necessitates the word "coast" being used with two different meanings in the same clause; and, secondly, it makes it necessary to assume a view of the geographical position as being known to the negotiators, or to postulate that they assumed some definition, or common understanding, as to what the general line of the coast was. | There is, as far as I know, no recognized rule of international law which would by implication give a recognized meaning to the word "coast" as applied to such sinuosities and such waters different from the coast itself. || As I have said more than once, the locus in quo to which the Treaty was referring precludes the possibility of construing the word,,coast" in any particular Article in any special way, if it does not refer to the coast-line of the continent. I think the words,,,upon the border of the continent (lisière de terre ferme) comprised within the limits of the Russian possessions," in Article V, rather confirm the view that Russia was to get a strip all along the continent, bus I do not think that much reliance can be placed upon this because of the provision as to rivers and streams in Article VI. || Before leaving the Treaty, it is, in my opinion, necessary to notice the very important argument put forward by Great Britain, founded upon Article VII It was contended by Great Britain that the words "gulfs, havens, and. creeks on the coast mentioned in Article III," referred only to the gulfs, havens, and creeks on the lisière or strip bounded as described in that Article. If Great Britain could have made good that contention it would, in my opinion, have afforded the strongest argument that the Treaty contemplated that the lisière or strip might cross bays, inlets, and arms of the sea; but in my opinion the contention cannot be successfully maintained. The coast mentioned in Article III is, in my opinion, the coast of the continent, and the coast referred to in the second paragraph of Article IV is also the coast of the continent. The lisière, ascertained by drawing the boundary in accordance with the directions in Article III, is a strip upon the coast, and would not, I think, be naturally described by the words,,the coast mentioned in Article III." My view is that the provisions of Article VII are perfectly general, and gave mutual rights for a period of ten years to Russia and Great Britain respectively in respect of their possessions upon the north-west coast of America. || Turning now from the consideration of the language of the Treaty alone, what light is thrown upon this question by reference to the negotiations? || After most careful examination, I have been unable to find any passage which supports the view that Great Britain was directly or indirectly putting forward a claim to the shores or ports at the head of the inlets. This is not remarkable, inasmuch as no one at the time had any idea that they would become of any importance. || In March 1824, among the objects desired to be secured by Great Britain are stated to be the,,embouchures" of such rivers as might afford an outlet. In the proposals referred to in the same letter the lisière is spoken of as a strip of land on the mainland, also as a strip of land on the coast of the continent. In the same documents the boundary is spoken of as the mountains which follow the windings of the coast," and in correspondence of July 1824 as "following the sinuosities of the coast along the base of the mountains nearest the sea," and ,,the base of the mountains which follow the sinuosities of the coast," and „mountains designated as the boundary shall extend down to the very border of the coast." It is sufficient to say that these passages certainly do not suggest, or imply, that the line from summit to summit will cross any substantial arm of the sea; and that it was not so understood by the negotiators for Great Britain, seems to me to follow from the passage in the letter of the 24th July, 1824, in which Great Britain consented to substitute the summit of the mountains for the seaward base, and suggested that a stipulation should be added that no fort should be established, or fortification erected, by either party, on the summit or in the passes of the mountains. It is difficult. to see how such words could be applicable if it was contemplated that there might be a gap of 6 miles between summit and summit crossing the water. I have only to add upon this point that the language of both the British and Russian Representatives, in reporting the conclusion of the Treaty to their respective Governments, is in accordance with the view which I have suggested. || I have felt it my duty to express the reasons which have led me to the conclusion to which I have come, that the answer to the Fifth Question should be in the affirmative, because I am constrained to take a view contrary to that presented by the advocates on behalf of Great Britain; but it must not be thought that I am insensible to the fact that there are strong arguments which might be urged in favour of the British view. I have little doubt that, if shortly after the making of the Treaty of 1825 Great Britain and Russia had proceeded to draw the boundary provided by the Treaty in accordance with the terms thereof, the difficulties, and, in certain events, the impossibilities, of drawing a boundary in strict accordance with the Treaty would have been made evident. If, for instance, it had become necessary to draw a boundary in accordance with paragraph 2 of Article IV of the Treaty, I believe that the view expressed by both the American and British authorities, that it is impossible to do so, would at once have become apparent. And in the same way, if the contention of the United States be well founded that no mountains exist on the coast which correspond with the Treaty, a further difficulty would have been made manifest. || I can, therefore, well understand and appreciate the contention of Great Britain, that, under the existing state of circumstances, difficulties in delimiting the boundaries described must arise in one view, and might arise in any view. But these considerations, strong as they are in favour of a just and equitable modification of the Treaty, do not in my opinion enable one to put a different construction upon the Treaty. I think that the parties knew and understood what they were bargaining about, and expressed the terms of their bargain in terms to which effect can be given. The fact that when, sixty-five years