labor laws, mining rights, naval armament on the Great Lakes, and more accurate marking of the boundary.

The members of this Joint High Commission on the part of the United States were Senators Fairbanks and Gray, Congressman Dingley, John W. Foster, John A. Kasson, and T. J. Coolidge; and on the part of Great Britain Lord Herschell, late Lord Chancellor of England, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Sir Richard Cartwright, Sir Louis H. Davies, and Hon. John Charlton, M.P., of Canada, and Sir James Winter of Newfoundland.

The first meeting of the Joint High Commission was held in Quebec, and after a session of two weeks a recess was taken and a further session of two weeks was held in that city. During this time the Commission was very hospitably entertained by the authorities of the province and by the leading citizens, and many social courtesies were exchanged among the members. Greater éclat was given to these courtesies by the establishment of the viceregal residence by the Governor-General and Lady Aberdeen in the Citadel, and by the presence of the British North Atlantic squadron in the river.

An amusing incident occurred in connection with the reception given to the Commission by the authorities of the city of Quebec. It was to be of quite a formal and imposing character, at which addresses were to be exchanged. Senator Fairbanks, the chairman of the American delegation, prepared a written address and submitted it in advance to his colleagues. Quite a discussion arose over the phrase “AngloSaxon race" as descriptive of the people of the two nations. Finally it was settled, on the suggestion of Senator Gray, by amending it to read "English-speaking race." It was diverting, to those of us who had listened to this discussion, to hear the mayor of the city read his address in French and have it followed by an English translation. After the second session at Quebec the Commission adjourned to Washington, where

the authorities and citizens sought to rival the hospitality of Quebec by their entertainment of its members.

It would be tedious if I should attempt to give even a brief résumé of the weeks and months of laborious examination and discussion of the various subjects submitted to the Commission. On several of them, a practical agreement was reached. On the sealing question the general principle of settlement was agreed to, and doubtless the details could have been arranged. On reciprocity little progress was made. Notwithstanding the professions of the Liberals when out of power and in the heat of a political campaign, in the commission they assumed much the same position as the Conservative delegates who came to Washington in 1892.

The rock upon which the Commission split and suffered shipwreck was the Alaskan boundary. The attitude of the British members will be explained in the next chapter. They insisted upon their claims to the territory, and refused to enter into an agreement on any other of the questions before the Commission, until their claims as to the boundary were granted. This demand could not be conceded by the American members, and the Commission adjourned at Washington February 20, 1899, never to be again reassembled.

The end of the sessions in Washington was saddened by the death of Lord Herschell, President of the Commission, and of Hon. Nelson Dingley. Both of them had filled important places in the public affairs of their respective countries, and their decease was greatly mourned.

My view of the situation created by the failure of the Commission was expressed in a letter to one of the Canadian members a year after the final adjournment. In answer to an inquiry on his part as to the probability of reconvening the Commission, I wrote: "I lament with you the failure to resume the sessions of the Commission. The modus vivendi as to the boundary puts that matter temporarily at least out of the way, and I think it a great pity we should not come to

a friendly accord on as many questions as possible. There are some we certainly can settle, as the alien labor matter, the protection of the fish in the Great Lakes and contiguous waters, armament on the Lakes, conveyance of prisoners, wrecking privileges, unsettled boundary-lines in Passamaquoddy Bay and on the Minnesota frontier, most likely mining rights, and I should not be without hope that something could be done in commercial reciprocity. We were so near an agreement on the fur-seal question, it seems too bad that such a useful herd of animals should be gradually destroyed because of a failure to agree about the ownership of some glaciers. We are a kindred and Christian people, and we ought to get as many of our differences out of the way as possible, so that we may live in peace and harmony. We may not always agree about everything, but let us come as near together as possible. The American Commissioners are not infallible, but I feel sure the impartial world does not justify the BritishCanadian Commissioners in their persistency in breaking off negotiations on account of a failure to agree upon a single question, the Alaskan boundary."

This Joint High Commission stands out in strong contrast with its predecessor, the Commission of 1871. The questions before the latter were more important, complicated, and irritating, and yet its members came together with an earnest desire to find a solution honorable to both parties. Not only were the "Alabama" and other Civil War questions adjusted, but a satisfactory settlement was reached as to all pending questions with Canada, including the heated controversy as to the San Juan boundary. I hope it may not be invidious to point out the fact that the Commission of 1898 contained only one English and four Canadian statesmen, whereas the Commission of 1871 had only one Canadian and four English statesmen.

Sir Wilfrid Laurier, in addressing the Canadian Manufacturers' Association in 1907, said that "to-day Canada has

attained the full rank of a nation." More than fifty years ago, when there was considerable agitation for independence or annexation to the United States, the London "Times" said: "We have been taught wisdom by experience, and the most valuable as well as the most costly of our lessons has been taught by the barren issue of a conflict with a province which from remonstrance drifted to rebellion, and crowned rebellion with independence. We should not go to war for the sterile honor of retaining a reluctant colony in subjection. We should not purchase an unwilling obedience by the outlay of treasure or blood."

This is doubtless the sentiment to-day of the intelligent and ruling classes of England, and the Canadians fully understand it. It may be said that Sir Wilfrid's declaration is inexact, in that Canada does not possess that important element of sovereignty, the treaty-making power. But while that is true in theory, it is hardly so in practice. We see that Sir Wilfrid goes to Paris to conduct the negotiations for a commercial treaty with Canada, one of his Cabinet Ministers goes to Japan to adjust the immigration question, and a clause is inserted in the Treaty of Arbitration between the United States and Great Britain of 1908 which in effect provides that no matter affecting the interests of a self-governing Dominion shall go to arbitration without its assent. The full independence of Canada will come whenever it shall happen that the Government at London refuses to accept and ratify a treaty or shall obstruct a measure regarded by Canada as vital to her interest. When her independence is achieved, her statesmen will be more considerate of American sentiment and needs.

It is gratifying to note that the public men and the people of the two neighboring States are growing more moderate and forbearing in the discussion of their mutual relations, and that we may look forward to the time when all jealousy and unfriendliness shall disappear.

CHAPTER XXXVI

THE ALASKAN BOUNDARY SETTLEMENT

To one familiar with the history of our relations with Canada it does not seem strange that the Dominion members of the Joint High Commission of 1898 should break up its deliberations and refuse to settle any other of the questions at issue because of a difference of views as to the Alaskan boundary. From the very beginning of our independence as a nation, our northern boundary-line has been the source of almost constant discussion, often of angry controversy, and more than once has brought the countries to the brink of war.

The question as to the St. Croix River arose soon after our independence, and was followed by the dispute as to the islands in and near Passamaquoddy Bay. The Northeast Boundary was a subject of arbitration and diplomacy through many years, a state of border warfare was created, General Scott was sent to the scene to preserve the peace, and it was only settled by the Webster-Ashburton Treaty in 1842. The line through the St. Lawrence and the Great Lakes had to be adjusted by a commission. Another commission was unable to agree upon the boundary through Lake Superior and the Lake of the Woods, and it remained unsettled until 1842. The line from the Rocky Mountains to the Pacific Ocean remained for forty years a subject of controversy. A claim on our part to the whole territory from California to the Russian possessions was made a party cry, in a presidential campaign, of "Fifty-four forty or fight," and only yielded to diplomacy after a bitter contest. But that settlement was hardly made when a new controversy arose over San Juan Island, the settlers became involved, a colli