Page:Alaskan boundary tribunal (IA alaskanboundaryt01unit).pdf/26

 cuts across the leads of bays and inlets is not involved in this case in any form. for the simple reason that the eater cost, to whieh it is exclusively an accessory, is not involved,

The entire British Case rests ippon the adinission that the eastern boundary of the //sére is to he determined with reference to the inner coast only. and on the contention that x political coast line can he pre- dicated of this coast. In the language of the British Case (p. 24), * It scents clear that. in the whole course of these negotiations, Count Nesselrode used the term ‘edte* as meaning the general line of the continent.” "The eastern line of the //sére us now contended for hy Grent Britain is drawn in reference to ‘the weneral line of the con tinent.” that is, of the inner coast. ‘The heart of that contentions that such inver coast is pot the entire natural coast of physical geoeraphy, but that it is to be ignored at phiwes and that for it shull be substituted ab artificial coast line which under international how is a mere aceessory toa physical coast. Such an artificial coast line relates to the outer coast only, and can have no reference whatever to the inner coast line in question, The only coast with which we are dealing is the inner coast, the physical coast, the coast detined by the contact of the sea with the land,

The result of the British chain that the line shall be drawn from headland to headland is that a principle which beemue established in international law for the purpose of giving additional rights as inci- dent to the ownership is perverted to the purpose of determining what shall be considered coast. Tt could only apply where there was admitted sovereignty over a coast line, and then ouly for the purpose of viving, by enlarging the jurisdiction beyond the actual coast, acces- sorial rights. Tt wax never adopted and has never before been applied for the purpose of determining the sovereivnty over coasts, What wis adopted as a shield for the protection of the coust is turned into vin instrument for dissevering it.

The British Counter Case (p. 28) quotes from Mv, Joshua Bates who in 155 savs: ‘This doctrine of the headkinds is new.” And yet it is sought to make it appenr that the negotiators of the Treaty of 1s25 must haye intended to apply it. for the purpose of determining what was “coust” as that word wis ised by then.