Page:Alaskan boundary tribunal (IA alaskanboundaryt01unit).pdf/35

 Sir C. Bayot therefore understood the (vee to le homided on the south by Porthiod Channel,

Count Nesselrode. im reporting the sane negotiations to Count Lieven in his letter of August 31, Ps24. referring to exactly the same subject. deserihed the /éxéec as the coast ** whieh extends from Su of north latitude to 44° 40°" Later in the same Jetter he refers to this same latitude of J4- 40° as that to which the Cnited States was vontined hy its treaty. and again later be says. “our counter draft carries owr boundary from the S10 te S54 40°. Tt leaves to the establishment= whieh the English companies may ferm lere- after on the northwest coast all the territory situated to the south of Porthind Channel.” In this counter draft the southern boundary of the Mitre is carried ree Porthind Channel exactly as in the one referred to by Sir C. Bagot. Grouping these references tovether, they serve to Ree the fact that the Porthud Channel of the negotiations, which afterwards wits carried into the treaty with- ont chanye. was nnderstood ly Sir C. Buwot to be the same Portland Channel which was fixed by Count Nesselvode as carrying at. its entrance the line S4 40° and as the houndiry to whieh Russia bad receded from 51 in the United Stites treaty, Tt further appears that this letter of Count Nesselvode, in which this ilentitivation of Portland Channel with 54- 40° is made. was submitted to Mr. Canning and annotated by lim. and so far as the references to Portlind Chainel are concerned, it was accepted by him without criticisur or comiuuent,

BARON TUVLE'S LETTER.

The British Case on page 50 quotes a suggestion from Baron Tuy! to Connt Nesselrode. that the frontiers should be fixed at the 54th degree, “or better stiff at the southern pomt of the archipelago of the Prince of Wales and the Observatory Inlet. situated [plural] almost nnder this parallel.”

This is velied on to show that the body of witter whose mouth was opposite Prinee of Wales [sland was understoml to be Observatory Inlet, and that consequently they eould not hiwe meant that hody of water when they designated that the line should rtm alone Porthud Channel.

The argument seems to assume that Baron Tuslh meant to say thet the hody of x iter designated as Observatory Inlet was opposite the

a ee 5. C, Apyp.. 200, $US. C. App., 2 4.