Puslapio vaizdai
PDF
„ePub“

end of the negotiations, after all the discussions and their difficulties, came deliberately up and agreed upon a Treaty which did not pretend to make the eastern boundary line, and left that wholly open to be determined by subsequent events. Does that appeal to the reason? The PRESIDENT. I do not understand that as the British Argument, Mr. Watson.

Mr. WATSON. I have read it from the Argument.

The PRESIDENT. Undefined on the ground is what they meant, not undefined by agreement.

Mr. WATSON. Will your Lordship pardon me for the suggestion. I will read you what they say, and I read now from the British Argument at p. 42, and I ask your Lordship's attention to this. They say:

"The fundamental fallacy of the line of argument of which the above is an example, and which is often repeated, is that it ignores the fact that the boundary was, and still remains, an unascertained line, not merely an undelimited line in the sense of unidentified upon the ground, but a line unascertained in the sense that the data upon which it depended had not been agreed upon."

Absolutely that the data upon which it depended had not been agreed upon. Then they say again, at p. 43 of the British Argument, that the boundary was left to be determined, and never has been determined. And they say that it cannot be denied that under the Treaty the boundary was to be ascertained in the future.

Sir EDWARD CARSON. Well, read the next sentence.

The PRESIDENT. I beg your pardon, Mr. Watson, for interrupting you, I did not so read it; that is all. It does not make much difference, but I did not so read it.

Mr. WATSON. Well, I really do not want to conduct the argument on a misapprehension on my part as to Great Britain's position, but I certainly understood the Attorney-General to say the same thing. Would your Lordship deem it a liberty if I were to ask you what you understood the suggestion of the British Case to be as to this line?

The PRESIDENT. That it could not be ascertained, or the data for laying it out marked until the mountains were surveyed. That is what I understood the Argument to be. I dare say I may be wrong, but that is how I understood it.

Mr. WATSON. Your Lordship will notice the language that I have referred to.

399

The PRESIDENT. I dare say it is open to another construction, but I did not so understand it.

Mr. WATSON. It is certainly open to the construction which I have given to it; and, in addition to that, would your Lordship allow me to remark whether the whole course of the British Argument is not directly in accordance with what I claim. Their position, I think, is that the only indication whatever as to how this line is to be drawn is that it is to be drawn along the mountains that are parallel to the coast. They say that there was not a single thing in the Treaty now except that that it was to be drawn along the mountains that are parallel to the coast. That was the only indication; and then they say that you cannot draw the line at all until you get a datum line as to the general trend of the coast, and then you select your mountains in accordance with that.

What did that mean? Why, certainly it meant that it was left entirely open for the future to select mountains along which the line

should be drawn. I think it is perfectly apparent from the British Argument that they do not say that the specific mountains are named in the Treaty. We say they are; they say they are not. They say that the negotiators did not refer to any specific mountains; we say they did. They say that the question was left open to be determined. We say no; the range of mountains was fixed and determined at the time the Treaty was made, and that it was the range that was on the Faden map, on the Russian map, and on the Vancouver map. Take it as you may, and qualify the position of Great Britain as you may, is it not true that Great Britain's position is that this line was doubtful and uncertain, to be fixed only as the future would determine in the topographical survey and exploration of the country, and then it was to be fixed along certain mountains that were parallel to a datum line along the coast which was to be drawn. That is their contention. Now, taking this entire line rising from the 56th parallel up to the 141st meridian, you have, I do not know how many hundreds of mountains, but certainly hundreds and hundreds of mountain peaks in the neighbourhood.

Now, you are to select, according to the British position, from those different peaks some forty, fifty, sixty, or seventy peaks along which the line is to be drawn at points where there are four or five or six different peaks where you might select any one of the four or five or six-you are to select one of them only, and you might as well select any other of the six as the one that you do select, and that, of course, can only be done by the consent of the Parties. Here you have, if that is correct, left open to the future the determination of this line of boundary. Well, let me call the attention of the Tribunal to the fact that if there was any one thing which the negotiators were certain about, absolutely determined they would fix in the making of this Treaty, it was that the line should be certain and beyond any question or dispute. Let me turn to and call the attention of the Tribunal to a certain portion of the references which I think bear upon this question. In Russia's first draft of the Treaty (p. 158 of the Appendix to the American Case) she suggested the 55th degree of north latitude as the line of demarcation beginning at the Prince of Wales Island. It is there stated that to complete the line of demarcation and render it as definite as possible, the Plenipotentiaries of Russia have expressed the desire for a line which should follow the mountains at a very short distance from the coast.

