C. Tupper, at the time High Commissioner for Canada, that General Cameron what selected by the Secretary of State for the Colonies to investigate and report upon this question of the Alaska boundary. Sir C. Tupper, in the year 1888, attached great weight to General Cameron's views on the subject of the Alaska boundary, and, in a letter addressed to the Secretary of State for the Colonies on the 1st August, 1888, he entirely concurred in protesting against any attempt on the part of the United States to disregard Canada's claim to the heads of inlets. He fortified the protest of the Canadian Government by a Memorandum from General Cameron's pen, of which a copy is herewith inclosed. || Attention must also be given to the Message of the President of the United States, transmitting these Reports and Maps of Dr. Dawson to Congress, and to the Memorandum of his Secretary of State, which accompanied them, in which Mr. Bayard expresses the opinion that these documents are „of value as bearing upon a subject of great international importance, and should be put in shape for public information." || It appears to His Majesty's Government that the President thus publicly acquainted the people of the United States of Canada's claim to the heads of the inlets more than eight years before anything in the nature of settlement was begun at the head of the Lynn Canal, for beyond a few trifling acts of occupation on the part of private individuals, at periods separated by considerable intervals of time, no settlement was attempted in those localities until the mining rush to the Klondike in the spring of 1897. It is desirable, before concluding this despatch, to allude to the statement in Mr. Choate's communication that the United States' Government are not aware that at the Conference held in Washington in February 1892 the Canadian Ministers proposed, as recorded in Lord Salisbury's despatch of the 14th October, 1899, „,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 and conditions of that country." || The accuracy of this record is confirmed by the Minutes of the proceedings of this Conference, signed by the Canadian Delegates and concurred in by Her Majesty's Minister at Washington. These Minutes, which were published by order of the Canadian Parliament in the Sessions of 1892 and 1893, also record that on the 12th February, 1892, „the various contentions relating to the boundary were then explained," thereby indicating that the existence of a divergence between the views of the re

spective Governments as to the true meaning of the Treaty was recognized at that date, and that each Government was acquainted with the claim. of the other. The main facts in support of the British claim have already been fully set forth in previous communications, and it seems unnecessary, as I have before said, to repeat them; but His Majesty's Government desire to place on record the foregoing supplementary observations in further elucidation of some points of their contention, and in disproof of the suggestion that neither the Imperial nor the Canadian Government adopted or put forward the British claim to the heads of the inlets until after the Protocol of the 30th May, 1898." || You are authorized to read this despatch to Mr. Hay, and to hand him a copy of it should he so desire. Lansdowne.

Anlage.
Memorandum.

By way of Lynn Canal, of which the entrance is about 135° west longitude, 58° 20′ north latitude, is at present the only practical route to gold mines being worked on tributaries of the Pelly River, some in British and some in United States' territory. | The northern extremity of Lynn Canal forks the western and eastern branches being formed repectively by the inflow of the Chilkat and Chilkoot Rivers. || The route hitherto followed by miners entering the country has been by the valley of the Chilkoot - across the height of lands called Perrier or Payer portage. The ascent to the portage is extremely tedious, but once overcome, there is gained navigable water connected with the Pelly River and the Yukon River. Lieutenant Schwatka noted Perrier portage as the point at which the boundary between United States' and British territory passed, the United States' territory lying seaward, the British territory inland. Lieutenant Schwatka had been employed to make a reconnaissance in Alaska, but finding that country most accessible through Lynn Canal, continued his exploration down the Pelly River in British territory until it passed the meridian of 141° west longitude into United States' territory. Lieutenant Schwatka's Report was published as Congressional Paper. It is not known that there has been any other official claim to Perrier Pass as the point at which the international boundary runs. || From the ocean entrance to Lynn Canal, the head of boat navigation up to the Chilkoot is about 80 miles; from this point to Perrier Pass is somewhat in excess of 30 miles, or 10 marine leagues. || Lynn Canal has water-ways of less than 6 miles in breadth at no great

a

distance from its entrance. It is contended on the Canadian side that the 10 marine leagues given as the maximum breadth of the United States' coast territory in the second sub-section of Article IV, RussoBritish Convention of 1825, may not be measured from any point within an inlet not exceeding 6 miles in breadth, and that, consequently, it is not, under any circumstances, possible that the international boundary can be anywhere so far inland as Perrier Pass. To avoid the inconvenience of the ascent to the Perrier portage a diverging route, called White Pass, a little to the eastward of Perrier Pass route, has recently been explored. Speculators interested in the gold mines in the interior, and in transit of miners and their goods have for some time had their attention turned to the desirability of opening up the White Pass route. || The greater part, if not all, of this divergent line is, it is contended, within British territory; and as affecting the principles which are ultimately to determine the whole of the British Alaskan boundary, as well as seriously affecting a British route which may hereafter, with advantage of the greatest importance, be opened through the Taku River Valley, it is submitted that the United States' contention should be emphatically protested against.

