in their correspondence with Sir Charles Bagot, intended as the southern line of demarcation on the continent. A consideration of this factor in the negotiations between Great Britain and Russia will be more appropriate when that portion of the boundary is discussed.

As to the point of commencement of the line of demarcation, the United States understands that Great Britain concedes that it was the intention of the negotiators and it is the meaning of the treaty of 1825 that such point was (ape Muzon. It, therefore, deems further discussion of that subject unnecessary. Nevertheless, to the reasoning by which Great Britain reached this conclusion in the Case submitted, and to the deduced interpretation of certain clauses of Article III which appear in the discussion, the United States cannot assent.

The southern boundary was intended by the negotiators to be the parallel 5+ 40', and the clause of Article IV, which states that the island called Priner of Wales Island shall belong wholly to Russia," ) was inserted for two obvious reasons—that in case any portion of the island lay below the boundary parallel named it should still form part of the Russian possession, and further that in the event of the eastern point being the most southern, then, even if both headlands extended below 5+ 40', the one lying to the westward should nevertheless he Russian territory.


The subject of this southern boundary is directly connected with the location of Portland Canal, for if the parallel governs then the line of demarcation enters the passage sometimes called Portland Inlet. Conversely, if the boundary was intended to pass through that inlet then it would seem to be conclusive that the negotiators intended to draw the line along the parallel 5+ 10'.

In a consideration of the identitication of that portion of Portland Canal lying south and southwest of the eastern end of the channel now known as Pearse Canal, the United States does not deem that it is material to make " inquiry as to what was l'ancouver's Portland Canal". The Cnited States makes no contention as to “ Tuncomen's Portland Canal" or to the question - What was toencourer's Observatory Inlet!" On the contrary it deems the consideration of these questions without profit in the present controversy. It conceives that the real question at issue is, What was the negotiators' Portland Canal ?

a British Case, p. 46.
bU. S. Case, App., p. 15.

¢ British Case, p. 50.
el Ibid , pp. 50, 51.

In answering this question it becomes important to determine what geographical material was before Count Nesselrode, M. de Poletica, and Sir Charles Bagot when the negotiations took place, and what was shown therein as to the location of Portland Canal. In addition to this, the expressions used in negotiation or by the governments prior or subsequent to the treaty of 1825, and the understanding by geographers, publicists and officials of either Great Britain or Russia, as to the southern boundary established by the treaty, are material in locating the Portland Canal of the negotiators.

It should be borne in mind that all negotiations concerning that portion of the line of demarcation from the point of commencement to 56° north latitude ceased with the suspension of negotiations at St. Petersburg by Sir Charles Bagot, March 17 29, 1827, on which day the Russian plenipotentiaries delivered to him their final decision.) From that time forward Great Britain offered no objection to the boundary proposed by Russia, except to that portion north of the 56th parallel as far as mount St. Elias.'

The first mention of Portland Canal was in the counter draft of Russia delivered to the British minister February 24, 1821. Thus the negotiations on that subject occupied about six weeks. On the part of Great Britain Sir Charles Bagot was the only one who discussed Portland Canal with the Russians. He does not appear to have communicated with his government during this period; and not having done so he received no specitie information in regard to that arm of the sea from the Foreign Office.

The negotiations conducted by Mr. Middleton, the American minister at St. Petersburg, commenced on February 9 21 and continued until April 5 17, 1824. On February 20 March + Count Vesselrode proposed 5+ 40' as the southern line of the Russian possessions on the Northwest Coast, fixing on that parallel, as he said, so that the lower portion of Prince of Wales Island would belong to Russia. On the 7th Mr. Middleton accepted the proposal.. A week before this the Russian plenipotentiaries had proposed to Sir Charles Bagot to draw the boundary so as to make the southern extremity of Prince of Wales Island Russian territory." From this significant circumstance, from the fact that the subject of each negotiation was the same, namely, the NorthWest Coast, from the fact that Russia recognized that the l'nited States had as valid claims to the coast south of the Russian possessions as Great Britain had, and from the statement of Count Nesselrode that in his negotiations with the British minister he proposed to carry the southern frontier of our domains to latitude 54 10'", it is manifest that it was the intention of the Russian plenipotentiaries to make the line of their southern boundary in the negotiation with Great Britain coincident with that agreed upon with the United States.

al'. S. Case App., p. 153.

o Ibid.,

P. 161.
P. 180.

Ibid., pp. 71, 69.
f Ibid., p. 83.
g Ibid., p. 81.

(Ibid., d Ibid., p. 158.

The geographical data which, according to the evidence, were before the negotiators, were the maps already mentioned. It is true that Sir Charles had been furnished by the Foreign Office with memoranda prepared by Mr. Pelly, the deputy governor of the Hudson's Bay Company:' but when the memoranda were prepared Portland Canal had not become a factor in the negotiations, and, when the Hudson's Bay Company was again consulted by the British Government, it had ceased to be a subject of controversy. There is, therefore, in none of Mr. Pelly's correspondence any discussion of that channel.

