The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1903-10-20

two OF the islands. Kannaghunut and Sit
khan, to the United States
its These two Islands are the outermost
of the four. They command the entrance
Sof the Portland channel and the ocean
passage to Port Simpson. Their loss Who.-
~ destroys the strategic value to Canada
of the Wales and Pearse Islands.
m Second-The line northward from Port
land channel Substantially the Canadian
contention regarding this line was that
there are mountains parallel with the
coast within the meaning Of the treaty
Sof 1926 and that the tops of such noun
gtains should be declared the boundary,
sthe mountains nearest the sea being tax
zen The United States contention was
that there are no mountains parallel with
the coast within the meaning of. the
treaty and that the boundary must, there
fore be fixed under the provisions OF the
original treaty relating to ten leagues and
so be run a distance of thirty-fVe miles
from the shore. including in the term
ashore" the head of all inlets. bays. etc.
ss The tribunal finds that the Canadian
contention is correct as to the existence
8of the mountains within the terms Of the
treaty. but the fruits Of victory have
sheen taken from Canada by fixing as a
&mountan line a row Of mountains so far
sfrom the coast as to give the United
Ffitory In dispute.
IS Around the head of the Lynn canal
Ythe line follows the watershed somewhat
In accordance with the present provisional
boundary. We are of the opinion that
the mountain line traced by King, the
Dominion astronomer along the coast
should have been adopted. at least so
!. far as the shores Of the Lynn canal. If
&enect We're given to the contention that
Great Britain had by acquiescence to
adverse occupation deprived herself Of
g her right to claim the head of the Lynn
= canal we would have regarded such con-
cusOn as perhaps an open and reason
able justification.
No such position can, however. be talk
en- regarding the inlets lower down the
coast. Kings line, running along the
coast to the Lynn canal. and the line
thence around the head Of the Lynn canal
following the watershed would have Civ
en- Canada the heart of the lower inlet
with at least one fine harbor, from which
easy access to the interior of the Atlin
and Yukon country could have been had
1t would not so far we have been
made aware, have taken any territory
every actually occupied by United States
citizens. it would have given the United
States the whole Of the Lynn canal, in
GLIDING Skagway, Dyea and Pyram i'd
sharbors. and it would have been. we think
reasonably satisfactory to Canada. In
stead of taking the coast line of noun
tains, line Of mountains have been
chosen far back from the coast, clearing
completely all the bays, inlets. etc. The
mountain line adopted as the boundary
lies SO far from the coast as to give the
United States substantially all the terri
tory in dispute. The line completely
clears all the bays and inlets and means of
access to the sea, giving the United States
complete land barrier between Canada
and the from the Portland canal to
Mount ST. Elias. .
- Sacrifice of Canada.
We have not been able to derive any
understanding from our colleagues on the
commission as to the principle on which
q they have selected their line of mountains
and our observations of the discussions
which resulted in the settlement on this
line have led us to conclude that instead
of resting on any Ineligible principle the
choice of this line has been a compromise
between opposing and entirely irreconcil-
able views Of the true meaning of the orig:
inal treaty. The result of this compro.
mise has, we think, been a distinct sac.
rif1ce Of the interests Of Canada. Wher
1t was shown that there were mountains
parallel with the coast within the meaning
Of the treaty. the only logical course, II
our judgment. was to adopt as boundary
the mountains in the immediate vicinity o.
the coast.
: Third. regarding the general question
Of inlets the tribunal finds against tn,
contention Of Canada. We are boil
strongly convinced that this conclusion i
wrong and we have put upon record a
length the reasons for, our view in thi
respect p.@- ~ =. - =
=" Finally if the six members of tn
tribunal had each given an ~indiyidual
Judicial decision son each Of the question
submitted we would have conceived it t.
be our duty under the treaty of 1908. how
ever much we might have differed will
our colleagues, to have Joined in signin.
the document which constituted the Off
cial record OF answers.
I'VE do not consider the findings of tn
tribunal to the islands at the entranc
Of Portland channel or as to the mountain
line a judicial one. We have therefor
declined to be parties to the award.
Our position during the conferences o
the tribunal has been an unfortunate one
- We have been in entire accord betwee
yourselves and have seVerallY and joint
urged our views strongly as we wcr
able; but we have been compelled to wit
ness the sacrifice Of the interests of Car
- ada. We were powerless to prevent II
=. tho satisfied that the course which tn
respect to the matters above specially re
ferred to ignored the just rights of Can
ada.
There is in our opinion, no process
reasoning whereby the line thus decide
upon by the tribunal can he justified
ii. was never suggested by counsel in tn
course of argument that such line wa
possible Either the four islands belon
to Canada or belong to the United State
In the award Lord Alverstone agrees wit
the United States commissioners that tn
islands should be divided, giving the tw
which possess strategic value to til
United States.