« AnkstesnisTęsti »
position of the United States on it. Our position is, first, that under the evidence the chain of mountains along or across which the line is to run as provided for in the Treaty of 1825, does not exist between the 56th parallel and the 141st meridian, and therefore the 10 marine league line must apply.
Secondly, that under the Treaty the negotiators assumed, for the purpose of the Treaty, that such a chain of mountains did 438 exist somewhere, and there is no evidence to show that that chain does not exist beyond the 10-marine-league limit. Thirdly, it is a question for the Tribunal to determine whether in substance any portion of the chain of mountains contemplated by the Treaty, and which is shown on the Faden, Vancouver, and Russian maps, does exist within 10 marine leagues from the sea. For example, the Tribunal may take into consideration and determine whether the mountains around the head of Lynn Canal and the Mount St. Elias Alps are parts of the chain of mountains referred to in the Treaty of 1825.
Fourth, we do not think the Tribunal has the power to select from among 600 mountain peaks scattered all along the Alaskan coast, say, 60 to 90 of them, drawing from one peak to another an artificial line and call that line "a crest ”—such a crest as was referred to in Article III of the Treaty.
And now but a few words
The PRESIDENT. Is that the statement of your contention?
Mr. WATSON. Yes, my Lord.
The PRESIDENT. Of course, you are not obliged to answer it, Mr. Watson, but I only point out to you that you have not answered my question, which I tried to put as distinctly as I could. Assuming your contention for the moment to be good about the lisière, I am assuming that in your favour. What I asked you distinctly was, do you contend-I put it as clearly as I could-that at no part of this line are there any mountains in accordance with the Articles of the Treaty right away? I am not speaking of the whole only, but at no part right away from Mount Elias to Portland Channel. I know you said we may consider that, but I must know what your contention is.
Mr. WATSON. We say that there is no evidence in the Case.
Mr. WATSON. We say there is nothing which shows that at any part.
The PRESIDENT. At any part-very well, now I understand.
The PRESIDENT. Now, I understand you say there is no evidence that there are any mountains at any part of the line.
Mr. WATSON. Yes, Sir, that is the United States' contention with reference to it, but it is a question of course left to the Tribunal for their decision. I think that anyone who reads the correspondence in this Case and gets in full touch with the situation as it was from 1822 to 1825 cannot help but be impressed with the idea that what the negotiators were after was to make a certain definite boundary between the British and the Russian possessions, and that this Treaty should be looked at and the results arrived at and the answers to the
questions made, remembering that the general intent here was to make a certain and sure boundary, and I think that the Treaty itself, in the light of all this correspondence, overwhelmingly should receive that construction.
Suppose I put it in a milder sense that it only fairly bears it, the Tribunal, I submit, would be bound to give it that construction, because it is in accordance with the general intent, and it supports and sustains the Treaty instead of rendering it null and void, and am I not correct in saying that the position of the United States throughout is simple and plain, and affirms the certainty of the boundary line, and that the position of Great Britain leaves the boundary, especially as to this eastern limit, wholly uncertain and undefined. It does seem to me, in addition to what I read from the British Argument the other day, taking the British Argument as it has 439 been presented to us with all its lucidity and strength, that
there is a demonstration that the position of Great Britain necessarily is that the negotiators did not contemplate any certain definite mountains; their position drives them to that. They select ninety peaks out of 600; they select one peak for example out of a group of four; they select the peaks that are nearest the sea. Well, Great Britain cannot alone select these peaks; the peaks must be assented to by Russia, and there at once you raise a controversy that is almost as undecided and indefinite as it was in 1825. Russia would claim the peaks furthest from the sea and Great Britain would claim the peaks nearest to the sea, and pray tell me who would decide between them. The Treaty speaks of the line of mountains, the crest of the mountains which are parallel to the coast. How do our friends get a line of mountains parallel to the coast? Why, they first draw what they call a datum line of the general range of the coast, but when I turn to Article III I do not see anything about a datum line or the general range of the coast.
