"Yes, that is what it means. We must have the right to all these inland waters."

Now, what was the reply of Russia? Russia says

Rather than grant you this right we will make no Treaty. Under no consideration—for no possible compensation to us will we grant you this right. It would be utterly inconsistent with our idea of sovereignty; it would utterly destroy the purposes for which we are contending here, and rather than grant you this right we will stop. We will make no treaty; and we will take our chances for the future."

Now, is it possible, is it within the range of any human probability, that Russia, standing on this position, and refusing to make this Treaty, for that reason turned round and made a Treaty in which she gave the heads of all these inlets to Great Britain? She said that she would not even allow Great Britain perpetual access to these inlets; she would give it to her for ten years 377 only; but rather than make a Treaty and give it to her for ever she would stop right where she was. And yet, right on the heels of that, right when the question was fresh, and Russia had taken her determined stand, is it possible that she turned round and made a Treaty and gave them the heads of all the inlets to which she had really refused access? Now, let me read you how determined that controversy was. Because I do submit that I am entitled, and I know that your Honours will give me every whit to which I am entitled, and I hope you will give me a good deal more-but certainly I am entitled to insist here upon this position of Russia in reference to this claim to frequent these inland waters.

I read now from Sir Charles Bagot's letter to Mr. George Canning, dated the 12th August, 1824, pp. 190 and 191, of the United States' Appendix.

When this project was sent to Sir Charles Bagot with the instructions that he had, he discussed them with Count Nesselrode and M. de Poletica, and he reported that there were three points that arose: first, as to the opening for ever to the commerce of the British subjects of the port of Novo-Archangelsk; second, as to the liberty to be granted to British subjects to navigate and trade for ever along the coast of the lisière, which it is proposed to cede to Russia from the Portland Canal to the 60th degree of north latitude and the islands adjacent; and third, as to the liberty to be given reciprocally to each Power to visit for a term of years the other parts of the North-Western Coast of America.

As to the second point, now I will read from the bottom of p. 190:

"The Russian Plenipotentiaries declared that they are ready to grant to His Majesty's subjects for 10 years, but for no longer period, the liberty to navigate and trade along the coast of the lisière proposed to be ceded to Russia, from the Portland Channel to the 60th degree of north latitude, and the islands adjacent, and that they are ready to grant for ever the right of ingress and egress into and from whatever rivers may flow from the American continent and fall into the Pacific Ocean within the above-described lisière, but that they can, under no circumstances and by no supposed correspondent advantages, be induced to grant to any Power the privilege to navigate and trade in perpetuity within a country the full sovereignty of which was to belong to Russia; that such perpetual concession was repugnant to all national feeling and was inconsistent with the very idea of sovereignty."

And further down on the same page he said :

"I am, I think, too well acquainted with, and have too long negotiated upon, this subject to have deceived myself in this respect, and I am fully persuaded, from what has passed between Count Nesselrode, M. Poletica, and myself since the arrival of your instructions, that the determination of the Russian Government is now taken rather to leave the question unsettled between the two Governments for any indefinite time than to recede from their pretensions so far as they regard the three points which I have particularly specified."

And that was that Russia would not under any circumstances yield that right.

Let me also turn for a moment to p. 202 and p. 204, to Count Nesselrode's reply to this question, in which he takes up the different suggestions that had been made by England, and he presents the matter in this light.

The first suggestion that he calls attention to is the liberty of English subjects to hunt, and to fish, and to trade with the natives of the country perpetually on the whole of that part of the coast which constitutes the subject of discussion, and which extends from 59 degrees of north latitude to 54 degrees 40 minutes, and you will notice there that it is to hunt, to fish, and to trade with the natives along the whole of that coast. On p. 202—it is so long and so wearying, I know, to the Court, and I am certain to myself, to read all this that you, being familiar with the entire correspondence, will take up the point without my following it in detail-on p. 202:— “We have been willing to suppose that, in spite of a formal taking possession, a long occupation of the principal points, and a peaceful exploitation of the sources of revenue and wealth presented by, the countries in question, Russia's rights of sovereignty to the 51st degree of north latitude might be the subject of a doubt. We have consequently confined them to the 54 degrees 40 minutes, and to prevent any new dispute from arising on this point, we have permitted one of the Powers with which we were in litigation to share for ten years, on the whole extent of the coast where our rights had been disputed, the profits of hunting, fishing, and trading with the natives. We offer the same advantages to England; but to grant them for ever would be to obtain the recognition of our rights of sovereignty only to abandon the exercise of them. It would be consenting to possess hereafter only in name what we now possess in fact."

