it shall be their duty to sign and report their decision upon the points of such agreement in the manner hereinbefore prescribed.

Article VII.

The present Treaty shall be ratified by the President of the United States, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, and by Her Britannic Majesty, and the ratifications shall be exchanged in Washington or in London so soon as the same may be effected. || In faith whereof we, the respective Plenipotentiaries, have signed this Treaty, and have hereunto affixed our seals. || Done at Washington, in duplicate, this day of

A.D. nineteen hundred.

Nr. 13218. GROSSBRITANNIEN. Der Minister des Ausw. an den Botschafter in Washington. Ansicht der eng lischen Regierung über das vorige.

Foreign Office, February 5, 1902.

My Lord, His Majesty's Government have carefully considered, in communication with the Government of Canada, the draft Convention communicated to your Excellency, unofficially, by Mr. Hay in May last, which provides for the submission to arbitration of the Alaska boundary dispute. While most anxious to reach a solution of this long-pending question by means of arbitration, they find themselves compelled to dissent from the terms proposed in the following points: - || Article I. As regards the composition of the Tribunal, His Majesty's Government have always been averse from referri ngthis important subject to a Court so constituted as not to insure a final award. || Their objection in the present instance springs from the fact that an even number of Arbitrators drawn from either side does not afford security in the event of differences of opinion for a binding decision on the points submitted to the Tribunal. Some doubt is felt, however, as to how far the United States' Government regard the constitution of the Tribunal by an equal number of Arbitrators appointed by each of the Parties as vital. Mr. Choate, in his note of the 9th August, 1899,*) stated that his Government regarded,,the question of the organization of the Tribunal as subordinate to that concerning the subject-matter to be arbitrated, and the terms and conditions on which its action is limited." The advantage of having a Tribunal constituted of an odd number of Judges seems obvious, and His Majesty's Government would much prefer such an arrangement.

*) The terms of this note were similar to the communication made by Mr. Choate on the 2nd August and recorded in the despatch to Mr. Tower of that date (Nr. 13205).

Animated, however, by a strong desire to secure a reference to arbitration, they are willing to acquiesce in the proposed number of six, provided that at least one of the United States' Arbitrators shall not be a citizen of the United States, or a citizen or subject of any State directly or indirectly under the protection of the United States, and that at least one of the British Arbitrators shall not be a British subject, or a subject or citizen of any Power or State directly or indirectly under the protection of His Britannic Majesty. The presence of two neutral Arbitrators would seem to increase the chances of receiving a majority Award; but this alternative would be adopted with reluctance, and the suggestion should only be put forward on behalf of His Majesty's Government in the event of the United States adhering fixedly to their proposal for a Tribunal of an equal number of Judges nominated by each side. || Article III. The final paragraph of this Article provides that ,,the Arbitrators shall also take into consideration any action of the several Governments or of their respective Representatives preliminary or subsequent to the conclusion of said Treaties, so for as the same tends to show the intendment of the Parties in respect to the limits of their several territorial jurisdictions under and by virtue of the provisions of the said Treaties." This provision appears to His Majesty's Government unnecessary, and they would prefer that it should be omitted, though the point is one which they are prepared to yield if the United States attach importance to it. || Article IV. Sub-section 1 of this Article, which prescribes the terms of the reference, runs as follows: ||,,Referring to Article III of said Treaty of 1825 between Great Britain and Russia, was it intended thereby that the line. of demarcation should be traced from the southernmost point of the island, now known as the Prince of Wales Island, along the parallel of 54° 40′ north latitude to the passage now commonly known and marked on the maps as the Portland Channel', and thence along the middle of said channel northward until said northward line shall reach on the mainland of the continent the 56th degree of north latitude?" || His Majesty's Government take exception to the terms of this sub-section on the ground that the contention of the United States with respect to the course the line of demarcation should take between Prince of Wales Island and Portland Channel is put forward as the natural and primary interpretation of Article III of the Convention of 1825, whereas, so far from this being the case, the words,,allong the parallel of 54° 40" do not occur in the Treaty as indicating the direction of the line between the points named above. They also feel bound to demur to the language of the second sub-section, which reads as follows:,,In extending the line

of demarcation nothwards from said point on the parallel of the 56th degree of north latitude, following the crest of the mountains situated parallel to the coast until its intersection with the 141st degree of longitude west of Greenwich, subject to the condition that when such line should exceed the distance of 10 marine leagues from the ocean, then the boundary between the British and the Russian territory should be formed by a line parallel to the sinuosities of the coast and distant therefrom not more than 10 marine leagues, was it the intention and meaning of said Convention of 1825 that there should remain in the exclusive possession of Russia a continuous fringe or strip of coast on the mainland, 10 marine leagues in width, separating the British possessions from the bays, ports, inlets, havens, and waters of the ocean, and extending from the said point on the 56th degree of latitude north to a point where such line of demarcation should intersect the 141 st degree of longitude west of the meridian of Greenwich? |,,If not, how should said line of demarcation be traced to conform to the provisions of said Treaty?" || It is assumed in the recital that the line of demarcation might at places exceed the distance of 10 marine leagues from the ocean, and they regard the placing of the extreme contention of the United States with respect to the location of the line in the forefront of the reference as open to the same objection which they take in regard to the first sub-section. || In the opinion of His Majesty's Government, the terms of reference should not give prominence to one contention over the other, but rather should state in clear and unambiguous terms the questions whose determination can alone decide the issue.

