IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) /. .// V ,<' C^x <. %' w- ^ & i/x ^ fA 1.0 I.I IIIIM IIIIIM IM m IM 2.2 2.0 1.8 1.25 1.4 1.6 •< 6" — ► Photographic Sciences Corporation s. ,i>^ s .^^ 4 \ w^ 6^ <> % ^^ '^ 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 (716) 872-4503 CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques 1980 Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliographically unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. D Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur I I Covers damaged/ D D Couverture endommagde Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaur^e et/ou pellicul^e Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque I y Coloured maps/ I M Cartes g^ographiques en couleur D D D D D Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material/ Reli6 avec d'autres documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La reliure serrde peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge intdrieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajout^es lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque cela dtait possible, ces pages n'ont pas 6t6 film6es. Additional comments:/ Commentaires suppl6mentaires: L'Institut a microfilm^ le meitleur exemplaire qu'il lui a 6t6 possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la methods normale de filmage sont indiquds ci-dessous. I I Coloured pages/ Pages de couleur Pages damaged/ Pages endommag^es Pages restored and/oi Pages restaurdes et/ou pelliculdes I I Pages damaged/ I I Pages restored and/or laminated/ □ Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ Pc^ges ddcolor^es, tachet^es ou piqudes □Pages detached/ Pages d6tach6es p( Showthrough/ Transparence I I Quality of print varies/ Quality indgale de {'impression Includes supplementary material/ Comprend du materiel supplementaire D D Only edition available/ Seule Edition disponible Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuiiiet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont 6t^ filmdes d nouveau de fa^on d obtenir la meilleure image possible. a 10X This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est film6 au taux de reduction indiqui ci-dessous. 14X 18X 22X 26X 30X v/ 12X 16X 20X 24X 28X 32X The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks to the generosity of: (National Library of Canada L'exemplaire film6 fut reproduit grdce d la g6n6rosit6 de: Bibliothdque nationale du Canada The images appearing here are the best quality possible considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and in keeping with the filming contract specifications. Les images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec le plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et de la nettet6 de l'exemplaire filmd, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de filmage. Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on the last p&ge with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All other original copies are filmed beginning on the first page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impression. Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprimde sont film6s en commenpant par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires originaux sont film6s en commen'pant par la premidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par la dernidre page qui comporto une telle empreinte. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol —^- (meaning "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever applies. Un des symboles suivants apparattra sur la dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbole — ^ signifie "A SUIVRE", le symbole V signifie "FIN". Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre film6s d des taux de reduction diffdrents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre reproduit en un seul cliche, il est film6 d partir de Tangle sup6rieur gauche, de gauche d droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images n6cessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la mdthode. 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 6 6 . ■ r BEITISH AND AMERICAN ^- "DIPLOMACY AFFECTING CANADA. CSttn : 1782-1899. A CHAPTER OF CANADIAN HISTORY. BY THOMAS HODGINS, Q.C., FORMERLY SCHOLAR IN CIVIL I'OI.ITY AND HISTORY, UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO. WITH MAPS. '■'■Thou who didst buihi tip this Brittannick Empire to a glorious and enviable Vieighth, with all her Daughter Lands about her, stay us in tkis/elicitie." — ^JoHN tMlLTON. " This will sometime hence be a vast Empire, the seat of power and learning: \ Nature has refused it nothing ; and the)-e will grow a people out of our little spot, England, that will fill this vast space." — General Wolfe. 'Toronto : "The Rowsell-Hutcuison Press." THE PUBLISHERS' SYNDICATE LIMITED. 1900. P HE ap Ind< the Joii £Dtema jltocity, States. The the long has sugj tional ii have, fr( the pari and fist trade fa( piftictical The internati necessita material! nynts; i to tlie o; tically a In mi lUfchoriti of the mi ^te Britii PREFATORY NOTE. !HE substance of the earlier pages of this little work appeared as an Article on " Canada's Loss by the Treaty Independence," with incidental references to some later reaties, in an English Review in 1898, a few months before ie Joint High Commission assembled in Quebec to adjust the itemational differences respecting the Fisheries, Trade-Reci- rocity, and other matters, between Canada and the United ites. The assumed, but it is to be hoped temporary, failure of long continued negotiations of the Joint High Commission, suggested that fuller details of the diplomatic and interna- ^nal incidents, and of the legislative and political acts which |ve, from time to time, indicated certain lines of policy on part of the United States affecting the many boundary Id fishery disputes, commercial intercourse, and carrying- ide facilities, between Canada and that country, would be of ictical utility at the present time. ;| The compilation and systematic arrangement of thesei jrnational incidents, and political lines of policy, have jessitated a more exhaustive investigation of the abundant jiterials contained in State Papers, and other public docu- its ; and have therefore involved very extensive additions jthe original Article, so that the present publication is pr*"?* illy a new work. In making selections from State Papers, and other standard ^horities, care has been taken to present accurate statements the matters discussed, so as to enable readers to realize how British and American Diplomacy of past years has affected im Canada, and her original territory, and also her international relations, as one of the nation-communities of Greater Britain,] with her adjoining neighbour of the United States. The lessons which that Diplomacy furnishes, in the varied] international incidents and lines of policy of former years, if thoroughly studied and appreciated, will be found instructive to the fair-minded Statesmen and people of the communities concerned ; and should enable them to realize the far-reaching responsibilities of future Diplomatic negotiations, involving asj they do the equitable adjustment of the many pending crucial] and disquieting questions affecting the healthful and neigh- bourly international responsibilities and rights of each nation! The extracts from the Despatches and Letters noted " MS."| are from the originals in the volume of " Oswald Correspond- ence " in the Public Record Office in London, which — except] in a few instances — have never been published in any State| Papers or Histories. The accompanying Map shows the territories of the Unifcedj States and of Canada, prior to the Treaty of Independence.* This little work is sent forth to assist in the study of thq past international relations of the United States and Canada and as a contribution of some materials for a Chapter o^ Canadian History. T.H. * The Map is copied, by permission, from Dr. Winsor's Narrative and Critv Hintory of America, v. 7, p. 148. CONTENTS. PllliMMINARY NkOOTIATIONS FOR THK TrEATY OF INDEPENDENCE, 1782.. 9-18 Opening Negotiations for Peace — American Diplomatic Qualities — "Downfall of a once Respectable Empire" — Fall of Lord North's Ministry— Dr. Franklin and Lord Shelburne correspond — Lord Shelburne becomes Secretary of State — Sends Mr. Richard Oswald, " a pacifical man," to negotiate with Dr. Franklin — American com- ments on Oswald's unfitness — Not a match for Franklin, Jay and Adams- Separate policies of American Diplomats — Franklin pro- poses cession of Canada and Nova Scotia to the United States —Dr. Franklin's '* Canada Paper " — Oswald submits it to Lord Shelburne — But it is not communicated to the King and Cabinet — Lord Shel- burne's notes on it — Oswald favours the cession of Canada— Cabinet Minute appointing Oswald to negotiate — Oswald's unfavourable opinion oi the conquest of Canada — Hia disclosure of Ministerial confidences to Franklin. |Mk. Richard Oswald's Appointment as Plenipotentiary 18-24 Lord Shelburne becomes Premier — Oswald's Commission as Plenipo- tentiary drafted by Jay — Canada's territorial extent in 1782 — Britain's autocratic "parental government" of her Colonies — Her disregard of the precedents of home revolutions —Value of Canada to the Empire — Franklin's sketch of Canada's brilliant future (1764) — Opinion of Congress that Canadian Mississippi-Ohio lands were better than theirs — Oswald again advises cession of Canada— Benja- min Vaughan, a maladroit negotiator, joins Oswald. IPolicy of the European Allies of the United States 24-31 France and Spain hostile to the claims of the United States to the Canadian Mississippi-Ohio territory, and Fisheries — British caval successes over France and Spain— Congress instructs its Commis- sioners to follow French advice — And modifies its original ultima- tum to (1) Independence and (2) Validity of French Treaties — Canadian Fisheries not in modified ultimatum — Depressing military and financial outlook in the United States — Diplomatic and Military influences favourable to Britain — Absence of British advisory control over Oswald— Jay senda Vaughan to Lord Shel- burne to champion American interests — Canada's original bounda- ries under the Quebec Act, 1774. i'ROCKEDINGS ON THE DrAFT TrEATY OF INDEPENDENCE 31-44 Jay drafts the Treaty — Agreed to by Oswald, who again pleads for the cession of Canada — "Back Lands of Canada"— Divided opin- ions of the Cabinet —Contents of the Draft Treaty— Lord Shelburne and the Fiench Minister on the Loyalists' claims — Their claims disregarded by Oswald and Vaughan— Severity of the United States to-Loyalists — Goldwin-Smith's statement — Impending British 6 : t national disaster— Britain loses thirteen Colonies, and gratuitously cedes 415,000 square miles of Canadian territory for nine additional States. The King's plaintive letter— Henry Strachey sent to avert the British disaster — American criticisms on him — Oswald's and Vaughan's concessions against him — He gains slight changes — JJritish Commissioners unaware of modified ultimatum of the United States — Discussions over the Fishery clauses— Misrepresentation of the then policy of Congress — Jay's admission — Sarcastic letter of French Minister to Franklin— Strachey's private letters on American diplomacy — Its characteristics — Reader's judgment thereon. Tkeatv of 1782 A Humiliation to Canada 44-4'; Loss of Territory and Fisheries, and uncertain boundaries — Lord ) Townsend's opinion — American view — "Bargain struck on the American basis" — Later "good bargains" of Canadian territory — Recent disregard of Canadian rights in Alaska — Further Amer- ican congratulations — England "endowed the Republic with gigantic boundaries" — " British sacrifice unparalleled in Diplomacy." International Relations between the United States and Great Britain since the Revolution 47-53] Diplomatic correspondence show embittered relations — No considera- tion for Britain's cruciate difficulties owing to Napoleon's Berlin decrees— Inconsistent diplomatic policy of the United States — Mississippi uncertain boundary — Treaty of 1803 settling it rejected by the Senate — Treaty of 1806 extending neutral coast immunity unratified — Origin of the War of 1812— British eastern and western conquests in the United States — Not even a United States sentry in Canada at the close of the War— Britain, although aware of the Mississippi and Maine boundary disputes, restores all its conquests to the United States by the Treaty of Ghent, 1814 — Her reward, a vexatious controversy and an armed invasion — Fishery and other rights abrogated by the War. Subsequent Treaties between the United States and Great Britain. 53-61 Treaty of 1818 concedes certain fishing privileges to the United States — Renunciation by the United States of certain fisheries — Irritating charges against Canada respecting the same — Eflforts to settle- United States TariflF policy the real difficulty — Reciprocity Treaty of 1854 — United States abrogates it in 1866— Washington Treaty of 1871 — One-sided condition against Canada —United States abrogates its Fishery clauses in 1885— Fenian claims against United States rejected, 1871— Curt reply to Canada by the Colonial Secretary — Legislation of Congress injuriously affects Canada's Treaty rights- Canadian vessels stopped at water-ways — Free passage of United States vessels through Canadian Canals— Brown-Thornton Treaty of 1874, rejected by the Senate — Its contents — Chamberlain-Tupper Treaty of 1888, also rejected— Its contents. British Du'Lomatic Policy Generous to the United States 61-65 Treaty of 1818 ceded Canadian territory at Mississippi and Lake of the Woods to the United States — Adh burton Treaty of 1842 ceded further Canadian territory— Treaty of 1846 ceded Oregon territory — Loss of St. Juan Island owing to the restricted terms of reference. loUNDAKY BETWEEN THE UNITED STATSS AND CANADA DRAWN ON MaPS IN 1782 63-69- Oswald's Map— Strachey's Map — "King's Map "—American Plenipo- tentiaries transmit marked Maps — Adams's and Jay's Evidence proving boundary lines — All maps with boundary lines in State Department of the United States disappeared in 1828— Franklin's marked Map sent to Jefferson in 1790, produced to Senate on Ash- burton Treaty, has also disappeared— Spar ks's discovery of Frank- lin's " Red Line Map " and letter in Paris Archives in 1842 — Both sustained British claim of boundary — Original Franklin Map of 1782, in French Archives, has also disappeared, and another substi- tuted (note)— Lord Ashburton unacquainted with certain Maps — Webster's suppression of the Franklin Red Line Map. 3ME CAUSES OF INTERNATIONAL FrICTION BETWEEN GrEAT BRITAIN AND THE United States 69-7 1 Civil Service of the United States subject to political changes — Trained qualities of British Civil Service — How Canada's relations with the United States have suffered — Spurious maps and reports of surveys in 1839-40 — Falsified translations of Russian documents in 1893— Faithless United States official not punished — Contradictory affidavits in the Behring Sea Arbitration— Threats to Indians giving evidence to British agent. Canada's " Baptisms of Blood " by Raiders from the United States . . 12 Invasions of Canadian Territory in 1775-76, 1812-14, and 1837-38— Fenian Raids 1866, 1870, 1871 — United States Government aware of proposed Fenian invasions of Canada — Never interfered until fili- busters had crossed the boundary, and slain Canadians — Few ring- leaders arrested and speedily released, and their arms restored. t>ISCRIMINATION AGAINST CaNADA's TrADE WITH THE UNITED STATES. . . .73-7& United States Policy of 1806, of 1818, of 1820, of 1887— McKinley and Dingley Tariffs — Unsuccessful effort against British and Cana- dian Carrying Trade — Retaliatory policy of 1892 respecting the St. Mary Canal — No similar retaliatory laws in British or Canadian legislation — Effect on Canada. Accountability of the United States to other Nations 78-8S Political acts tending to degrade another nation — Hostilities of a tact- less diplomacy — United States school and history books teach hos- tility to Britain — Politics there largely controlled by lobbies and •bosses — Canada's estimate of their spasmodic political impulses — British indifference and chilling advice to Canada in 1873 — Canada's weapons for supremacy on the farm-battle-fields of nature— Her responsibility as a nation- community of Greater Britain- Canadian ideas of friendly relations with the United States— Mr. Secretary Bayard's views— Britain's intervention in favour of the United States in the Spanish- American War. JRiTisH AND Canadian Efforts to Adjust the Alaska Boundary and other Differences with the United States 83-8^' Canada's continued conciliatory advances— Opening of Diplomatic Negotiations in 1898 — Jeopardized by position taken by the United '^:ti- 8 •li ! States on the Alaska boundary dispute— Departure from the Veneic- uelan precedent — Involves cession of Canadian territory — Bayard's sentiments forgotten — Russian Treaty of 1825 described Alaska coast line — Measured from the Pacific Ocean — "Ocean," "Coast" and "Shore" in International Law — Artificial shore-lines across bays and rivers— Alaska boundary crosses Canadian rivers and inlets — Lynn Canal the crux of the boundary dispute — Its measurement {note) — United States' precedents of 1793, sustain Canada's claim to the Lynn Canal— Arguments of the United States against Canada's claim are conflicting. •Charge that Canada has Tacitly Allowed the Claims of the United States Kespectino the Alaska Boundary 89-1001 Historical facts disprove the charge— United States obtained possession of Alaska in October, 1867— Canada's urgent and yearly efforts since March, 1872, before any settlements had been made within the dis- puted area— Canada's action in 1876 — United States in 1892, agreed to a Treaty to deliminate the Alaska boundary line " in accordance with the spirit and intent " of the Russian Treaties of 1825 and 1867 — Another Treaty in 1897, to settle the line from Mount St. Elias — These Treaties are solemn acknowledgments by the United States of their doubtful title to the territory abbut the disputed boundary line — They refute the charge of Canada's tacit acquiescence — And prove that no rights from settlement had been acquired or claimed by the United States — United States maps of boundary lines con- demned by their State Department — British proposal to accept the Venezuelan conditions a conciliatory departure from the prior Treaties of 1892-7 — Its non-acceptance justified the British and Canadian withdrawal from further Negotiations — Further impedi- ments to arbitration by the United States — Special qualities of American diplomacy (note) — Conditions required by the United States involved a forced surrender of Canadian territory, and an abandonment of British subjects —Modus Viveiidi of October, 1899, excludes Canada from Lynn Canal (no of certain members of the Cabinet : " Oswald told Franklin that personally he agreed with him ; and he also mentioned that he had not concealed his opinion when in England, but had urged the cession of Canada during an inter- view with Rockingham, Shelburne and Fox. The two former, he said, spoke reservedly on the point, but in his opinion did not seem very averse to it. Fox, how- ever, seemed startled at the proposition ."