66

378

And he says further on that Russia can make no further concession on this question, and that she will not grant, as he said to Sir Charles Bagot, this demand of Great Britain for the perpetual access to these waters. Now, what did Mr. Canning do? Why, Mr. Canning understood when he came to an obstacle which was wholly insurmountable, and so on in his letter to Mr. Stratford Canning of the 8th December, 1824, he dropped his claim for this access perpetually to these inland waters, and I read from p. 211 of the American Appendix:—

"We are content also to assign the period of ten years for the reciprocal liberty of access and commerce with each other's territories, which stipulation may be best stated precisely in the terms of Article IV of the American Convention."

In other words he said, Count Nesselrode has offered us ten years. We are now willing to take it, and we will waive this exclusive right. Yet notwithstanding that that conclusion had been reachedand remember now how near this was to the drawing of this Treaty, because it was on the 8th December, 1824, that Mr. Canning wrote

this letter-notwithstanding this conclusion had been then reached, the contention now is that although Russia stood firmly like a rock as against the claim of Great Britain merely to the access perpetually to these inland waters, yet she turned round and made a Treaty which gave to Great Britain more than half of all the bays and inlets.

Now, I submit I am entitled especially under the words of this Treaty of 1903, which says:

66

You shall consider and take into effect" (shall consider, not may), “but shall in the construction of this Treaty" (and the making of these answers), "you shall take into effect these negotiations "

I submit I am entitled to ask the Tribunal to say that before you could ever come to an answer which would give to Great Britain this British line, and thus give to them the halves of all these bays and inlets, they have got to show you in the clearest and most unmistakable manner, by the plainest kind of evidence that this controversy between Russia and England, which was settled in Russia's favour within two months of the time this Treaty was drawn, was completely disregarded, and that Russia turned round for some reason not indicated to us in this case, that Russia turned round and said:

66

Notwithstanding our present position of advantage, we will now waive it, and we will not only give you the perpetual right of access, but we will give you the half of all the bays and inlets."

You cannot certainly come to that conclusion unless you are satisfied that, taking the whole case altogether, it is perfectly apparent that Russia determined to waive her claim. And that is the most incomprehensible situation to me because Mr. George Canning agreed to the position that Russia took up.

Well, now, I come to another question as to how Russia was to accomplish the purposes which she wanted. I have said that she wanted a barrier. Now, what kind of a barrier did she want? Did she want a barrier that would give her water lines for 37 miles, the distance between Portland Canal and Mount St. Elias? Did 379 she want merely a line over running water with a neighbour owning the upper half with the right to go up and down over Russia's portion? Was that the kind of barrier that Russia was talking about? Why, she was talking about a barrier on the mainland; she was talking about a strip of territory; she was talking about a continuous lisière which would prevent the approach of the Hudson's Bay Company's posts.

Will anyone tell me how a line drawn there, as the British line is, and drawn over here, as the British line is how that prevents the approach of the Hudson's Bay Company down here to interfere with the trade of the Russian-American Company? Tell me how it would accomplish the purpose which Russia wanted, to have this line over flowing waters? Why, let me turn and read to you again some extracts to prove what I am contending for now, and that is, that this lisière, this barrier, was to be upon the mainland. It was not to be the water. Great Britain wanted it on the water at first. Mr. Pelly wanted it on the water, and said it was most effectual. Russia said, "No." I refer in the first place, now, to Russia's first proposal to Great Britain which contained this suggestion, and I have already

on

read it to you, that she is bound to insist upon sovereignty on the above indicated lisière upon the mainland-it is on p. 158, Appendix, United States' Case, I am reading-from Portland Channel, from the point of intersection of the 56th degree latitude to the 139th degree longitude, and that, deprived of this territory, the RussianAmerican Company would have no means of sustaining itself, and so forth. You will notice there that the lisière, the boundary, was to be upon the mainland. Now, Sir Charles Bagot replied to that, and on p. 159 you will find his reply, wherein he ran the line inland 10. leagues, in his own words, on the mainland." He went up the channel and he got to the mainland, and then he ran his line 10 leagues inwards, and then continued it around the sinuosities of the coast, and that, you will find, made it a solid body of land. And Sir Charles Bagot himself, on p. 163, called it a strip on the continent. He did not call i "strips." He did not call it a piece of barrier running part over land and part over water. It was a strip upon the mainland.

