Vilas County news. [volume] (Eagle River, Vilas County, Wis.) 1896-1927, 1899-07-17
THAT BOUNDARY.
Why England and the United States
are Disputing About Alaska.

Why England and the United States
are Disputing About Alaska.
These, in a nutshell, are the essen
tial facts about the Alaska boundary
dispute:
The boundary was defined in the
treaty of 1867, by which the United
States purchased Alaska from Russia,
in the terms used in the previous
treaty between Great Britain and Rus
sia. By that definition the line runs
from the southernmOst point of Prince
| of Wales Island, in latitude $40, up
Portland Channel to the fifty-sixth
parallel of latitude; thence along ''the
summit of the mountains parallel to
the coast to the 141st meridian of
west longitude! thence along that
meridian to the frozen sea-"
Two added sections said:
First-That Prince of Wales Island
should belong to the United States.
Secondhand when the summit of
the mountains should be "more than
ten marine leagues from the ocean"
the line should run parallel with the
sea and not more than ten leagues
away from it.
In 1867 and for some years there
after every map-Russian, British and
Canadian, as we'll as American
showed the boundary as it is now
claimed by the United States.
Previous to 1867 the Hudson Bav
company had conceded the boundary
as claimed by the United States by
leasing from Russia the coast lands
within it.
Some years after the treaty of 1867
Canadian officials discovered that
there are two Prince of Wales Islands,
big one and little one
The latter, lying at the mouth of
Portland Channel was evidently the
one meant in the treaty.
The Canadians claimed that the
larger island to the westward, whose
southern point also comes down to
latitude $40, was the one meant. To
reconcile this with the language of the
treaty they claim that the line passes
northward, not through Portland
Camel at all, but through Clarence
Strait, Boehm Channel and Burroughs
Bay.
This line would cut off many islands
sold by Russia to the United States.
Canada also claims that the noun
tain summit of the treaty means the
low hills next to coast; that the
thirty-mile line is to be measured, not
from the mainland coast, but from the
outer line of the islands along the
! coast
From Mount st. Elias northward
there is no dispute as to the line. 1t
only needs surveying.
In other words, the Canadian claim
is that the treaty when it says port
land Channel" does not mean Port
land Channel; that when it says
ocean" it means sounds" or land
locked bays, and that all maps ex-
cept Canadian maps are absurd.
The Canadian line leaves every
where only narrow strip of land con-
coded to the United States. It cuts
across deep harbors from headland to
| headland
There are three arguments for the
| Oohou1c1h G401Iu. 1uSy dI0, Ill LuS
order of their Importance:
1. Canada wants the disputed strip.
2. Great Britain's fleet on the
Pacific is stronger than that of the
United States.
8. Alaska can't be reached by land.
When the United States wished to
submit the question to arbitration
Canada consented on condition that
her claim to Dyea and Skagua be arbi-
trated, and that, in any event, one
port on tide-water be conceded to her.
A Canadian tide-water port would be
a peculiar outcome of a thirty-miIe-
from-the-coast line; the United States
refused. The recent conference was a
| failure.
Great Britain is apparently willing
to arbitrate the question of the
boundary. Canada is not.
The matter has gone so far now that
any decision would probably be in the
nature of compromise. The Dominion
| is willing to risk a compassionate the
most important point, a seaport to
the Klondike region, is conceded her
| beforehand.