the one called Portland Channel, the other Observatory Inlet, both of them coming out to the Pacific Ocean. || That the seaward entrance of Observatory Inlet was between Point Maskelyne on the south and Point Wales on the north. || That one entrance of Portland Channel was between the island now known as Kannaghunut and Tongas Island. || That the latitude of the mouth or entrance to the channel called Portland Channel, as described in the Treaty and understood by the negotiators, was at 54° 45'. || The narrative of Vancouver refers to the channel between Wales Island and Sitklan Island, known as Tongas Passage, as a passage leading south-south-east towards the ocean—which he passed in hope of finding a more northern and westerly communication to the sea, and describes his subsequently finding the passage between Tongas Island on the north and Sitklan and Kannaghunut on the south. The narrative and the maps leave some doubt on the question whether he intended the name Portland Canal to include Tongas Passage as well as the passage between Tongas Island on the north and Sitklan and Kannaghunut Island on the south. In view of this doubt, I think having regard to the language, that Vancouver may have intended to include Tongas Passage in that name, and looking to the relative size of the two passages, I think that the negotiators may well have thought that the Portland Channel, after passing north of Pearse and Wales Island, issued into the sea by the two passages above described. For the purpose of identifying the channel, commonly known as Portland Channel, the maps which were before the negotiators may be useful. This is one of the points upon which the evidence of contemporary maps as to general reputation is undoubtedly admissible. It is sufficient to say that not one of the maps which I have enumerated above in any way contradicts the precise and detailed situation of Portland Channel and Observatory Inlet given by Vancouver's narrative, and the other documents to which I have referred. The Russian map of 1802 shows the two channels distinctly; and the same may be said of Faden's maps, on which so much reliance was placed on the part of the United States. I do not attach particular importance to the way in which names on the maps are written or printed, and therefore I do not rely upon the fact that, in the case of some of these contemporary maps, the words „Portland Channel" are written so as to include, within the name, the lower part of the channel which is in dispute. From long experience I have found that it is not safe to rely upon any such peculiarities. | After the most careful consideration of every document in this Case, I have found nothing to alter or throw any doubt on the conclusion to which I have arrived, and there

are certain general considerations which strongly support it. || Russia and Great Britain were negotiating as to the point on the coast to which Russian dominion should be conceded. It is unnecessary to refer to all the earlier negotiations, but it is distinctly established that Russia urged that her dominion should extend to 55° of latitude, and it was in furtherance of this object that Portland Channel, which issues into the sea at 54° 45', was conceded and ultimately agreed to by Great Britain. No claim was ever made by Russia to any of the islands south of 54° 45′ except Prince of Wales Island, and this is the more marked because she did claim the whole of Prince of Wales Island, a part of which extended to about 54° 40′. || The islands between Observatory Inlet and the channel, to which I have referred above as the Portland Channel, are never mentioned in the whole course of the negotiations. It is suggested on behalf of the United States that Portland Channel included both the channels, namely, the channel coming out between Point Maskelyne and Point Wales, and that running to the north of Pearse and Wales Islands, and that, upon the doctrine of the thalweg, the larger channel must be taken as the boundary. It is sufficient to say that, in my opinion, there is no foundation for this argument. The lengths and the points of land at their entrances are given in the case of each channel by Vancouver in a way which precludes the suggestion that he intended to include both channels under one name, and it must be remembered that he was upon a voyage of discovery, and named these channels when he had discovered and explored them. || Inasmuch as the question submitted to us only involves the determination of the channel described in the Treaty by the words already cited,,the channel called Portland Channel," subsequent history can throw no light upon this question; but I think it right to say that the use in the year 1853 of the name Portland Inlet in the British Admiralty Chart, upon which much reliance was placed on behalf of the United States has, in my opinion, no bearing upon the question, and the references to Tongas Island in 1835 as being on the frontier of the Russian Straits, and in 1863 as being on the north side of the Portland Canal, and in 1869 as to Tongas being on the boundary between Alaska and British Columbia, are strongly confirmatory of the view at which I have arrived upon the consideration of the materials which were in existence at the date of the Treaty. || I therefore answer the Second Question as follows:

The Channel which runs to the North of Pearse and Wales Islands, and issues into the Pacific between Wales Island and Sitklan Island.

Alverstone.

II.

Fifth Question.

In extending the line of demarcation northward 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 141 st degree of longitude west of Greenwich, subject to the condition that if such line should anywhere 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 not exceeding 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 141st degree of longitude west of the meridian of Greenwich?

