New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1903-09-28
THE ALASKA ARBITRATION.

The Alaska arbitration-so called for the sake
Of convenience. though in fact ii is not arbitra-
ton at all-now in progress in London is evil
IDENTIFY Of more Importance than popular inter-
est As q piece Of international negotiation it
holds high rank As spectacle or a means of
public entertainment il is Of no account. That
is made plain in the Illuminating letter from
l. Y. I. which We print elsewhere in to-days
Tribune. Our correspondent remarks upon the
fact that the British officials have guarded
against inconvenent publicity in the sittings Of
the commissioners. and then shows that there
would be little danger, anyway, OF Overcrowding,
since the proceedings are chiefly Of the dry-as-
dust order. This letter deals with only the
opening session. but later dispatches have
shown that the same dry and technical char
acter has continued 10 mark the proceedings.
That is. Of course. no reflection upon their i'm
portance or upon the ability Of those who take
part in them. II simply means that the ques-
tions at issue are technical rather than roman
tic, and 90 not. therefore, give opportunity for
discussions OF q sensational or popularity enter
tanning nature.
our correspondents keen analysis Of the case
indicates. moreover, the almost painfully arti-
fcial-not 10 say Observation-Disclosures and
trend Of the Canadian contention. The abest
law officers OF the British Crown are present
ing the Canadian side Of the case. and vet their
presentation is chiefly noteworthy for its ex-
pOsUre Of the weakness OF the case. II daily
becomes more evident that the Canadian con-
tentiOn is not susceptible OF support by either
the general principle or the detailed textual pro-
visions Of the Anglo Russian treaty Of 1925.
The British Attorney Generals declaration that
the United States boundary line has been drawn
''in ostentatioUs defiance Of the treaty Of 1928"
is described by l. y. i. as an advocates device
for concealng the weakness Of his own case
II is that, II. indeed. il is not something which
might be even less favorably described. For
tie fact, patent to al men, is that the United
States line has not been drawn by the United
States at all. Ii was drawn three-quarters Of
century AGO by Russians and Englishnen. and
was maintained unchallonged until within the
last dozen years. Are we 10 understand that
British and Canadian as well as Russian man
makers. through all the years since 1926. were
ostentatously defying the treaty? II is incon-
. ceivable
Our correspondent IS not overoptimistic con-
corning the result az the negotiations. and in
that attitude he is doubtless right. As we have
repeatedly pointed out, il is really not an arbi-
tration There IS no reference 70 an impartial
umpire or 10 Jury which cannot be evenly d.
yided. There are three American and three
British judges. II a settlement is 10 be effected
N least one OF them must go over 10 the other
side and decide AGAINST his own country's claim.
II that occurs n settlement may he made II
not. there can be no settlement. In the latter
case matters win remain as they are and as
they have been since 1925. The United States
viii be In possession. and viii be thrs far sue
cessful IN its desire 10 retain and Canada VIII
be unsuccessful in Der desire TO acquire That.
we expect. either through the Judgment Of tlss