Lieven the course of these negotiations, Count Nesselrode, in his letter of the 5th (17th) April, 1824, says they were willing their eastern frontier should run along the mountains „,qui suivent les sinuosités de la côte." || On Sir Charles Bagot's despatches reaching England, the Hudson's Bay Company suggested that the boundary ought to be fixed at the „nearest chain of mountains not exceeding a few leagues off the coast." || Thereupon, Mr. George Canning sent to Sir Charles Bagot a draft Convention, with instructions to conclude the negotiations. In these instructions (12th July, 1824) Mr. Canning directs that the line of boundary be drawn along the base of the mountains nearest the sea." || This draft Convention prepared by Mr. Canning shows very clearly his understanding of the trifling width the lisière would have, as it contains a provision (not carried into the final Treaty, as the Russians objected) that the British should for ever have the right to trade „sur la dite lisière de côte, et sur celle des isles qui l'avoisinent." || Mr. Canning's proposal that the boundary should be drawn along the base line of the mountains was objected to by Count Lieven for the reason, among others, that, considering the little certainty there then was in the geographical knowledge anybody had of the regions they were negotiating about, it would not be impossible that the mountains they were fixing as a boundary,,s'éten‐ dissent par une pente insensible jusqu'aux bords wême de la côte." || This language makes its absolutely certain that the Russians understood their boundary to be the mountains nearest the sea. || On their proposing to take the top instead of the base of these mountains as the line of boundary Mr. Canning assented, and the existing Treaty resulted. It is not pretended that any change in the particular mountains intended was ever made or suggested. Whatever mountains those were, the base of which the British proposed as the boundary, those were the mountains the tops of which, by the concluded Treaty, are the true boundary to-day, and it is to my mind clear to a demonstration that these were the mountains nearest the sea. || Three days after the Ttreaty was signed, Count Nesselrode, in advising Count Lieven of the fact, says it would have been more just if, without any occasion possibly arising for application of the 10league limitation, the boundary-line had all along its length followed the natural frontier formed by „les montagnes qui bordent la côte." || Ten days later, in writing again to Count Lieven on the subject, he directs him to make this observation to Mr. Canning, then describing the boundary Russia would have preferred to have taken throughout as „la crête des montagnes qui suivent les sinuosités de la côte." || I am therefore of opinion that, upon the true interpretation of this Treaty, the mountains which

constitute the boundary are those which skirt the coast, the more prominent peaks among which have been pointed out in the British Case and in the argument of Counsel before us. || Finally, I have merely to say this further, that the course the majority of this Tribunal has decided to take in regard to the islands at the entrance of Portland Channel is, in my humble judgment, so opposed to the plain requirements of justice, and so absolutely irreconcilable with any disposition of that branch of this case upon principles of a judicial character, that I respectfully decline to affix my signature to their Award. A. B. Aylesworth.

Nr. 13231. GROSSBRITANNIEN.

Meinung von Sir Louis Jetté.
October 22, 1903.

By a majority of four the Alaska Boundary Tribunal has come to a decision on the questions upon which it had to pass judgment in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty signed between Great Britain and the United States on the 24th January, 1903. || My honourable colleague, Mr. Aylesworth, and myself, have been unable to concur in most of the findings of the majority, and, although the Treaty does not call for any expression of opinion by those who differ, I feel it my duty to place on record, as briefly as I can, a few of the reasons by which I have been guided in arriving at conclusions different from those adopted by the other members of the Commission. || I have no intention of writing exhaustively on the different questions submitted to the Tribunal, as it would be more than useless at this moment. I will therefore refrain from any comment which could only be a repetition of the able argument advanced by the distinguished Counsel in the Case, and I will confine myself to a short and concise statement of the views which I firmly believe should have been accepted by the Tribunal. The first Article of the Treaty of 1903 gives the following directions to the members of the Commission: || 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." || Thus, the character of the functions which had been confided to us is clearly defined. We have not been intrusted with the power of making a new Treaty, and it was not in our province to make concessions for the sake of an agreement; we had simply to give a judicial interpretation of the Articles of that Treaty which were submitted to us. And this position, as I take it, was rendered still more clear by the fact that, if a majority could not

