That Russian title was transferred to the United States in 1867, and from that time to the present the United States has stood for precisely what Russia stood for in 1822-25.
In 1898, however, as already stated, follow ing the discovery in 1896, of the rich gold de posits in the Klondike district, the Canadian government set up a claim based upon a new understanding of the Anglo-Russian treaty. The main contention, which, by the way, never had any cordial support from qualified experts in Great Britain, was whether the line of de markation between the southeastern end of Alaska and the British northwest possessions cut through the inlets and estuaries of the Pacific or went around them, leaving all these waterways in American territory and prevent ing Great Britain from access to the sea. The British contended that the boundary line, which was defined by treaty as running parallel with the sinuosities of the coast at a distance of 30 marine miles inland, except where parallel mountain ranges were nearer, when it was to follow these ranges, was to be construed as running parallel to the coast of the Pacific and not parallel to the shores of the inlets of that sea, thus constituting a political rather than a Physical coast line. If the British contention had been granted, Dyea and Skagway, two im portant ports on the Lynn Canal, and the prominent places of export and import for the Yukon and Klondike gold fields, would be in Canadian territory. So would the Porcupine gold fields.
On account of the apparent clearness of the terms of the Anglo-Russian treaty in 1825 it may seem difficult to imagine how any interpre tation different from that argued for by the United States could have been put forth. The original treaty, however, was in French, and dispute arose as to the precise translation of icrete,* meaning crest, “listere,° meaning strip, and c'cote,') usually translated as coast.
The treaty also laid down the boundary on supposed topographical conditions which did not exist. When the treaty was drawn up the fram ers relied upon some of the maps of Captain Vancouver, and from observations in the small section of British Columbia which he explored it seemed apparent that the whole coast was bordered by a range of mountains which ran parallel to and at a distance of from 25 to 30 miles from the sea.
As a matter of fact there is a jumble of mountains in various places along the coast, but in no case is there a well-defined watershed. The gcrests* mentioned in the treaty were even more difficult to decide upon, and with the dif ference of opinion as to whether the coast line as intended in the treaty ran through the inlets or around them there were grounds for dis putes, for the settlement of which an inter national tribunal became necessary.
The treaty between the United States and Great Britain, of which the appointment of the Alaska tribunal was the consequence, therefore decided that the following questions should be decided upon: ' 1. What is intended as the point of com
mencement of the line? 2. What channel is the Portland Channel? 3. What course should the line take from the point of commencement to the entrance to Portland Channel? 4. To what point on the 56th parallel is the line to be drawn from the head of the Portland Channel, and what course should it follow be between these points? 5. In extending the line of demarkation northward from said point on the parallel of the 56th degree of north latitude, following the crest of the mountains situated parallel to the coast until its intersection with the 141st degree of longitude west of Greenwich, subject to the condition that if such line should anywhere ex ceed the distance of 10 marine leagues from the ocean then the boundary between the British and the Russian Territory should be formed by a line parallel to the sinuosities of the coast and distant therefrom not more than 10 marine leagues, was it the intention and meaning of • said convention of 1825 that there should re main in the exclusive possession of Russia a continuous fringe or strip of coast on the main land, not exceeding 10 marine leagues in width, separating the British possessions from the bays, ports, inlets, havens and water of the ocean, and extending from the said point on the 56th degree of latitude north to a point where such line of demarkation should intersect the 141st degree of longitude west of the merid ian of Greenwich? • 6. If the foregoing question should be an swered in the negative, and in the event of the summit of such mountains proving to be in places more than 10 marine leagues from the coast, should the width of the ilisiere which was to belong to Russia be measured (1) from the mainland coast of the ocean, strictly so called, along a line perpendicular thereto, or (2) was it the intention and meaning of the said convention that where the mainland coast is indented by deep inlets, forming part of the territorial waters of Russia, the width of the lisiere was to be measured (a) from the line of the general direction of the mainland coast, or (b) from the line separating the waters of the ocean from the territorial waters of Russia, or (c) from the heads of the aforesaid inlets? 7. What, if any exist, are the mountains re ferred to as situated parallel to the coast, which mountains, when within 10 marine leagues from the coast are declared to form the eastern boundary? The United States made no actual claim. She reiterated her right to territory which she proved had been recognized as hers by Great Britain and by various official acts of Canada. Various maps were produced to show that Rus sia had been entitled to the disputed territory and that after the purchase of Alaska that same territory was mapped and charted as belonging to the United States.