diff options
| author | www-data <www-data@mail.pglaf.org> | 2026-06-25 16:36:04 -0700 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | www-data <www-data@mail.pglaf.org> | 2026-06-25 16:36:04 -0700 |
| commit | fe8c00dd3d615d123c5e1a85673e7adf89d7a64c (patch) | |
| tree | 51d5c5d67baf8ba67e258e78df35348c2fbf8885 /78944-h | |
Diffstat (limited to '78944-h')
| -rw-r--r-- | 78944-h/78944-h.htm | 905 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | 78944-h/images/cover.jpg | bin | 0 -> 214102 bytes |
2 files changed, 905 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/78944-h/78944-h.htm b/78944-h/78944-h.htm new file mode 100644 index 0000000..ff0c1bc --- /dev/null +++ b/78944-h/78944-h.htm @@ -0,0 +1,905 @@ +<!DOCTYPE html> +<html lang="en"> +<head> + <meta charset="UTF-8"> + <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1"> + <meta name="format-detection" content="telephone=no,date=no,address=no,email=no,url=no"> + <title> + The Canadian View of the Alaskan Boundary Dispute | Project Gutenberg + </title> + <link rel="icon" href="images/cover.jpg" type="image/x-cover"> + <style> +body { + margin-left: 10%; + margin-right: 10%; +} + +h1,h2 { + text-align: center; + clear: both;} + +.fs60 {font-size: 0.6em;} +.fs80 {font-size: 0.8em;} +.fs120 {font-size: 1.2em;} +.fs200 {font-size: 2em;} + +p { + margin-top: .5em; + text-align: justify; + margin-bottom: .5em; +} + +.p2 {margin-top: 2em;} +.p4 {margin-top: 4em;} + +hr { + width: 33%; + margin-top: 2em; + margin-bottom: 2em; + margin-left: 33.5%; + margin-right: 33.5%; + clear: both; +} + +hr.chap {width: 65%; margin-left: 17.5%; margin-right: 17.5%;} +@media print { hr.chap {display: none; visibility: hidden;} } + +div.chapter {page-break-before: always;} +h2.nobreak {page-break-before: avoid;} + +table { + margin-left: auto; + margin-right: auto; +} + +.pagenum { + position: absolute; + left: 92%; + font-size: small; + text-align: right; + font-style: normal; + font-weight: normal; + font-variant: normal; + text-indent: 0; +} + +blockquote { + margin-top: 0; + margin-bottom: 0; + margin-left: 5%; + margin-right: 10%; +} + +.center {text-align: center; text-indent: 0;} + +.smcap {font-variant: small-caps;} + +figcaption {font-weight: bold;} +figcaption p {margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: .2em; text-align: inherit;} + +img { + max-width: 100%; + height: auto; +} + +.transnote { + background-color: #E6E6FA; + color: black; + font-size:small; + padding:0.5em; + margin-bottom:5em; + font-family:sans-serif, serif; +} + </style> +</head> + +<body> +<div style='text-align:center'>*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 78944 ***</div> + + + + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_1"></a><a id="Page_2"></a>[Pgs 1-2]</span></p> + +<h1><span class='fs120'>THE CANADIAN VIEW</span><br><br> +<span class='fs60'>OF THE</span><br><br> +<span class='fs120'>ALASKAN BOUNDARY DISPUTE</span> +</h1> + + +<p class="center fs120 p4">AS STATED BY</p> + +<p class="center fs200">HON. DAVID MILLS</p> + +<p class="center fs120"><span class="smcap">Minister of Justice</span></p> + +<p class="center p2"><i>In an interview with the correspondent of the +Chicago Tribune on the 14th August, 1899</i></p> + +<p class="center fs120 p2">OTTAWA</p> +<p class="center">GOVERNMENT PRINTING BUREAU</p> +<p class="center">1899</p> + + +<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_3">[Pg 3]</span></p> + + + <h2 class="nobreak" id="THE_CANADIAN_VIEW"> + THE CANADIAN VIEW + <br> +<span class='fs60'>OF THE</span> + <br> + ALASKAN BOUNDARY DISPUTE + <br> +<span class='fs60'>AS STATED BY</span> + <br> + <span class="smcap fs80">Hon. David Mills, Minister of Justice</span> + <br> +<span class='fs60'><i>In an interview with the correspondent of the + Chicago Tribune on the 14th August, 1899</i>.</span> + </h2> +</div> + + +<p>You ask me to state to you the Canadian view of +the Alaskan boundary dispute. I shall not in +endeavouring to meet your wishes, claim to do more +than express my own view upon the subject.</p> + +<p>I may say to you that already correspondents +connected with two New York journals made a +similar request a short time ago, but it was during +the midst of the session when I had but a few +moments at my disposal, and in my conversation +with them, I could do no more than outline my +opinion upon the subject and point out in what +respect, we, on this side of the border, dissented +from the contention of the United States. I notice +that the brief statement of my opinions were not +very favourably received, or very carefully considered +by some of your citizens. In discussing the speech +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_4">[Pg 4]</span>made in the House of Commons by the leader of the +Conservative party (Sir Charles Tupper), it was +stated by some Washington correspondents of the +New York and Philadelphia press, that it was very +hard to explain his misinformation, and that I +seemed to be still more ignorant than Sir Charles +Tupper. The natural inference from this kind of +criticism is that every opinion at variance with the +contentions which have been put forward in your +country, and which for the most part meets with +favour in your press, is quite undeserving of serious +consideration. The impression made upon my mind +is that vehement assertions and frequent repetitions, +are to supersede careful investigation of the facts and +the legitimate conclusions to be drawn from them.