I see merely the word "coast "-the general word without any limitation, and having drawn that datum line and put that into the Treaty, then they select arbitrarily these different ninety peaks, from one of which to the other of which they draw this line and call it a crest. And they not only do that, but when the Treaty says that you shall ascend northerly along the passage called Portland Channel to the 56th parallel, and the Treaty definitely says you shall go along the passage until you reach the parallel, they restrict the passage to water merely because the Treaty says it was called Portland Channel. And then they stop 10 to 15 miles short of the 56th parallel, and then from a meridian line they do what? Why, they draw a line west forty-seven (47) miles to strike the 56th parallel, whereas the Treaty says the line shall ascend northerly to the 56th parallel, and it is only from 10 to 15 miles in a northerly direction from the head of Portland Channel to the 56th parallel. Great Britain runs her line from the head of Portland Channel westwardly 47 miles to strike that parallel.
The Treaty says the line up Portland Channel shall ascend northerly to the 56th parallel, whereas Great Britain draws her line westwardly and descends instead of ascending. The beginning of the line of Great Britain must be wrong, and if so, her whole line fails.
The Treaty says in the IIIrd Article that the line shall be along the crest of the mountains which is parallel to the coast. There is no limitation there as to what is coast. It does not say the general trend of the coast; it is coast where the land and water meet. My friends do not define coast under Article III. When they come to it they say, "Wait a moment now and we will define it by getting its definition in some place else." Then they go down to Article IV, and Article IV reads that “when the mountains shall be 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 sinuosities of the coast." Well, they say the contingency is that the distance must be more than 10 marine leagues from the ocean, and then what do they do? They read the word ocean as great ocean; they do not include the arms and limbs of the ocean as the arms and limbs of a man are included when you talk about a man. When you talk about the ocean you mean its arms and limbs just as when you speak of a man you include his arms and limbs. But Great Britain does not do that. She limits the word ocean to the Great Ocean only. And then, where on this Alaskan Coast does she locate the Great Ocean? If she logically followed her definition she would have to locate it outside of all the islands.
Canada at first attempted to do that, but she found if she did so the 10-league limit would deprive Russia of a portion of her islands, which was wholly inconsistent with the Treaty.
Where, then, did Great Britain locate the Great Ocean? Why, she said Stephen's Passage [indicating on the map] was a part of the Great Ocean. It is a narrow parcel of water between the islands and the mainland. Stephen's Passage is directly connected with Taku Inlet and Lynn Canal. How can Great Britain arbitrarily draw a line at the mouth of Taku Inlet and Lynn Canal, or at some distance up either, and then say up to this line is part of the ocean, but beyond is not?
How can Great Britain possibly do that?
440 Are not Taku Inlet and Lynn Canal filled with the waters of and formed by the action of the Great Ocean just as much as Stephen's Passage is?
Is not Stephen's Passage as much inland water as either Taku Inlet or Lynn Canal?
Well, having to her own satisfaction selected of these inland waters Stephen's Passage alone as inland water from which to draw the 10-league line, what else does she do?
Why, she draws a line some leagues distant from the mouth of Lynn Canal up that canal and then she runs that line across the canal. Having done so, all the water below that line she calls ocean and all above it inland waters.
What possible justification can there be for such a distinction? Having, to her own satisfaction, fixed Stephen's Passage and the lower portions of Taku Inlet and Lynn Canal as parts of the ocean, what does she do? She turns round and controls the word by the word " ocean," and says: "Do not you see now that in the
S. Doc. 162, 58-2, vol 6———31
IVth Article 'coast' is synonymous with ocean,' and, therefore, it must mean not the coast along the bays and inlets, but the main trend of the coast?" and then, having thus secured a definition to her own satisfaction of the word coast," she walks back to Article III and reads that definition into Article III, and then, so far as the eastern boundary-line is concerned, she makes the Treaty turn upon the definition of the word "coast "thus artificially secured. She wholly disregards the maps as far as this eastern line is concerned, and says they were not reliable, although, as a fact, she uses them as to Portland Channel, and she necessarily leaves open for decision at least the following questions, which can only be decided by the consent of both parties: First, as to what is the Great Ocean. Secondly, she leaves open and for decision where the datum line is to be drawn. Thirdly, she does not absolutely fix her own line across Lynn Canal, but makes it vary several leagues, dependent on circumstances. Fourthly, from Portland Channel up along the lisière are at least 600 mountains, and from these she selects, say, ninety, from the peaks of which she draws her line. But Great Britain cannot herself select those ninety peaks— she must have the consent of Russia to do so. Here again, Great Britain's construction of the Treaty leaves open a most important question to decide it a new Treaty would have to be made. Is it not a demonstration that the result of Great Britain's construction would be to leave this Treaty wholly uncertain as to this eastern line, and instead of Mr. Canning's assertion being true that they had fixed upon a line that is so definite and certain that there cannot be any dispute about it, they really and truly assert that the eastern line puts Great Britain and Russia, supposing they still hold this property, in practically the same situation, so far as the line is concerned, as they were in 1825?
