\ 
 
 ?■ 
 
 IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET {MT-3) 
 
 t 
 ^ 
 
 // 
 
 /T/ 
 
 
 if 
 
 < <i» 
 
 
 V 
 
 i 
 
 f/. 
 
 
 1.0 
 
 I.I 
 
 1.25 
 
 1^1^ |||||2.5 
 
 1: 1^ 1112.0 
 
 1.8 
 
 U 111.6 
 
 (" 
 
 P^ 
 
 vQ 
 
 c*5 
 
 
 '''^^ .s^ 
 
 V 
 
 ^. 
 
 ^^^ 
 
 '^ 
 
 y 
 
 Photographic 
 
 Sciences 
 
 Ck)rporation 
 
 23 WEST MAN ^.iREET 
 
 WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 
 
 (716) 873-4503 
 

 t/i 
 
 <^ 
 
 CIHM/ICMH 
 
 Microfiche 
 
 Series. 
 
 CIHM/ICMH 
 Collection de 
 microfiches. 
 
 Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions 
 
 Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques 
 
 1980 
 
 i 
 
Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibiiographiques 
 
 The Institute has attempted to obtain the best 
 original copy available for filming. Features of this 
 copy which may be bibliographically unique, 
 which may alter any of the images in the 
 reproduction, or which may significantly change 
 the usual method of filming, are checked below. 
 
 
 
 D 
 
 D 
 
 D 
 D 
 
 D 
 
 D 
 
 Coloured covers/ 
 Couverture de couieur 
 
 r~71 Covers damaged/ 
 
 Couverture endommag6e 
 
 Covers restored and/or laminated/ 
 Couverture restaurie et/ou pellicul6e 
 
 I I Cover title missing/ 
 
 Le titre de couverture manque 
 
 I I Coloured maps/ 
 
 Cartes gdographiques en couieur 
 
 Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ 
 Encre de couieur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) 
 
 I I Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ 
 
 Planches et/ou illustrations en couieur 
 
 Bound with other material/ 
 Reli6 avec d'autres documents 
 
 Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion 
 along interior margin/ 
 
 La reliure serr6e peut causer de I'ombre ou de la 
 distortion le long de la marge intdrieure 
 
 Blank leaves added during restoration may 
 appear within the text. Whenever possible, these 
 have been omitted from filming/ 
 II SB peut que certaines pages blanches ajouties 
 lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, 
 mais, lorsque cela 6tait possible, ces pages n'ont 
 pas 6t6 film6es. 
 
 Additional comments:/ 
 Commentaires suppldmentaires; 
 
 L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire 
 qu'il lui a Sti possible de se procurer. Les details 
 de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-Atre uniques du 
 point de vue bibliographlque, qui peuvent modifier 
 une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une 
 modification dans la mithode normale de filmage 
 sont indiqu6s ci-dessous. 
 
 D 
 D 
 D 
 
 D 
 D 
 
 D 
 
 Coloured pages/ 
 Pages de couieur 
 
 Pages damaged/ 
 Pages endommagdes 
 
 Pages restored and/or laminated/ 
 Pages rostaur6es et/ou pellicul^es 
 
 Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ 
 Pages dicolor^es, tachet^es ou piqu^es 
 
 Pages detached/ 
 Pages d6tach6es 
 
 Showthrough/ 
 Transparence 
 
 I I Quality of print varies/ 
 
 Quality indgale de {'impression 
 
 Includes supplementary material/ 
 Comprend du materiel suppldmentaire 
 
 Only edition available/ 
 Seule Edition disponible 
 
 Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata 
 slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to 
 ensure the best possible image/ 
 Les pages totalement ou partiellement 
 obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, 
 etc., ont 6x6 filmdes A nouveau de fagon 6 
 obtenir la meilleure image possible. 
 
 T 
 
 t4 
 
 1 
 
 P 
 O 
 fi 
 
 G 
 b 
 tl 
 
 si 
 o 
 fi 
 si 
 o 
 
 Tl 
 si 
 Tl 
 w 
 
 M 
 di 
 ei 
 b( 
 ri 
 re 
 m 
 
 This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ 
 
 Ce document est film& au taux de rMuction indiquA ci-dessous. 
 
 10X 
 
 
 
 
 14X 
 
 
 
 
 18X 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 22X 
 
 
 
 
 26X 
 
 
 
 
 lOX 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 J 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 12X 
 
 16X 
 
 20X 
 
 24X 
 
 28X 
 
 32X 
 
The copy filmed here hes been reproduced thanks 
 to the generosity of: 
 
 Ubrary of the Public 
 Archives of Canada 
 
 L'exemplaire film* fut reproduit grAce A la 
 gAn^rositA de: 
 
 La bibliothdque das Archives 
 publiques du Canada 
 
 The images appearing here are the best quality 
 possible considering the condition and legibility 
 of the original copy and in keeping with the 
 filming contract specifications. 
 
 Les 'mages suivantes ont At6 reproduites avec le 
 plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition at 
 de la nettet* de l'exemplaire film*, et en 
 conformity avec les conditions du contrat de 
 filmage. 
 
 Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed 
 beginning with the front cover and ending on 
 the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- 
 sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All 
 other original copies are filmed beginning on the 
 first page with a printed or illustrated impres- 
 sion, and ending on the last page with a printed 
 or illustrated impression. 
 
 Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en 
 papier est imprimie sont filmis en commen^ant 
 par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la 
 dernlAre page qui comporte une empreinte 
 d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second 
 plat, salon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires 
 originaux sont filmte en commen9ant par la 
 premiere page qui comporte une empreinte 
 d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par 
 la dernlAre page qui comporte une telle 
 empreinte. 
 
 The last recorded frame on each microfiche 
 shall contain the symbol —^- (meaning "C0^'- 
 TINUED "). or the symbol V (meaning "END '^ 
 whichever applies. 
 
 Maps, plates, charts, etc.. may be filmed at 
 different reduction ratios. Those too large to be 
 entirely included in one exposure are filmed 
 beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to 
 right and top to bottom, as many frames as 
 required. The following diagrams illustrate the 
 method: 
 
 Un des symboles suivants apparattra sur la 
 derniAre image de cheque microfiche, selon le 
 cas: le symbole -h^ signifie "A SUIVRE", le 
 symbols y signifie "F>N ". 
 
 Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre 
 filmis A des taux de reduction diffdrents. 
 Lorsque Se document est trop grand pour Atre 
 reproduit en un seul ciichA. il est film6 A partir 
 de Tangle supArieur gauche, de gauche A droite, 
 et de haut en bas. en prenant le nombre 
 d'images nAcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants 
 illustrent la mAthode. 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 32X 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
// 
 
 < A 
 
k^ 
 
 ■Si V.->^>/-,; >•."',? rv 
 
 
 
 v.... < 
 
 
 THE CANADTAN VIEW 
 
 
 \ 
 
 OV TUK 
 
 J V 
 
 ALASKAN BOUNDARY DISPUTE 
 
 " .V','' " ^ ' . ■'.''■ 
 
 (^ ; ',•'■. ' ^^ AS STATKI) BV / \ , , _ 
 
 ■' '' i ' ■ ' ^ • 1 -' ■ ' 1 
 
 HON. DAVI1> MIT.I^S 
 
 Minister of Justice 
 
 In an interview wifJt the correnponifent of the 
 Chicago Tribune on the J 4th August, 1S99. 
 
 r.f 
 
 
 
 \C 
 
 T - » • 
 
 •.>'.'■ 
 
 ■ ' . OTTAWA 
 
 GOVERNMENT PRINTIN<5 BUREAU 
 
 1S90 
 
 ... -1 
 
 1 • 
 
 -( ■>!'■ r- 
 
 
 V^ 
 
 I I 
 
 ,yHy ■' 
 
 
 ¥7 ;.; , 
 
 
 ■-V - ■■ '^ ''■-■" '^^■'- ^ i - • 
 

 
 ;/^,V^ 
 
 
 .I'v**-, 
 
 » M,'- 
 
 *;. iii 
 
 
 >k'H'' 
 
 A 
 
 t. .<v'- 
 
 it 
 
 i 
 
 ■:v 
 
 
 1-:V 
 
 *^^. 
 
 r^ 
 
 ,''!'. 
 
 t: 
 
 ,l.;J,*-A. 
 
 ■^, 
 
 
 ^Wf: J^ 
 
 V', <" 
 
 jK-i^-fl 
 
 ^i 
 
 v-f-. 
 
 ■,i:/ 
 
 mui 
 
 V ttim^^-s 
 
 V <,- 
 
 ♦!*i^* 
 
 AU-' 
 
 .<■ i-,; 
 
 K? 
 
 :f 
 
 '^i 
 
 r-^ 
 
 </ :-^»- 
 
 '«:^.:^;,^;l:^;y^ 
 
 :?.\.^* 
 
 .in-4 
 
 -■ i;. 
 
 r 
 
 u' 
 
; -.; 
 
 mo 
 
 i 
 
 THE CANADIAN VIEW 
 
 *.■ 
 
 OF THE 
 
 ALASKAN BOUNDARY DISPUTE 
 
 
 AS STATED BY 
 
 HON. J3AVII3 MILLS 
 
 Minister of Justice 
 
 In an interview if nth the correspondent of the 
 Chicago Tribune on the IJ^th August, 1899 
 
 i|- 
 
 OTTAWA 
 
 GOVERNMENT PRINTING BUREAU 
 
 1899 
 

 /'li^^;-> 
 
 '.•..,- » . ai. 
 
 ''/^S V> 
 
TlIK CANADIAN VIEW 
 
 OF THE 
 
 ALASKAN BOUNDARY DISPUTE 
 
 AS STATED BY 
 
 Hon. David Mills, Minister op Justicb 
 
 In an interview with the correspondent of the 
 Chicago Tribune on the 14th August, 1899. 
 
 You ask me to state t( yo\x the Canadian view of 
 the Alaskan boundary dispute. I shall not in 
 endeavouring to meet your wishes, claim to do more 
 than express my own view upon the subject. 
 
 I may say to you that ah-eady correspondents 
 connected with two New York journals made a 
 similar request a short time ago, but it was during 
 the midst of the session when I had but a few 
 moments at my disposal, and in my conversation 
 with them, I could do no more than outline my 
 opinion upon the subject and point out in what 
 respect, we, on this side of the border, dissented 
 from the contention of the United States. I notice 
 that the brief statement of my opinions wre not 
 very favourably received, or very carefully considered 
 by some of your citizens. In discussing the speech 
 
made in tho Houso of Commons by the leader of the 
 Conservative parly (Sir Charles Tupper), it was 
 stated by some Washington correspondents of the 
 New York and I'liihidt'lphia press, that it was very 
 hard to explain his misinfonnation, and that I 
 seemed to be still more i;,'noraiit than Sir Charles 
 Tupper. The natural inference from this kind of 
 criticism is that every opinion at variance with the 
 contentions which have been put forward in your 
 country, and which for the most part meets with 
 favour in your press, is (juite undeserving of serious 
 consideration. The impression made upon my roind 
 is that vehement assertions and frequent repetitions, 
 are to supersede careful investigation of the facts and 
 the legitimate conclusions to be drawn from them. 
 
