the hands of competent men. The latter involves an interpretation of Clause III. of the treaty.

gen

In 1885 Mr. Justice Gray made a report to the British Columbia Government, in which he pointed out that the line running through Portland Channel, as marked on the maps, did not harmonize with the other conditions of the Article. To understand his contention involves no tine legal skill; it is a plain statement. The line commencing at the southernmost point of Prince of Wales Island, Cape Chacon, is to "ascend to the north along the channel called the Portland Channel." Portland Canal is fifty miles from Prince of Wales Island, and a line to there would not ascend to the north, but go in a south-easterly direc tion. It may be held that it does go north on the ground that the eral direction is north; and if no other conditions were demanded, that might hold good, although not strict interpretation. It, however, is required that the line is to go north along the Portland Channel, until it strikes the 56th degree of latitude at a point of the continent. Portland Channel does not reach the 56th degree of latitude at all, and being wholly within the continent, a line following its channel could not possibly strike a point on "the continent." Then, again, it is stipulated that Prince of Wales Island is to belong "wholly" to Russia. There can be only one inference from that, when we consider that a large group of islands, the principal of which is Revilla Gigedo, intervenes between Prince of Wales Island and the mainland, and that is that some other channel than Portland Canal was intended, otherwise it would have been stipulated that the group of islands inside of it, and nót Prince of Wales, should belong "wholly" to Russia. The channel separating Prince of Wales island from these islands, or in other words, Clarence Straits. must have been meant. If Prince of Wales Island is to belong wholly to Russia, what about the group of islands which intervenes? If, on the other hand, you discard the Portland Canal, and carry your line up either Behm's Canal or Clarence Straits, you meet all conditions, striking the continent exactly at the 56th degree of north latitude, leaving Prince of Wales Island wholly within Alaska territory.

More than that, the Portland Canal boundary, in continuing it, lands you into a second absurdity. As was pointed out by Mr. Justice Gray, the head of Portland Canal is far east of the Coast range of mountains, and in order to strike their summit, the line would have to cross several intervening mountains, making as is shown in Mr. Hunter's map, a sudden dip at right angles. Continuing the boundary directly northward, from Point Chacon through Behm's Canal or Clarence Straits. you follow the Coast Mountain Range naturally. Every circumstance and reasonable assumption favors the contention that the Portland Canal of Vancouver's charts is not the Portland Channel, meant in thetreaty.

It is not known what maps were used at the convention. Doubtless Vancouver's charts were. However, it is not likely that Great Britain would concede more territory to Russia than what Russian maps showed Russia claimed. There is in Victoria an old French map, 1815, copied from maps in St. Petersburg bearing date of 1802, and the dividing line as shown there is up Clarence Straits with Revilla Gigedo and all the islands included within the British Possessions.

The question in this case is not one of delimitation so much as of construction. Taken by themselves, the words "through the Port

land Channel" are explicit, and would come under the rule that what is plain needs no interpretation, consequently binding without cavil; but where, as in this, the provisions are inharmonious and contradictory, interpretations must be resorted to. The rules of interpretation are clear. We must take all the conditions of the article and judge from the intention of the framers.

The Alaska Boundary question really resolves itself into three main physical divisions, each one of which is dependent upon a distinct series of evidence or independent data, which, taken in order, are:--

1. The construction of the clause of the Treaty of 1825 by which the line of demarcation from Cape Chacon, the southernmost point of the Prince of Wales Island, is to be determined until it reaches a point of the Continent at the 56th degree of north latitude.

2. The determination of the line of demarcation from the last named point following along the coast line (see Clause III. of the Treaty quoted in the foregoing) until a point on the coast is reached where it is intersected by the 141st degree of west longitude.

3. Fixing astronomically the 141st degree of west longitude and its prolongation northward as far as the frozen ocean.”

The first of these involves, as has already been pointed out, the construction of the language of the Treaty according to well-understood and firmly established rules of interpretation adopted in international disputes of this character. This division of the subject has been fully dealt with in the foregoing.

The third phase of the dispute is dependent entirely upon astronomical definition, and is a simple matter, having already been practically disposed of by the work of surveyors.

The second is perhaps the most difficult of the three and upon the settlement of the dispute involved the most important issues hinge. Settlement rests not only upon physical data, regarding the requirements of which the character of the country presents many obstacles, but upon a judicial arbitrament as to what physical data are admissible as evidence, and also as to how certain terms, such as "coast," "ocean” and “summit of the mountains" are to be construed in relation thereto. So far there has never been any official presentment of the respective facts made, as that stage of the proceedings has not yet been reached where a formal submission of claims before, or for the appointment of, a court of arbitration is necessary, and hence there is no clear or authoritative definition of issues. The issues have been mainly formulated in newspapers and magazines, and the territory in dispute has been indicated by map makers rather than jurists. The main fact to be observed is that the United States Government have assumed possession, which to them has constituted the essential nine points of the law.”

