Page:Alaskan boundary tribunal (IA alaskanboundaryt01unit).pdf/31

 The reference is of no value. therefore. for the purpose for which it is cited in the British Case. and the intention of neither the British nor the Russian negotiators as to what channel is Portland Channel can be predicated upon it.

During this period of the negotiations no further progtess was made toward an agreement opon the line through Porthiod Channel. Sir C, Bagot. ax uhove stated, was limited by his instructions to the 54 on the onter mainland coast for the southern limit. and sought to induce Russia to accept a line there by offering to carry it down on the islands to the lowest point of Prince of Wales Island, which was nnderstood to be about 44-4 thereby meeting the Russian require- ments so fur asthe islands were concerned and which he hoped * while tt saved thix point of dignity to Russian by wiving to her the fHfty-titth degree of latitude as her boundary upon the islands. might preserve also uninterrupted our access to the Pacitic Ocean. and secnve to His Majesty the fifty-sixth degree of north latitude as the British boun- dary wpon the coast.”

Russia's position throughout the newotiutions was tnehanwed, how- ever. and as pointed out in the observations submitted to Sir C. Bagot, Was based upon the fact that the English establishments had a tendency to advance westward along the 58° and 54° and the Russian estullish- ments to descend southward toward the 45° and beyond. Therefore It wis “to the mutual adyentage of the two Empires to assign just limits to this advance on both sides.” before they contlicted, and 7 it was also to their mutual advantage to tix these limits necording to nat- ural partitions, which always constitute the most distinet and certain frontiers.”? and * For these reasons the plenipotentiaries of Russia bave proposed as limits upon the coast of the continent, to the south, Portland Channel, the head of which lies about (par) the lifty-sixth degree of north latitude. and to the east the chain of mountains which follows at a very short distance the sinnosities of the coast.”

The boundary thits proposed was based on broad principles and fol- lowed natural partitions, and the question of what point on the coust o4- 45' tonched, which Great Britain seeks to determine by this negoti- ation, clearly had no place or consideration in the discussion. Certiinly no tlistinction had been drawn between 54° 45′ and 54° 40′, because the