Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1902-03-26
ALASKAN BOUNDARY
REASONS WHY UNITED STATES
MUST SUBMIT TO ARBITRATION.
Concessions Made in Past Negotiations
Preclude This Government Now
From Rigid Attitude.

Frontier by Thomas willing Balch of
Philadelphia is today circulated In the Of
fetal and Legislative circles of Washington
by it's author. Mr.. Balch has summed up
the claim of the United States admirably.
He has also added several new and valu-
able items of information which have
hitherto not been clearly and forcibly
brought forward In behalf of our case by
any one since the dispute first arose over
this question in 1877 between Great Brit
ain and ourselves. -
But Mr.. BaIch has closed this publication
of March, 1902, above cited, with these.
words: THE United States should never
consent to refer such a proposition (the;
deliultation of the AIasko-Canadfan boun-
daryl to arbitration Mr.. BaIch is not
acquainted with certain mistakes made by
high officials of our government in 1892,
and again in 1897. over this subject. If he
was, he would not have made use of the
words quoted; he would have understood
their futility and have left them unsaid.
What have our high officials done in the
premises? For the information of Mr.. Balch.
and the officials and legislators in especial
who are getting his book, and the public
generally, note the following. facts:
On the 10Th of August, 1892 the then Sec
rotary Of State John w. Foster, and the
tered into convention between the United
States of America and the united kingdom
of Great Britain and Ireland for the de-
limitation of the boundary line between the
United States and the Dominion OF Canada,
dividing Alaska from British Columbia"
The terms of this convention created
joint commission to do that work-one
commissioner for us and one for Canada.
Ihey were directed to examine into and
agree upon a report on or before the .ex-
plratfon of two years from the date of
their appointment. They failed to agree
and their time was extended to the last
DAY OF 1870. Then they came to an agree
ment in so far as the location Of the 141st
meridian of west longitude was concerned,
but they utterly failed to agree upon the
line of the "thirty-mile strip and where
only the shadowy ground for dispute has
arisen could arise.
The agreement Of this commission as to
the final location of the Hist meridian
where it bisects our "thirty-miIe strtn," on
the summit of Mt St. Elias, was. for our
case, a mischtevous one; and when the
light was turned on to 1t, March -, 1897,
the Senate refused to ratify the treaty con-
firming it. which was sent In by Richard
Olney, January 30. 1897 and 1t Is still hung
up in the Senate committee of foreign rela-
lions. This mischievous little boundary
treaty contained what was advertised at
OTTAWA as an important surrender to the
United States of what is here held to be In
disputably Canadian territory" The mo-
ment 1 saw this statement in a Canadian
oiheidi press oispaten,, March Z, 1887. /
knew instinctively that We were being
plucked. I managed to get a copy of the
treaty, and then exposed it's aim to Senator
Foraker, Just In time. for it would have
been ratified the next day had he not
stopped it. -
In the light Of the foregoing outlines of
most unfortunate mistake In the State De-
partment, whereby we admitted to Canada,
August ~, 1S92, that we ourselves did not
know exactly where our own Alaskan Dor
der was defined. and then were willing
January 80, 1897, to shift 1t here or there
as joint commission might agree-is It
not plain that the Canadians in this matter
have secured the same. advantage which
they took in 1S54-1S71 over our claim to
San Juan Island. Puget sound? Indeed,
they have secured more, in the pending
contention, because during the entire period
Of the San Juan dispute we never admitted
the shadow of doubt as to the exact line
of our claim
Let me recite a few salient points, briefly,
of this San Juan difficulty. which we said,
for fifteen long years, we never would SUBJ
NIT to arbitration. Yet, nevertheless, on
May 3, 1871, we entered into convention
here, at Washington, which submitted the
controversy to the result of arbitration.
Curtously enough, this San Juan dispute
was strangely similar in claim of indefinite
treaty terms Of boundary limitation to the
pending Alaskan boundary question
The terms of the treaty Of Washington,
June 10, 1916, were indefinite with especial
regard to the line Of demarcation between
Vancouver Island and Washington terri
tory for the extension of the 49th parallel
from Point Roberts. They were made In
the following vague words: From Point
Roberts the boundary went ito the middle
Of the channel which separates Vancouver
Island from the continent. and thence
southerly through the middle of said cham
mel and OF Inca straits to the Pacific
ocean,
The first clash over this did not spring I'D
until 1854 Then some sheep were taken
across from Victoria to San Juan Island by
the II. b. Co.'S people. The United States
collector of customs of Washington terri
tory levied a duty upon them. The Cana
dams objected and put up an armed re-
ststance: British and American troops
We're called out by both parties to the con-
test; the British established an armed camp
on the north end of the island: hoisted their
coors, beat their drums and we did like
wise on the south end Of the same island
the two camps were not more than five
miles apart. and in plain sight of each
other. An indiscreet officer at any time
between 1S54-1S71 could have plunged both
nations into war! l saw these camps in
1865 81, and I can testify to the intense.
bitter feeling that ran high among our own
people, and among theirs; it was far more
intense than .he feeling at Skagway is at
this hour.
The British insisted that the "channer'
referred to in the treaty Of 1916 was "Ro-
sario straits;' the Americans insisted that
this channel was the Canal de Hors"
After fifteen years of heated argument and
reiterated QecldratlOn on DOth sides that II
would never be submitted to arbitration
that they would and we would fight first
we sent the question to court of arbitra-
ton. with the German emperor as the ar
bitrator. as above stated. He decided, Oc--
tober g. 1872, in our favor, and the eight
Ing" troops Of Canada evacuated the island
November q following
Sooner or later this Alaskan boundary
question must be settled; no titles to unde-
veloped land or mining claims over which
there is q shadow Of doubt can command
capital for their exploration and working;
and since we have by mistaken steps Of
our own official agents In 1892 and 1897 ad-
mitted the Canadian contention of doubt
as to the fixed line of our possessions and
we are today resting modus vivendi
over the line on the pass above Skagway,
how are We going to undo what we have
inherited from 1892?
The conclusion in any judicial mind is
that we will follow the course and prece-
dent of the San Juan dispute; we have
much better case than we had then: the
record of Russian ownership Of the thirty
mile strip" is cemented by the British rec
ord of leasing 1t, for limited period Gin
1s39-1S56). as Russian territory; and this
act of leasing was approved by a select
committee Of the British parliament. dur
Ing 1857. after examining into its terms,