It has on page 6 of this treatise-been suggested, that the questions proposed had been formulated as much in view of the probability of the Canadians refusing to meet the Commissioners appointed by the United States, and thus letting their acceptance go by default, as in view of a solution being arrived at by the deliberations of the Tribunal itself. The questions are not asked with the intention of throwing light on the terms of the treaty, but with the intention of substituting others more favorable to territorial expansion by the States.

وو

The first question: "What is intended as the point of commencement of the line? " is answered not only with a verbal description by Art. III, but with the addition of latitude, 54° 40′, and longitude described as "between the 131st and 133rd degrees, west of Greenwich. It must not for a moment be supposed that the difference in the precision of these two terms has any relation whatever to their comparative importance in defining the exact location of the starting point of the boundary line. To find the exact latitude of any place is one of the simplest problems of nautical astronomy, requiring nothing but a good sextant, a clear day and a steady hand, to obtain, with the data from a nautical almanac, the local noon and latitude. To get the longitude with equal accuracy, demands some means of obtaining, for comparison, the true time at Greenwich also ; the means of doing this are better now than when this treaty was made, and that maps still show this point (Chacon) to be exactly under the meridian of 132° west longitude, equally between the limits of error allowed, is evidence of the great care taken in locating it. There is another point, (Muzon) on an adjacent island in almost the same latitude, but very nearly a degree further to the west. For reasons they have not stated, this point is preferred by the Americans; the British, however, do not appear to have troubled themselves to enquire into the possible motives that might have suggested this preference. It is clear, from the correspondence, that Russia desired the possession of both points, which the treaty grants; but for some reason in

the purpose of delimitation, Cape Chacon has been chosen rather than the other: what are these reasons?

As affecting the United States two motives appear probable, one "moral", the other practical. The United States, suggests a point of commencement that-unless the sanity of the negotiators of the treaty is called in question, either openly or impliedly, by the members of the Tribunal, or the advocates of either or both parties to the controversy it was intended to terminate -is, obviously, not the point designated by the treaty. There is not even a plausible reason given for the change, and yet every "impartial jurist," being upon his oath to decide" according to his true judgment ", has been induced to decide by some other consideration, and renders what must be known to any rational discrimination as a false judgment upon the very first question presented to the Tribunal. This is a great point in favour of expansionist ideals, for what reason is there to suppose that any other question will be considered more judiciously?

The practical reasons for suggesting the change may be more complicated; this is the first question proposed, and if the change is accepted simply as a concession to affability, it is an augury that the Tribunal may be depended upon to alter any other condition of the treaty that is objected to. If the change is opposed on a literal or technical understanding of the terms of the treaty, the delegates may be prepared to dispute the point with any show of un-reason that would serve to cast upon the British, the blame of failure to come to an agreement on a point that would, they might say, have no practical effect upon the actual location of the Boundary line. To mark a parallel of latitude, either point doubtless, to the British, would appear to answer equally well; but, while Cape Mazon marks nothing but the latitude, Cape Chacon also marks the point from which the boundary line should "ascend to the north".

It is impossible-as the Americans have proposed to divide the terms of this treaty into a series of water-tight compartments, to deal with each apart from its relation to others; the

substitution of Cape Muzon makes the second term of the delimitation useless and impossible; and, by making the second question proposed to the Tribunal turn on the identity of the "Portland" Channel, instead of the direction in which the boundary line should leave the point of commencement, the "impartial jurists" are given an opportunity-or excuse for ignoring this important feature of the treaty also. The United States may have thought it more prudent not to ask for a second violation of its explicit terms, before suggesting some plausible reason in justi.ication of doing so. A true answer to this question can only be arrived at by asking: what function does "the channel” serve in the treaty; what means, other than the name-which is purely artificial, arbitrary and unnecessary in the presence of physical distinctions-are given, by which it may be recognised? A reference to the map, guided by a comparison with the text, demonstrates, that no other channel will answer to the terms of the treaty except the Strait separating the island from the mainland. The function of the channel is to carry the boundary line from the point of commencement, to "the point of the continent where it strikes the 56th degree of north latitude"; in such a manner as to leave the island wholly within the Russian limits ; where is this point situated ?

