyea and Skagway and knew that he was holding court and exercising such jurisdiction, but so far as he was informed never made any protest against his acts; that in the month of September 1897, under instructions from his government, he visited Lake Linderman to investigate an alleged cutting of timber on American territory, and that he assumed at that place jurisdiction of of an offense there, in the presence of the Canadian official in charge in that vicinity and without his protest; and that in October 1897, he was visited in Dyea by one Bevan, who represented himself to be, and he believes him to have been, an inspector of Canadian police, who agreed with him that the limit of exercise of jurisdiction over the trails named should be at a point between Lakes Bennett and Linderman fixed upon between them and so indicated on a sketch, which is reproduced in his deposition." It also appears from the deposition of the United States officials cited, the superintendent of the canneries, the owners of the trading posts, and other residents that from the first location of white settlers at the head of Lynn Canal in 1880 up to the year 1898, all persons regarded and accepted all the localities in that vicinity as the territory of the United States, that all locations entry and record of titles were made under the laws of the United States, that jurisdiction and authority was in all cases exercised by United States officials; and that no British or Canadian official or subject during the period named ever made any claim of territory or filed or uttered any protest against the exercise of authority by the United States. It is contended on the part of the United States that the facts herein set forth, and in its Case, establish beyond controversy that the United States has been in complete and peaceful occupation and control of the territory about the head of Lynn Canal from 1867; that this occupation and control were well known to the Canadian Government and its officials; and that no claim was advanced by them to this territory or any protest made against the American occupation previous to 1898. In the presence of these facts and of the public declarations of the present Prime Minister of Canada and of the Minister of the Interior that Russia had been in possession of the territory in question from time immemorial, and that in 1867 it passed into the hands of @ U. S. Counter Case, App., pp. 222-227. the Americans, by whom it was held in undisputed possession up to 1898, it is suggested that the contention in the British Case is not well founded that these facts should have no influence upon the Tribunal. THE BOUNDARIES PROPOSED BY GREAT BRITAIN. A serious embarrassment which has in the past presented itself to the United States in the consideration of the informal or unofficial claims of Great Britain and Canada respecting the boundary has been the variable and conflicting character of those claims advanced from time to time. The British Case presents for the first time in the history of the controversy a distinct, complete, and formal announcement of its claim respecting the boundary of the lisière. And this claim differs from every other claim which has been set forth by British or Canadian officials or subjects. A brief review of the various phases which the question has undergone at the hands of those officials and subjects, when they attempted to depart from the long-accepted interpretation of the treaty, may be useful in a consideration of the claim of Great Britain now before the Tribunal. For about twenty years after the United States took possession of Alaska and published its official map of 1867, there was a general acceptance by British and Canadian officials, cartographers and writers of the line marked out by Russia and so explicitly and publicly laid down by the United States. It has been seen that when a movement was initiated in 1872 for a survey and delimitation, there was no dissent in the public offices either at London or Ottawa from the proposition that the line was to be drawn, under the treaty, across all the rivers and streams which empty into the inlets-and straits of the sea. When gold was discovered near the headwaters of the Stikine in paying quantities a few years later, and an effort was made to push down the line which had heretofore been observed by the Hudson's Bay Company and determined by the Canadian Privy Council, no suggestion was made that the line crossing the rivers should be abandoned. As Lord Iddesleigh, directing the foreign affairs of the British Government in 1886, expressed it, in referring to the boundary marked as laid down by the United States, it was admitted that the boundary was "somewhere in that region". The first indication of a change in the views of Canadians on the subject was manifested in British Columbia. A report of the Execu |