The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1899-07-30
DAVID MILLs's ARGUMENT.
Cites Cases to show the United states
In IncOusfsfeut.

NEW YORK, July "a dispatch to the
Herald from Ottawa, Ont, contains the
following statement concerning the Alaska
boundary dispute, prepared by Mr.. David
Mills. Canadian minister of Justice: 1.-The
United States obtained the cession OF this
territory from Russia at a time when the
Alabama claims were unsettled. and the
1cng strip of territory extending from
Mount St. Elias along the coast to the
southeast OF Prince Of Wales island ought
undoubtedly to be Canadian possession.
IF similar strip of territory lay between
the mainland Of the United States and the
sea 1 am quite sure its acquisition by US
would be regarded as a menace to that
country. But 1t is too late to consider how
far this Is Injurious to this country.
Under the treaty Of 1925 the line drawn
between the recognized territory of Russia
and Great Britain was begun at the south
east OF Prince OF Wales island, and from
that point was to ascend north along the
channel called Portland channel. This could
hardly be the channel called Portland chan
mel In modern maps, because Portland chan
mel Of this day lies due east from the
southern extremity Of Prince OF Wales is
land, a distance OF 40 miles. The line was
TO ascend the channel to a point on the
CodSl On the ulty-SfXI0 degree OF north
latitude Now. what Is known as Portland
channel falls short of that point. The line
was also to extend north -; such a way as
to leave Prince OF Wales island to Russia.
II the boundary started from the south ex-
tremity OF Prince of Wales island and ran
due east 1t would have left the whole of
the island to Russia, but IL drawn north
from the south extremity 1t would have cut
or a small portion OF the southeast end of
the island So the treaty would indicate
of Prince Of Wales island. TO the fifty-sixth
degree OF north latitude, point which
as Portland channel So you see the initial
point OF the boundary Is in controversy.
The boundary when It reached TIE nifty
sixth degree was to follow the summit OF
the mountains which extends in line paral-
lei to the coast from the fifty-sixth degree
TO the intersection Of the One-hundred- and
forty-first parallel. but when the mountains
prove to be more than ten marine leagues
from the coast the limit between the Brit
ssh possessions and the coast was to be a
line parallel TO the winding of the coast
but which should never exceed a distance
Of ten marine leagues. 1t Is clear that the
makers or the treaty assumed that there
part was within ten leagues OF the coast.
The treaty also provides hat neither con-
tracing party shall form settlements with
in the territory of the other. The United
States received all the rights OF Russia and
no more. But the United States authori-
the right to form settlements on our SIDE
but also that when they do so the territority-
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
Il 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 IL. II a line were
drawn around the head OF Lynn inlet as the
United States contends IL should be the
point where IL passed. that inlet would be
at least twenty leagues from the coast.
There IL a well defined coast line from the
Observation-Disclosures meridian TO
OF north latitude, and by the terms OF the
treaty the boundary could not be more than
ten leagues 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 arbltrate
unless we abandon our claim TO the Lynn
canal. Why should We abandon IT? III IL
Is ours why should we not have Il? The
British commissioners offered TO compro-
mise The United States rejected the offer
because IL recognized our claim to Pyramid
harbor and a strip OF territory leading
tberefrom 20 what Is indisputably our ter
fitory in the Yukon. Under this compro-
mise the United States would have held
both Dyea and Skagway. which We think
are I'm Canadian territory.
Let me In conclusion recall history for the
benefit OF the American people. When the
disputed boundary between Maine and New
brunswick was being discussed by the two
governments we claimed territory south of
The St Johns river. known a. the NADIA