Page:Alaskan boundary tribunal (IA alaskanboundaryt01unit).pdf/50

 As has been shown. looking to the entire narrative, it is in doubt as to what waters be applied the name ot Portland Canal,

There is no affirmative evidence tending to show that the negotia- tors of the Treaty of Is25 ever had any knowledve of Vancouver's narrative, entitled “A Voyage of Discovery to the North Pacitie Ocean.” Upon the contrary there is conclusive evidence of the fact that Sir Charles Bagot, who for the greater period of time carried on the British negotiations, was ignorant of it,— certainly of that part of it relating to Portland Canal.

This statement is borne out ly the following. Vancouver. in rebut- ting the idea that Porthiud Canal was the outlet of an interior river system, said: “From hence it took a more northerly direction, and then trended a little to the eastward of north, where, by ten of the forenoon of the following day, it wus found to terminate in low murshy land in Intitude 55° 45" longitude 230 6." Tu Mareh, 1824. Sir Charles Bagot, in bis reply ‘*to observations of Russian plenipoten- tiaries.” said: The head of Porthiid Channel may be, as there is reason to helieve, the mouth of some river flowing through the midst of the country oeenpied hy the Hudson's Bay Company, and it is, conseqrently, of great importance to Great Britain to possess the sovereiguty of the two shores thereof.”" Furthermore it should be noted that throughont the correspondence between the pegotintors the astronomical lovations are given in longitude west of Greenwich, while in the narrative of Vancouver the longitude viven is east. On ul the Enelish maps referred to in the negotiations the longitude uppears us west of Greenwich,

Is it to be presumed that the negotiators generally were better informed as to Vancouver’s narrative than the experienced repre- sentative of Great Britain who, for some years. had been charged with ber interests at St. Petersburg, and who eontriudieted Vaneouver ina vital particnlar. That the Russian nevotiators were either ignorant of. or in conflict with the narritive as to the latitade of the termina- tion of Porthmd Canal, which Vancouver had determined to be “in latitude 55- 45'." is established hy the British Case (p. 20) where the following averment is made: In their reply to Sir Charles Bagot's amended proposal, the Russian Plenipotentiaries re-stuted their rea- sons for proposing as the boundary on the coast of the continent to the south (sur la edte du continent an sud?) the Porthiud Conal, the


 * ULS.C., App., pe 103.