-f- This state- ment is confirmed by an entry in Dr. Franklin's diary. The death of Lord Rockingham, and the succession of Lord Shelburne to tlie Premiership, led to the resig- nation of Mr. Fox, which was followed by the with- drawal of Mr. Grenville from Faris ; and enabled Lordt? Shelburne to comply with Dr. Franklin's urgent request' that Mr, Oswald should be sent to treat. Accordingly, Lord Shelburne's " pacifical man " became the British ig plenipotentiary under a Commission, drafted for the British Ministry by Mr. Jay, "in his own handwrit- ing,"! authorizing him to treat with the " Commis- mm * MS. Despatch, Oswald to the Foreign Secretary, Paris, lltl August, 1782. f Life of Lord Shelburne, v. 3, p. 206 ; Sparks's Franklin, v. 9, if .316. ' J "It was a singular circumstance that one who had lately beeil regarded as a rebel-subject of the British Monarch should now pre pare a Commission from that Monarch by which hi« late Colonial were to be acknowledged free and independent." Life of John Jay V. 1, p. 143. 19 sioners of the United States," for the settlement of the great political and territorial interests which emi- Diplomatic nently required an experienced and adroit negotiator*, r"qi/ij.e^|^ skilled in judicious and tactful diplomacy ; and one who had a local knowledge of the territorial localities of Colonial America and Canada,, equal to that pos- I sessed by the American Commissioners. Canada at that time was one of Great Britain's Canada in largest and most important territorial possessions; f or Britain'^* lit included not only her present great domain, but also g''®*t?st the Great Lakes and the fertile agricultural territory session^ south of Lakes Erie, Huron, Michigan and Superior, down to the confluence of the Ohio and Mississippi rivers, about latitude 37° N. — out of which Canadian, land subsequently ceded, territory, containing about 1280,000 square miles, were formed the modern States |of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota* — a territory contemptuously described by Mr. Oswald's VIr. Oswald in his despatches as the " hack lands 0/^°"^^^"^?*^"°"^ 'anada" " a country worth nothing, and of no impor- Canada. unce ; " f but which, if it had been retained by Great To this must be added the south-eastern or *• Indian territory," lying between the Alleghany Mountains, Spanish Florida and the )hio River, containing about 135,000 square miles, — M'hich had formed no part of the old Colonies ; — out of which were subsequently |ormed the States of Kentucky, Tennessee and Alabama. + Six years prior to Mr. Oswald's despatch, this portion of Canada [lad been thus described : " The triangular track of land between Ihe Mississippi, the Ohio and Lake Erie, is the finest spot of earth In the globe, swelling with moderate hills, but no mountains ; ratered by the finest rivers, and of the most delightful climate ; Bie soil, as appears from the woods with which it is clothed, is of [lie most abundant fruitfulness and vegetation. It abounds with oal ; and there are multitudes of salt-springs in all parts of it. [here are mines of iron, copper and lead. Wild rye grows there 20 ml r: I Original area of Can- ada equal to Russia (ex- cluding Siberia). Great Britain's policy as a Sea Power, Britain, would have mftcle her combined Canadian possessions in North America over 4,000,000 square miles, or larger than the territorial area of Russia in Europe and Asia (excluding Siberia) ; and would have constituted British influence the imperial and dominant power on the American continent. * Great Britain was then more intent upon humbling | the European nations which had challenged her supremacy as a Sea Power, by despoiling them of their territorial possessions, than in acquiring colonial homes for her adventurous people, and markets for her man- ufacturers, which, in our times, constitute her more beneficent and Imperial policy. A century ago she Her old fash- governed her Colonies after an autocratic and old-fash- ta?despotism ^^"^^ " parental - government " despotism, — for she oyer the colo- recognized, and would then learn, no other. While her army and navy were ad^Mng to her Colonial Empire, | her home statesmen, though trustees of the constitu- tional rights and traditions of all the subjects of! the Crown, denied those rights and traditions to their Her disregard Colonial fellow-subjects ; and forgetting the revolu- precedents^ of ^^^"^^y teachings of former home despotisms, imposed revolutions, on the American Colonists a despotism which recalledi the island precedents of revolutionary resistence ; -f and| spontaneously." JUap of the Middle British Colonies in iVoWi"^ America, by ex-Governor T. Pownall, M.P., published by J. Alnion. London, 1776. * The claim of the United States to Canada was gravely assertedi on the ground that: "By the Treaty of Paris of 1763, Arti cle VII., Canada was expressly and irrevocably ceded by France t the King of Great Britain, and that the United States are, in conxei quence of the Revolution in their government, entitled to the ben^ efits of that cession." Secret J ourncds of Congress, 1780, v. 2, p. .^27 i + "The structure of the British Government was made to rest upoi^ the people's right of resistance, as upon its corner stone. * 21 ultimately caused the loss of an extended and flourishing Colonial Empire, and a loyal and sympathetic kindred. The value of Canada to the Empire — won from Value of . France on Canadian battle-grounds — was well-known *"* *' to Dr. Franklin, the writer of the " Canada paper," for he had, the year after its conquest, thus graphically sketched a brilliant future for it, in the following letter to Lord Kames : " No one can more sincerely reioice than I do on the P'"; ^™"^' ' lin 8 brilliant reduction of Canada ; and this not merel}' as I am a sketch of Colonist, but as I am a Briton. I have long been of ^^^J*^* "^ the opinion that the foundation of the future grandeur I and stability of the British Empire lie in America ; land though, like other foundations, they are low and little now, they are nevertheless broad and strong I enough to support the greatest political structure that human wisdom ever yet erected. I am, therefore, by no means for restoii ng Canada to France. If we keep it, all the country from the St. Lawrence to the Missis- sippi will become vastly more populous by the immense increase of commerce ; and your naval power, thence continually increasing, will extend your influ- |ence round the globe, and awe the world." * Such was the prophetic picture of British territorial Now coveted land commercial supremacy on the North American con- Itinent, drawn by the diplomat who now coveted the Iwhole of the Canadian domain for his nation, and to jWe should ever bear in mind how essential to the preservation of the Constitution this principle of resistance is; an extremity to be cautiously embraced, but still a remeiy within the peopleV reach ; |a protection to which they can and will resort, as often as their lulers make sach a recourse necessary for self-defence." Political 'Philosophy, by Lord Brougham, v. 3, p. 293. Life oj Franklin, Written by Himself, v. 1, p. 299. 22 i^!! i!:' Mr. Oswald's advice to cede Canada to the U. S. American Congress's opinion of the value of Cana- dian lands. Better lands than those in the U. S. Mr. Vaughan, another mala- droit British negotiator. whom the British representative had imparted the encouraging information that, before he left England, he had advised her Ministers "that in his opinion Canada should be given up to the United States, as it would prevent occasions of future differences, and as the Government of such a country was worth nothing, an^ of no importance, and that he was not without hopes it would be agreed to." * Mr. Oswald's unfavourable opinion of Canada was evidently not concurred in by Dr. Franklin, nor did it weaken his efforts to secure its cession. Nor did iti in any way deter Congress from pressing for its acqui- sition: "Great Britain already possesses Canada and! Nova Scotia; should that immense territory, which lies upon the rear of these States, from the Gulf of St. Lawrence to the Gulf of Mexico, be acknowledged to be vested in Great Britain, it will render our situationj truly hazardous. The lands, as you know, are infin- itely better than those on the coast ; they have an open| communication with the sea by the River St. Law- rence and Mississippi, and with each other by thosel extensive inland seas with which America abounds.! They will be settled with the utmost rapidity froml Europe, but more particularly from these States, fori the fertility of their soil will invite numbers to leave] us." t About this time another, and perhaps more mala- droit, negotiator, Mr. Benjamin Vaughan, an intimat«j * Wharton's Revolutionary Diplomatic Correspondence, v. 5, p. 572! + Sparks's Diplomatic Correspondence of the Revolution, v. 3, pi 273. The Articles of the Confederation of the United States, 1778| provided that "Canada acceding to this Confederation, and joining in the measures of the United States, shall be admitted into anc entitled to all the advantages of this Union." 28 friend of Dr. Franklin, was despatched by Lord Shel- burne " to give private assurances to the latter that the change of Administration brought with it no change of policy." * Mr. Vaughan appears to have been a twin neophyte in diplomacy to Mr. Oswald, for he liidiscreetly admitted to Mr. Adams that many of " the best men in England were for giving up Canada Also favours and Nova Scotia."f But his peculiar unfitness for even CanadaTml*^ a minor public ser . may be realized from a perusal Nova Scotia. of the childish p: -. cured out in a letter to Dr. Franklin, which mu.T>t have been smilingly read by that astute diplomatist : " My Dear Sir: — I am so agitated with the present His pathetic crisis that I cannot help writing to you, to beseech pj,ankii„_ you, again and again, to meditate upon some mild expedient about the Refugees, or to give a favourable ear and helping hand to such as may turn up. If I can judge of favourable moments, the present is of all others most favourable. We have liberal American Commissioners at Paris, a liberal English Commissioner, and a liberal First Minister in England. All these cir- curastances may vanish to-morrow, if the Treaty blows over. T pray, then, my dearest, dearest Sir, that you would a little take this matter to heart. If the Refu- gees are not silenced, you must be sensible what con- stant prompters to evil measures you leave us ; what perpetual sources of bad information. If the Minister is able, on the other hand, to hold up his head on this * Life of Lord Shelbume, v. 3, p. 242. + "As to Mr. Vaughan, he seems so willing to be active, and so void of judgment, that it is fortunate he has no business ; and the sooner he returns to his family the better." Letter from King George III. to Lord Shelbume, 22nd December, I7H2. w^m 24 France and Spain hostile to the exten- sion of the U. S. to the Mississippi. And to the U. S. claims to the Canadian .fisheries. one point, you must see how much easier it will be for you both to carry on the great Avork of the union, as far as relates to Prince and people. Besides, you are the most magnanimous nation, and can excuse things to your people, which ive can less excuse to ours. To judge w^hich is the hardest task, yours or England's, put yourself in Lord Shelburne's place. The only marks of confidence shown him at Paris are such as he dares not name. Excuse this freedom, my dearest Sir; it is the result of a very warm heart, that thinks a little property nothing, to much happiness. I do not, however, ask you to do a dishonourable thing, but simply to save England, and to give our English Ministry the means of saying on the 5th December that we have done more than the last Min- istry have done. I hope you will not think this zeal persecution." * Prior to the arrival of this "agitated " diplomat in Paris, the French Government had intimated to the American Congress thf *• the influence of France and Spain was hostile to the extension of the United States' boundaries through Canadian territory to the Missis- sippi, and to their claims to the Canadian fisheries. And M. de Vergennes, the French Foreign Minister, emphasized this in Paris, by arguing with the American Commissioners in favour of England, and by declaring that the demands of the Americans were unreasonable, and that France would not continue the war for American objects, f Nor were the English Ministers *Sparks's Franklin, v. 9, p. 4,33. The italics are as in the original letter. + Winsor's Narrative and Critical History of America, v. 7, p. HO 25 Ignorant of this decision of the Allied powers. Mr. Fitzherbert, the British PlenipotentI ry to France, was also informed by the French Minister that It was the joint policy of France and Spain to shut out the Their joint United States from the Mississippi, the Gulf of St. municatedto Lawrence, the Great Lakes, and the fisheries; and he^"**^"*"**"' was urged to concur with France in a concert of measures for that purpose, — because it could only be accomplished by the approval and aid of Great Britain.* And M. de Rayneval, who had been sent to London on a confidential mission to the British Ministry, also expressed to them the '* strong opinion " of the French Government " against the American claims to the Fisheries, and to the valley of the Mississippi and the Ohio," "These opinions," says Lord Shelburne's bio- grapher, " were carefully noted by Shelburne and Grantham." i* That this was the known policy of the Their policy French Court, is confirmed by the American Commis- American sioners' Report to Congress, after the Ti-eaty was signed, Commis- that " as the Articles respecting the boundaries, the refugees, and fisheries, did not correspond with the policy of this (French) Court, we did not communicate the preliminaries to the Minister until after they were signed ; and not, even then, the separate article." | sioners. * Ihkl, pp. 120 and 122. Sparks's Franklh), v. 9, p. 386. t Life of Lord Shelburne, v. 3, p. 263. M. de Rayneval also wrote I to the American Commissioners: "It is clearly evident that the I Court of London, when it was as yet Sovereign of the Thirteen Colo. hues, did not consider the vast territories situated eastward of the jMissiasippi, as forming part of these same Colonies. " M. de Rayneval jto John Jay, 6th September, 1782 ; Wharton's Revolutionary \Diplomatic Correspondence, v. 6, p. 26. + Sparks's Diplomatic Correspondence of (he Revolution, v. 10, p. 1120. ipim 2G British Naval victories ruin the sea power of France and Spain. Congress _ instructs its Commis- sioners to be foverned by 'rench ad- vice. British diplo macy aided by U. S. modi- fied ultima- tum. During these negotiations, the naval victory of Lord Rodney over the French fleet under DeGrasse, in the West Indian waters, in April, 1782, and the successes of Sir George Elliott and Lord Howe, at Gibraltar, in September, 1782, had ruined the sea power of France and Spain, and had given the finishing blow to the then European war against Great Britain. In America, Congress, in acknowledgment of the material aid oil France in assisting the United States to a national, existence, had given imperative instructions to the' American Commissioners that in their negotiations with Great Britain they were " to make the most can- did and confidential communications upon all subjects i to the Ministers of our generous ally, the King of' France ; and to undertake nothing in the negotiations for peace or truce, without their knowledge and concur- rence ; and ultimately to govern yourselves by their ad^'ice nnd opinion." * And pending the negotiations, Cong "s communicated the following resolution to the Frencn Plenipotentiary : ** That they will hearken to no propositions which shall not be discussed in confi- dence, and in concert, with His Most Christian Majesty." f The diplomatic position of Lord Shelburne's Govern- ment was also materially aided by the modified instruc- tions and ultimatum of the American Congress. In the earlier sessions. Congress had instructed its Com- missioners, that in any negotiations with Great Britain, j they were to insist upon the grant of Independence, the Mississippi boundaries, and the Fisheries, subse- quently adding, however, the following modification;! * Secret Journals of Congress, v. .3, p. 138. t Sparks's Diplomatic Correspondence of the Revolution, v. 10, p. 86 1 27 "Although it is of the utmost importance to the peace and commerce of the United States, that Canada and Nova Scotia should be ceded, and more particularly that the equal common right of the United States to the fisheries should be guaranteed to them, yet a desire of terminating the war has induced us not to make the acquisition of these objects an ultimatum on the present occasion." * The modified instructions of U. S. de- June, 1781, informed the Commissioners that Congress j^m^ted' to ' thought it " unsafe at this distance, to tie them up by two essen- tials absolute and peremptory directions upon any other subject than the two essential articles " which were : (1) To effectually secure the independency and sove-(l) Indepen- reignty of the United States ; and (2) That the treaties ;|f"^f',.,., . . . 1. (2) Validity with France should be left in their full force and valid- of French ity ; adding : " You are therefore to use your own Treaties, judgment and prudence in securing the interest of the United States in such manner as circumstances may direct, and as the state of the belligerent, and disposition of the mediating, powers may require." " But if a difficulty should arise in the course of the negotiation for peace, from the backwardness of Britain to make a formal acknowledgment of our Indepen- dence, you are at liberty to agree to a truce, or to make such other concessions as may not affect the substance of what we contend for, and provided that Great Britain be not left in possession of any part of the Thirteen United States." f The subsequent action of Congress respecting the Action of Fisheries appeared in the report of a Committee J^ipectingtho^ recommending " that the best security for obtaining a Fisheries. * Secret Journals of Congress, v. 2, p. 228. t Wharton's Revolvdionary Diplomatic Correspondence, v. 4, p. 477. 