Stated shortly, I understand this question to ask whether the eastern boundary whether fixed by the crest of the mountains or by a distance of 10 marine leagues, was to run round the heads of the bays, ports, inlets, havens, and waters of the ocean, or not, I have come to the conclusion. in the affirmative, viz., that the boundary, whether running along the summits or crests of the mountains, or-in the absence of mountains-at a distance of 10 marine leagues, was to run round the heads of the inlets, and not to cross them. || The language of the Treaty of 1825 does not of itself enable this question to be answered distinctly-on the contrary, it contains the ambiguities which have given rise to the discussion upon the one side and the other. || Paragraph 2 of Article III states that the line of demarcation shall follow the summit of the mountains situated parallel to the coast (,,parallèlement à la côte"). This is the clause upon which the question really depends, because in the event of mountains being found to exist, situated parallel to the coast within a distance of 10 marine leagues, no recourse need be had to Article IV. Article IV, however, is of importance, as it may tend to throw light upon what was the meaning of the word "coast" in Article III; and the words in paragraph 2 of Article IV are „,wherever the summits of the mountains which extend in a direction parallel to the coast from the 56th degree of north latitude to the point of intersection of the 141st degree of west longitude shall prove to be at a distance of more than 10 marine leagues from the

ocean". It is, in my opinion, correctly pointed out, on behalf of the United States, that the word,,coast" is an ambiguous term, and may be used in two, possibly in more than two, senses. I think, therefore, we are not only entitled, but bound, to ascertain as far as we can from the facts which were before the negotiators the sense in which they used the word „coast" in the Treaty. || Before considering this latter view of the case, it is desirable to ascertain, as far as possible from the Treaty itself, what it means, and what can be gathered from the language of the Treaty alone. The parties were making an Agreement, as the opening words of the Treaty show, as to the limits of their respective possessions on the north-west coast of America, and there cannot be any question that the word "coast" in Articles I and II refers to the north-west coast of America. In Article III the opening words, ,,upon the coast of the continent," also refer to the north-west coast of America. The first ambiguity arises upon the word „coast" in the phrase „parallel to the coast" in the description of the boundary in Article III, and as to the word "coast" in the words „parallel to the coast" in the second paragraph of Article IV, and the words,,the line of coast" and "the windings of the coast“ in the same paragraph. Article V does not bear directly upon the question in dispute, but the words or upon the border of the continent" („lisière de terre ferme"), which follow the words upon the coast," afford some slight guide to the meaning of the word ,,coast" in Article III. The word „coast" in Article VI evidently means the coast of the continent, as it is in contrast with the words „,ocean" and "the interior." I postpone the consideration of the meaning of the word "coast" in Article VII, as it raises a very important question, which is in controversy. Considering these various passages, and the use made of the word ,,coast" therein, do they enable one, without reference to the previous negotiations, to answer the question as to whether the strip of territory mentioned in Article III was to run round the heads of the bays and inlets, or to cross them? I am of opinion that they do not. The broad, undisputed facts are that the parties were engaged in making an Agreement respecting an archipelago of islands of the coast, and some strip of land upon the coast itself. The western limit of these islands extends in some places about 100 miles from the coast, and the channels or passages between the islands and the coast are narrow waters of widths varying from a few hundred yards to 13 miles. In ordinary parlance no one would call the waters of any these channels or inlets between the islands, or between the islands and the mainland, „ocean". I agree with the view presented on behalf of Great Britain, that no one coming from the interior and reaching any

of

of

these channels, and particularly the head of the Lynn Canal or Taku Inlet, would describe himself as being upon the ocean; but, upon the other hand, it is quite clear that the Treaty does regard some of these channels as ocean. For instance, to take points as to which no question arises, between Wrangell Island, Mitkoff Island, and Kupreanoff Island, all of which are north of latitude 56, it cannot, I think, be disputed that, for the purpose of the Treaty, the waters between these islands and the mainland were included in the word ,,ocean," and that the coast upon which the eastern boundary of the lisière was to be drawn was the coast of the continent, and the mountains referred to in Article III were to be upon that coast, and the line referred to in paragraph 2 of Article IV was to be measured from those waters. This consideration, however, is not sufficient to solve the question; it still leaves open the interpretation of the word,,coast" to which the mountains were to be parallel. || Now, it is to be observed that primâ facie the eastern boundary is to be fixed under Article III; as already pointed out, it is not necessary to have recourse to Article IV unless the mountains which correspond to those described in Article III prove to be at a distance of more than 10 marine leagues from the ocean. Assuming that the boundary is being determined in accordance with Article III, the mountains which are on the continent are to be parallel to the coast, and a person fixing the boundary under Article III would not leave the line which follows the summits or crest of the mountains unless that line was situated at more than 10 marine leagues from the ocean. As I have already pointed out, for a considerable part of the distance referred to in Article III, namely, from the southern end of Wrangell Island up to the northern end of Kupreanoff Island, the distance must be measured from the shore of these inland waters, which, and which alone, are the ocean referred to in Article IV. I am unable to find any words in the Treaty which direct that the mountain line contemplated by Article III shall cross inlets or bays of the sea. In so far as the language of Article III of itself is a guide, it does not seem to me to contemplate such a state of things. Of course, if the main contention of Great Britain can be adopted, viz., that the words,,line of coast" and windings of the coast," in paragraph 2 of Article IV, should it be necessary to have recourse to that paragraph, mean the general line of coast or the windings of the general coast, excluding inlets, the difficulty would disappear; but, in order to etablish that position, it seems to me that Great Britain must show that the Treaty uses the word,,coast" in the second paragraph of Article III, and in the second paragraph of Article IV, in that sense.

I see some broad objections to this view. In the first place, it