Puslapio vaizdai
[ocr errors]

there at the time. If Mr. Ewart means how would the inhabitants of British North America have got on in 1825 or 1842 or 1846 or even 1903 without the aid of Great Britain I refer him to the history of American dealings with Mexico from 1840 to 1853. Or does he mean that “we” would have shown such interest and intelligence as to win at least a moral victory, even though compelled to yield to brute force? It is a significant fact that there was no Canadian protest at the termination of the Oregon dispute. When in 1868 my father, then a Halifax clergyman, at the request of his friend, Sir Sandford Fleming, made a collection for some sufferers from grasshoppers in the Red River valley, he wrote to his friend: "I could have collected as much money and the people would have given as intelligently had the sufferers been in Abyssinia.” When in 1871 the Treaty of Washington was framed, all Canada laughed at the so-called Concession of free navigation of Alaskan Waters. When in 1873, at the termination of his journey across the continent my father wrote “Ocean to Ocean" and told of the glories of the West, he was accused by more than one responsible Canadian of having been bribed by Sir John Macdonald to justify the extravagant deal by which we had just purchased this vast territory from the Hudson Bay Company for $1,500,000, and certain grants of land. We all know the famous editorial in which the leading newspaper of Ontario said that the Canadian Pacific Railway would never pay for its axle-grease. At about the same time. Sir Albert Smith, a Minister in a Canadian Cabinet, spoke of our western heritage as destined to be forever the home of the wolf and the bear. Such are a few examples of the interest which "we" took in our western heritage.

Of course all this historical lore proves nothing about our future. Even had Great Britain shown not merely adequate firmness but Utopian wisdom and power, a Declaration of Canadian Independence might still be in order, best for us and best for her. That is another story, on which I may have something to say on another occasion. But an impartial study of the facts does, I think, prove that in approaching the study of our present and future relations to Great Britain "we" should abandon the touch of acerbity shown by too many Canadians and in particular by Mr. Ewart.

But Mr. Ewart's defects of temper and of historical imagination must not blind us to the great service which he is rendering. He rightly and wisely insists that as yet our main business is to unify Canada, still terribly disunited. With the Easterner as often a capitalist as a Canadian, and the Westerner seldom more than a real estate broker or a grain grower, our main business is at home. To the up-building of a sturdy spirit of Canadianism, wide enough to stretch from Atlantic to Pacific, Mr. Ewart is giving of his best without thought of recompense. To a man who has no axe to grind, who neither fears nor flatters in his efforts to sting us into thought, our final word must be a word of praise.




ITH most gentlemanly courtesy Professor Grant has not

only permitted me to see the manuscript of the foregoing article, but has invited me to make contemporaneous answer to it. He has generously given me the debating advantage, and it behooves me to be careful that I make no undue use of it. I must, above all, avoid, as far as possible, any display of those deficiencies which "proceed largely from his (my) legal training.” But I suppose that I am at liberty to try to "make out my case" (that is what the Professor did), and to prove myself not guilty if I can. “Defects of temper and of historical imagination," however, as well as all "acerbity," I shall, if possible, suppress, while I endeavour to make reply to a gallant gentleman whose temper is perfect, whose history is unimpeachable, but whose entry upon the field of controversy - Well, I am reminded of the Irishman's defence to a charge of killing a man at a Kilkenny fair, by a little tap on an unusually thin skull— "What the divil was a man with a head like that doin' at a Kilkenny fair, anyway?"

