Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1899-11-04
TIL Alaska BOUNDARY
Elk Secretary Foster, Member Of the
High Joint Commission, Gives
the Facts.
Relates History Of the Dispute and
Claims Made by Crest
Britain.
Land Had Been Occupied by United
States Undisputsd for Many
Years.

Washington, Nov. 4-John w. Foster
former secretary of state and member
OF the Alaska boundary commission,
made some important statements last
night concerning the boundary dispute
and the failure of the joint commission
to reach an agreement. The occasion
was lecture by Mr.. Foster before the
National Geographic Society, at the
Congregational church. "A large audi
ence of public officials, diplomats and
geographers was present
Mr.. Foster, after sketching the his
tory of the Pacific strip and the long
and undisputed possession and occu-
pancy Of it by the United States, said:
There had not been a single protest or
complaint on the part of the British or
Canadian governments, except that
some friction had occurred between the
customs outposts as to the exact de-
markation of the eastern line of the
strip. For the first time q statement
was presented by the British govern.
ment to the United States on the first Of
August, 1888, developing the fact that
a difference of views existed respecting
the provisions of the treaty Of 1926 re-
lating to the strip OF territory and the
waters embraced by it.
Two months previous an agreement
had been reached between the two gov
ernments for the appointment of joint
commission for the adjustment of pend
ing questions OF difference between the
United States and Canada. Soon after
ward the commission met at Quebec,
Aug. %, 1898, and it was made known
for the first time that the British gov
eminent would claim that the boundary
line should run from the extremity Of
Prince OF Wales island, along the pas
sage known on modern maps as Pearse
canal, to the head of Portland canal,
thence directly TO the coast. and follow
the nearest mountains to the coast.
crossing all the inlets of the sea, up to
Mount ST. Elias. Such line would
give to the United States strip of an
average width of less than five miles.
broken at short intervals by the arms of
the sea, and would transfer the greater
portion of all the inlets to British terri
tory.
AS the Canadian government, with
the.consent of the British foreign office,
has made public the protocol or official
journal of .iie joint high commission,
showing the result of its deliberations
on the boundary, violate no diplomat
ic propriety in referring to these facts.
The protocol shows that, after sessions
of several months, the commissioners
were unable to agree.
After failure to concur as to the Ian
guage of the treaty of 1925 one of two
methods OF adjustment was proposed
by the British commissioners The first
was a conventional boundary, by which
Canada should receive by cession or
perpetual grant Pyramid Harbor or
Lynn Canal and strip of land connect
ing 1t with the Canadian territory to
the mort Invest. and the remaining boun-
Diary line to be drawn in the main con-
formable to the contention of the Unit
ed States.
The American commissioners, not
being prepared TO accept this PROPOSE
| ton, the alternative was submitted by
| the British commissioners Of an arbi-
ira ton OF the whole territory in dis
| pute in conformity with the terms of
1.-The Venezuelan arbitration. In re-
isponse to an inquiry from their Ameri-
can colleagues whether the selection OF
an umpire for the American contingent
would be considered the British COM
missloners replied that they would re-
gard such selection as most objec-
1 tionable.
The American commissioners
declined the British plan Of arbitration
and stated that there was no analogy
/ between the present controversy and
1.-THE Venezuelan dispute; that in the la T.
tier case the occupation OF the territory
lin question had from the beginning
been followed by constant and repeated
protests and objections of Venezuela
land the controversy was one OF long
standing, but that in the case of the
Alaskan territory there had been {
peaceful and undisputed occupation
and exercise of sovereignty for more
4 than seventy years, and that no ques'
1 ton respecting its occupation and SOW,
9ereignty had been raised by the British
government until the present commits.
sion had been created.
They challenged their British col.
leagues TO cite a single Instance in his
#Itory where subject attended by such
1 circumstances had been submitted Il
larbitration, and in declining the British
i proposition they proposed the plan OF
Isettlement which had been framed by
3ESecretary Olney and Sir Julian Paunce.
4 fote in 1897. The treaty which these
4 two distinguished statesmen fra med Sc
icarefully marked the mos advanced
stage yet attained for the peaceful set.
tiement of interna tional questions no
susceptible of adjustment dy diplo.
matte negotiation.
In that convention, drafted with {
\ view to .consecrating by treaty The
principle of international arbitration,
they provided that all such question.
should be submitted to arbitrator ant
4 an umpire, except territorial claims
They recognized that territorial ques
lions affected 50 vitality the sovereign
" and honor of ma tions that as to then
a different method was necessary, AM
they provided that these should be sub
mitted to a tribunal Of three judges o.
the highest standing In each countr,
and that a binding decision could onl.
be rendered by vote OF five of the 81,
judges.
The American commissioners EN-
bodied this proposition for the settle
ment of the Alaskan boundary dispute
with the modification that binding de
cision might be rendered by four OF th
-