The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1903-10-20
REFUSE TO SIGN.
Canadian Members of Alaska
Boundary Commission
Withhold Their Signatures
from the Official Award.
WE GOT EVERYTHING.
Even Islands Commanding En-
trance to Portland Canal.
A Majority of the Commission
Has Signed the Document.

OF the Alaskan award was signed at
2:10 p. m. The Canadians declined to
sign the award.
The Alaska award relating to the
Portland canal gives the United States
two islands, Kannaghunut and Sitklan,
commanding the entrance of the Port
land channel and the ocean passage TO
Port Simpson and destroying the strate-
gic value of Wales and Pearse islands,
which are given to Canada.
The mountain line adopted as the
| boundary lies so far from the coast as
to give the United States substantially
all the territory in dispute. The line
completely clears all the bays and in
lets and means of access to the sea,
giving the United States complete land
barrier between Canada and the sea.
from the Portland canal to Mount St.
1 Elias. Around the head of the Lynn
canal, the line follows the watershed,
somewhat in accordance with the pres
ent provisional boundary.
Messrs. Jette and Aylesworth, the Ca
dian commissioners, in a statement Of
their reasons for refusing to sign the
award, say they consider the finding Of
the tribunal regarding the islands at the
entrance of Portland channel and the
mountain line is not judicial one. They
add:
We urged our views as strongly as
we were able but we have been COM
PEELED to witness the sacrifice of the in
tereStS of Canada. We were powerle5s
to prevent it, though satisfied that the
course which the majority was deter
mined to pursue in respect to the mat
ters above specially referred to ignored
the just rights of Canada"
Messrs. Jette and Aylesworth, the
Canadian commissioners. made d state
menI regarding the award, as follows:
THE decision of the Alaska boundary
/ tribunal has been given, and in view of
it's character the people Of Cana
/ da are, in our judgment, entitled to
such explanation from US as will en-
able them to comprehend fully the
manner In which their interests have
/ been dealt with. We take UP the
| points of the decision In order in which
the are presented by the treaty under
which the tribunal was constituted:
'First-The Portland canal-There
are two channels parallel with each
other. with four island between them.
The Canadian contention was that the
northern channel should be adopted.
The United States cOntended for the
southern channel On the result of
the decision depended the possession of
the four islands. Kannaghunut, Sitklan,
/ Wales and PearSe. When the tribunal
met after the argument and considered
this question. the view of the three
| British commissioners was that the Ca
madam contention was absolutely un-
anSWerable memorandum was pre-
pared and read to the commissioners,
ernbodylng our views and showing it
to be beyond dispute that the Canadian
contention in this branch of the case
i should prevail, and that the boundary
should run to the northward of the four
Islands named, thus giving them to
Canada Notwithstanding these facts
the members of the tribunal other
than ourselves have now signed an
award giving two of the islands. Kan
naghunut and Sitklan to the United
States.
These two islands are the outermost
Of the four. They command the en-
trance of the Portland channel and
ocean passage to Port Simpson. Their
loss wholly destroys the strategic value
to Canada of the Wales and Pearse is
lands. There is, in our opinion, no
process of reasoning whereby the line
thus decided upon by the tribunal can
be justified. 1t was never suggested by
counsel in the course of argument that
such line was possible. Either the
four islands belong to Canada or be-
long to the United States. In the
award Lord Alverstone agrees with the
United States commissioners that the
islands should be divided, giving the
two which possess strategic value to
the United States.
"Second-The line northward from
Portland channel-Substantially the
Canadian contention regarding this line
was that there are mountains parallel
with the coast, within the meaning of
the treaty of 1925, and that the tops of
such mountains should be declared the
boundary, the mountains nearest the
sea being taken. The United Sta tes
contention was that there are no noun
tains parallel with the coast within the
meaning of the treaty, and that the
boundary must therefore be fixed under
the provisions of the original treaty re-
lating to ten leagues. and so be run
distance of 35 miles from the shore, in
cluding in the term shore the heads
of all inlets, bays, etc.
THE tribunal finds that the Canadian
contention is correct as to the existence
of the mountains within the terms of
the treaty: but, the fruits of victory
| have been taken from Canada by fixing
as mountain line row of mountains
so far from the coast as to give the
United States substantially nearly all
| the territory in dispute
Around the head of the Lynn canal
the line follows the water shed. some
| what in accordance with the present
provisional boundary.
I'VE are of the opinion that the noun
| tain line traced by King, the dominion
| astronomer, along the coast should be
! adopted at least SO far as the shores of
the Lynn canal If effect were given to
the contention that Great Britain had
| by acquiescence to adverse occupation de-
prived herself of her right to claim the
! head of the Lynn canal. we would have
regarded such conclusion as perhaps an
open and reasonable justification. No
such position can. however. be taken re-
| gardIng 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 fol-
lowing the watershed. would have given
Canada the heads of the lower inlets.
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 as we have
Roeen made aUare have taken any Eer~