 This Alaskan Boundary Dispute was discussed by 
 the Joint Commission of the two countries. No 
 conclusion, it seems, was reached. The proceedings 
 were secret. It was stated that the Commissioners 
 had referred the question to their respective govern- 
 ments. This was all that, for some time, was dis- 
 closed to the public ; but no sooner was the state- 
 ment bruited abroad that the matter was being 
 discussed by Lord Salisbury and Mr. Choate, than 
 telegraphic despatches were sent from Washing- 
 ton to the New York journals, and thence to the 
 London newspapers, in which the Canadian members 
 of the Commission, and the Canadian Government, 
 were described as men who were ill-informed, 
 obstinate, greedy, refusing to agree to an arbitration 
 in respect of the disputed boundary without first ob- 
 taining from the United States Commissioners or Gov- 
 ernment, a cession of territory, to which they could, in 
 reason, make no claim, and which undoubtedly 
 belonged to your country. Every one who has read 
 
y 
 
 the protocol on this part of the nej;;otiaticns, which 
 I understand was published to prevent the persistent 
 repetition of these uiisrepresentations, now knows 
 how unfounded they were. The attempt was made to 
 prejudice the case of this country, hy mis stating' its 
 position. It was announced hy tin; New York and 
 Washington correspondents of London newspapers, 
 that the Coinniissiotiers of the United States desinnl 
 arbitration, and that the Canadian members of the 
 Commission stood in the way. Tiiis mis-statement 
 was, for a time, daily repeated. \t was published 
 in the English and Canidian n(;wspapers, is well as 
 in those of the United States. The attitude <»f the 
 respective parties was carefully concealed, and the 
 impression sought to be made, and for a time not 
 without success, that the demands of the Canadian 
 Connnissioners were most unreasonable. It was not 
 until the protocols upon the subject were published 
 in England, and in this country, that the j)ublic 
 became aware of the <^ioss injustice that was being 
 done us. When the publication was made, it was 
 seen that we were willing eithet- to arbitrate or to 
 compromise. Our representatives had oflfered to 
 accept a compromise which would permit us to 
 retain so much of the disputed country as would 
 afford us a means of access to our own possession in 
 the interior. Our geographical position is such, that 
 the disputed territory is of immensely greater con- 
 se(juence to us, than to you. 
 
 It is well to bear in mind that two controversies 
 have arisen between you and us in respect to the 
 possessions which you acquired from Russia u[)on our 
 northwestern border. In one, you claimed that that 
 part of the Pacific Ocean known in recent vears as 
 Behring Sea, and which borders upon the Aleutian 
 
6 
 
 Lslands \vliich HuHsia coded to you, alon^ with lior 
 poBsoHsioiiH upon this continent, was a part of your 
 ac(|uisition, and 8o the fur-hearing seaU found in itH 
 waters were your exclusive property. Sometimes 
 you contended that it was a mare dauHuni ; some- 
 times you said this wjis not your contention, but you 
 claimed to exercise upon the high seas, in time of 
 peace, rights which belong to a state only in time of 
 war, and you contended that people, in the pursuit of 
 a legitimate vocation upon the high seas, were guilty 
 of a crime only a little less atrocious than piricy ; 
 and so the killing of seals in the Pacitic Ocean, by 
 Canadian seal hunters, was claimed to be the destruc- 
 tion of wild animals that were the property of the 
 United States. 
 
 We find it difficult to understand how any public 
 man could have persuaded hiuiself that there was 
 any merit in this contention. The Municipal Law of 
 the United States can have no force outside of the 
 territories of the Republic, except upon board a ship 
 sailing under the United States flag. The courts of 
 the United States have held that a man standing on 
 board a United States ship, and shooting a man in a 
 boat at the Society Islands, was not amenable to the 
 laws of the United States, as the murder which he 
 committed was beyond the jurisdiction of the Repub- 
 lic. I dare say that this was, in strict law, a proper 
 decision ; but how, then, could a Canadian on board 
 a Canadian vessel, under the British flag, upon the 
 high seas, be amenable to the Municipal Law of the 
 United States ? Your government assumed that they 
 were. It authorized the seizure of Canadian vessels 
 upon the high seas, under the authority of your Muni- 
 cipal Law, to which they owed no subjection, and 
 where International Law alone prevails. These 
 
