Page:Alaskan boundary tribunal (IA alaskanboundaryt01unit).pdf/72

 TORIAL WATERS OF Russia, THE WIDTH OF THE LISiikik WAS TO 1B MEASURED (1) FROM THE LINE OF TILE GENERAL DIRECTION OF THE MAINLAND COAST, OR (hb) FROM THE LINE SEPARATING THE WATERS OF THE OCKAN FROM TIE TERRITORIAL WATERS OF Russia, on (¢) FROM THE HEADS OF THE AFORESAID INLETS?”

SEVENTH Quesrion., ** WHATOIF ANY ENIST, ARE TILE MOUNTAINS REFERRED TO AS SITUATED PARALLEL TO THE COAST, WICH MOUN- TAINS, WHEN WITHIN TEN MARINE LEAGUES FROM THE COAST. ARE DECLARED TO FORM TIE EASTERN BOUNDARY!”

The United States contends that the answer to the Fifth Question should be in the affirmative, and Great Britain contends that it should he in the negutive.

Question Five is, whether or not, looking to all that is admissible wider the Treaty, there is a demonstration that, according to the ~orivinal and effective understanding of the yxurties,” it was ‘the intention and meaning of said Convention of 1825, that there should remain in the exelusive possession of Russia a continuous fringe or strip of coast,” as above indicated.

The ** Parties” meant are, Russin, Great Britain and the United States, for the referenee in the paragraph is to the ** Parties to™ suid ‘Treaties of 1825 and 1867. By * original and effective under- stunding of the parties.” must be meant not only the interpretation of the treaty by reading the text in the light of all the facts surround. inv and known to the negotiators and the contemporaneous exposition given by them, but also the practical interpretation put upon the Treaty by the parties, that is Russia, Great Britain and the Cnited States, us shown by their nafirmatiye acts respectively, and also by the inaetion of any of the parties indicating acquiescence in an mter- pretation.

The expression in the treaty is, “original and etfective understand. ine.” Lt must be assumed that signiticance was intended to be given to both words ‘toriginal” and ‘effeetive,” and that both were deemed necessary to fully express the idea had in view. which seems to he that. not only the langunee of the treaty and of the negotiations lead- ing up to it must be looked to for the purpose of finding out the ineaning, but that what the parties did in pursuance of the treaty must also be looked to, and that from all of this the meaning must be evolved.