to the sinuosities of the coast. The mountains referred to in the Treaty are not necessarily to be a continuous range, and this paragraph which presupposes that the Treaty contemplated such a continuous range, really turns round the two propositions altogether. The first thing contemplated in the Treaty was that you were to have your mountains; they supplied your boundary, and then they provide for the particular case of the mountains at any point or points receding more than 10 marine leagues from the coast, and they provide that you are to supply the defect at that point by a line drawn not more than 10 marine leagues from the coast. Now, that is a very different thing indeed from the proposition which is here laid down, that the width of the lisière was to be 10 marine leagues, measured from the heads of all gulfs, and so on, unless within that distance there was wholly, or in part, a continuous range of mountains lying parallel to the sinuosities of the coast. What the Treaty does provide for is that you are to take the mountains, you must have mountains, and then, if the mountains at any point recede more than 10 marine leagues from the coast, that you take that correction.

234

Now, I have already adverted, on the construction of the Treaty, to the passages which show that the Treaty presupposes the existence of such mountains, that you must have them in order to bring the Treaty into play in another connection. I deal somewhat fully with these points, and I do not know that so far as the mere construction of the Treaty is concerned that anything would be gained by recurring to the arguments which I then used. Article III, if it stood by itself clearly relates to mountains, and to mountains alone. Then you have got Article IV in the nature of a mere proviso upon Article III. Article IV really represents III, literally a proviso in the draft which was sent by Mr. Canning just before the negotiations terminated in the Agreement and the Treaty. He had, in Article III, provided for the boundary being by mountains, with a proviso as to the retrocession of the mountains beyond the limits of 10 marine leagues from the sea.

Now, my submission is that, to bring the Treaty into play, you must have mountains which satisfy Article III, and then Article IV is in the nature of a proviso that "at any points where the crest of the mountain" ("partout où la crête des montagnes ") "shall 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."

That same conclusion is very much fortified by the curious passage in which, after the conclusion of the Treaty, Count Nesselrode expressed his great dissatisfaction that he had not confined himself entirely to the mountains as a boundary. The passage occurs at p. 131 of the despatch of the 20th February, 1825, and it is in a letter to Count Lieven, where Count Nesselrode uses these very remarkable words. He says:

"The Emperor would have found it more mutually just, more equally advantageous, if the natural frontier formed by the mountains bordering on the coast were adopted by both parties as the invariable line of demarcation. England would have gained thereby wherever that distance was greater; and in view of the want of accuracy of geographical notions which we possess as to these countries, such an arrangement would have offered an entire equality of favourable chances to the two Contracting Parties.

"However, Mr. Stratford Canning, having declared that his instructions did not permit him to entertain the wishes which we had expressed to him on this point, the Emperor, in order to give His Britannic Majesty a last proof of his friendly feelings, authorized us to sign the Act in question."

That is a curious commentary upon the question which is now put forward, that you can apply the Treaty even if mountains do not exist at all. But the same conclusion is very forcibly borne out if one adverts to the whole course of the negotiations which, I submit, entirely sustain the British contention upon this point. Mountains are first proposed by Russia for the sake of distinctness, at p. 70 of the British Appendix:

66

'To complete the line of demarcation, and to make it as distinct as possible, the Russian Plenipotentiaries have expressed the wish to make it follow the Portland Canal as far as the mountans which run along the coast."

They proposed it for the sake of distinctness. Then Sir Charles Bagot refers to the mountains as bordering the coast. He suggests on p. 71 the 10 marine leagues line simpliciter on p. 71, in the passage at the end of his amended proposal, where he says that the line was to go to the North-West parallel to the sinuosities of the coast; and always at the distance of 10 marine leagues from the shore. 235 Russia in reply emphasises the propriety of taking a natural division. In the last paragraph but one of p. 71 occurs this

sentence:

"It was also convenient that both parties should determine these limits, taking into consideration the natural divisions, which always form the most distinct and indisputable frontiers.

"For these reasons the Russian Plenipotentiaries have proposed as the limits on the coast of the continent, to the south, the Portland Channel, whose head is about the 56th degree of north latitude, and to the east the chain of mountains which follows at a very small distance the windings of the coast."

And in the same despatch on the following page they treat these mountains as extending from the Portland Canal to latitude 139.