</p> + +<p>This Alaskan Boundary Dispute was discussed by +the Joint Commission of the two countries. No +conclusion, it seems, was reached. The proceedings +were secret. It was stated that the Commissioners +had referred the question to their respective governments. +This was all that, for some time, was disclosed +to the public; but no sooner was the statement +bruited abroad that the matter was being +discussed by Lord Salisbury and Mr. Choate, than +telegraphic despatches were sent from Washington +to the New York journals, and thence to the +London newspapers, in which the Canadian members +of the Commission, and the Canadian Government, +were described as men who were ill-informed, +obstinate, greedy, refusing to agree to an arbitration +in respect of the disputed boundary without first obtaining +from the United States Commissioners or Government, +a cession of territory, to which they could, in +reason, make no claim, and which undoubtedly +belonged to your country. Every one who has read +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_5">[Pg 5]</span>the protocol on this part of the negotiations, which +I understand was published to prevent the persistent +repetition of these misrepresentations, now knows +how unfounded they were. The attempt was made to +prejudice the case of this country, by mis-stating its +position. It was announced by the New York and +Washington correspondents of London newspapers, +that the Commissioners of the United States desired +arbitration, and that the Canadian members of the +Commission stood in the way. This mis-statement +was, for a time, daily repeated. It was published +in the English and Canadian newspapers, as well as +in those of the United States. The attitude of the +respective parties was carefully concealed, and the +impression sought to be made, and for a time not +without success, that the demands of the Canadian +Commissioners were most unreasonable. It was not +until the protocols upon the subject were published +in England, and in this country, that the public +became aware of the gross injustice that was being +done us. When the publication was made, it was +seen that we were willing either to arbitrate or to +compromise. Our representatives had offered to +accept a compromise which would permit us to +retain so much of the disputed country as would +afford us a means of access to our own possession in +the interior. Our geographical position is such, that +the disputed territory is of immensely greater consequence +to us, than to you.</p> + +<p>It is well to bear in mind that two controversies +have arisen between you and us in respect to the +possessions which you acquired from Russia upon our +northwestern border. In one, you claimed that that +part of the Pacific Ocean known in recent years as +Bering Sea, and which borders upon the Aleutian +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_6">[Pg 6]</span>Islands which Russia ceded to you, along with her +possessions upon this continent, was a part of your +acquisition, and so the fur-bearing seals found in its +waters were your exclusive property. Sometimes +you contended that it was a <i>mare clausum</i>; sometimes +you said this was not your contention, but you +claimed to exercise upon the high seas, in time of +peace, rights which belong to a state only in time of +war, and you contended that people, in the pursuit of +a legitimate vocation upon the high seas, were guilty +of a crime only a little less atrocious than piracy; +and so the killing of seals in the Pacific Ocean, by +Canadian seal hunters, was claimed to be the destruction +of wild animals that were the property of the +United States.