28 :.i |l'i'r:iJI m iilii II ^ I U. S. Com- missioners aware of the modified ultimatum. Depressing outlook in the United States. U. S. Treas- ury empty. right to the Fisheries, short of admitting it into the ultimatum for Peace, will be a representation to His Most Christian Majesty (of France) through one of the Ministers for negotiating the Peace, of its great importance to the United States, and of the grounds upon which it is claimed and expected."* The American Commissioners were, therefore, fully aware, before the negotiations commenced with Mr. Oswald, that Congress had modified and practically limited its ultimatum to the independence of the United States, and the validity of the treaties with France. But not being as simple-minded as Mr. Oswald or Mr. Vaughan, they did not reciprocate the blundering indiscretion of these gentlemen, by dis- closing to them the secret and confidential action of Congress respecting the desired treaty with Great Britain. At this time the military and financial outlook of the United States was depressing. General Washing- ton reported to Congress that it was impossible to recruit the army by voluntary enlistment. Silas Deane, in private letters, intimated that it would be impossible to maintain the army another year. The Secretary of State wrote to Dr. Franklin about their mortifying financial disappointments, and the " impor- tunate demands for money," — adding : " The array demand with importunity their arrears of pay. The Treasury is empty, and there are no adequate means of filling it."f And again: "Never was there a time when money was more necessary. The total aboli- tion of paper money, the length of the war, the arrears of debts, and the slender thread by whiclj * Secret Journal,^ of Congress, v. 3, p. 151. + Lecky's History of England in the 18th Gentw^y, v. 4, pp. 250-61 1 t Ibid, %Life HMr. own." W barter 29 public credit hangs, put it totally out of our power to make any great exertions without the immediate sup- ply of money." * Such were the favourable diplomatic and military British influences assisting the Ministry of Great Britain in and miUtary these negotiations. But there was then no masterful '"fl"®"*'*^' or Palmerstonian mind moulding British diplomacy. The absence of even an advisory control is apparent in the confession made by Lord Shelburne to Mr. Oswald, Lord a month before the Treaty was signed: "As you^^^™^'^ desire to be assisted by my advice, I should act with great insincerity if I did not convey to you that I find it difficult, if not impossible, to enter into the policy of all you recommend upon the subject, both of the fisheries and the boundaries." -f* He had previously informed him : " We have put the greatest confidence His great ever placed in man in the American Commissioners." | ^^"^® g"** ^" No wonder, therefore, that, after these admissions, Commia- Messrs. Oswald and Vaughan were enabled to give effect to their unpatriotic policy respecting Canada, The result, and to concede to the United States more than was be- lieved possible by that nation, or their European allies. Mr. Jay, suspecting that M. de Vergennes was Mr.Vaughan's "plotting with Fitzherbert in order to exclude the "^"^ ™'^"°'' New England fishermen from the Newfoundland banks, and to keep the valley of the Ohio for Eng- land," § induced" Mr. Vaughan to return to England IT * Sparks's Diplomatic Correspondence of the Revolution, v. 3, p. 251. t Wharton's Digest of International Law, v. 3, p. 906. X Ibid, p. 905. § Life oj Lord Shelburne, v. 3, p. 254. H Mr. Lecky aays that "Jay despatched a secret messenger of his own." (v. 4, p. 285.) Mr. Vaughan was the only one sent: See Wharton's Revolutionary Diplomatic Correspondence, v. 1, p. 647. "'^. ■■ 30 ! I and " tell Lord Shelburne of the American sentiment and resolution respecting these matters." * To which Mr. Adams added his advice : " I desired him — between him and me — to consider whether we could have any real peace with Canada or Neva Scotia in the hands of the English." He cham- Mr. Vaughan accepted the commission o Messrs. pions Ameri- t jaj i. r. ' k • • i. ^ j can interests. "^^Y ^°^ Adams, to champion American inte "ests, and to impress upon Lord Shelburne " the necessity of taking a decided and manly part respecting America," and not " seek to secure the possession of vast tracts of wilderness." He was disastrously successful ; and Lord Shelburne and his colleagues thereupon consented €anada's re- to grant " a confinement of the boundaries of Canada " 1 If* f te^rritory?^ ° to a narrow strip of territory along the St. Lawrence and Ottawa rivers. In authorizing Mr. Oswald to so agree, Mr. Secretary Townshend said : " The third article must be understood and expressed to be con- fined to the limits of Canada as before the Act of 1774." t ! The Act referred to, known as " The Quebec Act," was passed on the 13th January, 1774, — prior to the Revolution, — and described the boundaries of Canada from the Bay of Chaleurs on the Atlantic, to the St Lawrence, on more southerly lines than the present Treaty boundary; thence up the St. Lawrence River, and through Lake Ontario and the Niagara River into Lake Erie, to the point where the boundary of Penn- sylvania intersected its shore, thence southward, along that boundary, to the Ohio River, and down it to its * Winsor's History of America, v. 7, p. 123. t MS. Despatch, Whitehall, Ist September, 1782. The limits here referred to were those described in the Proclamation of October, 1763., Quebec Act described Canada's original 'boundaries. 31 [confluence with the Mississippi, and thence turning I northward, through the Mississippi River, to the Hud- I son's Bay Territories.* Actinjr on the Foreign Secretary's instructions, Mr. Mr. OswaU I . . 11 1 1 ,1- c j.t agrees to Mr. Oswald provisionally agreed to the outlines oi the jay's draft Treaty of Independence drafted by Mr. Jay; and thent'"®**y- I transmitted them to Mr. Secretary Townshend with the " Minutes regarding the Treaty with the Commis- sioners of the Colonies, and what is required of me by His Majesty's Ministers on that head," in which he reported " the articles said to be necessary and indis- pensable," as follows : "(1) Independence, — supposed to be granted as a He advises Preliminary. (2) A settlement of the boundaries Canadian between the Thirteen States and the King's Colonies, lands to U. S. j(8) A cession to the Thirteen States, or to Congress, of [that part of Canada, that was added to it by the Act [of Parliament in the year 1774, — said to be necessary and indispensable." "If not granted there would be a [good deal of difficulty in settling the boundaries of the Thirteen States, especially on their western frontier, as Itlie said addition sweeps round behind them; and I jinake no doubt a refusal would occasion a particular Refusal rudge, as a deprivation of an extent of valuable terri- ^^""^jg^^®* ® tory the Provinces had counted upon, and only waiting [to be settled and taken into their respective Govern- iients.-f- I shall therefore suppose this demand will be Tlie Supreme Court of the United States has held that, by the p'reaty of ladependence, the United States succeeded to all the sovereign rights which the King of France had in the Canadian ter- ritory between the Ohio and Mississippi, and which he had ceded to fireat Britain, as Canada, in 1763. United States v. liepentigny, Wallace's Reports, 211. tThe Quebec Act, being a Charter of Government to that Pro- vince with described boundaries, having become law before the 32 And as "ad visable arti- cles:" granted, upon certain conditions." Mr. Oswald also reported the Doctor's " advisable articles, and proper to reconcile the Americans to a cordial and friendly cor- respondence with Great Britain, and which he thought> were necessary to erase those impressions of resentment for past injuries which otherwise must remain on the minds of the inhabitants of those colonies for ages to Money indem- come, viz. : (1) £500,000 or £600,000 as indemnifica- m ca xon. ^.^^ ^^ ^^^ sufferers of the Thirteen States, for burning and destroying their towns, houses and other property. Parliament'a (2) Some sort of acknowledgment, in an Act of Parlia- sympathy for . . , • u p .i • /• misfortunes Toaent or otherwise, oi our concern tor those mistor- tunes. (3) Ameiican ships and trade to be on the same footing in England and Ireland as our ships, and trade. (4) A surrender to Congress of every part of the remainder of Canada, after the said reduction to the Surrender of limits preceding 1774, reserving to Great Britain a ^da^toU^S**^^"^^ freedom of fishing, and of imports and exports in general, free of all charges of import or other duties." * Dr. Franklin's Mr. Oswald's ready assent to the cession of Canada further de- ^^^ Nova Scotia, desired by Dr. Franklin, appears to have suggested to that astute diplomatist less concil- iatory demands ; for Mr. Oswald goes on to say : " In April, when I first came over, Dr. Franklin mentioned the reservation of the Canada lands, only as a thing very desirable for the sake of preventing disturbance;* and quarrels between the inhabitants living under different governments ; and he proposed, in case the grant was made, that the lands should be sold, and the of U. S. U. S. ships and trade equal to British. Cession of Canada desirable. Revolution, and while the Thirteen Colonies were subject to Great Britain, was binding, as to boundaries, on the American Colonies lying along the boundaries of Canada described in that Act. * MS. Despatch, Oswald to the Foreign Secretary, Paris, 11th Sep- tember, 1782. S8 money applied for the relief of the sufferers on both sides, as expressly specified in a writing which he put into my hands with a liberty of perusal when necessaiy. Since then, and particularly in July last, he proposed tbat these hack lands of Canada should be given up, "Back lands- and no allowance made out of that fund for the suffer- g^^Jj^^Qf J'jjg ers on both sides. But, on the contrary, that a sum of lakes, to be money (£500,000 to £G00,000) should be granted by^'''*""^' Great Britain for the sufferers in the American cause. T am afraid it will not be possible to bring him back to the proposition made in April, although I shall try it. Meantime I can plead that by resigning the sovereignty Mr. Oswald into the hands of Congress, the purpose for which he^j^^^j. ^^ggj^^ wished to have these additi inal lands given up (being to Congress. that of preventing quarrels amongst the inhabitants), will not be disappointed, since Congress may setl;e them in any manner they think proper, whatever v/ay the value or price of the land is disposed of." * Such pleading of the American cause by a British Effect on the plenipotentiary seems to have aroused the indignation ^l^ of some members of Lord Shelburne's Cabinet. " Rich- mond and Keppel were very bitter against Oswald, who, they declared, was only an additional American negotiator, and they proposed to recall him. This Shelburne and Townshend refused to do, as they especially desired that Oswald should be at Paris to I negotiate a commercial treaty." -f* Diplomatic disaster to British and Canadian interests Diplomatic [now seemed imminent. Mr. Jay, having obtained Mr. (>,*^*^^^^*" Oswald's ready assent, drafted the Treaty, which the interests the [latter forwarded to London as " a t- ^e copy of what has * MS. Despatch, Ibid. iLife of Lord Shelburne, v. 3, p. 298. 5 34 Draft Treaty provided for (1) Indepen- dence. (2) Cession of Canadian ter- ritory, and its British set- . tiers. (3) Right to Canadian fisheries. (4) Naviga- tion of Miss- issippi with- out entrance or exit. been agreed on between the American Commissioners and me to be submitted to His Majesty's consideration."* It provided for : (1) The Independence of the United States. (2) The cession of nearly the whole of Canada, including what are now the best settled parts of Onta- rio with the thousands of British Loyalists and French 1 Canadians by whom it had been settled, — the boundary being from the Atlantic on similar lines to those described in the subsequently signed Treaty, as far as latitude 45° on the St. Lawrence, at which point it was proposed to cross the river, and to run from " thence straight to the south end of Lake Nipissing, and thence straight to the source of the River Mississippi." "f (3) The cession of the Canadian fisheries in these words: " the people of the United States shall continue to enjoy unmolested the rigJit to take fish of every kind" in British-Canadian waters, " where the inhabitants of both countries used at any time heretofore to fish." J (4) The free navigation of tlie River Mississippi to Great Britain, — but without any means of entrance or exit for her sliips. § Compensation for the Loj'ul- * MSS. Despatches, Oswald to the Foreign Secretary, 7th and 8th October, 1782. t See "Oswald's proposed boundary line," as indicated on the Map. X One of the grounds upon which the United States claimed the ; Canadian and Newfoundland Fisheries was "from their having: once formed part of the British Empire, in which state they always ] enjoyed, as fully as the people of Britain themselves, the right of fishing," and that "they were tenants-in-common while united | with her, unless, by their own act, they had relinquished their title." Wharton's Revolutionary Diplomatic Correspondence, v. 5, p. 91. § In a debate on the Treaty, Lord North said : " There seemsto] 1)0 a peculiar mockery in the Article which granted an eternal and free navigation of the Mississippi. Such is the freedom that, wh* ' •we had not been locally excluded, we have eflfected our exclusion lif] Treaty." Parliamentary History, v. 23, p. 452. 35 ists, reversal of confiscations, and payment of American debts to British merchants, were refused, and there- Righti upon abandoned by the British Commissioners.* Lord Shelburne had particularly instructed Mr. Lord Shel- Oswald that no independence should be acknowledged FrenchMin-* without the British Loyalists being indemnified, and ister on Loy- their confiscated property restored. "f And the French ]\linister had conceded the justice of these claims by advising the American Commissioners that their views oil the subject of the Loyalists were unreasonable.! Political bitterness, however, influenced American diplomacy ;§ and Messrs. Oswald and Vaughan care- less of the honour and justice of their nation, approved Unfaithful- of the demand that not a foot of British land should Messrs. be left in America where the Loyalists could find a Oswald and , Vaughan. refuge from political persecution, or a home for their families ; and by ultimately ceding a fruitful agricul- tural territory in the latitude of their homes, which had, up to the Revolution, formed no part of the terri- tory of the original Thirteen Colonies. IT * A copy of this Draft Treaty is printed in Sparka's Diplomatic Correspondence of the Revolution, v. 10, p. 90. t Life of Lord Shelburne, v. 3, p. 189. t Ibid, p. 300. ~ § '' From motives of humanity I hope she [Great Britain] will not I succeed ; unless the same feelings of humanity should prompt me to I wish all mankind at war with that Nation — for her humiliation — I which is, at this time, if ever ont. was, hostis humani generis" John [Adams to the President of Congress, 19th March, 1781. Wharton's in'olutionary Diplomatic Correspondence, v. 4, p. 315. H " The British wanted to bring their boundary down to the Ohio, imd to settle their Loyalists in the Illinois country. We did not bhoose to have such neighbours." Dr. Franklin to the Secretary of |tate, 5th December, 1782. The " Illinois country " above referred |o, is now the State of Illinoia. U. 8. severity to Loyalists. Professor Ooldwin Smith's sketch , 3C The Loyalists had been treated with undue severity by the American revolutionists, for no crime save fidelity to the lost cause of Great Britain, A graphic statement of their sufferings has been given by a gifted writer, whose syn^pathies are known to be favourable to the United States : " The first civil war in America was followed, not by amnesty, but by an outpouring of the vengeance of the victors on the j'allen. Some Royalists were put to death. Many others were despoiled of all they hati, and driven from their country. Massachusetts ban- ished by name 308 of her people, making death the penalty for a second return. New Hampshire pre- scribed 76 ; Pennsylvania attainted nearly 500 ; Dela- ware confiscated the property of 46 ; North Carolina, of 65, and of 4 mercantile firms ; Georgia also passed an Act of confiscation ; that of Maryland was still more sweeping. South Carolina divided the Loyalists into four classes, inflicting a different punishment upon each. Of the 59 persons attainted in New York, 3 were married women, guilty probably of nothing but adhering to their husbands, members of the Council, or Law Officers, who were bound in personal honour to be faithful to the Crown. Upon the evacuation of Charleston, as a British Officer who was on the spot stated, the Loyalists were imprisoned, whipped, tarred and feathered, dragged through horse-ponds, and car- ried about the town with ' Tory ' on their breasts, All of them were turned out of their houses and plun- dered, 24 of them were hanged upon a gallows facing! the quay, in sight of the British fleet, with the arni}^ and refugees on board."* * United States, an Outline of Political History, by GolJ'ii Smith, D.C.L., pp. 110-11. 87 Judged by their subsequent actions, neither Lord Slielburne, nor any of his colleagues, appears to have reiilized, until Mr. Jay's draft treaty was before them, the impending Decensua Averni Politici, into which they had, partly with their own consent, and partly from want of efficient supervision, allowed the colonial and teiritorial interests of Great Britain in Canada, to drift, under the unskilful diplomatic pilotage of Messrs. Oswald and Vaughan. Thus piloted, and surrounded by the darkness of home ignorance of the agricultural wealth, and the undeveloped resources, and apparently indifferent to the future commercial value of the trade, of the coveted Canadian territory, Lord Shelburne's Government, to the astonishment of the European allies of the United States, surrendered to every demand, abandoned the Loyalists and, after losing thirteen British Colonies, in a fit of unintelligible, and — as Great Britain subsequently realized — unappreciated, benevolence, gratuitously made the Thirteen United States a gigantic present of sufficient British and Canadian territory, which Brit- ish arms had won from France, out of which to create nine additional States ; — thus endowing the revolted and lost Colonies with an additional territorial empire of about 416,000 square miles, about equal to the present combined area of Germany and France ; and thereby alienizing the British inhabitants which had their homes within its boundaries. * Diplomatic pilotage of Messrs. Oswald and Vaughan. Great Britain loses 13 colo- nies and then cedes terri- tory sufficient for 9 new States. Equal in area to Germany and France. 