Page:Alaskan boundary tribunal (IA alaskanboundaryt01unit).pdf/17

 upon the whole, to be so constimed that, tf it can le prevented, no elause, sentence or word shall be supertluous, yoid or insignificant.”

See to the same effect Uifted Stites v. bisher, 100 6. S.. pn 145. In the effort to arvive at the original meaning of the parties to a contract or convention, their subsequent acts under it are of vital sivpitieance. In the cliforney Generel o Druninond, £ Drury anid Warren's Reports, p. 368, it was said: “Tell toe what you have done imder such a deed and Twill tell you what that deed menns.” In Jasnirnee Company ©. Duateher, 95° Euited States, 273. it was said: **There is no surer way to tind out what parties meant than to see what they have done.”

When the rules for the construction and interpretation of treaties. as detined by the leading publicists of the world from Grotius to Calyo, haye been carefully analyzed, it appears that there is certainly a consensus of views as to the following:

(1) As all the articles of a treaty constitute an indivisible whole, the primary parpose of construction and interpretation is to extract from them, considered as a whole, the dominant intention or motive of the transaction, "la valson Petre de Pacte (ratio leqis}.

(2) While thus seeking for the motive the court will, if necessary, put itself in the place of the parties and reud the instrument in the light of the cireumstanees surrounding them at the time it was made and of the objects which they evidently bad in view. Thus the court may “exuihine the facts, the circwmstiners, which immediately preceded the signature of the agreement, referring to the protocols, the procés-verbal, or to other writings addressed by the negotiators. examining the motives or the causes which live brought about the treaty,—in a word, the reason of the transaction (eutre feaix).”

(3) Tn the effort to arrive at the original meaniny of the parties to a treaty or convention, great weight should be given to their subsequent acts under it,

(4) Since the Jawfal interpretation of a contract onght to tend only to the discovery of the thoughts of the wuthor or authors of that contract, as soon as we meet with any obscurity. we should seek for whit was probably in the thoughts of those who drew it up und to interpret it accordingly. This is the general rule of all interpretations:

The contracting powers are obliged to express themselves in such