It has already been shown how simple is the problem of finding the latitude of any place; this simplicity, by the old-time ship-master, was, more than it is at present, used as the basis of the art of navigation. From British or any other ports, he would boldly shape a course through mid-ocean, until he found his ship upon the latitude of the port or passage he wished to enter, he would then work east or west along that parallel, until he reached there. If the wind was fair, he would sail along with the latitude under his keel; if it was contrary he would brace up to meet it, beating against it, "long leg or short leg", always aiming to be on the line for his midday observation. Day after day, week after week, perhaps month after month, the ever present imaginary parallel, would, in his isolated solitude, appear more

real to him, than the vague and sometimes receding continent suspended in the distance. Where the landsman would say, if he wished to express the idea at all, "the line strikes the continent," the seaman says, "the continent strikes the line". And, to him, that point would be the same his ship would strike, if he did not make his land-fall with discretion, or allowed himself to imagine that, under any conditions whatever, any outlying islands might be considered as being anything but an integral portion of the continent to which they belong. To the men in charge of a ship, the coasts of the continents that bound the oceans must constantly be the subject of reminiscence, both as they first appear in the distance and as they unfold on a near approach, their physical features appeal in a very different manner to the observation of a seaman than they do tʊ even an observant person who is only a passenger; and, when a seaman speaks of "mountains, which extend in a direction parallel to the coast", we may be certain they have been seen, not guessed at To him, above all other men, the vital necessity of truth, in this respect, precludes the fantasy of lying.

United States " diplomatists" have never lost an opportunity of depreciating the services of the naval element in the selection of the method by which this boundary has been defined; and so much do their plausible objections appear to have dominated the direction of Canadian official investigations, that there is no indication of naval experts or hydrographers having been consulted as to the meaning of the disputed clauses. These may appear hopelessly obscure and impossible when applied to such territorial pretensions as the United States have advanced; but, had the limit they indicate been the western, instead of the eastern boundary of their possessions, the only objection from them would have been, that the "strip of coast" was so ridiculously narrow it would be to the interest of both countries to abolish the distinction altogether. The terms in fact, are so precise and explicit in their technical meaning, that as an examination problem, they should be capable of correct solution by any candidate

fit for a second mate's certificate.

But in Juridical proceedings,

Had

Britain appears to have discovered a method of giving away all that her statesmen and soldiers have gained in the past. the settlement of the dispute been left to the members of professions who learn to obey orders, instead of to quibble about their meaning, we should not have seen a Judicial Tribunal leaving the plain deductions of common-sense from the records of history, to say nothing of the geodetic data of a treaty the ink of which is hardly dry, to follow the suggestions of an aggressive disputant to a boundary that violates every consideration on which the treaty was based.

If the intention of the treaty, as claimed by Canadian counsel, had been to define and acknowledge the possession by Russia of territory upon the mainland, in addition to her undisputed possession of the outlying islands, to select a point on one of these a hundred miles or so away, as the commencement of the boundary of the strip upon the mainland, would be an act of folly not to be expected from the vagaries of one lunatic, far less from the united counsels of the statesmen of two great nations.

Had the channel, defined by terms of latitude and longitude, as well as by a compass direction of its course, been left unnamed in the treaty, it might have added to the difficulty of substituting what appears to answer to one of these terms only, but there is little reason to suppose it would have prevented the change. It is plain from the history of the case, this treaty has never been studied with a serious intention of finding out what its terms of delimitation really mean; it has been used only as a mine from which to dig evidence of the careless incompetence with which British officials treat colonial affairs.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL quotes Vancouver's narrative :"In the forenoon we reached the arm of the sea whose examination had occupied our time from the 27th of the preceding to the 2nd of this month. The distance from its entrance to its source is about 70 miles, which, in honour of the noble family of Bentinck, I have named Portland's Canal." The Canal of the Award, has several entrances but nothing that can be called a source; for this means the origin of the body of