THE ALASKA ARBITRATION.—My allegations as to the constitution of the Arbitration Board were that the United States agreed to submit the questions in dispute to “impartial jurists of repute"; that the United States appointed men notoriously not impartial; and that the United Kingdom, notwithstanding our protests, proceeded with the arbitration. That part of my history was not far wrong, for the Professor says that the United States arbitrators had

“about as much claim to be called impartial as to be called kangaroos. Canada under protest went on with the negotia

tion, but in a mood of not unnatural suspicion.” My allegations as to the arbitration itself were that there were three questions involved; that, as to number three, Lord Alverstone made treacherous compromise; that as to number two, he did compromise (having no right to do so); and that as to number one, it was

"impossible to give here a complete view of the arguments adduced upon this question, and no partial statement should be made. However strong the Canadian argument may have been upon the point, we must assume for the purposes of this essay (but for that purpose only) that they were not conclusive, and that it was possible for Lord Alverstone, acting conscientiously, to have decided in favor of the American contention."

In what I alleged, I was not far wrong (although possibly illtempered) for the Professor says,

“Mr. Ewart has proved his point about Lord Alverstone, and for that we owe him our thanks."

[ocr errors]

But the Professor contends that, on question No. 1, Canada had no case. Why throw that at me? Tell it, if you will, to our arbitrators, Sir Louis Jetté and Sir Allen Aylesworth,who, on their oaths, were of opinion that we had. But first be good

. enough to read what they said, for it bears very little resemblance to the Professor's summary of the facts. The question, I repeat, cannot be debated in an article. I therefore refrained from attempting it. I gave no opinion upon it. Was that because of the defect in my "historical imagination," or because I had some appreciation of the way in which discussions of that kind ought to be conducted? In any case, why attack me about it? But says the Professor

"as a result of British help, we forced the U.S.A. to agree to arbitration, as a result of which Canada obtained everything to which he had any claim with the exception of two unim

portant islets.” That is not quite correct :

(1) Nobody forced the United States to an arbitration. The United States agreed, not to an arbitration, but to the appearance of an arbitration only—to one in which, as an American paper said, our chances were “about the same as the prospect of a thaw in Hades." Against that Canada protested, and to it, the United Kingdom agreed.

(2) Omitting the merits of question number one, we lost under question number two (which the Professor does not appear to have heard of) territory about half the size of Scotland-territory which had never been in the possession, disputed or undisputed, of the United States; which the United States never claimed to have had in possession; and to which Lord Alverstone must have thought Canada had a good title, for it is the other half of a whole upon which he made compromise.

GRATITUDE.—I am asked to be grateful for British "firmness and anticipation" in connection with the Russian treaty of 1825, and the Oregon treaty of 1846. “It is of course obvious that 'we' were not there at the time," says the Professor; but we have “got the goods”; and "we surely owe her our thanks,” no matter what were her "motives.” In reply, I cannot agree that for a purely self-regarding action, any other person ought to give thanks. And I return a question-Are we entitled to complain because at the close of the American war of independence, the United Kingdom took from Canada (her loyal, helping colony) and gave to the United States (her rebel colonies) territory that now comprises the states of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin and half of Minnesota? “We" individually were not there, but Canada was. Neither individually nor corporately were "we" anywhere near the Pacific in 1825 and 1846. What the United Kingdom did there, she did, not for us, nor for anybody but herself and her traders. That the Hudson Bay Company appeared to be satisfied, has been put forward by a British apologist (Mr. James White) as some justification for the United Kingdom lowering her claim in the 1846 case.

THE UNITED KINGDOM DID NOT SELL OUT.—I am asked to be grateful, also, because the United Kingdom did not sell out to the United States. The Professor says,

“If the U.S.A. was willing to give $5,500,000 for Florida, $7,200,000 for Alaska, and $15,000,000 for Louisiana, how much would she have given for British North America? Granting that Great Britain has not been all wise or all powerful, surely we owe her a little gratitude for preserving

for us so many million square miles." 1. If the United Kingdom never sold anything to the United States, she gave away all the territory just referred to—worth a good many Floridas and Alaskas.

2. If she deserves gratitude for preserving something for us, what does she deserve for cutting us in half? And are the United Empire Loyalists under special debt of gratitude, because they had to come north instead of going west?

« AnkstesnisTęsti »