New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1901-10-01
THE ALASKA BOUNDARY TREATY.


Parliament and of the Joint High Commission,
is man of wide information of statesmanlike
views and, we are glad to believe, of particu-
larry friendly sentiments toward the United
States. Some recent utterances Of his concern
ing the Alaska boundary dispute are therefore
worthy of more than passing notice, especially
since he declares-what is doubtless entirely
true-that that dispute is the of the entire
controversy between Canada and the United
States, and since he is reported as unhesitat-
ingly adding the opinion that "the position OF
"the United States on that question is an unfair
"and untenable one" He states the general
grounds of the dispute with accuracy, save for
one vital point. which he omits. and concludes
with the complaint that while Canada has
offered to submit the to arbitration the
United States has declined to do so.
Now the controversy over the Alaska bound
airy differs from many other boundary disputes
in that it turns not upon mere claims. or pos
session, or tradition, right of discovery, but
upon the provisions of a treaty the validity Of
which is unquestioned. That treaty is the one
made in February. 1925. between Russia and
Great Britain. defining the boundaries between
Russian America and British America the per-
tinent articles of which were cited literally in
the treaty of March, 1867, between Russia and
the United States by which Alaska was trans
ferred TO this country. No one challenges the
validity of that treaty of three-fourths of
century ago and no one questions that all the
rights confirmed to Russia hereunder We're IN
1867 transferred to the United States and are
now enjoyed by this country. The question is
then, How does that treaty define the boundary?
Happily it defines it with special care and def
niteness of detail
Mr. Charlton is right in saying that the treaty
places the boundary along the crest of a noun
tain range parallel with and not more than ten
marine leagues from the sea. or. in default OF
such range, along line arbitrarily drawn paral-
lei with the coast and ten marine leagues there
from But that is not quite all There is some
thing more in the treaty, which Mr.. Charlton in
his published interview omits. yet which is abso-
lutely essential to proper understanding and
determination of the case. and is indeed the
cruX of the whole dispute That Is that the
boundary line thus drawn in default Of noun
tain range shall be not merely parallel with
the coast, but-to quote the precise words of
the second section of the fourth article of the
treaty of 1S25-"parallel to the ioinding of the
coast" That is the gist OF the matter. That is
the treaty stipulation solemnly entered into and
agreed upon by Great Britain seventy-six years
ago 1t is an effective answer TO Mr.. Charlton's
contention that the coast line should be consd-
cred to run boldly across from headland to head
land and the boundary line should be made
parallel with it. The treaty goes out of its way
to make it particularly plain that the coast line
is to be regarded as following the various wind
ings in and out Of the actual coast and that the
boundary line shall be drawn parallel with those
windings
If Mr.. Charlton will carefully reread that por
ton of the long established and indisputable
British treaty he will certainly perceive the
fatal flaw in his we'll meant argument, and will
see that in regarding the lower coasts of Lynn
Canal as a part of ''the icinding of the coast"
and in drawing the boundary line ten leagues
inland therefrom. and in thus keeping Dyea and
Skagway upon United States soil, and in pre-
serving the entire coast line of the Alaska pan
handle unbroken under the Stars and Stripes
in doing this the United States takes a position
which is not unfair and untenable," but which
according to seventy-six years old British
authority, is exactly fair, tenable, reasonable
and just.