tive Council of the Provincial Government published in 1885 shows that a very full and detailed discussion of the boundary took place in the Council, with a copy of the treaty of 1825 published in McCul lach's Commercial Dictionary before it. This text of the treaty did not contain in Article III the words "called Portland Channel.” Upon this text the Council reached the following conclusion: "The Government of British Columbia contends that any recognition of the words Portland Channel' as being in the Treaty, was a grave mistake, and most injurious to the interests of British Columbia." The official map makers of the Province were accordingly directed to prepare a map to conform “to the interests of British Columbia," and it appeared with the boundary drawn from Cape Chacon up Clarence Strait, thus giving the Portland Peninsula and the Revillagigedo Archipelago to Canada. On this new map, however, the line crossed the Stikine at the point fixed by Hunter, and passed about 10 leagues around the heads of the inlets. It is a curious fact that the genesis of the Canadian claims had its origin in a false text of the treaty of 1825.

In 1888 Dr. Dawson, who was in Washington seeking to impress upon Dr. Dall the views of General Cameron, produced a new map, also originating in British Columbia. The hallucination seemed still to exist that" Portland Channel" did not exist in the treaty, but a step further had been taken to protect "the interests of British Columbia." Hunter's range of mountains disappeared, all the rivers were pushed back into Canada by the pencil of the draughtsman, and the line was drawn across the heads of all the inlets. A still further advance was made in British Columbia, in the contention that the political coast line outside the Alaskan archipelago was the line from which the treaty limit of ten leagues from the coast was to be drawn, a contention which effaced the lisière from the mainland. This latter claim was probably of the class referred to in the semi-official Ottawa article in the Edinburgh Review, as "the extravagant claims put forward by over-zealous British Columbians," although it is reproduced and insisted upon in the British Columbia Year Book for 1901.' From about 1888 the Canadian official maps ceased to appear, as formerly, with the boundary marked in accordance with the official maps of the United States, although it was asserted in the Dominion House of Commons on May 6, 1901, that the large official map of the b Ibid., p. 204.

@U. S. Counter Case, App., p. 180-190.

Dominion of Canada exhibited by the Canadian commission at the last Paris Exposition had the boundary marked as claimed by the United States." On the other hand, it will be seen by an examination of the Appendix to this Counter Case' that the British map publishers continued almost uniformly even up to a very late date, to mark the boundary as it appears on the official maps of the United States. This is especially noticeable in the British Admiralty charts. The British Colonial Office List, although not an official issue, is understood to be the only publication of the kind, and to be circulated by the Colonial Office; and it is professedly compiled from official records," etc. In 1869 this publication contained a general map of the British Dominions showing the Alaskan lisière substantially as claimed by the United States. Similar maps appeared in its annual issues up to and including 1902. In the issue of 1903 the map was omitted.

There has been as much variance and modification of views on the boundary question by the public men and writers of Canada, as in the map publications. Extracts from some of the recent published articles are given. Hon. David Mills, in 1879, in the Dominion Parliament, combatted the opinion of the British law officers that the right had been lost to navigate the rivers and streams which flowed through Russian territory to the sea, but in an article printed in 18997 he claimed that the true boundary line should be drawn across the inlets, thus placing all the rivers except the Stikine in British territory. In the same article he contended that the ten years' privilege of trade granted by Article VII of the treaty of 1825 was confined to the lisière, and yet the British Government in the Fur Seal Arbitration at Paris in 1893 maintained that it applied to the whole of the Northwest Coast of America. He asserted in 1899 that the true interpretation of the treaty required that the boundary line should pass up Clarence Strait, while the government of which he was a minister has now asserted that the true interpretation of the treaty requires it to pass up Pearse and Portland Canals.

It has been seen that Hon. R. W. Scott, Minister of State in the present Canadian Cabinet, declared in the Dominion Senate in 1892

that there was no dispute as to the boundary, and he described the line, according to the treaty, as follows: "It commences at Portland Channel and extends along the summit of the mountains, where those mountains do not extend more than 10 marine leagues inwards, and if they are more than 10 marine leagues, then 10 leagues is the limit to a certain meridian, and from that point it is a straight line to the frozen ocean. a How radically that line differs from the one his own government has now submitted to the Tribunal may be seen by reference to Map No. 37 of the Atlas accompanying the British Case.'

Attention has been called to the parliamentary declarations of the Prime Minister and the Minister of the Interior of Canada that there has been undisputed American possession about the head of Lynn Canal, and that it has been held from time immemorial by Russia and the United States; nevertheless the British Case has occupied considerable space in the attempt to show repeated protests by Great Britain against this occupation, and a line is insisted upon which places the larger portion of that arm of the sea in British territory. Without dwelling further upon the inconsistencies and conflict of views of the statesmen of Canada, attention is called to extracts from various recent articles published by prominent Canadians, showing similar inconsistencies and as marked conflict with the position in the British Case as those already cited.