3iS * The additional territory gratuitously ceded by Great Britain to the United States, was afterwards, at the dates mentioned, formed into the following States : Kentucky (1792), Tennessee (1796), Ohio (1803), Indiana (1816), Illinois (1818), Alabama (1819), Michigan (1837), Wisconsin (1848), and Minnesota (1858). 38 The King's J>laliitive etter. Lord Shel- bnrne's warn Ing to Mr. Oswald. Mr. Strachey Bent to averc the impend- ing disasters. Mr. 8tra- ohey's oourageous tenacity. When the extravagant generosity of the Draft Treaty was realized, and the tie between the American Colonies and Great Britain was about to be severed, the King ^/laintively wrote to Lord Shelburne : " I am too much agitated with a fear of sacrificing the inter- ests of my country * * that I am unable to add anything on that subject, but most frequent pra3'ers to Heaven to guide me so to act, that posterity may not lay 1/he downfall of this once respectable Empire at my door ; and that if ruin should attend the measures that may be r^lopted, I may not long survive them." * Lord Shelburne, in writing to Mr. Oswald, evidently felt the peril in which his Government stood, and warned him that " the nation would rise to do itself justice, and to recover its wounded honour." Appar- ently, with the hope of averting, if possible, the im- pending national disaster, Mr. (afterwards Sir) Henry Strachey, who had been Secretary to Lord Clive, and was then Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs, was despatched to Paris with instructions to insist 'mon compensation to the Loyalists, the retention by Great Britain of the " Indian Territory," and of the original boundaries of Canada within the Ohio and Mississippi; or, if any Canadian territory should be ceded, to charge it with compensation for the Loyalists; to obtain a more favourable boundary of Nova Scotia, and to reject the cession of the Canadian Fisheries, "f* Mr. Strachey, though coming upon the diplomatic battle-ground late, and single-handed, appears to have fought for his imperilled cause with courageous ten- acity, and to have taken a decided stand against some • Life of Lord Shelburne, v. 3, p. 297. + Ibid, p. 281. ins aigum wer * "YjI for a sed Ministrj JMor § \Vi,J 39 of Messrs. Oswald and Vaughan's concessions.* As stated by an American diplomatist, he "had been sent Criticisms on from England for the purpose of stiffening the easy ^^'■- ^''''**^''*'y* nature of Mr. Oswald, but he only succeeded in infus- ing into the Conferences all the asperity which they ever betrayed." f A late equally Anglo-phobe writer declares that, " Mr. Strachey appeared in Paris as the exponent of English arrogance, insolence, and general offensiveness." i But his contemporaries were more just : " Mr. Strachey won an acknowledgment from both sides for his persistent energy and skill. Adams said of him, ' He presses every point as far as it can possibly go. He is a most eager, earnest, and pointed spirit.' And Mr. Oswald, in writing to Mr. Secretary Townshend, said, 'He enforced our pretensions by every aigument that reason, justice and humanity, could suggest.' " § Mr. Strachey was too late ! Had he sounded the But he was French Minister, — whose policy respecting the United ^^^ ' States he must have known, — he might, perhaps, have learned that Congress had withdrawn the claims to the fisheries, and the Mississippi boundaries, as ulti- mata ; and that M. de Vergennes w' as ready to use the supervisory influence which Congress had given France, for the purpose of making the American pleni- potufi tiaries more conciliatory. IT Against him, however, Messrs. wer*- the betrayals of Cabinet secrets to the Ameri-y^yg}^^^",'j^j disclosed *"Va!ighau, regretting the interposition of Strachey, undertook ^'^^*"®* ^^°' for a second time to represent the American views to the British Ministry." Adams's Worku, v. 3, p. .312. iLi/e of John Adams, by J. Q. & C. F. Adams, v. 3, p. 39. {Morse's John Adams, American Statesmen Series (1890), p. 218. § Wiusor's America, v. 1, p. 139. H Ibi 141. «■! 40 And approved . of the cession of Canada. He gained a slight change in boundaries. British Com- missioners unaware of U. S. modifi- cation of claims to Canadian shoio fisher- ieo. can Commissioners by Messrs. Oswald and Vaughan ; their oft-given approval of the cession of Canada and Nova Scotia; the consent of the British Ministry to a confinement of the Canadian limits to a small strip of territory along the St. Lawrence River, and the cession of the remainder to the United States.* He failed, therefore, to reverse Mr. Oswald's cession of the fertile agricultural territory of southern Canada south of the Great Lakes, and in the valley of the Ohio and Missis- sippi. He also failed to have the Nova Scotia boun- dary commence at the Penobscot River, but he recov- f ced the territory between the St. John and St. Croix Rivers, making the latter, where it flows into Passa- maquoddy Bay, the Atlantic starting point. And, under imperative instructions from the Foreign Office, he regained the portion of the Caniidian (now southern Ontario) territory between Mr. Oswald's Lake Nipissing and Mississippi line and the lakes ; and he accepted the present river and lake boundary.f Neither Mr. Oswald, nov Mi*. Strachey, appears to have been aware of the conditional modification of the claims respecting the fisheries as an ultimatum; nor that Congress had directed their Commissioners to claim the ricjht to take fish " on the banks of New- foundland and other fisheries in the American seas any- where, excepting within the distance of three leagues * MS. Despatch, the Foreign Secretary to Oswald, Whitehall, let September, 17S2. + One of the alternative boundary lines proposed was to continue on the 45th degree of north latitude from the point where it crossed the Connecticut River, and thence west to where it would strike the River Mississippi. MS. Despatch, Strachey to the Foreign Sec retary, November, 1782. For the Draft Treaty proposing this 4i' latitude boundary dce Sparks's Diplomatic Comnpondencf: oj tH JtevohUion, v. 10, p. O."). 41 off the shores of the territory remaining to Great Britain at the close of the war, if a nearer distance Conceded cannot be obtained by negotiation." * But, apparently Canadian in in^norance of these facts, all Canadian in-shore fishery r?c>procal o ' "^ right to riirhts were conceded, without even the suggestion — American much less the demand — of a reciprocal concession to^j.?g® * Canadians to take fish in American in-shore waters. What took place over the fishery clauses of the-^"*®"^*" ' . •' , account of Tieaty has been dramatically related by Mr. Adams s the discussion i; ^i„., over the fish- biographer: ^ ^ ery clauses. " Mr. Strachey proposed that the word ' right ' in this connection should be changed to * liberty.' Mr. Fitzherbert sustained the movement by remarking that ' right' was an obnoxious expression. The suggestion seems to have fired Mr. Adams, and immediately he bui'st into an overwhelminfj defence of the term he had chosen. He rose, and, with the concentrated Suppression power which he possessed when excited, declared that modified when first commissioned as a negotiator with Great P°^^°y °^ 7 Congresfl. Britain, his country had ordered him to make no peace without a clear acknowledgment of the right of the fishery, and by that direction he would stand. No preliminaries should have his signature without it. And here he appealed with some adroitness to Mr. Laurens, who had been President of the Congress when the first commission was given. Mr. Laurens readily responded to the call, and seconded the proposition with characteristic warmth. And Mr. Jay virtually threw his weight into the scale." -j- * Secret Journals of GougreHH, v. 3, p. 231. See also the report of the Committee of Congress, 8th January, 1782. tZ/t/e of Adamii, v. 2, p. 44. "The fact seems to be that John Adams was determined to get the use of these fisheries, regardless of m 42 ♦♦ The stroke proved deciBive." Mr. Jay's dniission. Sarcastic letter of the French Minister. i ■ : ': hi The biographer of Mr. Adams thereupon paraphrases the sinister maxim " tlie end justifies the means," by telling us that " the stroke proved decisive ; " but he apologizes by adding : " The act was the assumption of another prodigious responsibility."* And so it was ; for the American Commissioners well knew that the earlier policy of Congress as set out in their first commission had been modified, and that the ultimatum respecting the Canadian fisheries, which they asserted with such indignant fervour, had been practically withdrawn. And Mr. Jay confirms this by recording : " Had I not violated the instructions of Congress, their dignity would have been in the dust."i* When the terms of the preliminary Treaty of Inde- pendence became known, the French Government at once demanded an explanation from the American Minister. " T am at a loss," sarcastically wrote M. de Vergennes to Dr. 1 ranklin, " to explain your conduct, and that of your colleagues. You have concluded your preliminary articles without communicating with us, although Congress prescribed that nothing should be done without the concurrence of the King. You are wise and discreet, Sir ! You perfectly understand what is due to propriety ; you have all your life per- formed duties. I pray you to consider how you pro- pose to fulfil those which arc due to the King."| He his instructions." Snow's Treaties and Topics in American Diplo- macy, p. 430. * Life of Adams, v. 2, p. 45. f Life of Jay, v. 2, p. 105. X Dr. Franklin apologized, and admitted that the French Minis- ter's observations were just : " we have been guilty of neglecting* point of biensSance : we hope it will be excused," and that the greit work would ' < not be ruined by a single indiscretion of ours. " H' 43 also instructed the French Minister at Philadelphia to inform the American Secretary of State that the American Commissioners had deceived him, and had Charges the been guilty of a gross breach of faith. And in writing c^misdon- to M. de Rayneval, he said: "The English have f" with nrGAOn or bought a peace, not made one. Their concessions have faith, exceeded anything we believed possible." And the Surprise at French representative to the United States reported ^®^^^|^*Jj"^^j[ to M. de Vergennes, that the cession of the western territory. Canadian territory to the sources of the Mississippi, had surpassed all expectations, for it gave the Ameri- cans four forts that they had found it impossible to capture. * The closing letters of Mr. Strachey to the Foreign Mr. Stia- OfRce, give a blunt Englishman's opinion of a specialty letters on he discovered in American diplomacy. In reporting -f."!®"^'^" ^ *' . diplomacy. to his chief, he said, "Iho Treaty must be re-written in London in regular form, which we had not time to do in Paris, and several expressions, being too loose, should be tightened. These Americans are the greatest quibblers I ever knew."-|- Later on he wrote to a colleague : " The Treaty signed and sealed is now sent. I shall set off to-morrow, hoping to arrive on Wednes- day, if I am alive. God forbid if I should ever have a hand in such another Peace." J de Vergennes accepted tlie apology. Mr. Secretary Livingston also expressed his personal disapproval of the acts of the Commission- ers, adding : " It gives me pain that the character for candor and fidelity to its engagements, which should characterize a great people, should have been impeached." 25th March, 1783. * Winsor's America, v. 7, p. 158, note 5. + MS. Letter, Strachey to the Foreign Secretary, Calais, 8th November, 1782. t MS. Letter, Strachey to the Foreign Office, Paris, 30th Novera- I ber, 1782. iM 44 Allowable strategic policy in •diplomacy. Reader's judgment on American diplomacy. Treaty a humiliation to Canada. Lord Town- ahend's opin- ion. Whatever strategic policy may be allowable in Treaty-making diplomacy, it should be controlled by the knowledge that the diplomatist represents the con- science and good faith of his Sovereign, and the dig- nity and honour of his Nation. The skilled diplo- matist who possesses the tact des convenances, may make legitimate use of argumentative strategy, while combining adroitness with integrity ; but ever mindful of the radiant light of his representative station ; — combinations of qualities which will win for him a reputation for sagacity, tact and rectitude, and assure to him a recognized supremacy in diplomatic emergencies. Judged by such standards, the reader can say whether this early venture of American diplomacy illustrated the specialty recorded by the British representative; the conduct charged by the French Minister ; as well as the sinister diplomatic qualities frankly avowed by American apologists. * The Treaty of 1782 was a humiliation to Canada, in the loss of her territory, in the cession of her fishery rights, and in the uncertainty of her boundaries. Lord Townshend, in the debate on the Treaty, well said : " Why should not some man from Canada, well acquainted with the country, have been thought of * Sir John Macdouald, writing confidentially to a colleague in 1871, respecting the Protocols on the Treaty of Washington said: " The language put into the mouths of the British Commissioneri is strictly correct ; but I cannot say as much for that of our American colleagues. They have inserted statements as having been made by them, which in fact were never made, in order that they may have an effect on the Senate. My English colleagues were a good deal surprised at the proposition ; but as the statements did not preju- dice England, we left them at liberty." — Life of Sir John A. Mac- donald, by Joseph Pope, v. 2, p. 134. v I I if 45 tble in led by he con- le dig- diplo- s, may )| , while iiindful tion ; — him a isure to fancies, vhether istrated itative; as well wed by lada, in fishery ndaries. well la, well ight of league id con said: Ussioneri Lmerican [made by lay have irood deal )t preju- U. Mac- H for the business which Mr. Oswald was sent to nego- tiate ? Dr. Franklin, Mr. Jay, Mr. Laurens, and Mr. Adams, had been an overmatch for him ; he either did not know, or appeared ignorant, how the country lay which he had been granting away, as the bargain he had made clearly indicated." * And a Canadian Lieu- tenant-Governor reported : " When Mr. Oswald made Mr. Oswald' a peace with the Americans in 1782, he evinced his an^^ of "he total ignorance of the country and its true interests, country, in the line he fixed as the boundary between us." It has been truly said by American writers: *' The Bargain with bargain with England was struck on the American «« struck on basis. Considering the only ultimatum they were. . „ the Aniericatt ordered to insist upon, the Americans made a wonder- fully good bargain. The United States could, in all reason, ask little more of any nation." f And the U. S. has diplomatic history of the subsequent treaties proves ot^er"^' good that the United States have asked for, and have gen- bargains " of erally struck, further "good bargains" with Great territory. Britain "on the American basis" respecting Canadian territory. Even now efforts are being made by the Ignores Can- United States to hold Canadian territory,! and ignore *„ Ykska."* * Parliamentary History, v. 23, p. .391. \John Adams (American Statesmen Series) p. 200. *' The great object upon which all American minds were bent, was Peace ; and they were agreeably surprised at getting it upon such favourable terms." Winsor's America, v. 7, p. 158. X In 1876 the United States directed its Alaska officers to collect duties from Canadian settlers at places on the Stikeen river, which were subsequently found to be seven miles within Canada. "It seems remarkable iliat while that Government has hitherto refused to detine the boundary, it should now seek to establish it in accord- ance with its own views, without any reference to the British authorities, who are equally interested in a just settlement of the iaternational boundary." Canada Sessional Papers (Ihl^), "So. 12j, pp. 63, 66 and 144. 46 I ill! II!!' Bill"' England en- dowed the U. S. with "gigantic boundaries on the south, west and north." And weak- ened British empire- power in America. Canada's riiplomacy. liistory of Diplomacy." * The diplomatic correspondence during the early Diplomatic years of this century furnishes materials for a history deiice^nce of the embittered international relations between the Revolution, United States and Great Britain, — born of the Re vol u-iered rela- tion, matured by the frenzied terrorism of Robespierrian *^°"*' France, and made passionate by the drastic and retali- atory policy which Great Britain was forced to adopt to counteract- the effect of Napoleon's Berlin decrees of 1806, prohibiting neutral commerce with the ports decreed closed to British trade ; and also in the defence, single-handed, of her island-shores from a threatened invasion oy her bitter and war-trained enemies, and in maintaining her supremacy as a Sea Power. Her estranged American kindred showed no consideration * Wharton's History and Digest of Intematio7ial Law, v. 3, p. 907. 48 i No considera- tion for Great Britain's emergent neceesities during Napoleon's wars. Difficult to harmonize U.S. policy in construc- tion of treaties. Case of the Mississippi boundary line. Uncertainty admitted in 1794. for the cruciate and emergent necessities of their then isolated, but domineering, old Motherland ; whose for- eign and sea policies they then passionately denounced, but which they have since admitted were justified by International Law, as being "necessary measures of self- defence, to which all private rights must give way." * There is much also in that correspondence, and also in the correspondence respecting the subsequent Treaties suggested, agreed to, and rejected, which make it difficult to harmonize the policy and the argu- ments of the United States in their diplomatic discus- sions, as well as in their one-sided interpretation of their Treaties, with Great Britain. f The Treaties of 1782-83 had assumed that the boun- dary line on a " due west course " from the Lake of the Woods, would strike the Mississippi (for all the pro- posed boundary lines converged to that river), and thence down the middle of that river to latitude 31°. By Mr. Jay's Treaty of 1794, the uncertainty of the "due west course" was admitted; and it was there agreed that the boundary line should be adjusted " in conformity to the intent of the Treaty of Peace." It was subsequently admitted that the head waters of * Moore's History and Digest of International Arbitrations (1898), V. 1, p. 841. Lord Stowell held that the British orders of blockade were resorted to as a defence against the injustice and violence of the French ; and that they were justly reconcilable with those rules of national justice by which the international actions of inde- pendent States were usually governed. See his judgments in 1 Dodsou's Reports, 133 ; and Edwards's Reports, 314 and 382. t In one case the United States contended that Great Britain intended to abandon the right of visitation because no mention of it was made in the slave trade clause. But on a claim by Great Britain to hold a certain boundary they contended that the word* describing it in the Treaty, must govern. G rattan's Civilizd America, v. 1, p. 414. 