survey,,with a view to the ascertainment of the facts and data necessary to the permanent delimitation of said boundary-line in accordance with the spirit and intent of the existing Treaties in regard to it between Great Britain and Russia and between the United States and Russia", and further, that "The High Contracting Parties agree that, as soon as practicable after the Report or Reports of the Commissions shall have been received, they will proceed to consider and establish the boundaryline in question". || It is clear from this that the whole question of the interpretation and application of the Treaty was, by common consent, left over for discussion, after the completion of the survey in the light of the facts which it disclosed, and it might fairly be argued from the express terms of the Convention that both Governments had estopped themselves from contending that the boundary should be run otherwise than in accordance with the spirit and intent" of the existing Treaties in regard to it between Great Britain and Russia and between the United States and Russia. || It is evident in any case that, at any rate in 1892, neither Government claimed to have any rights in the disputed territory arising out of possession, occupation, or political control. Nor does it appear that any such claims were preferred on the part of the United States until the meetings of the Joint High Commission. || The elaborate series of maps on which the results of the joint survey were embodied were not received by Her Majesty's Government until March 1898, but in the meantime Her Majesty's Government, realizing the improbability of a settlement being reached by diplomatic discussion, as contemplated. by the Convention of 1892, and the need of an early settlement, owing to the new conditions created by the Yukon gold discoveries, had instructed Sir J. Pauncefote to propose to the United States' Government a reference of the question to three jurists of high standing, one nominated by each of the two Powers, and the third by an independent Power, and that this Commission should proceed at once to delimit the boundary at the heads of the inlets through which the traffic for the Yukon entered, principally at the head of the Lynn Canal. || This proposal was made by Sir J. Pauncefote to Mr. Sherman on the 23rd February, 1898, and in making it he specifically alluded to the divergence of views revealed by the informal discussion which took place in 1888. On the 2nd March he reported to me that the United States' Government were anxious for a provisional boundary, the rights of both parties being reserved pending a final settlement, but were unwilling to proceed with a new Convention providing for arbitration until diplomatic discussion had failed to secure a settlement. || A proposal for a provisional

boundary was made by Sir J. Pauncefote on the 18th April in a Memorandum in which he stated that, in view of the wide divergence of views existing on the subject of the Alaska-Canadian boundary, the Dominion Government fear that the suggestion to proceed with the demarcation under the Convention of 1892 would lead to no result. They are, however, prepared to agree that a provisional line should be fixed without prejudice to the claims of either party at the watershed of the first summit north of Dyea. Such a provisional boundary would be at a distance of considerably more than 10 leagues from the coast". In answering this Memorandum, on the 9th May, Mr. Day stated: „In consenting to the temporary marking of the boundary-line in the method just indicated, this Government desires it to be distinctly understood, on the part of both Governments, that this arrangement is not to be construed as affecting in any manner rights under existing Treaties for the ultimate consideration and establishment of the boundary-line in question." || When, therefore, the Joint High Commission met in August 1898 to discuss the question, it was clearly understood on both sides that the line was to be determined in accordance with the spirit and intent" of the Treaty, without restriction, the rights of both parties having been fully and distinctly reserved whenever any question of the interpretation or application of the Treaty was discussed, and the fact of such reservation expressly recognized on both sides. || It has already been fully explained why no question as to the interpretation of the Treaty was raised by either party until 1885, and that on the first occasion when the discussion of the matter was approached, Her Majesty's Government gave distinct notice that they entirely disavowed the correctness of the line shown on the maps to which the United States' Government appealed.

In view of these facts Her Majesty's Government are fairly entitled to claim that as a settlement of the question cannot be reached diplomatically, the interpretation of the Treaty and its application to the facts ascertained by the survey should be submitted unreservedly to an impartial Tribunal, without any such restrictions as were contained in the Venezuelan Treaty, and in proposing to allow, as provided by that instrument, continuous adverse possession for fifty years, if such can be proved, to override Treaty right, they have made a distinct concession to the United States. || They do not, of course, admit that there has been any such adverse possession, by way either of exercise of jurisdiction or of political control, and if the United States' citizens have settled recently at the head of the Lynn Canal, they have done so in the full knowledge, as given in the documents inclosed in President Cleveland's