</p> + +<p>We find it difficult to understand how any public +man could have persuaded himself that there was +any merit in this contention. The Municipal Law of +the United States can have no force outside of the +territories of the Republic, except upon board a ship +sailing under the United States flag. The courts of +the United States have held that a man standing on +board a United States ship, and shooting a man in a +boat at the Society Islands, was not amenable to the +laws of the United States, as the murder which he +committed was beyond the jurisdiction of the Republic. +I dare say that this was, in strict law, a proper +decision; but how, then, could a Canadian on board +a Canadian vessel, under the British flag, upon the +high seas, be amenable to the Municipal Law of the +United States? Your government assumed that they +were. It authorized the seizure of Canadian vessels +upon the high seas, under the authority of your Municipal +Law, to which they owed no subjection, and +where International Law alone prevails. These +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_7">[Pg 7]</span>vessels were confiscated. The men on board were +imprisoned, and when they were discharged, it was +far away from home, and without the means necessary +to enable them to return. We felt that the action +of your Government was a violent encroachment upon +the municipal rights of Canadians, that were wrongfully +subjected to your authority. It was a violation +of these settled principles of International Law for +which, on many occasions, the United States had conspicuously +contended. It was also at variance with +the contention of the United States, in her controversy +with Russia, between 1821 and 1824, in respect +to an exclusive sovereignty, over the same waters. +The contention of your Government, we thought +wholly untenable. We thought the principles of +Public Law applicable to the case, were too clear to +admit of controversy. I do not know of any foreign +jurist who took your side. Yet unreasonable as +were thought your pretensions, they went to arbitration. +Erroneous as we thought the doctrine set up +by Mr. Blaine and others to be, we did not refuse to +arbitrate. The question went to an International +Tribunal that was certainly not biased in our favour, +and our contention, in that matter, was upheld. Why, +then, should the Government of the United States, +in this second branch of the controversy, hesitate to +refer the question, since we cannot agree to compromise, +to a tribunal of like character?</p> + +<p>It may be that the Government of the United +States has persuaded itself that our position is untenable; +that the boundary line ought not to be placed +where we say, that under the Convention of St. +Petersburg, it should be drawn. But the United +States, like ourselves, is an interested party, and its +Government ought not, either wholly, or in part, +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_8">[Pg 8]</span>undertake to decide the question in dispute, before +the reference is made, nor refuse to have the contention +put forward by us and by them, submitted to +a competent and impartial tribunal, for adjudication.</p> + +<p>If, in the opinion of your Government, your contention +is well founded, and if they believe it best +comports with the terms of the Convention of 1825, +it will be enabled to establish that fact before an +International Tribunal, and if such a tribunal agrees +with your contention, we must bow to its decision; +but should it be found that our contention is well +founded, the Government of the United States ought +to be equally ready to acquiesce. There is neither +reason nor justice, in suggesting a reference of a +matter, upon which we cannot agree to a tribunal, +that is not permitted to consider the whole question, +and to locate the boundary in conformity with the +terms of the Convention of 1825.</p> + +<p>As I understand the protocols upon this subject, +they show that we contend that the boundary line, +as set out in the convention, crosses the Lynn Inlet +not far from the ocean, being drawn from the crest +of the mountains on one side, to the crest of the +mountains on the opposite side. The Government +of the United States dissents from this view +and maintains the boundary passes round the head of +the inlet. Now what efforts do the protocols show, +were made to reach a solution? We were of opinion +that there were two ways in which this difference +might be amicably adjusted—by a compromise, or by +reference to a properly constituted tribunal. We +offered to compromise. We contended that Dyea +and Skagway are built in Canadian territory. They +are the natural seaports from which sea access, at +the present time, can be had into our Yukon country, +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_9">[Pg 9]</span>where we have a mining population of 30,000. The +possession of the inlet is of great consequence to us. +It is of little importance to you. As a compromise +we offered to leave Dyea and Skagway in your possession, +if you assented to our retaining Pyramid Harbour, +which would afford to us a highway into the interior, +through our own country. This compromise would +have left you the greater portion of the territory, at +this point, in dispute. It would have made the Lynn +Inlet a common water. This proposal your representatives +declined. The proposal was then made to +you, to refer the question to arbitration, in order to +ascertain the boundary fixed by the convention, and +this also you have declined. Why? There would +seem to be but one answer—because you are in +possession of territory that is rightfully ours. If +under the Convention of St. Petersburg you think +you can rightfully claim Lynn Inlet, why should not +the matter have gone to arbitration?