Page:Alaskan boundary tribunal (IA alaskanboundaryt01unit).pdf/90

 of the coust and always at a distince of ten marine leagues from the shore,”

It is here plain that. the sintious coast referved to was identical with “shore.” for he tses these words as equivalents, and that neither Sir Charles Bagot, vor any one else understood that he inenut, by following a line *‘parallel with the sinuosities of the coast, and always at a distance of ten marine leuwenes frou the shore.” to indicate a coast line drawn from headland to leadland, and that he meant to throw, by the line indicated. into Enyulish territory any portion of the Imys and inlets here in vontroversy, He. however, explains his own meaning in indubitable termes.

The Russtin plenipotentiaries explained in their Ghservations npon his amended proposal, that the most important advantiuge was ** to prevent the respective establishinents on the northwest voust from injuring exch other and entering into collision.” They wdded: = It wis also to their mutual advantage to tix these limits according to natural partitions, which always constitute the most distinct aud certain frontiers."

In veply to this Sir Charles Bagot saic:

Any arnsument fonmdeal on the consideration of the practical adyantage of Russia conld not fail to have the greatest weight, and the Plenipatentiary of His Sritunnic Majesty did not hesitate fa give up, in consequence of this oleervation of the Russian Plenipotentiarics, the line of demarcation whieh he had test pro- powell, to wit: one passing along the middle of Chatham Straits as far as the northern extremity ef Lynn Channel, and thencee to Mount Elias, or te the intérsection of the HOth dexree of tongitude; aml to offer another which would secure to Rustin, net only a strip on the contivent, opposite the southernmost establishment which she possesses on the ishunds, Dat also the possession af all the islands and waters in its vieinity or which are situated between that estab lishinent aul the mainland (terre femme); im short, possession of all that cook im future be of any service, either to it= stability Gr its prosperity. 4

Thus he explained that he proposes to give, “not only a strip on the continent,” but also the possession “of all the ishuds and waters iu its vicinity” and, in short. ** possession of all that could in future be of any service, cither to its stability or its pros- perity.” All the waters in its vicinity did not mean a division of the waters. so that Great Britain would own waters actually touch-

«U.S.C. App, 161, BUS. Co App, Ue.