New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1899-06-04
THE ALASKAN BOUNDARY.
ROCK on WHICH THE JOINT HIGH
COMMISSION SPLIT.

COMMISSION SPLIT.
STATEMENT BY THE BRITISH FOREIGN
OFFICE RELATING TO THE PROCEED
INGS FOR ARBITRATION-PRO-
PosALs AND COUNTER
PROPOSALS.
London. June 3--The Foreign Office issued
Parliamentary paper tonight giving In detail
the proceedings Of the Joint High Commission in
Washington on February 1S relating to the Brit
sh proposals for arbitration the Alaskan
boundary. 1t says the British Commissioners
proposed the Immediate appointment of an ar
bitral tribunal to determine the boundary be-
tween Alaska and Canada from the southern
most point. at Prince Of Wales Island, TO Mount
ST. Elias. in accordance with the Anglo Russian
treaty of February %, 1926, the tribunal to con-
sist of three jurists. one nominated by the Privy
Council. one by President Mckinley and the
third to be selected by the two nominees.
RULES SUGGESTED BY THE BRITISH.
The rules governing the arbitrators were as
follows:
A-Adverse holding prescription during
period of fifty years shall make good the title.
The arbtrators may deem exclusive political
control OF the district. as well as settlement
thereof sufficient to constitute adverse holding
or make prescriptve title.
B-The arbitrators may recognize and give ef-
feet to rights OF claims resting on any other
ground valid according to international law or
principles Of international law that the arbi-
traitors may deem applicable to the case Whlch
are not in contravention of Rule A.
C-In determining the boundary, II the terri
tory of one party shall be found by the tribunal
TO have been at the date OF this treaty In occu-
patton of the subjects citizens Of the other
party such effect shall be given to such occu-
patton as reason, justice, the principles or In
ternational law and the equities of the case re-
quire.
The other articles provide for meeting sixty
days after the printed articles are submitted;
that all questions. including the final judgment
shall be determined by a majority Of all the ar
bitrators, the decision. If possible. to be rem
dered within three months of the close OF argu-
ments; and the employment Of necessary assist
ance of scientific experts, each Government TO
pay its own expenses, and the other expenses
to be equally divided
The concluding article provides that the high
contracting parties shall engage to consider the
result of the proceedings a full. perfect and
final settlement OF all questions referred to the
arbtrators
AMERICAN AMENDMENTS.
The Americans accepted the proposals as
basis of adjustment, but proposed, In addition
to the Anglo Russian treaty that the boundary
should be defined in accordance with the Russo
American treaty Of cession as the same shall
be established by the tribunal. under rules here
matter provided the tribunal to consist Of six
impartial jurists of repute, three TO be nomi-
mated by the Privy Council and three by the
President of the United States. The Ameri-
also proposed an amendment TO Rule C. as
follows:
In considering the 'ctsast'' referred TO in said
treaties, il is understood that the coast of the
Continent ia intended and that all towns and
settlements on tidewats.t settled under author
ity OF the United States and under jurisdiction
Of the United States at the date of this treaty
shall remain within the territory and jurisdc
tion Of the United States
The British Commissioners regretted that they
were absolutely unable to accept the suggested
modification to their proposition. because the
suggested American tribunal did not provide
tribunal which would necessarily and, in the
possible event of differences Of opinion. finally
dispose OF the question, and because the amend
ment to Rule was marked and important de-
parture from the rules Of the Venezuelan Boun-
dary reference, which left all such questions to
be determined by the tribunal, and because the
words added by the United States claim that an
effect should be given TO their occupation of land
in British territory which justice reason and the
Commissioners also objected that the language
used with reference to the coast was open TO mis-
construction. and they were of opinion that It
was useless to press further the negotiations
at present, and that they must refer the matter
to their Government for an exchange Of views in
respect to the constitution of the tribunal.
THE QUESTION OF AN UMPIRE.
The Americans inquired whether the British
Commissioners had considered the question of
selecting an umpire from the American Conti-
nent.
The British members replied in the affirmative,
adding that they thought II most Objectionable
in view OF the policy long maintained and re-
Gently reasserted by the Government Of the
United States toward other nations on the said
continent. The selection of an umpire by any
such nation would not offer guarantee of i'm
partiality, which was the first qualification
requisite.
The Americans then proposed to proceed TO
settle the remaining subjects. they thought
il would be unwise defer adjustments so
nearly concluded. Several subjects were so far
advanced as TO ASST the probability OF SET
tement. If, then, all differences except one
could be adjusted, would 1t not be most
commendable to advance neighborly friendship
and could not the respective governments be
trusted 10 settle the principal remaining dif-
ferences by direct negotiation?
The British Commissioners replied that all
questions should he deferred until the boundary
was disposed Of either by agreement or by ref
erence to arbitration, because the manner In
which they were prepared to adjust some other
important matters must depend upon whether
IL would be possible 10 arrive at settlement
Of all questions which might at any time oc-
casion acute controversy and even conflict
THE LONDON CONFERENCE
London. June "a representative here of The