tory. The Report points out that by the terms of the Treaty that portion of the boundary extending from the 56th degree of north latitude to the intersection of the 141st degree of west longitude following the summits of the mountains which extended in a direction parallel to the coast, and should these summits prove to be more than 10 marine leagues from the ocean the line should be drawn parallel to the windings of the coast, and should never exceed a distance of 10 marine leagues therefrom. The Report further points out that, as the line rested on so intricate a basis, a satisfactory solution could only be arrived at by accurately defining the point where the boundary intersects the Stikine River, and concludes with a recommendation that this point, if no other, should at once be settled.

In 1876 attention was again drawn to the Stikine River by the case of a convict named Peter Martin, in charge of Canadian constables, who had committed an assault upon one of them, for which he was tried and convicted in the British Columbian Court, at a point upon the Stikine alleged to be upon the United States' territory. A question also arose as to whether an establishment kept by a Canadian named Choquette on the same river was situated on British or United States' territory.

Under these circumstances, the Canadian Government, in March, 1877, sent Mr. Joseph Hunter, an engineer, to the Stikine River with instructions to ascertain with approximate accuracy the boundary on the said river between Canada and Alaska. His instructions, which were signed by Mr. Dennis, the Surveyor-General of the Dominion already mentioned, required him to lay down with approximate accuracy the crossing of the river (should the same. occur within 10 marine leagues of the coast) by a line, in the words of the Treaty, "following the summit of the mountains

32

parallel to the coast." The instructions further stated that it was assumed that the point on the river where the line would cross, connecting the two highest peaks of the mountains situate parallel to the coast adjoining on either side of the river (if within the distance of 10 marine leagues from the coast, measured and estimated on a course at right angles to the general bearing thereof opposite), would give the crossing of the river by the international boundary at that point.

A tracing was inclosed showing such general direction, and embracing 30 miles on each side of the Stikine, such general direction being taken as north 32° west, or south 32° east true. Mr. Hunter was required, therefore, "to lay off or estimate the 10 marine leagues on a course at right angles thereto, or north 58° east."

In his Report, dated June 1877, Mr. Hunter stated that the crossing of the river by a line following the summit of the mountains parallel to the coast was situated at 19.13 miles from the coast, in a direction at right angles thereto.

Peter Martin had, in any view, been conveyed in custody through United States' territory, and he was therefore set at liberty.

The above facts and documents are referred to as showing that, when there was a question of applying the Treaty boundary on the spot, the Canadian Government put forward their view in strict accordance with the Treaty, working from the general direction of the coast-line, and acting on the principle that the 10 marine leagues line was to be applied only in the absence of mountains within that limit.

By a note dated the 15th January, 1877, Sir Edward Thornton, referring to the case of Mr. Choquette, above mentioned, had again drawn the attention of Mr. Fish to the expediency of defining the boundary. In this note Sir Edward Thornton makes use of the following language:

"The general impression with regard to the boundary seems to be as follows: The Russian Convention of 1825 places it on the summit of the coast range of mountains when within 10 marine leagues, and when that range is not within 10 marine leagues then at the 10 marine leagues from the coast, but under no circumstances further in the interior. The coast range rises immediately from tide waters, and the summit of that range appears to be within 15 miles of the sea. This is shown by the fact that in the following up the valley of the Stikine, the axis of the range is passed at 15 miles from the coast; to 33 this distance from the sea the course of the river bears easterly, thence rounding the range in question northerly, receiving four or five glaciers which flow in an easterly direction from the summit of the range in the valley of the Stikine."

Sir Edward Thornton then proceeds to point out that these were facts which could not be positively decided without an actual survey. He stated that he had been instructed to urge upon the

Government of the United States to unite in a joint Commission to determine the point where the boundary intersected the Stikine River and on such other points on the boundary-line as might be considered advisable. In the meantime the status quo should be maintained. In conclusion, he added that if there were reasons which prevented the Government of the United States from agreeing to steps being taken for settling the boundary-line, Her Majesty's Government hoped that at least it would agree to some arrangement or modus vivendi by which no fresh claim injurious to either could be raised or strengthened.

In reply to this note, Mr. Fish, on the 20th February, 1877, informed Sir Edward Thornton that the attention of Congress had been requested to the subject. Congress, however, separated without any action having been taken.

On the 1st October, 1877, Mr. Plunkett, the British Chargé d'Affaires at Washington, wrote to Mr. Evarts, who had succeeded Mr. Fish, again asking to have the matter brought to the notice of the United States' Government. Mr. Evarts, on the 10th October, 1877, replied that the subject would again be brought to the attention of Congress upon its reassembling.

On the 13th December, 1877, Sir Edward Thornton called at the State Department in Washington for the purpose of again urging on Mr. Evarts the expediency of taking measures to settle the boundary. Not finding Mr. Evarts, he spoke to Mr. Seward, who suggested that, with regard to the Stikine, a provisional boundary might be arranged by an engineer on each side. Upon this suggestion being brought to the attention of the Canadian Government, it was recommended by a Committee of the Privy Council that Sir Edward Thornton be informed that the Canadian Government had already sent Mr. Hunter to the spot, and that copies of his Report had been sent to the British Legation and for the Department of State at Washington.

34

On the 19th January, 1878, Sir Edward Thornton transmitted to Mr. Evarts a copy of Mr. Hunter's Report, accompanied by a map showing the points where the boundary crossed the river, and inquired whether the Government of the United States would accept the boundary so ascertained until the exact line could be regularly determined. By a note of the 20th February, 1878, Mr. Evarts accepted this temporary arrangement, provided

it was understood that it was not to be construed as affecting in any manner the rights under the Treaty to be determined whenever a joint survey should be made.

Having regard to the proviso subject to which this arrangement was accepted by the United States' Government, Mr. Hunter's survey has no binding effect. The incident is, however, of importance in that it brought to the attention of the United States' Government the manner in which it was considered on the side of Great Britain the Treaty ought to be applied.

No further communications of importance with respect to this subject took place between the two Governments until 1884, when the question entered on a new phase. On the 24th April in that year Mr. Dall, an officer of the United States' Survey, writing semiofficially to Mr. Dawson, the Director of the Geological Survey of Canada, advanced the theory that a boundary according to the Treaty was impossible. "There being," he wrote, "no natural boundary, and the continuous range of mountains parallel to the coast shown on Vancouver's Charts having no existence as such, the United States would undoubtedly wish to fall back on the line parallel to the windings of the coast, and which shall never exceed the distance of 10 marine leagues therefrom of the Treaty. It would, of course, be impracticable to trace any such winding line over that 'sea of mountains.""

35

The idea put forward by Mr. Dall was adopted by the Government of the United States. In a despatch addressed to Mr. Phelps, the United States' Ambassador in London, on the 20th November, 1885, Mr. Bayard, the United States' Secretary of State, referred to the question of the Alaskan boundary. He said the boundary agreed upon by the Treaty of 1825 was then, and still was, a theoretical one, based on the charts the negotiators had before them. He stated that he was not aware that any question had arisen with regard to it between Great Britain and Russia before 1867, and that it was certain that none had arisen since between the Governments of Great Britain and the United States. Dealing with the water boundary at the south of the line, he treated Portland Channel as lying to the south of Wales Island-a conclusion which he apparently based on the assumption that the Prince of Wales Island referred to in the Treaty was the island now (but not in 1825) known as Wales Island.

With regard to the eastern boundary Mr. Bayard wrote as follows:

"There is, however, ample ground for believing that the erroneous premises upon which the negotiators apparently based their fixation of the inland boundaryline along the coast render its true determination and demarcation by monuments a matter of doubt and difficulty in carrying it into practical effect; and that, in prevision of the embarrassments which may follow delay in the establishment of a positive frontier line it is the interest and the duty of the two Governments to reach a good understanding which shall forthwith remove all chance for future disagreement."

On the 19th January, 1886, Mr. Phelps, in formally communicating to the Marquis of Salisbury the views of his Government, observed that the boundary indicated by the Treaty had no apparent ambiguity, but that it was described and established when the region through which it ran was entirely unexplored. With reference to the 10-marine league line, he writes as follows:

"The only other indication of this part of the boundary contained in the Treaties, the limit of 10 marine leagues from the ocean, equally fails of practicable location. The coast proves, upon survey, to be so extremely irregular, and indented with such and so many projections and inlets, that it is not possible, except at immense expense of time and money, to run a line that shall be parallel with it, and if such a line should be surveyed, it would be so confused, irregular, and inconsistent, that it would be impossible of practical recognition, and would differ most materially from the clear and substantially straight line contemplated in the Treaties."

Mr. Phelps added, as the result of the whole matter, that

"These Treaties * * * * * really give no boundary at all so far as this portion of the territory is concerned."

36

The despatch concluded by suggesting that a Commission be agreed on to acquire materials to serve as a basis for the establishment of a boundary-line by Convention.

In the note above referred to, Mr. Phelps had asked to be furnished with a copy of a certain map of the Dominion of Canada geologically coloured, which had been referred to by Mr. Bayard. In forwarding this map on the 27th August, 1886, the Earl of Iddesleigh draws Mr. Phelps' attention to the fact that the Alaska boundary shown therein was merely an indication of the occurrence of a dividing-line somewhere in that region. It would, wrote his Lordship, be clearly understood that no weight could attach to the map location of the line denoted, inasmuch as the Convention between Great Britain and Russia made its location dependent on