vessels were confiscated. The men on lx)arcl were 
 imprisoned, and when thoy were discljnr<»ed, it wiis 
 far Hway from home, and without the means necessary 
 to enable them to n^turn. We felt that the action 
 of your Government was a violent encroachment upon 
 the municipal rights of Canadians, that were wrong- 
 fully subjected to your authority. It was a violation 
 of these settled principles of International liaw for 
 which, on many occasions, Mie United Suites had con- 
 spi«!Uously contended. It was also at variance with 
 tlie cimtention of the United States, in her cop*r')- 
 versy with Russia, between 1821 and 1824, in respe-l 
 to an exclusive sovereignty, over the same waters. 
 The contention of your (iovernment, we th . ight 
 wholly untenable. We thought the principles of 
 Public Law aT^p'Ji-able to the case, were too clear to 
 admit of controversy. I do not know of any foreign 
 jurist Wiio took your side. Yet unreasonable as 
 were thought your pretensions, they went to arbitra- 
 tion. Erroneous as we thought the doctrine set up 
 by Mr. Blaine and others to be, we did not refuse to 
 arbitrate. The (juestion went to an International 
 Tribunal that was certainly not biassed in our favour, 
 and our contention, in that matter, was upheld. Why, 
 then, should the Government of the United States, 
 in this second branch of the controversy, hesitate to 
 refer the question, since we cannot agree to compro- 
 mise, to a tribunal of like character? 
 
 It may be that the Government of the United 
 States has persuaded itself that our position is unten- 
 able ; that the boundary line ought not to be placed 
 where we say, that under the Convention of St. 
 Petersburg, it should be drawn. Hut the United 
 States, like ourselves, is an interested party, and its 
 Government ought not, either wholly, or in part. 
 
8 
 
 undertake to decide the question in dispute, before 
 the reference is made, nor refuse to have the con- 
 tention put forward by us and by them, submitted to 
 a competent and impartial tribunal, for adjudication. 
 
 If, in the opinion of your Governuient, youi' con- 
 tention is well founded, and if they beHeve it best 
 comports with the terms of the Convention of 1825, 
 it will be enabled to establish that fact before an 
 International Tribunal, and if such a tribunal agrees 
 with your contention, we must bow to its decision ; 
 but should it be found that our contention is well 
 founded, the Government of the United States ought 
 to be equally ready to acquiesce. There is neither 
 reason nor justice, in suggesting a reference of a 
 matter, upon which we cannot agree to a tribunal, 
 that is not permitted to consider the whole question, 
 and to locate the boundary in conformity with the 
 terms of the Convention of 1825. 
 
 As I understand the protocols upon this subject, 
 they show that we contend that the boundary line, 
 as set out in the convention, crosses the Lynn Inlet 
 not far from the ocean, being drawn from the crest 
 of the mountains on one side, to the crest of the 
 mountains on the opposite side. The Govern- 
 ment of the United States dissents from this view 
 and maintains the boundary passes round the head of 
 the inlet. Now what efforts do the protocols show, 
 were made to reach a solution ? We were of opinion 
 that there were two ways in which this difference 
 might Vje amicably adjusted— by a compromise, or by 
 reference to a properly constituted tribunal. We 
 offered to compromise. We contended that Dyea 
 and Skagway are built in Canadian territory. They 
 are the natural seaports from which sea access, at 
 the present time, can be had into our Yukon country, 
 
9 
 
 where we have a mining population of 30,000. The 
 possession of the inlet is of great consequence to us. 
 It is of little importance to you. As a compromise 
 we offered to leave Dyea and 8kagway in your posses- 
 sion, if you assented to our retaining Pyramid Harbour, 
 which would afford to us a highway into the interior, 
 through our own country. This compromise would 
 have left you tin greater portion of the territory, at 
 this point, in dispute. It would have made the Lynn 
 Inlet a common water. This proposal your represen- 
 tatives declined. The proposal was then made to 
 you, to refer the question to arbitration, in order to 
 ascertain the boundary fixed by the convention, and 
 this also you have declined. Whv? There would 
 seem to be but one answer — because you are in 
 possession of territory that is rightfully ours. If 
 under the Convention of St. Petersburg you think 
 you can rightfully claim Lynn Inlet, why should not 
 the matter have gone to arbitration 1 
 
 It is said that this disputed boundary should be 
 dealt with on principles recognized by diplomatists, 
 and not on those which govern the actions of At- 
 torneys. I admit it. We did so proceed, when we 
 otfered to compromise this dispute, and leave Dyea 
 and Skagway in your possession. We did so, when 
 we offered to ascertain the legal boundary, by a pro- 
 perly constituted independent tribunal. We did .so, 
 when we offered to qualify our extreme right, by the 
 rule adopted, in the Venezuela arbitration. This state- 
 ment of facts is our answer to the charge of obstinacy. 
 Our obstinacy consists in this, that we object to tlie 
 surrender of everything that is in controversy Ije- 
 tween us. Since voa have been irood enough to ask me 
 my opinion upon the subject, let me ask your readers to 
 carefully compare these offered concessions on our 
 
 1 
 
 I 
 
10 
 
 part with the concessions which your Government is 
 willing to 'nake. What was it? Nothing beyond 
 this, that they would grant to us the liberty to build 
 a highway in a territory behind the coast range of 
 mountains, beyond which under the convention you 
 have no right to go, upon condition, that we admitted, 
 that the harbour from which we started, and the 
 country through which our road ran, was under the 
 sovereignty of the United States. 1 ask your people 
 to compare the two concessions, and let them candidly 
 say, which of us is most open to the charge of being 
 unreasonably obstinate. We are most desirous of a 
 fair settlement. The people of the United States are 
 our neighbours, ami we an; theirs. It is to the ad- 
 vantage of bolh countries that a feeling of friendship 
 and mutual good- will should prevail amongst the 
 people of each towards the other, but this most 
 desirable object is not promoted by one country ap- 
 propriating to itself the territory which rightfully 
 belongs to the other. 
 
