cifically, that British subjects should not form any establishments either upon the coast, or upon the border of the continent (soit sur la côte, soit sur la lisière de terra firme) comprised within the limits of the Russian possessions.

VI. It is understood that the subjects of His 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 navigating freely, and without any hindrance whatever, all the rivers and streams which in their course towards the Pacific Ocean, may cross the line (traverseront la ligne) of demarcation upon the strip of coast described in Article III of the pres

ent Convention.

There is an Article VII, which, has been very freely referred to during the debates before the Alaskan Tribunal, the actual wording of which is not given in the reports. But as Mr. Christopher Robinson, K.C., says, "it was clearly intended to confer reciprocal privileges of navigation over the inland waters of both Powers for ten years," it is probably the most important of any, as indicating the actual extent of the inland waters that were then supposed to belong to Britain. The direct claim of the United States, and practically, the contention of Canadians is, that Britain had no inland waters whatever. Pertinent to this is what Mr.Aylesworth says; still endeavouring to extract a definition of the meaning of the word "coast as used in the treaty : By Article VII. of the treaty the vessels of the two Powers, were for ten years to be recriprocally at liberty to frequent for purposes of fishing and trading all the inland seas, gulphs, havens and bays sur la côte mentionnée dans l'Article III.'

What waters then are these, to frequent which the Russians were accepting from Great Britain a ten years licence?"

It is not intended at this place, to call attention to those phases of the treaty that were the special subjects of discussion before the Tribunal, but only to this were the Russian "possessions" absolute, or only a lease, under which to withdraw "absurd pretensions," without loss of dignity or soreness?

The Ukase of 1821, was obviously to protect the sealing interests, and incidentally, to secure as much of the fur-trading &c., on the Pacific coast as other nations would allow. Britain protested, and Russia readily withdrew in favor of a State that had no particular grievance to complain of, but procrastinated with Britain, finally yielding only to a threat; which probably, had she not yielded, would have eventuated in an armed protection of the coast she would have appropriated. The Award of the Tribunal calls upon her subjects to believe, that in the zenith of her power, Britain, after forcing Russia to negotiate, had retired from the diplomatic contest, not only without having gained the revocation of the objectionable Ukase, but with the surrender of territorial rights far in excess of what the protest had been intended to defend. If Britain at this time did not lapse suddenly into dotage, there must be many a screw loose elsewhere.

now,

Had the intention of the treaty been such as the Award has placed on record, it would have consisted of little more than the preamble and delimitation clauses, somewhat as follow: "Whereas, it is expedient to define the Boundary between the possessions of the Contracting Parties, that are situate upon the northwestern part of the American continent, it is hereby agreed: The islands upon the border of the continent that lie north of the 54° 40′ parallel of latitude shall belong wholly to Russia. Upon the mainland of the continent the Boundary shall be : Commencing at the mouth of the Inlet that lies upon 54° 40′ north latitude and between the 130° and 131° of west longitude, the line shall follow the northerly side of the said opening and of the most westerly branch thereof, as far as the high-watermark of ordinary spring-tides shall extend, and from thence in a northwesterly direction at a distance not exceding ten marine leagues from the like high-water-mark in the various inlets to the westward, following the sinuousities thereby defined to the intersection of the meridian of 141° west longitude." Instead of an intention like this, which would be purely territorial in its

object, it is on record that the principal motive in demarcation was, to separate the various establishments of the Hudson Bay Company from those of the Russian American Fur Company ; practically to prevent the mutual outrage that resulted from the trade jealousy of their employees; and also in a district that was remote from supervision, to limit the exploitation and settlement of Russian traders to a narrow frontier. This is obviously the object of the first two Articles, and the Vth, as well, which appears to contain the provision that, where by the terms of the delimitation any establishment belonging to either Company, shall find itself within the limits assigned to the other, its right to occupy therein shall terminate after ten years.

It is not surprising, that lawyers who appear determined to extend the soverign rights of Russia to the utmost extent, should be reluctant to draw attention to the actual wording of these Articles. Why should Britain "specifically" engage, that her subjects should not form any establishment within the limits assigned to Russia? Why fail to engage that they should not form such establishments in any other part of the Russian Empire? Because, the Anglo-Russian Treaty does not recognize this territory as part of the Russian Empire. Britain engages that her subjects shall form no settlements within the limits assigned to Russia, from the same motive that demands the covenant in a lease that a tenant shall have quiet possession, while observing the conditions of his occupation. Article V. in such indirect terms as would be least offensive to Russian arrogance, is a distinct assertion and recognition of the soverign rights of Great Britain over the territorial limits assigned to Russia for certain purposes.

