Page:Alaskan boundary tribunal (IA alaskanboundaryt01unit).pdf/83

 On this basis the negotiations were taken ap by Great Lrituin, Mr. George Canning communicated to Sir Charles Bagot, Febroary 5, 1828, a copy of the note of Count Lieven and requested him to proceed to open the discussion, “

In a letter from M. Poletien to Count Nesselrode of November 5, 1823, it is said:

In the midst of this argument the British Pinbassader suddendy suspended the dis emeion in onder to tell me that bis (iovernment had, after all, no intention of dis- cussing the territorial qmestion according to the abstract principles of public law or of international law; that that would bave the effeet of rendering the cdisevssien interminable; that the cabinet of London experted «a more satisfactory result for the two parties interested, from an amicable arrangement which would be hazed only open mutual consent, and that his instructions lad een drawn ap in that spirit,

1 replied to Sir Charles Bagot that in the matter in question, sy far as TD conld foresee the views of the Imperial Government, T believed that T eal take upon myself boklly to assure him that they were in perfect agreenient with those of the cabinet of Lomlon. LE then asked bim to tell me the point of demarcation, which, in the opinion of his Giovermment, ought to divide the respective posses- sions on the northwest voast of America.

Ina letter of March 17, Is24. from Sir Charles Bugot to Mr, Canning. he said:

J then tiid before then: [Count Nesselroite and M, Poletica] Count Licven'= note to you of the 31st Jannary, 1828, proposing that the question of strict riwht shoukl be provisiowally waived on beth sides, aud that the adjustment of onr mutual pretensions should be made upon the sole principle of the respective convenience of beth countries.

This basis of negotiation being willingly acceptel by all parties, | stated that, ete.

THE MOTIVES WHICH ACTUATED THE PARTIES WERE THE ADVANTAGES Te BE

SECURED FROM CONTROLLING THE RIGHTS OF FISTING AND HUNTING AND OF

TRAE WITH THE NATIVES ALONG THE COAST, AND THE QUESTION OF TERRE

TORIAL SOVEREIGNTY WAS PIRECTER TOWARD SECURING THESE RIGHTS AND

NOT HERELY DOMINION OVER AN EXTENT OF LAND,

At that time no gold had been discovered in that region, and no question of mineral yalues was ever mooted in any way ly any of the negotiators, or by the vepresentatives of the trading companies of Russia, and Great Britain, which were rivals in that part of the

>U, SC, App., 140,
 * U, S.C, App, 119. cU. 8. CG. App., 14.