Page:Alaskan boundary tribunal (IA alaskanboundaryt01unit).pdf/54

 of vocks we bad not advanced more than thirteen leagues ina right line from the ships to the entrance of this inlet.” Te never dared to traverse that part of it. heretofore designated as the * foul ground.” even ju open bouts,

At no tite. either before or after his hoat exeursion, did he eyer venture to enter the stoaller channel with bis ships. His charts tix the fact that he naviguted with lis ships the hurger channel, into the junction with Observatory lulet. both in and out, The reason he gives in his narrative for this preference is that The route hy which the vessels had advanced to Salton Cove, being intinitely better for them to pursue towards Cape Caamano, than the intricate channel through whieh | had passed in the boats.” As hitherto pointed out, the snudler channel. iz of an average depth of sixty-four fathoms, and of au average width of only three quarters of a nautical mile. at two points. narrowed toa width of about an eighth of a mile, while the greater channel, of an average depth of two hundred & eighteen fathonis is of an average width of 2.55 nautical miles. As stated here- tofore the volume of water contained in the larger channel is about eleven and a half times as creat as. that contained in. the smaller; while the narrowness of the smaller produces a choking of the waters passing through it. in its tidal action, to such an extent that about ninety per cent of the tidal tlow is through the channel contended for by the United States.

Is it. therefore. a matter of wonder that the British Admiralty chart of Isis should have entirely ignored the smaller channel as unworthy even of a name or survey. while the larger was carefully designated as “Portland Inlet.” ‘There is no question bere of weirhiny evidence in order to determine which one of two channels running through **anarm of the seu” is the deepest, widest and most navivable. ‘The proof does not leave any room for doubt. Lt is simply a question of substituting for the general rule of international law, designating such thalweg as the boundary «special aad conventional eife declaring a smaller, nar- rower and “shallower” “luhyrinth of rocks” as the boundary, The only possible way in which Great Britain could work out that result would be to establish affirmatively that sueh was the special contract and agreement entered tnto with Russin in the trenty of 1825. the effect of which would be the suspension of the general rule of inter- mitional law dechuing the deepest and dost navigable chanuel the