The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1899-06-04
lRr NATTER.
Asv Wsge vviiasng - Ases-
-, - tAe A1erses. Co..
Wes1a Hst Ceassaa, ~
is - usseslai nasesvo1saus.

- June A-1Ae eses1on seAeo ~
b. = Sue1nmsntAFy papsr tos1g14. CIV
< - 6n - peuce4dtngD Of the 1otnt
s. .SG1I1rinGfen In WaAhington On Feb
- Fl eo,eksng 70 the British proposals.
7Srn9ton on tho Alaskan boundary.
- - uktfish commissioners proposed
ctete sppointmeEt OF tribunal
$500 10 determine the boundary
aSsn AuakA and Canada from the
3 rr1euf point ~ Prince q Wales
fi7S p 1GDunt Dt. Elias. in aeeordAncs
- Angio- Russian treaty Of FsOru-
- he tribunal 70 const1t of three
- nominated ~ the prtyy coup-
ESs ~ President XcKtuley and the
p - se3eeted ~ ths no0laees.
a 1taO governing the ARBITRATOR were
1oncluding article provides that The
66ofxacting parties shall engage 10
1e IL result Of tho pr0ceedings - .
a1bct and final settlement az al
- roferred 70 the arb1trAaoFxA
AQegicnns accepted the prupoaais n
49, II adjustmaut. but they proposed
W offton to the Anglo Rnnian treaty
- boundary should b dslaned in &c
Nth the Ruas1an-Amsrtcan
q . e9ssion. or - the same shall be
- by the tribunal, under rules
nftw provided. the tribunal 70 COR
r. ~ impartial jur1sfs Of reoute.
- = nOninated b. the privy cousseal
r. Aoes by the president Of The United
Ihe Amsricans also proDossd an
1nt 70 ons Of the rules. - lo:-
snssdseing he coast reeeEssd - In
- ooot1noat = intended. and that all
~ soetloWentD on udoWa4ee. osttio0
u authority Of the United States and
u ~ Juridtction Of the United states
- - territosy and jurtsd1ction of the
~ 1sitish commiastonsEs regssttel that
- 1eee ahDlutsly unable @ acesps the
because the suggested Amas1cAn tri-
l I'D not provide q tribunal which
1 necsasari.y and In the possible event
4sseeces Of opinion. nnally dispose OF
- rules marked m important departure
- ~ rules at the Ven18ue1An boundary
1UDcD. which left Ill such Qussttouo TO
~ 6otMnsred BY the tribunal and because
wseds added BY the United states claim
oajon of land In Britiah territory, which
1ces reason and the equities of the case
IRE. The British comWtootuneg1 also
cted that the language used With refer
- end they we're Of the opinion that It
- useless 20 further press fhe negotia-
- q present. and they must Fofer the
Mo1teS - their government Tor an ex-
9knoe 81 Views In respect to the constitU-
= the tribunal.
IL AmericApa inquired whether the
4k1nh commtssiOners had considered the
Raon OF selecting IN umpire from the
AD1k1cAn continent. The British mAu.
replied In thf negative, adding that
u thought Il most Objectionable IN view
q ~ Policy long maintained and recoaeiy
Derfod By the government Of the
le4 otate1 towards other nations on the
fednent. The selection Of IN umpiro
Ia any such nation would not oGfer .
aSantee Of impaftiatity. which wnn the
- qualification requisite.
III Americans then proposed to pro-
II % eettla tho remaining subjects, -
- thought II would BE- unwtse 70 deter
11stneuts - nearly concluded. Several
e.11eefs were % far advanced AZ 10 assure
- pfoeA6ility OF q settlement. II. then,
tae differences except one could now
- adjusted. would u not be most COM
~ and could not the respective govern.
nenfs be trusted 10 settle the principal
manning difference b. direct negotiation
~ British commissioners replied that all
loestions should be deferred until the
leundary was dtSposed Of either by.
l9Atnst or by reference TO arbitration, be-
muse the manner in which they were pre-
lared TO adjust some other important
nrttsrs must depend upon whether Il
Ipuld be possible to arrive at q settlement
fall questions which might At any time
occasion acute controversy and even con-
Iict-