Gilpin observer., 1899-07-27
ALASKA BOUNDARY.
cANADA'S ATTITUDE ON THE
QUESTION.
Sir Wiifried Lauriers Statement That Has
Caused Much Comment VIII Not
Brighten the United states

Chicago, July 2G-The Chicago Rec
, ord says:
In the Canadian House of Commons
on Saturday, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, the
premier, declared that the Alaskan
boundary dispute was beyond the hope
of compromise, and that there re-
manned but two methods of settlement
arbitration or war. He added that
no one would think of war. He said
both parties agreed that there should
be arbitration, but could not agree AZ
to who should be the arbtrators.
The Alaskan question is simple
enough. In 1925 the British govern
ment conceded Alaska to Russia, and
in 1867 Russia sold Alaska to the
United States. No question as to the
boundary arose between England and
Russia or between the United States
and Canada until 1884. Up to that
time British maps deliurited the terri
tory according to the present claim of
the United States. The disputed terri
tory extends in the form of pan
handle down the Pacific coast. The
Canadians contend that this pam
handle should end at the Benin canal;
the Americans hold that it runs to the
Portland canal. Another dispute is as
to the width of this panhandle. The
Anglo Russian treaty provided that the
line should follow the coast mountain
range, but If the range was more than
ten marine leagues inland then the line
should be at the ten-league limit. In
order to make diplomatic case the
Canadians have raised all the ques-
tions that the issue affords. Divested
of these the case is simply that. discov-
ering the value of Alaska. Great Bri-
tain, Mt n period when it's policy was
aggressive. encouraged Canada to
make claim to n portion of Alaska held
by the United States.
Rival Canadian politicians have
made the promise of recovery of this
territory a stepping stone to popular
favor, and, as at present. the party
which is out of power has always
taunted the party in power with its
failure TO make its promise good. At
the time Great Britain encouraged
Canada to make this claim the moth
er country's feeling toward the United
States was not amiable. Now Great
Britain is seeking friendship and IA
vor mt Washington. Thus Canada finds
its claim on Alaska but feebly sup
ported by Great Britain. That claim
Is preposterous at best. Sir Wilfricd
Laurier's declaration of possible means
of settlement amounts TO surrender. II
is easy for him to bite his thumb at Un-
cle SdIii, DPciuSe IHp responsibility
for action rests with Great Britain.
and he knows that neither the mother
country nor the United States wants
war over the Alaskan boundary ques-
ton.
To Americans there seems to be no
merit in Canada's contention ms to
where the boundary line should run. 1t
is put forth with vigor because the
Canadians are very eager to have an
outlet to tidewater from which they
are excluded by the boundary line as
now recognized. IL the Canadians
want this outlet so badly. which 1t
would not injure the United States
materially to cOncede them, why not
grant them one without yielding the
main question as to the boundary line?
In return for this great favor we could
secure from Great Britain some valu-
able concession. elsewhere-as, for ex-
ample, n modification of the Clayton
Bulwer treaty so as to remove obsta-
cles now in the way of constructing
the Nicaragua canal. 1t is not a bad
plan to be II good neighbor. particular
ly when the opportunities for getting
benefits in return are excellent.