Russian contention was-this is taken from the despatch of M. de Poletica-the Memorandum of M. de Poletica, as the Tribunal will afterwards find: "Vancouver was the Russian establishment in the Bay of Kenai." That is Cook's Inlet-the Russian name for Cook's Inlet, immediately to the east of the Alaskan Peninsula. Then Mr. Pelly's comment upon that is:

66

Vancouver was visited by the Russians in Prince William's Sound, which is in upwards of 60 degrees.”

Then at the middle of the page the Russian contention was that Don Joze Martinez in 1789 did not remove the Russian colonists from Nootka. Mr. Pelly's comment upon that again is:

26

"Neither Cook nor Vancouver mentioned these settlements."

And then over the page—p. 28-the Russian contention

was:

"That in 1789 the Spanish packet, St. Charles, found in the latitude of 48 degrees and 49 degrees a Russian colony of 20 families, which were descendants of the companions of Tehirikoff.”

The last sentence of Mr. Pelly's comment is this:—

“It is singular if they were the descendants of Tehirikoff that neither Krusenstern nor Kotzebue mention the circumstance, and that neither Vancouver nor Cook nor any traders have noticed it.”

I have given these references a little out of their order for the purpose of explaining the emphasis I laid upon that passage. Its importance will really only become evident subsequently.

Then on p. 29 the Duke of Wellington writes to Mr. George Canning inclosing, on the 28th November. 1822, a Memorandum which he had given to Count Nesselrode regarding the Russian Ukase, and his answer. The Memorandum merely stated the British Case. The answer of the Russians, which is at pp. 30 and 31, forming the second inclosure in this despatch so far as it is material, is in these terms-I am reading from p. 31 from the translation, about six sentences from the bottom:—

"The Duke of Wellington states in his Confidential Memorandum of 17th October, that some English Settlements belonging to two Companies-the Hudson Bay and the North-West-have been formed in a country called New Caledonia, which extends along the coast of the Pacific Ocean from the 49th degree to the 60th degree of north latitude.

"Russia will not speak of the settlements which may exist between the 49th and the 51st parallels, but as to the others she does not hesitate that she is still in ignorance of their existence, as least so far as their touching the Pacific Ocean is concerned.

"Even the most recent and complete English maps do not show a single trading post mentioned in the Memorandum of 17th October, on the coast of American between the 51th and 6th degrees of north latitude.

"Moreover, since the expeditions of Behring and Tehirikoff—that is, for nearly a century-Russian settlements have been growing so steadily from the 60th degree onward, that in 1799 they had reached the 51st parallel, as the first Charter of the Russian-American Company shows, which Charter at the time received official publicity, and which has called forth no protest on the part of England.

This same Charter accorded to the Russian Company the right to extend its settlements towards the south beyond the 51st degree of north latitude, provided that such increase of territory would give rise to no protest on the part of any foreign Power.

"No objection was made to this provision either by England. She did not even protest against the new settlements that the Russian-American Company may have established to the south of the 55th degree by reason of this privilege."

Then on p. 32:

"In consequence, the Emperor has directed his Cabinet to state to the Duke of Wellington (without permitting this declaration to prejudice his rights in any degree should it not be accepted) that he is ready to settle, by means of friendly negotiations, and upon the basis of mutual agreement, the degrees of latitude and longitude which the two Powers shall regard as the outside limits of their possessions and of their settlements on the North-West Coast of America."

Now, there the latitude of 55 degrees, which is really the governing feature in the negotiations preceding the Treaty, is most clearly stated. That was the limit of the territory assigned to the Russian Company by the Ukase of 1799. Beyond that there was mere power to explore.

On that limit Russia took its stand, and it will be found that the limit of 55 degrees was departed from for the one purpose of including the southern portion of Prince of Wales Island in Russian Territory.

27

These pourparlers ended in nothing except the expression of a hope that by agreement and waiving any question of strict right either based on discovery or occupation a settlement of the respective claims of the two Powers might be arrived at as is stated in the despatch of the Duke of Wellington of the 29th November to Mr. George Canning at the bottom of p. 32. It states that the Memoranda which he inclosed should be as non avenus as friendly negotiations were to ensue.

Now, that is the end of that stage, and the only further reference I need make to it at the present time is with regard to the Memorandum from Baron Tuyll-he was, I think, Russian Minister in England at the time-to Count Nesselrode, under date 21st October (November 2nd), 1822, where he says:—

"It will doubtless be expedient to make all possible attempts in this direction by alleging the newness of these last establishments, the clause of the privilege (Charter), of the two united Companies, which sets a limit to their future extension, and the injury which the proximity of those posts cannot fail to cause the older Russian establishment, known under the name of NovoArchangelsk. But supposing it to be impossible to succeed in extending the frontiers of Russia much farther toward the south, it seems that it would be indispensable to have them fixed at least at the 55th degree of north latitude." There it is again :

"Or, better still, at the southern point of the Archipelago of the Prince of Wales and the Observatory Inlet, which are situated almost under that parallel.

