Puslapio vaizdai

this Treaty; while extending the concessions of Britain to the utmost limit; or to supersede the equity of its terms by reviving contentions that were accommodated by the ultimate solution it presents. The treaty does not recognise the PRE-EXISTENCE of the rights of Russia, it GRANTS THEM. A distinction that appears to have been lost sight of as affecting British interests; though there are some indications that it has been kept carefully in the background by the United States. Since its terms were arranged, politicians have had more than three generations in which to impress upon the minds of both peoples, whatever it was thought to their interest should find credence; and they have succeeded in imposing a belief that the terms of the treaty. related entirely to the determination of limits, whereas the wording should also establish a principle.


If we turn to the defence, we might imagine Canadians were as willing to part with, as the United States is to acquire British territory, the only difference being as to the exact extent. This unexpected anomaly, is perhaps the result of an ungrateful conceit by Colonials, who imagine the Mother Country has always been prone to neglect their interests, and have consequently regarded the treaty with Russia, as a surrender of them. the moment it was known the United States had purchased, Canadians have done their best to discredit the intention and terms of the treaty; they would hardly have served the purpose of the buyer so well, had they, instead of Russia received the money. This Treaty was intended for, and should have served as an impregnable line of defense, against any assault on British territorial rights. The disputed Boundary, as indicated by the precise and explicit terms of the treaty, was intended to define a strip of the coast in no part exceeding ten marine leagues in breadth. From the peculiar nature of the coast, consisting of a fringe of islands, this strip, was such that officers who surveyed it could traverse it in their ships, and observe it from the landward side, as well as from the ocean. By the American contention, this "strip" has been converted into the whole of the coast,

in addition to a strip of the mainland, more huge than the apparent motive of the treaty with Russia would have called for, even if the island fringe of the continent had been absent. A transformation by which British ships are actually blocked from access to their own continent, as completely as if Canning had not protested against the Russian Ukase of 1821.

Unfortunately for Canada, the defence of this position has from the first fallen into the hands of lawyers, who have shown themselves incapable of appreciating the precise meaning of the terms employed in the treaty; a matter entirely outside the scope of their professional training. They may be word perfect in the theory of the employment of geographical terms, but as soon as it comes to a practical application of the principles involved, it becomes evident that words which have a distinctive application are regarded as being of a similar meaning. The word does not, in fact, call up a distinctive picture in their minds of the thing it should indicate; it simply appeals to their imagination as a word written or printed in a document. That the distinction between such words as "coast" or "ocean" appears to be mainly alphabetical, may be an amiable weakness on their part; but by imitating the careless and apparently undesigned misuse of these terms by distinguished "American" diplomatists, they have effectively obscured the rights that Canada has now, to all appearance, lost.


Not the legal profession only is subject to this lapse of accuracy; examples of the methods by which this territory has been lost, may be seen in the editorial pages of such leading journals as "The Daily Mail and Empire," whose issue of Oct. 19 has two articles; IS CANADA'S CASE LOST?"—" ALASKA'S BOUNDARY AS FIXED IN 1825."; in both the term by which the limitation of the Boundary is defined in the treaty is misquoted, and the explicit and appropriate word "Ocean", which does not readily lend itself to any ambiguity of meaning, has been displaced in favour of "coast", a word that has a wide range of significance that under "Yankee" manipulation, has come to mean almost

anything they may care to read into it.. As connected with what may almost be called a national disaster, it may be interesting to know if this exchange of terms is made of malice prepense, or is, as a result of careless ignorance, purely accidental. To quote the Editor: "The more important point in the case is the line running north and separating the territory of Canada from that of the United States. This line, according to the Russian treaty, which governs, or ought to govern, is to be ten leagues or thirty miles, from the coast. The question the Tribunal has had to consider is, 'What is the coast?' There is a string of islands following the coast line. We contend that the shore of the islands is 'the coast', and that the thirty miles must be measured from that point. The United States holds that 'the coast' begins at the mainland, and that therefore the thirty miles covers an area much more extensive than that acknowledged by Canada.”

