The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1903-10-21
The Canadian Minority Statement.

OIr LOUIS Jette and his colleague
Mr.. Aylesworth, who represented
Canada upon the Alaskan boundary
commission, have taken special pains
to express their dissent to the verdict
Of the commission favorable to the
United States. They left the court
room In rage as soon as the verdict
was announced, have resigned from
the commission and in the minority
statement which they have produced,
they make a decidedly weak plea OF
injustice. e.. ."...
The point Of commencement Of the
boundary line certainly could not be-
gin anywhere else than at Cape Muzon
and the majority have traced the line,
according to the treaty Of 1926, to the
summit of the mountains parallel to
the coast where the inland boundary
commences, yielding to Canada the
main channel in the mouth Of the
Portland canal and two islands, but
following the treaty provisions that
the line should run from the southern
most point Of Prince of Wales island in
latitude $40 up Portland channel or
canal to the 66th parallel Of latitude
and thence along 'the summit of the
mountains parallel with the coast to
the 141st meridian Of west longitude;
thence along the 141st meridian to the
frozen ocean," The Canadians have
left severely alone the line to the
frozen sea. Their interest is solely
In f5oop Oh ~
gold fields. The majority of the COM
mission found the mountains parallel
to the coast" along whose summit the
line was to be- drawn, and followed the
treaty provisions that, when the noun
tain summit was more than ten marine
run parallel with the sea and not more
than ten marine leagues away from it.
In the face of the treaty stipulation
about the mountains, the Canadian
commissioners claimed that the noun
tain summit meant the crest Of the
low hills next the coast, a contention
altogether outside the intention of the
treaty, as recognized by. Great Britain
since 1925. A low hill Is obviously
not a mountain. The Canadians
claimed that the line did not pass thru
Portland canal at all, but thrue CLAIR
ence strait, Boehm channel and Bur-
roughs bay, cutting off many islands
SOLD by Russia to our. government.
This claim has not been recognized
and it is as absurd as the claim that
the boundary line runs from headland
to headland, in the face Of the treaty.
provision that it runs ten marine
leagues back of the sinuosities of the
coast, which Is very different thing
from running from headland to head
land.
A good deal is said in the Canadian
papers about the former refusal of our
government to arbitrate the boundary
question, but, as a matter of fact, when
our government declared it's willing
ness to submit 1t to arbitration, Canada
consented only on condition that she
be given a t1deWater port in any event
and that her claim to Dyea and
Skaguay be the conspicuous subject of
Very properly our gov
eminent declined to make a bargain
as to the award before arbitration
proceedings were commenced.
1t Is evident that the yielding of the
eastern channel of Portland canal to
Canada Is no serious loss to this coun-
try, for we still have free navigation
rights to the western side of the canal,
while the two islands awarded our
government are on the seaward side
the entrance to the canal
and are of evident strategic value.
This is only something of an offset to
Britain's big naval stations and forts
IN the British Columbian coast. When
our Canadian friends cool down, they
Will take a more rational view of the
decision and remember that they have
LIBERAL transit privileges thru our ter
'itory to their gold fields.