is, as my hon. friends know very well, even those who do not belong to the legal profession, that possession is nine points of the law ; and even though by the letter of the Treaty, Dyea is in Canadian territory, the fact remains that from time immemorial, Dyea was in the possession of the Russians, and in 1867 it passed into the hands of the Americans, and it has been held in their hands ever since.
Now, I will not recriminate here ; this is not the time nor the occasion for doing so ; but so far as I am aware, no protest has ever been entered against the occupation of Dyea by the American authorities ; and when the American authorities are in possession of that strip of territory on the sea which has Dyea as its harbour, succeeding the possession of the Russians from time immemorial, it becomes manifest to everybody that at this moment we cannot dispute their possession ; and that before their possession can be disputed, the question must be determined by a settlement of the question involved in the Treaty. Under such circumstances Dyea was practically in American territory—at all events, in possession of the Americans, and, therefore, if we had undertaken to build a railway from Dyea to the Yukon country, we would have been placed at the mercy of the American authorities with regard to the bonding privilege. We would have been in this position ; that though we had built a railway, the “ocean terminous” of that railway was not in our own country, and we could not send a ton or a pound of goods over that railway, unless we had the permission of the American authorities.

Mr. TURNER : The accepted pronunciation of the town there mentioned is Dy'-a'.

Mr. TAYLOR : Thank you. But whatever we may call it, this I am simply giving as a popular interpretation, and it concurs exactly with the scientific, that the end of the head of the inlet is the ocean itself, the “ocean terminous,” and if they had built down to Dyea a railroad, it would have been there ; the “ocean terminous” would be right there where the technical rule of international law says that, the ocean ends. I say that it would be just as impossible for an Admiralty lawyer of Great Britain to stand before this Tribunal and deny that the estuary of the Thames is part of the ocean, the sea, as it would be to deny that the head of Lynn Canal is part of the sea. The popular interpretation, as given by the Prime Minister of Canada, is in perfect harmony and accord with the definition of international law.

[1927lab]