450 ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR RICHARD WEB-STER, Q. C. M. R. 



Will you kindly turn now to the British Treaty on page 53 of the 

 British Case, and I will endeavor to take it as shortly as possible. It 

 will not be waste of time to run through it without reading the articles 

 at length. The scheme of that Treaty is of some little importance iu 

 order to complete my argument upon the point. Article I corresponds 

 with, and I say is the same as, Article II in the United States Treaty. 

 Articles III and IV find no place in the United States Treaty. They 

 relate to the lisiere. It is not necessary that I should do more than 

 explain in one sentence what it was, that my story may be complete. 

 It was necessary to determine a land boundary between British America 

 and Alaska, and accordingly Articles III and IV relate solely to what 

 that land boundary should be. Article V corresponds with Article III 

 of the United States Treaty. It is an agreement between Great Britain 

 and Eussia as the previous agreement existed between the United 

 States and Kussia, that no establishment should be formed by Great 

 Britain north of the line of delimitation. Then Article VI refers to the 

 rivers crossing the lisiere. It was necessary because it finds no place 

 in the United States Treaty, because there was no lisiere. 



It is understood that the subjects of His Britaunic Majesty, from whatever quarter 

 they may arrive, whether from the ocean or from the continent shall for ever enjoy 

 the right of navigating freely, and without any hindrance whatever, all the rivers 

 and streams which, in their course towards the Pacific Ocean, may cross the line of 

 demarcation upon the line of coast described in Article III of the present Convention. 



Perhaps, it would not be inconvenient if I read to you the French 

 version of that Treaty, which you will find — and you can put them side 

 by side — at the end of the B. C. Appendix, Volume 2, Part III to which 

 I have just been referring. 



The President. — It would be better to look at the French original, 

 as this was a translation. What you have just read is the English 

 translation. 



Sir KiCHARD Webster. — You are right, Sir. In both cases the 

 originals of this Treaty were in French. Wliat General Foster said 

 later on about the 1867 Treaty did not apply to the one of 1824. 



If you would look if you please, Sir, at Article VI, on page 3, of part 

 2, you will find this. 



Mr. Justice Harlan. — It is in the Appendix to the American Case, 

 volume I, pages 39 and 40. 



Sir KiCHARD Webster. — Quite true. It is this : 



II est entendu que les sujets de Sa Majeste Britannique, de quelque c6t^ qu'ils 

 arrivent, soit de I'Oc^an soit de I'iuti^rieur du continent, jouiront a perpdtnite du 

 droit de naviguer librement et sans entrave quelcouque, sur tons les fleuves et rivi- 

 eres qui, dans leurs cours vers la mer Pacifique, traverseront la ligne de df^marcation 

 Bur la lisiere de la cote indiquee dans I'Article III de la presente Convention. 



Therefore, when you look at the original, there is not any doubt about 

 it at all, because they refer, most properly, to the "lisiere de la cote"; 

 and if you will turn back to Article III you will find there the lisiere 

 described. 



Mr. Justice Harlan.— What are the English words in Ai-ticle VI 

 corresponding to lisiere? 



Sir EiCHARD Webster. — I will read it: 



May cross the line of demarcation upon the line of coast. 



The expression " line of coast " is not the proper translation— it ought 

 to be " strip of coast ". " Strip " is the correct translation of " lisiere ", 

 if I may be permitted to say so Mr. President, and no doubt if I am 

 Avrong you will correct me. "Lisi5re" is " selvage "—" strip "—like 

 tht'edge of cloth — "border". 



