STATEMENT OF FACTS — REGARDING THE- ALASKA BOUNDARY QUESTION, -COMPILED FOR THE- GOVERNMENT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA ALEXANDER BEGG. THE GOVERNMENTOF THE PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUUW* VICTORIA, B.C. Printed by RICHARD WOLFENDEN, Printer to the King's Most Excellent Majesty. 1902, to Ssj ci a> CO l|D-|8 an a.) g> v PO JS .E |g.s"| s tu «.§4§ng 0 •0 «£ a.S S c —~5 !* •JCDD w SS^-a-3 > C 53 «8-g ft § 3 5 * .9 _'~l « o f> (« O 5 OH £.5 £ = ill.s 0 O c c4Coq CO S'cgjl^? ccgS^SS i PcSsMS 2 o or a soic c^ o 3 arS-S-ti-0 C.« OiC gT3 Z ^>&W Br- oi-n c 3 ^ .-§ a •- 53 "g *. p » £ <! o * -o » cc *j ^ : rft c 3 -= - % £ <! HJ •« it— E * rH < m - 2 VJZ ~ Z tc w h (/I « © -o ° * & w oS B ffi v: S^ SB'S « S£ H C -CCC $3 +o w " „ g> o!» oS -a () cc ^ .£ ? ^ .£ 0) cc - c _ oCC CO. 0 oo -" — 9 7c no PH t£ 3 sCoD top q.CC J ^t„ -C3 < esc S" >, csFSoJg £ 3 _»§ a* 1 § £ to d c in §s§-3-g§ 00 °~ 40 00 g CO j S SiJ §3 -S^oe-o v 5ww^ ^ 2 ED. 7 ALASKA BOUNDARY QUESTION. 1381 REPORT -ON THE- ALASKA BOUNDARY QUESTION. VICTORIA, B. C, 5th August, 1901. To the Hon. David MacEwen Eberts, Attorney-General for British Columbia, etc., etc., etc. SIR,—In compliance with your request that I should arrange in a convenient form for reference my investigations and conclusions relative to the Anglo-Russian Treaty of 1825, with a view to the settlement of the Alaskan Boundary, the following remarks are respectfully submitted :— The greatest care and candour shall be exercised on my part in dealing with this inter­ national question, the magnitude and the importance of which are not easily realised. In by-gone days, when the Treaty referred to was framed and passed, that portion of the American Continent, being little known, was not deemed of much value, except for fur-hunting purposes. Lapse of time, however, has produced many changes, which require to be dealt with on their merits. Statements which may be brought forward in connection with this question, or which may have been adduced previously, to be of value, should be susceptible of proof, and be founded, not on assumption, but on tangible, solid foundation. The aim of this report is to present the " Boundary Question " as free from doubt and ambiguity as possible, referring to both sides without bias or prejudice, keeping the Treaty continually in view as a guide. The whole matter naturally resolves itself into two heads, which require to be fully investigated and examined and decided upon, namely : the contention of British Columbia, or Canada, or Great Britain, under the Treaty, on the one side, and the claims of the United States, with their purchase of the rights of Russia to Alaska in 1867, on the other. It may be best to premise here that, in a former " review " of this boundary question, I have demonstrated that the passing of the Anglo-Russian Treaty was, chiefly, to protect Great Britain in her maritime rights against the extravagant claims made by Russia in 1821. In reference to this, the Right Hon. George Canning said (December 8th, 1824):— * * * " The whole negotiation grows out of the Ukase of 1821. ******* So entirely and absolutely true is this proposition that the settlement of the limits of the respective possessions of Great Britain and Russia on the North-West Coast of America was proposed by us only as a mode of facilitating the adjustment of the differences arising from the Ukase, by enabling the Court of Russia to withdraw, with less appearance of concession, the offensive pretensions of that edict." The first point to be considered is the initial point of the line of demarcation, which is described in the Treaty as " commencing from the southernmost point of the island called Prince of Wales Island " (which is conceded to be Cape Chacon), " which point lies in parallel of 54 degrees, 40 minutes, north latitude, and between the 131st and 133rd degrees of west longitude (meridian of Greenwich), the said line shall ascend to the north, along the channel called Portland Channel, as far as the point of the continent where it strikes the 56th degree of north latitude; from this last mentioned point the line of demarcation shall follow the summit of the mountains situated parallel to the coast, as far as the point of intersection of the 141st degree of west longitude (of the same meridian); and, finally, from the said point of intersection, the said meridian line of the 141st degree, in its prolongation as far as the frozen ocean, shall form the limit between the Russian and British possessions on the continent of America to the north-west." 1382 ALASKA BOUNDARY QUESTION. 1902 Article IV.—With reference to the line of demarcation laid down in the preceding article, it is understood : " First. That the island called Prince of Wales Island shall belong wholly to Russia. Second. That wherever the summit of the mountains which extend in a direction parallel to the coast, from the 56th degree of north latitude to the point of intersection of the 141st degree of west longitude, shall prove to be at the distance of more than ten marine leagues from the ocean, the limit between the British possessions and the line of coast which is to belong to Russia shall be formed by a line parallel to the windings of the coast, and which shall never exceed the distance of ten marine leagues therefrom." It having been conceded that the initial point of the line of demarcation, as declared in the Treaty, is Cape Chacon, it is now in order to examine the route or routes chosen, or which have been adopted as the boundary line by parties interested. Those lines are numbered on the accompanying explanatory map by the figures 1, 2, 3, 4, and will be examined seriatim. (See map.) Boundary line marked ISTo. 1 is drawn in accordance with the wording of the Treaty —i. e., "ascending to the north along the channel called Portland Channel, as far as the point of the continent where it strikes the 56th degree of north latitude." As the maps published in 1824 did not give the name of the Channel, but described it, so as to leave no doubt that it was Duke of Clarence Strait, it is necessary, by way of explanation or interpretation, to refer to the despatches on this subject which passed between Sir Charles Bagot, the British Plenipotentiary at St. Petersburg, and the Right Hon. George Canning, then British Foreign Secretary, who had the matter in hand. On July 12th, 1824, Mr. Canning sent Sir Charles a despatch, of which the following is an abstract:—" After full consideration of the motives which are alleged by the Russian Government for adhering to their last propositions respecting the line of demarcation to be drawn between the British and Russian occupancy on the north-west coast of America, and of the comparative inconvenience of admitting some relaxation in the terms of your Excellency's last instructions, or of leaving the question between the two Governments unsettled for an indefinite time, His Majesty's Government has resolved to authorise your Excellency to include the south points of Prince of Wales Island, within the Russian frontier, and to take as a line of demarcation a line drawn from the southernmost point of Prince of Wales Island, from south to north, through Portland Channel, till it strikes the mainland in latitude 56 degrees." * * * * u ?pjje advantages conceded to Russia by the line of demarcation are so obvious as to render it quite impossible that any objection can reasonably be offered on the part of the Russian Government to any of the stipulations in our favour. There are two points which are left to be settled by your Excellency. First, in fixing the course of the eastern boundary of the strip of land to be occupied by Russia on the coast." ******* The foregoing extract seemed to have been based on " Statement D," enclosed by Sir Charles to Mr. Canning in a despatch dated March 17/29th, 1824, and which had previously been communicated by Sir Charles to the Russian plenipotentiaries. It says :—" It was in the hope of being able to conciliate those objects, considered indispensable by the Imperial Government," said Sir Charles, " and to determine without more delay a question which appeared of equal interest to both parties, to arrange definitely, at the actual time, when the plenipotentiary of His Britannic Majesty had the honour to propose, on his last conference with the plenipotentiaries of Russia, a line of demarcation which, while conserving to Russia for a southern limit on the islands, the degree of latitude suggested by the Ukase of 1799, would assign at the same time to Great Britain, for a limit on the mainland, the latitude of 56° 30' north." " It would appear," Statement D continues, " that a line traced from the southern extremity of the straits named Duke of Clarence Sound, by the middle of those straits, to the middle of the straits that separate the islands of the Prince of Wales and the Duke of York, and the islands situate to the north of the said islands; thence towards the east by the middle of the same strait to the continent, and thence prolonged in the same direction and manner already proposed by His Britannic Majesty's plenipotentiary to Mount Elias, or to the inter­ section of the 141st degree of longitude, would form a line of demarcation which would conciliate, perhaps, in a satisfactory manner, the reciprocal interests, present and future, of both Empires in this part of the globe." In " Statement D," it is also said, referring to the Hudson Bay Company's occupation :— " His Britannic Majesty could not, therefore, without sacrificing the interests of the Company, renounce the rights of sovereignty over the coast and the islands lhat immediately adjoin it, 2 ED.