he was instructed to express the opinion of the President that it would be wise at this stage of the negotiation to have a comparison of views, and to state that he would be much gratified if I would give my views in return upon the matter presented and communicate the grounds upon which Her Majesty's Government base their opinion that there is nothing in the Venezuelan Treaty which is inapplicable, or which would be inconsistent with an equitable solution of the Alaska controversy". || I would observe at the outset that there appears to be some misapprehension on the part of the United States' Government as to the nature and scope of the proposal submitted to his Excellency, who has treated it as if it only applied to the determination of the boundary in the neighbourhood of the Lynn Canal, instead of to the whole frontier of the lisière of coast defined in the IIIrd and IV th Articles of the Treaty of 1825. || No doubt it is in regard to that part of the boundary that the widest divergence of views has arisen between the two Governments, but it only needs a reference to the maps which purport to mark the boundary as claimed by the respective Governments to show that the difference is by no means confined to the region of the Lynn Canal, but extends throughout the whole length of the strip from Portland Channel to Mount St. Elias. The events of the last two or three years arising out of the Yukon gold discoveries have given exceptional prominence and importance to that part of the boundary, but it will hardly be maintained that prior to these events there was any reason why, while the whole line was undetermined, and its settlement was not regarded on either side as a matter of pressing importance, special attention should have been devoted by Her Majesty's Government to that particular region. || It is necessary to bear this in mind in considering the various reasons put forward by the United States' Government, on account of which they claim to distinguish the present dispute from that recently discussed before the Tribunal of Arbitration at Paris. || The general effect of the United States' contention is that the claim put forward by Her Majesty's Government that the boundary-line should cross the Lynn Canal in the neighbourhood of Berner's Bay, following the general line of the coast range of mountains indicated by the Treaty as the position of the boundary, is a new one first put forward after the Joint High Commission had been created, and that before then Her Majesty's Government had made no claim to the head waters of the canal, or any protest against various acts on the part of Russia and the United States inconsistent with that claim, and that the United States' Government are therefore justified in refusing to allow the question of the possession of these waters to be adjudicated upon by an in

dependent Tribunal. || I wish to point out in the first place that there has been but little discussion of the boundary question between the two Governments, but whenever it has been referred to it has been on the admitted basis that the whole line was undetermined, and that the interpretation of the boundary Articles of the Treaty was entirely an open question as to which each Government was free to urge its own views. || This was the view accepted by President Grant in his Annual Message to Congress of the 2nd December, 1872, and by Mr. Secretary Bayard in his despatch to Mr. Phelps of the 20th November, 1888, and, as was pointed out in that despatch, no question concerning the true location of the line stipulated in the Treaty had ever arisen between Great Britain and Russia prior to the cession of Alaska to the United States. The only value of the region during that period lay in the fur trade, and during the first ten years after 1825 that trade was thrown open on equal terms to the subjects and citizens of Great Britain, Russia, and the United States by Article VII of the Treaty between Great Britain and Russia of 1825, and Article IV of the Treaty of 1824 between the United States and Russia, and before the expiry of the ten years the negotiations between the Hudson's Bay Company and the Russian American Company which resulted in the lease to the former of the trade of the whole of the lisière southward and eastward of a line joining Cape Spencer and Mount Fairweather had been initiated. By that lease the exclusive right of trade and commerce in the lisière outside the line mentioned, covering practically the whole territory the boundary of which is in dispute, became vested in the Company which enjoyed a similar monopoly in the territory on the British side of the frontier, wherever it might be, and, as it was a matter of indifference to it whether it derived its rights from its British Charter or its Russian lease, no question as to the true location of the line could arise. The lease, though originally for ten years only, was renewed from time to time and terminated only on the date when Alaska was ceded to the United States. When subsequently to that cession, the gold discoveries in the Cassiar district of British Columbia, to which the most convenient access lay through the Stikine River traversing the lisière, rendered it desirable to locate the boundary in that region, the discussion between the two Governments was entirely confined to the question of a joint survey, an indispensable preliminary to any attempt to fix the boundary, and never touched on the interpretation of the Treaty. Indeed, in the complete absence of topographical information as to the country, it was obviously impossible to discuss that question, and it was tacitly avoided by both

sides. Even when later Mr. Secretary Fish threw out the suggestion referred to by Mr. Choate that the points where the boundary crosses certain rivers might be surveyed with a view to a partial delimitation, he declared that it was doubtful whether Congress would vote the money necessary for the purpose, doubts which were speedily verified by the action of that body, and it can scarcely be a matter of surprise that a suggestion nade in such circumstances failed to receive critical examination at the hands of the British or Dominion Governments, and that no attempt was made to initiate a discussion as to the interpretation of the Treaty which, in the absence of a survey, must have been of a purely academic nature. The case of Peter Martin in 1877, to which Mr. Choate also refers, does not appear to have any bearing on the matter, as it turned on the question of his unauthorized conveyance as a prisoner through United States' territory, and Her Majesty's Government have never questioned the right of the United States' Government to territory at the mouth of the Stikine River, though the question how far inland that territory extends remains in dispute. || Mr. Choate made no reference to the correspondence initiated by Mr. Bayard in his note to Mr. Phelps of the 20th November, 1885, which has already been mentioned. That note made no claim that the interpretation of the Treaty as regards any particular part of the boundary-line was no longer open, and the Earl of Iddesleigh, in his note to Mr. Phelps of the 27th August, 1886, inclosing copy of the map of the Dominion of Canada, geologically coloured for which Mr. Phelps had asked, and on which a line was shown separating the lisière from Canadian territory, stated clearly the attitude of Her Majesty's Government in regard to the position of the disputed boundary in the following words:

