The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1899-07-29
CANADA'S SLIM EXCUSE
WANTS BOUNDARY DECISION SIMPLY
BECAUSE SHE NEEDS 1T.
InsinUation that Great Britain Will
Betray Her because of Desire Not
to Offend United States.

NEW YORK, July 2s.-The Herald's cor
respondent at Ottawa has interviewed Sir
Charles Upper. leader of the opposition.
and Senator David Mills. Minister of JUS
tice. on the Alaskan boundary question
Senator Mills went into great length to
show that the' Canadian contention was
supported not only by American precedents,
but by the language of the treaty.
1.-The settlement of the treaty. he said,
"in accordance with our contention is a
matter of great Importance to Canada. be-
cause IL gives us easy and inexpensive in
gress to our own territory. whereas II the
United States win, IL will be of great detri-
ment TO us and of little benefit TO them.
i recall a boundary dispute between the
United States and Great Britain, in which
the American authorities contended that
their view ought to prevail because the con-
cession was Of great advantage TO them
without being seriously injurious to Eng
land"
After detailing the Canadian contention
that the line was TO follow the winding "of
the coast and cross the mouths of inlets
and estuaries from headland to headland
without following the sinuosities of these
arms of the sea, Senator Mills made this
statement: Just why the Americans re-
fused to arbitrate or to compromise except
on conditions impossible to US is shown in
the treaty of 1926. BY the seventh article Of
that treaty the vessels of Russia and Eng
land. those belonging to their respective
subjects were mutually to be at liberty
without any hindrance whatever to enter all
the inland seas. CUFFS, Ravens and creeks
for the purposes of fishing and trading with
the natives. BY Article 10. the British and
a.
ocean. il compelled by storm or accident,
were allowed to take shelter in the ports
of the respective parties. and were at liberty
to refit there.
SOVEREIGNTY OF EACH.
Now, is it not too clear to admit of ques-
ton, that the contracting parties assumed
that under the provisions of this treaty
there were ports and estuaries along the
coast that were under the sovereignty Of
| each? Yet if the United States contention
be correct there were no ports and no wa
| tiers remaining to Great Britain
las matter of fact, If the treaty be
| followed the Lynn Canal will be found to be
| entirely within Canadian territory. This
| point was made in the commission. On that
Canada would have won. That is why
| there is no arbitration"
Sir Charles Upper said: THE situation Is
| ain and Russia in 1928 the boundary between
| the Russian possessions and the British
| possessions was defined: The United States
| have come into possession of all the rights
| or Russia. and II was proposed some years
| ago that the boundary should be delimi-
ted. Persons were appointed at the re-
| quest OF Great Britain and the United
States to explore. survey and report, in or
and saai when or
| Sackvile and myself were appointed in 1887
| to negotiate with the United States for the
settlement of matters affecting Canada, We
cpftlpmEnt
| Alaskan boundary in conjunction with a
commission, consisting OF Senator Bayard,
| Judge Putnam and Prof. Angelic. Mr.. Bay
| ard took the ground that we had not suffi-
cent information and must get more, as to
| the topography of the country. before we
could submit IL for settlement, so the Ques-
| ton was postponed and the discussion went
| on.
This question has acquired additional i'm
portance owing to the discovery OF gold in
| the Canadian Yukon territory. All that Can
ada asks-all that she ever asked-is that
| If the United States and Great Britain are
not agreed on the meaning of the treaty
providing for the delimitation of the boun-
dairy, the matter should be dealt with as all
matters of a similar character are dealt
with-by the appointment of an interna-
tional commission TO settle the question,
just as the boundary between Venezuela
and British Guiana is being settled to-day
in Paris. Canada proposed in the commits
sion that in the reference to such board
of international experts the reference
should be in the express terms In which the
Venezuela matter was submitted and ac-
copied by Great Britain.
NOTHING TO ARBITRATE.
1.-The United States refused the terms pro-
posed by Canada and Great Britain. and de-
cided that 1t could only agree to commits
sion of three on each side, without any UNI
pire at all, unless the umpire be selected
from South America. The United States
also stipulated that 1t would have no ar
bitration at all. unless it was previously
agreed that in case the arbitrators found
that the existing settlement of Skagway and
Dyea were in British or Canadian territory.
1t should be agreed that the United States
should retain them.
Il have arrived at the conclusion that as
under existing regulations these avenues to
the Canadian Yukon are In the possession
of the United States. and that as from the
last step 1t Is evident the United States has
no confidence in the result of an arbitra-
ment, that country has determined that
there shall be no settlement of the question,
and that IL shall enjoy the position that
the absence of the demarkation of the boun-
dairy gives Ii to monopolize communication
with the Yukon, where at least 90 per cent
Of the miners are American and which Is in
position to secure advantages for coast
cities.
1.-The United States has determined that
there shall be no settlement of the QueS-
ton until ii ceases to be important by the
exhaustion of the gold fields of the Cana
dian Yukon, and recognizing the difficulties
that lie in the way of an ultimatum on the
part of Great Britain. such as undoubtedly
would be resorted to in dealing with any
other country than the United States and
the consequent difficulty of obtaining a
prompt solution by the dema rcation of the
boundary line / have proposed a new rem
edy. 1t is not that there shall be a resort
to war or to any collision between the Unit
ed States and Great Britain. but that Can
ada shall protect her undoubted rights and
interests by constructing a railroad from
Kitimat. in British Columbia, TO Dawson
City. In the same direction I recommend
that another act shall be passed adopting
the mining laws of the United States to such
extent will prevent any but British
subjects procuring mining leases or being
able 10 carry on mining In the Canadian
Yukon These laws should contain clause
whereby they would only come into opera
ton by proclamation Of the governor gen.
of Americans would be respected and the
laws would only take effect In reference 10
matters arising after the proclama ton"
You design those as coercive measures
to drive the United States into arbitration %
the correspondent asked.
mo. The United States could still do as
IL pleased" replied Sir Charles. but the
effect of these two laws would he to show
your country that no advantage could arise
line ascertained and marked in the way
that all similar questions have in the past
been determined between nations. 1t would
avoid any conflict with the United States
They are measures within the province of
Parliament to pass and to them no excep-
ton should be taken by Great Britain or
the United States"
HAS CANADA A GRUDGE?
do you not hold that the settlement Of