Page:Alaskan boundary tribunal (IA alaskanboundaryt01unit).pdf/86

 arose “solely from a sincere desire to prevent the recurrence of any disagreeable discussion in future.”

The Russian view is made entirely clear in the letter from M. Poletica to Count Nesselrode of November 23. 1523, He says that he had conferred with Count de Lanhert. the representative of the interests and wishes of the Russiun- America Company, and that;

To fixing the lengitade Conntale Lambert bad neatinly in view the establishment of a harrier at which would te stopped, onee for all, to the uerth as to the west Of the comet allotted te our Aerie Coniyeuiw, the eneroichinents of the nglixh agents of (he amalvanntiod fladson Bay amt Northwest Enelish Company, whom & more jitimate acquaintance with the eumutry traversed by the Mackenzie River niivhi ev-ily bring in the conrse of thne Inte the neighborhood of ove establishments,

With this desive on both sides to secure certainty, and to pre- yent disagreeable differenees in the futnre. it is uot to be aecepted without the strongest proof. that they intended to vive to the word “const,” which was the most important feature of the territorial branch of the treaty. a new. or wnusial. meaiug,

THK MBANING OF “COTE” As SHOWN BY TITE NEGOTIATIONS. THE PIRST sLuGESTION Us TO 3 LINE

Sir Charles Bagot. in a letter to My. George Canning of August 19, L828. suys that. in an interview with Count Nesselrode. he told him that. the British pretensions had. he believed. always extended to the Stith dewree of north latitude. but that a line of demarcation drawn at the S7th deyree would be entirely satisfactory to Great Britain.”

So fry as the record shows, this ix the first definite suggestion in regard tou division line. It does not appear that any indication wis viven us to low be proposed the line should be drawn northwardly

on the continent. THE SECOND) sUUGESYION AS TOL LINE.

The second suggestion appears to have been made hy M, Poletica to Sir Charles Bagot. Tn on letter from him to Count Nesselrode of October 17, 1823, he says:

This pot baving been explained, Chevalier Bagot requested me to inform him what, in the opinion of the [imperial Government, should be the line of separa-

HU. S, C. App., 187-138, 5U, 8, OC, App, 127.