Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub
[blocks in formation]

Sangster, Charles, Esq., Ottawa.........
Smith, Miss Mary B., Halifax.......

Smith, Goldwin, Esq., M.A., Toronto..
Stephens, Henry, Esq., Montreal.
Thomson, E. W., Esq., Almonte...
Trail, Mrs. C. P., Lakefield................

Watson, S. J., Esq., Toronto.....

White, Thomas, jun., Esq., Montreal.

Wilson, Daniel, Esq., L.L.D., &c., Toronto.......
Witherow, Rev. W. H., M.A., Niagara...

Young, James, Esq., M. P., Galt..

Yule, Mrs. J. C., Toronto...

[blocks in formation]

An Amateur..

B. A........

Bystander, A
Editorial....

Hubert Humber...

J. McL....

L. M........

Neot, G.....

Our Pioneer Bishop.
W. H. F.....

York.......

ANONYMOUS.

440

325

143, 249, 318

453

509

214

137, 403

117

406

533

18, 105

[blocks in formation]

WH

INTRODUCTORY.

THERE several attempts have failed, the success of a new attempt must always be doubtful. But it is hoped that the effort to give an organ, in the form of a periodical, to the intellectual life of Canada, is now made under better auspices than before. There has been of late a general awakening of national life, which has probably extended to the literary and sntific sphere of the large number recen’ ́ ́added to our population, the ordinary proportion may be supposed to be writers or readers; and special circumstances have favoured the present publishers inobtaining literary assistance in the conduct of their Magazine.

The plan of paying for all contributions, adopted by the present publishers, will, besides its more obvious advantages, secure to them that perfect liberty of selection which could not be enjoyed by the managers of periodicals conducted on the other system. The chief promoters of the enterprise feel that, at all events, the creation of a worthy periodical for Canada is an object import

ant enough to warrant them in expending some labour and encountering some risk. They are confirmed in this conviction by the favour with which this project has been received, and by the generous and patriotic support already afforded.

To deal with Canadian questions and to call forth Canadian talent will be the first

aim of the managers of the Canadian Monthly. But they will seek in all quarters the materials of an interesting and instructive Magazine.

The utmost latitude will be allowed to contributors in the expression of opinion, as well as in the choice of subjects; but the Magazine is not open to party politics or to party theology; nor will anything be admitted which can give just offence to any portion of the community.

Having a national object in view, the managers of the Magazine will sincerely endeavour to preserve, in all its departments, a tone beneficial to the national character and worthy of the nation.

A

THE TREATY OF WASHINGTON.

BY CHARLES LINDSEY.

as

GENERAL settlement of all disputed | for the time, every serious ground of disquestions between two such nations pute; but no arrangement that could be England and the United States may well made now could prevent new complications be cause of international congratulation. arising in the future. If, in many respects, Family quarrels are proverbially bitter, and all available guarantees to that end are the two peoples are near enough akin to give taken, in one particular, as we shall herevehemence to their inevitable wrangles. after see, there is a manifest failure on this A list of old, unsettled scores was liable to point. The best terms obtainable were probe converted into a cause of quarrel, at the bably secured, but while the work entrusted most inopportune moment. The satisfaction to the Commissioners is, in the main, satisarising out of the settlement, may, on the factory, it is, in some respects, open to grave one side or the other, be tempered with the objection. feeling that too little has been obtained here, and too much sacrificed there; that the rough balance struck, in the somewhat incongruous mingling of questions, which bore no relation to one another, and in which third parties were interested, has left just causes of complaint. A simpler and more natural way of proceeding would have been to conclude in form, as there are in fact, two treaties; but, as in 1818, it was found impossible to settle one question without bringing in others, so now, the central idea was to lump every thing together, and apply the sponge to the aggregate score. The settlement will avert all immediate causes of uneasiness as to the continuance of peace, and it has somewhat ameliorated the tone of international criticism; but it will neither change the respective characters of the two nations nor bring about the millenium. Nor can we, looking closely at the stipulations, and contrasting them with the omissions of the treaty, congratulate ourselves that international morality has made a marked advance, or that this country has received new securities against the annoyance of irregular invasion. The great merit of the treaty is that it removes,

The British High Commissioners, appointed on the sixteenth February, 1871, to settle all questions of difference with the United States, comprised Earl de Grey, Sir Stafford Henry Northcote, Sir Edward Thornton, Sir John Alex. Macdonald, and Mr. Montague Bernard, Professor of International Law at the University of Oxford. The American Commissioners were Mr. Secretary Fish, Mr. Robert Schenck, Mr. Justice Nelson, of the Supreme Court of the United States, Mr. Ebenezer Hoar, and Mr. George H. Williams. Any three of the British Commissioners would, by the powers conferred upon them, have been sufficient to conclude a treaty. discretionary power they had little or none, as the references made, from time to time, to their government clearly show. The Joint High Commissioners first met on the 27th February, and concluded their labours on the 6th May.

Of

In the settlement of the Alabama question, England has accepted rules of international law which she holds were not in force at the time of the occurrences out of which the American claims arose. This sacrifice may be compensated, in a pecuniary sense, and

in that sense only, by the advantages which a great maritime nation like England may, in future, reap from the following rules becoming obligatory on the two contracting powers:

"A neutral Government is bound

"First, to use due diligence to prevent the fitting out, arming, or equipping, within its jurisdiction, of any vessel which it has reasonable ground to believe is intended to cruise or to carry on war against a Power with which it is at peace; and also to use like diligence to prevent the departure from its jurisdiction of any vessel intended to cruise or carry on war as above, such vessel having been specially adapted, in whole or in part, within such jurisdiction, to warlike

use.

