Obviously there was here a situation which bristled with all kinds of international danger. In the case of the destruction of the "Caroline," a deed was done under great provocation by constituted authority in defiance of international law. In the case of Alexander McLeod, a position was taken up by the State of New York which might have put the Federal Government at any time into a position of the utmost difficulty. The Federal authority could not interfere with the judicial powers of the State of New York: the British Government could not make any representations to the State of New York, but could only approach the Federal authority. What is pertinent to this discussion to-day is to note the way in which this critical situation was met. The British Parliament in 1842 expressed through Sir Robert Peel its regret that some explanation and apology had not been previously made (for the "Caroline" incident). 'It was the opinion of candid and honourable men that the British officers who executed this action, and their government who approved, had intended no insult or disrespect to the sovereign authority of the United States.' The United States, on its side, dealt with the plea advanced regarding McLeod that, if he had acted as had been alleged, he had done so, not as an individual, but as one of an organized force operating with official sanction. To meet a case such as his, an Act was passed by the United States directing that in the case of subjects of foreign powers taken into custody for acts done under the authority of their own government "the validity or effect whereof depends upon the law of nations," there should be a discharge. Time had been able to operate and feeling had been allowed to subside. One cannot help wondering what the result would have been if McLeod Leod had been declared guilty of murder and had been hanged had been declared guilty of murder and had been hanged as a malefactor. The issue, however, was worthily met, and the source of danger to the peace of nations was, let it be hoped, forever removed.

It does not require much imagination to see that in the enforcement of prohibition legislation there are potentialities of trouble. A three-mile limit beyond which State control does not run is but a small obstacle to a swift motor boat, and

a situation, under which vessels from the West Indies laden with liquor are hanging about off the three-mile boundary ready to transfer their cargoes to boats manned by smugglers, suggests that there is some need of international agreement if issues are not to arise which might very soon raise serious trouble. Liquor is a legitimate cargo for a West India schooner, nor is it the business of Great Britain to enforce the prohibition measures of the United States. Can the destination of that liquor be controlled by the government of the country which ships it?

This, however, is a minor matter compared with the great issue which faces the two countries alike through the development of Japan. When the then Premier of Canada, Mr. Meighen, went to the Dominion Conference in London last summer it was believed that he intended to represent to the British Government in the strongest manner the Canadian belief that the renewal of the Anglo-Japanese agreement would be altogether unpleasing to the people of the Dominion. Canadians were at one with the United States in feeling that such a treaty would be one more barrier to any general policy of disarmament. If the United States, with its population of 110,000,000, looked with anxiety upon the unrestricted admission of Orientals, Canada, with its vast area containing only 9,000,000 people, had a far greater apprehension. It was evident that the United States regarded the Pacific question as the most urgent of its international problems. For the British Government to renew the Anglo-Japanese Alliance would not only create feeling in the States by appearing to throw British influence into the Japanese side of that issue, but it would certainly create powerful opposition in Canada which was determined that it would not add to its difficulties as a young country by the creation of a new colour problem.

This generation is not likely to know what happened at the Imperial Conference, but, after Mr. Meighen's arrival on the scene, the Lord Chancellor discovered that the AngloJapanese treaty had still another year to run and that the question of its renewal had not to be decided on the spot. In the meantime Mr. Harding invited representatives of the powers to meet him in Washington to discuss the disarmament

question, and the general outcome of that Conference was all for the establishment of peace, even if each power concerned thought that its own sacrifices had been disproportionate.

There always will be, between peoples sharing a frontier, minor sources of irritation, and there always will be hasty people who will try to make of mere incidents sources of international trouble. There are always some fools who will smoke in a garage. But in the big things we must co-operate. We can remain loyal to our own flags while striving to see issues from varying standpoints. The future is unquestionably with this northern continent. We are responsible, between us, not only for the standards of political ethics over this vast geographical area, but freed as we are from so many of the complications of Old World history, we can be and ought to be the most powerful agency in the maintenance of world peace. That unguarded frontier should be a parable as well as a fact. R. BRUCE TAYLOR.

Queen's University.

THE ST. LAWRENCE WATERWAY PROJECT.

THE

HE St. Lawrence deep waterway project has not lacked importance in the past three years, and now that it has been the subject of international communications between the United States and Canada it takes a first-rate position. The Government of Canada has decided that the present is not opportune to proceed further with negotiation of a treaty. The after burden of war, like the share in the great conflict, is proportionately heavier for Canadians than for Americans. There is no urgent need for the power which might be developed from the completion of the work, and it is wisely seen that it is not a desirable thing to disturb the investments in power projects, private and public, which have been made by enterprising Canadians. Recent returns indicate there are 2,763,000 horse-power already developed in Canada, of which 300,000 were completed in 1921. The investment in Hydroelectric power in Canada represents $437,000,000, which is sufficient to induce any Government to hesitate before proceeding to negotiate for an undertaking that will put an enormous amount of competitive power on the adjacent market in Central Canada. If it could be shown, however, that the completion of the deep waterway project was in the larger and better interest of all Canada, the investments in power schemes could not be considered a convincing reason for not proceeding with it. Public opinion in Canada, as expressed before the International Joint Commission and reported by them to the two national Governments concerned, gave no indication of general enthusiasm for the plan as then outlined. Only in parts of Ontario was there any real demand for action; in Quebec there was moderate opposition; and in the Prairie provinces, where it was expected that the grain growers would be strongly for the project, there was no marked enthusiasm. During the last session of the Parliament of Canada the Progressives were but mildly favourable. In the circumstances the Government was quite justified in the position taken in reply to the communication from the United States Secretary of State. It is, however, safe to conclude in the light of the

waterways policy pursued by Canada from the earliest days, a policy which finds expression in the Welland Ship Canal, that Canada will logically complete the deep waterway to Montreal at some not distant date.

Looking across the line we may see that the time is very opportune for the United States to proceed with its part in the project. The war emphasized the limitations of railway transportation in the central and far west in particular. The United States put strong reliance upon railway transportation and has not developed the inland waterways to the extent it might have been done. At the present time there is a feeling that policy should be changed and provision made for better use of the interior water routes which nature provided on this continent. Speaking before the International Joint Commission, Mr. Julius Barnes, former head of the Corporation which handled the wheat in the war period, stated that the great merit of water transportation is not only its cheapness but its capacity for immediate and indefinite expansion. In proof of his claim he cited the experience of the United States in the effort to bring relief to Austria. Trieste was the nearest harbour, and the rail haul was a short one to Vienna; but the rail line was in bad condition and that route had to be abandoned. The men in charge turned to Hamburg, and utilized the rivers of Germany, and delivered the food supplies that way.

The Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Tidewater Association, representing 18 States and about 4,000,000 people, is organized to advance the St. Lawrence project, and it has plans which have so far met with the warm approval of leading men in the political life of the Republic. The propaganda of the Association has reached over into Canada and one representative man, Mr. C. P. Craig of Duluth, has recently visited the Prairie provinces, which are regarded as the pivot of public opinion in this country. The vision which has caught the imagination of these Americans is not merely the saving in freight, but the linking up the interior of the continent with the Atlantic, and through the Panama Canal with the Pacific also. If Canada wanted to take advantage of this public purpose to make an agreement the time is opportune. Governor