that your Lordship has brought it up, I submit to your candid judgment that Mr. Bayard did not there take the view that the interpretation of the boundary Articles of the Treaty was an open question, but only that the demarcation of the line was undetermined and was full of difficulties in the then state of topographical knowledge. Of course Mr. Bayard in that note made no claim that the interpretation of the Treaty as regards any particular part of the boundary-line was no longer open, for nobody, so far as we can discover, had up to that date claimed that it was open. Certainly no one on the part of Her Majesty's Government had done so. Undoubtedly Mr. Bayard did point out in that note that,,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." But in the same paper and in the same connection he had already said, "It is certain that no question has arisen since 1867 between the Governments of the United States and Great Britain in regard to this boundary," thus covering the whole period from 1825 to 1885. || In view of these emphatic declarations, my Government is at a loss to understand how he can be held to have sustained the view that at the latter date the interpretation of the Treaty as to the boundary was an open question between the two Governments. || All the statements of Mr. Bayard and Mr. Phelps in the correspondence that followed must be read in the light of these declarations and the view of the object at which they were aiming, viz., to obtain, not an arbitration to interpret the Treaty, but a Joint Commission which should make a survey of the line stipulated by the Treaty, or, as Mr. Bayard afterwards limited it (in his subsequent instruction of the 19th March, 1886, to Mr. Phelps), to ,,an Agreement for a preliminary survey of the Alaska boundary with a view to the discovery of such natural outlines and objects as may be mnade the basis for a future formal Convention for the survey of the boundary-line." || He was deeply impressed with the extreme difficulty and enormous expense of a survey of the boundary-line difficulties and expense which we think have been very greatly reduced by the Report of the Joint Commission appointed in 1892 and the maps prepared by that Commission but all that Mr. Bayard and Mr. Phelps said may be read in vain for any indications of a doubt in the mind of either, whether the lisière was a continuous and solid strip of land running around the inlets, and excluding Great Britain from access to the sea in every part of its length, or a congeries of broken strips interrupted at the mouth of every inlet and admitting her to exclusive possession of all parts of every inlet above a point crossed by a line drawn from the

crests of the mountains nearest to the coast. The difficulties of which Mr. Bayard treated at great length were the same which Mr. Fish and the experts of both Governments then consulted had encountered in 1872, but neither then nor in 1885 did they suggest a divergence of views as to the interpretation of the Treaty. When the Earl of Iddesleigh sent the Canadian Map to Mr. Phelps with his note of the 27th August, 1886, and felt called upon to disavow the correctness of the line of boundary as marked on it, he raised no question about the interpretation of the Treaty of 1825 - certainly none as to whether the lisière ran around the inlets, so as to keep Canada at all points 30 marine miles from salt water - but pointed directly and exclusively to the doubt which had always existed as to the exact location of the boundary-line, the eastern edge of the lisière, occasioned by the alternative clauses of the Treaty defining it by parallel mountain summits, or in their absence by the 10 leagues. He says that the boundary-line shown on the map is merely an indication of the occurrence of a dividing line somewhere in that region;" and he goes on to explain what he means by that and why no weight could be attached to it, inasmuch as the Treaty,,which defines the line makes its location depend on alternative circumstances the occurrence or non

occurrence of monntains, and, as is well known to all concerned, the country has never been topographically surveyed." Surely, considering that at that time, more than sixty years since the Treaty, the question now raised had never been suggested, nor any question about the meaning of „the coast" or "the sinuosities of the coast," the phrases employed in the Treaty, he could not have intended covertly to raise it for the first time by the languages used, nor could he have believed that our Government would so understand that language, which by the ordinary rules applicable to diplomatic correspondence, or to any correspondence, must be limited to its obvious meaning; for after sixty years of silent acquiescence, and occasional active concurrence in the interpretation publicly asserted by Russia and the United States, if he intended to raise such a radical question to the contrary, he should have done it in unmistakable terms. The Earl of Iddesleigh's language is in exact conformity with the inscription upon the map itself, which he inclosed, and which doubtless suggested to him the caution which he gave. ||,,The boundary between British Columbia and Alaska, as shown upon this map, is taken from a map of British Columbia published in 1871, under the direction of . . . . . . . . SurveyorGeneral for the Province of British Columbia; but no steps have yet been taken by the Canadian Government to verify what degree of accuracy may be attached to the boundary thus laid down."

The same observations apply in full force to the language quoted by your Lordship from the Memorandum given to Mr. Secretary Bayard by Sir L. S. Sackville West in September 1887. There was no more reason why the United States' Government should take exception to this declaration than to that of Lord Iddesleigh, already discussed. || In April 1886, Sir L. West had been instructed by Lord Rosebery to inform the Government of the United States that Her Majesty's Government are prepared to take part in the preliminary investigation of the boundary question. And Lord Rosebery had notified Mr. Phelps that he did not propose to move further in the matter until he knew what action was taken towards an appropriation by Congress. || In the meantime, Lieutenant Schwatka having been sent to Alaska, not by the United States' Government, but by General Miles, then commanding the Departement of the Columbia, and, not to make any survey, but to gather information for military purposes, had made his Report, and neither the Report nor the map which accompany it delineating his route disclose any boundary survey on his part or the fixing of any points for the boundary. His Report, however, casually stated that ,,the country beyond Perrier Pass," which by his map appears to be more than 20 leagues beyond the head of Lynn Canal, „lying in British territory, lessens the interest of this trail beyond the pass to the military authorities of our Government.“ This remark, which from the context is shown to be merely incidental to the narrative of his journey, hat no further significance than an assertion on his part that the Kotush mountains are situated in British territory. || And Sir L. West, in his Memorandum, so far from raising any question about the interpretation of the Treaty, or claiming that the question now presented was open, expressly declined to raise any discussion even in regard to the position of the boundary, but merely called attention to Lieutenant Schwatka's statement, so that no prejudice might come from silence about it. There is no indication that either he or Lord Rosebery had any idea that any question of interpretation existed. I venture to suggest that your Lordship may have inadvertently, and without full consideration of the circumstances, laid too much stress upon Dr. Dawson's letter of February 1888, which comes next in order of time. Your Lordship draws the conclusion that „Dr. Dawson, during the sittings oft the Joint High Commission of 1888, made it distinctly clear that Her Majesty's Government claimed the boundary should, in accordance with the terms of the Treaty, cross all narrow waters that were of such width as to be within territorial jurisdiction," and "that United States' citizens who have settled recently at the head of the Lynn Canal have

