trator has no jurisdiction to decide what are the limits of the matter referred to. His only jurisdiction is to decide the question, and if he apprehends the question in a sense which is not the true one his award would not be within the limits of the authority confided to him. Now there is not, so far as I can see, in this Treaty of Arbitration any jurisdiction conferred upon the Tribunal to decide finally as to what is the meaning of any question put to it, or what are the points which are submitted for its decision. It is, of course, necessary that the Tribunal should put a meaning upon every question before it returns the answer, but there is nothing which makes the view of the Tribunal as to the meaning of the questions a final or decisive view. For that reason it is, of course, very important to consider exactly what these questions mean, and they are both in their form at least somewhat involved. I submit that when they are looked at carefully they are really comparatively simple, but they are long questions, the form is involved, and they require some attention to show exactly what is the point on which the decision of the Tribunal is invited. The fifth question is in these terms: 66 "In extending the line of demarcation northwards from 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 condition that if such line should anywhere exceed the distance of 10 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 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." Now, I apprehend that that question means this; that when you are taking the line of demarcation northward along the crest of the mountains, (and the condition as to 10 marine leagues from the ocean is by way of recital and parenthesis,) is the effect of the Convention such that Russia was to have—must have the United States must have a continuous fringe separating the British possessions from the inlets on the coast? That is the question. Is the Tribunal to say that the Convention of 1825 means that the territory of Great Britain is separated by land from salt water, to put it very shortly? Now, to that I shall invite the Tribunal to give an answer in the negative, and I shall submit that the answer to that question depends really upon the meaning that is to be attached to the word "coast" in Article III and the word " ocean" in Article IV, that that is the governing consideration, and that when the meaning of these expressions is appreciated it will appear that there is no such answer,-no belt of land belonging to Russia between the territory of Great Britain and the heads of the inlets. Then the sixth question, which must, I think, be treated along with the fifth, as far as general observations, at all events, are concerned, is this: it depends upon a double hypothesis; if the foregoing question should be answered in the negative, that is if the foregoing question is answered in the sense in which I invite, on behalf of Great Britain, the Tribunal to answer the fifth question; if the fifth question is 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) 184 was it the intention and meaning of the said Convention that where the mainland coast in 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 inlets?" Now, if that question is attentively looked at I think it would appear that the first and second branches of it are not really alternatives, because the question put in the first branch is "Should the width of the lisière be measured from the mainland coast of the ocean, strictly so called-along a line perpendicular thereto?" Then the second branch is; or was it the intention, where there are deep inlets, that the width of the lisière was to be measured from the line of the general direction of the mainland coast or from the line of the territorial waters, or from the heads of the inlets? Well, the first branch of the second proposition is really in substance the same as that which is put under the first proposition. If the answer to the first branch is that the line is to be measured from the mainland coast of the ocean strictly so called, then the (a) under the second branch must be answered in the same way, because it is really the same question; viz., is it to be measured from the line of the general direction of the mainland coast? And in view of that fact, I submit that these two branches of the sixth question are not really alternative, that the second branch is by way of being a sort of explanation of the first. The first is the general question: Was the width to be measured from the mainland coast of the ocean, strictly so-called? then the "or" does not mean to set out another answer, 66 the or is," or in other words," and to put the matter in more detail, when you have got deep inlets, are you to take the line from the general direction of the mainland coast or from the line of the territorial waters, or from the heads of the aforesaid inlets? I submit, for the consideration of the Tribunal, that that is what question (b) really means, and the answer that I ask the Tribunal to give is that the line of the mainland coast of the ocean strictly so called, or in the language of the second branch the line of the general direction of the mainland coast is the governing factor. That would come very nearly to the same thing as the second alternative of the second branch (b), the line separating the waters of the ocean from the territorial waters of Russia, although it would not necessarily coincide with it; still, practically, it is very nearly the same thing, and I invite the Tribunal altogether to discard the third alternative in the second branch that the line is to be measured from the heads of the aforesaid inlets. Mr. TURNER. The line separating the waters of the ocean from the territorial waters of Russia is, according to your contention, part of the mainland coast there? Sir ROBERT FINLAY. I beg your pardon, Sir, I am very sorry I did not hear. Mr. TURNER. According to the English contention, the line separating the waters of the ocean from the territorial waters of Russia is part of the mainland coast there? Sir ROBERT FINLAY. I think that they very nearly coincide. I think that (a) and (b) come very nearly to the same thing, but I think that (a) is the more accurate way of putting it. The question of the territorial waters may, I think, be a very important one as a guide to what is the general line of the coast, but I think it is the only way that it can be most usefully invoked. I shall ask the Tribunal to answer the question with reference to the general line of the coast, using the arguments on the subject of territorial waters as a guide to what is to be taken as the general line of the coast. Having submitted my view of the meaning of these questions, I thought it would be right that I should call the attention of the Tribunal to the view that is submitted in the Argument on behalf of the United States, which, I think, is not substantially at variance with that which I venture to present. At p. 63 of the Argument for the United States will be found the passages which I am going to cite, and also on p. 65. They say: 185 "The fifth question does not involve any understanding as to the actual location of the line on the ground in the interior, but only its relevancy to the entire coast-line of the bays and inlets. The question can be answered independently that the understanding was that the line should be drawn around all such waters. This can be done without fixing where it shall be located." In fact, I do not think the Tribunal has any jurisdiction to draw the line. The PRESIDENT. Except in so far as it answers question 7. Sir ROBERT FINLAY. Exactly. "The question does not involve the answer to the question as to whether or not the line, in the absence of mountains responding to the condition of