49 the Mississippi were nob " due west," but almost eighty miles directly south of the Lake of the Woods. * Under the doctrine oi falsa dernonstratio non nocet, it Legal is a well recognized rule of law that, where natural ^^"^["^^j^ and permanent objects are designated or described in a patent, or deed, as connected by a line on a certain course, or distance, which is found to be erroneous, both course and distance must yield to the dominant control of the natural objects, in order to give full effect to the act or deed of the parties."!* And the How U.S. Supreme Court of the United States has formulated construe another doctrine, that Treaties ceding territory to the treaties. United States are to be construed most favourably to the ceding power,:]: — which in this case was Great Britain. In 1802 the United States, in a despatch reciting theU. S. agreed' erroneous description of the "due west" Mississippi line J^J^^fg^ in the Treaty of 1783, proposed the following rectifi- cation : — " It is now well understood that the highest source of the Mississippi does not touch any part of the Lake of the Woods. To remedy this error it may be agreed that the boundary of the United States, in that quarter, shall be a line running from that source of the Mississippi which is nearest to the Lake of the Line from Woods, and striking it westerly at a tangent, and, from Lake^of^he " the p:int touched, along the water-mark of the lake to^°°<*8' its most north-western point, at which it will meet the line running through the lake." § * Bancroft's History of the North West Coast, v. 2, p. 320. + "The extent of the mischief which would result from unsettling this priiiciple cannot be conceived." Per Marshall, C. J., in Nevosom V. Pryor, 7 Wheaton's Reports 7. X United States v. Arredondo, 6 Peter's Reports 691. % American Slate Papers, Foreign Affairs, v. 2, p. 585. 7 50 Treaty of 1803 settled the Missisfjip- pi boundary. Rejected by U. S. Senate. Conciliatory policy of Great Britain on marine jurisdiction, 1806. U.S. proposal of neutral coast immunity. Under these instructions, a Treaty was si^meJ in London on tiie 12th May, 1803, in which it was agreed that, instead of the boundary line in tlie Treaty of ^783, it should be "the shortest line which can be drawn between the north-west point of the Lake of the Woods and the nearest source of the Mississippi."* But, although the initiative for this Treaty had been taken by the United States, the Senate declined to ratify it unless the clause settling the boundary line was struck out, — the reason given being that the United States had then acquired the French rights in Louisiana, -f- The conciliatory policy of Great Britain towards the United States may be further illustrated by the excep- tionally liberal rule as to marginal jurisdiction on the High Seas, contained in an unratified Treaty of 1806. Owing to the capture by British war vessels, on the coasts of the United States, of the ships of the Euro- pean nations with which Great Britain was then at war, the United States proposed that it would not be unreasonable, considering the extent of the United States, the shoalness of their coast, and for other rea- sons, that the neutral immunity from belligerent acts should extend to at least one league from the shore, or should correspond with the claims of Great Britain around her own coasts ; and quoted the Hovering Act of 1736, 9 Geo. II. ch. 35, extending the jurisdiction respecting smuggling to four leagues, j The Admiralty and Law Officers of the Crown advised against conced- * The Treaty was signed by Rufus King and Lord Hawkesbury. + Treaties and Conventions between the United States and Other Powers, p. 1016. J Mr. Madison to Messrs. Munroe and Pinckney, 17th May, 1806, and 3rd February, 1807. 51 ing more than the usual three marine miles ; but the British Government, desirous of giving " a strong proof of a conciliatory disposition in their government towards the government and people of the United States,"* yielded to the proposal of the United States Extended by by extending the neutral coast immunity from three JJom^^a^o's*'" to five marine miles in the following article: — (12) marine miles. " And whereas it is expedient to make special provisions respecting the maritime jurisdiction of the High Con- tracting Parties on the coast of their respective posses- sions in North America, on account of peculiar circum- stanc« ~ applicable to those coasts, it is agreed that in all cases where one of the said High Contracting Parties shall be engaged in war, and the other shall be at peace, the Belligerent Power shall not stop the vessels of the Neutral Power, or the unarmed vessels of other nations, within five marine miles from the shore belonging to the said neutral power on the American Treaty never seas." The Treaty was never submitted to the Senate u*'|^*^ ^^ *or consideration or approval, f The war of 1812 originated with the United States Origin of the mainly because of the retaliatory measures adopted ^^ °^ ^^^^' by Great Britain to counteract the Berlin decrees of Napoleon. During the two years it continued, the United States suffered more severely than Canada. The British forces and Canadian militia captured and British con- held possession of a portion of Maine to the Penobscot quests on the River, including the disputed Maine boundary territory * Messrs. Munroe and Pinckney to Mr. Madison, 3rd January, 1807. + " The Treaty, not including an article relating to impressments, the British Commissioners should be candidly apprised of che reason for not expecting a ratification." American State^Papera, Foreign Sdationa, v. 3, pp. 145 and 154. MB' I 'I 1 m (bill m 52 And west to Mississippi. # U. S. had no conquest in Canada. Great Britain aware of the east and west boundary disputes. U. S. change of ultimatum. on the east; and, on the west, nearly all of Michigan,, including the fort of Michilimakanac, and other por- tions of the former Canadian territory (including what is now Chicago) to Prairie du Chien, on the River Mississippi, which had been won back from the United States in fair fight, and a large extent of which, at the close of the war, was held by right of conquest.* At the same time, the United States had not even a sentry on Canadian territory. The British Government had long been aware o the unsettled disputes with the United States respecting both the north-eastern (or Maine), and the north-west- ern (or Mississippi), boundaries, and of the undue bitterness previously imported into the diplomatic discussions with the United States. In 1814, Great Britain was then free from the continental wars. Napoleon had abdicated, and had retired to Elba. The American Secretary instructed the plenipotentiaries for the United States that it was " important to the United States to make peace," and that " the great and unforeseen change of circumstances, particularly the prospect of a more durable state of per e between Great Britain and the Continental Powers of Europe, * " Without a blow struck, part of Massachusetts (Maine) passed under the British yoke, and so remained, without the least resist- ance until restored at the Peace. Two frontier fortresses, Michili- macinac and Fort Niagara, were surprised, captured, and forcibly held by the enemy [British] during the war ; and parts of Maryland and Virginia were overrun." IngersoU's Second War betvieen the United IStales and Oreat Britain, v. 1, pt. 2, p. 116. "For a time the County of Washington in Maine (lying between the Penobscot River and Passamaquoddy Bay) came under British authority. It wa» a most important surrender. The County of Washington embraced 9«e hundred miles of sea coast, and formed the territory adjoining New Brunswick." Kingsford's History of Canada, v. 8, p. 528. i:i 53 i 1 and of security to our maritime rights, justify the change of our ultimatum." But notwithstanding this leverage of international peace, and Great Britain's war conquests, her historic generosity restored, uncon- ditionally, all the conquered territories to the United States, as a peace offering, by the Treaty of Ghent ; and she was subsequently rewarded with a vexatious diplomatic controversy about, and an armed invasion of, the formerly captured, and long-time disputed, territory between Canada and Maine.* The war of 1812 abrogated the fishery rights con- ceded to the United States, as well as the paper rights of navigation of the Mississippi River (previously described), conceded to Great Britain, by the Treaties of 1782 and 1783.t But by the Treaty of 1818, Great Britain again conceded fishery privileges on certain coasts of Newfoundland, Labrador and Canada, to the United States. And although the United States renounced, forever, the liberty to fish within three marine miles of any of the coasts, bays, creeks or har- * Many of the international diflRculties over the Maine boundary ■were caused by the actions of the State authorities, and not by those of the Federal Government. See North Ainerican Boundary Papers, (Imp.) B, (1838) Appendix. + " Logically war implies the cessation of existing intercourse, and therefore a right on the part of a State to expel or otherwise treat as enei.iies, the subjects of an enemy-state found within its terri- tory." Hall's International Zoic, p. 327. "War puts every indi- vidual of the respective Governments, as well as the Governments themselves, in a state of hostility with each other. All Treaties contracts, and rights of property are suspended. The subjects of the state are in all respects treated as enemies. They may seize the persons and property of each other. They have no persona standi in judicio, no power to sue in the public courts of the enemy nation." Wharton's Digest of Jnternatioval Law, v. 3, p. 242. See also British and Foreign State Papers, v. 7, pp. 79-97. Great Britain's peace offer- ing in 1814. Her reward. Rights abro- gated by war of 1812. Great Britain in 1818 con- cedes fishinff rights to U. Di Irritating charges aeainst agi Ca iinada. 54 bours, not included in the specified British-Canadian waters, there have been irritating charges of " prepos- terous " interpretations of the Treaty, and of " brutal '^ enforcements of Canadian rights respecting such re- nounced fisheries, which have introduced much political acerbity into the diplomatic discussions between Great Britain and the United States.* The Reciprocity Treaty of 1854; the Washington Treaty of 1871 ; and the unrati- fied Treaties of 1869, 1874 and 1888, and offers of reci- procity in Canadian Customs laws, besides other pro- posals to negotiate, may, however, be cited as showing Great Britain that Great Britain and Canada have earnestly, and persistently, oflfered to settle these and other disputes in a spirit of mutual compromise and fair bargaining. But though Treaty settlements have been agreed to by leading American diplomatists, they have not been approved by the Senate of the United States. It is now generally conceded that, in this unneighbourly policy on the part of the United States, the real difficulty in the way of a settlement of the Canadian Fisheries controversy on broad lines, is the tariff" system of the United States ; and that, until that is modified, there can be little hope of a satisfactory settlement.-f* In 1854, when the generation of the children of the actors in the early B evolutionary times had almost passed away, and a generation imbued with the national pad Canada's efforts to settle with U.S. U. S. Tariff is the real difficulty. Canada's trade policy, and * Isiiam's Fishery Que8liu7i (1887), pp. 73-4. The Treaty cau- tiously provides that the privileges of fishing shall be under such restrictions as may be necessary to prevent American fishermen taking, drying, or curing, fish in the Canadian bays or harbours, or in any other manner abusing the privileges reserved to them. + Treaties and Topics in American Diplomacy, by Freeman Snow, LL.D., p. 468. "It is not at all clear that the Fisheries difficulty can as well be met by Retaliation on Canada, as by a Revision of our own Tariff." Isham's Fishery Question, p. 78. ill 55 characteristic of bargaining and bartering, held sway, the Reci- Lord Elgin and Mr. (afterwards Sir) Francis Hincks, on Treaty of behalf of Canada, initiated better trade relations, and ^^^*' arranged the Reciprocity, or " give and take," Treaty ; to continue in force for ten years, and further, until a year's notice to terminate it should be given by either party. Under it, the United States obtained the liberty of fishing in the Canadian in-shore fisheries, and of navigating the River St. Lawrence ; and Canada obtained the liberty of fishing in the American in-shore fisheries noith of latitude 36°, and of navigating Lake Michigan. Reciprocal free import and free export of Free import .. 11 ji.- 1 11. 1 blikI export of certain natural productions were also conceded to each natural pro- nation. But during the Civil War of 1801-65, the ^^"'^^''o^s. sympathy of very limited portions of the British and Canadian communities with the South, was assumed by the Northern States to be universal; and theU.S. termin- escape of the Alabama, and other privateers, from^^g^^^. '^ British waters, rekindled, — " in the hour of peril and adversity, when feelings are most keen," — the almost forgotten embittered relations of the earlier years of the century ; and in a spirit of retaliation, the United States gave the notice which put an end to the Reci- procity Treaty in 1866. The Washington Treaty of 1871 admitted Great Washington Britain's liability for the Alabama claims, and pro- Jj^*gJ°^^^^' vided for' an Arbitration to settle the damages sub- Fishery rights- sequently awarded and paid ; adjusted the Canadian Fishery Question on the basis of compensation for a ten years' purcliase; conceded to the United States the free navigation of the St. Lawrence up to latitude 45" for ever ; while the United States conceded to Canada for only ten years, the free navigation of Lake ii 50 Michigan. It also assumed to give to Great Britain a ' Great rights on right to the free navigation of the Yukon, Porcupine und^^Rus^'^ n ^^^ Stikene rivers in Alaska, — a right which Great Treaty of 1825. Britain then possessed under the Treaty with Russia of 1825, which provided that " the subjects of His Britannic Majesty, from whatever quarter they may arrive, whether from the ocean or from the interior of the continent, shall forever enjoy the right of navi- gating freely, and without any hindrance whatever, all the rivers and streams [in Alaska] which, in their course towards the Pacific Ocean, may cross the line of demarcation." * (Art. 6.) By the same Treaty it was further agreed that * The above had become part of the International Law of Alaska, when that territory was ceded to the United States. " Treaties, as well as statutes, are the law of the land, both the one and the other, when not inconsistent with the Constitution, standing on the same level and being of equal force and validity." Opinions of U. S. AUomeys-General, v. 13, p. 354. The treaty of cession of 1867 recited the Anglo-Russian Treaty of 1825, and the boundaries of the strip of Russian territory delineated therein, and ceded to the United States "all the territory and dominion now possessed by His Majesty on the continent of America." The following observations respecting British claims when Louisiana was ceded to the United States also apply : " Therefore with the r. its acquired in 1819, the United States necessarily succeeded to the limitations by which they were defined, and the obligations under which they wore to be exer- cised. From these obligations and limitations, as contracted towards Great Britain, Great Britain cannot be expected gratuitously to release those countries merely because the rights of the party origin- ally bound have been transferred to a third Power." Bancroft's History of the North- West Coast, v. 2, p. 372. "Or, as Mr. Gallatin put the British claim, ' the United States cannot claim under their Treaty with Spain, any greater right than Spain then had," Ibid , note 23, "An alliance between two nations cannot absolve either from the obligations of previous treaties with third Powers." Wharton's Digest of International Law, v. 1, p. 18. 57 each nation should, for ten years, have the right ^Reciprocity of free importation of fish, and fish oil, except fresh fish oil', canals, water fish; the free navigation of their respective J"^^^*"^"** eanals, and the privilege of the transit of goods in bond, or a reciprocal carrying trade ; but with the one-sided stipulation that the United States should have the right to suspend the privileges granted to British subjects " in case the Dominion of Canada should deprive the citizens of the United States of^°'^:?J?