The Worcester spy. [volume] (Worcester, Mass.) 1898-1904, 1899-11-23

tains, which it follows to Mt. st. Elias.
This claim is based on the next phrase
of the treaty, which declares that af-
ter leaving Portland Channel 1.-The line
Of demarcation shall follow the sum-
NIT of the mountains situated parallel
to the coast as far as the point of in
tersection of the 141st degree of west
longitude, ETC." On the old chart BY
Vancouver on which the treaty was
based, range of mountains parallel
to the coast and situated about 80 miles
back from the shore is shown, the sum-
mits being beautifully arranged in a
continuous chain Undoubtedly such a
range was supposed to exist at that
time, but the English diplomats who
framed the treaty with Russia evident
ly suspected that its position might
not be shown correctly on Vancouver's
map, and fearing that it was really
further inland than it there appeared
they thought 1t wise to insert a modi-
flying clause by which Russia could be
prevented from getting too wide strip
of the western coast. The nearer the
supposed range of mountains was to
the shore line the better for them, so
they did not propose to limit its posi-
ton on that side, but lest it should
stray too far to the east they shrewdly
provided as follows: That wherever
the summit of the mountains which ex-
tend in direction parallel to the
coast from the seth degree of north lat
itude to the point of intersection of
the 141st degree of west longitude shall
prove to be at the distance of more
than ten marine leagues from the
ocean, the limit between the British
possessions and the line of coast which
is to belong to Russia, as above men
toned Chat is to say, the limit of the
possessions coded by this convention)
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.
Now the American contention is that
there is no such range of mountains
parallel to the coast. Mountains being
extremely numerous all over this strip
of territory, the English have no diff
Guilty in drawing their line from peak
to peak so that it shall practically fol-
low the waters edge, and this, they
claim, is following 'the summit of the
mountains situated parallel to the
coast"
OF course there is much involved in
this controversy besides the mere ques-
ton of square miles of territory. The
really serious object of Great Britain
is to secure one or more seaports and
access to the interior without coming
under American Jurisdiction, which
means the breaking of the continuity
of our coast line so that instead of con-
trolling, practically, the entire western
coast, except that part from Cape
Flattery to 81 degrees, 40 seconds north
latitude, which we gave up to her in
1896 our jurisdiction as far asl Mt. ST.
Elias will be over a series of discon-
neeted fragments.
In the face of the ambiguity we may
fall back upon a generally accepted
principle in boundary disputes that
continuous occupation of territory or
undisputed recognition of line shall
have a determining effect. 1t cannot be
denied that up to a comparatively re-
cent date, about 1887 the line was
drawn upon English maps essentially
as upon those of Russia, or upon
our own, and there is much
evidence to show that this line was
what was meant in the treaty. Before
Alaska came into our possession there
was a strong feeling among Canadians
that this strip, now known as South
east Alaska, ought to belong to Great
Britain, but it was not held that it was
hers in virtue of the treaty.
Naturally the thing for the United
States to do was to stand by this in
depreciation, so long accepted by the
English and to declare that the terri
tory was ours. We shall be compelled,
however, to allow the matter to go into
arbitration. If arbitration means a de-
cision in accord with the principles of
Justice and equity, we ought to well
come such a determination of the case.
But in modern diplomacy arbitration
means compromise, and we may as well
resign ourselves to the cutting in two
A 4
ture of the continuity of our coast line.
We are driven to arbitration by our
own act of few years ago when we
thrust ourselves into a controversy
over boundary line on another con-
tinent, in which we can have no in
terest except perhaps, that which
grows out of a very foggy and uncer-
tain sentiment" This result was dis
tinctly foreseen more than three years
ago, and predicted in an article printed
in the Atlantic Monthly for April, 1895,
the closing paragraph of which is as
follows:
1.-THE truth is that Great Britain is
meeting our own wishes in this matter
with almost indecent haste, because the
arbitration of the Alaska boundary
line, by which she hopes and expects
to acquire an open sea coast for her
great northwestern territories, and to
weaken US by breaking our exclusive,
jurisdiction north of 54 degrees 40 min
utes, is enormously more important to
her than anything she is likely to gain
or lose In South America. Having driv-
en- her to accept arbitration in this case
it will be impossible for us to refuse
1t in Alaska. and we shall find our
selves again badly worsted by the dip
lomatic skill of a people who, as indi-
viduals, have developed intellectual ac-
tivity, manliness, courage, unselfish de-
votion to duty, and general nobility of
character elsewhere unequaled in the
worlds history, but whose diplomatic
policy as nation is and long has been
characterized by aggressiveness, greed,
absolute indifference to the rights of
others, and splendid facility in ignor-
ing every principle of justice or inter-
national law whenever commercial in
terests are at stake"