¹ The negotiators of the Treaty of Peace between the United States and Great Britain, signed Nov. 30, 1782, and which laid down boundaries, had before them and used a map made in England by one John Mitchell in 1755. The eastern boundary of the United States was declared by the treaty to begin “by a line to be drawn along the middle of the River St. Croix from its mouth in the Bay of Fundy to its source. ” Miller's Treaties, II, 96, 97. “On Mitchell's map … the River St. Croix appears as a stream of considerable volume, having its source in a lake called Kousaki and its mouth at the eastern head of what is now known as Passamaquoddy Bay, though on the map the greater part of the bay has no separate designation and appears merely as a part of the Bay of Fundy. To the westward on the same map is another stream called the ‘Passamacadie’ (Passamaquoddy), emptying into a small bay or estuary of the same name. But, while Mitchell's map was correct in representing two streams of some magnitude as falling into the body of water commonly known as Passamaquoddy Bay, it did not give their true courses or positions, nor was there in the region any river then commonly known as the St. Croix. This name originated with the early French explorers, from whose charts it was transferred to later maps, on which it was given first to one stream and then to another; and in all these maps, including that of Mitchell, the topography of the region was inaccurate. ” (Moore, International Adjudications, I, 6. ) Under Article V of the Jay Treaty of Nov. 19, 1794, there was referred to an arbitral commission the question “What river was truly intended under the name of the River St. Croix mentioned in the Treaty of Peace. ” Miller's Treaties, II, 245, 249. The decision of the commissioners was given at Providence, Rhode Island, Oct. 25, 1798. A complete account of the arbitration is contained in Moore, , International Adjudications, Vols. I and II For the text of the decision see id. , II, 373. Google Scholar

See also Dr. Sapper, Karl, “A Modern Boundary Question, ”, Geopolitik, Berlin, November, 1928 (translated and published by the Boundary Commission of Guatemala, 1929), 7-8 Google Scholar, in relation to the effect of the reliance of Guatemalan Commissioners upon a map by a German geographer, Herman Au (1876), in negotiating in 1881, a boundary treaty with Mexico.

Article III of the treaty between the United States and Spain of 1819, set forth the boundary line between the two countries west of the Mississippi, describing it in part as “then following the course of the Rio Roxo, westward, to the degree of longitude 100 west from London and 23 from Washington;. . . the whole being as laid down in Melish's Map of the United States, published at Philadelphia, improved to the first of January, 1818. ” As a matter of fact Melish's map located the 100th meridian far east of the place where the true meridian is, when properly delineated. In an exhaustive opinion interpretative of the treaty, the Supreme Court of the United States, in 1896, concluded that the reference to the 100th meridian was to that meridian astronomically located, and not necessarily to the 100th meridian as located on Melish's map. See United States v. Texas, 162 U. S. 1, 37-42.

² “When the process of emancipation was complete, not a single boundary line had been actually agreed upon and defined, much less marked. Even where attempts were made to indicate them, the indications were insufficient or defective, owing to want of precise geographical data. The earlier laws, decrees and orders of the former Spanish government, home and colonial, were for the same reason necessarily insufficient. ” Moore, John Bassett, Memorandum on Uti Possidetis, Costa Rica-Panama Arbitration, 1913, p. 21. Google Scholar

“Authenticated maps are also to be considered, although such descriptive material is of slight value when it relates to territory of which little or nothing was known and in which it does not appear that any administrative control was actually exercised. ” Opinion and Award of Guatemala-Honduras Special Boundary Tribunal, January 23, 1933, p. 8.

² “for Maps are from the Nature of them a very slight Evidence, Geographers often lay them down upon incorrect Surveys, copying the Mistakes of one another; and if the Surveys be correct, the Maps taken from them, tho’ they may show the true position of a Country, the Situation of Islands and Towns, and the Course of Rivers, yet can never determine the Limits of a Territory, which depend entirdy upon authentic Proof; and the Proofs in that Case, upon which the Maps should be founded to give them any Weight, would be themselves a better Evidence, and therefore ought to be produced in a Dispute of this Nature, in which the Rights of Kingdoms are concern'd. ” (Memorial of the British Commissaries, Jan. I1, 1751, Dispute Concerning the Limits of Nova Scotia or Acadia, 1750-1751, quoted as Document No. 1430, Joint Appendix, Canada-Newfoundland Boundary Dispute in the Labrador Peninsula, Vol. VIII, p. 3755; quoted also by Mr. Ward Chipman in his Supplemental Argument in behalf of Great Britain, in the St. Croix River Arbitration, June 30, 1798, Moore, International Adjudications, II, 27. )

See discussions of nature and validity of maps as evidence by counsel for both Great Britain and the United States in the St. Croix River Arbitration, Moore, International Adjudications, I, 282, 289, II, 27, 91, 165, 173, 240-241; Sir Travers Twiss, The Oregon Question Examined, London, 1846, 288, 305-306; S. Mallet-Prevost, Report on the Cartographical Testimony of Geographers, British Guiana-Venezuelan Arbitration, Counter-Case of Venezuela (New York, 1898), II, 267-311, Appendix No. 6.

