Page:Alaskan boundary tribunal (IA alaskanboundaryt01unit).pdf/69

 to the head of the channel. then it would seem to follow that, whether the momuitains exist or not, that point on the devree nenvest the supposed mountains was intended to be the point northwardly of the head of the Channel. to whieh the line should run, and that such point is to he determined by the apparent locality of the mountains which it is demonstrated they had in mind, and not by some other mountains whieh they clearly did not have in mind. The line was to he drawn “au Nord” to the degree. and ‘de ce dernier point le ligne de démarcation snivra la créte des montages.”

The maps showed that the crest of the mountains, the head of the channel. and the tifty-sixth degree, did not exactly coincide, -There Was uncertainty as to the mountains, but none as to the fifty-sixth devrec, and none as to where a line running ap the channel prolonged would veach it. This point was, therefore, to le determined by the intersection of the prolonged line with the parallel, and deve dernier point,” the line was te follow the erest of the mountains. Manifestly, the situation of the mountains being uncertain. the line was to be drawn from the determined point to the evest, and thence alone the crest.

In the British Case ix the following :

Tt ix subinitted that the point in the 56th parallel to which the line should he drawn is the point from which it is possibile ta continue the line atong the crest of the mountains sitnated parallel to the const, aud, aceordingly, that the point at which the 56th parallel and the erest of the coast mountains coineide is the potut in question.

This proposition entirely ignores the fact that the point was fixed northwardly, and on the fiftv-sixth parallel with reference to the supposed existence of a chain of mountains near where the head of the channel is nearest to the tifty-sixth degree.

The fact that no such ehain exists in that vicinity, does not allect the location of the point. For the purpose of such fixation of this point by the negotiators, mountains assumed to exist and approni- mately located by the parties. were just as potential as if they bad been real mountains.

But the unsoundness of the proposition put forward in the British Case hecomes manifest by one simple test.

If we must seek the point where ‘it is possible to continue the line along the crest of the mountains,” how will the point be fixed if it


 * HeC,, Tr ou,