New-York tribune., 1903-02-03
THE ALASKA TREATY.
Some kpprehensions As to It's Possible
Effect

To the EDITOR of The Tribune.
Sir: The honorable. frank and patriotic s'aho
taken by your paper on the subject OF the
Alaska boundary has for years been source
of great qualification to those of your readers
who have given that question careful study
and the thanks OF your readers are also due
for the statesmanlike letter of Frederick w
Seward a few days ago. It would seem very
desirable that the pending agreement regarding
a reference of the question to a board or SIX
jursts should be published verbatim, since there
seems to be uncertainty anG confusion, not only
in the public mind but also in the mlnos OF
some Canadian ministers, as to the real Dear
ings of the proposed treaty. 1t even seems
possible that, without intending TO submit the
matter to arbitration, our government has IN
fact, agreed to submit il, at least started on
a course which can hardly have any other log
ical result The point has been stated in what
seems to be an Cff,ial manner, that the pro-
posed commission Of SIX jurists, three English
and three Amerit an rs not regarded as tri-
bunaI of arbitra ton because It lacks an UNI
pire" This is risapprehenson Of the term
The test to whether any body of men, cot
stituted by mutual agreement Of parties IL uls-
pute is or is not in fact tribunal OF arpltra-
ton whatever name may be given to It, is the
question whether there has been conferred upon
such body by mutual agreement OF the us
putants the function ana lle po"Vi ~ --
al award regarding the question In dispute
binding upon the parties The numnef Oh ilieil'
hers. the proportionate majority which might
be required or over the requirement OF abso-
lutte unanirnity as is the case in an ordinary
petit Jury make no difference. Thls principe
is distinctly recognized in the treaty constitut-
ing the Permanent Court of Arbitration at Inc
Hague Article a of that treaty provides;
The umpire snail preside over the tribunal.
When the tribunal does not include an umpire
II shall select its own presiding officer
II should therefore be clearly understood that
If +he six itrists to be selected have power ny
2 majority vote, or even by a unanimous vote
IN make a binding award regarding the territory
in dispute then the United states mas oy Us IL
treaty, if it should be ratified by the oehd.es =
ce4ed from the position hitherto taken ana SO
a ahlv and convincingly advocated IN Inc III ~,
,,,7e namely: That the questions raised py
Canada regarding the Anglo-Kussldh 4 - tt,U -
1925 are not fairly susceptible OF aTeIt1 dIiOi''
F,eing abs,Ird and unsound on their race
This change of policy may be right ana NJ. ne,
though the writer does not consiueI II 50. - s
poirt however, IS that the American PeutIe,
and the Senate especially. should act with lheiI
ewes open and should not be begulled INTO apo |
proving what in fact they condemn. ny d ~ -
change of words or definitions IL II oill! -
+oo IN remember that If these six JuTisIS snoutU
divide three against three. this county WI; III III
fact be in a most embarrassing position W!Icii
c,, fron+ed with the demand TO refer queStloii,
,,ro,, which six able and learned JUDGES coulu
not gree to tribunal of hye, IN oroer 10 Ie
T,,o,-n what we have by implication recog4llLeu
as = difference requiring judiclai lIIVeStisot
70 4Lara is a specif7c answer to these objections
II certainly has not Yet been publlshed least ol
all in the highly laudatory dispatches IoIli rom
washington but il would seem that the amer
49,, -eo,Ie are entitled TO the exact text OF Ile
nronnesd agreement. and 10 a statement OF Some
reasons for its adoption and ratificat3n; Ton
91 1909.