Page:Alaskan boundary tribunal (IA alaskanboundaryt01unit).pdf/21

 and, a fietfor/, all private expression of opinion, whether ly map makers or others,” is not supported, The pertineuey and weight of such testimony are to he determined Jy the Tribunal. Tt nay he of remote releyaney and of slight importance. “Phe Briti<h Counter Cause makes no specification except as to maps published by private map makers. Private map unkers are historians of their times, ‘Their work ix xeeepted or rejected according to its intrinsic merit and their reputation. If allhof the map makers of the world throuvhout a lony period of time agree to an interpretation of a treaty. and if it be assumed that such concensus was known to all enlieblened wayvern- ments. then such governments are affected with knowledye of the com mon understanding of the world.

If with such knowledge of a common belief in respect of a iiat- ter of sovereignty over the arms and inlets of the sea and their cousts in whieh all maritime oations aud all powers tuving mivies are directly interested, a government publicly acts through a loug period of time so as to contirm such understinding, then such acts heeome more solemn than if they were made without the existence of an understanding, Such understanding shows that the mind of the world was on the question and that it deemed it of inpportunee. If it lad wo thouebt abont it, then the wets of a @overnment in reeurd to it, might be of no special interest and might eseape notice, Such common understandine joined in by the eoverniuent most interested. becomes a universitlly aceredited historical fact, Tt eonnot de said that sueh conmuon understuuding, not dissented from. but confirmed, is tot pertinent in comsidering: the weight that should be given to the official maps of Great Britain,

The British Counter Case further coneludes that the action of the respective governments that eun he looked to ts Ttnited to those inmnediately preliminary to the treaty. Wort dies been said about the admissibility of evidence under Art. IL applies to this prope- sition. The Treaty should be interpreted in the light of the respec tive attitudes of the purties when they bee thet newotiations, Their relations to the subject-matter of controversy should be known by the ‘Tribunal in order to better understund the lunge used by them in settling the controversy, ‘The role inveked in the British Cuse is narrower than that whieh je the courts of CGoreat Britain