Sir EDWARD CARSON. My Lord, I think it is only fair to remind my friend who is speaking and to draw his attention to a fact so that he may not afterwards be surprised that the word "parages " is, I think, wrongly translated "waters;" it means "districts " or areas;" it does not mean waters" at all.

66

66

Mr. WATSON. I am very much obliged for that suggestion of the Solicitor-General; but I go back again and say, do you not see it adds to the strength of the argument that I have made?

Sir EDWARD CARSON. That is your interpretation.

Mr. WATSON. That here was a line running round the heads of these bays and inlets that Great Britain offered to Russia, and you say that she turned round afterwards, within a few months, and gave the whole thing away.

Mr WATSON. And now I come to the Treaty of 1825. (Adjourned till to-morrow at 11 a. m.)

386

TENTH DAY.—FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 25, 1903.

All the Members of the Tribunal were present.

Mr. WATSON. The Solicitor-General was kind enough to refer me yesterday to the paragraph of p. 159, Appendix, United States' Case, which I was discussing, as showing the exclusive jurisdiction that Sir Charles Bagot said his line would give to all these waters. The acoustics of this room are so imperfect that I really did not catch the word that he gave me, but, in looking at the French, I see that what the Solicitor-General called my attention to is that the French has the word "parages." The translation of that on p. 161 of the United States' Case is given as "waters," and I suppose the suggestion was that it was a free translation which was not justified by the use of the word. As I understand it, that word legitimately means the part of the sea near the coast, which is practically what I was contending for; but allow me to ask the Solicitor-General to turn to p. 163 of the United States' Case, and he will find how Sir Charles Bagot explained what the waters were that he was referring to, and now there is no doubt what the waters were which he was referring to. He did not use the word "parages," but he says:—

66 * * *The southernmost establishment which she possesses on the islands, but also the possession of all the islands and waters in its vicinity.

*

*

So that those were the waters that were referred to by Sir Charles Bagot, and his line must be run round the heads of the bays and inlets, or else he could not have given to Russia the exclusive jurisdiction which it was his desire and intention in drawing that line to give.

I had reached yesterday the Treaty of 1825, and the growing length of our arguments leads me to say that I shall not discuss that Treaty except in connection with the particular questions which it is my duty to consider. The Treaty itself in general outline is that Articles I and II dispose of the 100-mile limit, and England thereby gained the chief thing for which she entered into those negotiations. Articles III and IV delimit the line, where it shall run and in what way, and Articles IV, V, VI, and VII are in reference to the relative rights of Russia and Great Britain on the North-West Coast and also on this lisière. Article VIII relates to the port at Novo-Archangelsk, to which Great Britain is to have access for ten years, and the other Articles of this Treaty are unimportant for the questions which we now have under consideration.

I have so far attempted to put your Honours in the position that the negotiators occupied, and to surround you with the facts and with the circumstances that surrounded them in 1823, 1824, and 1825; and I again ask you, as far as we can, sitting here in 1903, to go back with me to 1823, 1824, and 1825, and take up with Count Nesselrode and M. de Poletica, Sir Charles Bagot and Mr. George Can

ning and Mr. Stratford Canning, the consideration of the Treaty, and what they meant by the language that they used, and what they were trying to accomplish by the drawing of the Treaty. Because so far as the discussion of the Treaty itself is concerned, and without reference to the acts subsequent to 1826, which I do think throw a flood of light on how this Treaty ought to be construed-but, so far as the Treaty itself is concerned, irrespective of the mode in which the Parties carried it out, you are to look at it as these gentlemen looked at it during the negotiations, and when it was signed in 1825; and you are to take the information which they had, you are to take the resources given to them, and you are from it all, looking through their eyes, looking at it with their information, to say what they thought at that time the Treaty meant. That is part of this argument.

387

I do insist, as I said before, on behalf of myself and my colleagues, that the acts subsequent to 1826 do throw a flood of light on the construction, and they do show the original understanding in an unmistakable manner. But I am considering this Treaty, as far as this part of the Argument is concerned, solely as these Parties must have considered it at the time of the negotiations and at the time it was executed, and I now arrive at the discussion of the questions in the case, which it is the duty of the Tribunal to answer.

The first question, as to what is intended as the point of commencement, is agreed upon. We both agree that Cape Muzon is the southernmost point of Prince of Wales Island from which the line is to begin, and therefore that needs no discussion. The second question relates to what channel is the Portland Channel. This question is for the consideration of my colleagues, and I do not take up any of the time of the Tribunal myself in discussing it. I then come to the third question, which is, what course should the line take from the point of commencement to the entrance of Portland Channel? The United States request the Tribunal, in answering that, to decide that the line from Cape Muzon should be drawn in an easterly direction until it intersects the centre of the Portland Channel, and its opening into Dixon's Entrance, or, as we subsequently explained, this is the easterly line along the parallel 54 degrees 40 minutes.

Now, what course should that line take under the words of the Treaty? Let me go to and take up the Treaty to see if I can persuade the Court that that line should take the parallel of 54 degrees 40 minutes and run along that parallel until it comes to the point where it reaches the line up the Portland Channel. The Treaty is, Article III

66

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:

66

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."

