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 IT ALTON WANTED


views of Sir Wilfrid Laurier as to Canada
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
kinley 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.
LAS a friend in whom L am deeply in
terested, I am very glad to see you, but
frankly, as 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 l took up the matter with his excel
lency, the governor general, and he ex-
pressed sincere desire to visit Chicago
and seemed as anxious to accept the inVi-
tauon as l was. We would have been
delighted to go, and were looking forward
to the day with much anticipation. But
since then the tone of your press has he
come so harsh in dealing with the Alaskan
boundary question, such misrepresenta tons
nave been made about our government and
particularly about me that it would be I'M
dignified for us to visit you. and / cannot
advise his excellency to GO" Sir Wifrld
1ntimated that he was afraid of insult
should ne come to this country.
MI. Fitzpatrick said this morning that
he was sorry some of the newspapers were
now referring to Sir Wi1frid as churlish
He says
He was not churlish, but was a trife
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 grand dinner there and the
very next minute is called churI and
threatened with drubbing by officers of
that club?
Not only have such papers made it
exceedingly unpleasant for him to travel
IN our country. but unpleasant for him at
home. There is hardly 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 up
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
talking to Mr.. Fitzpatrick Sir Wilfrid dis
cussed the situation freely saying:
War would be terrible. God forbid that
such a thing should come about 1t would
be crime against civilization, a monstrous
unnatural crimel And yet, in justice to
my country, to my people. cannot recede
from the position I have taken even in
the lace OF such newspaper threats, and
the press has had much to do in bringing
about such catastrophes before
Il quoted being the
block between England and your country
as being opposed to arbitration. 1 am not
1t is arbitration that l want, the only soiu-
ton of the problem. We are in the posi-
ton of two farmers who are not quite sure
about line of fence between their farms,
and your papers say that the farmer they
represent will neither go to court and have
1T settled. nor will he allow it to be sur
veyed. and he positively declines to call in
a mutual friend to arbitrate
mo two statesmen have ever been able
to agree upon an exact Interpretation of
that boundary limitation, 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 ii means every inlet
bay, creek or inundation of that water line
and some of these extend far inside of the
thirtymile line into the continent. Upon
some points l may be right upon others
wrong; upon others, again, you may be
wrong, and In still others we may both he
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 US abide by
his decision?
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 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 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 line drawn from the
southernmost point of the Prince of Wales
Island north viii 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
was meant when the treaty mentioned
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. It is intimated 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 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 saws
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 lust
as the Canadians have insisted that when
the treaty says the Portland channel it
must have meant some other channel.
Sir WiIfrid's Sensitiveness.
But all this is matter for experts to dis
cuss and settle Why not leave it to them?
And why should your entire press, may
say, turn its spite upon me and say 1 am
the one stumbling block in the way of set
Element?
ut hurts me particularly because my