And then our friends have commented at great length on the expression of Count Lieven that the mountains which the Treaty refers to might by an imperceptible declivity descend to the sea, and they say that proves that Russia did not expect her lisière to be more than a few miles wide. Well, I was studying this Treaty on my way from Pittsburg to New York, where we run through the Alleghany Mountains, and the mountains are not so high as the elevations which are given of the different peaks of the British line, and we started in at Latrobe, and we gradually ascended that mountain chain-the mountain side-on the Pennsylvania railroad, but so imperceptible was the slope of the mountains 3,000, 4,000, or 5,000 feet in height, that there was a distance of over 30 miles there. If these Alaskan mountains are 3,000, 4,000, or 5,000 feet in height, would not an imperceptible slope to the sea cover over 30 miles in that case also? You surely would not get down to the sea, as our friends are now taking us down in a rapid manner, in 2 or 3 miles. That is an abrupt declivity; this is an imperceptible declivity.
When you recollect that Count Nesselrode refused to make a Treaty which gave to Great Britain a portion of the peninsula that was opposite the Prince of Wales Island because Russia required such a strip on the coast as would give her protection for her islands, and not leave those islands at the mercy of whatever other nation owned the mainland opposite. That he spoke of a consider
able zone of territory necessary for Russia. That the exclusive privileges granted the Russian-American Company required 441 the ownership of a belt of land running around the heads of all the bays and inlets it is incredible that this present suggestion of Great Britain can be correct.
The Russian-American Company, from its establishment at Novo Archangelsk, regularly fished, hunted, and traded over this portion of the mainland and along these inland waters. Now, to say all that Russia wanted under the language I have read to the Court was the right to go across and get on to the mainland shore, and therefore if Great Britain gave her a little peak here and a little peak there, that was all she wanted, is to entirely disregard the demands of Russia and the acquiescence of Great Britain in reference to what she should get. And then in addition they cut Russia's lisière into numerous parcels; that will be discussed by others, but I want to call the attention of the Court to the fact that what they have left us as a lisière is a number of unconnected strips, and instead of giving us a barrier against the Hudson's Bay Company's posts they have gone and given us for 36 miles merely lines over water. That would not be very much of a barrier, especially with the argument of my friends on the other side that they had the right to the access to and fro over that water. If this mountain line on the Faden map is adopted, or this substituted line of 10 marine leagues drawn where the mountain line would have been, and as the mountain line is shown in Faden's map 10 marine leagues from the sea, you give to each side here exactly what each side wanted.
What was it that Great Britain wanted? She first wanted the withdrawal of the 100-mile limit; that is withdrawn by Articles I and II of the Treaty. She, secondly, wanted protection of the post of the Hudson's Bay Company. That was her second position. Mr. Pelly's letter is in the British Case, showing that this line does protect the interests of the Hudson's Bay Company, and, so far as they are concerned, they have no contention to make (British Appendix, pp. 80 and 110). It gives to Great Britain both banks of the Mackenzie River; it gives to Great Britain the freedom of the navigation of the streams which run through the lisière from the Hudson's Bay Company's property to the Pacific Ocean. Everything that she contended for-take Sir Charles Bagot's language in the broadest sense and this line that I plead for gives to her every one of the things which she claimed should result to her from the adoption of the line, and on the other hand it does the same to Russia. It gives to her comparatively but a strip of territory, it gives to her but a small portion of land on this Alaskan coast when you contemplate the immense distance back to the Rocky Mountains some 300 miles which was conceded to Great Britain. It also gives to Russia the exclusive jurisdiction over the inland waters. It gives her a barrier against the approach of the Hudson's Bay Company's post; it gives her a means of protection for her 1,100 islands that lay in the Alaskan group, without which support and protection those islands become a burden, as Count Nesselrode said, instead of a benefit. So for all reasons I submit that the United States is entitled to the answer to these different questions that she claims.