In the paragraph No. 3, of the advantages which are left to Great Britain, they talk of "all the territory situated behind the chain of mountains referred to previously, as far as the point of intersection of the 139th degree of longitude, meridian of Greenwich." And at p. 76 Count Nesselrode writes to Count Lieven, speaking of the boundary as running along the mountains which follow the windings of the coast as far as Mount Elias. It is embodied in that long paragraph which is second in the French version on the page:

66

That on the continent towards the east this frontier could run along the mountains which follow the windings of the coast as far as Mount Elias."

Then Mr. Pelly, the Chairman of the Hudson's Bay Company, quotes the Russian expression, and suggests that you could take the nearest chain of mountains. The passage is at the bottom of p. 78. He quotes the expression used by the Russian negotiators, who at that

time speak of "la chaîne des montagnes qui sont à une très petite distance des sinuosités de la côte," and Mr. Pelly goes on thus:

"Neither party have any very accurate geographical information with respect to the country in the immediate neighbourhood of the sea, and if the intentions of the Russian Government are fairly to be inferred from the words used in their proposal, the most satisfactory manner of settling this point probably would be by inserting in any Article providing for the boundary on the mainland the nearest chain of mountains, not exceeding a few leagues from the coast."

66

And at p. 80 Mr. Pelly again says:

"That those mountains represented in the charts as closely bordering on the sea, and described by the Russians as a 'très petite distance,' may really be at a very considerable distance from the coast, and then suggesting that the distance ought to be limited."

Then at p. 82 Count Lieven writes to Count Nesselrode and treats the mountains as running all the way, but possibly retreating at points. The translation is at p. 84. He says:

"The proposition of our Court was to make this frontier run along the mountains which follow the windings of the coast to Mount Elias. The English Government fully accepts this line as it is laid off on the maps; but, as it thinks that the maps are defective, and that the mountains which are to serve as a frontier might, by leaving the coast beyond the line designated, inclose a considerable extent of territory, it wishes the line claimed by us to be described with more exactness."

In other words, the 10 marine leagues is brought in in the case of the mountains receding beyond that measurement.

Then, at p. 85, Mr. Canning writes to Sir Charles Bagot with the draft Treaty, and says that he proposes a line to the head of Portland Canal-I am reading at the bottom of p. 85:

"Thence following the sinuosities of the coast along the base of mountains nearest the sea to Mount Elias."

236

Then, at p. 86 he again refers to the possibility that the maps might be inaccurate, and that the mountains might be a great deal further back at some points, and provides for an alternative. He says on the same page:—

66

That of the mountains which appear by the map almost to border the coast, turning out to be far removed from it."

Then at p. 87 in the draft the mountains are stated to border the coast. From this point the line will follow the coast parallel to its sinuosities, and under or at the base towards the sea of the mountains which border it-which border the sea, that is

66

Elle suivra cette côte, parallèlement à ses sinuosités et sous ou dans la base vers la mer des montagnes qui la bordent."

"Cette côte " there must refer

66

Mr. AYLESWORTH. To the coast of the continent.

Sir ROBERT FINLAY. Coast of the continent.

Mr. AYLESWORTH. The preceding line.

Sir ROBERT FINLAY. Yes, the preceding words:

'Jusqu'à ce qu'elle touche à la côte de la terre ferme située au 56e degré de latitude nord,"

and the point that I emphasize in this connection is that it is to be under or at the base, towards the sea, of the mountains which border

it, and the 10 marine leagues is to operate, as stated in Article III, in this way:

"That the said strip of coast on the continent of America, which forms the boundary of the Russian possessions, shall not, in any case, extend more than * * * marine leagues in breadth from the sea towards the interior, at whatever distance the aforesaid mountains may be."

Then from pp. 89 and 90 it would appear that this matter formed the subject of discussion between Mr. Canning and Count Lieven with reference to the question whether it should be the base of the mountains or the summit that should be taken. Count Lieven, writing to Count Nesselrode on the 13th July, 1824, says that Mr. Canning—as regards the French, I am reading the translation at p. 90:— "As regards the frontier of the respective possessions to the south of Mount Elias, Mr. Canning makes it run along the base of the mountains which follow the sinuosities of the coast."

And then he goes on to represent that the summit was the natural boundary; but the whole discussion proceeds on the assumption that there are mountains. In this connection I would call attention to the passage on p. 91, where Count Lieven made a suggestion which is very significant as to the situation of these mountains, on the footing of which they were negotiating. It is the first paragraph of the memorandum at the bottom of p. 91:

"The draft of the Treaty drawn up by the English Cabinet makes the limit of the Russian and English possessions on the North-West Coast of America, to the south of Mount Elias, run along the base of the mountains which follow the sinuosities of that coast."

