BoletiÌn mercantil de Puerto Rico. (San Juan, P.R.) 18??-1918, 1902-10-14
SAf1JUAN, OCTOBER "A
The Alaska Boundary.

ration has for several years been in
progress in Canada regarding the ques-
ton of the Alaskan boundary, and bids
fair TO produces, sooner or later, serious
conseouences. The subject is one on
which very few persons are we'll inform
ed It is difficult to obtain accurate in
formation about it, and partisan spirit
NAV expend itself on il under The mask
of patriotism with little fear of discove-
rv 1t is unquestionable that the public
in Canada, including many of the more
intelligent and influential classes, has
been for several years assiduously sup
piled with articles on the boundary
which, Notwithstanding their essential
fa1sity, have created body of opinion
with which, mistaken as it is, it will be
difficult TO deal. A somewhat similar
state of mind, exhibited by less well
informed body of Americans, was no
ticeable in southeastern Alaska in 1899,
when the temporary boundaries OF the
"modus vivendi' were laid out near the
head of Lynn Canal. Such subjects offer
gold mines for the sensational press IN
either country, and so the eyil grows,
On the whole, the press of the United
States has been Indifferent, occupied
with more timely matters, and the re
iteration of the Canadian myth across
the border has passed unheeded
Congress, also, in ignoring for session
after session the settlement of a ques-
ton which,was bound to produce inter
national irritation as the Alaskan boun-
dry became better populated, has in
Cured grave responsibility. Ou1
Canadian cousins have a just right tc
complain of this, however wrong they
NAV BE- in some other matters.
An excellent example Of the literature
above alluded to is recent publication
in the Canadian Law Review" for Sep
tember, of an article by Thomas Hodg-
ms, R.C., of Toronto, which is also print
ed in the Contemporary Review. 1t i;
well written, gives evidence of much
familiarity with international law, ano
of just enough acquaintance with the
facts not to disturb the flow of grave
and apparently weighty argument. Re
qarded as the effort of counsel to repre-
sent the case of his elicit, it is admir-
able, and, with the intelligent public
who cannot hear the argument for the
other side it will necessarily be inhuen
tia1. Believing that in the interests o1
truth, of the international relations o.
tie two countries, and of the speedy set
tlement of this vexed question, it is eni
nently desirable that both sides shoulc
be heard, we propose to point out GER
tain fac:s which Mr.. Hodg.ns passes
without mention to challenge certain
assumptions on which his whole argtl-
ment rests, and which we believe 10 bs
erroneous and to saya few words Oh
the subject cf arbitration, with which
the latter part Of his article deals.
When the treaty Of 1925 was made
between Russia ard Great Britain Co
which our treaty CT I6b7 is replica il
It's essentially the Rlssi n-Aulerical
Company maintained fishery for sea
o.ters in the archipelago Of southeast
ern Alaska which was the chief s5ueret
of the companys revenue. Members o
the Imperial family and their court were
among the stockholders. The Hudson
Bay Company a that time had no posts
west of the Rocky Mountains and north
of the southern boundary of Alaska. lhe
country was regarded as a worthless
wilderness, va liable only for fur ami
mails. The only official maps Of the re
gi3n we're those of Vancouver, which
represented non-existen solitary chain
of mountains extending continuously in
general parallelism with the continen.
tai coast. This was the map-marker's
conventional sign for a mountainous
country, but the diplomats took it for an
actual range, as appears in the British
instructions cited by Mr. Hodgins among
the priliminaries to the treaty. This
Hypothetical range was tanke to carry
the boundary line in the treaty as agre-
ed upon, except that, when It's summit
proved to be more than ten marine lea.
CUES from the coast, the boundary
should be formed by line parallel to
helcoast and ten marine leagues there
rom.