The times., 1899-09-06
WEDNESDAY. September 6. 1899.
The AIaskan boundary.

It goes without saying that Congress
will be called upon TO give serious atten-
ton to the Alaskan boundary dispute with
Great Britain. We may think with prob
able justice. that, but for the truculent at
titude OF Canada. and our own dense fool
ishness in allowing that dependency TO
take part in the negotiations in, pracd
caIlE the guise Of a sovereign power, there
would have been little if any difficulty in
- reaching an accommodation with friendly
~ nation, on the basis OF our undoubted
rights under the treaty of 1867 with Rus
sia. and the status quo ante, recognized by
Great Britain for a century.
AS il is we are the victim OF bad State
Department diplomacy in the past and
must, perhaps, take the consequences.
Why they should extend to the concession
Of Canadian port on the Lynn Canal is
beyond comprehension That the Admin
istration should for a moment think of
abandoning its thoroughly wen grounded
contention that this body Of water is un-
altera5ly and eternaiiy American passes
beifef Yet we are told that should the
final settlement exclude Canada from the
Lynn Canal that colonial onshoot OF Great
Britain is 10 be given port in any case
Il viii not be done without most sturdy
pie. II might be held by the party nov
- ~an power over the country TO be an act
Of grace and courtesy, defensible on senti-
mental grounds; but it would be the
analogue of which could not be found in
the history OF English imperial policy, and
which would be regarded as infamous by
all thinking Americans.
We viii grant that something is due TO
the British Government for kindness shown
10 US during the Spanish war But the
obligation cannot be stretched TO cover the
surrender Of national territory, no matter
how much that may be desired by Great
Britain for the benefit Of Canada. Either
the Lynn Canal is ours exclusively or 1t
is not ours at all. II is both unwise and
positively unpatictie to permit the open
ing wedge 10 be driven into the question,
and thus clear the way for our defeat in
future negotiations, as happened when We
surrendered our mare clausum contention
in the Behring Sea difference.
Our Alaskan boundary is defined legally
and absolutely in our deed to the terri
tory The ridiculous Canadian claim is
barred by its context and by the usage
Of a period too long TO ALLOW a thought
OF retroactive revision. Canada, or the
English Foreign Office for Canada, never
would have dreamed Of entering claim
10 an American seaport, If gold perilously
near 10 the boundary line Of the United
States and, in cases. or the hither side
Of it. had not been discovered. AS re-
marked we are under obligations 10 Eng
land but under none whatever to the Do
minion. II the latter badly needs place
on one OF our inlets at which TO land goods
and supplies destined for points beyond the
presently defined American boundary, there
lis no apparent reason why some American
station might not be designated where such
commodities could be allowed free entry.
The idea OF a Canadian free port under the
British flag, on undeniably American SOIL
IS simply iRtolerable and, if the attempt
is made TO carry 1t into effect, an issue be-
tween the people OF this country and its
Executive is inevitable. The alienation Of
national territory. whether 1t involves the
OF penny or OF a principality, is
100 serious a thing TO allow without the
previous consent Of the legislative branch
OF the Government