Message to Congress of the 2nd March, 1889, that they were settling in disputed territory, and Her Majesty's Government are unable to see any reason why such settlement should receive further or greater recognition and protection than the United States' Government considered should be accorded to British subjects who had settled in the area in dispute between this country and Venezuela. || It is not necessary to discuss in detail each of the various points advanced in Mr. Choate's communication in favour of the United States' interpretation of the Treaty. Facts and arguments of equal cogency can be advanced on the other side by Her Majesty's Government, and they are all points which can be submitted to an Arbitration Tribunal under the Rules laid down in the Venezuelan Treaty, and unless there are other facts and circumstances upon which the United States' Government rely, but which might be excluded from the consideration of the Tribunal by these Rules, Mr. Choate has not, so far as can be seen, advanced any reason to warrant Her Majesty's Government in departing from the view expressed in my note of the 1st July, that there is nothing in the terms of the Venezuelan Treaty ,,which is inapplicable or which would be inconsistent with an equitable solution of the Alaskan controversy". || The question immediately under discussion is whether or not the dispute as to the boundary should be referred to arbitration, and it is difficult to understand why the length of time during which the rival claims to disputed territory have been matters of controversy should form an element to be taken into consideration in that connection. If it be desirable on other grounds to employ the assistance of an impartial Tribunal as the best means of terminating the dispute, the length of the period of previous controversy appears to be immaterial. The excercise of the rights of sovereignty within the area in dispute by control of the Indian tribes and establishment of administrative machinery therein was, as the United States' Government are aware, one of the principal grounds put forward by Great Britain in support of her right to the territory claimed by Venezuela, and such grounds, if put forward by the United States' Government with reference to the Alaska boundary, would, no doubt, be fully considered by a Tribunal of Arbitration, and if found to be established for the period prescribed in the Treaty, might settle the controversy in their favour. || But it is not admitted that such control was exercised by the United States until very recently, and after due notice of the claim of Her Majesty's Government, and in these circumstances, the fact of its exercise appears to be a reason in favour of, rather than an obstacle to, arbitration. || The fact that the starting-point in the present controversy is a Treaty,

and that, in the dispute with Venezuela, the claims on either side were based on discovery and occupation, cannot, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, constitute any essential difference between the two cases. The Rules agreed to by Great Britain and the United States for the guidance of the Tribunal were intended to provide for the admission in argument of every ground upon which an equitable claim to disputed territory may be based. As has already been pointed out, it is the Government of the United States who have imported into the present discussion other considerations than that of strict Treaty right, and I trust that on full consideration they will not continue to object to these considerations being tested by Rules which, with their approval, and with the consent of Her Majesty's Government, have been applied to a similar case. If, however, the United States' Government still consider that the terms of the Venezuelan Treaty are in any respect inadequate to provide for an equitable settlement of the present controversy, such suggestions as they have to offer will receive attentive consideration from Her Majesty's Government. You are authorized to read this despatch to Mr. Hay, and to leave a copy of it with him if he should so desire.

Salisbury.

Nr. 13216. VEREINIGTE STAATEN. — Der Botschafter in London an den englischen Minister des Ausw. Historische

Darstellung der Streitfrage. Einwände gegen das
Schiedsgericht.

American Embassy, London, January 22, 1900. (January 22.)*)

My Lord, Your Lordship's despatch to Mr. Tower of the 14th October, 1899, has been placed in my hands, with instructions to respond to your Lordship's courteous request to make further suggestions in reply bearing upon the question under discussion. | The United States' Government is not to be understood as refusing to submit to the adjudication of an independent Tribunal the real question at issue between us in respect to the Alaska boundary. On the contrary, as I understand it, the present discussion contemplates the probability of such a submission. As I stated in my note of the 9th August**), to which your Lordship's note to Mr. Tower is an indirect reply, the President was prevented by the considerations there stated from assenting to the proposal that the

*) Die eingeklammerten Daten ergeben das Empfangsdatum. Red.

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. 13214).

Venezuela Treaty, as it stands, should be applied here, and that the subject matter to be adjudicated and the terms and conditions by which its action should be limited ought, if possible, first to be decided. || The Venezuela Treaty was calculated, and, as the result has shown, well and properly calculated, to enable the Tribunal to make by compromise a boundary-line in respect of which there has never been an agreement between the parties, and to evolve a fair adjustment of their respective claims out of the facts of discovery, occupation, and other historical circumstances in which their dispute as to the boundary had been involved for more than a century, during which the question had been always open. But in the present instance there is an express agreement of the parties defining the boundary - in the Treaty of 1825 which has subsisted ever since, practically without dispute as to its interpretation on the principal point. A clear and distinct interpretation on this point was put upon it by both parties in the written negotiations which resulted in the meeting of their minds upon it. This interpretation was regarded by both parties as vital and very important to their respective interests. It was publicly declared and acted upon by Russia from the date of the Treaty until she conveyed to the United States in 1867, and all that time, at any rate, it was acquiesced in by Great Britain. The United States continued publicly to maintain and act upon the same interpretation, with the acquiescence of Great Britain, confessedly until 1885, and, as we claim, until 1898, when a new and wholly different interpretation on this main point is put forward by Great Britain. The two interpretations thus presented are absolutely distinct, and are not involved in any confused or doubtful historical explorations. One or the other is right, and can and should he ascertained and determined so to be, to the exclusion of the other, and neither party wishes to acquire an inch of the territory rightly belonging to the other. Surely the Tribunal which is to pass upon such a question should not be enabled to compromise it, but should be required simply to decide it. If the difference thus raised is to be compromised, it should be compromised by the parties themselves, so that they can know exactly what they are doing. || I have spoken of the interpretation of the Treaty upon the principal point. By this, I mean the question whether the strip of coast (,,la lisière de côte") which, by the Treaty, is to belong to Russia, runs around the shores of the inlets or across their mouths the former construction necessarily excluding Great Britain from the salt water at all points to a distance measured by the crests of the mountains parallel to the coast, if there are such, or by 10 leagues in the absence of such moun