Слике страница
PDF
ePub

navigation has been granted by Treaty or is required for the purpose of lawful access to the shores of such inlets.

The British position on this point may be illustrated by reference to the concrete cases of the Bradfield Canal, the Endicott and Tracy Arms, the Snettisham Inlet, the Taku Inlet, and the Lynn Canal, with its branches Chilkat Inlet, Chilkoot Inlet, and Taiya Inlet.

On the general question of territorial waters, reference may be made by way of illustration to the Convention concerning the fisheries in the North Sea, to which effect was given by "The Sea Fisheries' Act, 1883" (46 and 47 Vict., cap. 22), the Convention as set out in the first schedule to the Statute, and the second Article is as follows:

"As regards bays, the distance of three miles shall be measured from a straight line drawn across the bay, in the part nearest the entrance, at the first point where the width does not exceed ten miles."

It will be observed that, as regards bays, the territorial limit of three miles is to be measured from a line drawn across the bay at the first point where the width does not exceed ten miles.

79

It is submitted that the principle invoked in this Convention for the purpose of determining the point from which the three miles of territorial waters should be measured is one to which regard may properly be had in determining what is to be treated as the line of the coast for the purposes of the present Treaty.

Bradfield Canal, Endicott and Tracy Arms, the Snettisham Inlet, and Taku Inlet are all land-locked waters, which, for the present purpose, it is submitted are indistinguishable from the rivers of which they are the estuaries.

With regard to Lynn Canal, if the rule adopted in the North Sea Convention is followed, the general line of the coast must be treated as crossing the Lynn Canal in latitude 58° 22′ and longitude 134° 53', being the first point from its entrance, where the width does not exceed ten miles. Even if a stricter rule were to be applied in the present case, it would be found that at latitude 58° 46′ and longitude 135° 07' the width of the Lynn Canal does not exceed 6 miles, and it is submitted that, by no possibility, can the general line of the coast be placed higher up the Lynn Canal than at this point. A glance at the physical conformation

of Chilkat Inlet, Chilkoot Inlet, and Taiya Inlet is enough to show that the shores of these inland waters cannot be treated as the line of the Ocean coast, and yet the contention of the United States appears to be that the heads of these inlets are to be treated as the starting-point from which the lisière at this point is to be measured.

It is submitted that all such inlets form, for the present purpose, no part of the Ocean, that, for the purposes of the Treaty, they stand on the same footing as the rivers which flow into the Ocean either directly or through such estuary, and it is only the British contention which gives effect to the scope and to the specific provisions of the Treaty.

80

[ocr errors]

SEVENTH QUESTION.

The seventh question is as follows:

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?”

Great Britain contends that there are such mountains, and that they are to be found fronting the general coast of the mainland along the whole coast from latitude 56 degrees northwards.

It is to be observed in the first place that the mountains contemplated by the Treaty were described as follows:

"La crête des montagnes situées parallèlement à la côte (Article III).

“La crête des montagnes qui s'étendent dans une direction parallèle à la côte depuis le 56° degré (Article IV).”

This indicates a general parallelism only. Mountains being a natural feature could not, of course, be expected to run uniformly parallel to the coast, whether straight or winding. In this they differ from the arbitrary 10-league line which, especially as it would only fall to be drawn through a country where mountains failed, might be drawn with substantial accuracy parallel to the general line of the coast. Moreover, the Treaty contemplated that the mountains in question might vary in distance from the coast, from its very edge to the extreme limit of the 10 marine leagues, without sacrificing their general parallel character.

It is further to be observed that the mountains were not to be unbroken. This is clear from the circumstance that the line was to be crossed by rivers. According to the British contention, if

81

there is a gap in the mountains not amounting to a discontinuance of the general line traced by them, this is not to be regarded as interrupting the mountains for the purpose of the line any more than the mouth of a narrow inlet, or the base of a narrow peninsula would be regarded as interrupting the general line of the coast. Where a gap of this character is found in the mountains on the occurrence of a river, a narrow inlet or a narrow valley, the line should be continued across that gap and should not be suddenly set back up the gorge of the river or the course of the inlet or valley to the 10-marine-league point. The 10-marineleague line applies to supersede the mountain only where the mountains cease altogether or recede beyond the 10 marine leagues. In the latter case the artificial line begins where the mountaing cross the 10-league limit and ceases where they recross it.

According to the British contention, the phrase "la crête des montagnes" signifies the tops of the mountains adjacent to the sea. It was introduced as a concession from the line along the base of this slope proposed by Mr. Canning. The governing idea was that this slope was to be Russian. Whether, when the top of the slope had been attained, it should be found to be backed by a mass of peaks or to end in a ridge descending on the other side to a plain did not concern the Russians, who bargained only for the slope.

The mountains were to be the mountains next the sea. It will be convenient to collect from the correspondence recording the negotiations the passages in which they are described.

A boundary by mountains is first proposed in the Russian counterdraft delivered to Sir Charles Bagot in February 1824. They are described as "montagnes qui bordent la côte."

The same phrase is used in Sir Charles Bagot's amended proposal which is the next document.

In the Russian observations on this amended proposal the words are "la chaîne de montagnes qui suit à une très petite distance les sinuosités de la côte."

In Count Nesselrode's despatch of the 17th April, 1824, it is "des montagnes qui suivent les sinuosités de la côte."

When the suggestion is laid before the Hudson's Bay Company they ask for "some more definite demarcation on the coast than the supposed chain of mountains contiguous to it"; they speak of the scanty information available as to "the country in the immediate S. Doc. 162, 58-2, vol 3-6

neighbourhood of the sea"; and they propose as the boundary "the nearest chain of mountains, not exceeding a few leagues of the coast.” In writing to Sir Charles Bagot on the 12th July, 1824, Mr. Canning suggests a line *****"following the sinuosities 82 of the coast, along the base of the mountains nearest the sea," and he particularly refers to the point that it is the "seaward base" that is referred to.

In Count Lieven's Memorandum of July 1824 he speaks of "la base des montagnes qui suivent les sinuosités de cette côte," and he refers to the possibilities that they slope "jusqu'aux bords même de cette côte." On the matter again coming before the Hudson's Bay Company they once more emphasize the necessity of more accurately defining the eastern boundary "than by the chain of mountains at a 'très petite distance de la côte.""

In Mr. Canning's despatch of the 8th December, 1824, the phrase is, "the mountains which run parallel to the coast, and which appear, according to the map, to follow all its sinuosities."

In Count Nesselrode's despatch of the 13th March, 1825, it is, "la crête des montagnes qui suivent les sinuosités de la côte."

The same conclusion is indicated by the expressions as to the character of the lisière.

In the negotiations which took place in February and March 1824, the Russian desideratum is thrice described by them as a "point d'appui" and once as "un portion de territoire sur la côte." In Count Nesselrode's despatch of the 17th April, 1824, it is, qu'une étroite lisière sur la côte mêne," "une simple lisière du continent," "une médiocre espace de terre ferme," "uniquement un point d'appui."

'ne

Mr. Canning, on the 29th May, 1824, writes of "the strip of land required by Russia."

From this point in the correspondence the word lisière is used without qualification to denote what the parties now thoroughly understood to be referred to.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Great Britain contends that this view cannot be sustained with reference to the topography of this region, and that as the Treaty is to be followed the line must be drawn according to the contention of Great Britain.

The identification of the mountains further depends (as has already been shown in the argument submitted upon Question V) upon the identification of the "côte" to which their direction is to be parallel.

It is to be observed that if "côte" includes the shore of the inlets, the mountains to be sought are those parallel to that shore, and a line drawn on this principle would give to Great Britain the interior not only of the stretches of territory between the inlets, but also of peninsulas running out beyond the coast-line, if there are mountains running parallel to the shore. Great Britain does not put forward the contention that this is the true boundary, but if the contention of the United States that "côte " includes the shore of inlets is well founded, Great Britain will maintain that it certainly incudes also the shore between the mouths of the inlets and the shore of peninsulas, and that the principle must be applied in favour of Great Britain as well as against her.

The contention of Great Britain as to the interpretation to be put upon the word "côte," and as to the considerations which are to be regarded in identifying the mountains parallel thereto, have now been set forth. The result upon the ground which the adoption of those contentions would give must now be indicated.

The point of departure is, as has already been submitted, the point where the crest of the coast mountains is found on the 56th parallel. Great Britain suggests as answering this description the point shown on the map in the Atlas herewith in longitude 131° 42′. This is where the mountains finally leave latitude 56° and run north. The coast just south of latitude 56° turns, however, suddenly to the east, and it may be that a point on the crest of the mountains parallel to the coast may be found on the 56th parallel more to the eastward. The adoption of such an alternative would not affect in principle the British contention.

From the point of departure above suggested, the line proposed by Great Britain follows the mountains northwards as shown on the map referred to. The particular mountains and ridges followed with the reasons for selecting them are set forth in a declaration to be found in the Appendix by Mr. W. F. King, the British Commissioner upon the Survey under the Convention of 1892. It will, of course, be understood that this is not put forward as showing throughout the only possible way of giving effect to the British contentions, but that it is susceptible of any variations in detail which may commend themselves to the Tribunal in examining the topographical conditions met with in tracing the line.

83

« ПретходнаНастави »