The following is an abstract of Lord Alver stone's conclusions: "The broad, undisputed facts are that the parties were engaged in making an agreement respecting the archipelago and islands off the coast and some strip of land upon the coast it self. The western limit of these islands extends in some places about 100 miles from the coast and the channels or passages between the isl ands and between the islands and the coast are narrow waters, their widths varying from a few hundred yards to 13 miles.
"In ordinary parlance no one would call the waters of any of these channels or inlets the ocean. I agree with you as presented on behalf of Great Britain that no one coming from the interior and reaching any of these channels particularly the head of L.ynn Canal or Talcs Inlet, would describe himself as being upon the ocean, but on the other hand, it is quite clear that the treaty does regard some of these chan nels as the ocean. This consideration, however. is not sufficient to solve the question. It still leaves open the interpretation of the word coast, to which the mountains were to be par allel. . . .
"There is, so far as I know, no recognized rule of . international law which would by im plication give a recognized meaning to the word coast as applied to such sinuosities and such waters different from the coast itself. As I have said more than once, the locus in quo to which the treaty was referring precludes the possibility of construing the word coast in any particular article in any special way if it does not refer to the coast line of the continent. I think the words upon the border of the con tinent comprised within the limits of the Rus sian possessions in Article V rather confirm the view that Russia' was to get a strip all along the continent, but I do not think that much reliance can be placed upon this because of the provision regarding the rivers and streams in Article VI.
"Turning from the language of the treaty to the record of the negotiations, I have been un able to find any passage supporting .the view that Great Britain was directly or indirectly putting forward a claim to the shores or ports at the head of inlets. This is not remarkable
inasmuch as no one at that time had any idea that they would become of any importance. . . . The language of both the British and Russian representatives in reporting the con clusion of the treaty to their respective govern ments is in accordance with the view I have suggested . . * I have little doubt that if shortly after making the treaty in 1825 Great Britain and Russia had proceeded to draw the boundary provided by the treaty, the difficulties and in certain events the impossibilities of drawing the boundary in strict accordance with the treaty would have been evident.
"I can, therefore, understand and appreciate the contention of Great Britain that under ex isting circumstances difficulties in delineating the boundaries described must arise in one view and might arise in any view. But these conten tions, strong as they are in favor of a just and equitable modification of the treaty, do not, in my opinion, enable one to put a different con struction upon the treaty. I think the parties knew and understood what they were bargain ing about and expressed the terms of their bar gain in terms to which effect can be given. The fact that when, 75 years later, the representa tives of the two nations attempted to draw the boundary in accordance with the treaty they were unable to agree as to its meaning does not entitle me to put a different construction upon it.
"In the view I take of the terms of the treaty itself it is unnecessary to discuss the sub sequent action. Had the terms of the treaty led me to a different conclusion and entitled me to adopt the view prescribed by Great Britain, I should have felt great difficulty in holding that anything done or omitted to have been done, by or on behalf of Great Britain, prevented her from insisting upon a strict interpretation of the treaty, nor do I think the representations of the map-makers that the boundary was as sumed to run around the heads of the inlets could have been properly urged by the United States as sufficient reason for depriving Great Britain of any rights she had under the treaty had they existed."