Government were given to understand that the President was not disposed to continue negotiations on the basis of Mr. Hay's draft. It was, therefore, considered desirable to take advantage of the presence in this country of the Governor-General of Canada and of Sir Wilfrid Laurier and some of his colleagues to discuss the present position of the question. || I took an opportunity of mentioning this to the American Ambassador, and, in the course of our conversation, he reminded me of his note of January 1900, and remarked that, so far as he was aware, no reply had ever been made to it. || As the absence of a rejoinder might be considered to imply inability to meet the arguments advanced, it is desirable that I should place on record the following observations: || His Majesty's Government learned with satisfaction from his Excellency's note that the Government of the United States were not averse to a reference of the main difference between Great Britain and the United States to the adjudication of an independent Tribunal, but rather contemplated the probability of such a mode of settlement of this long-pending controversy. They agree that what the Ambassador describes as the paramount issue namely, whether the line should be drawn across inlets or round their heads can best be decided by this means, but they are unable to share the view that the particular course which the line is to take when the above question has been settled can be satisfactorily determined by a joint survey. A joint survey has already been made, and if the differences between the two Governments could not be settled by the aid of the very complete maps thereby afforded, it is scarcely to be anticipated that a fresh survey would achieve a more definite result. It seems rather that the „minor or secondary" though „highly important" questions, namely, the exact location of the boundary-line and its precise distance from the coast, are analogous to those involved in the main issue, and can only be determined by a similar process. For instance, assuming that the question of inlets had been decided, and a joint survey dispatched to lay down the boundary in conformity with the provisions of the Treaty of 1825, which prescribes that the line shall follow the summit of the mountains situated parallel to the coast, the British surveyors would naturally interpret this to mean the summit of the mountains nearest the coast, while it is possible that the United States' surveyors might contend for the highest range. How could this point be decided? Yet upon the decision would depend the possession of part of the town of Skagway, even supposing the ownership of the heads of inlets was decided adversely to the British contention. Again, if there should be a break in the mountain range which it is decided to follow, should the line

across the break be drawn parallel to the coast-line between the same degrees of latitude as the terminals of the break or parallel to the general trend of the coast-line. Controversies over these points, and others of a similar character, the least of which might turn out to be of farreaching importance, would, it is to be feared, arise, and it is scarcely to be expected that surveyors in the field could reach an agreement upon them, nor, indeed, would it be expedient to allow them such latitude. With regard to the question relative to the heads of inlets, Mr. Choate observed that of the two absolutely distinct interpretations which have been presented by Great Britain and the United States,,,one or the other is right, and can and should be ascertained and determined so to be to the exclusion of the other." The same argument is equally applicable to many occasions of difference which surveyors sent to lay down the boundary would encounter. For these reasons His Majesty's Government are of opinion that all questions which depend for their solution upon the interpretation of the Treaty should be simultaneously referred to arbitration, to determine the true meaning of that instrument, and this, not merely with regard to the Lynn Canal or any other particular point, but in respect of the whole line, throughout its entire length, from the southernmost point of Prince of Wales Island to Mount St. Elias. What is desired by both Governments is the termination of the dispute, and this appears to be the only way in which it can be satisfactorily and permanently settled.

The objection recorded by Mr. Choate to the application of the Venezuela Treaty to the adjustment of the present controversy seems to be directed against the provision for compromise which that arrangement affords, and the latitude given to the Tribunal constituted under it; but, for the reasons which have been already adduced in Lord Salisbury's despatch of the 14th October, 1899, His Majesty's Government still consider that the circumstances of the Alaska boundary controversy are such as to warrant an unqualified submission to an impartical Tribunal, and it was solely with the desire to meet the objections of the United States' Representatives that the British members of the Joint High Commission of 1898-99 proposed to allow that continued adverse possession should be recognized, and full regard had to the equities of the case. With this object in view, it appeared to them that the Venezuela Treaty offered a convenient and suitable precedent. Accordingly, they proposed arbitration on those lines; but His Majesty's Government are not wedded to a particular formula, and are prepared to consider any reasonable modifications to the rules suggested (not inconsistent with finality of decision) which

the United States may consider the special circumstances of the case to call for. Towards such questions as the composition of the Tribunal and its organization, as well as the terms of reference, His Majesty's Government have, with the qualification above mentioned, adopted no fixed attitude, nor have they declined to reconsider the original proposal of the British side of the Joint High Commission, which, at the same time, they conceive to be eminently fair to the United States. || But while they are thus prepared to acquiesce in every reasonable concession, it would be difficult to include in that category without some reciprocal concession or compensation the stipulation contained in the last paragraph of the Ambassador's note, to the effect that all settlements made by American citizens in the disputed territory under the authority of their Government up to a very recent period shall remain the property of the United States. The main question in this controversy is that which involves the ownership of the heads of inlets in general, and of the Lynn Canal in particular. That canal derives its present importance from the fact of its forming the natural approach to the gold-bearing regions of the Canadian interior, which are accessible by sea in those latitudes through the ports of Dyea, Skagway, and Pyramid Harbour. The valleys in the rear of these ports are the only known avenues of approach to the interior which come down to the Lynn Canal, and are consequently the measure of its value. Their ownership must therefore constitute, in the view of the United States' Government, the chief object of the arbitration. There cannot be a doubt that the proposal of the United States' Plenipotentiaries at the meeting of the Joint High Commission, renewed by Mr. Choate, to except from the perils of any arbitration all towns or settlements on tide water settled under the authority of the United States and under the jurisdiction of the United States at the date of this Treaty," was put forward with the object of securing Dyea, Skagway, and Pyramid Harbour, for they are the only settlements on tide-water that can possibly be embraced by the definition. The suggested reservation, therefore, seems equivalent to a declaration on the part of the United States' Government that they will accept arbitration only on condition that the principal objects of the reference shall be theirs in any event, and that Great Britain will so covenant before the parties go into Court. The proposal seems based on the assumption that the settlements at the head of the Lynn Canal were established under the authority of the United States prior to the announcement of any claim to the territory in question on the part of Great Britain. So confidently is the soundness of this contention assumed, that several times in his Excellency's note it is em

