232 DIPLOMATIC CORRESPONDENCE. 



Article III. The line of demarcation is described in Article III as fol- 

 lowing "the summit of the mountains situated parallel to the coast 

 as far as the point of intersection of the one hundred and, forty-first de- 

 gree of icest longitude.''^ Article lY, quaJifyiug Article III, specifies 

 that "wherever the summit of the mountains which extend in a direc- 

 tion parallel to the coast, from the fifty-sixth degree of north latitude 

 to the j)oint of intersection of the one hundred and forty-first degree of 

 west longitude, shall prove to be at a distance of more than ten marine 

 leagues from the ocean, the limit between the British possessions and 

 the line of coast which is to belong to Eussia, as above mentioned, shall 

 be formed by a line parallel to the windings of the coast, and shall 

 never exceed the distance of ten marine leagues therefrom." 



By both these articles the line of demarcation ceases to have any par- 

 allel relation to the coast when it reaches the point of intersection of 

 the one hundred and forty-first degree of west longitude. 



From that point the one hundred and forty-first degree of west longi- 

 tude, as far as it extends continuously on land northward, is taken as 

 the boundary between the territories of the two powers. It is thus evi- 

 dent that British subjects were guaranteed the right of navigating only 

 such rivers as crossed the line of demarcation while it followed the line 

 of coast. They were limited, therefore, to the rivers that emptied into 

 the Pacific Ocean between 54 40 and 60 degrees north latitude, the latter 

 being the point on the coast opposite the point where the line of demar- 

 cation diverges — Mount St. Elias. 



By this agreement Great Britain was excluded from all rivers empty- 

 ing into the Behring Sea, including the great Yukon and its i^ffluent, the 

 Porcupine, which rise and for a long distance flow in British America. 

 So coinplete was the exclusion from Behring Sea that Great Britian 

 surrendered in this case a doctrine which she had aided in impressing 

 upon the Congress of Yienna for European rivers. She did not demand 

 access to the sea fi*om a river whose source was in her territory. She 

 consented, by signing the treaty of 1825, to such total exclusion from 

 the Bering Sea as to forego following her own river to its mouth in that 

 sea. 



It shows a curious association of jjolitical events that in the Wash- 

 ington treaty of 1871 the United States conceded to Great Britain the 

 privilege of navigating the Yukon and its branch, the Porcupine, to the 

 Behring Sea in exchange for certain piivileges conceded to the United 

 States on the St. Lawrence. The request of Great Britain for the privi- 

 lege of navigating the Yukon and Porcupine is a suggestive confession 

 that it was withheld from her by Eussia in the treaty of 1825 — with- 

 held because the rivers flowed to the Behring Sea. 



The seventh article is practically a repetition of the fourth article in 

 the treaty between Eussia and the United States, and the privilege of 

 fishing and trading with the natives is limited to the coast, mentioned 

 in Article III, identically tlie same line of coast which they were at 

 liberty to X'ass through to reach British America or to reach the coast 

 from British America. They are excluded from going north of the 

 prescribed jjoint on the coast near Moimt St. Elias, and are therefore 

 ke])t out of Bering Sea. 



It is to be noted that the negotiators of tliis treaty, in defining the 

 boundary between the Eussian and British ])ossessions, cease to ob- 

 serve particularity exactly at the point on the coast where it is inter- 

 sected by the sixtieth j)arallel. From that ])oint the bonndary is des- 

 ignatcnl by the almost indefinite ^prolongation northward of the one 

 hundred and forty-first degree of longitude west. It is plain, therefore, 