The Tribunal will notice that the starting point of the line is given, and the point which the line is to reach is given. The end of Prince of Wales Island is the starting point. The point which the line is

to reach is a point where the line was to ascend to the north along the channel called Portland Channel. Here you then have the call for the line and you have the indication as to where the line shall commence. Now, the translation of the words "à partir" by the word "commencing" may be a proper translation, because the word "commence "has also the idea of motion. If you commence at a point you also do something, yet still it does not seem to me it gives the full strength of the French. A more adequate translation would seem to me to be "to depart from." It is something you are going away from—“ à partir;" you are leaving it. Now, if that is the correct translation, if that is the correct meaning of the phrase, the line shall depart from-where? It shall depart from the southernmost part of the island called Prince of Wales Island, which point lies in the parallel of 54 degrees 40 minutes north latitude, and it shall reach, as I have said, the point where it shall ascend to the north along the channel called Portland Channel.

Now, as a fact, the parallel of 54 degrees 40 minutes does not exactly give the southernmost point of the Prince of Wales Island, because, as has been described to you already, the Canadian survey made that point 54 degrees 39 minutes 48 seconds, and the United States made it 54 degrees 39 minutes 50 seconds; and therefore they both agree that the southernmost point of Prince of Wales Island, as a fact, is not in the parallel 54 degrees 40 minutes.

388

Now, secondly, the negotiators said in Article IV that the island called Prince of Wales Island shall belong wholly to Russia. If these gentlemen had no doubt about the latitudethis parallel-it would have been wholly unnecessary to put in the provision that the whole of Prince of Wales Island should belong to Russia; but, having a doubt in reference to this parallel, they put that in.

Now, next, the Treaty, you will notice, says that the point of departure—that is, the point where the line begins and from which it runs-lies in the parallel of 54 degrees 40 minutes, although the negotiators have doubts whether that was the southernmost end of the Prince of Wales Island, because they put in afterwards that all Prince of Wales Island shall belong to Russia.

Now, am I not fairly entitled to this argument, and there may be some persons who can answer it? I have not heard the answer to it yet, and I want to see if I can state it to the Court as it strikes me. You start here [indicating] at the point, the same point of commencement, on the latitude 54 degrees 40 minutes, and you go away from that, and you go away from it until you come to a point where you can turn northward to the Portland Channel. They then start on the latitude. Now, the Treaty does that. It starts you on the latitude 54 degrees 40 minutes, and if it starts you on that latitude 54 degrees 40 minutes, pray tell me what words in the Treaty are there to take you off it until you get to the point where the line shall ascend northerly along Portland Channel? Absolutely none.

Now, why did they put the words 54 degrees 40 minutes in this Treaty? The southernmost point of the Prince of Wales Island was a definite geographical fixed point which was more certain than any degree of latitude that could be given. They did not need to identify that by 54 degrees 40 minutes, and they did not mean that 54 degrees 40 minutes should absolutely identify it, because they said

afterwards whether it was on 54 degrees 40 minutes or not Russia took the whole of Prince of Wales Island; therefore, when they put 54 degrees 40 minutes into this Treaty they must have had some other object than identifying the southernmost point of Prince of Wales Island, because that was a definite fixed point which required no further identification whatever.

So far as the meridians are concerned where the Treaty says the point lies between meridians 131 and 133, it is perfectly obvious why they put that in. Here were two points, and they did not know which was the southernmost. They were not certain which was the southernmost, Muzon or Chacon. These points did not lie within the same meridian, and therefore they said the points lying between 131 and 133, and that is a perfect explanation as to why they inserted that. If it was worth while to have Vancouver's map and turn to his large chart, you would find that he has three points at the southernmost end of Prince of Wales Island, uncertain which one of the three would be the southernmost point. So that now you have a full explanation of the meridians, but you have not a full explanation of why they put in 54 degrees 40 minutes, because it is certain that they did not put it in to be an absolute limit to the extent to which they were to own Prince of Wales Island: and they did not put it in because they were absolutely certain that they could identify the southernmost point; they said they were doubtful about it by the provision in the IVth Article of the Treaty giving the whole of Prince of Wales Island to Russia.

Am I not fairly entitled, then, to apply the rule that a construction which disregards any word or phrase is faulty? As construed by Great Britain, this phrase as to the latitude 54 degrees 40 minutes is rendered absolutely meaningless. The southernmost point does not lie there, and, as I have said, the negotiators showed that they were uncertain as to whether it did, and Great Britain now throws out of consideration, in the determination of this line, this provision in reference to the fact that the line starts on the parallel of latitude 54 degrees 40 minutes, and renders it absolutely meaningless. Now, is that in accordance with the given rules of construction of an Agreement or a Treaty?

Mr. AYLESWORTH. I do not understand your argument exactly, Mr. Watson. Let me know. Is it your contention that the starting point is in 54 degrees 40 minutes?

389

Mr. WATSON. No, Sir.

Mr. AYLESWORTH. That it is Cape Muzon?

Mr. WATSON. No; the starting point is the end of Prince of Wales Island.

Mr. AYLESWORTH. That is about 300 or 400 yards south.

Mr. WATSON. That is about 300 or 400 yards south-yes, Sir; but in connection with that, they put in that it was at the point of latitude 54 degrees 40 minutes, and they connect this point of latitude with this line.

Mr. AYLESWORTH. When the line leaves the point of departure, how does it get to 54 degrees 40 minutes?

Mr. WATSON. It starts from the southernmost end of the Prince of Wales Island. Here it is [indicating]. It goes right up this island and takes this 54 degrees 40 minutes-goes across.