</p> + +<p>It is said that this disputed boundary should be +dealt with on principles recognized by diplomatists, +and not on those which govern the actions of Attorneys. +I admit it. We did so proceed, when we +offered to compromise this dispute, and leave Dyea +and Skagway in your possession. We did so, when +we offered to ascertain the legal boundary, by a properly +constituted independent tribunal. We did so, +when we offered to qualify our extreme right, by the +rule adopted, in the Venezuela arbitration. This statement +of facts is our answer to the charge of obstinacy. +Our obstinacy consists in this, that we object to the +surrender of everything that is in controversy between +us. Since you have been good enough to ask me +my opinion upon the subject, let me ask your readers to +carefully compare these offered concessions on our +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_10">[Pg 10]</span>part with the concessions which your Government is +willing to make. What was it? Nothing beyond +this, that they would grant to us the liberty to build +a highway in a territory behind the coast range of +mountains, beyond which under the convention you +have no right to go, upon condition, that we admitted, +that the harbour from which we started, and the +country through which our road ran, was under the +sovereignty of the United States. I ask your people +to compare the two concessions, and let them candidly +say, which of us is most open to the charge of being +unreasonably obstinate. We are most desirous of a +fair settlement. The people of the United States are +our neighbours, and we are theirs. It is to the advantage +of both countries that a feeling of friendship +and mutual good-will should prevail amongst the +people of each towards the other, but this most +desirable object is not promoted by one country appropriating +to itself the territory which rightfully +belongs to the other.</p> + +<p>I have referred to the question of boundary at the +Lynn Inlet, which is the place most prominently +brought forward in the controversy, but in order to +understand the treaty, and the proper location of the +limitary line, separating the American territory +acquired from Russia from this country, it is necessary +to give some attention to the historical circumstances +out of which that treaty grew. Before the +treaty was negotiated between Great Britain and +Russia, disputes had arisen between the Government +of the United Kingdom and the Emperor of Russia +in regard to the extent of their respective possessions +upon the northwest coast of this continent. The +Russians had visited the country. They had explored +the coast at least as far south as the 54th degree of +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_11">[Pg 11]</span>north latitude. They had established fishing and +trading stations upon the coast. The Canadian +traders who had been organized into a Fur Trading +Company, known as the Northwest Trading Company, +had also explored the country. Their explorations +began as early as 1762, and continued until +1820. There were the two Frobishers, the two +Henrys, Sir Alexander Mackenzie, Fraser, McLeod +and others. Their exploration extended from the +Arctic Ocean to the Gulf of California. They had +established numerous trading posts within the Pacific +slope. At the beginning of this century, they had +beyond the mountains, at least 700 agents in their +employ. It was upon their explorations and discoveries, +that the British Government relied for the +maintenance of its title to the country. It is a well +recognized rule of English law, that a British subject +carries with him, into a derelict country, both the +laws of his country, and the sovereignty of his King.</p> + +<p>When the question of boundary came to be discussed +between the representatives of the Emperor +of Russia and the King of England, there was not +much difficulty in arriving at an agreement, because +the Russians had visited the coast for the purpose of +fishing and of trading with the Indians found there. +They had no desire to undertake the extension of +their dominions into the interior. They had at the +time no resources in the country for the purpose. +The English by the treaty were left in possession of +nearly the whole country. Russia was confined to a +narrow fringe upon the shore.