The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1899-07-29
CANADIAN STATEMENT.
The Initial Point Of The Boundry Is In
Controversy, II Is Said.
A VERY INGENIOUS ARGUMENT IS MApl
AGAINST the Claims of the United
states by David Mills. Ministcr OF
Justice Of the Dominion.

New York, July ga Herald special
from Ottawa contains the following state
ment about the Alaskan boundary dispute
prepared by David Mills. Canadian min
lister OF justice:
The United States obtained the cesscii
OF this territory from Russia at a time
when the claims were unsettled and the
long strip of territory extending from
Mount st. Elias along the coast To the
southern part Of Prince Of Wales island
was undoubtedly in Canadn's possession.
1t is too late to consider how far this Is
Injurious to this country, Under the treaty
OF 1925 the line drawn between the recoy~
nized territory OF Russia and Great Brit
ain was begun at the southeast of Prince
OF Wales island and from that point was
to ascend north along the channel called
Portland, This could hardly be the chan-
nei called Portland channel in modern
maps. because Portland channel OF this
day lies due east from the southern ex-
tremity of Prince of Wales island The line
was to ascend the channel to a point on
the coast on the 56th degree OF north lati-
tude; now. what is known as Portland
channel falls short of that point, The
line was also TO extend north in such a
way as TO leave Prince of Wales island TO
Russia If the boundary started from the
southeast extremity of Prince of Wales
island and ran due east Il would have
lett the whole of the island TO Russia: hut
IL drawn north from the south extremity
II would have cut OFF a small portion OF
al aud Nf til.
treaty would indicate a line drawn up that
channel which is east of Prince of Wales
island to the 56th degree OF north latitude
point which could not be reached by
what Is known as Portland channel So
you see the initial point OF the boundary
Is In controversy.
The boundary when il reached tho both
degree was to follow the summit from
the mountains which extend in a line
parallel to the coast from the seth degree
TO the intersection with the l4lst parallel
but when the mountains prove to be more
tnan ten marine leagues from the coast
the limit to the British possession was to
De line parallel to the winding of the
coast. but which should never exceed u
distance of ten marine leagues. IT. IL
clear that the makers of the treaty as
sumo that there was a mountain range
which for the most part was within ten
leagues OF the coast. The treaty also
FlpNlutn lHdt HellUST contracting party
shall form settlements within the territory
of the ether The United states received
all the rights of Russia and no more But
the United States authorities seem to
think that not only have they the right TO
form settlemelss on our side. but also
that when they do SO the territory ought
TO be considered as theirs and under no
reference TO arbitration should the SOW.
ereignty over our territory thus encroached
on be open to question
return again to the Lynn canal Bear
In mind what the treaty says about the
line which should follow the coast. being
within ten leagues OF It; II line were
drawn around the head OF Lynn inlet as
the United States contend It should be-
the point whore 1t passed the inlet would
be at least twenty leagues from the cnust.
There Is well-defned coast line from
the 141st meridian ~ Cape Spancer on the
9th degree OF north latitude an1 Sy the
terms OF the treaty that boundary gould
not be more than ten ieaGdes from the
coast. II must, In fact, be much nearer,
because the range in this latitude sets in
near the coast
The United States refuse to arbitrate
unless we abandon our claim to the Lynn
canal Why should we abandon it2 II II
is ours why should We not have It? The
British commissioners offered to compro-
mise Tho United States rejected the Of
fer, because 1t recognized our claim to
Pyramid harbor and TO strip of territory
leading to what is indisputably our ter
ritory in the Yukon. Under this compro-
mise the United States would have both
Dyea and Skaguay which We think are
in Canadian territory. Let me. in con-
clusion, recall history for the benefit of
the American people. When the disputed
boundary between Maine and New Bruins
wick was being discussed by the two gov
ernments We claimed territory OF the st
John river known as the Madawaska set
Element, because 1t was a settlement OF
French Canadians who had for long
series OF years been under British control. |
Did the United States concede 1t fol !
that reason which Is the same contention
they are making about Dyea and Skaguayy
Not at all 1t claimed that as II was on
the territory which IN It's opinion was part |
of Maine. no matter how long II had been /
under British protection 1t ought to be
yielded up.
Can any American statesman give an,
reason for It's retention of Madawasks
which would not at the present time apply
II Dyea and skaguay II found by com
petent tribunal TO be on Canadian terri
tory?