with no representative in Congress, authorized, or whose duty it is, to bring to the attention of the legislators the measures which their interests demand, or to give information in respect to them where information is wanting, should not expect a high degree of success in the way of inducing action, or, when action is attempted, in obtaining remedies adapted to their needs. In the press of other duties and amid the important questions now constantly demanding solution, congressmen will not of themselves even keep informed about, much less devote their energies to, the local affairs of a part of the country so distant and which has until recently been regarded by them as the most insignificant and unimportant of the public domain. Someone is needed who can stimulate congressional interest, whose communications bear the stamp of authority, who is prepared and able to furnish information, and whose duty it is to look after Alaska interests in a special manner and protect her from congressional lethargy and neglect.

Without presuming to discuss the question of the constitutional right of Congress to impose on the people a burdensome taxation without giving them any representation whatever, it can safely be said that such a course is contrary to the American's traditional ideas of political justice; and against such an imposition the sense of right of the most phlegmatic congressman should revolt.

Alaska needs representation in Congress, and there is no good reason for denying her this privilege. Even if this be the imperfect and voteless representation accorded to territories, it would be the means of vastly good results. The territorial delegate would at least be in touch with both his people and Congress, and would have imposed upon him the responsibility of

seeing that accurate information of Alaska, her communities, resources and requirements in the way of legislation was kept before the legislators until recognized by the most indifferent of them. He could secure her, in a measure at least, from misrepresentation and falsehood and stimulate even sluggish minds to appreciate the justice of her demands. He could also keep them informed as to the conditions existing in the Territory, and the people would then feel that their interests were not wholly neglected nor treated with indifference.

With representation at Washington would come some form of home rule. The local affairs of the people of Alaska would then be placed in the only hands that can intelligently and adequately control them, and she could then go forward with a degree of satisfaction until the increase in her population entitles her to statehood.

CHAPTER XXX.

THE ALASKAN-CANADIAN BOUNDARY DISPUTE BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND GREAT BRITAIN

CANADIANS EXPERIENCED AND SKILLFUL IN SUCH CONTROVERSIES-IRRITATION AT APPARENT CONCESSION TO BRITAIN-THE BOUNDARY DEFINED IN TREATY OF 1825-RUN AND MAPPED BY RUSSIANS ACQUIESCED IN-DESCRIPTION COPIED IN CONVENTION OF 1867-TEXT OF DESCRIPTIONPURPOSE OF ORIGIN OF THE CONTROVERSYTHE VARIOUS BRITISH CLAIMS-PRESUMPTIONS AGAINST THE TRUE LINE-OTHER RESEARCHES AND CONCLUSIONS - BRITAIN STILL UNCON

VINCED.

Alaska has across her eastern border an intelligent, eager and aggressive people, owing allegiance to a foreign government, and skilled from long experience in the art of encroaching on neighboring territory, and by stubborn persistence, involving in diplomatic entanglements the governments concerned. From these they hope the government whose territory is invaded will be glad in the end to extricate itself by concession, even though any concession is a surrender of its own, and that to which the other party to the controversy has no shadow of rightful claim. The people know that for a century the experience of the United States with Canadians and Great Britain has been that of one long struggle to resist and prevent these encroachments; that on more than one occasion lack of firmness and opportune decision on our side came near losing to us

forever both the present states of Oregon and Washington, and that it was only a fortunate assertion of these qualities which finally secured to the United States the extensive and important territory comprising them. And they do not like to see at this day an apparent compromising spirit or even good humored yielding in matters relating to this species of Canadian thrift-matters which they regard as affecting both the honor and the interest of their country and their countrymen.

They have therefore been irritated by the government's conduct of the affair with Great Britain involving the so-called dispute as to the boundary line between Alaska and the British possessions on the east. Indeed, they cannot see how there could be any room for dispute. Great Britain, urged on by Canadian greed for territory and her desire for seaports on the Pacific, occupies a position that is untenable; but our government has been unfortunate in appearing to have permitted them, first, to raise an apparent issue where there is no real issue, and to strengthen their position by securing from the state department through a series of diplomatic exchanges a partial recognition of their pretensions.

The boundary line separating British Columbia from Russian-America was defined without ambiguity and with apparent clearness in the treaty of February 16, 1825, between Great Britain and Russia. Shortly afterward the Russians ran and mapped out the line according to the description in the treaty. Exclusive possession was given accordingly, and the line so run. and mapped out by Russia, identical with that now contended for by the United States, remained unquestioned and was followed by all British as well as Russian and American maps, until the enterprise of our citizens

had made such progress in developing the resources of Alaska as to incite the envy and cupidity of our Canadian neighbors. The convention between Russia and the United States by which the latter, in 1867, acquired by purchase all the title which Russia had to what was then known as Russian America recites the eastern boundary in the same terms as were used in the Russia-Great Britain treaty of 1825; and the care with which the description is followed in the later treaty indicates that in the opinion of the contracting parties its meaning was not only clear, but by acts and acquiescence had been made free from uncertainty, and that in quoting the exact language complications would. most likely be avoided. The boundary as defined in the convention of 1825, and soon after run and mapped by Russia and copied in the treaty of 1867, is as follows:

"Commencing from the southernmost point of the island called Prince of Wales Island, which lies in the parallel of 54 degrees 40 minutes north latitude, and between the 131st and 133d degrees of west longitude (meridian of Greenwich), the said line shall ascend to the north along the channel called Portland channel, as far as the point of the continent where it strikes the 56th degree of north latitude, from this last- mentioned point the line of demarkation shall follow the summit of the mountains parallel to the coast as far as the point of intersection of the 141st degree of west longitude (of the same meridian); and finally, from the said point of intersection, the said meridian line of the 141st degree, in its prolongation as far as the Frozen Ocean. "IV. With reference to the line of demarkation laid down in the preceding article, it is understood

"First-That the island called Prince of Wales Island shall belong wholly to Russia.