In order to illustrate more graphically these inconsistent claims, a comparative reproduction on a reduced scale is presented, in the Atlas accompanying this Counter Case, of five British Columbian maps and of three British maps to which official authenticity has been given at different times. (See Sheet No. 28.) An examination of them will show the appropriateness of the following colloquy which took place in the Dominion Parliament, February 11, 1898:

Sir CHARLES HIBBERT TUPPER.

*

* * I do not know how far the government

would be warranted in marking what is disputed territory, nevertheless I think it would not confound any proper conception to mark the points they [the United States] have already occupied in the territory with customs officers.

The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Sir Louis Davies). It might be as hard to find the disputed boundary as the real boundary.

Sir CHARLES HIBBERT TUPPER. I do not press for any impropriety being committed, but I think this can be done *

a U. S. Counter Case, App., p. 167.

U. S. Counter Case, Atlas, No. 26.

*

U. S. Counter Case, App., pp. 200-211.
Ibid., pp. 168–9.

The ocular comparative study of the maps reproduced on Sheet No. 28 of the Atlas may be aided by a comparison of figures.

The first map on the Sheet (marked a in the table of contents), issued by the Government of British Columbia has the line drawn approximately as it appeared on all British and Canadian maps up to the date of its publication in 1884. This line is in substantial agreement with the interpretation placed upon the treaty by the United States.

It will be found that the second British Columbia map of 1884 (marked b), which may not have been issued until 1885, has given to the United States as its lisière approximately 16,640 square miles. Dr. Dawson's Map of 1887 (marked c) which was used by him at Washington in 1888 and which Lord Lansdowne has stated represented the views of the British Government." draws a "line approximately following summits of mountains parallel to the coast“ and gives to the United States as its lisière approximately 8,930 square miles.

The Joint High Commission Map of 1898 (marked g) was a map with the boundary traced upon it in red ink, which was submitted to that commission by the British members at Quebec on August 30, 1898. It is presumed to represent the views and wishes of the British Government at that time. It is somewhat similar to the map (marked ƒ) just above it on the sheet, except that the boundary line on the latter. crosses over to Douglas Island and takes in the Treadwell gold mine. The British Commissioners' map gives to the United States as its lisière approximately 3,340 square miles.

The Map No. 37 in the Atlas to the British Case (marked 7), which is the ultimate and most formal presentation of the British claim, gives to the United States as its lisière approximately 7,900 square miles.

Contrasted with these varying claims of the British authorities is the uniform lisière, as shown on the official maps of the United States since 1867, which contains approximately 32.000 square miles.

An examination of Map No. 37 in the Atlas accompanying the British Case, and which is reproduced in the Atlas accompanying this Counter Case as No. 26 and on a reduced scale in No. 28, will show:

(1) That it is inconsistent with the positions heretofore occupied by the British and Canadian Governments, its officials, historians, cartographers and writers. These inconsistencies appear in what has

a C. S. Counter Case, App., p. 159.

already been stated in this Counter Case, and need not here be repeated. Attention, however, is called to the fact that practically all the rivers which were supposed to cross the lisière have been placed in British territory. Such an interpretation of the treaty of 1825 is at variance with the former attitude of the British and Canadian Governments and their statesmen, and renders meaningless the proVision contained in Article VI of that treaty.

(2) That it also conspicuously ignores the acts of its own officials respecting the Stikine River. It has been shown that the Canadian Privy Council and various British and Canadian officials recognized the crossing of that river by the boundary line somewhere in the vicinity of 57 of latitude; but that later under the pressure of the gold mining interests of the Cassiar district an officer was sent to survey that river, and that he reported to the Canadian Government that he had located the summit of the mountains parallel to the coast" as stated in the treaty; and he fixed the point where the river cut through that mountain range. For more than twenty years this alleged topographical fact has been insisted upon by Canadian officials. But in constructing the new map of the lisière in the British Case, all these historical facts are ignored and the mountain range, apparently so surely established by the Hunter survey of 1877, disappears, and a new line is invented to follow the peaks on the coast.

(3) That an examination of the new line shows not only its inconsistency, but its impracticable, even absurd, character. In drawing the boundary from the head of Portland Canal in search of a coast range, the line leaves the mainland, cuts off a portion of Bell Island, and extends British dominion over a part of the ocean admittedly belonging to the United States. In Endicott Arm another island is appropriated which contains valuable gold mines now being worked by Americans; and elsewhere, along the coast, islands of unknown value are transferred to British domain.

(4) That it also appropriates all the inlets, and almost all of the harbors and safe anchorages along the lisière, leaving the United States without proper localities along the mainland to moor its vessels or establish bases for its commerce. The point d'appui“ so stoutly and so successfully contended for by Russia in the negotiations has no existence in the lisière marked out in the British Case.

6.

(5) But a more serious condition is developed by this new map. For more than twenty years past citizens of the United States have