Barton County democrat. [volume] (Great Bend, Kan.) 1885-1915, 1903-04-10

columbia and that narrow strip OF
United States territory known as the
panhandle" section of Alaska. A
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 of differences between
the United States and Canada made
statement to the effect that every
substantial progress had been made,
but that the commission, in spite of
.''friendliness and cordiality," had been
unable to agree upon a settlement of
the Alaskan boundary" The statement
continued:
The difficulties. apart from the immedi-
ate delmitation of this boundary by the
commission itself. arose from the copdi-
tions under which it ought to be referred
to arbitration. The British commissioners
desired that the whole question should be
referred on terms similar to those provided
in the reference" of the Venezuelan boun-
dairy line and which, by providing an UNI
plre, would insure certainty and fnality.
The United States commits sioners, on the
other hand, thought the local conditions in
Alaska SO different that some modification
of the Venezuela boundary reference
should be introduced. They thought the
1urists, three chosen by each of the three
high contracting parties. without provid-
ing for an umpire, they believing that final
tty would be secured by a majority vote
Of the jurists SO chosen: They did not see
any present prospect of agreeing to Eu-
ropean umpire, to be selected in the man
ner proposed by the British commissioners,
while the British commissioners were un-
willing to agree to the selection of an
American umpire in the manner suggested
by the United States commissioners. The
United States commissioners further con-
tended that special stlpuIat1ons should De
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 forean umpire; and in the sec
ond pla = under the terms of the
treaty, twill not be possible for the
commissioners to transfer Dyea, Skag-
way,S 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 a century ago when
Paul l. of Russia put forth the most
extravagant claims of not only land
jurisdiction, but also of authority over
large tract of the ocean. That was
II ha
ton is quite new, really coming to
head with the discovery of gold in
the Klondike region, and the pushing
of emigration westward and north
ward in British Columbia.
On December 2, 1872. President Grant,
referringoin 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 Grant
knew that the Alaskan boundary had
not been surveyed and marked, and
to prevent the very dispute that has
been irritating two great nations this
past dozen years, in 1872 recon-
meDded:
Experience of the difficulties attending
the determination OF our admitted line of
boundarg after the occupation of the ter
ritsry and its settlement by those owing
allegiance to the respective governments,
points to the Importance of establishing,
by natural objects or other monuments.
the actual line between the territory &C.
quired by purchase from Russia and the
adjoining possessions of her Britannia maj
eSty. The region is sparSely Occu-
pied that no conflicting interests of in
dividuals or of jurisdiction are likely to in
terfere to the Delay or embarrassment of
the actual location of the line. II deferred
until population shall enter and occupy the
territory, some trivial contest of neighbors
may again array the two governments
in antagonism Therefore recommend the
appointment of a commission to act joint
~ with that may be appointed on the
part of Great Britain, to determine the
line between our. territory of Alaska and
the cotermirds possessions of Great Brit
ain"
1t was case of an ounce of preven-
ton being worth pound of cure. But
President GRANTS Recommendation
came to naught. What was then a
problem for the Surveyors has become,
has beeno indeed for many years,
burdensome question for our diplomats
and those of Canada and Great Brit
ain.
The basis of any boundary line that
may be established is the treaty signed
at ST. Petersburg on February %, 1925.
known as the convention of 1925. This
convention dtfines, in articles III. and
w, the now disputed boundary. The
part that relates to the boundary
reads as follows: =
the Possessions of the High Contracting