 I have referred to the cpiestionof boundary at the 
 Lynn Inlet, which is the place most prominently 
 brought forward in the controversy, but in order to 
 understand the treaty, and the proper location of the 
 limitary line, separating the American territory 
 acquired from Russia from this country, it is neces- 
 sar" to give some attention to the historical circum- 
 stances out of which that treaty grew. Before the 
 treaty was negotiated between Great Britain ajid 
 Russia, disputes had arisen between the Government 
 of the United Kingdom and the Emperor of Russia 
 in regard to the extent of their respective possessions 
 upon the north-west coast of this continent. The 
 Russians had visited the country. They had explored 
 the coast at least as far south as the o4th degree ot 
 
11 
 
 north latitude. They had estal)lishod fishing and 
 trading stations upon the coast. The Canadian 
 trailers who had been organized into a Fur Trading 
 Company, known as the Northwest Trading Com- 
 pany, had also explored the country. Their explora- 
 tions began as early as 1762, and continued until 
 1820. There were the two Frobishers, the two 
 Henrys, Sir Alexander Mackenzie, Frasor, McLeod 
 and others. Their exploration extended from the 
 Arctic Ocean to the Gulf of California. They had 
 established numerous trading posts within the Pacific 
 slope. At the beginning of this century, they had 
 beyond the mountains, at least 700 agents in their 
 employ'. It was upon tlieir explorations and dis- 
 coveries, that the British (irovernnienl relied for th(; 
 maintenance of its title to the country. It is a well 
 recognized rule of English law, that a British subject 
 carries with him, into a derelict country, both the 
 laws of his country, and the sovereignty of his King. 
 
 When the (juestion of boundary came to be dis- 
 cussed between the representatives of the Emperor 
 of Russia and the King of England, there was not 
 much difficulty in arriving at an agreement, because 
 the Russians had visited the coast for the purpose of 
 fisriinor and of trading with the Indians found there. 
 They had no desire to undertake the extension of 
 their dominions into the interior. They had at the 
 time no resources in the country for the purpose. 
 The 1^^nglis}i by the treaty wei-e left in posse-sion of 
 nearly the whole country. Russia was confined to a 
 narrow fringe upon the shore. 
 
 Before this treaty was made, the United States 
 had acquired north of the 4*2n(l degree of latitude, 
 whatever rights Spain possessed uj)on the coast. 
 Between the United States and Great Britain a con- 
 
12 
 
 ventioii had been entered into which established a 
 modus vivendi between then), by which each bound 
 itself not to interfere with the settlements of the 
 other; but the question as to their territorial rights, 
 under the convention, was left untouched. 
 
 In 1824, the United States made a treaty with 
 Russia, which is modelled on the plan of the one 
 which had previously been entered into by the 
 United Kingdom and the United States. This con- 
 vention, between the United States and Russia did 
 not undertake to define any territorial limits as an 
 assertion of territorial sovereignty. By Article I., 
 the citizens and subjects of the high contracting 
 parties agraed that neither will disturb or restrain 
 the other in navigating or fishing in these waters, or 
 in the liberty of resorting to the coast to trade with 
 the natives. But where any part of the coast is in 
 actual occupation of the one, resort shall not be had 
 to it by the other, for the purpose of trading with 
 the natives. 
 
 By Article IT. non-intercourse by the one, with 
 the settlements of the other, is mutually agreed upon, 
 except by the permission of the Governor or Com- 
 mandant of the place. The United States agreed 
 that they will form no settlement north of 54 degi .es 
 40 minutes of north latitude. And Russia agrees to 
 form no settlement south of that parallel They fur- 
 ther agreed, that for a period of ten years, the ships 
 of both powers, and the ships which belong to the 
 citizens and subjects of each, may without hindrance, 
 frequent the interior seas, gulfs, harboui's and creeks 
 upon the coast mentioned in the preceding article. 
 Here there was no division of territory between the 
 parties. There was a modus vivendi provided by 
 which the United States agreed not to exclude 
 
13 
 
 Russian vessels from the interior seas, j;ulfs, itc, 
 south of 54 degrees and 40 minutes, and Russia 
 agreed not to exclude the United States vessels from 
 like waters north of that parallel The United States 
 Government knew at the time this convention was 
 made, that the Government of Great Britain was 
 claiming sovereignty upon the same coast ; and so 
 that the United States could not well recogni/,e any 
 rights of Russia to the sovereignty of the country. 
 
 In the correspondence which took place between 
 the Governments of the United States and Russia, 
 the United States did not concede the pretensions 
 which llussia set up. Mr. Adams, in a despatch to 
 the American Minister, Mr. Middleton, in July, 
 1883, savs : — 
 
 "From the tenor of the ukase of the 14th Sep- 
 tember, 1821, the pretensions of the Iniperial 
 Goverimient extend to an exclusive territorial juris- 
 diction from 45 degrees of north latitude on the 
 Asiatic coast to 51 degrees north latitude on the 
 western coast of the American continent ; and they 
 assume the right of interdicting the navigation and 
 fishing of all other nations to the extent of one 
 hundred miles from the whole of that coast. The 
 United States can admit no part of those claims. 
 Their right of navigation and of fishing is perfect, 
 and has been in constant exercise from the earliest 
 times after tue peace of 1 783 throughout the whole 
 extent of the .southern ocean, subject only, to the 
 ordinary '^•xceptions and exclusions of the territoiial 
 jurisdiction which so far as Russian rights are con- 
 cerned, are confined to certain islands north of the 
 35th degree of latitude and have no existence on the 
 continent of Americ.i." 
 
