Page:Alaskan boundary tribunal (IA alaskanboundaryt01unit).pdf/29

 Russia assumed the position that the boundary as a mutter of right should not be above the 54. beenuse of the lense to that point of the Russian American Company,

Sir C. Bagot took exception to the way in which this proposal was offered. in that Count Nesselrode seemed to intimate that it would be asking too mueh of the imperial dignity to require that pretensions advanced twenty-five years awo by the Emperor Paul should now he renownced, but he later recoynized that this was an element tn the situation which conld pot be disregarded; and finaly took the vesponsthility npon himself of exceeding the limit of his instructions by offering to carry the line helow 55° on the tshinds, beenuse he felt that “His Imperial Majesty might yet possibiv feel an invin- cible repngnanee to retrnet from the pretensions advanced by the Eimperor Paul in the charter given to the Russian American Company in 1899.”

Hix instructions had heen to carry the line to the southward only as fay as the point opposite the . and this was the boundary proposed hy bim in answer to Russia's first suzgestion of Porthiid Channel. In making this proposal he stated in objecting to the line throngh Port- land Channel that it “would deprive His Britannic Majesty of sover- eignty over all the inlets and stall bays lying bedween hititudes 56° and 54° 45′”

This expression is quoted in the British Case (p. 4) as authority for the statement that “the British understanding, communionted to and not questioned by Russia. was that Portland Chanvel entered the ocean in 54° 45′.”

A less superficial examination of the statement will disclose, how- ever. that it does not bave the signitieance claimed for it hy Great Britain. In the first place the language is used in refusing to cousent to Portland Channel as a boundary. ail its exact location was there- fore of no Dumediate importance, and the reference to its loeution does not carry any presumption that it is used with special care or precision ou the part of Great Britain, Neither, on the other hand. was Russia ealled upon nnder the circumstances to give any opinion is to the seeuracy of the reference, and ber silence ou the subject