You will notice the expression is "render it as distinct as possible." Russia, in her second proposal, prefaced her suggested line by saying that it would have been also to their mutual advantage to fix these limits according to natural, which always constitute the most distinct and certain, frontiers.

"For these reasons the Plenipotentiaries of Russia have proposed as limits upon the coast of the continent, to the south, Portland Channel, the head of which lies about ('par') the 56th degree of north latitude, and to the east the chain of mountains which follow at a very short distance the sinuosities of the coast."

400

And you will notice there the desire of Russia to have a distinct and certain frontier. Count Nesselrode, in his letter to Admiral Mordvinof, on p. 167, says:

“As I have said above, for the peaceful existence of our Colonies more than all, is it necessary to determine with accuracy the frontier?"

And he again insisted, in the same letter, that when there are no disputes respecting the boundaries, the neighbourhood of civilised people, far from being harmful, is advantageous. Count Lieven, in his letter to Count Nesselrode, at p. 178, respecting Mr. Canning's acceptance of the terms of the Russian proposition, said that England had made certain suggestions because "it wishes the line claimed by us to be described with more exactness," and Mr. George Canning, in his letter to Count Lieven, at p. 180, giving the reason why he made suggestions of changes in the line proposed, stated that:

66

'The qualifications will consist chiefly in a more definite description of the limit to which the strip of land required by Russia on the continent is to be restricted."

Count Lieven, in his letter to Count Nesselrode, said that Mr. Canning's line ran along the base of the mountains and followed the sinuosities of the coast, and that he thought the crest of the mountains should be suggested as the line of demarcation, because—

66

'The word 'base,' from the vague meaning attached to it, and the greater or less extension which may be given to it, did not appear to me to be adapted to protecting the delimitation in question from all controversy."

They were, then, to give this delimitation beyond all controversy, and Count Lieven, in his Memorandum or Letter to Mr. George Canning, observed on p. 189:

"In the case now under consideration, the word 'base,' because of its indefinite meaning and the greater or less expansion that can be given to it, seems hardly of a nature to fix the boundary line beyond all further question."

And in this same letter he speaks of the mountains chosen for the boundary line-not mountains to be chosen afterwards, but the mountains already chosen for the boundary line, and certainly I am correct in saying that the British position absolutely requires the admission of the fact that there were no specific mountains chosen at the time. He speaks of the mountains that were chosen, and he also refers to a chain of mountains as fixing the boundary line. And then, on p. 200, Count Nesselrode said to Count Lieven, speaking of Mr. Canning's request for a more exact description of the strip which they were to possess on the American continent, that what they desired was a certain and distinct frontier.

On p. 208 appears a letter from Mr. George Canning to Mr. Stratford Canning, containing his last instructions as well as his second draft of the Treaty, and among other things he says in this letter that England cannot agree to Russia's suggestion of the 10 marine leagues line, and his reason for this objection is:

"It is quite obvious that the boundary of mountains, where they exist, is the most natural and effective boundary. The mountains, as I have said, are a more eligible boundary than any imaginary line of demarcation."

Count Lieven, under his instruction from Count Nesselrode, had criticised to Mr. George Canning Great Britain's position in insisting en limiting the width of the lisière to 10 marine leagues. He thought that the width ought to have been left dependent on where the range of mountains actually was, and after this interview Count Lieven wrote to Count Nesselrode, at p. 230, that Mr.

401

Canning says that he introduced the limitation of the 10 marine leagues—

66 * * * solely from a sincere desire to prevent the recurrence of any disagreeable discussion in future, and not from any intention of acquiring an increase of territory, or of limiting the extension of the Russian possessions."

And Mr. Canning illustrated the difficulty with the United States, and then said to Count Lieven (p. 231) that

66 * * * the English Government, in now insisting upon the fixing of a less vague boundary, thought that it gave a proof of the value which it attaches to the prevention of even the possibility of a discussion as to the tenor of the transaction concluded between the two Cabinets."

