relation of the Alaskan territory to the other provinces, they would have examined into the nature of the title by which the Hudson Bay Company held possession, and the precise character of the Russian claims would have become matter for dispassionate consideration. But when the United States, by the act of purchase, appeared to demonstrate their absolute confidence in the unquestionable soverignty of the Russian possession, Canada appears to have taken the evidence of title on trust, the more readily as their attention was completely occupied by the unreasonable and vexatious character of the claims and rights assumed by the purchasers. In addition to this, at the time of the purchase the "little England" policy of the free-traders was in the ascendant, and the dominant feeling with respect to the confederation of the provinces, was probably, one of keen disappointment at the passing away of their chances of being absorbed into the Union of the American States; as it certainly was of uneasy dread that, possibly, some display of inconvenient. and unwished-for loyalty, might, in the near future, draw the Mother Country into a war for their defence. British statesmen, then, and possibly even yet, might be more willing to suppress than to discover any evidence of the temporary nature of the concessions made to Russia in the past.

The latter part of the extract from The Times, has been given partly for its general interest, and more particularly to associate it with an extract from Mr. Thos. Hodgins' recent pamphlet: "In Mr. Ex-Secretary Foster's Century of American Diplomacy, it is stated: Russia indicated a willingness (1845 to 1849) to give us its American possessions, if we would adhere to the claim of 54° 40′ on the Pacific, and exclude Great Britain from the continent.' It will be observed, that the dates here given are included in the period of hesitancy in granting the same territory to the Hudson Bay Company; and we may note in this connection that, had the interests of the Company been ignored, by granting these claims to the States, they might have denounced the right of Russia to do so, thus putting a final

22

stop to this particular intrigue by these two conspirators against British rights in the Pacific. This statement of Mr. ExSecretary Foster, is interesting in its shameless avowal of traitorous " dickering" in respect to the vital interests of a country with which there is some pretence of holding friendly relations. When the dirty linen of "diplomacy" is ostentatiously aired in public, it is not unreasonable to suppose that dirtier remains to wash. On reflection, it appears more than probable that such an understanding had already existed between the two countries at a much earlier date, and that the publication of the offensive Ukase, was, itself, the direct result of a mutual understanding. Had Britain failed to protest, the Dominion, probably, would have found a "Russian" province extending to the Rocky Mountains, and blocking her access to the Pacific. We can quite understand, now, why “ Russia ", "preferred a natural boundary" instead of the astronomical line proposed by Canning. The astronomical line would be absolutely immovable, while both English and Americans have had experience of the uncertainty in locating unknown or insufficiently identified mountains. We can understand, also, the humane benevolence that sought to exclude the horrors of war from "Russian" America! This was

66

an opportunity, when a simple proclamation and a boat's crew from a man-of-war, would have nipped the Alaskan difficulty in the bud, by asserting some British rights that should never have been left open to question.

The writer would be glad to give here, in full, the actual text of the Treaty, but it does not appear easy to get such a copy. In the agreement by which the United States claim to have acquired the title to the Alaskan territory, it is not Russia's Treaty with Britain that is transferred, but simply the delimitation clauses that are inserted; so there is nothing to show under what terms or conditions these clauses apply. There is no map attached: the absence of so essentially necessary an adjunct to the documentary evidence of title to any real estate, the precise area and location of which may not more certainly

be defined by natural or astronomical boundaries, is, without direct evidence to the contrary, sufficient to prove the limitations to have formed no part of an agreement affecting the ultimate title; it is a lease not an assignment. Immediately complementary to this objection, there is a significant omission by the negotiators, of a clause proved to have been an object of their peculiar solicitude, as defining their tenure of the island named after the Prince of Wales. When, saying it "shall belong wholly to Russia," they omit the magic words "for ever," that change a tenancy into a freehold. The multiplicity of maps presented by the United States, have not the slightest value as showing the intentions of the parties to the treaty; they should rather serve to demonstrate the extreme facility with which an attested copy might have been attached had either party thought it desirable; evidently, both were of opinion that the natural and astronomical boundaries were sufficiently indicated in the text of the Treaty. To an un-professional student, nothing appears more astonishing, than that such claims should have been given the slightest consideration by Great Britain; while, in view of historic conditions, the failure to contest them is no proof of their validty.

If, failing documentary evidence of title by assignment from Britain, we seek for title by occupation, the result is equally unsatisfactory, because, a country as well known to a certain class of hunters, traders, and explorers, as even Alaska has been within these hundred years, must have a history. If the Russian claim is good, the more widely the history is known the better title she can give. The following incident may help to explain how it happens this history remains so little known, and to show the view taken of publicity by the United States. In the early summer of last year, on asking the proprietor of the largest second hand book-store in Toronto, for books relating to Alaska, the writer was informed, with rather an amused smile: "I do not think you will get any, the United States has been buying all they can get hold of on the subject". It would be idle to

suppose these books were wanted for any purpose, other than to prevent the probable contents being used in opposition to the success of their claims. The Reference Library also appears to be without information on the subject other than can be obtained through American channels.

Failing other methods, nothing remains but to discover from the wording of the Treaty itself, what were the actual conditions of the Russian occupation of Alaska.

In his "DISSENT" from the finding of the Tribunal, as reported by The Times, Mr.A.B.Aylesworth, K.C., states, in defining the meanings of the word "coast" as used in the treaty: "The preamble speaks of the possessions of the two Powers on the North-West coast of America.'" What are the precise terms in which they are spoken of? The validity of the American claim under the Anglo-Russian Treaty, depends largely upon the character of this, now apparently, the most conclusive evidence available.

This Treaty, is no informal agreement hastily made on the spur of the moment; all the evidence shows it to have been deliberately and carefully studied by both sides. If Russia had any reasonable claim to a portion of the continent of America, either on the mainland or the islands of the coast, NOW was the time to place the fact on record. "The possessions of the High Contracting Parties upon the coast of the continent, and the islands of North America to the north-west, are spoken of in Article III., but only as related to the line of demarcation that is to be drawn upon them. It is evident, from the contents of Article IV, that no other recognition of existing rights was either asked for or obtained.

Continuing from the DISSENT: "Article I secures to the subjects of both Powers the right to land for purposes of trade at any unoccupied places on the coasts. "Article II prohibits landing without permission at any establishment on the North-West coast.'" The following Articles, with the exception of Article V, which is taken from Harper's "Encylopædia of

United States History," are taken from Mr. Hodgins' recent pamphlet; and as they are supposed to be a strict translation of the French of the Treaty, they are printed in italic.

III. The line of demarcation between the possessions of the High Contracting Parties upon the coast of the continent, and the islands of North America to the north-west, shall be drawn in the manner following: Commencing from the southernmost part of the island called Prince of Wales Island, which point lies in the parallel of 54° 40', north latitude and between the 131st and 133rd degrees of west longitude (meridian of Greenwich), the said line shall ascend to the north along the channel called Portland Chanas far as the point of the continent where it strikes the 56th degree of north latitude; from the 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 same 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 contiuent of America to the north-west.

IV. With reference to the line of demarcation laid down in the preceding article, it is understood, first, that the island called Prince of Wales Island shall belong wholly to Russia; second, that wherever 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 of a distance more than ten marine leagues from the Ocean, the limit between the British possessions and the strip of coast (la lisière de côte), 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 (et qui ne pourra jamais en être éloignée que de 10 lieues marines).

V "It was further provided that neither party should form establishments within the limits assigned to the other, and spe