III.

THE ALASKA COMMISSION.

27

It is now proposed to discuss the formation and proceedings of the Alaska Boundary Tribunal, and for this purpose the text of the Convention and proceedings of the Commission, as reported in The Times Weekly Edition, will be made use of as far as they appear to throw light upon those questions to which the reader's attention is particularly directed. Under date of Oct. 23, 1903, the following is "THE TEXT OF THE AWARD.

Whereas by a Convention signed at Washington on the 24th day of January, 1903, it was agreed that a Tribunal should be appointed to consider and decide the questions hereinafter set forth, such Tribunal to consist of six impartial Jurists of repute, who should consider judicially the questions submitted to them, each of whom should first subscribe an oath that he would impartially consider the arguments and evidence presented to the said Tribunal, and would decide thereupon according to his true judgment, and that three members of the said Tribunal should be appointed by His Britannic Majesty and three by the President of the United States :

And whereas it was further agreed by the said Convention that the said Tribunal should consider in the settlement of the said questions submitted to its decision the Treaties respectively concluded between His Britannic Majesty and the Emperor of All the Russias, under the date of the 28th (16th) February, A.D. 1825, and between the United States of America and the Emperor of All the Russias, concluded under date of the 18th (30th) March, A.D. 1867, and particularly the Articles III., IV., and V. of the first mentioned Treaty, and should also take into consideration any action of the several Governments or of their respective Representatives, preliminary or subsequent to the conclusion of the said Treaties so far as the same tended to show the original and effective understanding of the parties in respect to the limits of their several territorial jurisdictions under and by virtue of the provisions of the said Treaties :

And whereas it was further agreed by the said Convention, referring to Articles III., IV., and V. of the said Treaty of 1825, that the said Tribunal should answer and decide the following questions :—

I. What is intended as the point of commencement of the line?

2.

3.

What channel is the Portland Channel ?

What course should the line take from the point of commencement to the entrance of Portland Channel?

4. To what point on the 56th parallel is the line to be drawn from the head of the Portland Channel, and what course should it follow between these points?

5. In extending the line of demarcation northward from the said point on the parallel of the 56th degree of north latitude, following the crest of the mountains situated parallel to the coast until its intersection with the 141st degree of longitude west of Greenwich, subject to the conditions that if such line should anywhere exceed the distance of ten marine leagues from the ocean, then the boundary between the British and the Russian territory should be formed by a line parallel to the sinuosities of the coast and distant therefrom not more than 10 marine leagues, was it the intention and meaning of the said Convention of 1825 that there should remain in the exclusive possession of Russia a continuous fringe, or strip, of coast on the mainland, not exceeding 10 marine leagues in width, separating the British possessions from the bays, ports, inlets, havens, and waters of the ocean, and extending from the said point on the 56th degree of latitude north to a point where such line of demarcation should intersect the 141st degree of longitude west of the meridian of Greenwich?

6. If the foregoing question should be answered in the negative, and in the event of the summit of such mountains proving to be in places more than 10 marine leagues from the coast, should the width of the lisière, which was to belong to Russia, be measured (1) from the mainland coast of the ocean, strictly so-called, along a line perpendicular thereto, or (2) was it the intention and meaning of the said Convention that, where the mainland coast is indented by deep inlets forming part of the territorial waters of Russia, the width of the lisière was to be measured (a) from the line of the general direction of the mainland coast, or (b) from the line separating the waters of the ocean from the territorial waters of Russia, or (c) from the heads of the aforesaid inlet ?

7. What, if any exist, are the, mountains referred to as situated parallel to the coast, which mountains, when within 10 marine leagues from the coast, are declared to form the eastern boundary?

There follow the names of the Commissioners, and then :"Now, therefore, we, the Undersigned, having each of us first subscribed an oath, as provided by the said Convention, and having taken into consideration the matters directed by the said Convention to be considered by us, and having judicially considered the said questions submitted to us, do hereby make Answer and Award as follows:- "