And then, in addition to that, the affidavits that have been filed. on behalf of the United States, and which have been so severely criticised by Great Britain, were directed expressly to the pointand, I thought, clearly and explicitly directed to the point-that this mountain range did not exist there within 10 marine leagues of the sea. I do not stop to go over in detail these affidavits; your Honours will find them all in the Case.

And then, negatively, there is absolutely no evidence to show on the part of anybody in this case that such a range of mountains as a fact does exist there; all the proof is to the contrary, and I therefore pass that proposition referring merely as I go to the letter of Lord Salisbury containing his instructions to the High Commissioners of Great Britain, and which is to be found on p. 298, to which I have already called the attention of the Court and have read to the Court, in which the express admission is made by Great Britain that such a chain of mountains does not exist there within 10 marine leagues of the sea, as the maps show, and as this Treaty contemplated. If that is so, what follows? Oh yes! I intended to call the attention of the Court to this. I have already referred in this Argument to Faden's map, and it is No. 10, British Atlas, and I have asked your Honours to look at it. I do not pretend that I have indicated on this enlarged map all the detail, but I do claim that this is a substantial reproduction of the Faden map, as you will find it on No. 10 enlarged in that way. I have changed the colouring here of the water. Faden's map is exceedingly dark, and it was suggested to me that if I hung this map up here and had all those dark lines around here, you would not know when I was pointing it out whether I was pointing to water or whether I was pointing to land.

The PRESIDENT. We will look at the original map. You need not trouble about that, Mr. Watson.

425 Mr. WATSON. Yes, Sir.

The PRESIDENT. Treat that as a picture; we quite understand you.

Mr. WATSON. Yes, Sir. I now turn to Article IV of this Treaty, and I am exceedingly distressed, not only for myself but for the Court, to have to announce that it is impossible for me, without say an hour on Monday, to conclude.

The PRESIDENT. Oh, certainly, Mr. Watson, you are entitled; do not press yourself.

Mr. WATSON. I can only assure your Lordship that I did not spare myself in trying to reduce this.

The PRESIDENT. Oh! no, no; we are quite sure of that, Mr. Watson. Mr. WATSON. And I might suggest that if the Court had agreed with me as I went along in all my propositions I, of course, would have got through them sooner than having to discuss them occasionally.

Sir EDWARD CARSON. They would have to agree with me afterwards.

The PRESIDENT. I am afraid that would not have shortened the proceedings.

Mr. WATSON. Well, it would have shortened my argument, although it might not have shortened the proceedings.

Sir EDWARD CARSON. It would have lengthened the proceedings.

Mr. WATSON. Now I come to Article IV :

"With reference to the line of demarcation laid down in the preceding Article it is understood-

"1st. That the island called Prince of Wales Island shall belong wholly to Russia."

Would your Lordship pardon me if I promise to conclude by 1 o'clock on Monday for asking that you would adjourn now instead of my opening this question?

The PRESIDENT. Oh, you do not want to go any further? By all ineans, Mr. Watson, we do not want to put you under any promise; if you wish to adjourn now of course we are willing to do so.

Mr. WATSON. It is 10 minutes to 4 now, and I am opening up on a subject upon which I can only go ahead now for a little while. The PRESIDENT. You will begin on Question VII on Monday morning? Mr. WATSON. I will conclude by 1 o'clock on Monday. 426 Sir ROBERT FINLAY. Before the Tribunal adjourns to-day I would ask that my friend, Mr. Watson, when we meet on Monday, should supply us with the census referred to by him in his speech the day before yesterday. This is the sentence in his speech to which I refer:

66

*

* * And without stopping to go into the detail in reference to them, I want to call the Tribunal's attention to the fact that in 1900, when our census was taken with reference to Alaska, we had 20,000 citizens residing within this lisière, principally along these inlets, half of which are now claimed by Great Britain."

I would ask if my friend could let us have that.

Mr. WATSON. I will hand you that page of my brief in which some person has put there some 20,000; as a fact he ought to have put in 11,332 with 7,300.

Sir ROBERT FINLAY. I beg your pardon. What I want is if you could let us have it.

Mr. WATSON. Oh, the census itself.

Sir ROBERT FINLAY. Yes, the census.

Mr. WATSON. Oh, yes, Sir.

Sir ROBERT FINLAY. Because it would show how many of the number, whatever it be, reside on particular parts of the lisière.

Mr. WATSON. Oh, yes, Sir, I will give you the whole thing, but I want to say to you that some person had put 20,000 there, and wanting to follow my brief, I named that figure. As a fact, it ought to be 11,332, and I have a Memorandum to call your attention to it.

Sir ROBERT FINLAY. I am much obliged to you. What I want is the census to see how many of these 11,300 live on certain parts of the lisière.

The PRESIDENT. Yes, I understand, Mr. Attorney, Mr. Watson will let you have it. Mr. Attorney and Mr. Dickinson, with reference to the contours which are from point to point, and from peak to peak, we follow them perfectly, although the scale is so small that it is rather difficult to appreciate the picture. We might want to see some contours drawn approximately perpendicular to the coast at some points. Would Mr. King and Mr. Tittmann kindly just see between now and our meeting again-not do it-whether that could be done if necessary. Of course we do not want many.