Why has this information been witheld until the Award of the Tribunal has rendered it useless? As a matter of fact, the real question on which the adverse Award has been given is the INTENTION of the Treaty, and not on any difference of geographical definitions; the quibble about which became little more than a feint on the part of the United States, to divert attention from the real point of attack. The signing of the Convention at Washington, on the 14th day of Jan. 1903, placed the occupation of the Alaskan territory by the United States, under a more formal sanction than that resulting from the former complaisant indifference of Great Britain. Nothing was now desired but the formal repeal of that part of the treaty with Russia that made her occupation of the coast depend upon her faithful observance of Section VI of the treaty. And, even for this, the questions proposed for submission to the Tribunal were so cunningly worded, that acceptance by Britain of the proposal to discuss them, was practically equivalent to the abandonment of her territorial rights; even without the formal Judgment of the Tribunal. Had Canada refused to meet the nctorious partisans, nominated, perhaps, to insure this result, the

United States would have remained in posession of all they claimed. The United States, on obtaining the assent of Britain to this Convention, immediately abandoned the claim to a tidewater limit of a ten league concession, which the Convention practically assured, and boldly challenged for the repeal of Art. VI of the Treaty, by which the territorial rights pertaining to all the waterways of the coast were reserved to Britain, for ever.

"Wisdom is justified of her children” ! ! The result of this boldness is to demonstrate that there does not exist in the whole legal and political service of Great-or Greater-Britain, sufficient logical acumen combined with technical knowledge, to discover that there has been substituted a new, "origen and principle of this whole negotiation ", by which to interpret, and stultify, the old "negotiation about limits". No wonder the Anglo-Britannic races are unable to build asylums fast enough to accommodate their continually increasing madness! The same weird resemblance exists between the Award of the Tribunal and the Treaty, of which it is supposed to be a rendering, as there is between a medal and the die from which it has been struck; it is the difference, not the similarity. makes the likeness.

The gist of Question 5, relieved of the verbiage by which it is partially disguised, is simply: "In extending the line of demarcation northward, from the parallel of 54° 40′ of north latitude to the 141st degree of west longitude, was it the intention and meaning of the said Convention of 1825 that there should remain in the exclusive possession of Russia a continuous fringe, or strip, of coast on the mainland, separating the British possessions from the bays, ports, inlets, havens and waters of the ocean? The Tribunal answers: "Such is the intention." It was, probably, because the boundary actually claimed by the United States included more than was necessary to give effect to this exclusive intention, that, evidently by the judgment of Lord Alverstone, it was reduced in the Award, and assented to by the United States Commissioners as a necessary concession; a compromise, probably unsuspected by the Chief Justice him

self. This Award is final; unless the newly developed sense of Imperial Unity should furnish a motive for the strenuous exercise of Imperial Duties: it appears to be the absence of this sense that provides the void in which the delusions of "freetraders" find their most ample scope for development. The local detail of the occupation of this territory, by either the United States or Canada, is of small importance, compared with the results that may follow a failure to realise the nature of the circumstances that have availed to change a treaty, negotiated by Britain to induce Russia to repeal," an offensive and unjustifiable arrogation of exclusive jurisdiction." that threatened the stability of the same territorial rights that Britain has now surrendered unreservedly to the United States. A concession, that far from satisfying territorial greed, will only strengthen the determination to continue the same relentless system of extortion, as long as there is a fragment of British authority left upon this continent.

Interest in the Alaskan Territory, began with the writer as a school-boy some fifty years ago, on discovering with disgusted astonishment that Russia occupied a corner of what had always been considered a British possession. Äided by a retentive memory for geographic and historical details, the development of the Alaskan problem in later years, was followed with keen interest. The first impression upon Canadians, made by the news of the American purchase, was almost of consternation, resulting from what appeared the enormous value placed upon the acquisition; presaging some use in view that might be detrimental to British interests. The various attempts made between the two countries to settle the Boundary, were notable from the apparent difficulty of defining the intention of the treaty with Russia, as well as for the obvious determination of the United States to submit nothing to arbitration. These attempts were terminated by the forcible seizure of a portion of the disputed territory from the possession of the Canadian officials, the hauling down of the flag, and the collection of duties upon imports

« AnkstesnisTęsti »