See Alaskan Boundary Tribunal, Proceedings, Senate Doc. No. 162, 58th Cong. , 2d Sess. , Washington, 1904, especially, Opinion of Lord Alverstone on Second Question, 1, 34; Opinion of United States Members on Fifth Question, I, 61; Case of Great Britain III, 100-102; Oral Argument of Sir Robert Finlay, VI, 293; Oral Argument of Mr. Dickinson (for United States), VII, 764, 771, 781; Oral Argument of Mr. Taylor (for United States), VII, 539.

See Memorandum of Authorities and Opinions on Evidential Value of Maps, Joint Appendix, in the Matter of the Boundary Between The Dominion of Canada and the Colony of Newfoundland in the Labrador Peninsula, in the Privy Council, Vol. VIII, Sec. Ill, 3755-3766.

Also The King v. Price (1926), S. C. R. (Can. ) 28, quoted in document last cited, 3763; Re Boundary between Canada and Newfoundland in the Labrador Peninsula, 1927, 137 L. T. R. 187.

Declared Huber, Sole Arbitrator, in his award of April 4, 1928, in the Palmas Island Arbitration between the United States and the Netherlands: “Any maps which do not precisely indicate the political subdivisions of territories, and in particular the Island of Palmas (or Miangas) clearly marked as such, must be rejected forthwith, unless they contribute—supposing that they are accurate—to the location of geographical names. Moreover, indications of such a nature are only of value when there is reason to think that the cartographer has not merely referred to already existing maps … but that he has based his decision on information carefully collected for the purpose. Above all, then, official or semi-official maps seem capable of fulfilling these conditions, and they would be of special interest in cases where they do not assert the sovereignty of the country of which the Government has caused them to be issued.

“If the Arbitrator is satisfied as to the existence of legally relevant facts which contradict the statements of cartographers whose sources of information are not known, he can attach no weight to the maps, however numerous and generally appreciated they may be. “The first condition required of maps that are to serve as evidence on points of law is their geographical accuracy. It must here be pointed out that not only maps of ancient date, but also modern, even official or semi-official maps seem wanting in accuracy. ” (Publication, International Bureau of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, 1928, 36-37; this JOURNAL, Vol. 22 (1928), p. 891. ) See Counter-Memorandum of Netherland Government, in same case, 11, and 61, Annex II. Cf. Rejoinder of United States in same case, 28.

⁴ See Art. Ill, treaty between Bolivia and Peru, of Dec. 30, 1902, this Journal, Vol. 3 (1909), Supp. , 383; Art. II, treaty between Honduras and Nicaragua, of Oct. 7, 1894, Martens, Nouv. Rec. Gén. 2 sér. , XXXV, 563, and award of King of Spain, Dec. 23, 1906, Oaceta de Madrid, No. 369.

⁵ The last two paragraphs of the text constitute a repetition of the substance of pages 342 and 343 (prepared in part by this author) of the Counter-Case of Guatemala, in the Guatemala-Hondurae Boundary Arbitration, under the treaty of July 16, 1930.

⁶ 137 L. T. R. 187, 199.

See also The King v. Price (1926), S. C. R. (Can. ) 28.

“In all of these maps issued by Russia, Great Britain, and the United States, the boundary line is drawn around the heads of the inlets. It is not contended that this boundary line was an accurate location of the true boundary. In the absence of knowledge as to the mountains, it appears to have been drawn on the 10 marine-league line, meaning from the heads of the bays and inlets. It precludes no one from saying that the occurrence of a mountain crest within 10 marine leagues of the coast would call for a change of the position of the line. But it is manifest that in every case the line was drawn in accordance with the American theory of what constituted the coast, and not in accordance with the theory now maintained by the Counsel for Great Britain as to what constituted the coast: … It is not contended that the action of any one of the officials making these maps worked an estoppel against this Government, but the uniform and continuous adoption and promulgation for sixty years, by all these officers, of the view that the line went around the head of the Lynn Canal, without a single map, or paper, or word, or act indicating the existence of any different view on the part of their Governments, certainly does lead to a strong inference that their Governments understood the Treaty consistently with the maps, and not inconsistently with them. ” (Opinion of United States members, Messrs. Root, Lodge and Turner, on Fifth Question, Alaskan Boundary Tribunal, Proceedings, Senate Doc. , No. 162, 52d Cong. , 2d Sess. , I, 61. )

⁷ “It is true that maps and their tables of explanatory signs cannot be regarded as conclusive proof, independently of the text of the treaties and decisions; but in the present case they confirm in a singularly convincing manner the conclusions drawn from the documents and from a legal analysis of them, they are certainly not contradicted by any document. ” (Eighth Advisory Opinion, Polish-Czechoslovakian Frontier, Dec. 6, 1923, Publications, Permanent Court of International Justice, Series B. No. 8, 33. )

⁸ See Opinion and Award, p. 70.