Page:Alaskan boundary tribunal (IA alaskanboundaryt01unit).pdf/32

 latter point had not vet heen mentioned in the discussion, so far as the record shows, It is first meutioned in Count Nesselrode’s report of the newotiations quoted above,

After showing these weneral advantages of Portland Channel as forming « uatural partition faltilling the requirements of the hotmdary, Russia further pointed out that on the other hand, unless the line was carried through Portland Channel, ‘the Russian establishinents on the islands in the vicinity would have no support (jorut Pappa. that they would be at the merev of the estublishiments which strangers might form upon the ioainkid. and that any such arrangement, fir from being founded upon the principle of imtual accommodations, would but offer dangers for one of the purties and exclusive advantages for the other.”

In Russia's final decision the British propositions were rejected on these grounds, and on the further ground ‘that hesides, according to the testimony of the most recent maps published in England, no English estublishment exists either on the coast of the continent itself or north of the 54th degree of north latitude,”

The negotiations therefore closed at this point for lick of authority on the part of the British Ambassador to comply with the requirements of Russian below 50° on the mainkund,

In the British case the observation is made on these newotiations that the fifty-tifth parallel was the limit of the Russian eliim and that uny sugvestion of carrying the line further south to 54- 40°, was bnt local to the Prince of Wales Island.

It is true that 54° was the line insisted upon ly Russia but it niust he remembered that this was insisted on, not as the most she claimed, but as the least she would take. She took ovexsion to point out and emphasize the fact during the negotiations that her claim to 54— could not be questioned. that she had at least equal rights with Great Britain helow 55-. that there were no English establishments approaching the coust wbove 53- or 34 and that those situated there hud not yet reached the coast. ‘There was, therefore. no question of encroaching upon British tervitory below 55 >. which is the presumption suggested hy the statement in the British Case above quoted. On the contrury, Russia regarded her attitude as a withdrawal northward from 51- rather than an extension southward from $4, As Count Nesselrode