the Treaty within 10 marine leagues of the coast shall be drawn the full distance of 10 marine leagues. "That answer is dependent upon considerations that do not necessarily affect the answer to the fifth question. The fifth question can be fully answered without touching either of these propositions. "The British Case seems to concede that, if the line is to be drawn, not along the mountains, but parallel to the coast, it shall be drawn 10 marine leagues from the coast. It says: "It is to be observed that this Treaty contemplates a shore-line such as admits of another line being drawn parallel to its sinuosities at a distance of 10 marine leagues.'" I submit that that is not the effect of that passage at all. What that passage of the British Case says is this: that the Treaty contemplates a shore line such as makes it possible to draw another parallel, but the meaning that is attributed to the passage in the sentence I have just read is that the British Case seems to concede that the line is to be drawn not along mountains, but parallel to the coast, which shall be drawn 10 marine leagues from the coast. The British Case does not concede that, and I do not concede it, or anything like it. I say that the Treaty is express in saying that it is to be drawn at a distance not greater-not exceeding 10 leagues from the coast. "It may appear, either from a construction of the Treaty alone or from such construction taken in connection with the subsequent conduct of the parties, 1 that it was the intent of the Treaty that Russia was to have, at all events, a continuous strip of the coast, and that this was such a clear and dominating feature of the Treaty that all doubtful language is to be regarded as subordinate to it, and to be constructed so as to carry out this intent. "If such intent shall be demonstrated, it must prevail, and the actual location of the territorial boundary line must be a subordinate consideration." 66 And then at p. 65, in dealing with the question of coast, they say:"The United States claims that the coast is an unbroken coast, and that this is the dominating factor, that the coast, as meant by the Treaty, must first be for by the Treaty, which are perpendicular to or trend across the coast leading around the heads of the bays and inlets, and that all mountains which so trend are to be rejected from consideration. If the coast, or as the Treaty expressed it, lisiére de côte,' is the controlling feature, then there will be no difficulty as to the meaning of 'sinuosity.' The line must be parallel to the coast that is meant, and must follow the sinuosities of that coast. No mountains and no crest of mountains can divide such coast so as to deprive the United States of any part of it. "When the meaning of 'coast' shall be determined, the actual location of the line will be a secondary proposition. Just where it will be situated with reference to the heads of the bays and inlets is entirely subordinate to the proposition that it must, at all events, be situated somewhere to the interior of the heads of such bays and inlets." 186 Now, that I think brings out very clearly that in the view of the United States, as in that which I present, the fifth question raises the point of broad principle. Is there to be found in the Treaty, either taken in itself or taken by such light as can legitimately be thrown upon it by the negotiations which preceded it and the surrounding circumstances is there to be found any governing intent that there was always to be a strip of land between the British Dominions and the head of the inlets? Now, with regard to the sixth question, the United States put forward their proposition. At p. 105 of their Case they set out the question: "The United States, insisting that the fifth question should be answered in the affirmative, as above requested, therefore submits that an answer to the sixth question is unnecessary. But if the Tribunal should decide otherwise and answer the fifth question in the negative, then the United States, without waiving the request made as to the answer and decision of the fifth question, requests the Tribunal to answer and decide that in the event of the summit of such mountains proving to be more than 10 marine leagues from the coast, the width of the lisière which was to belong to Russia should not be measured from the mainland coast of the ocean strictly so called, along a line perpendicular thereto; but that it was 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 from the heads of such inlets." Now, having arrived, I hope, at a clear understanding as to what these questions mean, I proceed to invite the consideration of the Tribunal, in the first instance, to the terms of the Treaty, and the view that I am going to present is this, that everything depends upon ascertaining what the term "côte" (coast in Article III and "océan " (ocean) in Article IV) means. "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 Prince of Wales Island, which point lies in the parallel of 54 degrees 40 minutes north latitude, and between the 131st and 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 the 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 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 continent of America to the north-west." Then Article IV, that refers to the line of demarcation: "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 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 10 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 10 marine leagues therefrom." Now, I submit that the case mentioned in Article III must designate the same line as the boundary of the ocean mentioned in Article IV, and that when you have ascertained what is the coast mentioned in Article III you are to apply to that coast the words of Article IV, which prescribe that the line, in the event there contemplated, 187 shall be parallel to the windings of the coast. The contention on behalf of the United States, as I understand it, is that "une ligne parallèle aux sinuositiés de la côte " means a line parallel to the inlets of the coast taking in all the inlets. I say that that is not the case at all, that you get the meaning of coast as designated in Article III and as spoken of in Article IV, and there your line is to be parallel to the sinuosities of the coast and if that coast is the general line of coast then it is the sinuosities of the general line of coast, and these only, that you are to have regard to. I say, putting it in another way, that to draw such a line parallel to the sinuosities of the inlets is a thing that is impossible, that it really cannot be done, and that what you have to contemplate is a line of coast parallel to which you can draw a line at a distance not exceeding 10 marine leagues. Sir L. JETTÉ. Do you not believe, Mr. Attorney, that an inlet is not a sinuosity? Sir ROBERT FINLAY. Is not a sinuosity of the coast? Sir ROBERT FINLAY. NO. . Sir L. JETTÉ. It is something entirely different. Sir ROBERT FINLAY. A sinuosity of the coast is a winding of the general line of coast, but the expression sinuosity of coast, I submit, is not applicable to inlets. "Sinuositès de la côte " is, I submit, an expression that is not applicable to an inlet, and that never would have been used with regard to it. The negotiators had before them a map which showed them the general nature of this coast, and, however loose the ideas that prevailed as to the interior as to the mountain system, there was no doubt whatever that Vancouver's explorations left little to be desired as regards the sea and the channels and inlets of the sea. Well, they had these inlets before them. Now I do submit for the consideration of the Tribunal that if the negotiators of the Treaty had intended to indicate that the line was to be parallel to |