</p> + +<p>Before this treaty was made, the United States +had acquired north of the 42nd degree of latitude, +whatever rights Spain possessed upon the coast. +Between the United States and Great Britain a convention +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_12">[Pg 12]</span>had been entered into which established a +<i>modus vivendi</i> between them, by which each bound +itself not to interfere with the settlements of the +other; but the question as to their territorial rights, +under the convention, was left untouched.</p> + +<p>In 1824, the United States made a treaty with +Russia, which is modelled on the plan of the one +which had previously been entered into by the +United Kingdom and the United States. This convention, +between the United States and Russia did +not undertake to define any territorial limits as an +assertion of territorial sovereignty. By Article I., +the citizens and subjects of the high contracting +parties agreed that neither will disturb or restrain +the other in navigating or fishing in these waters, or +in the liberty of resorting to the coast to trade with +the natives. But where any part of the coast is in +actual occupation of the one, resort shall not be had +to it by the other, for the purpose of trading with +the natives.</p> + +<p>By Article II. non-intercourse by the one, with +the settlements of the other, is mutually agreed upon, +except by the permission of the Governor or Commandant +of the place. The United States agreed +that they will form no settlement north of 54 degrees +40 minutes of north latitude. And Russia agrees to +form no settlement south of that parallel. They further +agreed, that for a period of ten years, the ships +of both powers, and the ships which belong to the +citizens and subjects of each, may without hindrance, +frequent the interior seas, gulfs, harbours and creeks +upon the coast mentioned in the preceding article. +Here there was no division of territory between the +parties. There was a <i>modus vivendi</i> provided by +which the United States agreed not to exclude +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_13">[Pg 13]</span>Russian vessels from the interior seas, gulfs, &c., +south of 54 degrees and 40 minutes, and Russia +agreed not to exclude the United States vessels from +like waters north of that parallel. The United States +Government knew at the time this convention was +made, that the Government of Great Britain was +claiming sovereignty upon the same coast; and so +that the United States could not well recognize any +rights of Russia to the sovereignty of the country.</p> + +<p>In the correspondence which took place between +the Governments of the United States and Russia, +the United States did not concede the pretensions +which Russia set up. Mr. Adams, in a despatch to +the American Minister, Mr. Middleton, in July, +1883, says:—</p> + +<p>“From the tenor of the ukase of the 14th September, +1821, the pretensions of the Imperial +Government extend to an exclusive territorial jurisdiction +from 45 degrees of north latitude on the +Asiatic coast to 51 degrees north latitude on the +western coast of the American continent; and they +assume the right of interdicting the navigation and +fishing of all other nations to the extent of one +hundred miles from the whole of that coast. The +United States can admit no part of those claims. +Their right of navigation and of fishing is perfect, +and has been in constant exercise from the earliest +times after the peace of 1783 throughout the whole +extent of the southern ocean, subject only, to the +ordinary exceptions and exclusions of the territorial +jurisdiction which so far as Russian rights are concerned, +are confined to certain islands north of the +35th degree of latitude and have no existence on the +continent of America.”</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_14">[Pg 14]</span></p> + +<p>There is nothing in the treaty of 1824 inconsistent +with the contention which Mr. Adams put forward +in this communication, and so we find Mr. +Adams, in his letter of instructions to Mr. Middleton, +takes the ground that the exclusive right of Spain to +any portion of the American continent, had been +terminated by the successful revolution of her colonists, +and by her treaty stipulations with the United +States. Mr. Adams practically maintained that the +entire continent of America was closed against any +European power, that North America consisted of +the colonial possessions of the United Kingdom, and +of independent republics, and so there was no further +room for acquisition, and he argues that the necessary +consequence of this state of things, is that the +American continents henceforth will no longer be +open to colonization.