So that you have Mr. George Canning saying that as he understands the conclusion of this Treaty, it was fixed so absolutely—this line was as to prevent even any contention. Am I not entitled to the argument that so shrewd a man as Mr. George Canning was never could have used that expression, if as a fact, the mountains were not named at all in the Treaty, and were left to be determined from subsequent investigations? It could not but be that there would be disputes and difficulties, and uncertainties about them, if among 600 or 1,000 mountains, you are to select some 90 or 100 peaks for your line. Russia, of course, would select the mountains farthest from the sea, and England would select the mountains which were nearest to the sea, and the controversy would be open and unsettled just as much as it was before 1825, and the result of the Treaty so far as the delimitation of the eastern line was concerned would have amounted to nothing. So that, even qualifying what I again submit is the fair meaning from the extracts which I have read from the British Case, qualifying it as Great Britain may, still the whole course of the British Argument and the British line necessarily asserts that the mountains were to be selected in the future, that they were not fixed and determined in 1825, that it was at some future time they were to be selected, and it therefore necessarily left this question open to dispute and to controversy.

I therefore submit that in the first place I am entitled fairly to the position that certainly the negotiators intended, if they could, to make this eastern line of demarcation certain; they were not to leave that open for future discussion and uncertainty, and if I am able to persuade the Tribunal that this eastern line was run-as we say it was-along the chain of mountains, am I not correct in saying that I have solved the difficulty in this case, and solved it in a way which is simple and plain, and would appeal to the negotiators at the time, and would appeal to any person who took up this question of running that eastern boundary line, with the information and the maps. that these negotiators had before them?

Now, then, secondly, I want to call the attention of the Tribunal to the fact of how these mountains were designated from the beginning of the discussion here--how they were designated. You will remember that in the first suggestion of Russia-which is found on p. 158 of the United States Appendix-the line was to ascend the Portland Channel, and thence was to run along the mountains, and Sir Charles Bagot refused, and Russia renewed their original line, not changing it in any respect; and now I ask your attention to what it was, when this line of theirs again came up for discussion,

that Russia said the line was to be. I turn to p. 161 of the United States' Appendix. Russia, in describing what the line was, said:—

66

'For these reasons the Plenipotentiaries of Russia have proposed as limits upon the coast of the continent, to the south, Portland Channel, the head of which lies about (‘par') the 56th degree of north latitude, and to the east "do you notice that expression?—“ and to the east the chain of mountains which follow at a very short distance the sinuosities of the coast.”

402

Allow me to call your attention to Faden's map, which Mr. Canning said was the most reliable map that was published. There is the head of Portland Channel [indicating on map]. The line goes on north until it comes on to the 56th parallel and the chain of mountains. Was it supposed that [indicating on map] the Russians designated it as a chain of mountains? That is Map No. 10, Sir, in the British Case, and I do ask your Lordship to follow me for a moment in reference to this.

The PRESIDENT. I am following you, Mr. Watson.

Mr. WATSON. That is from the head of Portland Channel [indicating on map] you run up the 56th parallel, and then it follows a chain of mountains. And where do the Russians say that you find the chain of mountains? You take the chain by going to the east. You will notice those are the exact words-and to the east the chain of mountains which follows at a very short distance the sinuosities of the coast. Now, if they had Faden's map before them and I do not understand that there is any dispute about that-what chain of mountains are they to take? This chain of mountains up here [indicating on map]. You get up to the 56th parallel, and then you go to the east, and then you go to the chain of mountains which runs around until it reaches the 141st meridian. In Mr. Canning's first draft he carried the line to the seaward base of the mountains by which it was bounded, and he ran it as a coast line. Would you allow me again to point it out on Faden's map? He carried the line up to this 56th parallel [indicating on map], he ran it to the seaward base of these mountains, which he described as following all the sinuosities of the coast. Then the Russian counter-draft totally left out the mountains, and said, "We will take Sir Charles Bagot's 10 marine leagues line," and Mr. Canning, when he gave his final instructions to Mr. Stratford Canning, refused to agree to this modification, and insisted that the Russian line should be taken. I read now from p. 210 of the United States' Appendix; I will read from the middle of the page.

"The next articles relate to the territorial demarcation, and upon them I have only to make the following observation :—

"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 ”—that is the crest; that is the more literal interpretation of that—the crest" of the mountains which run parallel to the coast, and which appear, according to the map, to follow all its sinuosities."

Does not this chain of mountains appear according to the map to follow all the sinuosities of the coast [indicating on map]? And that is the chain of mountains to which attention is called by Mr. George Canning as the chain which Russia suggested. There it is [indicating on map]–

[ocr errors]

* * 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 substi

« AnkstesnisTęsti »