Manchester Democrat. [volume] (Manchester, Iowa) 1875-1930, 1899-07-12
province to British subjects. The men,

province to British subjects. The mem
bers had worked together in greatest
harmony for the accomplishment of
but since it was seen that provinces
such as Ontario and British Columbia
had it in their power to enact laws
which might make of no effect gen
eral settlement as proposed the difficult
ties have greatly increased.
A year ago n provisional boundary
was agreed upon with the exception of
a few miles of the Dalton trail mt the
end of Chilkoot pass from Pyramid
harbor. AT the same time the growing
Importance of the Alaska territory in
dispute as furnishing the gateway to
the I'll Dorado of the North imprcsses
the necessity for the prompt settlement
Of the boundary dispute. To under
stand the difficulties of the case his
torical and geographical review is nee
essary.
History of Question in Dispute.
BY the Webster-Ashburton treaty of
1912 between the United States and
Great Britain the northern and east
ern boundaries We're accurately defined
from the Rocky Mountains to- Mars
Hill, at the eastern end of Maine. In
regard to the northern and western
boundary, after considerable discussion
and diplomatic fencing, the question
was left unsettled. Out of this boun-
Diary question grew the excitement
which led to the adoption of the cam
paign cry, "Fifty-four forty or fight"
How this old boundary question has
been at least partially revived involves
an interesting play of treaty against
treaty and rights against rights. To
understand it, 1t is necessary to 20 back
to the ukase of the Emperor Alexander
l. in 1929, by which he declared all the
territory of the Pacific coast north of
the fifty-tirst parallel of north latitude
Russian territory, and by the same
ukase made that part of the Pacific
Ocean lying north of the fifty-first par
allel of latitude in America to 40 de-
grees north latitude on the Asiatic
coast closed sea. The effect Of this
ukase was to exclude United States
whalers from the Northern Pacific, an
exclusion which the Government of
the United States vigorously protested,
and as result, in 1924, by treaty be-
tween the two governments, the North
ern Pacific was made an open sea.
Evadcd War with England.
BY the Oregon settlement of 1916
Great Britain got to the Pacific, that
solution at the time being regarded as
preferable to fighting or to probable
contest all along the Pacific coast with
England for supremacy. The United
States sacrificed the great Northwest
in order to acquire New Mexico and
California. Everything considered,
that probably was the best solution. 1t
gave the United States compact ter
ritory, and, admitting that Canada and
the United States are always to remain
separate countries, it is but reasonable
the former should have Its outlet on
the Pacific in British Columbia. BY
acquiring Alaska, however, in 1867, the
British outlet in the Pacific now inter-
yenes between parts of the United
States. Curiously but naturally enough,
Great Britain, or rather Canada, is now
seeking another outlet to the coast, and
this time through what. since the ces-
sion of Alaska to the United States
thirty-two years ago. has always been
considered American territory. What
historical or treaty right has Great
Britain or Canada to such an outlet?
The question is not an easy one to an
swer. Great Britain's title to British
North America from the 141st degree
of west longitude (meridian of Green
wich) rests, like that of the United
States to Alaska, upon her treaty with
Russia. Russia's right certainly was
a vague one, and amounted at best
only to claim in regard to the vast
interior of whose extent ut the time
she had no conception. Great Britain's
title to the Northwest east of 14lst de.
gree OF longitude has never been serl.
eWsH Questioned. II IL only IN regard