The Montgomery advertiser., 1903-09-04

States in 1887. In its counter statement the American commission makes reioind- CT to points covered in the presentation or the British side of the case, which 1t appears contains two or more documents which heretofore have not been given to the public.
 Russian Agreements.
 The additional evidence referred to bears on the negotiations which took place between Great Britain and Russia during the years 1873 and 1895, and 1t is contended that this new evidence in no way alters any material contention made ip the original allegation, but that on the contrary 1t confirms and strengthens the position of the United States.
 These documents consist largely of statements made and letters written by MT. Pelli, who was at that time deputy governor of the Hudson Bay Company. and 1t is intended that his letters fully sustain the assertion that in fixing A line of demarkation the British government acted wholly In the interests of thai company. The commissioners discuss at some length the claim made by their op- ponents that many protests have been filed by British officials against the Amer- ican claim in reference to the boundary line.
 They admit that from time to time there have been informal representations but these they assert were in the main with out sufficient data to justify serious con- sideration. Indeed. they say, that never until after the Klondike gold discoveries were made in 1896 did the British gov ernment take up the question seriously.
 The admit that in 1898 attention was called to the claim of the British govern ment that the ten-ieague strip extended only from the main waters of the ocean, but they say that this contention was not made absolutely clear until the British case was delivered to the present tribunal on the 2nd of May last.
 In support of the American contention that the strip should measure from tide water and from the heads of bays and infets, number of depositions are pro- duced in connection with the counter-case going to show the occupation of this strip by settlers from the United States since 1880. Special effort Is directed toward showing the control of the country about the head of Lynn canal. including the sites of the towns of Dyea, Skagway, White Pass and Lake Bonnet Also stat cd that numerous documents have been preserved which had been given to In- dian chiefs and others by officials of the United States, showing the presence in the Lynn canal inlets of naval and other authorities of the United States annually for twenty years after the United States acquired the territory. It is contended that this occupation and control were known to the Canadian Government and its people.
 Attitude Consistent.
 Discussing the boundaries proposed by Great Britain, the commission makes ref f fno ofah Df kt> n.r contention on this point, and concludes that the United States has from time to time from the cessation of Alaska to the present day maintained but one inter- pretation of the treaty of 1895. Its posi- ton has been open and known to the world. It is the same which was pre- scented to the tribunal in it's case, and which 1t now reiterates in this counter case.
 Tae argument in the case is careful study of maps, treaties and other docu- ments bearing upon the boundary con- tention. and 1t is presented in the state- ments te. which reference has been made
 Considerable space is devosed to the part played by the Klondike gold discov- cries in arousing Great Brftain's interest in the controversy, and in this connection notice Is taken of assertion made by the British commissioners that the towns cA 0yCo anu 6AdBWdy OWeu Inelf eXlSC- ence to the migration to the Klondike. They assert. on the contrary. Dyea was founded in 1ss6 and Skagway in 1888. They contradict hatly contention made by the British commissioners to the effect that Canada's claim to the territories at the head of Lynn canal was at the time well known to the United States Govern ment.
 This. they say. is a gratuitous assertion. There is no proof to sustain it. Canada never put forward any such claim to the United States. The claim was first made, in 1896 by rGeat Britain before the joint high commission. It Is said that if the Canadian Government had instructed British war vessels to disregard these regulations there would have been grave danger of serious collision. It undoubt- edly would have been a collision just as certainly as if they had been instructed to disregard the regulations of the port of New York
 Strong exception also is taken to the that there was a reservation on the part of Great Britain when the United States volunteered to create a port of entry at Dyea.
 The argument asserts that whatever was made was made by a of customs who had no au-