Nr. 13220. GROSSBRITANNIEN. Der Botschafter in Washington an den Minister des Ausw. Die Vereinigten Staaten machen einen Schiedsgerichtsvorschlag.

Washington, October 17, 1902. (October 17.) (Telegraphic.) || In a short conversation of unofficial character which I had to-day with the Secretary of State, he alluded to the question of the Alaska boundary. || He renewed the proposal made to Lord Pauncefote last March, viz., that a Tribunal should be appointed, the members of which should merely place their reasoned opinions on record. || He still held the opinion he had expressed to Lord Pauncefote that a settlement would be facilitated by the appointment of such a Tribunal.

Nr. 13221. GROSSBRITANNIEN. Der Minister des Ausw. an den Botschafter in Washington. Nimmt den Vorschlag an.

Foreign Office, December 6, 1902. (Telegraphic.) || Alaska Boundary. || With reference to your Excellency's telegram of the 17th October, His Majesty's Government are ready to

give their favourable consideration to the proposal again put forward by Mr. Hay for the appointment of a Tribunal of Arbitration, of which the members should merely record their reasoned opinions. This would however, be on the understanding that the terms of reference are drawn up, like those suggested in my despatch of the 5th February last, in such a way that all aspects of the question are included.

Nr. 13222. GROSSBRITANNIEN und VEREINIGTE STAATEN.-Vertrag über ein Schiedsgericht zur Regelung der Alaskafrage.

Convention between the United Kingdom and the United States of America for the Adjustment of the Boundary between the Dominion of Canada and the Territory of Alaska.

His Majesty the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor of India, and the United States of America, equally desirous for the friendly and final adjustment of the differences which exist between them in respect to the true meaning and application of certain clauses of the Convention between Great Britain and Russia, signed under date of the 28th (16th) February, A.D. 1825, which clauses relate to the delimitation of the boundary-line between the territory of Alaska, now a possession of the United States, and the British possessions in North America, have resolved to provide for the submission of the questions as hereinafter stated to a Tribunal, and to that end have appointed their respective Plenipotentiaries as follows: || His Britannic Majesty, the Right Honourable Sir Michael H. Herbert, K. C. M. G., C. B., His Britannic Majesty's Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary; and || The Presidentof the United States of America, John Hay, Secretary of State of the United States; | Who, after an exchange of their full powers, which were found to be in good and due form, have agreed upon the following Articles:

Article I.

A Tribunal shall be immediately appointed to consider and decide the questions set forth in Article IV of this Convention. The Tribunal shall consist of six impartial jurists of repute, who shall consider judicially the questions submitted to them, each of whom shall first subscribe an oath that he will impartially consider the arguments and evidence presented to the Tribunal; and will decide thereupon according to his true judgment. Three members of the Tribunal shall be appointed

by His Britannic Majesty and three by the President of the United States. All questions considered by the Tribunal, including the final Award, shall be decided by a majority of all the members thereof. || In case of the refusal to act, or of the death, incapacity, or abstention from service of any of the persons so appointed, another impartial jurist of repute shall be forthwith appointed in his place by the same authority which appointed his predecessor. | The Tribunal may appoint a Secretary and a Bailiff to perform such duties as they may prescribe, and may employ scientific experts, if found to be necessary, and may fix a reasonable compensation for such officers. The Tribunal shall keep an accurate record of all its proceedings. || Each of the High Contracting Parties shall make compensation for the services of the members of the Tribunal of its own appointment, and of any Agent, Counsel, or other person employed in its behalf, and shall pay all costs incurred in the preparation of its Case. All expenses reasonably incurred by the Tribunal in the performance of its duties shall be paid by the respective Governments in equal moieties.|| The Tribunal may, subject to the provisions of this Convention, establish all proper rules for the regulation of its proceedings.

Article II.

Each of the High Contracting Parties shall also name one person to attend the Tribunal as its Agent. || The written or printed Case of each of the two Parties, accompanied by the documents, the official correspondence, and all other evidence in writing or print on which each Party relies, shall be delivered in duplicate to each member of the Tribunal and to the Agent of the other Party as soon as may be after the organization of Tribunal, but within a period not exceeding two months from the date of the exchange of ratifications of this Convention. Within two months after the delivery on both sides of the written or printed Case, either Party may, in like manner, deliver in duplicate to each member of the Tribunal, and to the Agent of the other Party, a Counter-Case, and additional documents, correspondence, and evidence in reply to the Case, documents, correspondence, and evidence so presented by the other Party. The Tribunal may, however, extend this last-mentioned period when, in their judgment, it becomes necessary by reason of special difficulties which may arise in the procuring of such additional papers and evidence. || If, in the case submitted to the Tribunal, either Party shall have specified or referred to any report or document in its own exclusive possession without annexing a copy, such Party shall be bound, if the other Party shall demand it, within