water that empties through it. Thus, between Prince of Wales Island and the promontory of the mainland, which are parts of the barrier that retain the inland sea, the narrow strait is the source of the stream that empties into the ocean, through the Channel to which the definitions of the Treaty have given the name of "Portland". No sailor like Vancouver, wishing to do it honour would have appended the name- -as we have it now—like a tail, to the inferior opening of an "inlet " called after the commonplace and strictly useful purposes of an observatory. It is too much like the studied insult of draping an enemy's flag under the ship's counter, in a manner suggestive of its use as a sort of nautical breech-clout.

66

In view of

Under the heading : "LORD ALVERSTONE'S JUDgment."The Times, in its Weekly Edition of Oct. 23, 1903, contains his answers to the crucial questions—the second and fifth—which the Alaska Boundary Commissioners had to decide." the strictures that have been passed, it is tempting to give his answers in full; they show a careful and impartial consideration of the evidence as it was presented before the Tribunal, of which certainly he was the only really disinterested member.

"After the most careful consideration of every document in this Case, I have found nothing to alter or throw any doubt on the conclusion to which I have arrived, and there are certain general considerations that strongly support it.

That the latitude of the mouth or entrance to the channel called Portland Channel, as described in the Treaty and understood by the negotiators, was 54° 45'. . . Russia and Great Britain were negotiating as to the point on the coast to which the Russian dominion should be conceded. It is unnecessary to refer to all the earlier negotiations, but it is distinctly established that Russia urged that her dominion should extend to 55° of latitude, and it was in furtherance of this object that Portland Channel, which issues into the sea at 54° 45', was conceded and ultimately agreed to by Great Britain. No claim was ever made by Russia to any of the islands south of 54° 45′ except Prince of Wales Island, and this is the more marked because she did claim the whole of Prince of Wales Island, a part of which extended to about 54° 40'. The islands between Observatory Inlet and the channel, to which I have referred above as Portland Channel, are never mentioned in the whole course of the negotiations."

In other words, the two small islands are given to the United States, not so much because of their location with respect to the entrance of Portland Channel, as that they are to the north while others are to the south of the parallel of latitude that all parties to the Award had agreed upon, as the southerly limit of "the strip of coast which is to belong to Russia." It is to be observed, that the only contention as to the second question. before the Tribunal is, as to which of two waterways, marked respectively upon the map as "Observatory Inlet" and " Portland Channel," is the Portland Channel of the Treaty. These are separated from each other by a string of four islands, lying along the north-westerly side of what appears to be, but for their presence, a single inlet; the Portland Channel of the Award is much the least of the two, both in breadth and depth of water. Award gives the two western islands to the United States, and the two eastern and almost incomparably larger islands to Canada. Had Britain intended to assign such a strip on the mainland, there is little doubt the larger, or Observatory Inlet, would have been chosen, as giving all the islands to the section of the continent to which, geographically, they belong

The

But the Portland Channel of the Award, besides being altogether outside the treaty limits of the concession, as explictly defined in terms of latitude and longitude-though it may be properly designated a "channel", because it separates islands from the mainland or from each other, and is longer than it is wide—is after all, only a portion of the waters of an inlet through which it is impossible to approach the point of the continent where it strikes the 56th degree of north latitude.

It is true, the Americans have discovered a point on the 56th parallel, that suits their purpose very much better than the point defined by the treaty, and the Tribunal has granted it with as much facility as it did the change of the commencement of the line, notwithstanding the fact that it is certainly two degrees, while only a doubt might be raised that it is not actually more than four degrees east of its true position.

To a matter-of-fact perception there is nothing more striking than that the question of longitude has been ignored in the proceedings of the Tribunal; it is almost conceivable that the word itself has never been introduced in the discussions. And yet the dispute, as far as it turns on geographical issues, is a question of longitude: How far to the eastward does the boundary extend? Commencing from the southernmost part of Prince of Wales Island, which point lies in the parallel of 54° 40' of north latitude and under the 132° of west longitude, the said line shall ascend to the north, following the channel "as far as the point of the continent where it strikes the 59th degree of north latitude." As from this point the boundary line is to follow the general direction of the coast, at a distance in no place exceeding ten marine leagues from the Ocean, and this direction being nearly north-west; it appears to be the definite purpose of the delimitation that Prince of Wales Island should be itself the extreme limit of the Russian concession to the south and east.

