\ ?■ IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET {MT-3) t ^ // /T/ if < 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. . '.•..,- » . 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 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.