THE ALASKAN BOUNDARY.

Southland Times, Issue 19002, 23 March 1903, Page 2

THE ALASKAN BOUNDARY.

Oii_ of the most interesting cables that appeared on Thursday morning was that which gave the names 01 Lhe British members of the Alaskan Boundary Commission. They werei.urd Alverston, Judge J. I>. Armour, Chief .Justice of Ontario, tuid Mr L- A. Jette, .Lieutenant-Governor of Qqebec, and the Commission will be completed when the three members to represent the United States of America are appointed. The Alaskan boundary dispute is of such 1 ■interest and importance that we venture to ask the atiention of our readers to a brief account of its nature and origin. It wi 1 1 be noticed that of the British representatives two aro Canadians, and the reason i.s that Canadian property and privileges are. at stake. The territory ol* Alaska extends for 0 considerable distance down the coast oi Biitish J Columbia. When Russia owned Alaska the now disputed boundary was demarcated by the Anglo-Rus-sian Treaty of 182-"). When Russia coiled Alaska lo the I'nited States in 1807 trouble as to the interpretation of the. Treaty of 182.*) began, and when British Columbia was rereived into the Dominion of Canada in 1871 Canada became a party to the dispute. Since 1872 the Canadian (lovernment has earnestly and persistently pressed for definite action with a view to arriving at a settlement, but. unaccountably enoi'.\di. the I'nited States ('overnrnoai has shown no desire for a settlement, and though .the '* negotiations" had boon dragging on for ••«*• years when the treaty for a mixed commission was signed ou January 24th last it was accounted », diplomatic triumph greater than the ITayPauncefote treaty when an agreement was made to refer the question to a commission. Croat praise was givon to Sir Wilfrid T.aurier. who. it appears, prepared the way for the treaty during his visit to London at the time of the Coronation. The prolonged controversy will now be dealt with by a Commission consisting of three British ami three American members. The question will be settled onl.v by a "majority.. and thou*-!, it is evident that unless nn Englishman lakes the American view or an Americaji. takes the "British vie\v.no decision will be arrived -at , still The Times believes, that, the Commissiom will arrive at decisions settling the points in dispute in the only manner that leaves no sense of soreness or disappointment on either s i cl o—that0 — that is. by negotiation as distinct from arbitration where the parties nn> equally represented but an odd man is added to act as umpire with whom thu decision necessarily lies.

Having described the constitution of the Commission and how U ome to be set up we may turn lo the point in dispute. The whole question that the six jurors have lo < !<*- cide is : how is the' boundary line set forth in the treaty of 182."» to be defined ? Under article iV of that treaty the limit between the British possessions and the strip of coast which is to belong to .Mask:, is to be formed " by a line 1 arallel to the windings of the i-oast. Mid which shall never exceed the dist -i ife of ten -marine leagues therefr mi." The question arises : What is- the coast-line? The Alaskan coast-lino is \ory irregular. It is indented by long arms of the sea. such as Ihe Taku Inlet, which extends inland for 23 miles ; the Lynn (.'anal, which extends inland for 70 miles ; and Glacier Bay. which extends inland for 45 miles. Does the coast-line go np one side of these inlets a,nd dqwn tlie otner. or is it determined by a line drawn across their narrow openings into the sea ? It will be seen that on tho answer to that, question it depends whether the United States shall havo a continuous strip of territory on the mainland around all the inlets or arms of the sea. or whether the bounbary lines shall cross these arms or inlets at ;i distance of ten marine leagues from 'ho ocean. The I'nited States seeks to have the boundary demarcated tic-

cording to the former interpretation, while C'reat Britain and Canada contend for the latter. It is obvious that the territory "involved is immense, the .arms of the sen bcirv*- of enormous length. America wishes to have possession of the whole Lvnn Canal. 70 miles in length, and of ten marine leagues inland all round. Canada maintains that the i'niteil Stales is not entitled to more than ton marine b-agues of the 1 ynti Canal from tho ocean, and that the upper reaches of the inlet and tinland all around belong to Britain. The st tip of lancl at issue is. in fact. 800 miles long and from H— to 7<i miles wide, and if the American contention wins the clay not only vill Britain lose this territory, but she will lose .. free access to the ocean through the. Lynn Canal. Glacier Bay. and the' 'other 'long indentations 01* the we&£" const of North America. Besides the area of land and the right of access to the ocean there is one other consideration which makes the disputed territory valuable. Tt is highly auriferous, and since the "discovery of gold towns and settlements havo sprung into existence. Mining populations are not the most, conciliatory imaginable, and so long as it is in dispute whether the fields discovered are in British or American territory trouble may arise to imperil the harmonious relations existing between Canada and the United States. To obviate that.dagger, and to _i_ttlo a prot.raqtC(l,.Bu|. troversy this Commission js now beir.T formed, and it is to be ; hoped that the end in view will be attained. *