The National Geographic Magazine 



tries became involved, and a collision 

 seemed imminent. A second time the 

 services of General Scott were invoked, 

 and he arranged for a joint and peace- 

 ful occupation by troops of the two na- 

 tions, but with difficulty were they able 

 to prevent conflicts of the civil authori- 

 ties. Finally, when the Joint High 

 Commission to arrange the Alabama 

 claims and other matters met in Wash- 

 ington in 1 87 1, the question of the true 

 channel was submitted to the arbitra- 

 tion of the Emperor of Germany, and 

 he rendered an award in favor of the 

 contention of the United States. 



The foregoing review shows, first, 

 what a perennial source of trouble have 

 been our boundary disputes with Can- 

 ada, and what a threatening peril to our 

 peace it is to leave them unsettled. It 

 is seen that every step of the frontier 

 line, from the initial point on the Atlan- 

 tic to the last water channel on the Pa- 

 cific, has been a matter of controversy, 

 and sometimes of such bitter contention 

 as even to threaten war. Second, our 

 public men and the government have not 

 found a strong title to territory a bar to 

 the submission of boundary questions to 

 the adjudication of a commission or an 

 arbitrator. In repeated instances have 

 we given up territory which has been 

 in possession of our citizens for years. 

 Third, while our northern boundary has 

 been adjusted by means of treaties, com- 

 missions, and arbitration, the Alaskan 

 Tribunal was the first instance in which 

 an equal number of jurists from each 

 government have sat as a court, observ- 

 ing the forms of judicial proceedings, 

 and rendering a decision binding upon 

 the parties litigant. The result of its 

 labors certainly confirms the wisdom of 

 the President and Secretary of State in 

 devising this method of adjustment of a 

 most embarrassing controversy. 



As there seems to exist in the public 

 mind a vague and ill-defined idea of the 

 questions at issue between the two gov- 

 ernments which were submitted to the 



Tribunal for adjudication, it may be 

 well to make as brief a statement as may 

 be of these questions. They depended 

 entirely for their solution upon the con- 

 struction and application of the stipula- 

 tions of the treaty entered into in 1825 

 between Great Britain and Russia, This 

 treaty defined the rights of the two par- 

 ties, first, in the North Pacific Ocean; 

 and, second, on the northwest coast of 

 North America. In order to accurately 

 fix the latter a boundary line was agreed 

 upon dividing the possessions of Russia 

 from those conceded to Great Britain, 

 and this boundary consisted of a water 

 line and one upon the mainland. 



The rights of the parties continued to 

 be governed by this treaty up to 1867, 

 when Russia ceded and transferred all 

 its territorial possessions in America to 

 the United States, and in doing so she 

 inserted in the treaty of cession to the 

 United States the exact text of the treaty 

 with Great Britain of 1825 relating to 

 the boundary. Hence, in order to de- 

 termine the territorial rights of Alaska 

 and Canada, recourse must necessarily 

 be had to the Russo-British treat}'. 



In the official and public discussion 

 which preceded the treaty of January 

 24, 1903, creating the Alaskan Bound- 

 ary Tribunal, and in the document sub- 

 mitted by the two governments to that 

 body, as also in the oral argument be- 

 fore it, much was said about the his- 

 torical facts and negotiations preced- 

 ing and attending the signing of the 

 treaty of 1825, and the acts of the gov- 

 ernments and their officials since that 

 event, such as the publication of maps 

 and charts, occupation of the territory 

 in dispute, and the admissions or state- 

 ments of officials. But it was conceded 

 on both sides that all these matters had 

 no other influence on the questions at 

 issue than to aid in the interpretation 

 of the stipulations of the treaty. 



The negotiators of the treaty of 1825, 

 in setting forth the boundary line, were 

 governed by the geographical knowl- 



