New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1895-10-27
THE ALASKA BOUNDARY.

territorial dispute similar to that in Venez-
ucla but in which this country is far more d.
rectly concerned, is rapidly approaching the crit
ical stage That is. the question of the boundary
line between Alaska and British Columbia. For
several years 1t has been n matter OF nego'la-
ton between the two Governments, and much
has bcen published on the subject. The letter
and man which we print on another page OF to-
DAVIS paper present the salient features Of the
case with directness and lucidity. and are to be
commended to careful consideration. AS will
no seen. there Is at present wedefined boun-
Diary limo accented and contended for by this
country. 1t was laid down by the Treaty of
1925. between Russia and Great Britain. 1t was
accepted and recognized without dispute by
Russia. by Great Britain, by the United States.
by the Hudson Bay Company. and by the Do
minion Of Canada, down to 1887. Then the
Canadian Government suddenly discovered 1t
was oil wrong. 1t is IN odd coincidence that
lust before that time there were discoveries of
rich gold mines and other natural wealth close
to the line but on the Alaskan side Of it.
The canny Canadians did not at once. how
ever. proclaim their discovery to the world. They
first quietly made lot Of maps of the region,
with the boundary line drawn according to their
own taste and fancy. Then they demanded 'ral
the boundary should be changed so as 10 corre-
spond with their maps. They declared that the
Treaty OF 1895 did not define the boundary cor
rectly; it was ambiguous, and was drawn by
men who did not know what they were about
For example it says the line shall run up FORT
land Channel. when it really means BENIN Cnan-
mel. How do we know the treaty makers meant
Benin when they said Portland? Because say
the Canadians Portland Channel had not at that
time been named Really, 1t seems TO mere
Yankee. rather funny that the negotiations OF
that treaty should have mentioned by name, as a
wellknown thing something that had not yet re-
ceiyed a name. Strange, too, that the channel
should not yet have been named in 1925, when
it was explored and named, by its present name,
by Captain Vancouver In 1913.
Again the treaty provides that the boundary
line shall follow the highest ridge of the noun
tains. provided 1t be not more than ten marine
leagues from the coast. Where the ridge IS
further inland. or where there Is no ridge, the
boundary shall be formed by line parallel 10
the windings Of the coast at distance OF ten
marine leages therefrom. Now that coast Is
exceedingly irregular, and is fringed with an
almost continuous chain of islands some OF them
of considerable width The American cOnten-
ton has been that the coast means the main
land, and that the phrase "windings or the
coast" means that the distance Is TO be meas
ured inland from the innermost extremites OF
all large bays and CULTS. as well as from the
o,itermost extremites Of capes and headlands.
The Canadians, on the other hand, have argued
that bv "coast" is meant the outer shores Of the
islands, or that, at any rate, the ten-league meas
urements must be made from the main channels
Of coast waters, and from lines drawn Dolby
across from headand to headand. and not from
the indentations. AS there Is no well-defined
mounain-ridge, tie line will have TO be drawn
parallel with the coast The width OF the pan
handle Of Alaska will therefore vary by many
miles. according as one or the other OF these
systems of reckoning is adopted
AS we have said the time is close at hand when
this matter must be settled. The surveying par
ties sent out by the two Governments are to
finish their work by the end Of the present year.
Then will come argument. and perhaps arbra-
ton. There will be a fine chance for the cuckoos
to urge the giving up Of everything to England:
and also for the more rambunctous Little
Pedlington Gazettes" Of England TO denOunce
the Yankee Indian barbarians'' who offer OBJ
stacles TO British ACKNOWLEDGEMENT. OF the value
of the property in dispute there can be no qucs-
ton 1t is capable of producing every year more
wealth than the whole purchase-price Of Alaska.
England cannot be blamed for wanting it, If she
can prove it to be fairly hers Certainly the
United States cannot afford to relinqulsh it ex-
cept upon the most convincing proofs. But,
however the dispute may be settled, we think
Influences Will be at work which will compel
a dispassionate consideration Of II. The Brit
ISL will not be- permitted TO rush the Ameri.
can position as they would Nicaraguan por,
or Maiabele kraal.