®^ '■ . coiidition the use of the canals of the Dominion on the terms of against equality with the inhabitants of the Dominion." ^CJanada. co-ordinate right to suspend the privileges of the carrying trade conceded to the United States, in case one of the States similarly acted, was not allowed to Fishery Great Britain or Canada. The fishery clauses, andg*j"^^^yu°s. some other provisions in this Treaty, were abrogated by the United States in 1885. When the Treaty was rbout to be negotiated, the Fenian claima British Government was urged that the claims of against the Canada against the^ United States, arising out of the P. ^-rejected Fenian Raids into Canada, should also be adjusted; — alleging stronger grounds of " negligence and want of due diligence" against the United States, than those charged by that Government against Great Britain in the Alabama case. The Imperial Government assented ; but owing to the indefinite phraseology of the British Minister's communication proposing the negotiations for a Treaty, the High Commissioners for the United States refused to consider the Canadian claims, alleging that they did not regard them as coming within the class of subjects indicated in the U.S. reason communication of the British Minister; and curtly *^®'"®^*"^' adding that " the claims did not commend themselves 8 I' fv ' ' ;' 1,; Curt reply to Canada by Colonial Sec- retary. Unfriendly policy of U. S. under the Washington Treaty. U. S. imposes a duty on fish cans. Canadian ves- sels stopped. U. S. vessels pass free. 58 to their favour." To this denial of international justice to Canada, the British Commissioners submitted, and stated that "under these circumstances they would not urge further that the settlement of these claims should be included in the Treaty." The reply of the Colonial Secretary to the Canadian protest against the ruling out of these Fenian claims, was equally curt : " Canada could not reasonably expect that this country should, for an indefinite period, incur the constant risk of serious misunderstanding with the United States."* The unfriendly treatment of Canada by the United States may be illustrated by their actions in carrying out that Treaty. Article 21 provided that fish and fish oil should be admitted free of duty into either country. After the Treaty had been four years in operation, Congress passed a law that " Cans or pack- ages made of tin, or other material, containing fish of any kind admitted free of duty under any law or treaty," should be charged with a specific duty,^* — though it was well known that the tins, when opened, could not be used again. The duty practically pro- hibited the exportation of fish from Canada, and rendered the above provision of the Treaty nugatory.^ Article 27 conceded to each nation the reciprocal use of their respective canals. American vessels with cargoes were permitted to pass through all the Canadian canals, and the St. Lawrence Kiver. But Canadian vessels with cargoes were stopped at the * Despatch, Earl of Kimborley to the Governor-General, 17th June, 1871. The Fenian Raids had cost Canada over $1,605,000. + United States Statutes at Large (1875), v. 18, p. 308. t Despatch, Sir E. Thornton to the Earl of Derby, 19th April, 1875. Isi mmmmm tes. 59 junction of the American canals with the water-way, and had either to return to Canada, or tranship their cargoes into American vessels.* In 1874, Canada's further efforts to promote friendly Canada's and reciprocal trade relations with the United States ^^^^j-'j^^j^P^^- resulted in a Draft Treaty being settled by the late Sir relations with E. Thornton and the late Hon. George Brown, on behalf ' ' of Great Britain, and the late Hon. Hamilton Fish, on behalf of the United States. It provided for (1) The Concedes concession to the United States of the Canadian in- rights^ and shore fisheries for twenty-one years, and the aban- abandons donment of the compensation provisions of the Wash- therefor, ington Treaty of I87I. (2) The reciprocal admission, duty free, of certain natural product. (3) The recipro- cal admission, duty free, of certain manufactured articles. (4) The enlargement by Canada of the St. Lawrence and Welland Canals. (5) The construction Other pro- of the Caughnawaga and Whitehall Canals. (6) The ;:^'j°';^Jfty. reciprocal right of each nation to the coasting trade of the St. Lawrence and the Great Lakes. (7) The recip- rocal right of each nation to the use of the Canadian, New York and Michigan Canals. (8) The reciprocal admission of the ships of each nation to registry. (9) A joint commission to secure eflScient lighthouses along the inland waters. (10) A joint commission to Brown- regulate fishing in the inland waters common to both Tr^at"v reiect- countries. The draft treaty was accepted by Great ed by U. S. Britain and Canada, but was rejected by the Senate of the United States. * Canada Sessional Papers (1876), No. 111. Subsequently the prohibition was relaxed to the extent of allowing Canadian vessels to proceed as far as Albany, on the Hudson River. m 60 Canada in 1888 again offers a friendly policy to the U. S. Joint Com- mission to delimit bays, etc. Rules respect ing three- mile limit. Strait of Causo to be free to U. S. Again, in 1888, by another effort to settle the Fishery and other disputes, a Treaty was signed by the Right Hon. Joseph Chamberlain, M.P., Sir L. Sackville-West, and Sir Charles Tupper,on behalf of Great Britain and Canada, and the Hons. Thomas F. Bayard, William L. Putnam, and James B. Angell, on behalf of the United States, which provided : (1) That a joint Commission should be appointed to delimit the bays, creeks, and harboui's in which the United States had, in 1818, renounced the liberty to fish. (2) That the three marine mile limit, mentioned in that Treaty, should be measured seaward from low-water mark, and that at bays, creeks and harbours, not otherwise specially provided for in this Treaty, such three marine miles should be measured, seaward, from a straight line drawn across such bay, etc., in the part nearest the entrance, where the width did not exceed ten marine miles.* (3) That in certain specially named bays, etc., the three mile limit should be measured from, and to, specially named points. (4) That the Strait of Canso should be free to all United States fishing vessels. (5) That United States fishing vessels should comply with the usual harbour regulations, but not be bound to report, etc., nor liable for certain specified charges, and should be entitled to certain specified privileges. (6) That certain rules should apply to cases of forfeiture for violation of the fishery laws ; and that judgments of forfeiture should be reviewable by the Governor- General. (7) That when the United States should *By the Anglo-French Treaty of 1839, and the Anglo-German Treaty of 1868, bays, inlets and indentations of the coasts of each nation, of the width of ten nautical miles at their entrance, measured from headland to headland, were declared to be territorial, or inland, and closed seas. 61 remove the duty on Canadian fish oils, and fisli, and When m- the coverings for the same, the like products should and tish oil to be admitted free into Canada ; and United States fish- ^® ^^^^' incf vessels should be free to enter Canadian ports to U. S. fishing purchase provisions, bait, etc., and to tran-ship catch, j^g^^^.g^'^®® ship crews, and have other specified privileges. (8) Canadian That Canadian fishing vessels should have on the Atlantic coasts of the United States, all the privileges reserved by the Treaty to United States fishing vessels in Canadian waters. An interim tnodus Vivendi was u. S. Senate agreed to, pending the ratification of the Treaty. ^g^^'^J^'^ *'^« Canada adopted the Treaty ; * but the Senate of the United States declined to ratify it. Great Britain's diplomatic policy towards the United CSreat States has, for many years, been eminently one of con- generosity ciliation and generosity, with a leaning towards an *° *^® ^- ^• easy optimism, or laissez nous faire, at the 'expense of Canada's territory. Notwithstanding Jay's Treaty of 1794, and the agreement in the unratified Treaty of 1803, previously mentioned, — by the Treaty of 1818, Great Britain ceded to the United States the Canadian Ceding territory situated between the head waters of the territory. Mississippi and latitude 49°.-f By not consulting the reports of Canadian officers, an isolated north-western promontory of about 10,000 acres in the Lake of the * Statutes of Canada (1888), 51 Victoria, c. 30. + The Plenipotentiaries of the United States reported to Congress, on the 14th December, 1782, that Great Britain possessed the coun- try on the Mississippi Eiver to the Lake of the Woods. Sparks's Diplomatic Correspondence, v. 10, p. 119. "About four millions of acres to the west of Lake Superior, being a tract which had always been claimed by Great Britain, M'ent to satisfy the thrifty appetite of the Republic." Canada since the Union of I84I, by J. C. Dent, V. 1, p. 205. G2 Cessions of Canadian territory to the U. S. Cession at the Woods, twenty-six miles north of the nearest territory Woods. of the United States on the international boundary line of 49°, was cut off from Canadian territory, and ceded to the United States, by the same Treaty. By the Ashburton Treaty of 1842, about 4,489,600 acres of Canadian lands were transferred to the United States, which the concealed " Franklin's Red Line Revocation Map," of 1782, would have sustained Great Britain's ?n Tr"atre7ofCl*^^ *0- ^^ *^® ^^^^ Treaty the boundary line 1782, 1783 described in the Treaties of 1782, 1783, and 1814, was abandoned, and a strip of Canadian territory, lying between the Connecticut and St. Lawrence rivers — over 150 miles in length, — was alienated from Canada, and ceded to the United States, by moving the original treaty line of latitude 45° north, about three-quarters of a mile, into Canada, increasing to a mile and a half, and then sloping to the true astronomical latitude of 45° at the St. Lawrence River, — because the United €e8sion of States desired to retain the town of Rouse's Point, in J^'^^^^g ^°^°^^ which they had, improvidently, but for hostile pur- poses, built Fort Chamblee. * Owing to incomplete- ness in the Joint Commissioners' description of the boundary line of 1822, " a large island in dispute in the passage between Lake Huron and Lake Superior, known as St. George's or Sugar Island, was given to the United States,"*!' by the same Treaty. * The treaty line of 1814 was removed into Canada 4,326 feet north of the true latitude of 45* at Rouse's Point. Winsor's America, v. 7, p. 180. The Award of the King of the Netherlands had recommended that the treaty line of 45* should be adhered to, but that Great Britain should cede to the United States a semicircular piece of territory, with the fort. North American Boundary Papers (Imp.), 1838, Appendix, pp. 7-15. + Winsor's America, v. 7, p. 180. 63 In 184G, when the little islanders and anti-colonials panada loaea had chloroformed the Imperialists, the diplomatic territory, leverage of the United States pried Great Britain and Canada out of several millions of acres in the Oregon territory, together with their British settlers and traders, and a sea coast of about six degrees of lati- tude on the Pacific Ocean, with jijood harbours for naval stations* And by Great Britain agreeing to |jf J^^*^"^ °^ limit, at the instance of the United States, the s*^ ^e of the reference to the German Emperor in 1871, u ^nly two of the Vancouver channels, Canada was arbitrated out of the Island of San Juan.-f Many diplomatic discussions have taken place about Boundary liDcs clrftwii the boundary lines drawn on Maps during the negotia- on Maps tions for the Treaty of Independence. Mitchell's map ^^ ^'^^' of North America (1755) is admitted to have been i le one used by the plenipotentiaries. Both groups of Commissioners appear to have drawn boundary lines on the maps sent to their respective Governments. Mr. Oswald transmitted one on the 8th October, 1782, Oswald's which is said to be still in the Public Record Office in London, and has a faint red line drawn on it, between * Lord Ashburton appears to have imitated Mr. Oswald, in both i! I . 72 !' Invasions of 1776, 1812, 1837. Canada's From the United States, Canada has received several Blood ''^^"° "Baptismsof Blood" through filibus' ring raids organ- U. S. raiders, ized in that country, not from any international friction or embittered relations between Canada and the Re- public ; but solely because of the colonial relation and faithful allegiance of Canada to Great Britain. The American invasions of 1775-76, 1812-14, 1837-38, as well as the Fenian Raids of 186G, 1870 and 1871, were undertaken bv certain citizens of the United States in the hope of striking an effective blow at the British Fenian Kaids Empire, in one of its most vulnerable parts. The Fenian *nd 1871. ' Raids into Canada, — repulsed by the Canadian Militia, — were ostentatiously undertaken to avenge the alleged U. S. failure British misgovernment of the Irish people. The Fenian raids. Government of the United States, though fully cogni- zant that their Fenian citizens were arming for the declared invasion of Canada, never interfered until some of their filibustering hordes had crossed the boundary, and had slain Canadians who were in no way responsible for the British government of the Irish people, and w^hose only crime was that of defend- U. S. releases iiig their families, v.heir homes and country ; and then, after arresting a few of the r^^turned Fenian ring- leaders, who had been caught red-handed, the same Government, at the request of Congress, and with undue precipitancy, released and pardoned them, and restored their arms.* * " It would be difficult to find more typical instances of national responsibility assumed by a State for such open and notorious acts as the Fenian Raids in Canada, and by way of complicity after such acts. Of course in gross cases, like these, a right of immediate war accrues to the injured nation." Hall's International Law, p. 180. The representations made by the Canadian to the Imperial Govern- ment of the action of the Government of the United States respecting the Fenian Raids are sot out in Canada Seamnal Papers (1872), No. 26. Fenian ring leaders 73 A policy of discrimination aj^ainst the trade ofI?"crimina- tion against Canada with the United States, arose in 180C, when Canadian the Canadian merchants presented a memoiial to the *'"**^® *" ^^^^' British Government, complaining of (1) their exclusion Exclusion from Louisiana, with which they had traded while a Loyigjana. colony of Spain, and subsequently a colony of France, the trade with which had amounted to from $200,000 to $250,000 yearly ; (2) their being made to pay Extra duties higher duties on goods carried by them into the Oj^fdiana. United Statfes, than the duties payable by citizens of the United States on goods imported from other <;ountrios— charging Canadians 22 per cent, at inland parts, instead of 1G| per cent., the duty at Atlantic ports. They also complained that, in violation of Jay's Treaty of 1794*, they were compelled to pay $(j for a license to trade with the Indians — not required License of American citizens; and to dismiss their Canadian Indian voyageurs at the United States ports, and to employ *''*^*°8- Americans "at great expense and inconvenience;" and that the United States revenue officers at Michili- Revenue OluC61!*S iiiakanac, had "harrassed and impeded -the trade of impeded British merchants, on pretences the most frivolous ^*'^**^'*° and unfounded, and in a manner equally vexatious and injurious." f The Treaty of 1806 was intended Treaty of to remedy these complaints ; but it was never I'atified. ratified. * Thi 8 Treaty (Art. 3) provided that the people on each side of the boundary line should have free passage by land, or inland navi- gation, and freely to carry on trade and commerce with each other ; and that goods and merchandise should be carried into each country, subject to the proper duties there charged. The Article declared that its provisions were intended to render the local advantages of each party common to both, and " thereby to promote a disposition favour.ible to friendship and good neighbourhood." t American State Paptrs, Foreign Relationn, v. 3, p. 152. If ,■ U. S. Congress prohibits trade with Great Britain. U. S. retalia- tory law against Cana- dian vessels. Not to land U. S. goods in Canada. Violation of Treaty of 1818. 74 During the same year (180C), Congress prohibited trade with Great Britain, and lier colonies, in leather, silk, hemp or flax, tin, brass, woollens, window-glass, silver, paper, nails and spikes, hats, clothing, millinery, playing-cards, beer, ale, porter, pictures and prints. * And in 1809 commercial intercourse with Great Britain and her dependencies, and also with France, was inter- dicted, t In 1818, a retaliatory law closed the ports of the United States against British vessels coming from a port in a British colony which, by its ordinary laws of navigation, had closed its ports against vessels from the United States ; and declared that such Briti.sh vessel touching at or clearing from a port in another Briti.sh colony which was open to ve.ssels of the United States, should not be held to remove the interdict. It also required that British ves.sels taking on board articles of the growth, produce or manufacture, of the United States, should give bonds not to land them in such inhibited British colony, on pain of forfeiture; but in legislative irony it was declared that such inter- diction should not be construed to violate the Treaty of Commerce of 1815, | which provided that the inhabitants of the two countries should have liberty, freely and securely, to come, with their ships and cargoes, to all places, ports and rivers in their respec- tive territories, and to hire and occuj)y houses and warehouses, and enjoy the most complete protection and security for the purposes of their commerce. * United States Stattites at Large, v. 2, p. 379. fied in 1808. + Ihid, V. 2, pp. 529 and 550. X United States Statutes at Large, v. 3, p. 432. The law was modi- 75 In 1820, a further retaliatory law closed the ports of the United States against British vessels coming from Lower Canada, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, New- foundland, Prince Edward Island, and other named British Possessions. * And in 1887, Congress, in a minatory spirit of retalia- U. S. assumes tion against Canada, and in the assumption of a right Tje"tfJ^by a to interpret a Treaty, as judge and party, in the absence retaliatory of the other party to it, -f* passed a law authorizing the President, in certain eventualities, to deny to Canadian vessels, their masters and crews, any entrance into the waters, ports, or places within the United States, except in cases of distress, etc., and to prohibit the entry of Canadian fresh or salt fish, or any other product of, or other goods coming from, the Dominion of Canada into the United States. | Of the early policy of discrimination, the McKinley McKinley and Dingley tariffs may be cited as the more modern Xariffs"^ developments; for they contain many piovisioiis framed to hamper Canadian trade with the United States. The latter tariff* puts a high duty on Cana- dian timber imported into that country, — to which is tacked an automatic rider, that if Canada§ should Automatic impose an export duty on saw-logs, or other specified Canada.*^"^ timber product, going from it into the United States, * Ibid, V. 3, p. 602. The law was modified in 1823, and repealed in 1830. 