Manchester Democrat. [volume] (Manchester, Iowa) 1875-1930, 1899-07-12
somc of the Difficulties.

countries. u IA u
fomc of the Difficulties.
But to arrive at such solution 1t is
necessary to know where the equities
lie. Those being determined, 1t is next
requisite to ascertain what, If any
thing, the other party has to offer in
return for waving or yielding any of
these equities. This is the difficult
part of the subject. By the terms of
the treaty Of 1925 between Great Brit
ain and Russia, the provisions of which
were adopted at the treaty Of cession
between Russia and the United States
in 1867, the line Of demarcation be-
tween Russian America, as 1t was then
called, and Great Britain's North
American possessions, was defined.
When this treaty was made it was
supposed there was range of noun.
tains running down the entire coast,
practically, thus forming n natural
watershed and line of demarcntion.
The Russians cared only for Il foothold
along the coast, as it was with the
fisheries they were concerned. The
treaty, however, made provision as to
how the boundary Should be deter
mined should it be found that at any
place there is no such natural bound
nry by limiting the Russian NOW Uni
ted States territory to distance of
ten marine leagues, or thirty miles,
from the coast. The Canadian and
British contention, as now made, turns
upon the Portland canal The British
ut least until recently, have claimed
that the words Portland canal or chan
mel in the convention We're mistake
for Benin canal, or Clarence inlet or
else that what is now called Portland
canal was not then so called.
Construe Treaty Differently,
This difference in the respective
American and Canadian boundary
lines of the Alaska panhandle strip
arises from wholly different methods
of constituting the treaty. There are
many Intricate questions involved in
the methods of construction. For In
stance, in determining the ten marine
leagues from the coast to which, in the
absence of mountain chain, the
American territory extends, shall sin
uoSities OF the shore of the mainland
be followed or should the line be run
from headland to headland? Again.
shall the line be considered to run ten
marine leagues east of the outer shore
of the islands? In that case in many
Instances the line would not reach the
mainland, as some of the islands are
more than thirty miles across. On the
other hand, the Hon. David Mills says
that In pursuance of its method of de-
termining the boundary the United
States in many places has drawn Its
boundary line more than 100 miles
from the coast" To explain these di-
vergent points of view it is necessary
the nature of the Alaskan coast be un-.
derstood, or at least that part Of 1t,
nearly 800 miles long, extending south
by southeast from the body of the ter
ritory, as this is the part with which
the boundary dispute concerns itself.
AS to this part of the Alaskan coast it
may be said in general that lofty
mountain range extends from Observ-
! atory inlet to Cooks inlet and then
sweeps toward the Asiatic side along
the peninsula. A group. or several
groups, of islands, many of them of
considerable extent. lie Off the shore
and from Cross sound to Observatory
inlet and the coast below to Puget
Sound there is series of islands which
are so situated as to leave between
them, as one writer upon Alaska has
described 1t, IAN unbroken line of in
land navigation the most extraordi-
nary i'll the world"
Would Claim Far miami.
Tho British contend that, under In.
ternatlonRl law. when M inlet. or arm
OF tAe 500, ia less than AK miles vide