Briefly, however, it would appear that the respective contentions are (these have been so succinctly and fairly outlined in a recent editorial on the subject in the Victoria Daily Colonist" that the treatment cannot very well be improved upon by a layman, and the liberty is taken of transferring the editor's remarks to these columns):

In a general way the United States is understood to intend to hold that the word "ocean," in the treaty of 1825 between Great Britain and Russia, means the waters inside of the Archipelago, that there is no "summit" within the meaning of the Treaty in the mountain range running along the coast and within ten marine leagues therefrom, wherefore the boundary must be drawn at a uniform distance of ten marine leagues from the continental coast line, disregarding the islands altogether,

which line would be parallel to the sinuosities of the coast and hence put all the inlets within Alaska. The Canadian position may, in the same general sense, be said to be that by the word "ocean" in the Treaty the high sea outside of the Archipelago is meant, and that the boundary must be drawn ten marine leagues from the outer rim of the Archipelago, except where the summit is nearer the coast than ten marine leagues, in which case the line will follow such summit. This would give Canada all of the inlets and even a portion of some of the islands, which latter would appear to have been contemplated by the Treaty, for that document expressly provides that the whole of Prince of Wales Island shall belong to Russia. The legal and natural inference from this would be that the whole of the other islands might not belong to Russia when the line was located. A secondary claim on the part of Canada is that, admitting the water on the shore of the Mainland to be the ocean, there is a summit nearer the coast than ten marine leagues, and that the two inlets abovementioned extend beyond it. Should the claim of the United States, as above defined, be sustained, Čanada would have no harbour on the coast between the 56th and 60th parallels of north latitude. If the Canadian claim is held good the head of Lynn Canal and of Taku Inlet would be in Canada, and if the contention that the boundary shall not be at a greater distance than ten marine leagues from the outer rim of the Archipelago prevails, Canada would own the whole of the Stikine River.

The Canadian view of the Alaskan boundary dispute as stated by Hon. David Mills, minister of justice, in an interview with the correspondent of the Chicago Tribune on the 14th August, 1899.

[Published by the Government Printing Bureau, Ottawa, 1899.]

You ask me to state to you the Canadian view of the Alaskan boundary dispute. I shall not in endeavoring to meet your wishes, claim to do more than express my own view upon the subject.

The convention between His Britannic Majesty and the Emperor, was a convention settling a boundary between territories admittedly belonging to Great Britain and territories to which it was conceded that Russia had valid claim; that is, the part of the continent north of 54 degrees 40 minutes of north latitude. The territories south of 54 degrees 40 minutes north latitude were territories that were still in controversy between Great Britain and the United States.

The first Article of this convention declares, wholly contrary to the action and contention of the government of the United States in reference to the Behring Sea, that the subjects of the High Contracting parties shall not be troubled or molested in any part of the ocean, commonly called the Pacific Ocean, either in navigating the same, in fishing therein, or in landing on the coast in parts not already occupied, to trade with the natives.

Article II provides that in order to prevent the right of navigating and fishing exercised upon the ocean by the subjects of the High Contracting parties from becoming a pretext for illicit commerce, they mutually agree that subjects of His Britannic Majesty shall not land at any place where there is a Russian establishment, without the permission of the Governor or Commandant, and that Russian subjects shall not land without permission at any British establishment on the north-west coast.

Under these articles, the freedom of navigation is recognized. Article III and Article IV provide for the demarcation of the boundary which is to separate the territories of the one, from the territories of the other. Let me read to you those articles in precise terms:

It will be seen that the starting point is the southernmost point of the Island called Prince of Wales Island, which lies in 54 degrees 40 minutes north latitude and that this line is to ascend north. From whence? Why from the starting point-the southernmost point of Prince of Wales Island. It is perfectly true that the boundary is to ascend north along the channel called Portland Channel but it cannot ascend north along the channel called Portland Channel by commmencing at the southernmost point of Prince of Wales Island, the place of beginning, a line more than one hundred miles in length running due east, must be drawn from the southern end of Prince of Wales Island before Portland Channel can be reached. The first question then to be considered is, whether the description of the direction of the latitude and longitude of the line is to yield to the use of the word "Portland Channel," or whether the name "Portland Channel" must be subordinated to the direction and description contained in these articles. If Clarence Channel, which lies immediately east of Prince of Wales Island is taken, there is an exact conformity to the description. You may ascend north from the southernmost point of Prince of Wales Island along Clarence Channel, but you cannot ascend north from the southernmost point of Prince of Wales Island along Portland Channel. You can ascend to a point on Clarence Channel as far as the point on the continent where it strikes the 56th degree of latitude. You cannot ascend Portland Channel to a point on the continent where it strikes the 56th degree of north latitude, because Portland Channel does not reach that far north. The difference between drawing the boundary from Portland Channel and from Clarence Channel is this--the boundary upon the mainland commences where the 56th degree of north latitude cuts the shore in the one instance, and in the other it commences at a point at the head of Portland Channel which falls short of the place designated as the place of beginning.

