The Denison review. [volume] (Denison, Iowa) 1867-current, 1903-02-21

Jdu-lduQle SeCllOu Ol AldSkd. n
treaty to this effect has been signed |
at Washington by Secretary Hay and
Sir Michael Herbert, the British ambas-
sador.
Just four years ago february 20.
1899, the joint high commission for
the adjustment ofdifferences between
the United States and Canada made
a statement to the effect that livery
substantial progress" had been made,
out that the commission, in spite of
"friendliness and cordiality," had been
unable to agree upon settlement of
the Alaskan boundary" The statement
continues:
1.-THE difficulties, apart from the immedi-
lite delfmitaton of this boundary by the
commission itself arose from the condi-
ions under which it ought to be referred
20 arbitration. The British commissioners
desired that the whole question should be
referred on terms similar to those provided
n the reference of the Venezuelan boun-
larry line, and which, by providing an UNI
pire, would insure certainty and f1nality.
The United States commissioners. on the
,ther hand, thought the local conditions in
Alaska so different that some modification
If the Venezuela boundary reference
hould be introduced. They thought the
reference should be made to six eminent
lurists three chosen by each of the three
nigh contracting parties, without provid-
ng for an umpire, they believing that final
ty would be secured by majority vote
of the jurists so chosen. They did not see
any present prospect of agreeing to a Eu-
ropean umpire, to be selected in the man
ner proposed By the British commissioners,
while the British commissioners were un-
tn ha nf
American umpire in the manner suggested
by the United States commissioners. The
United States commits sioners further con-
tended that special stipulations should be
made in any reference to arbitration, that
the existing settlements on the tidewa-
tiers OF the coast should in any event con-
tinue to belong TO the United States. To
this contention the British commissioners
refused to agree"
The foregoing statement of the
American contention regarding an ar
bitration agreement very we'll sums up
the latest Anglo-American treaty. Six
jurors are to be selected with no pro-
vision for an umpire; and in the sec
ond place, under the terms of the
treaty, it will not be possible for the
commissioners to transfer Dyea, Skag-
way, Juneau, or any other American
city from American to British jurisdic-
ton. This treaty does, however, leave
open the important question as to
whether the British can get to tide
water.
This question as TO the exact loca-
ton of the Alaskan boundary is both
old and new. In one sense the ques-
ton arose over century ago when
Paul l. of Russia put forth the most
eNtravagant claims of not only land
jurisdiction, but also of authority over
large tract of the ocean. That was
in 1799 In another sense the ques-
ton is quite new, really coming to a
head with the discovery of gold in
the Klondike region and the pushing
of emigration westward and north
ward in British Columbia.
| On December2, 1872. President Grant
referring in his annual message to the
award rendered by the German EN-
peror in the preceding October upon
the long-pending dispute as to the
San Juan water boundary. remarked
that this award left us ''for the first
time in the history of the country
as nation, without question of dis
puted boundary between our terri.
tory and the possessions of Great Brit.
ain on this continent" President Gran,
knew that the Alaskan boundary had
not been surveyed and marked, unC
to prevent the very dispute that has
been irritating two great nations this
past dozen years, in 1872 recon
mended
Experience of the difficulties attending
the determination of our admitted line O.
boundary after he occupation of the ter
ritory and its settlement by those owine
allegiance to the respective governments
points to the Importance of establishing
by natural objects or other monuments
the actual line between the territory ac
quired by purchase from Russia and thu
adjoining possessions of her Britannia ma j
esty. The region is now so sparsely occu
pied that no conflicting interests of in
dividuals or of jurisdiction are likely to in
terfere to the delay or embarrassment O
the actual location of the line If deferre
until population shall enter and occupy tn
territory, some trivial contest of neighbour
may again array the two government
in antagonism. l therefore recommend tn
appointment of a commission, to act joint
ly with one that may be appointed on tn
part of Great Britain, to determine tn
line between our territory of Alaska ant
the coterminus possessions of Great Brit
ain"
1t was a case of an ounce of proven
ton being worth pound of cure. Blu
President Grants recommendation
came to naught. What was then
problem for the surveyors has become
has been indeed for many years,
burdensome question for our diplomat
and those of Canada and Great Brit
ain.
The basis of any boundary line tina
may be established is the treaty signet
at ST. Petersburg on February rs, 1872;
known as the convention of 1925. Thi
convention dtfines in articles III. ant
w., the now disputed boundary. Tn
part that relates to the boundar,
reads as follows:
"III. The line of demarcation between
the Possessions of the High Contractin,
Parties upon he Coast Of the Continen
and the Islanas of America to the North
West, shall b, drown in the following
|