The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1903-10-21
The Alaskan Decision.
A Narrow Escape From the Pitfalls of
Diplomacy

Diplomacy.
Well, the Alaskan decision is in our
favor. For this we should be dulv
grateful. We are not likely TO he
Pestered by Canada again-not on
this question, at any rate. Yet, it is
impossible not to feel that we had
very narrow escape At any other
time-say, when Great Britain. at the
behest Of Canada, ruined our seal fish
eries-the commission would have
been unable to arrive at any decision,
and another open sore would have
been added to those that make our
relations to Canada so intolerable at
times. We might as well abandon
mineing words. be honest with our
selves, and admit that we owe the
present decision to the fact that Great
Britain needs our friendship Just now
more than she does the loyalty of Can
ada. Sound rs our position is. OF
weighty as our argument might have
Leen, neither one ner the other would
lave availed, had England been able,
IN the present impaired state of her
international prestige, to de- without
the moral support OF the United
States. To us this seems to be the
case in a nutshell
The American boundary had stood
for three-quarters Of a century. l.
was on every map. English admiralty
charts included 1t had been accepted
ny every officer and official who had
dealt with it. No one doubted it; no
enc challenged it. The earliest cavil
Is less than twenty-five years old; the
earliest definite claim dates back about
fifteen years The first formal official
protest was filed two years after the
discovery Of gold in TIE Klondike.
Under such circumstances It seemed
eminently desirable that we should
ISLAND pat" We didn't. In a burst
of unheard-of generosity we offered
10 submit to arbitration-an it prae-
tically amounted TO throwing a cloud
upon the title TO the territory which
Lad been in our undisputed possession
for thrce-quartcrs Of a century-that
which no other government on the
face Of the earth would have dreamed
oi exposing to the pitfall Of diplo-
Estie negotiations. England, in con
seniing TO back the demands Of Cana
da, had nothing to lose. We, even if
the decision was in our favor, had alb
solutely nothing to gain. The game
CT our part, was one Of extreme haz-
ard. We furnished the stakes. Can
ada played the part of a pennies
gambler.
We said that we should be duly
grateful for the turn Of the cards
And so, no doubt, we shall be. Our
negotiations with Canada have mere
tofore been uniformly disastrous
But for the attitude Of Canada
backed by tie mother country, tn,
Clayton-Bulwer treaty world have
Lem abroeated long before it was
the fisheries On the Atlantic woui,
never have been the bone Of conten
tion for more than a century; Their,
would have been no quarrel over tn,
boundary on the Great Lakes; the fun
seal industry of the Pribilof Island
might still be profitable, and the
bonding privilege extended to Cana
dian roads might have ceased to be
source of irritation to interests in thii
country. If the Alaskan decision
should accomplish nothing else beside
bringing Canada to a realization o.
the fact that she cannot pursue to
ward this country, behind the broa,
back of England, a policy of nag anC
bieker, something will have beer
gained And for this something. W
repeat, if it is brought about, we shall
be thankful
Tae attitude OF the Canadian com