sion was threatened, and a second time the services of General Scott were invoked to preserve the peace.

The adjustment of that dispute, in 1872, at last established an unquestioned line from ocean to ocean. The review shows that the boundary disputes have been a perennial source of trouble, and that it is a threatening evil to leave them unsettled. Every part of the frontier line, from the initial point on the Atlantic to the last water boundary on the Pacific, has been a matter of controversy, and sometimes of such bitter contention as even to threaten war.

When the Joint High Commission adjourned in February, 1899, it was to reassemble upon the call of the two chairmen. In a memorandum which I prepared for the use of Secretary Hay at his request, I took the ground that it was useless for the Commission to reassemble until the boundary question was disposed of, and that, if a permanent settlement could not be reached, it might be possible to agree upon a modus vivendi as to the line in the vicinity of Lynn Canal, the only portion about which early trouble was threatening.

Acting upon this suggestion a modus was effected as to the passes over the mountains in that locality in October, 1899, and thus the necessity for an immediate permanent adjustment of the boundary was overcome.

At this stage of the question I was invited by the National Geographic Society to deliver a lecture upon the Alaskan boundary. It was felt that in view of the deadlock in the Commission, the public should be informed of the reasons which led the American members to adhere so strenuously to their position; but before accepting the invitation I consulted Secretary Hay, who advised its acceptance, and said that the only reason he could imagine against it was that I would show our case to be so strong our people would never consent to any adjustment with Canada. I delivered the lecture in November, 1899, and it was printed in the Society's magazine and in pamphlet form, and had a wide circulation.

THE ALASKAN BOUNDARY SETTLEMENT · 193

After the modus vivendi was agreed upon, the seat of the negotiations was transferred to London. Lord Pauncefote, the British Ambassador in Washington, who was on a visit home, had several interviews with Mr. Choate, the American Ambassador, and the hope was held out that a satisfactory settlement might be reached. But when Mr. Choate solicited the British proposal in writing, it proved to be the same one which had been advanced by the British-Canadian members of the Joint High Commission and rejected by the American members, to wit, a reference of the entire Alaskan boundary question to arbitration upon the basis of the late Venezuela boundary dispute. The objection of the Americans to such a method was that it put in peril territory which had been in undisputed possession of our Government for more than a generation and upon which towns had been built and large enterprises established. The counter-proposition of the Americans was that the question should be referred to a joint commission of jurists, composed of an equal number from each country, and that the question should be decided by a majority vote of such commission, thus requiring one member to vote against the contention of his own Government before a settlement could be reached. This method was in conformity with the unratified arbitration treaty signed in 1896 between Secretary Olney and Lord Pauncefote.

A diplomatic correspondence, extending through two years, followed between Mr. Choate and Lord Salisbury. At Secretary Hay's request I prepared the instructions under which Mr. Choate conducted the discussion, but he was not able to induce the British, or rather the Canadian, Government to recede from its position.

In the autumn of 1902 the vacancy in the British Embassy at Washington, occasioned by the lamented death of Lord Pauncefote, was filled by the appointment of Sir Michael H. Herbert, a brilliant young diplomatist, ambitious to achieve some notable success in his mission. Within a short time

after his arrival in Washington he was able to bring his Government and Canada to agree to accept the proposition of the United States, originally made in the Joint High Commission and afterwards urged by Mr. Choate in his correspondence with Lord Salisbury, and a treaty to that effect was signed between him and Secretary Hay on January 24, 1903.

This treaty provided that the question of the Alaskan boundary should be referred to a tribunal of six, composed of three members nominated by each Government; that a majority of votes should be necessary to a decision; and that the Tribunal should render a decision which was to be made up of answers to seven questions specifically set forth in the treaty. Experience had shown that the work of courts of arbitration and international commissions is not infrequently nullified or impaired by their members exceeding their powers in rendering their decisions, or by a departure from the terms of reference. In framing this treaty, we sought to avoid all error in this direction by the careful manner in which the points at issue were set forth.

While Mr. Herbert had scored an important success in securing the assent of Canada to the treaty, an equally important step was yet to be taken in obtaining the assent of the Senate of the United States. A feeling pervaded our country that no concession whatever should be made respecting territory so long in undisputed possession of the United States. This feeling was strongly presented in an editorial in the leading newspaper of Washington immediately after the terms of the treaty were made public, in which the Senate was urged to reject it.

It was contrary to my custom to discuss in public pending treaty matters with which I had any connection; but I feared that unless some immediate steps were taken to resist this feeling, it might take possession of the Senate. I also felt that, as it was known that I had stoutly contended for the