done so with the full knowledge," as given in that letter, that they were settling in disputed territory." || It appears by the documents transmitted to Congress by President Cleveland, the 2nd March, 1889, that Secretary Bayard reported that ,,during the session of the Fisheries Conference of 1887-88 in Washington it was suggested that an informal consultation between some person in this country possessing knowledge of the question in dispute and a Canadian similarly equipped might tend to facilitate the discovery of a basis of agreement between the United States and Gread Britain upon which a practical boundary-line could be established. || Mr. Bayard then proceeds to state that to this end several conferences were held between Professor Dall, of the United States' Geological Survey, and Dr. Dawson, an eminent Canadian authority, but without any other result than that each of these gentlemen had given his account of these Conferences the former to the Secretary of State,

the latter to Sir Charles Tupper which, together with other docutments, including a letter of Dr. Dawson to Sir Charles Tupper on the boundary question and Memorandum of Professor Dall on the same subject, with maps, were submitted. Professor Dall, in his report of the interviews, says: -,,It was mutually announced and agreed that the meeting was entirely informal; that neither party had any delegated authority whatever," and it is quite clear that they had no governmental authority whatever on either side. It was thought that if Dr. Dawson and myself could unite in recommending some plan as practicable, that opinion or plan would be entitled to some consideration." These Conferences were not held during the sittings of the Joint High Commission of 1888," and this, the first suggestion that has come to our knowledge ,,that the boundary should, in accordance with the terms of the Treaty, cross" any waters, was not presented before the Commission, but in this ,,informal meeting" where neither party had any delegated powers whatever." It appears by Dr. Dawson's letter, upon which your Lordship relies, that he did not put forward this idea as originally his own, or one for which he was responsible, or as a claim in any sense of Her Majesty's Government, but as the view of a Canadian land surveyor, General Cameron, which he says in his letter to Sir Charles Tupper ,,may be substantially adopted," and he courteously furnisches Professor Dall with a copy of the letter as stating clearly General Cameron's views. It was wholly immaterial whether Dr. Dawson adopted General Cameron's views or not; but Sir Charles Tupper, who was then in Washington, and was keenly alive to the importance of everything bearing on the Alaska boundary was in no mood to adopt them. He appears purposely

to have refrained from doing so; for in communicating to the Secretary of State a copy of this letter of Dr. Dawson, he refers to it as explanatory, not of the views of himself, or of the Canadian or the Imperial Government, but of Dr. Dawson's own views. || I annex a copy of Sir Charles Tupper's letter. || Professor Doll describes them as some very surprising claimt and as ,,the singular hypotheses regarding the boundaryline which have been emitted by General Cameron of Canada, and which are formulatet in the accompanying letter to Sir Charles Tupper." And Mr. Bayard refers to them as ,,certain views of General D. R. Cameron, as submitted in the letter of Dr. Dawson." Certainly, therefore, Her Majesty's Government made no such claim. And if there was any purpose on the part of the Canadian Government of making it, such purpose was very studiously and successfully disguised. I think it will appear that neither the Canadian nor the Imperial Government adopted or put forward this claim until after the Protocol of the 30th May, 1898. || If the views of Her Majesty's Government as to the boundary were fully stated at the Conference held in Washington in February 1892, with members of the Canadian Cabinet and the British Minister, and a suggestion was submitted for a reference of the question to arbitration, it does not appear of record in the Department of State, and no information of such a proposition is in its possession. No Protocol of the Conferences was made, as it was understood in advance that they were to be of an informal and private character; but Secretary Blaine submitted to the President a Report of some length in regard to the February Conference, as did Mr. Foster with respect to the second Conference in June both of which were transmitted to Congress, and published (Senate Ex. Doc. 114, fifty-second Congress, first Session, pp. 3–43).|| These Conferences were brought about because of the Canadian Government against a Reciprocity Treaty with Newfoundland; and in the preliminary arrangements for the meeting, while a number of subjects were suggested for consideration, the Alaska boundary was not mentioned. Almost the entire time was taken up with commercial questions, of which Mr. Blaine makes full report, and very briefly refers to other questions, among them a commission to fix the boundary separating Alaska from British territory," but there is no intimation of so serious a proposition as an arbitration of that question. || I am not able to perceive, therefore, that a proposition on the part of the British Representatives, assuming it to have been made at such an informal Conference in the terms quoted. by your Lordship, but which the American Representatives refused to consider, can be regarded as raising or opening the question of the

-