The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1903-11-01
THE ALASKAN DECISION,
Comments of Representative Cana
dian NEWSPAPERS.

dian Newspapers.
The United States have pressed their
advantages and claims to their full ex-
tent. They have demanded and received
their pound of flesh. and for ourselves
we. have no disposition to complain. The
.whales matter has ben undisgusedly
game for the trade and incidentals of the
Yukon. They have played their trump
cards, and if there are no more to be
laid down they have won. Has Canada
still a card to play that Will deprive them
of their victory even while il is in their
grasp? There. can be do doubt that a
railway from Canadian port into Daw-
son City would be OF their nature.-Tor-
onto Globe
The argument basel upon international
law has entirely favored the Canadian
contention. II is impossible to see how
the court could overrule it on its merits.
The strongest point against Il is the claim
of the United States founded upon pos
session According 10 the treaty submit
ting the case to the Tribunal the court
had the right to take into consideration
any action of the United States or Rus
sia or Britain with respect to the terri
tory in dispute in 50 far as it tends to
show the original purpose when the boun-
dary line was described. X can only be
nthe theory that the United States was
particularly active il the matter of TAX
ing possession that a judgment. If such
is to be rendered, in favor Of the view of
that country, can be reacned.-Toronto
Mail and Empire.
Canada cannot help but accept It, and
however disappointing the decision may
, be the boundary question viii be well cut
of the way and we shall be able to con-
| sole ourselves perhaps for the loss Of
what we have always considered cur ter
ritory. but OF which We have never been
/ possessed Better loss OF territory than
even the threat OF war When the de-
cisioa is before US We can definitely make
up our minds whether or no in 4 question
that ike most questions. has two sides
Canada took the wrong side.-MOntreal
Witness.
IL is not necessary to abate one jot OF
respect for the ability ana high chaTaetes
Of Lord AiverstoIle IN canfessing that we
Go not like the result of the Alaskan ar
bitration (2l. There was. in fact. 80 ex-
peciation in Canada that We should ike
IL. When she Canadian government
agreed 70 submit cur claim FOR a fair
Alaskan boundary To q commission. com
posed of three American politicians. two
Canadian 'juTists'' and an English Law
lord. Il accepted tremendous odds asainst
US To begin with. il was absolutely
certain that we could not win, The best
we could hope for was to avert spo.la-
ton.
Il certainly now becomes the duty a
the government u tell us fFaakly and
fully why It submitted 70 this sarelcal
arbitration Il il was practically coeTeec
by the Imperial authorities IL sAsula say
SO: though there may he chose among rs
who viii remember q sturdieT type e
Liberalism which wouia not have submit
ted 10 such cesrclaa = & voluntarily
thought f wise step Il take. Il should
also acquaint us with IS Tsaso5s fer
coming "a 81 TemarSs be conclusion;
though il can hardly. hoPe 20 escape with
much Public respect for its Judgment
Montreal star. .
II may D. that I. VII = tine eDogsh
for * "a 5uEp our fences When We caTne
70 them but the prospects as Indicated
by the Alaskan boundary aEaTd are noe
pleasant 70 dwell upon. Right dsEn the
Inc of Anglo American diFer=aces fhs
United States has saEanelx trlunghed IN
so f4r SIS these differences were q Cana