"

So, the British sided with the Americans, and the current border reflects the American claim?
What were the differences between this and the Canadian claim? - Unsigned User:Geo Swan

Actually, the current boundary does not reflect the maximal U.S. claim.  I'll try to trype in some more info.   

The British didn't exactly side with the Americans; the border settlement was an arbitration (the Kaiser again, IIRC, as it had been with his father at the end of the San Juans Dispute).  The British backed down because of threats by T.E. Roosevelt that he would invade and annex British Columbia if he didn't get his way.  The main difference between the British hard position and the way things are now is that under the British terms, thet ""Yukon Ports"" - Skagway and Haines and Dyea etc would have been ""British"", i.e. part of British Columbia.

Canada didn't have a say in it, other than consulting London; British North American (Canadian) foreign affairs were still in London's bailiwick at that time (until 1931 or 1927 or something).

As it is under the treaty, the site of Forts Stikine and Taku should be within British Columbia; and in fact the mouths of the Stikine and Taku should be, but they've silted in a few miles downstream since the treaty was signed; the border hasn't been revised to reflect that (obviously not, even though it's in the language; same thing with the mis-survey of the 49th Parallel that's not going to get corrected, either).

There are two sticking points remaining in the Alaska Boundary Settlement.  One is that the treaty stipulates that the western shoreline of the Portland Canal is the boundary; US maps continue to show mid-channel.  Similarly with the A-B Line, which is between Point A and Point B on the north side of the Dixon Entrance; US maps show the boundary as being mid-Dixon Entrance, and the US/Alaska have even issued oil/drilling-exploration permits on ""their"" side of that line.

Same kind of fudge-up with the Oregon Treaty; during the Salmon War of the mid-1990s Canadian commercial vessels (whale watching boats) were busted by US Coast Guard in the area of the San Juans; but the treaty is very clear that ALL commercial vessels south of the 49th Parallel are to be unhindered; that would even include in Rosario Strait, far from the current border in the Haro Strait; during the same kafuffle Sen. Slade Gorton (State-Sen) in Washington invoked the treaty to demand free passage through the Johnstone Strait for American fishing vessels (nothing of the kind is guaranteed in the Oregon Treaty, or for that matter in the Alaska treaty either) and called on the US Navy to enforce the ""international waterway"" (which is all of a mile wide in spots).  Thing is it was the US who passed legislation that attacked non-American ships using this route, i.e. the act that makes it so that preference is given to vessels sailing from American port to American port over those from a ""foreign port"" to an American port; this act was passed specifically to route the Yukon shipping trade through Seattle over Vancouver, even though it was Canadian/British waters that the route traversed. 

Further Thoughts

Just considering the opening statements; the treaty was actually between the British Empire, with the Dominion of Canada as a signatory party, IIRC; BC was not involved in the actual signing.

And just as aside the phrasing of the second condition of the treaty cited:

Whenever the summit of the mountains shall be at a distance of more than ten marine leagues from the ocean, the limit shall be formed by a line parallel to the winding of the coast, and which shall never exceed the distance of ten marine leagues therefrom.

...is completely bizarre for anybody who's ever actually looked at a map of the coastline.  The negotiators were in London and Washington and Ottawa, far away with only the dimmest idea of where they were talking about.  Much the same as the Oregon Treaty, only worse; there ""the deepest channel"" seemed at least a bit logical, even though they didn't note the issues on the map with Point Roberts and the Gulf Islands/San Juans which make that border a bit of an absurdity; which so is the 49th Parallel from the Rockies west....that aside, the Alaska treaty issue cited is utterly bizarre; the Alaskan coast is a ragged array of inlets and bays, pierced by several large rivers.  There is no ""crest of the mountains"", for one thing - other than crowsflight-drawn lines from high peak to high peak, which i