The Kalispell bee. [volume] (Kalispell, Mont.) 1900-192?, 1902-09-23


tional boundary.
Since Mr.. Stewards return from
Alaska he has been very outspoken
in his position that there never has
been any question about the bound
airy and that there is no possible
claim for a modification. Recently,
Mr.. Seward addressed a letter to the
New York Tribune which puts his
views in a very concise form and
which we commend to the thoughtful
consideration of every American. The
letter as it appeared in the New
York Tribune is herewith appended:
"THE ALASKA BOUNDARY.
"To the Editor of The Tribune:
Sir-I was greatly pleased to read
in The Tribune of today your en-
phatic declaration:
"'Under no rational Interpretation
of the treaty can there be ground
for the Canadian claim to cut
through the strip and get down to
tide water
Last month I stood on that dis
puted line which reaches British
from American soil at the summit of
White Pass, in Alaska. One motive
for my visit was to see whether
there was or could be any founda-
ton, however f1imsy, for the so-called
Canadian claim" to a harbor on the
Lynn canal. One needs but to stand
there to see that it is an utter and
audacious humbug. Great Britain has
no more claim to a port on the Lynn
canal than she has to Boston harbor.
Nay, she has less, for she might
longed to her, whereas she never
owned or pretended to own one foot
of the land now claimed for her in
Alaska.
The treaties are clear and explicit.
The boundary named in them is a
natural and well defined one. 1t is
a line running along the summit of
the mountain chain, ten marine
leagues from the coast. The pre-
tense that the mountains sink down
just there, leaving no well defined
ridge is nonsense. They are gigantic,
precipitous cliffs, from three to six
thousand feet high. The White pass
itself, chosen as the lowest available
point of passage, is literally rail
way through the clouds.
"And here it is only just and fair
to our English and Canadian cousins
to say that there is really no such
claim on the part of the British
government or people. No English
statesman of prominence who under
stands the question has lent it his
sanction. AS for the Canadian peo-
pie, they, as a whole, are heartily
in accord with the present entente
cordial between the two branches of
the English speaking race, and would
deplore any controversy tending to
break it up. They want, not our
commerce and friendship. So far as
can be ascertained on the spot, the
whole of this land-grabbing scheme
had it's origin among land and min
ing spectators, who had everything
to gain and nothing to lose by start
ing it. Apparently they thought that
the officials at Ottawa, at London,
and at Washington knew so little or
cared SO little about matters in that
remote region that they could be
used at catspaws by the money max
ing schemers. They imagined that
ottawa statesmen would see in it a
chance to gain glory or votes, that
the mother country would not like
to oppose the wishes of her loyal
subjects in the Dominion, and that
the Washington cabinet would give
up that strip of land for the sake of
peace. To give up that strip of land
would be to divide Alaska into two
parts, large one and small one,
with British forts and custom houses
between, threatening and dominating |
both. How far the American people |
will be likely to acquiesce in such a
measure your readers can judge for
themselves.
FREDERICK w. SEWARD,
Montrose-on-the-Hu Aug 81,
1902.