Peril to Peace

What a perennial source of trouble have been our boundary disputes with Canada, and what a threatening peril to our peace it is to leave them unsettled!

Continuing The Alaskan Boundary Settlement,
with a selection from Lecture by John W. Foster. This selection is presented in 5.5 easy 5 minute installments. For works benefiting from the latest research see the “More information” section at the bottom of these pages.

Previously in The Alaskan Boundary Settlement.

Time: 1903
Place: Border Between Alaska and Canada

The boundary from the Rocky Mountains to the Pacific Ocean remained for forty years a subject of controversy. It engaged the attention of successive administrations up to the presidency of Mr. Polk, various treaties and arbitral propositions being advanced only to be rejected by one or the other of the two nations. The claim to the whole territory on the Pacific Ocean from California to the Russian possessions at 540 40′ was asserted by the Democratic National Convention of 1844, and, under the cry of “Fifty-four forty or fight,” entered largely into the campaign which resulted in the election of Mr. Polk. In his first message to Congress he declared our title to this region to be “clear and unquestionable,” and he recommended Congress to extend jurisdiction over it. John Quincy Adams, who was recognized as the highest living American authority on international questions, held with President Polk that our title up to 540 40′ was complete and perfect.

The controversy grew so animated that the chances of war were freely discussed; but the two nations found a better way of reconciling their differences, and, after anxious deliberation, Mr. Buchanan, Secretary of State, and the British Minister signed a convention in 1846 whereby the line of the 49th parallel was extended from the Rocky Mountains to the Pacific Ocean. By this act the vast domain now embraced in British Columbia was yielded to Great Britain, although our title to it had been declared unquestionable by a national convention, by the President in his message, by Congress through joint resolution, and by our highest authorities on international law.

One more step was necessary before our chain of title to a fixed and unquestioned line from the Atlantic to Pacific should be complete. The treaty of 1846 provided that the water-line of the boundary should follow the middle of the channel which separates the continent from Vancouver Island. In this body of water lie a number of islands, and it was not clear which was “the middle of the channel” among these islands. In this state of uncertainty, the islands were being populated by both Americans and Canadians, and conflicts of authority arose. Efforts were made to reach an agreement through diplomacy, but they failed. In 1856 a joint commission was appointed, but the members, after visiting the region in dispute, were unable to agree. The subject went back into diplomacy, and more than ten years were spent in fruitless discussion. In 1859 the settlers on San Juan Island came into conflict, the troops of the two countries became involved, and a collision seemed imminent. A second time the services of General Scott were invoked, and he arranged for a joint and peaceful occupation by troops of the two nations, but with difficulty were they able to prevent conflicts of the civil authorities. Finally, when the Joint High Commission to arrange the Alabama claims and other matters met in Washing ton in 1871, the question of the true channel was submitted to the arbitration of the Emperor of Germany, and he rendered an award in favor of the contention of the United States.

The foregoing shows, first, what a perennial source of trouble have been our boundary disputes with Canada, 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 Atlantic to the last water channel on the Pacific, has been a matter of controversy, and sometimes of such bitter contention as even to threaten war. Secondly, 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. Thirdly, while our northern boundary has been adjusted by means of treaties, commissions, and arbitration, the Alaskan Tribunal was the first instance in which an equal number of jurists from each Government have sat as a court, observing 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 Governments 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 construction and application of the stipulations of the treaty entered into in 1825 between Great Britain and Russia. This treaty defined the rights of the two parties, first, in the North Pacific Ocean; and, secondly, on the northwest coast of North America. In order to fix the latter accurately, 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 her 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 determine the territorial rights of Alaska and Canada, recourse must necessarily be had to the Russo-British treaty.

In the official and public discussion which preceded the treaty of January 24, 1903, creating the Alaskan Boundary Tribunal, and in the documents submitted by the two Governments to that body, as also in the oral argument before it, much was said about the historical facts and negotiations pre ceding and attending the signing of the treaty of 1825, and the acts of the Governments and their officials since that event, such as the publication of maps and charts, occupation of the territory in dispute, and the admissions or statements 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.

John W. Foster begins here. F. C. Wade begins here. Goldwin Smith begins here.

More information here and here, and below.

We want to take this site to the next level but we need money to do that. Please contribute directly by signing up at https://www.patreon.com/history