S. Doc. 162, 58-2, vol 6-30

Sir ROBERT FINLAY. What your Lordship means is take a section. The PRESIDENT. A given point on the coast, and take a section roughly, going up as far as the survey will permit you to go, we might see what that sort of contour is.

Mr. DICKINSON. Your Lordship, we are having some contours of that sort made, or rather a profile.

The PRESIDENT. Very well; very likely, Mr. Dickinson, you will give us what we want.

Mr. TURNER. I would suggest, likewise, a profile drawn parallel to the profile line already put in, but drawn further back from the

427

coast.

Mr. DICKINSON. We are having profiles drawn parallel going back to the line shown on the map.

The PRESIDENT. I am not speaking for the moment of profiles along a supposed range, but a profile perpendicular to a supposed range. All I meant is if Mr. Tittman on your behalf and Mr. King on behalf of Great Britain will kindly see if the information enables them to draw these if we want them.

Mr. DICKINSON. We will have that done.

(Adjourned till Monday next at 11 a. m.)

428

ELEVENTH DAY. MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 1903.

All the Members of the Tribunal were present.

Mr. WATSON. I have been endeavouring so far to persuade this Tribunal as to the eastern line of demarcation. The negotiators adopted and inserted in the Treaty language which applied to and can only, I think, apply to the definite mountain chain on the Faden, Vancouver, and Russian maps running from the 56th parallel to the 141st meridian; and, second, that subsequent investigations have shown that the negotiators were mistaken in assuming that that definite chain existed within 10 marine leagues of the sea; and I now come to my third proposition, which is in the shape of the question-How was the line the eastern demarcation line-to be drawn between the British and the Russian possessions, the mountains having failed? And I now go to the IVth Article of the Treaty, which defines that line and outlines the conditions under which, and the contingency in which, that line shall be drawn. I read the IVth Article as follows:

"With reference to the line of demarcation laid down in the preceding Article, it is understood

"1st. That the island called Prince of Wales Island shall belong wholly to Russia.

"2nd. That whenever the summit"-(I always get a clearer meaning by reading that "the crest of the mountains ")" of the mountains which 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."

Now, I call the attention of the Tribunal, in the first place, to this. This Article speaks of the crest of the mountains which 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. It therefore speaks of the entire crest, and it does not limit you to any portion of the crest. It includes the whole of it, and therefore it includes the whole of the mountain chain from the 56th degree of north latitude to the 141st degree of west longitude. To say that here the language merely refers to a portion, and not to that entire line, seems to me to violate the plain language of that Article.

Remembering, then, that we are speaking about the entire mountain crest from the parallel to the meridian, I turn to the dictionary and ask your attention just for one moment to the definitions that are given to this word "partout," and I find that it is defined as "everywhere," "wherever," "on all sides," "from all sides,” “in every part," "all over." I then turn to the Treaty, and taking that definition of the word "partout," I find that what the Treaty says

is "that wherever, all over, in all its parts, the crest of the mountain shall be more than 10 marine leagues from the sea," then the substituted line shall apply. Now, if that is true, if that word fairly means what I have said that it applies in every part all over this entire line, by what rule of construction can you restrict the meaning merely to a portion of the entire line. If you speak of all over, in all parts of the line, and you say that as to all parts of the line if it shall find itself more than 10 marine leagues from the sea, why does that not include the entire line as well as any one of its parts?

429

What authority is there for restricting that meaning merely to a part of the entirety, when the word that is used includes every part of the entirety. And taking merely the word "wherever" that has been used as the English translation of " partout," does not that fairly include the entire line as well as any portions of the line; and taking the position of the Argument of Great Britain that this was intended only to apply to horseshoe formations in the line, I submit to the Tribunal that that is an unauthorised and restricted user of the word "partout" and of this sentence that I have read, that you cannot give the fair full meaning to every word that is used here, which is the rule of construction, unless you come to the conclusion that this applies to the entire line as well as to any part of it.

And then see how persuasive of that construction the subsequent part of Article IV is; allow me to read it to you. The subsequent part of that Article is that if this contingency shall happen that the mountain crest is more than 10 marine leagues from the sea, then the Article provides that 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 sinuosities of the coast.

Does the Tribunal notice that here is a specific reiteration of the prefix to Article III, that here it is said that the limit between the British possessions-not part of them, but all of them, and the line of coast which is to belong to Russia-that is, the lisière, the whole of it shall be formed by a line parallel to the coast? Does not that speak of the entire eastern line of demarcation? If the mountains are all removed more than 10 marine leagues from the ocean, does not this portion of Article IV provide for the entire eastern line of demarcation and as it does provide for the entire eastern line of demarcation, is that not strongly persuasive of the fact that it contemplated the possibility of the entire mountains being found more than 10 leagues from the ocean?

Unless this meaning be given to these words, then you arrive at this result, now claimed by Great Britain, that the substituted line applies solely and alone to horse-shoe formations in the mountainchain, thus most unnaturally restricting the plain meaning of the words used.

Is it not, I submit now to the Tribunal, a demonstration that this contemplated a line which might possibly have to be drawn between the whole of the possessions and for the whole length of the possessions from the 56th parallel to the 141st meridian? If, as I repeat, it is restricted merely to the horse-shoes, and if that is all it means, is it not a very curious thing that the negotiators put right into the