New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1902-11-22
THE ALASKAN BOUNDARY
4 SEAI-OFFICIAL STATEMENT OF THE
DOMINION GOVERNMENTS VIEWS
on THE SUBJECT OF THE
DISPUTE.
To the Editor of The Tribune.

! Sir: 1t is unfortunate that such i'll advised
! views are expressed as those of Mr. Frederick
/ W. Seward upon the Alaskan boundary dis
pute, which appear in your issue of the 14th
inst. Your correspondent gives utterance TO
some wild dream of fertilization of the Lynn
Canal by Great Britain This is indeed news.
and too remote from reason to discuss; but the
Alaskan boundary dispute in itself is indeed Of
serious moment.
Mr.. Seward begins by stating that very few
people, either in England or the United States,
seem to comprehend the true inwardness of the
so-called Alaskan boundary dispute" Mr.. Sew
ard therein states fact which, unfortunately,
is too true, and from which Canada has suf-
fered since she became a British possession.
The same idea prompted Sir Charles Dixie 10
state in his Problems of Greater Britain:
1T is a fact that British diplomacy has cost
Canada dear"
Canadian representatives were never given
a place in diplomatic discussions in territorial
disputes between Great Britain and the United
States until the Anglo-American Joint High
Commission was appointed. in 1898 and that was
the first occasion upon which the United States
Government was not given everything it asked
when Canadian territory was involved.
Certain writer's, such Mr.. Seward. take
views Of the question wholly unwarranted, and
without recognizing that the other party in the
dispute may have a better knowledge of the
situation. or. in fact, may have even little
common sense well as himself. He speaks
of Canadian schemers'' and of Canadian
threats and cajolery," and says that Canadian
statesmen muddle the question with speclous
pretences of harmless purpose with which to
outwit the Yankees" It is needless to tell one
who has studied this question that such charges
are very puerile and it is quite unnecessary to
reply to them.
All that Canada asks is that this question,
year by year growing more serious, and year
by year becoming more difficult to settle, De
laid before an impartial tribunal the decree OF
which is to be final and forever binding upon
both countries Why does the United States
refuse arbitration? Canadian statesmen. hav-
ing their past sufferance in view, have made
stand for their rights, and firmly interenched
by sound documentary evidence, and would
welcome arbitration could the American Gov
eminent be induced to agree to such course
Unfortunately for Canada, Great Britain
would consider long before she risked war
(Which God forbdD with the United States over
the Alaskan dispute. and. unfortunately CANADA
has not the strength within herself TO force her
right The American Government knows this
well, and is playing an ungenerous waiting
game. meanwhile colonizing the disputed terri
tory What does x-President Cleveland say
upon this point? AN extension of settlements
in the disputed territory would necessarily COM
plicate the situation and furnish convenient
pretext for the refusal of any concession re-
specting the territory containing such settle
ments" He was probably not thinking at the
time that broad statements, full OF sound dlplo-
matte reason often come home to roost. But
the day must come when a settlement must take
place, and Canada cannot stand by and see her
self despoiled of territory which she firmly and
honestly believes is part OF her rightful domain.
Why does the American Government refuse ar
bitration. I ask again, to determine the bounda-
ry. as intended by the Anglo Russian Treaty OF
1925? For therein lies the point OF difficulty.
What Interpretation is placed upon the action
OF the American Government in thus refusing
to Canada a course she practically forced Great
Britain into during the Venezuelan trouble?
The reasons for refusing are obvious.
The question issue is plain and simple. Does
the third article of the Anglo Russian Treaty
mean that the line Of demarcation be drawn at
a distance Of ten marine leagues or thirty
marine miles. from the Pacific Oceans coast, or
Lynn and other canals into the Canadian in
terror. keeping always ten marine leagues from
their waters? The former is the British con-
tention, the latter the American.
During the negotiations over the treaty OF
1873. Russia, through Count NesseIrode' the
Russian Minister Of Foreign Affairs, said: we
limit requirements to mere strip Of the
continent, and. that no objection be raised.
we guarantee the free navigation OF the rivers
This guarantee is incorporated in the treaty. |
If the American contention be the correct one,
there would be need for this the rivers
in question taken into American territory
in a body. BY the British contention the head
waters of these rivers within British ter
ritory and the Russian statement thereto would
hold good.
The point is: Does the line, the base line
from which the ten marine leagues is measured, |
follow the rough coast and thereby cut across
the mouth OF the Lynn Canal. or does ii follow
the devious windings of the canal itself into
the interior for seventy miles? If so, then the
three mile sea limit, as recognized by the law
Of nations being the possession OF the ad- |
iacent country should be measured from the |
headwaters of the Lynn Canal Then why did |
the Russians guarantee to the British the free
navigation of these inlets? OF what would |
it be to the British TO land upon Russian soil?
No. the headwaters Of these inlets were recog-
niZed being in British territory and free |
passage from those waters was guaranteed |
through Russian waters to the Pacific Ocean. |
converse line also proves the fallacy of the |
American contention, for they claim sovereignty |
over the ocean for three miles from the mouth |
of the Lynn and other canals Are there two
lines? Each, 1 presume, IL for convenience OF |
argument.
The British territory claimed by the United |
States beyond the treaty strip Of coast is more |
than three hundred miles from north to south |
and from fourteen to seventy miles wide, and [
completely bars Great Britain's free access TO |
the Pacific which was guaranteed by the treaty !
of 1925 And again, how these indisputa- |
BILE figures reconcited with the statement of |
Mr.. Secretary Blaine in writing in 1890 to the !
British Ambassador: "A strip of land at no !
point wider than ten marine leagues running |
along the Pacific Ocean, from 3O' 40 to 6O' |
was assigned to Russia by the lid Article of |
Russa's Treaty with Great Britain 1T is |
the same strip of land which the United States |
acquired in the purchase of Alaska"
In 1867 Alaska was coded to the United States |
enact the necessary legislation to complete the |
treaty. Three years elapsed, and in July, 1871 |
Canada became territorially party TO the |
boundary difficulty Only eight months elapsed |
until March 10 1S12-when Canada drew |