1' Aliquis no7i debet esse judex in proprid caiisd, quia non potest esse judex et pars. Co. Lit. v. 1, p. 15. See Canada Sessional Papers (1878), p. 63. t United States Statutes at Large (1887), v. 24, c. 339, p. 475. No occasion for the enforcement of this law has ever been given by Canada. § The words in the United States Statute are : " any country or dependency." * - 76 attempt jigainat British and Canadian car- rying trade. Retaliatory law of 1892 respecting St. Mary Canal. Canada favours ocein trade. the prescribed high duty on Canadian timber should be increased by an additional sum, equal to the amount of such Canadian export duty. An attempt to prejudicially affect the British and Canadian carrying trade with the United States was, by an amendment, surreptitiously introduced into the Dingley tariff, by which a discriminating duty of ten per cent — in addition to the high customs duties therein imposed — should be levied on all goods carried into the United States by the Canadian railways or British ships. Owing to the bungling phraseology used, the obnoxious amendment failed of the purpose since avowed by its promoters.* Again, in 1892, another retaliatory law was added to the samples of unfriendly legislation against Canada which are contained in the United Slates Statutes at Large, by which the President was authorized, when- ever the passage of United States vessels through the Canadian Canals was " made difficult or burdensome by the imposition of tolls or otherwise," to suspend or prohibit the free passage of Canadian vessels through the United States canal at Sault Ste. Marie. It appeared that the Canadian Government had, for some years, imposed a uniform rate of toll for all vessels passing through the Canadian Canals ; but in 1892, in order to encourage the ocean carrying trade, had allowed a rebate of tolls on freight, limited to farm products only, going to Montreal for ocean export ; f but not on freight of similar farm products, or other merchandise, going to Toronto, Kingston or to any intervening Canadian port on Lake Ontario, or the St. * United Slates Statutes at Large, v. 30, p. 151. tSee Statutes of Canada (1892), Part 1, page c. 77 lould ount It Lawrence River, between the Welland Canal and U. S. and Montreal ; placing all non-ocean exporting ports in ocean ports Canada and the United States on an equal f ooting. °°^ *^*^'^^®^- Thereupon the President issued a Proclamation impos- ing a toll of twenty cents per ton on all hinds of freight carried by Canjidian vessels passing through the St. Mary Canal. The following year the Cana- dian Government, so as to avoid all possible ground of complaint, readjusted the '^anal toils, and imposed a uniform rate of ten cents per ton on all freight passing Canada's through the Canadian Canals. The United States conciliatory ° ... action, thereupon revoked the Proclamation of 1892 imposing tolls on Canadian freight. * These unneighbourly and retaliatory laws of Con- No similar gress, restricting and prejudicially affecting the trade Britain or fo Canada with the United States, have, happily, no Canada, duplication, or counterpart, in the legislation, or in the Executive acts, of either Great Britain or Canada. The acts of armed hostility, and international and Efifect of these commercial unneighbourliness, on the part of some of ^°t"o„ ^ the dominant politicians of the United States, instanced Canadians, above, and others, have, at the times, naturally roused a spirit of irritation and resistance, even a threatened lex talionis, in Canada, which has severely tried the forbearance and political discretion of the resourceful and courageous people who, for over a century, have maintained untarnished the supremacy and honour of Great Britain over one-half of the North American con- tinent. With such experiences it would, perhaps, be wrong to deny that sometimes a stricter policy, or per- haps a subtile form of retaliation, has been adopted by United States Statutes at Large, v. 27, pp. 267, 1032, and 1865, 78 Reasonable fielf-defence. Golden rule offered by Canada. Accounta- bility of the U, S, to other nations. Political acts tending to another nation's degradation. Canada — partly as a means of reasonable self-defence, and partly to suggest a re-consideration of theii" un- friendly policy towards their northern neighbour.* But the many suggestions for reciprocal trade, and attempts at treaty-making, show that the offer of the golden rule has been more frecjuently made by Canada, than by the United States. The moral accountability of the United States to their own people, as well as to foreign nations, (and this must be considered as applying to Canada as w^ell), necessarily involves some restraint on their political actions, — that, as a nation, they may so deal with another nation as they would reasonably expect such other nation should deal with them.-f* Political actions of a nation tending to degrade another, and the studied neglect of that courtesy of expression which Governments are wont to observe in discussing inter- national questions, mar diplomatic intercourse, and induce petty international disputations, and mean repri- sals, where the nation affected is not prepared to submit * As an illustration the reader may be referred to the Crown Tim- ber Regulations (1898), authorized by the Ontario Act, 61 Vict., c. 9, requiring all pine cut on Crown Lands to be manufactured into timber in Canada, — lately decided by the High Court of Justice to be within the legislative authority of the Province of Ontario. Pre- cedents for such legislation will be found in many of the early Eng- lish Statutes. An Act, 50 Edward 3, provided that " no woollen cloths shall be carried into any part out of the realm of England, before they be fulled " (c. 7). And another Act, 3 Henry 7, c. 11, reciting the complaint of the poor men of the crafts of shearmen, fullers, and other artificers, provided that woollen cloths should not be carried out of the realm before they be barbed, rowed, and shorn. t"A State is a moral person, capable of obligations as well as rights. No acts of its own can annihilate its obligations to another State." Woolsey's InternatioJial Law, p. 52. 79 to the dejrradation, or discourtesy.* Amonfj such actions Minatory ami " . . . . retaliatory may be classed minatory laws authorizing a prospective laws. retaliatory policy towards another nation, or certain of its inhabitants ; laws authorizing a threatened increase of duties on all, or classes of, importations from it ; hiws impairing its treaty agreements, or claiming to exercise control within disputed territorial boundaries ; or auto- matic laws contingent upon possible fiscal eventualities, or a probable political policy, of such other nation. Hostilities of An audience of sedate on-looking nations would doubt- jip'iomacy. less consider such laws as the hostilities of a tactless diplomacy, — even though the nation so legislating should boast of its fiscal smartness, and legislative cunning, and diplomatic strategy. Much of the former political unfriendliness to Great Hostility to r, '. • 1 1 i. 1 1 iv 1 • p Great Britaia Britain was largely nurtured by the slow poison of in u. s. school political hostility, and which is, even yet, daily imbibed ^ooks. by the American youth from their school and history books; and may excuse the declaration made a few years ago by some Anglophobe newspapers that " American hatred of England is deep-rooted and un- "American nitrfifi or slakable." That hostility was also aggravated by theE„giand." machine politicians who controlled the "lobbies," andU. S. politjcB " rings," or " bosses," or " trusts," and other base powers io^|j[gg^^jngg^ so graphically described in Professor Bryce's American ^^°- Gommomuealth.'f The simulated patriotism of these prior irresponsible elements has sometimes beguiled a certain ""'"^**®^ percentage of citizons of sympathetic and humane instincts, who, knowing better, and desiring friendli- ness and better trading fificilities and diplomatic rela- patriotism. • See Lord Clarendon's references in Hansard's Debates, v. 79, p. 117. + V. 2, chapter 63, et seq. 80 Some U. 8. citizens friendly to Canada. Canada's estimate of the U. S. political impulues. Canada's weapons. tions with Great Britain and Canada, when, inflamed by some alleged British, or Canadian wrongdoing, or fancied selfishness, have allowed the demagogue power of political unrighteousness to sway their fair-minded consciences, and reverse their friendly instincts. A larger percentage, however, have been influenced, some by Canadian relationships and intimacies, or commer- cial advantages; others inspired by a sympathetic interest intbiM IJii ■if .1 i: 00 U. S. pro- ceedings 1867-68. Before any U. 8. settle- ment Canada urged a boundary set tlement. U. S. Con- gress failed to produce funds. Canada's action in 1876. U. S. refusal to appoint Commission. Convention of 1892 to settle boundary. States obtained possession of Alaska on the 18th Octo- ber, 1867, %nd the necessary legislation to carry the Treaty of cession into effect, was passed on the 27th July, 1868. In July, 1871, Canada acquired the adjoining territory ; and in March, 1872, before any settlement had been made by citizens of the United States in the now disputed territory, efforts were made by Canada and Great Britain, to induce the United States to agree to a deiimination of the boundary line according to the terms of the Treaties of 1825 and 18G7. But the Secretary of the United States while " per- fectly satisfied of the expediency of such a measure, feared that Congress might not be willing to grant the necessary funds." His fear was realized, for Congress failed to make any appropriation. Canada, however, at once bound herself to bear one-half of the British expenditure for determining and marking out the boundary. Further efforts by Great Britain and Canada were made yearly from that date ; and in 1876, in a lengthy report by the Prime Minister of Canada, it was stated that " notwithstanding every effort made by the Cana- dian Government to obtain a complete, or even a par- tial, deiimination of the boundary line between Alaska and British Columbia, that question still remains undealt with in consequence of the refusal of the Gov- ernment of the United States to agree to the measures necessary for appointing a Joint Commission." * After further yearly " continual wearying " by Can- ada, a Treaty-Convention between the United Statea and Great Britain was signed at Washington on the 22nd July, 1892, for the deiimination of the whole boundary line from the Prince of Wales Island to * Canada Sessional Papers (1878), No. 125, p. 60. 91 Mount St. Elias, in which, after a recital acknowledg- ing the fact of the unsettled boundaries and a diplo- matic desire for the removal of all differences in regard to the Treaty-boundary, it was declared that : — " The High Contracting Parties agree that a coinci- Joint survey dent or joint survey (as may be found in practice ° «*"*«• most convenient) shall be made of the territor}' adja- cent to that part of the boundary line of the United States of America and the Dominion of Canada divid- ing the territory of Alaska from the Province of British Columbia and the North- West Territory of Canada, from the latitude of 54° 40' north to the point Whole boun- where the said boundary line encounters the l'*l«tg*JJ^g^^^j^® degree of longitude westward from the meridian of Greenwich, by Commissions to be appointed severally by the High Contracting Parties, with a view to the ascertainment of the facts and data necessarv to the permanent delimitation of said boundary line in Boundary to accordance with the spirit and intent of the existing ^^^^"[^jf Treaties in regard to it between Great Britain and »*»tent of the Treaties Russia, and between the United States and Russia." After providing for certain details, the Convention And to be proceeds: "The High Contracting Parties agree that Ste^Commia- as soon as practicable after the report or reports of thesio*» reports. Commissions shall have jeen received they will pro- ceed to consider and establish the boundary line in question." No conditions, similar to those recently No conditions sought to be imposed upon Canada, appear to have been *'"Posed. thought ot, or suggested, when this Treaty-Convention, and the subsequent one extending it to the 31st December, 1895, were signed. A further admission of an unsettled boundary was Treaty of made in a supplementary Treaty-Convention between ^^'' ill IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) V /. // .S , % ip- W, i< (/j (/, 1.0 I.I 1.25 - IIIIIM I 1^ IIIM 1.8 U ill 1.6 V] <^ /^ ^;. 'c-l -^ ,>/ <% //^ $1 /i^ Photographic Sciences Corporation m \ i\ \ -b V '^q,^ 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 (716) 872-4503 m w, 92 Provision as to Mouni; St. Elias, Treaties an a(!kuowl- edgment of doubtful title of U. S. Refute charges against Canada. the United States and Great Britain, signed on the 30th January, 1897, for the survey of the 141st meridian from Mount St. Elias to the Frozen Ocean, reciting the Treaties of 1825 and 1867, and that the location of the said meridian involved " no question of the interpreta- tion of the aforesaid Treaties," it was thereby agreed to appoint Commissioners and other officers for such survey. It further provided that : — " Inasmuch as the summit of Mount St. Elias, although not ascertained to lie in fact upon said 141 st meridian, is so nearly coincident therewith that it may conveniently be taken as a visible landmark whereby the initial part of said meridian shall be established, it is agreed that the Commissioners, should they con- clude that it is advisable to do so, may deflect the most southerly portion of said line so as to make the same range with the summit of Mount St. Ellas, such deflec- tion not to extend more than twenty geographical miles northwardly from the initial point." These acknowledgments of an unsettled international boundary line between the territories of Canada and Alaska ; and these solemn treaty-agreements to ascer- tain the facts and data necessary to the " permanent deli- mination of the said boundary line in accordance with the spirit and intent of the existing Treaties in regard to it " were diplomatic and national admissions of a doubt- ful and una.scertained title in the United States to the territory adjacent to the actual boundary ; and must therefore be justly conceded to be a conclusive refuta- tion of the recent charge of Canada's tacit acquiescence in any alleged settlements of the United States ; and must also be taken to be conclusive and binding admis- sions by the Government of the United States that there 93 the 80th leridian ting the n of the erpreta- agreed br such Elias, id 14 1 St i it may v^hereby ished, it ey eon- he most le same I deflec- raphical lational %da and ascer- mt deli- ce with 3gard to ', doubt- s to the id must refuta- escence )s; and admis- it there were, up to 1897, no rights arising from settlements in any part of the disputed territory, based upon any acquiescence of Canada; or, if there were, that any claims or rights respecting them, were then waived by the United States ; or were too insecure and too unsub- stantial to warrant any claim in the preceding diplomatic discussions or any reservation of them in the Treaties.* It may be further observed that the action of the High Commissioners of the United States is also all the more inexplicable in view of the condemnation of the boundary line claimed by the official maps issued by the Government of the United States, pronounced in the Despatch of a former Secretary of State to the American Minister to England, and subsequently presented to Congress, in which he said : — •' The line traced on the Coast Survey Map of Alaska, No. 960, of which copies are sent to you herewith, is as evidently conjectural and theoretical as was the mountain summit traced by Vancouver. It disregards the mountain topography of the country, and traces a line on paper about thirty miles distant from the gen- eral contour of the coast. The line is a winding one, with no salient landmarks or points of latitude or * The settlements about Lynn Canal have been as follows : " In 1884, a log shanty was built at Dyea by a trader. In 1888, another was built at Skagway. No further settlements were made at either place until about 1897. The first known grants of land there were made by the United States in 1898. In the Yukon territory, a sur- vey made in 1896 placed the Town of Forty-mile, which had been assumed to be west of the 141st meridian and on United States ter- ritory "within Canada, and therefore subject to Canadian jurisdic- tion and the laws of the Dominion of Canada." The survey was acquiesced in, and no question of prior settlements there under the authority of the United States, was raised. See Bulletin U. S. Department of Labour, 1898, p. 355, No U. S. rights claimed prior to 1895-97. U. S. claim of boundary. Condemned by U. S. Secretary of State. 94 ■I' U.S. Despatch urges a line in accord with the Treaty of 1825. British con- ciliatory offer in 1899. U. S. condi- tions a repu- diation of Treaties 1892.6-7. Involved a forced cession of Canadian territory. Treaty boun- dary were to j[overn. longitude to determine its position at any point. It is in fact such a line as it is next to impossible to survey through a mountainous region, and its actual location there by a surveying commission would be nearly as much a matter of conjecture as tracing it on paper with a pair of dividers." * His Despatch closed by urging the expediency of appointing an international commission, at the earliest practicable day, to fix upon a conventional boundary line in substantial accord with the presumed intent of the negotiations of the Anglo-Russian Convention of 1825. The proposal of Great Britain and Canada to refer the dispute to arbitration on the terms of the Venezu- elan precedent, indicated a conciliatory effort to secure an equitable and final decision on the boundary dis- pute ; when, had such a proposal been made by the United States, it could have been effectively urged that it was entirely inconsistent with the positions assumed by each of the High Contracting Parties in previous diplomatic negotiations, and was also an unwarranted departure from the precise terms of the Treaty-Conventions of 1892-95-97. But the non-accept- ance of the British and Canadian proposal, unless on dishonorable conditions which involved a surrender of Canadian rights, and a condonation of a territorial usur- pation, must have come as a diplomatic surprise ; for it meant a national repudiation of the unconditional and unfettered terms under which the United States had, in those Treaty-Conventions, solemnly pledged their national faith to Great Britain, to deliminate and estab- lish •* the boundary line in accordance with the spirit and intent of the existing Treaties in regard to it * Mr. Bayard to Mr. Phelps, 20th November, 1886. p . 