</p> + +<p>A few months later, the celebrated message of +President Monroe, set out two propositions, the one +against the attempt of the Holy Alliance to interfere +with the independence of the Spanish American +States, and the other declaring that no part of the +American continent is to be considered as subject +to future acquisition for colonization by any European +power. It is clear, that this second proposition +was intended as a denial of the rights of Russia to +acquire territory on the continent of North America. +Mr. Adams conceded that Russia had possession of +certain islands, but he denied altogether that she +had any right to territory upon the continent—upon +the main land. Mr. Adams was conversant with the +explorations of Mackenzie and others associated with +the North-west Company, and his position was, that +the territories which did not belong to the United +States by virtue of her treaty with Spain, and by +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_15">[Pg 15]</span>the explorations of Lewis and Clarke, were under +the jurisdiction of Great Britain, and so the treaty +of 1824 with Russia was not one for the mutual +recognition of territorial sovereignty on the part of +either party.</p> + +<p>These facts are important to bear in mind in the +interpretation of the Treaty which was subsequently +negotiated and ratified between His Britannic +Majesty, and the Emperor of Russia. There is this +marked difference between the convention entered +into between Great Britain and Russia in February +1825, and the convention of the previous year +between the United States and the Emperor of Russia; +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.</p> + +<p>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 +Bering 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.</p> + +<p>Article II provides that in order to prevent the +<i>right</i> of navigating and fishing exercised upon the +ocean by the subjects of the High Contracting parties +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_16">[Pg 16]</span>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.</p> + +<p>Under these articles, the freedom of navigation is +recognized. Article III and 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:—</p> + +<p>“Article III.—The line of demarcation between +the possessions of the High Contracting parties, upon +the coast of the continent, and the islands of America +to the north-west shall be drawn in the manner following:—Commencing +from the southernmost point +of the island called the Prince of Wales Island, which +point lies in the parallel of 50 degrees 40 minutes +north latitude, and between the 131st and the 133rd +degree of west longitude (Meridian of Greenwich) the +said line shall ascend to the north along the channel +called Portland Channel as far as the point of the +continent where it strikes 56th degree of north latitude; +from this last mentioned point, the line of +demarcation shall follow the summit of the mountains +situated parallel to the coast as far as the point of +intersection of the 141st degree of west longitude of +the said meridian; and finally from the said point of +intersection, the said meridian line of the 141st degree, +in its prolongation as far as the Frozen Ocean, +shall form the limit between the Russian and British +possessions on the continent of America on the north-west.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_17">[Pg 17]</span></p> + +<p>“Article IV.—With reference to the line of demarcation +laid down in the preceding article it is understood:</p> + +<p>“1st. That the island called Prince of Wales +Island shall belong wholly to Russia.</p> + +<p>“2nd. That whenever the summit of the mountains +which extend in a direction parallel to the coast from +the 56th degree of north latitude to the point of intersection +of the 141st degree of west longitude shall +prove to be at the distance of more than ten marine +leagues from the ocean, the limit between the British +possessions and the line of coast which is to belong +to Russia, as above mentioned, 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.”</p> + +<p>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 commencing 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 words “Portland Channel,” or +whether the name “Portland Channel” must be +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_18">[Pg 18]</span>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.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_19">[Pg 19]</span>to Russia, because a line ascending from the southern +most 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.</p> + +<p>Let any intelligent reader with a map before him, +undertake to draw 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 +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_20">[Pg 20]</span>the 56th degree of north latitude. This is a point, upon +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 so extend, so that the geographical conditions +fit in with the description in the one case, +and do not in the other.