ARGUMENT OP CHARLES B. WARREN. 1091 



nations were not concurring in its appropriation between these two 

 Powers, that the effect of that treaty would be binding on these two 

 Powers, and on these two Powers only. 



" SENATOR MORGAN : I am only speaking of the fact that the United 

 States and Great Britain in their treaties had established the propo- 

 sition that a water boundary may be established by treaty, and upon 

 the high seas. 



" SIR CHARLES RUSSELL : I think it would be founding, if I may 

 respectfully say so, Senator, a tremendous conclusion upon a very 

 small base of premises to say that because, in that particular case, 

 that particular treaty had been entered into, it was the affirmation of 

 a principle of general application." 



Then, Sir Johri Thompson, one of the arbitrators appointed by the 

 Government of Great Britain, who was a former Minister of Justice 

 of Canada ; who was one of the counsel for Great Britain before the 

 Halifax Commission, and who was subsequently Prime Minister of 

 the Dominion of Canada, made a statement which will be found at 

 the bottom of p. 79 of this vol. XIII : 



" I think it will be found that that was not a Treaty dividing 

 water on the high seas outside the three mile limit, but fixing the 

 boundary line behind which you were to ascertain the respective 

 properties of the nations; and its bearing was ascertained by its 

 course on the high seas." 



And Sir Charles Russell replied: 

 " I have no doubt about it." 



I respectfully submit that Great Britain cannot take one position 

 on this question in an arbitration involving the Pacific Ocean, and 

 assume another position in an arbitration involving the Atlantic 

 Ocean. 



Now, if the Tribunal please, I will pass to the eighth sub-division 

 of this data and to the consideration of the position of the United 

 States before the Alaska Boundary Tribunal. 



I desire first to call the attention of the Tribunal to a statement 

 in the printed Argument of Great Britain, on p. 98, which relates to 

 the proceedings before the Alaska Boundary Tribunal. The state- 

 ment is as follows: 



" In 1903. in the Alaskan Boundary Arbitration Case, the Uiuted 

 States asserted that its boundary extended three miles beyond aline 

 joining the islands which lie off the Alaska coasts. Some of the dis- 

 tances between these islands are more than twenty-five miles." 



That statement was made with the evident purpose of showing 

 that the United States took one position in the Alaska Boundary Ar- 

 bitration and takes another in this arbitration. I respectfully sub- 

 mit that the statement is entirely erroneous. Such a claim of juris- 

 diction over bodies of water more than 25 miles in extent was not 

 made by the United States in the Alaska Boundary Arbitration. 