66

It is to be observed that, as a general principle, when a chain ('chaîne ') of mountains serves to define any boundary it is always the top ('cime') of these mountains which forms the line of demarcation. In the case now under consideration the word base, by the indefinite meaning which it presents, and the greater or less extension which can be given to it, would appear hardly suitable to secure the delimitation against subsequent disputes, for it would

237

not be impossible, in view of the little exactness of the geographical ideas which we as yet possess as to these regions, that the mountains designated as the boundary should extend, by an insensible slope, down to the very border of the coast."

Then in their Counter-Draft the Russians suppress all mention of mountains which they themselves had been the first to propose, and Mr. George Canning directs Mr. Stratford Canning to reinsert them. That appears at pp. 93 and 94 of the British Case Appendix. At p. 94 is the Counter-Draft of the Russians suppressing all mention of boundaries. At pp. 113 and 114, the bottom of p. 113, Mr. Canning deals specifically with this point:

66

The Russian Plenipotentiaries propose to withdraw entirely the limit of the lisière on the coast which they were themselves the first to propose, viz., the summit of the mountains which run parallel to the coast, and which appear, according to the map, to follow all its sinuosities, and to substitute generally that which we only suggested as a corrective of their first proposition.

"We cannot agree to this change. It is quite obvious that the boundary of mountains, where they exist, is the most natural and effectual boundary. The inconveniences against which we wished to guard was that which you know and can thoroughly explain to the Plenipotentiaries, to have existed on the other side of the American continent, when mountains laid down in a map as in a certain given position, and assumed in faith of the accuracy of that map as a boundary between the possessions of England and the United States, turned out to be quite differently situated, a discovery which has given rise to the most

S. Doc. 162, 58-2, vol 6————17

perplexing discussions. Should the maps be no more accurate as to the western than as to the eastern mountains, we might be assigning to Russia immense tracts of inland territory, where we only intended to give and she only intended to ask a strip of sea coast."

The point could not be more clearly put than it is then, where Mr. Canning says the line was intended only as a corrective of the first proposition and then in his Draft at p. 116 we have got the corrective in the shape of a proviso to Article III, and which we now know is introduced to Article IV instead of being a proviso to Article III. Now I submit that this reference to the negotiations only bears out the inference which one would draw from the language of the Treaty. It is that both parties are negotiating and contracting on the faith of the existence of mountains such as are designated in the Treaty with reference to them.

Now, the second head of my observations on this point relates to the characteristics of those mountains which are referred to in the Treaty. The mountains are situate "parallèlement à la côte." Now, one observes the difference between the language of Article III and Article IV in this respect. The mountains which are mentioned in Article III are mountains situate "parallèlement à la côte." When you are dealing with the corrective in Article IV, the line which is to be substituted where the mountains are more than 10 leagues from the ocean it is to be formed by a line parallel to the sinuosities of the coast and never to be distant from it more than 10 marine leagues. Now, of course, where you are dealing with a natural feature like mountains you must take the direction which nature has given, and you speak of them as situate in a direction parallel to the coast. This is the general direction of the mountains. Where you are dealing with a line which is to be drawn artificially you can prescribe that the line is to follow the sinuosities of the coast. The question of course comes up of the coast. That I have dealt with and I am not going is possible to draw a line parallel to it. But in Article III they talk of the mountains as situate in the direction generally parallel to the coast, "situées parallèlement à la côte." In Article IV they deal with how the line is to be drawn as a corrective if the mountains recede further. That is the first indication as to the situation of the mountains. I think that the Case of the United States on this point has fallen into a slight inaccuracy when in the middle of the page they speak of the mountains as situate parallel with the sinuosities of the coast. It is in the middle of p. 103 of the Case of the United States, Head K, in negativing the existence of mountains they state it in this way. Their proposition is:—

238

"That there is not at any point within 10 marine leagues of tidewater, between the head of Portland Canal and the 141st degree of longitude west of Greenwich, the whole or any part of a continuous range of mountains parallel with the sinuosities of the coast, and extending from Portland Canal to the said 141st degree of longitude; and therefore the width of the lisière above described is not limited by a boundary line along the summit of such range, but solely by the agreed distance of 10 marine leagues from tidewater."

Now, the United States there are arguing that there are no mountains which answer the description in the Treaty, and they state that they cannot find any mountains which run parallel to the sinuosities of the coast. Well, the question is, Can you find mountains which are situated "parallèlement à la côte"? It is perfectly true that you