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_21">[Pg 21]</span>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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, for ever enjoy the right of +navigation 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 +rivers flow into Bering Sea, it is perfectly obvious, +that the contracting parties assumed that the navigation +of that sea was open to British vessels.</p> + +<p>By Article VII for a period of ten years, the vessels +of the two powers, and of their subjects respectively +shall mutually be at liberty to frequent all the +inland seas, the gulfs, havens and creeks on the coast +mentioned in Article III. The coast mentioned in +Article III is not the entire coast of the continent, +but the coast north of 54 degrees 40 minutes.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_22">[Pg 22]</span></p> + +<p>By Article X every British or Russian vessel navigating +the Pacific Ocean, which may be compelled by +storms or by accident to take shelter in the ports of +the respective parties shall be at liberty to refit therein, +to provide itself with all necessary stores and to +put to sea again without paying any other than port +and lighthouse dues, which shall be the same as those +paid by national vessels.</p> + +<p>This is not a temporary arrangement but a permanent +one which each party has within the ports of +the other.</p> + +<p>It has been contended by some of the United +States press, that the waters belonging to Great Britain +herein referred to, are those that lie south of the +54th degree 40 minutes of north latitude, but this is +not so. Those territories were in dispute between +Great Britain and the United States, and with reference +to them no compact was entered into in the +treaty between Russia and Great Britain. What is +entered into is the establishment of a boundary north +of 54 degrees 40 minutes, and it is with reference to +this boundary, separating the territories of Russia +from the territories of His Britannic Majesty, that +all the provisions of the treaty referred,—Russia +made no claim, in this treaty, to any territories further +south. She set up no pretensions to any privileges +further south; what was being settled was the +dispute between Great Britain and Russia in respect +to sovereign rights north of 54 degrees 40 minutes +north latitude. The subjects of Great Britain were +without any hindrance whatever to have liberty of +navigating freely all the rivers and streams which in +their course towards the Pacific Ocean may cross the +boundary line, the line of demarcation, as set out in +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_23">[Pg 23]</span>Article III of the convention. These rivers and +navigable routes were not rivers south of 54 degrees +40 minutes north latitude, but rivers north of that +latitude—rivers that flowed from British territory +through the Russian territory upon the coast. All +the provisions of the treaty relating to fishing +and to navigation have reference to the territories +and waters which were the subject of the treaty, and +so it is wholly beside the question to refer to the convention +between the United States and Russia of +the previous year. It is as plain as anything can +well be, that the contracting parties assumed that +when the separating line came to be drawn, under the +treaty, that there would be, in some places, harbours +and inlets remaining on the British side of this +boundary line, and Russia stipulated for the right of +Russian navigators to use them, and for her ships to +take refuge in them, as she had conceded a like right +to the subjects of His Britannic Majesty. These +would, indeed, be strange treaty stipulations, if upon +the whole length of this boundary, from the 56th +degree of latitude to Mount St. Elias, it never +crossed an inlet, and at no point touched the sea. +This is, in my opinion, a conclusion which no one who +will candidly examine the treaty, can reach, and I +ask a fair consideration of our side of the dispute by +the people of the United States, to whom justice is far +more important than success.</p> + + +<div class="transnote"> +<p class="center"><b>Transcriber’s Notes</b></p> + +<p>Inconsistent punctuation has been retained as it appears in the original publication.</p> + +<p>Perceived typographical errors have been silently corrected.</p> + +<p>Changed “Behring Sea” to “Bering Sea” (as it is named after Vitus Bering).</p> +</div> +<div style='text-align:center'>*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 78944 ***</div> +</body> +</html> diff --git a/78944-h/images/cover.jpg b/78944-h/images/cover.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..a51f7e9 --- /dev/null +++ b/78944-h/images/cover.jpg |