"Secondly, not to permit or suffer either belligerent to make use of its ports or waters as the base of naval operations against the other, or for the purpose of a renewal or augmentation of military supplies or arms, or the recruitment of men.

"Thirdly, to exercise due diligence in its own ports and waters, and, as to all persons within its jurisdiction, to prevent any violation of the foregoing obligations and duties."

It would not be difficult to understand the acceptance of an ex post facto rule, by one party to the contract, if the other came under a similar obligation. But we look in vain for any thing like reciprocity here. The case of the Fenian raids was of a more flagrant character than that of the Alabama. All that could be urged against England was that she may have failed to use due diligence to prevent the sailing of that famous corsair. A vessel can be fitted out with a secrecy which is impossible in setting on foot a land force. The Fenian raids were organized with the greatest ostentation of publicity, in a time of peace. The municipal laws of England, on the subject of neutrality, were feeble compared with those of the United States. The govern

ment of the latter country on the occasion of the first Fenian raid, stood silently still till the soil of Canada had, after weeks of loud-trumpeted preparation, been invaded. Then it issued a proclamation. Having so completely failed in its duty, there was more reason that it should pay the damages occasioned by these raids than that England should pay the Alabama claims. In refusing to do so, it stands condemned by international law, by its own municipal laws, and by its early traditions in the days of Washington, Jefferson, and Randolph. England not only pays but apologizes for the depredations of the Alabama. The contrast is more striking than agreeable.

Let us look at the Fenian raids question in the light of the past, and we shall see how the United States of to-day performs its national obligations compared with the way it performed those obligations at the close of the last century. No nation ever pushed to a greater extent the maxim that individual citizens have no right to be at war while their government is at peace. The early statesmen of the Republic contended that the restriction extended not merely to masses of men, but included every individual citizen. Nor did they rest content with declaring the rule: they sought to enforce it. In 1793, when war existed between England and France, the French contended that they had a treaty right to enlist men for the naval service in the United States. And they tried to put this alleged right into force. An American citizen, Gideon Henfield, was arrested by his own government and tried for having taken service, illegally, on the French cruiser Citoyen Genet. sides being an old revolutionary soldier, he pleaded ignorance of the law he was accused of violating, and expressed contrition for his conduct; and he was, probably for these reasons, acquitted by the jury. The arrest gave occasion for the Government to make a public exposition of the law on the subject of private citizens making war on their own

Be

Besides being punishable because

his conduct was in violation of treaties, by which the United States stipulated with other countries, that there should be peace between their citizens and subjects, Attorney General Randolph declared every such of fender was indictable at Common Law, because his conduct brought him within the description of persons disturbing the peace of the United States. And Jefferson, who was at the time Secretary of State, laid down the rule in words which ought never to be forgotten. "For our citizens," he said, in an official communication to the French Minister to the United States, "to commit murders and depredations on the members of nations at peace with us, or to combine to do it, appeared to the Executive, and to those whom they consulted, as much against the laws of the land as to murder or rob, or to combine to murder or rob, its own citizens, and as much to require punishment, if done within their limits, or where they have a territorial jurisdiction, or on the high seas, where they have a personal jurisdiction, that is to say, one which reaches their own subjects only." He gave notice that the laws would be enforced against all persons so offending, whether citizens or aliens within the jurisdiction of the Republic and enjoying the protection of its laws. The argument against an individual citizen going to war on his own authority was that what one might do all had the same right to undertake; and if this were allowed the nation might find itself at war without the authority of the Government.

The right to restrain individual citizens, and the arguments by which it was upheld, now find few defenders. The Americans afterwards confined their restriction to bodies of men, intending to act together against any power with which the Government was at peace.

When we apply these facts to the case of the Fenian expeditions, and to the refusal of the Washington Government to give com

pensation for the injuries Canada received therefrom, it is difficult to find any reason for being jubilant over this part of the treaty, as indicating an advance in the principles of international justice and morality. The Fenian raids were organized under circumstances very different from those in which individual American citizens joined the French standard in 1793. There was no war in progress; no flag for the Fenians to take shelter under; no government for them to transfer their allegiance to. The pretence, which was not allowed, at the former epoch, in time of war, of divesting themselves of the character of American citizens and transferring their allegiance to a foreign sovereign by the mere act of engaging in his service, could not be set up by the Fenians. They were a lawless band of marauders, composed of American citizens and persons under the protection of American laws; incapable of accomplishing any thing beyond rapine and murder. Of the few leaders against whom legal proceedings were taken by their own Government, the punishment was only a form, equally without reality or deterring influence. For this great international wrong-this invasion of our territory in a time of profound peacethe Americans neither make apology nor would give compensation. England, we are given to understand by a speech of Mr. Gladstone, stands vicariously charged with the damages. So Canada will be paid. It makes no difference to us, we may be told, in a money point of view, whence the compensation comes; but it makes a vast difference in the guarantees of future security whether or not a nation, bands of whose citizens have committed unprovoked outrages on our soil, holds itself amenable to the rules of international law and the plainest principles of justice. The practical immunity of the offenders could hardly fail to serve as an encouragement to them; the national disavowal of responsibility may put the whole nation in a temper to believe that raids on

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »