Page:Alaskan boundary tribunal (IA alaskanboundaryt01unit).pdf/136

 pany might be able to build their trading post in British Columbia, “ This shows that the Hudson's Bay Company ignored the mountains to the seaward of the ten marine leagues,

From 1872 to IST6 on account of the development of gold deposits in the Cassiar region the trade on the Stikine had. grown to such proportions as to impress both governments with the g@reat impor- tance of estallishing the boundary line, As shown. there had heen various strveys. all proceeding upon «a plan which completely ignored the mountains next to the sen. as in any way controlling the location of the line. There had been no poiut tixed by convention,

In is74 4 British Custom Horse was established on the Stikine River about where the boundiury was supposed to be,

On March Lt. 1874. public notice was given by the Collector of Customs that duty would be collected ‘tat the boundary post or at Buck's Bar.” ’ This location wes not made with reference to the mountains next to the sen but with reference alone to the ten league limit.

The Secretary of State, Mr. Fish, understood that this Custom House was intended to be loeuted on the boundary line. for ina letter to Mr. Watson, the British Chargé, duted May 18. 1s74, he speaks of ** the location of » British Customs oftieer at the boundary line between the two countries on that river.” ¢

The oceasion of this was a remonstranve from citizens of the United States. on account of “the action of the Canadian officer of the Cus- toms stationed on the boundary line at Stikine River.”

Mr. Watson, on Sept. 20, 1874. at the request of the Earl of Dutf- ferin. forwarded to the Seeretary of State, a copy of a minute of Council in regard to tustructions given to the **Colleeter of Customs at the Boundary line on the Stikine River,”* ;

The tixing of this boundary line was an independent and deliberate act of Great Britain. No such line could have been selected on the theory pow advanced as to the mountains next to the sea being those meant by the Treaty. This was not a conventional line or a provi- sional line.“

In his letter of Oct. 16, 187, to Hon, A. Mackenzie, Mr. Justice Gray spoke of this as a ‘conventional line” and “a conventional

av. 8. 0. 0. App, 7 #U. 8 0.0. App., 64. 6U. 8. C.C, App., 61. UL. 8. C. C. App., 66, eU.8 CC. App., G4. JB, C. App., 191, 192,