CANADA AND ALASKA.1

To the Editor of The Nation:

SIR:-A short time since, the Toronto Globe printed a rumor from Ottawa that Canada was about to press again her recent claim to a portion of Alaska, and a second time to urge the United States to submit this demand to the arbitration of foreigners for settlement. But there is nothing in this demand to arbitrate.

Russia and England, after protracted negotiations, agreed by treaty, in 1825, upon a line to divide their respective North American possessions. This frontier was drawn from the Arctic Ocean, along the meridian of one hundred and forty-one degrees west longitude to Mount Saint Elias, and then was to follow the crest of the mountains running parallel to the coast, to the head of the Portland Canal, and down that sinuosity to the ocean in fifty-four degrees forty minutes north latitude. But if at any point the crest of the mountains proved to be at a greater distance than ten marine leagues from the shore, then the frontier should run parallel to the sinuosities of the coast at a distance of ten marine leagues inland, but never further than that from the shore.

This gave to Russia a strip of territory, or lisière, from Mount Saint Elias to the Portland Canal of sufficient width to entirely exclude the British Empire

The Nation, New York, January 2, and The Evening Post, New York, January 4, 1902.

from any access to tide water above fifty-four degrees forty minutes. And that England was so excluded from contact with the sea north of fifty-four degrees forty minutes, the English and the Canadian Governments recognized, both on their maps and by the acts of their officials. This strip of territory, or lisière, became ours when we bought Alaska in 1867 from Russia, and we succeeded to all her rights of sovereignty.

If the claim of Canada-that she is entitled to many outlets upon tide water above fifty-four degrees forty minutes—were submitted to arbitration, and the judges decided anything in favor of Canada, it would be a clear gain for her. And if the judgment gave Canada but a single port, like Pyramid Harbor or Dyea on the Lynn Canal, for instance, the present and future value to the United States of the Alaskan lisière would be greatly impaired. The evidence in the case is all in favor of the United States, and shows that they are entitled, by long, uninterrupted occupancy and other rights, to an unbroken strip of territory on the mainland from Mount Saint Elias down to the Portland Canal.

There is no more reason for this country to agree to refer its right to the possession and sovereignty of this unbroken Alaskan lisière to the decision of foreigners, than would be the case if the English Empire advanced a demand to sovereignty over the coast of the Carolinas or the port of Baltimore, and suggested that the claim should be referred to the judgment of the subjects of third Powers. Whether the frontier should pass over a certain mountain or through a given gorge is a proper subject for settlement by a mutual

survey. But by no possibility has Canada any right to territory touching tide water above fifty-four degrees forty minutes. The United States should not consent to submit such a proposition to arbitration. T. W. BALCH.

PHILADELPHIA, December 27th, 1901.

CANADA AND ALASKA.'

To the Editor of The Nation:

SIR: Your correspondent, T. W. Balch, states that there is nothing to arbitrate in the dispute between Canada and the United States over the boundary between Alaska and our Northwest Territories. Whether this is so may be learned from the notes exchanged between the United Kingdom and the United States upon the subject up to and including those of October 20, 1899, fixing a provisional boundary. Here it will be found that the problem at issue involves the interpretation of a treaty made between England and Russia in 1825, whose terms are ambiguous, requiring for their true construction a consideration of the state of geographical knowledge at the time the document was signed, a reference to the correspondence which led up to it, and the application of wellknown principles of international law.

Article III. of the treaty provided that, from a certain point at 56 degrees north latitude, "the line of demarcation shall follow the crest of the mountains

"The Nation, New York, January 16, and The Evening Post, January 18.

situated parallel to the coast, as far as its point of intersection with the 141st degree of west longitude." The whole region is highly mountainous, and the question arises, What are the mountains whose crest is to be followed?

Article IV., section 2, provides that where the crest of the mountains is more than ten miles from the shore, the line shall be drawn parallel to the sinuosities of the coast, but never to be more than ten marine leagues from it. Upon this ground the United States raises the contention that the boundary is intended to be throughout not less than thirty miles from the ocean, whereas the language of the document is "not more than."

Further, the question arises, What is the "coast" spoken of? In the negotiations which preceded the treaty of 1825, the Russian plenipotentiaries distinguished between the "coast" of the main ocean and the shores of inlets. Canada takes her stand upon the sense in which the term was used by those who drew up the treaty. Is that position so clearly wrong that it is not even open to argument?

Your correspondent says: "The evidence in the case is all in favor of the United States, and shows that they are entitled, by long, uninterrupted occupancy and other rights, to an unbroken strip of territory on the mainland from Mount Saint Elias down to the Portland Canal." Why, then, is the United States unwilling to submit its claims to an impartial tribunal?

Canada sought to have this frontier ascertained in 1872, shortly after the purchase of Alaska by the United States, but without success, although Hamil

ton Fish, the Secretary of State, was favorable. In 1892 an international survey commission was appointed to ascertain facts and data, and the commission made a joint report on December 31, 1895, accompanied with elaborate maps and photographic views. Up to this time Vancouver's maps, made in 1792, were the standard and only original authority, except that the shores of the Lynn Canal had been surveyed in 1881. In 1898-99 the British delegates to the International Commission, including Lord Herschell, offered certain terms to the United States, and, in the event of these not being acceptable, they expressed their willingness to refer the whole question to arbitration on the lines of the Venezuela boundary treaty. That treaty provided that adverse holding for fifty years should make a good title, and also that such effect should be given to occupation for less than fifty years as reason, justice, the principles of international law, and the equities of the case required. The United States Commissioners refused both offers, making, however, a counter-proposal that, in the event of their consenting to arbitration, it should be provided beforehand that the settlements on tidewater made on the authority of the United States should continue to be American territory, even though they might prove to be on the British side of the line. In other words, they demanded that Canada should yield her rights as a preliminary condition to having those rights determined.

The claims put forward by Canada are made in good faith, and based upon grounds which, if disputable, are none the less solid. The issue is precisely of the kind to which arbitration is suitable.