,,In forwarding to you a copy of the map in question, I have the honour to invite your attention to the fact that the Alaska boundary-line shown thereon is merely an indication of the occurrence of such a dividing line somewhere in that region. It will, of course, be readily understood that no weight could attach to the map location of the line now noticed, inasmuch as the Convention between Great Britain and Russia of the 28th February, 1825, which defines the line, makes its location depend on alternative circumstances, the occurrence or the non-occurrence, of mountains, and, as is well known to all concerned, the country has never been topographically surveyed. Her Majesty's Government therefore feel that they are bound distinctly to disavow the recognition of the correctness of the line shown, on the edition of the map in question forwarded herewith, as the boundary-line between the Province of British Columbia

and Alaska." || The United States' Government took no exception to this declaration, which was followed later by the statement in the Memorandum given to Mr. Bayard by Sir L. Sackville West on the 14th September, 1887, as to the action of Lieutenant Schwatka during his reconnaissance of 1883 in purporting to fix Perrier's Pass at the head of the Lynn Canal as a point on the boundary. It was there stated that „although Her Majesty's Government have agreed in principle to take part in a preliminary investigation of the Alaska boundary question, they are not prepared to admit that the points referred to by Lieutenant Schwatka in any way fix where the line should be drawn. It is not sought to raise any discussion at the present moment in regard to the position of the boundary between Alaska and British Columbia; but in order that it may not be prejudiced hereafter by absence of remark on the points alluded to above, Her Majesty's Government have thought it expedient to call the attention of the United States' Government to the foregoing observations".

Shortly after in the informal discussion of the boundary question between Dr. Dawson, on the part of Her Majesty's Government, and Dr. Dall, on the part of the United States' Government, during the sittings of the Joint High Commission of 1888, the former made it distinctly clear that Her Majesty's Government claimed that the boundary should, in accordance with the terms of the Treaty, be drawn along the summits of the coast range, crossing all narrow waters which were of such width as to be within territorial jurisdiction. || When the Conference between the British Delegates and Mr. Secretary Blaine was held in February 1892, the views of Her Majesty's Government as to the boundary were fully stated, and it was proprosed on the part of the British Representatives that a reference to some impartial authority be made by Great Britain and the United States for the purpose of ascertaining and deciding finally the true boundary, regard being had to the Treaties relating to the subject, and likewise to the case which may be presented by either Government, and to the testimony which may be adduced as to the physical features of that country", &c. || The Representatives of the United States, Mr. Blaine and General Foster, considered that it was premature to provide for a reference to arbitration until a survey had been made, and the two Governments had had an opportunity of considering and discussing the question in the light of the facts revealed by that survey, and they handed in a proposal which was accepted and embodied with slight verbal amendments in Article I of the Treaty of the 22nd July, 1892. That Article provided for a coincident or joint

survey,,with a view to the ascertainment of the facts and data necessary to the permanent delimitation of said boundary-line in accordance with the spirit and intent of the existing Treaties in regard to it between Great Britain and Russia and between the United States and Russia", and further, that ,,The High Contracting Parties agree that, as soon as practicable after the Report or Reports of the Commissions shall have been received, they will proceed to consider and establish the boundaryline in question". || It is clear from this that the whole question of the interpretation and application of the Treaty was, by common consent, left over for discussion, after the completion of the survey in the light of the facts which it disclosed, and it might fairly be argued from the express terms of the Convention that both Governments had estopped themselves from contending that the boundary should be run otherwise than in accordance with the „spirit and intent" of the existing Treaties in regard to it between Great Britain and Russia and between the United States and Russia. | It is evident in any case that, at any rate in 1892, neither Government claimed to have any rights in the disputed territory arising out of possession, occupation, or political control. Nor does it appear that any such claims were preferred on the part of the United States until the meetings of the Joint High Commission. || The elaborate series of maps on which the results of the joint survey were embodied were not received by Her Majesty's Government until March 1898, but in the meantime Her Majesty's Government, realizing the improbability of a settlement being reached by diplomatic discussion, as contemplated by the Convention of 1892, and the need of an early settlement, owing to the new conditions created by the Yukon gold discoveries, had instructed Sir J. Pauncefote to propose to the United States' Government a reference of the question to three jurists of high standing, one nominated by each of the two Powers, and the third by an independent Power, and that this Commission should proceed at once to delimit the boundary at the heads of the inlets through which the traffic for the Yukon entered, principally at the head of the Lynn Canal. || This proposal was made by Sir J. Pauncefote to Mr. Sherman on the 23rd February, 1898, and in making it he specifically alluded to the divergence of views revealed by the informal discussion which took place in 1888. On the 2nd March he reported to me that the United States' Government were anxious for a provisional boundary, the rights of both parties being reserved pending a final settlement, but were unwilling to proceed with a new Convention providing for arbitration until diplomatic discussion had failed to secure a settlement. || A proposal for a provisional