^lEiMiBKawa 
 
 14 
 
 There is nothing in the treaty of 1824 inconsis- 
 t(?nt with tiie contention which Air. Adams put lor- 
 ward in this communication, and so wo find Mr. 
 Adams, in his letter of instructions to Mr. Middleton, 
 takes the <j;round that the exclusive rij^ht of .Spain to 
 any portion of the American continent, had been 
 tei'ininated by the successful revolution of her colo- 
 nists, and by her treaty stipulations with the United 
 States. Mr. Adams practically maintained that the 
 entire continent of America was cU)sed against any 
 European power, that North America consisted of 
 the colonial possessions of the United Kingdom, and 
 of independent republics, and so there was no further 
 room for acquisition, and he argues that the neces- 
 sary consequence of this state of things, is that the 
 American continents henceforth will no longer be 
 open to colonization. . 
 
 A few months h^ter, the celebrated message of 
 President Monroe, set out two propositions, the one 
 against the attempt of the Holy Alliance to inter- 
 fere with the independence of the Spanish American 
 States, arid the other declaring that no part of the 
 American continent is to be considered as subject 
 to future accjuisition for colonization by any Euro- 
 pean power. It is clear, that this second proposition 
 was intended as a denial of the rights of Russia to 
 accjuire territory on the continent of North America. 
 Mr. Adams conceded that Russia had possession of 
 certain islands, but he denied altogether that she 
 had any right to territory upon the continent — uju)!! 
 the main land. Mr. Adams was conversant with the 
 explorations of Mackenzie and others associated with 
 the North-west Company, and his position was, that 
 the territories which did not belonge to the United 
 States by virtue of her treaty witli Spain, and by 
 
15 
 
 the explorations of Lewis and Clarke, weie under 
 the jurisdiction (»f ( J rt*at Britain, and so the treaty 
 of 1824 with Russia was not one for the mutual 
 recognition of territorial sover(M«^nty on the part of 
 either party. 
 
 These facts are important to hear in mind in th(^ 
 interpretation of the Treaty which was suhsequently 
 negotiated and ratified between His Britannic 
 Majesty, and the Kniperor of Russia. There is this 
 HKirked difFeience between the con\enti()n entered 
 inio between Ureat J^ritain and Russia in February 
 1825, and the convention of the previous year 
 between the United Stat<'s and the Emperor of Rus- 
 sia ; the convention between ilis Britannic Majesty 
 and the Emperor, was a convention settling a boun- 
 dary between territories admittedly belonging to 
 Great Britain and territories to which it was con- 
 ceded that Russia had valid claim ; that is, the part 
 of the continent north of 54 decrees 40 minutes of 
 nortli latitude. Tlie teiritories south of 54 degrees 
 40 minutes north latitude were territories that were 
 still in controversy between Great Britain- and the 
 United States. 
 
 The first Article of this convention declares, 
 wholly contrary to the action and contention of the 
 government of the United States in reference to the 
 Hehring Sea, that the subjects of tlie High Contract- 
 ing parties shall not be troubled or molested in any 
 part of the ocean, commonly called the Pacific (Jcean, 
 either in navigating the same, in fishing therein, oi- 
 in landing on the coast in parts not already occupied, 
 to trade with the natives. 
 
 Article TI provides that in order to prevent the 
 right of navigating and fishing exercised upon the 
 ocean by the subjects of the High Contracting parties 
 
 1 
 
^ 
 
 
 16 
 
 from becominj^ a pretext for illicit eonimerco, they 
 mutually agree thut subjects of His liritannic 
 iViajesty shall not land at any place where there is a 
 Russian establishment, without the pennission of the 
 (jrovernor or Commandant, and that Russian subjects 
 shall not land without peiniis.^ion at any British 
 establishment on the north-west coast. 
 
 Under these at tides, the freedom of navigation is 
 recognized. Article III and IV provide for the 
 demarcation of the boundary which is to separate 
 the territories of the one, from the territories of the 
 other. Let me read to you those articles in precise 
 terras : — 
 
 " Article III. — The line of demarcation between 
 the possessions of the High Contracting parties, u j>on 
 the coast of the continent, and the islands of America 
 to the north-west shall be drawn in the manner fol- 
 lowing : — Commencing from the southernmost point 
 of the island called the Prince of Wales Island, which 
 point lies in the pai-.iUel of 50 degrees 40 minutes 
 north latitude, and between the 1131st and the 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 5Gth degree of north lati- 
 tude ; from this last mentioned point, the line of 
 demarcation shall follow the suuimit of the mountains 
 situated parallel to the coast as far as the point of 
 intersection of the 141st degree of west longitude of 
 the said meridian ; and finally from the said point of 
 intersection, the said meridian line of the 141st de- 
 gree, in its prolongation as far as the Frozen Ocean, 
 shall form the limit between the Russian and British 
 possessions on the continent of America on the north- 
 west. 
 
17 
 
 " Article TV. — With reference to the line of demar- 
 cation laid down in the preceding article it is under- 
 stood : 
 
 " 1st. That the island called Prince of Wales 
 Island shall belong wholly to Russia. 
 
