The times., 1899-08-11
The AIaskan boundary.

II is probably TO the Canadian Senator
Mills, Minister of Justice, that we shall
owe the completion of our boundary case
against Canada Not that il was not plain
enough before; but he appears to have
made it palmer through the careful appli-
cation of the -'reductjo ad absurdum.'
Careful leaders like Sir Wilfrid Laurier
and Sir Charles Tupper would not have
made the statements the Canadian Griggs
has. in fact, they have religiousiy avoid
ed the points which he has emphasized, for
the obvious reason that those same points,
which have always been up the sleeve OF
the American Joint High Commissioners,
necessarily give the Canadian case away.
But Mr.. Mills-he viii not get his X. C.
NJ G. on this adyenture-takes the locally
popular side of the question, and, to fire
the Canuck soul with patriotism. has said
a good many things which are well worth
considering because any analysis TO which
they may be subjected viii show that
Americans need not worry over an alleged
ambiguity in their bill Of rights 10 the
Alaskan boundary as it has been under
stood in this country ever since We pur-
chased the possession from Russia in 1861.
Let US quote from the statement credited
TO Mr. Mills, who has been referred to as
perhaps Canada's leading constitutional
lawyer But first it may be well to re-
mind readers of The Times that the main
Canadian contention in Alaska rests upon
a theory that the convention of 1925 be-
tween Russia and England gives the latter
and its dependencies access 10 and user
of harbors, inlets, and creeks indeBting the
coast; this aside from another claim that
the American line inland ought to be
drawn from the ocean front of the islands
off the coast, instead Of from the coast
itself, following its meanderings- The
Minister of Justice says:
just why the Americans refused TO arbitrate or
TO compromise except on conditions impossible 10
us Is shown IN the Treaty OF 1875. by the sew
enth article Of that treaty the vessels OF Rus
sia and England or those belonging 10 Their re-
specfiye sshjeets'' were mutually TO be at lib
erty without any hindraBce whatever, 10 enter
all the inland seas, CULTS, hayens, and creeks tor
the purposes Of fishing anG trading with the ma
tives. By Article the British and Russian yes
seis navigating The Pacific Ocean, if compelled
by storm accident, were allowed TO take
shelter IN the ports Of the respective parties and
were az liberty 10 refit there.
Now, is il not toe clear &c admit OF question that
tie contracting parties assumed that under the
provisions az this treaty there ports and
estuaries along the coast tina; under the SOW
ereign;y Of each2 Yet, Il the United States CON
tenEion is correct, there ports and no
waters remaining TO Great Britain.
Mr.. Mills must have taken his inforna
clude that be thinks us too dull to read
the Anglo Russian treaty Of 1925, which
anybody can get for the asking at the
State Department. The seventh article,
upon which he lays so much stress, reads
as follows:
Article VII 1t is also understood that for .he
space Of ten years from the signature Of the
present convention .he vessels Of the two powers or
those belonging TO their respective subjects shall
mutually lie al liberty 10 frequent, without any
hindrsnce whatever, all the inland seas the quits,
h4yens and creeks on the coast mentioned in
Article III fer the purpose CT fishing and Of trad
ing with the natives.
Reviewing the effect and the effective
ness. of this Article VII. the Washington
correspondent of the New York Tribune"
writes TO his paper: The ten-year limita-
ton aequieseed in by Great Britain has
been uniformly agreed 10 constitute com
psGlt stctEl3llEOn ny i-uEiduu III 1cZ9 OF
Russia's uncentroyerted right to all the
inland seas, the CULTS. havens. and creeks
which were subsequently ceded to the
United States in 1867 For that reason
Article VII has always been studiousiy
avoided by Canadians in boundary negotIa-
ttons. 1t was the one article that demon
strated EngIand's concession to Russian
ownersip Of every inch Of watershed that
drained into the Pacific. The Canadian
claim TO harbors, therefore. vanishes alb
solu.eiy before the Russian and American
undisputed ownership OF every creek for
the last seyenty-four years. II Senator
Mills has been correctly quoted he has put
his foot into It."
Ee adds that 1t might be Instructive for
MIR. Mills 20 know just how Article VII
came TO be put into the treaty OF 1925. 1t
resulted from the fact that, one year be-