Though not wedded to any particular form of words, they submit that these questions might preferably be formulated as follows: Referring to Articles III and IV of the Convention of 1825 "|| 1. What is intended as the point of commencement? || 2. What channel is Portland Channel? 3. What course should the line take from the point of commencement to the entrance to Portland Channel? || 4. To what point on the 56th parallel is the line to be drawn from the head of Portland Channel, and what course should it follow between these points? || 5. What are the mountains referred to as situated parallel to the coast, which mountains, when within 10 marine leagues from the coast, are declared to form the eastern boundary? | 6. In the event of the summit of such mountains proving to be in places more than 10 marine leagues from the coast, should the width of the lisière which was to belong to Russia be measured (1) from the coast of the ocean strictly so-called, along a line perpendicular thereto, or (2) was it the intention and meaning of

the said Convention that where the coast is indented by deep inlets, forming part of the territorial waters of Russia, the width of the lisière was to be measured (a) from the line of the general direction of the coast, or (b) from the line separating the waters of the ocean from the territorial waters of Russia, or (c) from the heads of the aforesaid inlets? These questions appear to His Majesty's Government eminently fair. They are framed with the object of placing the case before the Arbitrators in such a manner as to secure a decision upon all the points at issue without bias or favour to one side or the other. || Article VI provides that when the High Contracting Parties shall have received the decision of the Arbitrators upon the question submitted, as provided in the foregoing Articles, they will at once proceed with negotiations for the final adjustment and demarcation of the said boundary-line, in conformity with such decision." || His Majesty's Government doubt whether any negotiations between the respective Governments should be considered necessary after the decision of the Arbitrators has been received by them. They are disposed to regard this proviso as opening the door to further difficulties and delays, and would suggest that Article VI should rather be remodelled as follows: "When the High Contracting Parties shall have received the decision of the Arbitrators upon the questions submitted, as provided in the foregoing Articles, which decision shall be final and binding upon all Parties, they will at once appoint, each on its own behalf, one or more scientific experts, who shall with all convenient speed proceed together to lay down the boundary-line, in conformity with such decision." || His Majesty's Government, recalling the disposition of United States' Representatives, on the International Joint High Commission of 1898-99, to limit to certain portions of the line the scope of the arbitration then proposed, consider that the draft Treaty under consideration should contain a stipulation in precise and positive terms, to the effect that the reference is intended to include, and does include, the definition of the entire boundary at every point between the southernmost point of Prince of Wales Island and Mount St. Elias. || His Majesty's Government do not overlook the possibility of an Award by such a Tribunal as is contemplated by the present negotiations being absolutely against Canada or absolutely against the United States, and that, in the latter event, certain portions of the disputed territory which have been settled under the authority of the United States' Government might turn out to be British territory. They realize that the ownership of these localities is the main contention at the present time, and they are willing to agree to any arrangement which shall equitably provide for the contingency above in

dicated. The precedent of Treaty between Great Britain and Venezuela, in Article IV of which provision was made for the case of previous occupation and for the recognition of other rights and claims, appears to them exactly in point, and its application to this almost identical case singularly appropriate. They recognize, however, that owing to the peculiar features of the American Constitution concerning the Treatymaking power, a settlement on the lines of that precedent might prove in the end impracticable of attainment. They therefore refrain from suggesting any express stipulations on this head, preferring to leave your Excellency full latitude to provide by some means that if either of the Contracting Parties should be found to be in possession of territory belonging to the other, the Arbitrators should be empowered to deal with such a condition of things as might seem to them best fitted to meet the equities of the case. || I should wish your Excellency to communicate to Mr. Hay in such form as you may consider most suitable the views of His Majesty's Government as above indicated, and to discuss with him the points in which the proposals of His Majesty's Government diverge from those of the United States.

Lansdowne.

Nr. 13219. GROSSBRITANNIEN. — Der Minister des Ausw. an den Botschafter in Washington. Stand der Verhandlung. Antwort auf Nr. 13216.

Foreign Office, August 18, 1902.

Sir, || The communication relative to the Alaska boundary, addressed to me by the American Ambassador on the 22nd January, 1900, received careful attention and a reply had been prepared, when Lord Pauncefote reported that Mr. Hay had handed to him the draft of a Treaty for determining the question by arbitration. || This important proposal appeared to denote the commencement of a new phase in the negotiations, and it seemed to His Majesty's Government that in the end no useful purpose would be served by presenting, at such a moment, a rejoinder to the Ambassador's argument. || The Government of Canada were accordingly consulted with regard to the draft Treaty, and, in March last, Lord Pauncefote, in accordance with his instructions, presented to Mr. Hay a Memorandum stating that His Majesty's Government, while most anxious to reach a solution by means of arbitration, felt bound to indicate some points on which they dissented from the terms of the draft. No definite reply was returned to this communication, but His Majesty's