 " 2nd. That whenever the summit of the mountains 
 which extend in a direction parallel to the coast from 
 the 56th degree of north latitude to the point of inter- 
 section of the Hist degree of west longitude shall 
 prove to be at the distance of more than ten marine 
 leagues from the ocean, the limit between the JJritish 
 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 ten marine leagues 
 therefrom." 
 
 It will be seen that the starting point is the 
 southerniTnost point of the Island called Prince of 
 Wales Island, which lies in 54 degrees 40 minutes 
 north latitude and that this lino is to ascend north. 
 From whence ? Wliy from the starting point — the 
 southernmost point of Prince of Wales Island. It is 
 perfectly true that the boundary is to ascend north 
 along the channel called Portland Channel, but it 
 cannot ascend north along the channel called Port- 
 land Charmel by commencing at the southernmost 
 point of Prince of Wales Island, the place of begin- 
 ning, a line more than one hundred miles in length 
 running due east, must be drawn from the southern 
 end of Prince of Wales Island before Portland Channel 
 can be reached. The first question then to be con- 
 sidered is, whether the description of the direction 
 of the latitude and longitude of the line is to yield 
 to the use of the words "Portland Channel," or 
 whether the name " Portland Channel " must be 
 
18 
 
 Hulx)rdinated to the direction and description con- 
 tained in these articles. If Clarence Channel, which 
 lies inirnediately east of Prince of VVah^s Island is 
 taken, th^re is an exact conformity to the descrip- 
 tion. You may ascend north from the southernmost 
 point of Prince of Wales Is'and along Clarence 
 Channel, but you cannot ascend north from the 
 southernmost point of Prince of Wales Island along 
 Portland Channel. You can ascend to a point on 
 Clarence Channel as far as the point on thecontineiit 
 where it strikes the 56th degree of latitude. You 
 cannot ascend Portland Channel to a point on the 
 continent m here it strikes the HGth degree of north 
 latitude, because Portland Channel does not reach 
 that far north. The difference between drawing the 
 boundary from Portland Cl)annel and from Clarence 
 Channel is this — the boundary upon the mainland 
 commences where the oGth degree of north latitude 
 cuts the shore in the one instance, and in the other 
 it commences at a point at the head of Portland 
 Channel which falls short of the place designated as 
 the place of beginning. 
 
 By Article IV, the line is to be drawn so as to 
 leave the whole of Prince of Wales Island to liussia. 
 If a due east line is to be drawn from the southern- 
 most point of the island to the entrance at Portland 
 Channel, these words " leaving the whole of Prince 
 of Wales Island to Ilussia " are surplusage, because 
 a due east line would not only leave the whole of the 
 Prince of Wales Island to Russia, but would leave 
 several other large islands, of which no mention is 
 made, lying between this island and the mainland. 
 If Clarence Channel is taken, there is an oV)vious 
 reason for providing in the treaty, the words, that 
 the whole of the Prince of Wales Island shall be left 
 
19 
 
 to Russia, because a line ascend in*;f from the southern 
 most point north, would cutoff the southeastern por- 
 tion of the island, but these words have no proper 
 place in the treaty if the line starting from the south- 
 ernmost point of Prince of Wales Island is to be ex- 
 tended eastward to the entrance of Portland Chan- 
 nel, as it would not be a line "ascending north" 
 from the southernmost point of Prince of Wales 
 Island. It will be observed that this ijualitication 
 found in Article IV of the description given of the 
 limitary line in Article III is unaccountable, if a 
 line is first to be drawn eastward from the Prince of 
 Wales Island to the entrance to Portland Channel. 
 Why should this portion of the description have been 
 omitted altogether ? It is, I think, clear from the 
 wording of the treaty, that the use of the words 
 "Portland Channel" cannot refer to the body of water 
 commonly so designated, and the whole of this part 
 of the description of the boundary is inapplicable. 
 
 Let any intelligent reader with a map before him, 
 undertake to draw the line from the description 
 which the treaty furnishes. If he begins at the 
 southernmost point of Prince of Wales Island, which 
 lies in 54 degrees, 40 minutes of north latitude, he 
 cannot from that point ascend to the north along 
 Portland Channel. The name of the channel through 
 which the line is drawn are words subordinate to the 
 direction, description and relation of the line so 
 drawn to the starting point, which determines, in 
 ray opinion, through what waters the line is to so as- 
 cend that the whole of the Prince of Wales Island is 
 to remain in Russia. It is assumed in the words of 
 description, found in the treaty, that the line that 
 ascends to the north along the channel, can do so as 
 far a8 to the point of the continent where it strikes 
 
20 
 
 the nOtJi degree of north hvtitude. This Ih a point, up- 
 on the Hhore, in wliich tlie lM)un(lary upon the nmin- 
 hind is to bejj[in, and so the words are wholly inap- 
 plicahle to Portland Channel, as it falls short, hy 
 several nules, of extending to that degree of latitude. 
 The channel which lies immediately east of Prince of 
 Wales Island, and through which the descriptive 
 words of the treaty requires the boundary to be 
 drawn does so extend, so that the geographical con- 
 ditions fit in with the description in the one case, 
 and do not in the other. 
 
 By the third article the line of demarcation is to 
 follow the summit of the mountains, situated parallel 
 to the coast as far as the intersection of the Hist 
 degree of west longitude ; and the fourth article pro- 
 vides that whenever the summit of the mountains, 
 which extend in a direction parallel to the coast from 
 the 56th degree of north latitude, shall prove to be 
 at the distance of more than ten marine leagues from 
 the coast, the limit between the British possessions 
 and the line of coast which is to belong to Russia 
 shall be formed by a line parallel to the windings of 
 the coast, and which shall never exceed the distance 
 of ten marine leagues therefrom. 
 