The Russian map published in 1802 by the quartermaster-general's department shows a broad inlet, in which are several islands and from which two branches penetrate inland." Neither the inlet nor the branches are named, and it was not, therefore, from this map that the description of the line from Prince of Wales Island to the head of Portland Canal was derived, although it is probable that it was used to test the accuracy of others.

Incidentally, the purpose of Great Britian in reproducing a section of this map with a colored outline, is not understood, the color showing merely native tribal divisions, as is demonstrated by an examination of the large map, on which the dotted line running inland from Behm Canal, and which in the section reproduced is colored, is the supposed southern limit of the Kolosh tribes on the coast.

The Langsdorff map, if it were ever at St. Petersburg, could hardly

a U. S. Case, App., p. 158.
1 Ibid., p. 174.
c Ibid.,
26626 -2

Il British Case, Atlas, No. 5.
Ibid., No. 6.
s Ibid., No. 7.

p. 173.

[ocr errors]

have been consulted by the negotiators, because it was so rudely drawn.

What Arrowsmith maps were examined during the negotiations it is difficult to determine. Four have been offered in evidence; two on behalf of the United States, one of 1818," the other of 1822 with additions to 1823;' and two on bebalf of Great Britain, one listed as “ up to 1822," but showing on its face that it was corrected to 1824;o the other, "up to 1924.". Of these maps, the one of 1818 is on a small scale, but shows substantially the same details as the larger maps. In all these it is noticeable that the channel westward of Pearse Island is almost closed and the main course of Portland Canal runs between Point Ramsden and Pearse Island. The name “Portland Canal" extends along the shore of the channel - beyond the head of Pearse Island," as stated in the British Case.

One of two views must have been taken by the negotiators after examining the region about 5+ 40' as shown on the maps. Either that the whole estuary bounded by the mainland on either side and comprising both Portland Inlet and Pearse Canal, was to be considered as Portland Canal, in which lay Pearse, Wales, and other islands; or that the estuary as far inland as Point Ramsden was an unnamed arm of the sea, from which diverged two branches, Portland Canal and Observatory Inlet.

The Arrowsmith maps, relied upon at St. Petersburg, would have conveyed the idea that the entire estuary was named “Portland Canal“. No method of reasoning would have applied the name "Observatory Inlet", which extends at right angles to that branch from a point far above Ramsden Point, to any portion of the waters below that headland.

On the other hand the Vancouver chart of this region appears to name each branch without giving a name to the main inlet below their junction. But in any event an examination of this latter chart would never suggest that the name “Observatory Inlet", which appears in small letters on the western side of that channel and above Point

[ocr errors]

a U. S. Case, Atlas, No. 8.
1 Ibid., No. 10.
« British Case, Atlas, No. 8.
d Ibid., No. 12.


P. 55.

s For a large map of this region see U. S. Counter Case, Atlas, No. 30. gl. S. Case, Atlas, No. 4.

Ramsden, was intended to be applied to the body of water below thé point. Nor would such an examination indicate that the name “ Portland Canal", placed to the west of the channel, which is clearly delineated as passing Point Ramsden, was applicable to the passage behind Pearse and Wales Islands,

The Faden map" which has already been referred to, conveys the idea which is suggested by the Arrowsmith maps. There is no distinct channel shown above Wales Island. The name “Portland Canal" begins on the western shore opposite Pearse Island. The words “Observatory Inlet" are placed at right angles to that branch about half way between its head and the Naas River. Another feature confirmatory of this view is that the character and size of the lettering of the two names indicate that Portland Canal was the main inlet and Observatory Inlet but a branch.

The United States, relying upon the maps known to have been before the negotiators, asserts that the position taken in the British Case is entirely untenable and does not conform to the established facts; and that the Portland Canal of the negotiators was either the whole inlet from mainland to mainland, or that branch entering between Pearse Island and Point Ramsden into the unnamed estuary. It is immaterial which of these two conclusions is reached, for in either case the line of demarcation between Cape Muzon and the head of Portland Canal would follow the course contended for by the United States in its printed Case.

The maps published since the treaty are, with scarcely an exception, corroborative of the southern boundary claimed by the United States. It is unnecessary here to refer to them all in detail, but an examination of those produced will confirm this assertion. Special attention is directed to the Arrowsmith map of 1833, dedicated to the Hudson's Bay Company, the Arrowsmith map produced in 1857 before the select committee to investigate the Hudson's Bay Company and ordered printed by the House of Commons, the British Admiralty map of 1865," the map prepared by the United States Coast Surrey in 1867 for the Department of State at the instance of Senator Sumner, and the two charts of the British Admiralty of 1868, which cover the region under discussion.'

a British Case, Atlas, No. 10.
U. S. Case, Atlas No. 12.
U.S. Counter Case, Atlas No. 35.

dU. S. Case, Atlas No. 23.
e Ibid., No. 24.
s British Case, Atlas Nos. 23, 25.

« VorigeDoorgaan »