later, the representatives of the two nations attempted to draw the boundary in accordance with the Treaty, they were unable to agree upon its meaning, does not entitle me to put a different construction upon it. || In the view I take of the terms of the Treaty itself, it is not necessary to discuss subsequent action. Had the terms of the Treaty led me to a different conclusion, and entitled me to adopt the view presented by Great Britain, I should have felt great difficulty in holding that anything that had been done or omitted to be done by, or on behalf of, Great Britain, or that any conduct on her part, prevented her from insisting on the strict interpretation of the Treaty; nor do I think that the representations of mapmakers that the boundary was assumed to run round the heads of the inlets could have been properly urged by the United States as a sufficient reason for depriving Great Britain of any rights which she had under the Treaty, had they existed. I therefore answer this Question in the affirmative. Alverstone. Nr. 13230. GROSSBRITANNIEN. - Meinung Mr. Aylesworths. As the majority of the members of Tribunal have arrived at a conclusion which is entirely opposed to what,,,according to my true judgment," is the plain meaning of the Treaty we have to interpret, it appears necessary that I should state as briefly as I am able a few of the many reasons which compel me to dissent altogether from their Award. || With regard to the point of commencement of the boundary line no question arises, as all parties agree that it is Cape Muzon. Upon the second question I quote the words of the President of this Tribunal, the italics, except in one instance, being my own. || Among the facts relating to Portland Channel he finds ,,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'." Among the general considerations which support his conclusion he states that „Russia and Great Britain were negotiating as 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 port 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." These extracts are from Lord Alverstone's Memorandum, expressing his considered judgment on this branch of the case. These conclusions have been arrived at after full discussion among ourselves of the answer which, upon the evidence, should be given to the second question in which discussion each member of the Tribunal has stated, at length, his individual views. Concurring, as I do, in the findings of fact stated in this Memorandum, I should have contented myself with differing from the conclusion reached but for the course our proceedings have taken. || Consideration of the second question has been to-day resumed, and by unanimous vote of the Tribunal it has been affirmed that each member, „according to his true judgment," believes the Portland Channel mentioned in the Treaty to be the channel extending towards the sea from latitude 55° 56', and lying to the north of Pearse and Wales Islands. But, notwithstanding this unanimous finding of fact, it has been, by the majority of the Tribunal, decided that the boundary line, starting from Cape Muzon, shall run to the south, instead of to the north, of Kannaghunut and Sitklan Islands, and so shall enter Portland Channel between Sitklan and Wales Islands. || This course for the boundary is directly opposed to the distinct findings made, and the whole line of reasoning adopted by the President in his Memorandum of reasons for the decision. It is a line of boundary which was never so much as suggested in the written Cace of the United States, or by Counsel, during the oral argument before us. No intelligible reason for selecting it has been given in my hearing. No Memorandum in support of it has been presented by any member of the Tribunal, and I can, therefore, only conjecture the motives which have led to its acceptance. || It is admitted by everybody as absolutely clear and indisputable that on the occasion of his naming Portland Canal, Vancouver, in his exploration of that channel, traversed it from its head inland to its entrance into the ocean in latitude 54° 45', that, in so doing, he sailed down Portland Channel, along the passage north of Pearse and Wales Islands, and straight onward to the sea through the passage north of Sitklan and Kannaghunut Islands. Every one knows and admits that Vancouver never traversed the passage between Sitklan Island and Wales Island, through which this boundary line is now made to run. No more can it be pretended that this passage (which is now called Tongass Passage) was ever named by Vancouver, was ever treated by him, or by any mapmaker at any time, as in any way belonging to Portland Canal, or was ever thought of by those who negotiated the Treaty of 1825 as being any part of that channel. || The Lord Chief Justice finds as a fact, which the maps and documents etablish, that one entrance of Portland Channel was between the islands now known as Kannaghunut and Tongass. I concur entirely in this finding, but must add that this entrance to the channel is the only entrance to it ever known, or in any way treated as part of the channel. || There is simply not the slightest evidence anywhere, that I am able to find, that either Vancouver or any subsequent explorer or mapmaker ever considered, or so much as spoke of, Portland Channel as having two entrances to the ocean, or as including the passage through which this boundary line is now made to run. || But even if there were two or more such entrances, Vancouver's narrative and maps absolutely fix the one he explored and named by giving its exact latitude to the minute 54° 45'. And the President finds, as a fact, that this mouth, or entrance, is the one „described in the Treaty and understood by the negotiators.“ || By what right, then, can this Tribunal, sitting judicially, and sworn to so determine and answer the questions submitted, reject the channel so „described in the Treaty and understood by the negotiators," and seek for a totally different channel, which, until now, no one ever thought of as any part of the Portland Channel mentioned in the Treaty? || I point to the additional circumstances so forcibly stated by my Lord. The whole negotiations were as to the point on the coast" to which Russia's southern boundary should be carried. The Treaty fixes as that point the promontory of the mainland immediately to the north of Kannaghunut and Sitklan Islands, the latitude of which is 54° 45'. The next point of mainland coast to |