66

Any nearer neighbourhood of the English establishments could not fail to be injurious to that of Novo-Archangelsk, which is in latitude 57 degrees 3 minutes."

Now, there is the first proposal, instead of latitude 55 degrees, which was the Russian limit, to take two points, the southern point of the Prince of Wales Archipelago and the Observatory Inlet, situate almost under that parallel, as a matter of fact they are from somewhat to the south of it. But I call attention to this passage not merely for that purpose, but also for the purpose of showing that Baron Tuyll had really read Vancouver's narrative. Observatory Inlet is described minutely by Vancouver, and named by him as extending to the sea; and we find the Russian Minister as early as October, 1822, proposing as the two points the southern point of

Prince of Wales Island and Observatory Inlet. That must be the mouth of Observatory Inlet.

It cannot be any point of Observatory Inlet opening into another inlet or away from the sea. It must be the mouth where it opens into the ocean. That he must have got from Vancouver, and that proposal was thrown out. It was never acted upon, and for Observatory Inlet of Vancouver is substituted Portland Canal, as I say of Vancouver also, and I shall submit to the Tribunal that that passage has a most important bearing upon the contention that for the Portland Canal of Vancouver is to be substituted what Vancouver called Observatory Inlet, on the ground that it is the larger, the wider, and the more navigable. That is not the question. The question is identity, not width and navigability. Now, my Lord, I proceed to the second stage of the negotiations-the conversations between Sir Charles Bagot and Counts Nesselrode and Poletica taking place in 1823. And I refer to them as throwing light on those two points— the 55th degree north latitude and the question of the barrier_which is very much developed in the case for the United States. I must refer to Mr. Canning's instructions to Sir Charles Bagot on p. 34 of the Appendix, on the 5th February, 1823, for the purpose of showing what the materials laid before Sir Charles Bagot were, or rather were to be, because it will be found that with the papers the inclosures apparently were not sent, and I think we must assume that Sir Charles Bagot ultimately got them, and they were not inclosed in the first letter. I am referring to this for the purpose of making good my point that Sir Charles Bagot must be taken to have had before him that Memorandum referred to by Mr. Pelly referring to Vancouver's narrative. At p. 34, Mr. Canning writes to Sir Charles Bagot:

28

"With reference to my despatch No. 5, of the 31st December last, transmitting to your Excellency the copy of an instruction addressed to the Duke of Wellington, as well as a despatch from his Grace, dated Verona, the 29th November last, both upon the subject of the Russian Ukase of September, 1821, I have now to enclose to your Excellency the copy of a note, which has been addressed to me by Count Lieven, expressing his Imperial Majesty's wish to enter into some amicable arrangement for bringing this subject to a satisfactory termination.

And then full powers are to be given. Then on p. 35 Sir Charles Bagot writes to Mr. Canning on the 10th of the same month, saying:

"I ought to state that in the copy of the instructions given to the Duke of Wellington by your despatch No. 6 to his Grace, of the 27th September last, and which was transmitted to me in your despatch No. 5 of the 31st December, the opinions of Lord Stowell and of his Majesty's Advocate-General upon the subject of this Ukase, and the other papers therein referred to were not enclosed."

That was Mr. Pelly's letter and memorandum. I am not aware that it anywhere expressly appears upon the documents which are before the Tribunal, that Sir Charles Bagot got these documents; but I think it may be very reasonably inferred he did, as he calls attention to the fact that they had not been inclosed, and he was proceeding on the basis of the instructions which had been given to the Duke of Wellington, which of course, to a very great extent, mainly in fact, rested upon the facts as stated in Mr. Pelly's letter and memorandum.

I refer to that because I do not wish it to be supposed that I put my

case too high on this question of fact. It is not actually shown in these letters as far as I know-that these papers were received by Sir Charles Bagot, but I think it is a matter of reasonable inferenceirresistible inference-that he did in fact get them.

Then at p. 39 there is a letter from Mr. Stratford Canning, who was then Minister to the United States, to Mr. George Canning, dated the 3rd May, 1823, where he refers to the proposal which afterwards plays such an important part in these negotiations, that the United States' Minister should be instructed to negotiate an arrangement of the differences between Russia and the United States, while at the same time negotiations were being carried on between Russia and England. And then at p. 40 there occurs this passage near the top:

"He added that the United States had no territorial claims of their own as high as the 51st degree of latitude, although they disputed the extent of those advanced by Russia, and opposed the right of that Power to exclude their citizens from trading with the native inhabitants of those regions over which the sovereignty of Russia had been for the first time asserted by the late Edict of the Emperor, and most particularly the extravagant pretension to prohibit the approach of foreign vessels within 100 Italian miles of the coast."

