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 Colunbia map of 1881 (marked b), which may not have been issued until 1885, has given to the United States as its lisière approximately 16,610 square miles. Dr. Dawson's Map of 1887 (marked () 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, 1998. It is presumed to represent the views and wishes of the British Gorernment at that time. It is somewhat similar to the map (marked †) 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 3,310 square miles.

The Map No. 37 in the Atlas to the British Case (marked /), 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 lisiire, 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

«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 orer a part of the ocean admittedly belonging to the l'nited 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.

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

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

[ocr errors]

been engaged in the exploitation of the mineral wealth which their enterprise, under the protection of their government, has brought to light in the lisière. A list of the location of the mines now in operation will show how they are affected by the new line proposed by Great Britain. Taken in their geographical order, the first to be noted are those in what is known as the Porcupine (listrict. They are situated on the creeks of the Klehini River and are on the American side of the provisional line agreed upon in 1899. They carry placer gold, and extensive exploitation and development have been going on there for four years. These would all be placed within British territory by the new line. In the Berners Bay district are grouped a number of important gold and silver quartz mines. The first of these was located in 1885 and others in the next following years. They represent heavy investments of capital. The British line seems to cut directly through the district, and it is difficult to state just how many of the mines would be affected by it. Back of Juneau on the mainland is situated a group of important gold and silver quartz mines which for twenty years past have produced largely. The British line in that vicinity l'uns close to the shore, and seems to place some of those mines in peril. In the Snettisham district there are several groups of gold and silver mines now being actively worked. Nearly all, if not all, of these seem to be transferred to British territory. In the Sumdum district there are valuable groups of gold and silver mines, all of which are placed on the British side of the line, including the rich mines of Sumdum island. The gold placer beds at the head of Windham Bay share the same fate. The Unuk River gold and silver bearing quartz lodes beyond peradventure become British by this line. The Ketchikan district located in the extreme southwest, partly on the islands and partly on the mainland, seems to include the only gold and silver mines in the lisière which have escaped the rapacity of the scientists who have constructed the line along the coast peaks; but even these mines would lose their nationality if the alternative line suggested in the British Case should be adopted.

To enable the Tribunal to more fully understand the location and character of the mines in question an official report from the United States Geological Survey is herwith submitted. €


L'. S. Counter Case, App., p. 266.

al'. S. Case, App., pp. 492–4:05.
o Ibid., p. 494.


(6) Finally, by the aid of the Canadian scientists and cartographers, the United States is given a lisière broken up into disconnected and worthless fragments, the burden of whose possession and control no government would be willing to assume. The map shows that these isolated promontories and mountainous shores number sixteen in all, scattered along a coast of three hundred miles. Some of these are only from one half a mile to two and a half miles in width and from two and a half to three miles in length. Two of them contain only three and five square miles respectively; five of them less than one hundred square miles each; and of the sixteen, thirteen contain less than six hundred square miles each. In the presence of such facts. how attenuated and useless becomes the barrier on the winland which the Russian negotiators demanded should be assured to them by the treaty of 1825. During the Fur Seal Arbitration of 1893, this treaty was the subject of a thorough examination and discussion, and in the course of it one of the distinguished counsel of Great Britain detined this oft-used word lisière." His language was: a "Lisière is 'selvage'-“strip'-like the edge of cloth”. What becomes of this apt definition in the presence of the torn and raveled fringe upon the map presented in the British Case?

In contrast with the inconsistent, variable, and impracticable boundary lines which have attended the British and Canadian treatment of this question, stands the uniform and consistent attitude of the United States. The map which was carefully prepared and published to the world at the cession in 1867 has remained unchanged in any essential respect in the many official editions which have been issued since that date, with only such slight modifications as the gradually obtained geographic knoweldge made necessary, and which in no degree modified the interpretation which the l'nited States from the beginning has placed upon the treaty. An effort is made in the British Case,' to establish

al'. S. Counter Case, App., p. 195. (Extract from Oral Argument in Fur Seal Arbitration.)

Mr. Justice HarlAN.—What are the English words in Article VI corresponding to lisière?

Sir RICHARD WEBSTER.-I will read it:
** May cross the line of demarcation upon the line of coast.”

The expression “line of coast” is not the proper translation-it ought to be " strip of coast.” “Strip” is the correct translation of “lisière,” if I may be permitted to say so Mr. President, and no doubt if I am wrong you will correct me. “Lisière” is “selvage” –“strip"—like the edge of cloth—"border.”

British Case, pp. 103, 104.

[ocr errors]

some discrepancy in two maps published with the tenth census of the United States. As to the first of these, even admitting the statement as made, it does not affect the character of the map as being in substantial agreement with the other maps of the government. It was not prepared in the office of the United States Coast and Geodetic Survey and for that reason some slight variance was natural. The second map (No. 30 in the British Atlas) is on a very reduced scale and was drawn for the purpose of indicating timber distribution, &c. The British Case states that it “shows the boundary line apparently crossing the head of Lynn Canal, leaving a portion of it on the British side of the boundary line." A careful examination will make apparent the erroneous character of this statement. The westernmost point of Lynn Canal is approximately in longitude 135° 3t', while the census maps show the boundary as crossing the Chilkat River, exaggerated in breadth, not Lynn Canal, in longitude 136o.

The United States has from the time of the cession of Alaska to the present day maintained but one interpretation of the treaty of 1525. Its position has been open and known to the world. It is the same which was presented to the Tribunal in its Case and which it now reiterates in this Counter Case.


The United States, having reviewed the evidence produced in the British Case together with that herewith submitted, affirms that such evidence fully substantiates the statement of facts set forth in the Case of the United States; and it, therefore, asserts that such facts are conclusively established, and that, in addition to thus confirming the declared position of the United States as to the meaning of Articles III, IV, and V of the treaty of 1825, this evidence further establishes the following:

(4) That the channel, described in Article III of the treaty of 1825 as “Portland Channel," is not the narrow passage lying northward of Kannaghanut and Sitklan islands and the passage lying northwestward of Pearse and Wales islands; and that it was not the intention of the high contracting parties or the meaning of the treaty that the boundary line between the British and Russian possessions on the Northwest Coast should be drawn through those passages.

(%) That the course of the boundary line between the head of Portland Canal and the 56th parallel of north latitude, as claimed in the

« VorigeDoorgaan »