Staatsarchiv LXX.

4

phasized by the express inclusion of Canada, as distinct from the mothercountry, in the charge of having said or done nothing prior to 1898 to indicate her claim. || I will not recapitulate the arguments to the contrary which have been previously advanced. There is one point, however, with which I must deal in some detail. Mr. Choate suggested that too much weight had been given to Mr. Dawson's letter of the 7th February, 1888, laid before the Fisheries Commission of that year, and argues that the meetings between that gentleman and Professor Dall were wholly informal; that neither possessed any delegated authority whatever, and that their opinions could not be held to commit anybody but themselves. While it is true that the conferences between Messrs. Dawson and Dall were informal, these gentlemen were experts specially selected by their respective Governments, and their views must therefore be held to be those of the Governments which they represented. That this was so understood at the time is evident from the map (No. 16) which accompanies the Reports of both experts submitted to Congress by President Cleveland o the 2nd March, 1889. That map is a reproduction of one prepared in Ottawa for the purposes of the Conference of 1887-88. As originally published it showed no boundary-lines, but upon a few copies lines were drawn in ink by Dr. Dawson, showing (1) a boundary-line as given on the United States' Coast Survey Map of Alaska, 1884; (2) a boundary-line approximately following the summits of mountains parallel to the coast, in presumed conformity with the text of the Convention of 1825, as understood by the Canadian Government; (3) one of the conventional lines discussed during the conferences, and referred to in the printed correspondence between Dr. Dawson and Sir C. Tupper, which the latter laid before the Commission. It was not possible to draw the second conventional line, as this depended upon geographical details not determined at the time. A note upon the face of the map states that the line from the United States' Coast Survey Map „disregards both the Treaty reference to mountains and that to the ocean coast." A copy of the lithographed map, with the lines and notes above referred to, was supplied to Professor Dall, and is reproduced in fac-simile as Map No. 16 above referred to. | That the line following the mountains parallel to the coast, crossing all the larger inlets, must at the time have been accepted as embodying the Canadian view of the meaning of the Treaty of 1825 is shown by the addition by the United States' authorities to the fac-simile (at the top and outside the border of the map) of the words "Dawson's Canadian Map, 1887, showing conventional lines proposed by Canada." This map, as originally prepared, and also with

Dr. Dawson's additions, was published by the United States' Government and submitted to Congress.

The statement by Mr. Choate that the meetings between Messrs. Dawson and Dall were not held during the sittings of the Joint High Commission of 1888 seems to have been made under a misapprehension. An examination of the Protocols of the Commission discloses that on the 9th January, 1888, Mr. Chamberlain suggested that Dr. Dawson and Professor Dall should meet and endeavour to agree upon some definite suggestions for the consideration of the Conference. On the 23rd January Mr. Bayard concurred in this suggestion, and on the 30th it was arranged that Dr. Dawson should be summoned by telegraph. On the 2nd February Mr. Camberlain announced that Dr. Dawson had arrived at Washington, and Mr. Bayard informed the Conference that the necessary arrangements would be made at once for him to meet Professor Dall. On the 7th February Mr. Chamberlain reported to the Commission that Dr. Dawson and Professor Dall had not made any progress on the question of the Alaska boundary. The Commission sat on the 2nd, 3rd, 6th, and 7th February. The conferences between Messrs. Dall and Dawson were therefore held during the sittings of the Joint High Commission. The inference that Sir C. Tupper dissociated himself from Dr. Dawson, because in the former's note of transmission he referred to the latter's views as ,,his" i. c., Dr. Dawson's,,own," appears to be based upon a misconception of Sir C. Tupper's meaning. Bearing in mind that on the same day on which Dr. Dawson's letter was written, Mr. Chamberlain reported to the Conference that the two experts had failed to come to any agreement, it is not surprising that Sir C. Tupper should allude to Dr. Dawson's views as his own," meaning thereby his own, not as distinct from those of the Government which he was there to represent, but from those of his fellow-expert with whom he could not reach any agreement. They were his individual views in the sense that they were not shared by Professor Dall. These views were known to the Government of which Sir C. Tupper was a member before Dr. Dawson was summoned to Washington. If the Canadian Government were not in accord with them it is scarcely likely that he would have been selected to confer with the American expert, nor is it probable that Sir C. Tupper would have placed them before Mr. Bayard without, at any rate, some distinct and explicit disavowal of responsibility for them. Moreover, as His Majesty's Government can confidently state, it is not the case, as suggested, that Sir C. Tupper was in no mood to adopt General Cameron's opinions on the subject of the Alaska boundary, for it was at the instance of Sir