The Irish standard. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn. ;) 1886-1920, 1899-07-29
hurt the feelings or controvert the
wishes of the United States.

hurt the feelings or controvert the
wishes of the United States.
Sir Wilfrid Laurier followed Upper
and won the applause of the assembly
by saying that there remained but two
methods of settling the question, namely
arbitration or war. He then added that
no one would think of war. The fact
that he made use of that ugly monosyl-
liable has led to considerable talk in the
press of England, Canada and the
United States. OF course, Canada itself
would not undertake to fight the United
States, but would like the British lion to
roar at the American eagle, and scare
the bird OF freedom to come off its high
perch. England is not in position to
aid Canada at the present time. It is
row engaged in getting ready for war
with Paul Kruger. 1t is better for Cana
dians to keep on friendly terms with
Uncle Sam than to indulge in buster
ing threats. England will never 60 to
war with the United States over any
Canadian grievance She is cultivating
the friendship OF the United States to
avoid war, and Canada had better keep
quiet.
Prof. Goodwin Smith looks at the
question in "a sensible manner. Refer
ring to Laurier's speech he says: 81 am
surprised and sorry Sir Wilfrid Laurier
should have even alluded to the posi-
bility of war over the Alaskan boundary
question. 1t would be disgrace to
craftsmanship if it were possible that
war should break out between Great
Britain and the United States about
such a matter. The question is not
pressing. All that is Immediately
wanted is some joint arrangement for
the preservation of order in the disputed
territory. After a little reflection, and
when everybody has had time to cool,
means will be found for settlement OF
the question in an amicable way"
Canadians believe that their claims are
just, but Americans believe they are not
The following is the case in nutshell:
In 1926 the British government con-
coded Alaska to Russia, and in 1867
Russia sold Alaska to the United States.
No question as to the boundary arose
between England and Russia or between
the United States and Canada until 1884.
Up to that time British maps delimited
the territory according to the present
claim of the United States. The dis
puted territory extends in the form of a
panhandle down the Pacific coast. The
Canadians contend that this panhandle
should end at the Benin canal; the
Americans hold that it runs to the Port
land canal. Another dispute is as to the
width of this panhandle. The Anglo
Russian treaty provided that the line
should follow the coast mountain range,
but if the range was more than ten ma
rlne leagues inland then the line should
be at the ten-league limit. In order to
make diplomatic case the Canadians
have raised all the questions that the
issue affords. Divested of these the case
is simply that, discovering the value of
Alaska, Great Britain, at period when
its policy was aggressive, encouraged
Canada to make claim to portion of
Alaska held by the United States. Rival
Canadian politicians have made the
promise of recovery of this territory a
stepping stone to popular favor, and, as
at present, the party which is out of
power has always tainted the party in
power with its failure to make its prom
Use good. At the time Great Britain en-
couraged Canada to make this claim the
mother country's feeling toward the
United States was not amiable. Now
Great Britain is seeking friendship and
favor at Washington. Thus Canada
finds its claim on Alaska but feebly sup
ported by Great Britain. That claim
is preposterous at best. Sir Wilfred
Laurier's declaration of possible means
OF settlement amounts to surrender. 1t
is easy for him to bite his thumb at
Uncle Sam, because the responsibility
for action rests with Great Britain, and
he knows that neither the mother coun-
try nor the United States wants war
over the Alaskan boundary question.