Although that statement appears to have been made by the American Secretary of State at the time that the United States had no territorial claims as high as 51 degrees of latitude, I think that it will be found that afterwards that admission was very much qualified, and a contention was put forward that the United States had an equal claim with Russia and with England to share in any division that might be made of the territory a great deal further north than the 51st degree of latitude. That appears to have been the attitude taken up at that time.

Mr. WATSON. Will you please give me the last page you quoted from?

Sir ROBERT FINLAY. Page 40. It is near the top of the page in the British Case Appendix. The next step marked in the progress of this negotiation is the despatch of the 12th July, 1823, from Mr. Canning to Sir Charles Bagot, on p. 40. He begins by saying:

29

"We have no precise information as to the views of the American Government."

And then at the end of the letter occurs this passage:

"The other part of this question which relates to territorial claim and boundary is perhaps susceptible of a separate settlement; of the two principles on which the settlement could be made, viz., joint occupancy of territorial demarcation, the latter is clearly preferable. A line of demarcation drawn at the 57th degree between Russian and British settlers would be an arrangement satisfactory to us, and would assign to Russia as much as she can pretend to be due to her. Your Excellency will therefore bring this suggestion forward, and acquaint me how far a formal proposition on this basis would be agreeable to His Imperial Majesty's Government."

Now, Sir Charles Bagot communicates the result of that proposal to Mr. Canning in a despatch which is dated the 19th-31st August, 1823, and which will be found beginning at p. 43 of the British Case Appendix, and with its enclosures running on to p. 46. The first sentence refers to the possibility of joint negotiation with the United States. Then on p. 44:

"Mr. Middleton now tells me what I was not before aware of, that he had last year, by direction of the President, several interviews with Count Nessel

rode and Count Capodistrias upon the subject of this Ukase, and that it was at length agreed that he should inquire officially what were the intentions of the Imperial Government in regard to the execution of it, an assurance being previously given that the answer which he should receive would be satisfactory."

Then the answer is enclosed, which was an answer with reference to the manner in which it was to be carried out so as not to give offence to other Powers:—

"In regard to the second part of this question, that which relates to the territorial claim advanced by Russia in respect to the north-west coasts of North America, I have explained to Count Nesselrode that the United States, making no pretension to territory so high as the 51st degree of north latitude, the question rests between His Majesty and the Emperor of Russia alone, and becomes, therefore, a matter for separate settlement by their respective Governments.

"I have suggested to him that this settlement may perhaps be best made by Convention, and I have declared our readiness to accede to one framed either upon the principle of joint occupancy or demarcation of boundary, as the Russian Government may itself prefer, intimating, however, that in our view. the latter is by far the most convenient. Count Nesselrode immediately and without hesitation declared himself to be entirely of that opinion, and he assured me that the chief, if not the only, object of the Imperial Government was to be upon some certainty in this respect.'

Then I pass on to p. 45:

"In a second interview which I have had with Count Nesselrode upon the subject of this separate negotiation, I told him that our pretensions had, I believed, always extended to the 59th degree of north latitude, but that a line of demarcation drawn at the 57th degree would be entirely satisfactory to us, and that I believed that the Russian Government had, in fact, no settlements to the southward of that land. I am not, however, quite sure that I am right in this last assertion, as the Russian Settlement of Sitka, to which I am told that the Russian Government pretends to attach great importance, is not laid down very precisely."

Count Nesselrode did not appear to be at all startled by that proposition. That is the first proposal of these 57 degrees. And then comes a postscript that M. de Poletica is in direct communication with Mr. Middleton and with Sir Charles Bagot. Then, on the 17th October, Sir Charles Bagot writes again, and it is in this despatch that it will be found that the renunciation of any claims by the United States beyond 51 degrees is modified. I need not read the whole of the passage; the Tribunal has no doubt seen it; but at the middle of p. 47 he says:

30

"Mr. Middleton, however, admits that the United States are not prepared to push their pretensions to this extent. He says that they are ready to acknowledge that no country has any absolute and exclusive claim to these coasts; and that it is only intended by his Government to assert that, as heirs to the claims of Spain, the United States have, in fact, the best pretensions which any of the three Powers interested can urge.

"Assuming, upon these grounds, their right to a share in the division, the United States, it seems, desire that, the division being made, the three Powers should enter into a joint Convention mutually to grant to each other, for some limited period, renewable at the pleasure of the Parties, the freedom of fishery and of trade with the natives, and whatever other advantages the coasts may afford."

Then he states that he told him that he could not go further at the present time, and that the unexpected pretensions of the United States threw some difficulty in the way; and then at the bottom of the page he goes on:

"A full disavowal by Russia of her pretension to an exclusive maritime jurisdiction in the North Pacific Ocean will, I have no doubt, be obtained; but I am strongly inclined to believe that this Government will not easily be