The record-union., 1899-07-28
Sir WiIfrid Laurier, Canada's Pre-
misr, Qualities His Remarks
Rel alive to Negotiations for Settlement Of
Alaska Boundary Dispute.
Explains Away His Previous Ut
terances, and Sets Forth What
He Considers the Dominion
Governments Rights in the
Case.

NEW YORK. July PA special to
the Herald" from Ottawa says:
And war is not to be thought of,
said Sir Wilfrid Laurier in the Cana
dian Parliament, in qualifying his
statement that inasmuch as negotia-
tions for the settlement of the Alaskan
boundary had failed, the only two pos
sihle ways of settling it were arbitra-
ton or war.
The Canadian Premier to-day gave
to the Herald" an explantioan of the
contention of Canada.
"As a member of the commission and
participant in the negotiations, he
replied, Il am not at liberty to give to
the public, any more than 1 have al
ready done, information bearing on the
difference between US and the United
States. I think I can say this much
in explanation, however,:
Practically the whole dispute now
is circumscribed to the question Of the
establishment of the boundary line in
the region of the Lynn Canal. The
public is aware that the Canadian
contention is that the line crosses
the Lynn Canal near it's entrance,
whereas the American contention is
that the line goes around the Lynn Ca
nal, leaving the entire canal in Amer
ican territory.
IF the contention We're reduced to
the exact location of the line, think
the solution might prove to be of COM
parative ease. But the Americans
have establishments at Skaguay and at
Dyea. In our view the Americans at
that point are on British territory, but
we have to recognize the fact that they
are there all the same.
"At one time we thought we could
have made the compromise and ar
ranged that boundary by conventional
agreement and mutual concessions.
am betraying no secret when 1 say
that the commission could not agree on
such compromise.
Therefore, as we cannot agree among
ourselves, We must ask the assistance
of friendly arbitrators. Two points TO
be submitted to the arbitrators might
be the following:
'First-Which is the right interpre
tation of the treaty in regard to the
location of the boundary line on the
Lynn Canal? Is it the Canadian or the
American contention?
"Second-In the event of the arbitra-
tors declaring that the Canadian con-
tention is the right one, then the sub
sidiary consideration would have to be
decided. What disposition shall be
made of Dyea and Skaguay, which are
American settlements?
I'VE think that the Venezuelan treaty
0ff hn Of
that question. I am aware that the
American authorities contend that
there is a difference between the Ven
ezuelan precedent and the case now to
be disposed of in this, that, as they al
lege. Canada never protested against
the American occupation of Skaguay
and Dyea. es Z.
1--WE do not admit this contention in
point of fact. But even if it were
founded on fact the arbitrators would
have to consider what equalities might
arise therefrom and decide accordingly.
Though I have strong views on this
point myself, for obvious reasons I re-
frain from expressing them"
"In case this matter cannot be sub
mitted to arbitration, is Canada in ia
vor of settling it by WARP" Sir iWilfrid
was asked.
Nobody wants war; he replied
quickly. Il distinctly said, when I
called attention to the fact that the
negotiations had failed and that the
question could only be settled by ar
bitration or war, that war was out of
the question and not to be thought Of.
will go further and say that war over
this or any other question would be
criminal.
I'VE ought to have the most cordial
and the closest commercial
relations with the United States We
think we do not always get them. We
think we do not always get commercial
justice. Though a small nation we
buy more from you than you buy from
us. But some day we will turn the ta-
bles on you and will get the best or
the bargain, and that is all the re-
venge we want from you.'