By Article IV, the line is to be drawn so as to leave the whole of Prince of Wales Island to Russia. If a due east line is to be drawn from the southernmost point of the island, to the entrance at Portland Channel, these words "leaving the whole of Prince of Wales Island to Russia," are surplusage, because a due east line would not only leave the whole of the Prince of Wales Island to Russia, but would leave several other large islands, of which no mention is made, lying between this island and the mainland. If Clarence Channel is taken, there is an obvious reason for providing in the treaty, the words, that the whole of the Prince of Wales Island shall be left to Russia, because a line ascending from the southernmost point north, would cut off the southeastern portion of the island, but these words have no proper place in the treaty if the line starting from the southernmost point of Prince of Wales Island is to be extended eastward to the entrance of Portland Channel, as it would not be a line "ascending north" from the southernmost point of Prince of Wales Island. It will be observed that this qualification found in Article IV of the description given of the limitary line in Article III is unaccountable, if a line is first to be drawn eastward from the Prince of Wales Island to the entrance to Portland Channel. Why should this portion of the description have been omitted altogether? It is, I think, clear from the wording of the treaty, that the use of the words "Portland Channel" cannot refer to the body of water commonly so designated, and the whole of this part of the description of the boundary is inapplicable.

Let any intelligent reader with a map before him, undertake to draw 26626-AP-14

the line from the description which the treaty furnishes. If he begins at the southernmost point of Prince of Wales Island, which lies in 54 degrees, 40 minutes of north latitude, he cannot from that point ascend to the north along Portland Channel. The name of the channel through which the line is drawn are words subordinate to the direction, description and relation of the line so drawn to the starting point, which determines, in my opinion, through what waters the line is to so ascend that the whole of the Prince of Wales Island is to remain in Russia. It is assumed in the words of description, found in the treaty, that the line that ascends to the north along the channel, can do so as far as to the point of the continent, where it strikes the 56th degree of north latitude. This is a point, up on the shore, in which the boundary upon the mainland is to begin, and so the words are wholly inapplicable to Portland Channel, as it falls short, by several miles, of extending to that degree of latitude. The channel which lies immediately east of Prince of Wales Island, and through which the descriptive words of the treaty requires the boundary to be drawn does not extend, so that the geographical conditions fit in with the description in the one case, and do not in the other.

By the third article the line of demarcation is to follow the summit of the mountains, situated parallel to the coast as far as the intersection of the 141st degree of west longitude: and the fourth article provides that whenever the summit of the mountains, which extend in a direction parallel to the coast from the 56th degree of north latitude, shall prove to be at the distance of more than ten marine leagues from the coast, the limit between the British possessions and the line of coast which is to belong to Russia shall be formed by a line parallel to the windings of the coast, and which shall never exceed the distance of ten marine leagues therefrom.

It is too clear to require argument that the limitary line was to follow the coast range and the summit of that coast range, whether high or low was to be the boundary, when it was not more than ten leagues from the coast. In many places inlets extend through canyons through the mountains, and so much of each of those inlets as would be cut off, by a line drawn from the summit of the mountain upon the one side, to the summit of the mountain upon the other, is Canadian territory. The line cannot be removed further inland, because there may be a gap in the mountains into which an arm of the sea extends. The coast range approaches these inlets on each side, in most cases. near the waters of the ocean. When you pass the Lynn Inlet, it will be found that the coast range embraces peaks from 10,000 to 18,000 feet high, and it does seem to me preposterous to contend that the provisions of the treaty can be applied by drawing a line in the rear of those mountains, as certainly would be done. if the boundary passed around the head of Lynn Inlet.

It is. I think, manifest that the framers of the treaty assumed, that harbours, inlets, and arms of the sea, would be found, when the boundary was drawn, within British territory, and certain provisions of the treaty were entered into upon this assumption.

Article VI provides that the subjects of Her Britannic Majesty from whatever quarter they may arrive, whether from the ocean, or from the interior of the continent, shall, forever enjoy the right of navi gation freely, and without any hindrance whatever, all the rivers and streams, which in their course towards the Pacific Ocean, may cross the line of demarcation on the line of the coast.

As some of those