Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1899-08-05
Sir Wilfrid Laurier's Views on Can
ada's Contention.
TALK WITH MR.. FITZPATRICK
Result of His Visit to the
Dominion Stated.
A RIB 1T r ALTON WANTED

views of Sir Wilfrid Laurier as to Canada S
contentious over the Alaska boundary dis
pute was given to representative of The
Star today by F. w. Fitzpatrick of the
Treasury Department. Mr.. Fitzpatrick is
the assistant architect for the immense
public building which is to be erected in
Chicago. The cornerstone of this building
will be laid October 8 by President Nc
kin1ey. Mr.. Fitzpatrick went to Canada
to extend formal invitation to the gov
ernor general and cabinet of Canada to be
present and it was expected they would
accept. Mr.. Fitzpatrick says his reception
was somewhat chilly, Sir Wilfrid Laurier
the premier of Canada, saying to him:
A Chilly Reception.
"As friend in whom l am deeply in
terested, 1 am very glad to see you, but,
frankly, as a representative of the federal
or any local government in the United
states, your visit could not have been
more untimely. When 1 received your first
letter took up the matter with his excel
iency, the governor general, and he ex-
pressed sincere desire to visit Chicago
and seemed as anxious to accept the invi-
Iatlon as L was. We would have been
delghted to go, and were looking forward
TO the day with much anticipation But
since then the tone of your press has be-
come so harsh in dealing with the Alaskan
boundary question. such misrepresent a tons
have been made about our government and
particularly about me that 1t would be I'M
dign1fied for us to visit you and 1 cannot
advise his excellency to GO" Sir Wi.frid
animated that he was afraid of insult
should he come to this country.
Mr. Fitzpatrick said this morning that
ne was sorry some of the newspapers were
now referring to Sir Wilfrid as churlish
He says:
He was not churlish, but was a trifie
rigid, as one may well be who fully real
ICES that the press represents the people
How else could one feel who receives an
invitation from one member of a club for
instance, to a grand dinner there and the
very next minute is called a churl and
threatened with a drubbing by officers of
that club?
Not only have such papers made it
exceedingly unpleasant for him to travel
IN our country, but unpleasan for him at
home. There is hardly a day passes that
he is not interrogated upon the floor in
parliament as to his offer of this, his re-
fuSal of that or the other thing in the pend
ing negotiations upon the Alaskan bound
airy and these vituperative papers held I'D
to him as proofs. in black and white, of
those actions of omission or commission
he is accused Of"
Sir Wi!frid's Views.
Mr. Fitzpatrick says that Sir Wilfrid
feels particularly aggrieved that the sub
ject of war has ever been mentioned In
cussed the situation freely, saying:
War would be terrible God forbid that
such thing should come about It would
be crime against civilization, monstrous,
unnatural crime! And yet, in justice to
from the position | have taken even in
the race OF such newspaper threats, and
the press has had much to do in bringing
about such catastrophes before.
hpinp ba limo
block between England and your country
as being opposed to arbitration. | am not
1t is arbitration that want, the only solu-
uon of the problem. We are in the posi-
ton of two farmers who are not quite sure
about a line of fence between their farms
ana your papers say that the farmer they
represent win neither go to court and have
1t settled. nor will he allow it to be sur
Veyed, and he positively declines to call in
mutual friend to arbitrate.
NO two statesmen have ever been able
to agree upon an exact Interpretation of
that boundary Imitation nor have any two
engineers agreed upon the line The terms
are most involved. In one place the agree
ment mentions the ocean as a starting
point Now, even that simple word ocean
is in contention. We think we rightly
claim it means where the open water ends.
You Americans say 1t means every inlet
bay, creek or inundation of that water line
and some of these extend far inside of the
thrty-mile line into the continent Jrpon
some points l may be right, upon others
wrong; upon others, again you may be
wrong, and in still others we may both be
wrong Why not lay the whole matter be-
fore an impartial arbitrator let him settle
the dispute, give and take, establish a new
border, If necessary, and let abide by
his deciSion2
Really, if modern geographical terms
mean anything, no such boundary as that
described in the treaty can exist.
What the Treaty Says.
The treaty says that the boundary shall
be a line drawn from the southernmost
point of the Prince of Wales Island thence
running north to Portland channel: and
that it should run along the range of noun
tains near the coast; but in no case was the
boundary of Alaska to be more than ten
marine leagues from the ocean, and if the
mountains extended further back, the
boundary should be a line parallel to the
winding of the coast, and should never ex-
coed the distance of ten marine leagues
from the ocean.
Now, the trouble with such a line as this
is, primarily, that a line drawn from the
southernmost point of the Prince of Wales
Island north will never go near Portland
channel but will strike Benin channel. 1t
was also stated in the treaty that the
boundary line should leave Portland chan
mel at Sc N. Portland channel does not go
that far north, but Benin channel does
strike that degree Hence the Canadians
have set up the claim that Benin channel
Portland channel, and that the name Port
land channel was given to the body of wa
ter which now bears it, only at the later
period in history. 1t is tntimated that In
the time of Vancouver, Benin channel actu-
ally bore the name of Portland channel
Whether this can be proven absolutely is a
very different question. Certainly it has
not been proven publicly up to this time
On the other hand, the Americans claim
Portland channel as the proper line for the
boundary, but they are compelled to admit
that line drawn from the southern point
of Prince of Wales Island would have to
run almost due east to strike Portland
channel while the treaty expressly says
that the line in question should run north
The Americans explain this apparent con-
tradiction by saying that when the treaty
mentioned the Prince of Wales Island it
must have meant some other island Just
as the Canadians have insisted that when
the treaty says the Portland channel it
must have meant some other channel.
Sir WiIfrfd's Sensitfveness.
But all this is matter for experts to dis
cuss and settle. Why not leave it to them?
And why should your entire press, 1 may
say, turn its spite upon me and say I am
the one stumbling block in the way of set
Element?
ut hurts me particularly because my