 It is too clear to require argument that the limitary 
 line was to follow the coast range and the summit of 
 that coast range, whether high or low was to be the 
 boundary, when it was not more than ten leagues 
 from the coast. In many places inlets extend through 
 canyons through the mountains, and so much of each 
 of those inlets as would be cut oU', by a line drawn 
 from the summit of the mountain upon the one side, 
 to the sunmiit of the mountain upon the other, is 
 Canadian territory. The line cannot be removed 
 further inland, because there may be a gap in the 
 
21 
 
 mountains into which an arm of the sea extends. 
 The coast range approaches these inlets on each sicie, 
 in most cases, near tlie waters of the ocean. Wliei; 
 you pass the Lynn Inlet, it will b*^ found that the 
 coast range embraces peaks from 10,000 to 18,0u0 
 feet high, and it does seem to me preposterous to 
 contend that the provisions of the treaty can be ap- 
 plied by drawing a lino in the rear of thoso moun- 
 tains, as certainly would be done, if the boundary 
 passed around the head of Lynn Inlet. 
 
 It is, I think, manifest that the framers of the 
 treaty assumed, that harbours, inlets, and arms 
 of the sea, would 1m^ found, when the boundary was 
 drawn, within British territory, and certain provi- 
 sions of the treaty were entered into upon this assump- 
 tion. 
 
 Article VI provides that the subjects of Her Bri- 
 tannic Majesty from whatever (juarter they may 
 arrive, whether from the ocean, or from the interior 
 of the conti ent, shall, for ever enjoy the right of 
 navigation freely, and without any hindrance what- 
 ever, all the rivers and streams, which in their course 
 towards the Pacific Ocean, may cross the line of de- 
 marcation on the line of tlie coast. As some of those 
 rivers flow into Behring Sea, it is perfectly obvious, 
 that the contracting parties assumed that the naviga- 
 tion of that sea was open to British vessels 
 
 By Article VII for a period of ten years, the ves- 
 sels of the two powers, and of their subjects respect- 
 ively shall mutually be at liberty to frequent all the 
 inland seas, the gulfs, havens and creeks on the coast 
 mentioned in Article III. The coast mentioned in 
 Article III is not the entire coast of the continent, 
 but the coast north of 54 degrees 40 minutes. 
 
22 
 
 By Article X every British or Russian vessel navi- 
 gating the Pacific Ocean, which may be compelled by 
 storms or by accident to take shelter in the ports of 
 the respective parties shall be atlibert)' to refit there- 
 in, to provide itself with all necessary stores and to 
 put to sea again without paying any other than port 
 and lighthouse dues, which shall be the same as those 
 paid by national vessels. 
 
 This is not a temporary arrangement but a perma- 
 nent one which each party has within the ports of 
 the other. 
 
 It has been contended by some of the United 
 States press, that the waters belonging to Great Bri- 
 tain herein referred to, are those that lie south of the 
 54th degree 40 minutes of north latitude, but this is 
 not so. Those territories were in dispute between 
 Great Britain and the United States, and with refer- 
 ence to them no compact was entered into in the 
 ireaty between Russia and Great Britain. What is 
 entered into is the establishment of a boundary north 
 of 54 degrees 40 minutes, and it is with reference to 
 this boundary, separating the territories of Russia 
 from the territories of His Britannic Majesty, that 
 all the provisions of the treaty referrt;d, — Russia 
 made no claim, in this treaty, to any territories fur- 
 ther south. She ^et up no pretensions to any privi- 
 leges further south ; what was being settled wis the 
 dispute between Great Britain and Russia in respect 
 to sovereign rights north of 54 degrees 40 minutes 
 north latitude. The subjects of Great Britain were 
 without any hindrance whatever to have liberty of 
 navigating freely all the rivers and streams which in 
 their course towards the Pacific Ocean may cross the 
 boundary line, the line of demarcation, as set out in 
 
n 
 
 Article III of the convention. These rivers and 
 navigable routes were not rivers south of 54 degrees 
 40 minutes north latitude, but rivers north of that 
 latitude — rivers that flowed from British territory 
 through the llussian territory upon the coast. All 
 the provisions of the treaty relating to fishing 
 and to navigation have reference to the territories 
 and waters which were the subject of the treaty, and 
 so it is wholly beside the question to refer to the con- 
 vention between the United States and Russia of 
 the previous year. It is as plain as anything can 
 well be, that the contracting parties assumed that 
 when the separating line came to be drawn, under the 
 treaty, that there would be, in some places, harbours 
 and inlets remaining on the British side of this 
 boundary line, and Russia stipulated for the right of 
 Russian navigators to use them, and for her ships to 
 take refuge in them, as she had conceded a like right 
 to the subjects of His Britannic Majesty. These 
 would, indeed, be strange treaty stipulations, if upon 
 the whole length of this boundary, from the 56th 
 degree of latitude to Mount St. Elias, it never 
 crossed an inlet, and at no point touched the sea. 
 This is, in my opinion, a conclusion which no one who 
 will candidly examine the treaty, can reach, and I 
 ask a fair consideration of our side of the dispute by 
 the people of the United States, to whom justice is far 
 more important than success.