a

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 district. 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 runs 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."

@U. S. Case, App., pp. 492-495.
bIbid., p. 494.

U. S. Counter Case, App., p. 266.

(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 mainland 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 defined this oft-used word “lisière." His language was: "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 United States from the beginning has placed upon the treaty. An effort is made in the British Case," to establish @ U. S. Counter Case, App., p. 195. Arbitration.)

a

(Extract from Oral Argument in Fur Seal

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.

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 34', while the census maps show the boundary as crossing the Chilkat River, exaggerated in breadth, not Lynn Canal, in longitude 136.

The United States has from the time of the cession of Alaska to the present day maintained but one interpretation of the treaty of 1825. 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.

STATEMENT IN CONCLUSION.

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:

(a) 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 north westward 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.

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

British Case, is contrary to the intention of the high contracting parties to the treaty of 1825 and to the meaning of that treaty.

(~) That the peaks of the mountains, which are adopted in the British Case as limiting the eastern and northern boundary of the lisière, are not "la crête des montagnes situées parallelement à la côte” referred to in Article III of the treaty of 1825.

(d) That the words "côte" and "ocean" used in Articles III and IV of the treaty in describing the lisière were so used in their physical and not in their political sense; and that such was the intention of the high contracting parties and the meaning of the treaty.

(e) That the interpretation of Articles III, IV and V of the treaty of 1825 by the United States since the cession of the territory in 1567, and by Russia prior thereto, has been uniformly and consistently maintained to the present time, and is the same interpretation set forth in the Case of the United States.

(ƒ) That, until a comparatively recent period, the British and Canadian Governments, by their official acts, declarations, and publications, interpreted the meaning of Articles III, IV, and V of the treaty of 1825 in accordance with the interpretation placed upon such articles by the United States and Russia.

(1) That Great Britain has admitted that the interpretation of the treaty of 1825 by the United States and Russia is in accord with the intention of the high contracting parties to the treaty and with its meaning, in failing to enter official protest against the occupation by Russia, and subsequently by the United States, of the lisière, in accordance with such interpretation.

() That the facts leading up to the treaty, the text of the instrument itself, the interpretation of it by the acts of the United States and of Russia which were acquiesced in by Great Britain, and the acts of Great Britain show that it was the original and effective understanding of the high contracting parties that, under the provisions of the treaty of 1825, Russia was to have a continuous strip of land upon the continent from the 56th parallel of north latitude to the 141st meridian of west longitude, bounding the shores of all inlets and bays, and that the line of demarcation, when actually located upon the ground, was to be so drawn as to include within the territory of Russia all of the waters of such inlets and bays and of the shores bounding them.

() That His Britannic Majesty's Government has never, until its Case was submitted to this Tribunal, officially declared a claim as to the manner in which the boundary line should be drawn between the Territory of Alaska and the Province of British Columbia, contrary to the interpretation placed upon the treaty of 1825 by the United States and Russia.

(j) That the boundary line claimed in the British Case is at variance with and contradictory of the various interpretations of Articles III, IV and V of the treaty of 1825, which have been, from time to time, advanced by Canadian statesmen and writers, and which have formed the bases of various boundary lines appearing upon certain maps published in Canada since 1885 and upon others published in Great Britain since 1898:

(4) That the boundary line claimed in the British Case is in direct conflict with the evidence submitted to this Tribunal and is contrary to the manifest intention of the high contracting parties to the treaty of 1825 and to the meaning of such treaty.

The United States upon the facts established by the evidence submitted in its Case and confirmed by the evidence adduced herein and in the British Case, and upon the further facts established as above set forth, reasserts its claims as to the answers and decisions which should be made by this Tribunal to the questions propounded in Article IV of the treaty of January 24, 1903, and repeats the specific requests therefor, as set forth in the Case of the United States.