The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1899-06-01
Facts in Alaskan
Boundary Dispute
From the Washington Star.

Ill
ing various issues and particularly
III that affecting the boundary dis
pute, seem to be deadlocked be-
yond the immediate hope OF solution.
Were 1t not for the Importance or an
carly settlement of the boundary ques-
ton this halt in the proceedings might
not be serious. But the rapid develop
ment OF Alaskas mineral wealth and the
consequent growth in Importance of the
strip of land in controversy forming
the southern portion of the territory rem
der It imperative that some adjustment
be had without further delay TO prevent
Observation-Disclosures, the loss OF property
rights, the confusion of jurisdictions ana
perhaps conflicts between the settlers and
the authorities.
-:o:-
The Alaskan boundary dispute is the
| development of mary years. In lSz4 IL
was of sufficient interest to Great Britain
| and Russia to cause conferences at 81.
Petersburg. In later years it has proved
even more stubborn of settlement than in
| the earlier times. In 1SsS-'S9 Mr.. Dali,
| of the geological survey, and DR.. Daw-
son, an eminent Canadian geographer,
| met in this city and discussed the case
| officially for their two governments, but
without reaching an agreement. Other
| joint bodies have ulsuccessfully under
| taken to reach q conclusion. The dis
pute arises partly from the vagueness of
| certain words in the original treaties be-
| tween Great Britain and Russia respect
| ing the boundary of the southern strip,
and partly from the inaccuracy and
| crudeness of the surveys Of Vancouver
who explored this region in the course of
| his voyages. 1t relates exclusively to the
location of the line running generally
| southwark from Mount st. Elias, north
of which the boundary follows meri-
! dian.
The treaty between Great Britain and
Russia, signed in 1895. defined the line as
| follows: commencing from the south
ernmost point of Prince Of Wales Island
}. the said line shall ascend to the
| north along Portland channel, as far as
| the point of the continent where 1t
! strikes the fifty-sixth degree of north
| latitude; and from this last mentioned
| point the line shall follow the summit
| of the mountains situated parallel to the
| coast as far as the intersection of the
one hundred and forty-first degree of
west longitude, etc. Whenever the sum-
| nit of the mountains which extend in n
| direction parallel to the coast
| shall prove to be at the distance of moro
than ten marine leagues from the ocean.
the limit between the British possessions
and the line of coast which is to belong
| to Russia shall be formed by
line parallel to tho coast and which
| shall never exceed the distance of ten
marine leagues therefrom."
| --:o:-
Four general questions exist as to the
! meaning of this language: "a AS to the
relation of the mountain range to the
| ten-league line, Canada contending that
| the range of mountains nearest the sea
| was meant the United States contend
| ing that the range most nearly conform
| ing in it's course to the ten-league line
was intended. (O AS to the relation of
the mountains in fact 10 the mountains
| conventionally and crudely drawn by
| Vancouver on his charts. go AS to the
meaning of the term 1.-The coast" Can
| ada contending that the outer edge of
| the coast islands was signifed, the
| United States asserting that the outer
| edge of the mainland was designated.
| (D AS to the partition line in Portland
| inlet or channel, Canada claiming that
the words used in the treaty meant an
other body OF water, the controversy
over this point involving a territory
| larger than the state of Delaware. The
| third of these questions involves two side
issues: (O What was meant by the
| treaty word "ocean?" (b) Do the inlets
form part of the coast waters or part of
the territory? The Canadian claim is
| that ocean" has no reference to inlets,
but that whenever such inlets are less
| than six miles wide they must be COM
ruted as part of the territory and the
line drawn with reference to the point
| at this width, despite the result, even
though It gives Carada jurisdiction over
the head Of the inlets. The American
claim Is in opposition to this view.
-:o:-
| The immediate blockade of the negotia"
tions is caused by an issue on this very
point OF inlets. Can5da demands as a
condition precedent to an adjustment OF
| the boundary by tribunal that Pyramid
harbor and Lynn canal be yielded TO her,
These points in large measure control
the Chilkoot Pass traffic and virtually
all the other traffic to the Klondike gold
fields by the inland route. Naturally,
this government refuses to grant so I'M
portant an item in advance of negotia-
tions which 1t expects to result favorably
TO the American claim to these very
points. Whatever the outcome it is to
be hoped that this country will firmly
stand by the doctrines heretofore laid
down and will accept no other settlement
than one based upon the historical and
geographical traditions and facts. 1t
should also IL sst upon solution OF the
matter without reference to foreign
power as arbitrator. The case is capa-
BILE of settlement without recourse to any
European tribunal