Rush of Miners to the Yukon.
The City of Caches at the Summit of Chilcoot Pass.
The rush of miners to the middle Yukon gold region, which, together with certain ports and waters on the way thither, were claimed by both the United States and Great Britain, made acute the question of the true boundary between Alaskan and British territory.
In 1825 Great Britain and Russia, the latter then owning Alaska, agreed by treaty to separate their respective possessions by a line commencing at the southernmost point of Prince of Wales Island and running along Portland Channel to the continental coast at 56 degrees north latitude. North of that degree the boundary was to run along mountain summits parallel to the coast until it intersected the 141st meridian west longitude, which was then to be followed to the frozen ocean. In case any of the summits mentioned should be more than ten marine leagues from the ocean, the line was to parallel the coast, and be never more than ten marine leagues therefrom.
When it became important to determine and mark the boundary in a more exact manner, Great Britain advanced two new claims; first, that the “Portland Channel” mentioned in the Russo-British treaty was not the channel now known by that name, but rather Behm Channel, next west, or Clarence Straits; and, secondly, that the ten-league limit should be measured from the outer rim of the archipelago skirting Alaska, and not from the mainland coast. If conceded, these claims would add to the Canadian Dominion about 29,000 square miles, including 100 miles of sea-coast, with harbors like Lynn Channel and Tahko Inlet, several islands, vast mining, fishery, and timber resources, as well as Juneau City, Revilla, and Fort Tongass, theretofore undisputably American.
In September, 1898, a joint high commission sat at Quebec and canvassed all moot matters between the two countries, among them that of the Alaska boundary. It adjourned, however, without settling the question, though a temporary and provisional understanding was reached and signed October 20, 1899.
The commissioners gave earnest attention to the sealing question, which had been plaguing the United States ever since the Paris arbitration tribunal upset Secretary Blaine’s contention that Bering Sea was mare clausum. Upon that tribunal’s decision the modus vivendi touching seals lapsed, and Canadians, with renewed and ruthless zeal, plied seal-killing upon the high seas. Dr. David S. Jordan, American delegate to the 1896-1897 Conference of Fur-Seal Experts, estimated that the American seal herd had shrunken 15 per cent. in 1896, and that a full third of that year’s pups, orphaned by pelagic sealing, had starved. Reckoning from the beginning of the industry and in round numbers, he estimated that 400,000 breeding females had been slaughtered, that 300,000 pups had perished for want of nourishment, and that 400,000 unborn pups had died with their dams. This estimate disregarded the multitude of females lost after being speared or shot. Dr. Jordan predicted the not distant extinction of the fur-seal trade unless protective measures should be forthwith devised. British experts questioned some of his conclusions, but admitted the need of restriction upon pelagic sealing.
The McKinley Administration besought Great Britain for a suspension of seal-killing during 1897. After a delay of four months the Foreign Office replied that it was too late to stop the sealers that year. In a rather undiplomatic note, dated May 10, 1897, Secretary Sherman charged dilatory and evasive conduct upon this question. The retort was that the American Government was seeking to embarrass British subjects in pursuing lawful vocations.
Moved by Canada, Great Britain recanted her offer to join the United States, Russia, and Japan in a complete system of sealing regulations. The three countries last named thereupon agreed with each other to suspend pelagic sealing so long as expert opinion declared it necessary to the continued existence of the seals. The Canadians declined to consider suspension save on the condition that the owners of sealing vessels should receive compensation. In December, the same year (1897), our Government ordered confiscated and destroyed all sealskins brought to our ports not accompanied with invoices signed by the United States Consul at the place of exportation, certifying that they were not taken at sea. This cut off the Canadians’ best market and so far diminished their activity; but pelagic sealing still continued, under the inefficient Paris regulations, and the herd went on diminishing.
That these Canadian controversies left so little sting, but were followed by closer and closer rapprochement between the United States and Great Britain, was fortunate in view of the failure of the Anglo-American Arbitration Treaty. This had been negotiated by Mr. Cleveland’s able Secretary of State, Hon. Richard Olney, and represented the best ethical thought of both nations. President McKinley endorsed it, but it fell short of a two-thirds Senatorial vote.