95 fc. It is survey location early as n paper osed by •national fix upon 1 accord is of the I to refer Venezu- to secure dary dis- e by the y urged positions f Parties 3 also an as of the Q-accept- mless on render of 'ial usur- se ; for it onal and .tes had, ed their id estab- he spirit rd to it between Great Britain and Russia, and between the United States and Russia." The rejection of such sur- render-conditions, and the consequent withdrawal of the British and Canadian Commissioners from the unfinished Diplomatic negotiations, were eminently ^,"**^^<^^°?® justifiable, and were the only dignified courses that tions juatifi- conld have been adopted. * A further impediment to a mutual reference to arbi- Further triition, arose on the anomalous proposal of the United by U. S. States Commissioners to refer the dispute to six jurists, instead of three, as proposed by the British Commis- sioners. The British Commissioners were unable to agree to this counter proposition, because it did " not provide a tribunal which would necessarily, and in Tribunal not the possible event of differences of opinion, finally dis- finar**" ^ pose of the question." Finding, therefore, that neither the precedent of the Head-lock in ■\r 111 I'll- 11 neeotiationB. Venezuelan boundary arbitration, nor any reasonable compromise of the Alaska boundary dispute, nor any equitable concessions within the recognized rules or principles of International Law, would be admitted or conceded by the Commissioners for the United States, * The special qualities of American diplomacy — referred to in other portions of this work — may be further illustrated by the following comments by an American writer on Mr. Seward's despatch excusing the Trent affair in 1861. " He glided lightly over the difficult places, substituting for thorough argument here a plausible assumption ; there a crafty implication. He assumed an analogy where there was none, and then used his false assumption to support his contention. That his argument was unsound, was a tribute to his marvellous skill in ' making bricks without straw. ' It was a political master- piece. But what he accomplished was one of the greatest feats of the war-period ; and has rightly given him lasting fame and honor in American history." Li/e of William H. Seward, by Frederick Bancroft (1900), v. 2, p. 242 et seq. 96 i; pill Surrender of Canadian rights and authority. Alaska boun- dary referred to their Government. Responsi- bility to U. American umpire declined by Great Britain. except such as involved a surrender of Canadian ter- ritory, and a treachery to the British subjects settled there, and therefore a degradation of British and Cana- dian sovereignty ; and that a dead-lock had been reached,, the British Commissioners were of the opinion that no useful end would be served by further pressing, at the present time, the Negotiations, and that they must refer the matter to their government.* The responsi- bility and reproach therefore of allowing the diplo- matic difierences and unneighbourly disputes between the United States and Canada to continue, and per- haps become more irritating, or festering, sores in their international relations, must hereafter rest upon the United States Commissioners, and not upon Canada nor the British Commissioners, f After discussing the constitution of the proposed arbitral tribunal, and the selection of an umpire from the American continent, — which was declined by the British Commissioners owing to " the long maintained Agreement of * An agreement, or modus viveudi, for a Provisional boundary line 1899 excludes about the head of the Lynn Canal, was entered into at Washington Canada from ^^^ ^.j^^ 20th October, 1899 ; but the line gives Canada no access to the * ' head waters of Lynn Canal except over territory claimed to belong. to the United States, and thereby bars the free access of Canadians to the ocean ; and may possibly, in future negotiations, be claimed to operate as a waiver of Canada's rights to the shores and territory above the " ten marine leagues from the ocean ; " or as a condonation of an adverse occupation and political control by the United States of Canadian territory. The agreement is given in Appendix No. 2. t Lord Clarendon in a debate in the House of Lords on the Oregon question, after referring to the predilection the United States had of acquiring what did not belong to them, said : " If their government did consent to negotiate it would seem that it could only be upon the basis that England was unconditionally to surrender her pre- tensions to whatever might bo claimed by the United States.'*" 79 Hansard's Debates, p. 117. 07 and recently asserted policy of the United States towards the other countries on that continent," and which would not offer to Great Britain the guarantee of impartiality, the Protocol records that the Commis- sioners of the United States then " proposed that the Joint nigh Commission should proceed to a determi- U. S. desired nation of the remaining subjects of difference named tho^matters in the original Protocol. They regarded it as unwise nearly to further defer the adjustments so nearly concluded after full consideration. Several subjects were so far advanced as to assure the probability of a settlement. If, then, ctll differences, except one, could now be adjusted, would it not be a most commendable advance in neighbourly friendship ? Could not our respective governments be trusted to settle the principal remain- ing difference by direct negotiations ? " The United States Commissioners further regretted Regret ,1 . o 1 i • r XI- L' L- suspension of the suspension tor any long time of the negotiations jj^^^jj^^jQ^g in view of the progress already made in solving the differences. They therefore urged that the Joint High Commission should advance to a conclusion their negotiations upon the remaining subjects as early as possible. "The British Commissioners replied that all such British defer questions should be deferred until the Boundary ques- X"kr""*'^ tion had been disposed of, either by agreement, or dispute is reference to arbitration. The manner in which they Arbitration, would be prepared to adjust some of the other import- ant matters under consideration, '^ist depend, in their view, upon whether it is possible to arrive at a settle- ment of all the questions which might at any time occasion acute controversy, and even conflict."* ♦Protocol LXIII., Gaiiala Sessional Papers (1899), No. 99. 13 British and Canadian hopes disappointed. Sir J. Mac- donald on U. S. un- friendly policy, and British in- difference, to Canada. Disheartened at British response. Great Britain's modern Colo- nial policy. 98 And thus, to the great disappointment and regret of Great Britain and Canada, the United States enticed to shipwreck the halcyon anticipations of a fair adjust- ment of international diflferences between the United States and Canada by the siren lure of an elusive and wily diplomacy ; and then offer a tabula ex naufragio of protocol sorrows. The late Sir John A. Macdonald, who represented Canada in the negotiations for the Treaty of Wash- ington, in 1871, realized the historic continuity of the unneighbourly policy of the United States, as well as the British indifference to Canadian interests, when he thus wrote to one of his colleagues : " The American Commissioners have found our English friends of so squeezable a nature, that their audacity has grown beyond all bounds." And he added : " Having made up my mind that the Americans want everything, and w^ill give us nothing in exchange, one of my chief aims now is to convince the British Commissioners of the unreasonableness of the Yankees." Disheartened by an unsympathetic response to his efforts, he then wrote, " I am greatly disappointed at the course taken by the British Commissioners. They seem to have only one thing in their minds — that is, to go to Eng- land with a Treaty in their pockets, — no matter at what cost to Canada." * This British indifference to Canadian interests has, in the many instances recorded in the preceding pages, encouraged the United States in assuming an aggressive policy against Canada's international rights and territorial sovereignty. Since Sir John Macdonald wrote, thanks to the sturdiness of Canadian statesmen, Great Britain has given up presenting to Canada a pantomime of diplo- * Life of Sir John A. Macdonald, by Joseph Pope, v. 2, p. 105. 99 regret iticed (Ijust- nited e and fragio matic negotiations with the United States, from which the digiti clamosi of Canada's political interests were conspicuously absent. And now her earlier policy of P*"!!-^^ indifference to Colonial interests has, happily for the now an Empire, become an estranged sentiment. And the ^^^"^^Jjse^^^ modern Imperialism which is sowing the seeds of a Greater United Britain, will, it is hoped, hereafter bring forth Empire-fruit not to be repented of May it also produce a beneficent harvest of peaceful and neighbourly international relations between Great Britain, Canada and the United States. But that Canada's share therein shall be assured and real, JtClanada's share in dip- should be an essential condition in any Empire-com- lomatic nego- pact for the more complete consolidation of our Greater yV**"^ *'* ^ United Britain, that in all diplomatic negotiations, and Treaty-adjustments with the Government of the United States, Canada, as the only nation-community of Greater Britain most affected by the international policy of her neighbour nation, shall have an advisory and, in matters affecting Canadian interests, a control- ling diplomatic influence.* But in the evolution of any compact for the better consolidation of an Empire federation, the advocates of this modern Imperialism must not forget that while, externally, and to foreign nations, the Imperial Crown BritishCrown represents the sovereignty and unity of the whole ariy^the^sanie Empire, and is also internally acknowledged to repre- j" British sent, constitutionally, the supreme regal authority over colonies. * " During 1889, a resolution was brouglit forward in the Canadian House of Commons in favor of giving the Dominion the right of negotiating and concluding Treaties. It was generally felt that the object sought for was the power to conclude Treaties with the United States. * * It is a fact that British Diplomacy has cost Canada dear." Problems of Greater Britain, by Sir C. W. Dilke, M.P., pp. 63-4. 100 Colonial sub- jects practic- ally governed by the Island subjects of the Crown. Fundamental axioms of British Con- stitution. every portion of that Empire ; yet a constitutionally illogical usage prevails by which the Crown of the colo- nial nation-communities is suzerain and subordinate to the Crown of the island nation-communities ; and that the colonial subjects of the Crown are thereby practic- ally subordinated to the island subjects of the Crown. This present controlling and suzerain authority of the Crown of the island nation-communities, over the Crown of the colonial nation-communities, — necessary in their early development, — is a question which must, some day, loom persuasively, or imperiously, for mutual and thoughtful re-consideration on the Imperialistic horizon ; for equal rights of nationhood, and of citizen- ship, and equal authority in Parliamentary govern- ment, for all the subjects of the Crown, wherever on British soil their homes may be, are fundamental axioms of the British Constitution. * * It may be interesting to the modern advocates of "Imperial Federation " to quote here a clause from the Royal Instructions under the Sign Manual of King George III., dated the 12th April, 1778, authorizing the Commissioners for Quieting Divers Jealousies in the North American Colonies, appointed under the Statute 18 George III. c. 13, to propose Colonial Representation in the Imperial Parliament, and which may be considered as bringing the great question of " Imperial Federation " for the first time into the domain of practical politics : — " If it should be desired that our subjects in America should have any share of Representation in our House of Commons, such a proposal may be admitted by you, so far as to refer the same to the consideration of our two Houses of Par- liament ; and it will be proper that in stating such a proposition, the mode of Representation, the number of the Representatives, which ought to be very small, and the considerations offered on their part, in return for so great a benefit, should be precisely and distinctly stated." Another clause proposed a Federation of the American colonies " for the better management of the general con- cerns and interests of the said colonies, and to preserve and secure their connection with Great Britain." MS. State Papers, Public Record Office, tit. America and the West Indies, v. 299. 101 ally olo- Ite to that ctic- wn. \y of the sary ust, [tual istic zen- ern- on ntal APPENDIX No. 1. ARTICLES OF THE TREATY OF 1825, BETWEEN GREAT BRITAIN AND RUSSIA, DESCRIBING THE BOUNDARIES OF ALASKA. (Pages 85-89.) Articles III. and I V. were copied into'the Treaty of 1S67, betioeen Russia and the United States. Article III. The line of demarcation between the posaessiong of the High Contracting Parties upon the coast of the continent and the islands of America to the north- west, shall be drawn in the manner following : Commencing from the southermost part of the island called Prince of Wales Island, which point lies in the parallel of 54° 40' north latitude, and between the LSlst and the 133rd degree of west longitude (meridian of Greenwich), the said line shall ascend to the north along the channel called Portland Channel, as far as the point of the continent where it strikes the 56th degree of north latitude ; from this last- mentioned point, the line of demarcation shall follow the summit of the mountains situated parallel to the coast, as far as the point of intersection of the Hist degree of west longitude (of the same meridian) ; and, finally, from the said point of intersection, the said meridiau-Une of the 14l8t degree, in its prolongation as far as the Frozen Ocean, shall form the limit between the Russian and British possessions on the continent of America to the north-west. Article IV. With reference to the line of demarcation laid down in the preceding Article, it is understood ; Ist. That the island called Prince of Wales Island sliall belong wholly to Russia. 2nd. That wherever the summit of the mountains which extend in a direc- tion parallel to the coast, from the 56th degree of north latitude to the point of intersection of the 141st degree of west longitude, shall prove to be at a distance of more than 10 marine leagues from the Ocean, the limit between the British possessions and the line of coast (la lisiire de c6te) which is to belong to Russia, as above mentioned, shall be formed by a line parallel to the wind- ings of the coast, and which shail never exceed the distance of 10 mxtrine leagues therefrom. Article VI. It is understood that the subjects of His Britannic Majesty, from whatever quarter they may arrive, whether from the Ocean, or from the interior of the continent, shall for ever enjoy the right of navigating freely, and without any hindrance whatever, all the Rivers and Streams which, in their course towards the Pacific Ocean, may cross the line of demarcation upon the line of coast (sur la lisiire de la c6te) described in Article III. of the present Convention. 102 APPENDIX No. 2. PROVISIONAL BOUNDARY BETWEP:N CANADA AND ALASKA IN THE REGION ABOUT THE HEAD OF LYNN CANAL. !! Hay-Tower Agreement .signed on the 2Uth October, 1899. (Page 96.) "It is hereby agreed between the Governments of the United States and of Great Britain that the boundary-line between Cmada and the territory of Alaska in the region about the head of Lynn Canal shall be provisionally fixed as follows, without prejudice to the claims of either Party in the permanent adjustment of the international boundary : — "In the region of the Dalton Trail, a line beginning at the peak west of Porcupine Creek, marked on the Map No. 10 of the United States' Commis- sion, December 31, 1895, and on sheet No. 18 of the British Commission, December 31, 1895, with the number 6500; thence running to the Klehini (or Klaheela) River, in the direction of the peak north of that river, marked 5020 on the aforesaid United States' Map, and 5025 on the aforesaid British Map ; thence following the high or right bank of the said Klehini River to the junction thereof with the Chilkat River, a mile and a-half, more or less, north of Klukwan,* — provided that persons proceeding to or from Porcupine Creek shall be freely permitted to follow the trail between the said creek and the said junction of the rivers into and across the territory on the Canadian side of the temporary line wherever the trail crosses to such side, and, subject to such reasonable Regulations for the protection of the revenue as the Canadian Government may prescribe, to carry with them over such part or parts of the trail between the said points as may lie on the Canadian side of the temporary line, such goods and articles as they desire, without being required to jjay any customs duties on such goods and articles ; and from said junction to the summit of the peak east of the Chilkat River, marked on the aforesaid Map No. 10 of the United States' Commission with the number 5410, and on the Map No. 17 of the aforesaid British Commission with the number 5490. " On the Dyea and Skagway Trails, the summits of the Chilkoot and White Passes.t " It is understood, as formerly set forth in communications of the Depart- ment of State of the United States, that the citizens or subjects of either Power, found by this arrangement within the temporary jurisdiction of the other, shall suffer no diminution of the rights and privileges which they now enjoy. "The Government of the United States will at once appoint an officer or officers, in conjunction with an officer or officers to be named by the Govern- ment of Her Britannic Majesty, to mark the temporary line agreed upon by the erection of posts, stakes, or other appropriate temporary marks. " It shall be understood that the foregoing Agreement is binding upon the two Governments from the date of [the] written acceptance of its terms." *See Provisional Boundary, 1899, marked (1) on Map, Appendix No. 3. t See Provisional Boundaries, 1899, marked respectively (2) and (3) on the same Map. A IN !S and >ry of fixed anent APPENDIX No. 3. MAP OF LYNN CANAL, SHOWING THE BOUNDARY LINES CLAIMED BY CANADA AND THE UNITED STATES. (Pages 85-89.) (1), (2) and (3) indicate the localities of the three Provisionil Boundaries "* described ia the Agreement of the 20th October, 1899, in Appendix No. 2. mm