The 5th QUESTION, is in fact a compound of what should be two distinct considerations; it is a cause of surprise to find in the opening words of the next question a suggestion that the expected answer should be simply, either "yes" or "no." For while dealing, apparently, only with the geographical aspects of the strip of coast, the introduction of "exclusive” before the word "possession", raises the question of the motive, or intention, with which the possession of this strip is confirmed to the United States. That is to say, if the answer is "Yes," it signifies the formal consent of Canada, as well as of Britain, to the voiding. of Article VI. of the pre-existing treaty ; by which the free navigation of all rivers and streams crossing the strip, was reserved to Great Britain for ever. Absolutely without the restraint of any scruple of honour or self-respect, as is the diplomacy of the United States in its calculating mendacity, when anything is to be gained by lying; it lacked the "nerve” to make this purpose of trade "exclusiveness" a distinct and un-mistakable issue before the Tribunal; but as soon as the Conven

tion by which these questions, as formulated, were accepted as the basis of discussion-was signed, the newspapers, periodical press and occasional publications of the country, with an unanimity that suggested official inspiration; asserted in a manner indicating anything but a friendly feeling towards Great Britain, that the object and intention of the Anglo-Russian Treaty was to put Russia in possession of such a continuous strip upon the coast as should make commercial access to tide-water by British subjects impossible. That the United States having bought the concession from Russia with this understanding and with the intention of making the exclusion effective, it would be the duty of the Tribunal where the territorial limits were not sufficiently explicit, to amend them in the sense and intention of the treaty.

These assertions, constantly reiterated in a manner that was obviously intended to educate Public Opinion in Canada and Britain as well as in the United States, were allowed to pass without opposition or disapproval, expressed either officially or through the newspapers. Before the Tribunal even, the assertion of an exclusive intention in the Treaty appears to have passed without notice by the Counsel engaged. It has been said in praise of British persistence," they never know when they are beaten."; it appears equally true there are occasions when they do not even know they are kicked!

Probably, to obtain from Britain an official sanction for the assertion of exclusive possession as the purpose of the AngloRussian Treaty, was the most urgent motive that induced the United States to submit their Alaskan occupation to a discussion that was carefully limited to further only their own interests. Because, though apparently in undisputed possession of the utmost they could hope to obtain, not only of limits, but of the extortionate uses to which they might be applied; they would

-as long as the Treaty under which they professed to occupy had any semblance of vitality—unless they retained the confiding friendliness of Britain, always be liable to a demand that the reciprocal obligations of the Treaty should be observed.

In other words, United States diplomacy was keenly alive to the consideration that as soon as the British people realized the true character of the political friendship of each nation, there would be an imperative demand that the VIth Article of the Anglo-Russian Treaty should be scrupulously observed in the future; perhaps accompanied by a claim for a refund of the extortions of the past. In vain then, would the United States plead the professional delusions of the Law Officers of the Crown, that Russia might "revoke " her reciprocal grants to Britain while selling the "possessions" in requital of which they were given to the United States. (Do members of the Legal Profession imagine they can import into International Law the legal fiction of innocent holders of fraudulent acceptances; by which they have made their assumption of "JUSTICE" stink in the nostrils of Common Sense? The rule, that any John Bull of a Farmer who-without legal advice is fool enough to put his name to paper that may be fraudulently altered to his disadvantage, forfeits thereby his right to the protection of THE LAW !)

Had the United States taken possession of the Alaskan Territory without any pretence of having purchased a right to do so, she would not have been bound by the provisions of a treaty she has appealed to for a sanction; while apart from any obligation of International Law Britain would have no right to complain of any extortionate use that was made of a possession she had not contested. But, until the stipulations of this treaty in her favour are specifically resigned and abrogated by herself, they remain valid, any pronouncement of "LAW"! to the contrary notwithstanding to a Free Country there always remains an appeal from the imagination to the reality of Power.

Being alternative the 5th and 6th Questions before the Tribunal must be considered conjointly, it will not do to answer either without a thorough understanding of what is involved by both. It should be evident that the negative suggested by the opening words of the last question, is a negation of the assertion of "exclusiveness" contained in the first, and does not relate to