Among the maps put in evidence was the British Admiralty Chart No. 787, corrected to April 1898, in which the boundary line follows the sinuosities of the actual sea-coast, and de prives Canada of the inlets which cut into the continent. It was proved also that post offices have been maintained on various points of the disputed strip; that custom-houses have been established there and have collected duties, and that government and mission schools, particu larly at the head of the Lynn Canal, have been maintained for nearly 20 years. The fact that the possession of the territory by Russians and later by Americans had not been disputed from '4825 until 1898 was also put forth by the United States in support of her claim.
The British contention rested primarily on the claim that it would have been impossible to trace at a distance of 30 miles the intricate con volutions of the line forming the edge of the salt water, and that therefore a general coast line, including many of the islands and disre garding many of the inlets, was the intention of the framers of the Anglo-Russian treaty. If the 30-mile limit were applied to such a coast, the boundary line would, of course, cut across all the deeper inlets, giving the British im mediate access to the interior.
The British also submitted an argument plac ing a new interpretation of that clause of the treaty which provides that where the boundary line follows the mountain ranges, the crests of these mountain peaks shall mark the precise line of demarkation. It was demonstrated in the rush to the Klondike that there was no general line of mountains anywhere near the coast, but a number of peaks and small mountains were scattered disconnectedly close along the coast. • The British claim that the boundary line should follow the crests of these isolated peaks, had it been allowed, would have deprived the United States of a great portion of their 30 mile "lisiere? The British cited the action of American surveyors in 1893 in support of their interpretation of "coast." Dr. T. C. Mendenhall, superintendent of the United States Coast and Geodetic Survey, in that year directed his subordinates to carry their operations inland "30 nautical miles from the coast of the mainland in a direction at right angles to its general trend." In regard to the mountains it was contended that a gap does not discontinue the general line of the range.
The official report of the tribunal was signed and issued on 20 Oct. 1903. The signatories were Lord Alverstone, the British commis sioner, and the three American commissioners, who constituted a majority of the tribunal, the Canadian commissioners refusing to sign.
All the American claims were granted with the exception of those in regard to questions 2 and 3, in which the British contentions were upheld. The original treaty specified that the line should run from the southernmost point of Prince of Wales Island (Cape Muzon) to Port land Channel. The course of this line, accord ing to the United States, is due east about 70 miles.
The British locate it a little north of east about 66 miles to what they call Portland Chan nel, and what the Americans call Pearse Chan nel. The American claim is made on the map of Captain Vancouver, who first scientifically investigated the territory, and the British claim was made upon the text of Captain Vancouver's book, which differed slightly from the map.
A substantiation of the American contention would have given to the United States Pearse and Sitklan islands, which command the en trance to Fort Simpson, to which point Canada proposes to build a new transcontinental rail way.
The decision in regard to Portland Channel or Canal gave Canada Pearse and Wales islands, while the United States obtained Sitklan and Kunnughunnut islands and the broad southern portion of the channel. Three opinions were also delivered to Messrs. J. li Foster and Clifford Sif ton, the agents respect ively of the United States and Canada, xe LI? the United States commissioners discussing the Portland Canal claims; another by Lord Alm stone on the general issue, and a third by the Canadians protesting in the most emphatic lan guage against all the American claims. The chief interest in the decision lay in the conclu sions upon the fifth or main question of Lord Alverstone, who by his impartial and high minded course refuted the assumption on which was based the principal objection to the former treaty, that not even on the bench could a British subject be found who would not persist in upholding the supposed interests of his country, no matter how cogent might be the appeals to his sense of justice or of equity.