66

On p. 161 you find Russia's reply that she wanted a barrier, and I have already read it to you, to not only support her establishments on the islands, but also to prevent the approach of the Hudson's Bay Company posts. And, as I have already called to the attenton of the Tribunal, how is it possible with the Hudson's Bay Company posts here in the interior for any line across the water along here [indicating on map] to prevent the approach of those posts down into the region of the hunting, and the fishing, and the trading which had been exclusively granted to the Russian-American Company. You find then on pp. 161 and 163 that she insists that the Prince of Wales Island without a strip of territory on the coast would be useless. Count Nesselrode, in his letter to Admiral Mordvinof on the 11th April, 1824, on p. 166, says that the lisière will be a considerably extensive zone of country, and, speaking of the extent of the country between the coast and the frontier line, he says that this portion must be sufficient, and be in correspondence with the conditions to what these establishments will, in all probability, in time attain and be their own means of defence. Again, Count Nesselrode writes to Count Lieven on the 5th April, 1824, p. 174. Speaking of this barrier, he says it is to be a moderate expanse on the mainland, and on p. 173, in the same letter, he says it is to be a narrow lisière upon the coast itself, and on p. 174 he again calls it a mere strip of the continent, and again on the same page he says that Russia reserves for herself only one point of support. Now, all of these expressions-all of them are entirely inconsistent with the idea that this barrier was to be a line running across the waters. And Count Lieven writes to Count Nesselrode on the 20th May, 1824, at p. 178, speaking of this barrier as a considerable extent of territory that was to be ceded to them by Great Britain, and says that the 10-marine league line is instituted merely for the purpose of regulating the extent of barrier. He says on p. 178 that England desires a more definite description of the limts within which the portion of territory obtained by Russia on the continent is to be inclosed. It is the territory on the continent, that the delimitation Mr. George Canning wanted, was to make more accurate to make the strip more accurate and then Mr. George Canning writes to Count Lieven on

the 29th May, 1824, p. 180, and speaks of the strip of land required by Russia on the continent.

380

Mr. George Canning writes to Sir Charles Bagot on the 12th July, 1824, p. 181, and speaks of the strip of land to be occupied by Russia on the coast. In Russia's counter-proposal to Mr. George Canning on p. 194 she says of the lisière or barrier that it shall not be wider on the continent than 10 marine leagues from the shore of the sea. And, again, Count Nesselrode, in his letter to Count Lieven, on the 31st August, 1824, p. 200, speaks of the strip which we were to possess on the American continent and of the rivers which might cross our territory on the North-West Coast. Count Nesselrode on 20th February, 1825, writes to Count Lieven of the difficulties that Mr. Canning had raised and which related to the limits of the strip of coast which Russia was to possess on the American continent from the 56th degree of north latitude to the point of intersection with the 141st degree of west longitude, and Mr. George Canning, in his last draft to Mr. Stratford Canning in the British Appendix, p. 116, called it "either upon the coast or the waters of the continent." Mr. Stratford Canning, in his draft, p. 124, called it “ either on the coast or the strip of mainland included in the limits of the Russian possession," and Mr. Matusevich-who seemed to have a curious faculty of not agreeing with any person as to the arrangement of the Treaty or the meaning of partcular phrases said that the strip was to be either on the coast or on the strip of mainland included in the limits of the Russian possession, and the completed Treaty identifies this barrier either upon the coast or upon the border of the continent comprised within the limits of the Russian possessions. I am reading from a clause in the Articles to the effect that Great Britain shall not settle either upon the coast or upon the border of the continent comprised within the limits of the Russian possession. Now, I certainly might safely ask this Tribunal to agree with me that what Russia expected to get was a strip of territory on the mainland. But our friends on the other side, for once, have come to my aid, and when they argued the line of 54 degrees 40 minutes of the Portland Channel they gave a number of references to prove that our strip of land was to be on the mainland-that our barrier was to be on the mainland. They said we were not to get it on the islands; we were to get it on the mainland.

Now, it is true that they afterwards turned round and said that we were to get it on the water; but as a friendly aid given to me from the other side, I do not want to be ungrateful and refuse it, so I turn to the references that my friends gave and ask them to be incorporated into my own argument, as being perhaps stronger than the ones I have given. They show, on p. 70 of the British Appendix, that Russia's counter-draft in the fifth paragraph speaks of the lisière on the mainland. On p. 71 that Russia speaks of the limits on the coasts of the continent. On p. 72, in the eighth paragraph of the draft, they speak of a strip of land on the coast of the conti

nent.

On p. 74 Sir Charles Bagot refers to "a boundary on the mainland coast." On p. 74 Russia refers to "the territory on the coast." On p. 76 Count_Nesselrode refers to "the narrow strip on the coast." Now, again, I say that for once, my friends on the other side and