The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1899-07-28
FINADIAN CONTENTION.
y, statement Made by Sit Charles
~ Trpper and Senator Mills.
I,af Of The LYNN CANAL IS CLAIMED
within the Territory That
~ .,,ercd. Russia Admitted
r.,onsed to Great Britain.

rs.,ss upper, leader of the opposition
~ senator David Mills, minister OF JUS
y ~ the Alaskan boundary question.
,uus went into tho subject at
I'm =, length to show that the Canadian
...,,on was supported not only by
,S ' precsdents but by the language
!, lie treaty. -.
arn, settlement of the question" he
I, "iu accordance with our claims is OF
,,,rortance to Canada, because it
3. ns EASY and inexpensive ingress to
Il, avn territory; whereas If the onitou
s.,.. vim 1t will be great detrimcnt to
ia Of little benefit to them
49,, detailing the Canadian contention
Il. line was to follow the winding
4. coast and cross the mouths Of in
4. ana estuaries from headland to heal
q, vithou, following the sinuosities OF
s.,s arms of the sea, Senator Mills made
N. statement: Just why the Americans
..,rsss 10 arbitrate or to compromise ex-
~, nm conditions impossible to us is
,,w, IN the treaty of 1926. By the seventh
.,,s Of that treaty, the vessels of Rus
4, and England or those belonging to
Nh respective subjects were mutually
i, h al liberty. without any hindrance
rA,leyer TO enter all the inland seas.
v,lfs Ravens and creeks for the purpose
rthshng and trading with the natives. BY
.risia 10 the British and Russian vessels
r,yjratlug tho Pacific ocean, IL compelled
M Storm or accident, were allowed to take
khser in the ports OF the respective par
Ms and we're at liberty to refit there.
.Now is it not too clear to admit of
pus,ion that the contracting parties as
sumed that under the provisions of this
treaty there were other ports and estuaries
al:rg the coast that were under the SOW
treignty Of each? Yet, if the United States
ctn,enticn is correct, there were no ports
md no waters remaining to Great Britain.
AS a matter of fact, If the treaty is
followed the Lynn canal will be found to
b entirely within Canadian territory
This point was made by the commission
0u that point Canada would have won
That Is why there is no arbitration"
Sir Charles Upper said THE situation |
Is this. In treaty made between Great |
Biian and Russia in 1925, the boundary
line between the Russian possession and |
the British possessions were delimited. |
Tho United States have come into possess
sion Of all the rights of Russia and 1t was |
proposed some years ago that that bound |
|aiy should be delmited. Persons were |
spplined at the request of Great Britain |
ald. the United States to explore, survey |
aud report in order that the question |
neht be taken up and settled.
When Joseph Chamberlain, Lord Sack,
rue and myself were appointed in 1887 |
% negotiate with the United States for
ths settlement of matters affecting Can I
ga we we're charged with the settlement
~ the Alaskan boundary in conjunction
WIN 9 commission consisting of Senator
sa!ard, Judge Putnam and President
Anselo Mr. Bayard took the ground that
W had not sufficient information and
nast get more, as to the topography of the
COUNTY before we could submit it for set
asusht the session was postponed and
as discussion went on.
LUIS subject has acquired additional
up.nsaee owing TO the discovery of gold
a ,as canadian Yukon territory.
~ ihat canada asks-all that she ever
c ~. mat If the United States and
H.. .'. pfila!n are not agreed on the mean
NJ " tne treaty providing for delimita-
" the boundary, the matter should
eat WIN as all matters of similar
as'er are dealt with--by the appoint
~. sa o. an International commission TO
49, 'ne question; just as the boundary
h.sn venezuela and British Guiana is
'' ar settled today in Paris.
ssnaaa proposed in the commission
isis,. y me reference to such board of
\ i i, q experts the reference should
mai. le express term in which the Vene
n rr.a mater was submitted and accented
ND, S'. q. Britain. The United States re-
ess, n .ae terms proposed by Canada and
nm .s. Nain and decided that they would
t,eh al s.ee 10 commission of three on
ID. umrS siIhout any umpire at all unless
irercs.n should be selected from Seth
i,ys M ., aiso stipulated that they would
d arrssS 'o ..on at all unless previous
hat H. .aat In case arbitrators found
l.d nrs, sAis'ins settlement of Skagway
.f.gry i, ss Seie IN British or Canadian ter
i ~ should retain them.
4, usve arrived at tho conc,,sio 49,.
|tues n ~ A's.lhg regulations, these ave-
ssssssion =, .aahaalan Yukon are in the
|Ae last stan VI me United States and from
~ 20 cnn6d. N'i"eHi tue United States |
Ghtamen, ,s IN the result of an
sse shan - nat country has determined
fba ana md ~, oe no settlement of the n,Ies-
tlit,ssa mat 1t shall eniov tha nos lin
|baa,d.s.,,a absence of the damarkation -, ~
srrun;.ss gives 1t, the right to nonono,Izs
hst "a na with the Yukon WHARF 81
M and pel cent of the miners are An,or
asaast cities. - ~ POSITION to secure |
t,, ,as United States have ao.
w until i, oe no settlement of the onass
st,sr by il, ceases to be an inn,rtant
III. r.n ne exhaustion Of the goi5 enIas
~ diiarultiasa u Yukon, and recognizing
4llnatum nv mat lie in the way of an
snlch undo,h,,ns part OF Great Britain
dsalns a,'a,u.uotedly would he roso.ta i.a.u
easi Sta,ss any other country than tha
w Of obts,n,aha the consequent difas :
e demarka,,aAIhs prompt solution nv
sss Proposed OF the boundary line. I
NJ 4 new remedy. 'n'' :
~. "ot TINT there shan.
|(ss... % war or to INV oo,,,.,
1si,aIs, hue e United states ana Great '
Ma y. 'a' that Canada nhoI, nr,.. /
NM. i. andouhted rights nm, ' ,n {
M k,.. constructing a ro,Irn.. 6
d 0Aw.o. IN British Columbia, e
AseAa... N the same direction I ?
d Ae un,,.s r"s the mining laws y
- vii, ates to such an ex- t
aiset. -. prevent my but Br,t,.,, il
M .. Sr'ear,ns mining lease. a. a
~ 70 carry ON n,,. :
(ssla con. nixon. These laws
~ would clause whereby