THE Canada Law Journal for November prints in full the reasons given by Lord Alverstone for his finding in reference to the Portland Channel, which are, in part, as fol lows: The answer to this question "What chan nel is the Portland Channel?" depends upon the simple question, What did the contract ing parties mean by the words "the channel called the Portland Channel" in Article III. of the treaty of 1825? This is a pure ques tion of identity. . . . I will now endeavor to summarize the facts relating to the channel called Portland Channel, which the information afforded by the maps and documents to which I have referred establish. The first and most impor tant is that it was perfectly well known before and at the date of the treaty that there were two channels or inlets, the one called Portland Channel, the other Observatory Inlet, both of them coming out to the Pacific Ocean. That the seaward entrance of Ob servatory Inlet was between Point Maskcylyne om the south and Point Wales on the north. That one entrance of Portland Channel was between the island now known as Kannagimut and Tongas Island. That the latitude of the mouth or entrance to the channel called Portland Channel, as de scribed in the treaty and understood by the negotiators, was 54 degrees 45 minutes. The narrative of Vancouver refers to the channel between Wales Island and Sitklan Island, known as Tongas Passage, as a passage leading- south-southeast toward the ocean— which he passed in hope of finding a more northern and westerly communication to the sea, and describes his subsequently finding the passage between Tongas Island on the north and Sitklan and Kannagunut on the south. The narrative and the maps leave some doubt on the question whether he in tended to name Portland Channel to include Tongas Passage as well as the passage be tween Tongas Island on the north and Sit klan and Kannagunut Island on the south. In view of this doubt, I think, having regard to the language, that Vancouver may have
6l
intended to include Tongas Passage in that name, and looking to the relative size of the two passages, I think that the negotiators may well have thought that the Portland Channel, after passing north of Pearse and Wales Island, issued into the sea by the two passages above described. . . . It is suggested on behalf of the United States that Portland Channel included both the channels—namely, the channel coming out between Point Maskelyne and Point Wales, and that running to the north of Pearse and Vales Islands, and that, upon the doctrine of the thalweg, the larger channel must be taken as the boundary. It is suffi cient to say that, in my opinion, there is no foundation for this argument. The lengths and the points of land at their entrances are given in the case of each channel by Van couver in a way which precludes the sugges tion that he intended to include both chan nels under the one name, and it must be re membered that he was upon a voyage of dis covery, and named these channels when he had discovered and explored them. THE Canadian view of the Alaska Bound ary Decision is ably set forth by Thomas Hodgins in The Canadian Law Times for December: Before reviewing the decision of the ma jority of the Alaska Boundary Tribunal the plain and just-minded people of both nations must admit that both Great Britain and Canada were disastrously handicapped when -tihey submitted the international boundary dispute between Canada and Alaska to a tribunal of six members, one-half of whom, as American politicians, had previously given public expression to a decidedly hostile opinion against the then known BritishCanadian claims,— subsequently formulated in the British case,—and had therefore that taint of partiality which, according to the principles of international justice, and the rules of the common law of both nations, absolutely disqualified them from sitting as judges or jurors, and eminently from being ranked as "impartial jurists of repute" which
