New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1899-10-26

CANADA'S "LAST WORD"
The conclusion of modus vvendi on the
Alaska boundary is quickly followed by the ut
terance of what is declared 70 he Canada's
final proposition for n permanent settlement
This latter is In no respect new, being merely
restatement Of claims made long ago As FOR
its nnallty, we simply decline 10 believe any
such thing II is incredible. If we were deal
ing with an unfrendly nation. or with an ig-
norant and cantankerOus one. an ultmatum OF
this kind might he possible But the Dominion
Of Canada Is a friendly. enlightened and rea-
sonable nation, and II Is not to be believed that
II means thus to slam the door in its neigh
boris face For last read --latest The two
words primarily are one: hut in their sec
ondary and most common meanings they are
far apart
This latest proposition. then, is in the first
place. that the dispute shall he settled by ar
bitration on terms like those adopted In the
case Of Venezuela. Yes, and no. The United
States has no thought of repudlatng its own
principles of arbitration. certainly not those so
recently established by II in Venezuela with so
happy n result But like rules for like cases,
and if the cases materially differ the rules, or
the application Of them, must correspondingly
differ Between the cases Of Venezuela and
Alaska there are several differences. at least
one Of which is fundamental. That is, that
while in the case OF Venezuela the boundary
had IN be determined on the basis Of history.
ancient settlements wilderness Of obscure
records and multiplicity of vague and half
Ineligible and conflicting treaties. in the case
Of Alaska II is to be fixed according 10 only one
modern. tcrse and explicit treaty. In the for
| +lo x-oc wi
70 be drawn on general principles of equity In
the latter. where II is to he drawn under the
legal terms Of the treaty. Indeed. the dispute Is
not so much as to the boundary as 1t Is con
corning the application of the treaty. II an
agreement be reached upon the purport of the
treaty the boundary question will be auto
matically settled.
Rut note again that Canada demands an OK
centjon 10 the rule 10 wit that no matter how
the treaty may be applied she must have Pyra-
mid Harbor. That Is an absolute requisite, pre-
limnary to arbitration. Does II not occur 10
orr Canadian friends that in that they are do
handing the concession of the vital principle
of the whole case? The case turns upon the
question whether coast In the treaty means
the tidewater edge Of the mainland or the sea
ward edge of the outermost islands. If the lat
!
Pyramid Harbor but Dyea and Skaguay and
Jnnean and Fort Wrangel. and every inch Of
mainland south Of Lynn Canal II the former
all those places belong TO the United states
Does 1t not seem bit unreasonable for Canada
70 demand that even If It shall be found to be-
long 10 us Pyramid Harbor shall be given to
! her? Especially since her proposal Is that II
shall he given in return for nothing. or for
Oct
octs that we shall give her Pyramid Ilarbor In
exchange for Dyea and Skaguay. But tltes
70 all three rest upon the same basis IT, under
the treaty, Pyramid Harbor belongs TO CANADA
then also Dyea and Skaguay belong TO her;
IN which case we do not want them the more
because her possession OF Pyramid Harbor
would make them not worth having. But H.
under the treaty Pyramid Harbor belongs 10
U.S. so do Dyea and Skaguay belong 10 US ana
canada's offer TO give us our own loses It's as
pect OF generosity
Observe. finally. that Canada especially en-
phaslzes the fifty years occupancy clause OF ule
Venezuela treaty. That Is well. we are not
sure but that Il was the United STATES 'hae
originally suggested It's incorporation III any
Alaskan arbitration scheme, and mat 'ahaui
~ erst onnosed t. However that may he, it is
| evident that IN demanding 1 HlhhiN i'"'"O' 80
any event Canada Is demanding an excep-
tion 10 that very principle upon which she os-
tons,hlv insists. For there is not a shadow or
doubt that under the fifty years clause
pvranIh Uarbor would belong to us. IL mas
mayor heen IN Canadian or British possession
hut for more than sixty years In me unchal
lnngod nossession first Of Russia and then or
! tho United States That Is fact or history
,rhicb no Canadian will venture 10 deny. Ana
tho same IS true Of the entire mainland coast
i &c a Fact Of record that from the date or the
Anglo.Russian treaty In 1925 down 10 the cos
s,on ~ Alaska TO the United States IN lNb'
Russia interpreted that treaty as giving Her
tho unbroken coastllne Of the mainland, ana
che actually possessed and occupied mat coast
and Creat Britain without demur acquiesced
therein. and for many years after 1861 exactly
tho same situation prevailed. only with Inc
r-rited States IN Russla's place. That Canada
sho,,ld now demand a reversal and reputation
~ that we'll established practice. and should
demand as sine qua non m exception 10 the
nr,nc,nle Of arbitration and 70 the rules of rs
annlcation which, II granted, would impair
that nrInciple and nullify those rules. Is sum
c,ent,v surnrising That she makes such DC
mond as her last word" Is not yet to be he
lleved
----~--------~~------