be found to agree, no harm was done, the way being then still left open for the Governments of both countries to do what would, unquestionably, be in their power, that is, to settle the difficulty by mutual concessions if they found it advantageous to each other. || Finding, thus, that the line of demarcation between our duties and our powers had been very clearly defined, I took it to be my first duty, in passing on the different questions submitted to us, not to assume any more power than had been given to me by this Ist Article of the Convention of 1903. || Article III of this Treaty of 1903 then provides: ,,It is agreed by the High Contracting Parties that the Tribunal shall consider, in the settlement of question submitted to its decision, the Treaties respectively concluded between His Britannic Majesty and the Emperor of all the Russias, under date of the 28th February (16th March), A. D. 1825, and between the United States of America and the Emperor of All the Russias, concluded under date of the 30th March (18th April), A. D. 1867, and particularly the Articles III, IV, and V of the firstmentioned Treaty, which in the original text are word for word as follows: || „III. La ligne de démarcation entre les possessions des Hautes Parties Contractantes sur la côte du continent et les îles de l'Amérique Nord-ouest, sera tracée ainsi qu'il suit: A partir du point le plus méridional de lîle dite Prince of Wales, lequel point se trouve sous le parallèle du 54° 40' de latitude nord, et entre le 131 et le 133° degré de longitude ouest (méridien de Greenwich) la dite ligne remontera au nord le long de la passe dite Portland Channel, jusqu'au point de la terre ferme où elle atteint le 56° degré de latitude nord; de ce dernier point la ligne de démarcation suivra la crête des montagnes situées parallèment à la côte, jusqu'au point d'intersection du 141° degré de longitude ouest (même méridien); et, finalement, du dit point d'intersection, la même ligne méridienne du 141° degré formera, dans son prolongement jusqu'à la Mer Glaciale, la limite entre les possessions Russes et Britanniques sur le continent de l'Amérique Nord-ouest.

„IV. Il est entendu, par rapport à la ligne de démarcation determinée dans l'Article précédent || 1. Que l'île dite Prince of Wales appartiendra tout entière à la Russie. || 2. Que partout où la crête des montognes qui s'étendent dans une direction parallèle à la côte depuis le 56° degré de latitude nord au point d'intersection du 141° degré le longitude ouest, se trouverait à la distance de plus de 10 lieues marines de l'océan, la limite entre les possessions Britanniques et la lisière de côte mentionnée ci-dessus comme devant appartenir à la Russie sera formée par une ligne parallèle aux sinuosités de la côte, et qui ne pourra jamais en être éloignée que de 10 lieues marines.

V. Il est convenu, en outre, que nul établissement ne sera formé par une des deux Parties dans les limites que les deux Articles précédents assignent aux possessions de l'autre. En conséquence, les sujets Britanniques ne formeront aucun établissement soit sur la côte, soit sur la lisière de terre ferme comprise dans les limites des possessions Russes, telles qu'elles sont désignées dans les deux Articles précédents; et, de même, nul établissement ne sera formé par des sujets Russes au delà des dites limites. The Treaty then further provides: || The Tribunal shall also take into consideration any action of the several Governments or of their respective Representatives, preliminary or subsequent to the conclusion of said Treaties, so far as the same tends to show the original and effective understanding of the Parties in respect to the limits of their several territorial jurisdictions under and by virtue of the provisions of said Treaties.

Article IV.

„Referring to Articles III, IV, and V of the said Treaty of 1825, the said Tribunal shall answer and decide the following questions:- || 1. What is intended as the point of commencement of the line? || 2. What channel is the Portland Channel? || 3. What course should the line take from the point of commencement to the entrance to Portland Channel? || 4. To what point on the 56th parallel is the line to be drawn from the head of the Portland Channel, and what course should it follow between these points? || 5. In extending the line of demarcation northward from said point on the parallel on the 56th degree of north latitude, following the crest of the mountains situated parallel to the coast until its intersection with the 141st 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 Russian and the British territory should be formed by a la 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? || 6. If the foregoing question should be answered in the negative, and in the event of the summit of such mountains proving to be in places more than 10 marine leagues from the coast, should the width of the lisière

which was to belong to Russia be measured (1) from the mainland coast of the ocean, strictly so-called, along a line perpendicular thereto, or (2) was it the intention and meaning of the said Convention that where the mainland coast is indented by deep inlets forming part of the territorial waters of Russia, the width of the lisière was to be measured (a) from the line of the general direction of the mainland coast or (b) from the line separating the waters of the ocean from the territorial waters of Russia, or, (c) from the heads of the aforesaid inlets? || 7. What, if any exist, are the mountains referred to as situated parallel to the coast, which mountains, when within 10 marine leagues from the coast, are declared to form the eastern boundary?" || The Treaty then provides for the meetings of the Tribunal and the rendering of the Award in the following terms: —

Article V.

......

„The Tribunal shall assemble, for their first meeting, at London as soon as practicable after receiving their commissions, and shall themselves fix the times and places of all subsequent meetings. || The decision of the Tribunal shall be made as soon as possible after the conclusion of Arguments in the Case, and within three months thereafter. The decision shall be made in writing, and dated, and shall be signed by the members of the Tribunal assenting to the same. It shall be signed in duplicate, one copy whereof shall be given to the Agent of the United States of America for his Government, and the other to the Agent of His Britannic Majesty for his Government.

Article VI.

„Should there be, unfortunately, a failure by a majority of the Tribunal to agree upon any of the points submitted for their decision, it shall be their duty to so report in writing to the respective Governments through their respective Agents. Should there be an agreement by a majority upon a part of the questions submitted, it shall be their duty to sign and report their decision upon the points of such agreement in the manner hereinbefore prescribed." || As I have already said, these two last Articles do not provide for any expression of opinion by those members of the Tribunal who have the misfortune to find themselves in the minority. The questions to be answered by the Tribunal are seven in number. I will now take them in the order of the Treaty:

1st Question.

„What is intended as the point of commencement of the line?" || The The Tribunal unanimously

answer to this question is as follows: