The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1903-10-21

the channels or passages between the
islands and between the islands and the
coast are narrow waters. their widths
varying from few hundred yards to thir-
teen miles.
sIn ordinary psY,ance no ono would call
the waters Of any of these channels or in
lets the ocean. I agree with you az pre-
sented on behalf Of Great Britain that no
ono coming from the intert' snd reaching
any Of these channels, particularly the heal
of Lynn Canal Taku Inlet, would describe
himself a. being upon the ocean. but on
the other hand. it is quite clear that the
treaty does regard some Of these channels
a the ocean. This consideration. how
ever, is not sufficient to solve tho question.
II still leaves open the Interpretation OF the
word coast. to which the mountains were to
be parallel.
sThere is. 30 far as I know, no recog-
nized rule Of International law wi ich would
BY implication give a recognized mean
ing to the word coast as applied to such
dnuosities and such waters different from
the coast itself As have said more than
once, the locus in quo to which the treaty
was referring precludes the possibility
OF constituting the word coast in any partlcu-
lar article in any special way II II does not
refer to the coastline of the continent
think the words upon the border OF the
continent comprised within the limits
OF the Russian possessions in Article V.
rather confirm the view that Russia was
to get strip all along the continent but
do not think that much reliance can
be placed upon this because OF the pro-
vision regarding the rivers and streams IN
Article VI.
Turning from the language OF the treaty
TO the record Of the negotiations. have
been unable to find any passage supporting
the view that Great Britain was directly
or indirectly putting forward claim to
the shores or ports at the head OF inlets.
This is not remarkable inasmuch as no one
ut that time had any idea that they would
become Of any Importance Tie
haguage of both the British and Russian
representatives in reporting the oonoiu-
03on OF the treaty to their respective Gov
ernments Is in accordance with the view
I have suggested. have little
doubt that If shortly after making the
treaty. in 1925 G eat Britain and Russia
vided by the treaty the difficulties, and In
certain events the impossibi'ies OF draw
ing the boundary in strict accordance with
the treaty would have been evident
81 can. therefore. understand and appre-
ciate the contention Of Great Britain that
under existing circumstances difficulties
IN delineating the boundaries described
must arise in one view and might arise
IN any view But these contentious, strong
a. they are in favor Of a just and equitable
modification of the treaty, do not. in my
opinion, enable one to put different con-
struction upon the treaty. think the
parties knew and understood what they
were bar gaining 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 we're unable to agree as TO it's meaning
does not entitle me to put different CON-
tructpn upon it.
sIn.the View take Of the terms OF the
treaty itself it is unnecessary to discuss
the subsequent action. Had the terms Of
the treaty led me to different conclusion
and entitled me to adopt the view pre-
scribed by Great Britain. I should have
felt great difficulty in holding chat anything
done Or omitted to have been done, by or
on behalf Of Great Britain. prevented her
from Insisting upon strict Interpretation
Of the treaty. nor do think the representa-
tons OF the map makers that the boundary
was assumed to run around the heads of
the lnlsts could have been properly urged
by the United States as sufficient reason
for depriving Great Britain Of any rights
she had under the treaty had they existed