The record-union., 1899-07-25
ALASKA BOUNDARY
CONTROVERSY.
Laurier's Speech on the Subject in
the House Of Commons
Attracts Great Interest in Great Britain,
the United States and Canada.
Is Generally Regretted and Causes
Some Rather Harsh Criticisms
From British Sources - Little
Proba bi1ity That the Boundary
Differences Will Lead to Any
Serious Trouble.

NEW YORK, July PA special to
the "Herald'' from Ottawa says: Sir
Wilfred Laurier's speech in the House
of Commons, relative to the Alaskan
boundary dispute with the United
States, has attracted great interest all
over the Dominion, and it is every
where regarded as of high significance
and importance.
MY position in regard to this matter
of the boundary dispute" said Sir Will
fred tonight, has not altered since
stated it on May Both. We are willing
to refer the question to any commits
sion of arbitration that would be ac-
ceptable to any civilized nation or set
of honorable men.
LAS to the order of reference, we
maintain that the precedent set by the
United States is one to which they
should not in fairness object in this
dispute, and that is the reference in
the Venezuelan boundary dispute.
My views upon the present unsat-
isfactory state of the negotiations and
looking toward the submission of the
question to arbitration were fully set
forth in the remarks 1 made in the
House of Commons yesterday. l cam
not add anything to them, nor do i
wish to retract or qualify one word
which I uttered upon that occasion"
PROFESSOR SMITH REGRETS THE
UTTERANCES.
NEW YORK, July PA special to
the World" from Toronto says:
Professor Goldwin Smith, after read
ing Premier Laurier's speech upon the
Alaskan boundary dispute, said
II am surprised and sorry Sir Will
fred Laurier should have even alluded
to the possibility of war over the
Alaskan boundary question. 1t would
be a disgrace to craftsmanship If 1t
were possible that war should break
out between Great Britain and the
United States about such matter.
1.-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
will be found for settlement of the
question in an amicable way.
II have thought from the beginning
that it would have been better if the
Alaskan boundary question had not
been mixed up with other questions.
such as the reciprocity question, with
which it had nothing to do. Let the
Alaskan boundary question be kept
apart and let conference on CONNER
cial reciprocity proceed. The two
things, I repeat, have nothing to do
with each other"
There is a great deal of talk about
general elections in Canada being held
next fall. 1t is reported that the Lau
rier Government decided, before Min
lister of Public Works Tarte left for
England a few weeks ago, to appeal to
the country, and word comes from diff
ferent provinces that preparations are
being made for general elections.
"ST. JAMES GAZETTE CRITICISEs
LAURIER.
LONDON, July 24.-Commenting up
on the debate in the Canadian Parlia-
ment on Saturday regarding the Alas
kan boundary question, the ''St. James
Gazette" says to-day:
THE brisk air of the United States
and Canada is conducive to strong
words, which would never pass the lips
of a European statesman until an Or
der to mobilize was on the point Of
issuing. Nobody thinks of war in con :
nection with the Canadian-American
dispute. Yet, since it is we who will
have to fight if Canada makes a quar-
rel, we must plead with one of our
fellows subjects to use a Quieter style.
If Sir Charles Tuppers words mean
anything, he desires the presentation
of an ultimatum, which could only
mean war. Sir Wilfred Laurier, though
calmer, was tolerably emphatic. AS
things are going now, we are drifting
to a very serious diplomatic collision
Britain is earnestly anxious to avoid. +"
NO DANGER OF WAR.
NEW YORK, July "a. : A special
from Washington says: There will be
neither war nor arbitration over the
Alaskan boundary dispute. 1t will be
settled by amicable agreement between
the United States and Great Britain,
one nation making concessions in the
question in return for concessions by
the other on some other questions at
issue between the two Governments.
This is the view expressed by an off,
cial having much to do with the pend
ing negotiations.
Referring to Sir Wilfred Laurier's
speech in the Canadian House of Com
mons. in which the Canadian Premier
declared there were only two ways by
which the difficulty could be settled
arbitration or war-the official said
significantly:
'sSir Wilfred is merely stating to the
Canadian Parliament the recognized
methods by which civilized nations set
tie controversies. There are three
methods: First. by mutual agreement;
second, by resort to arbitration; third,
by war.
"Sir wilfred has neglected to men
ton the first and most important of
these methods"
It is recognized by the Administration
that the boundary question is a diff
cult one, as are other questions pend
ing between Canada and the United
States, but it is not regarded as i'm
possible of adjustment in some way
satisfactory to the American miners
and the Canadian Government as we'll