the inner coast of Vancouver's Island can be approached. We require it to give us a right of access, ingress and egress to our own possessions, unmolested by another power. Both Vancouver's Island and British Columbia had better be given up if we part with San Juan; for a fortification on this island would command our western passage to Fraser River by the Canal de Haro, while if we are foolish enough to submit to the line being run through the Canal, and the Americans, consequently, get the group, they can also fortify Lopez and other islands, and completely command the eastern passage of Rosario and shut us out entirely from our own mainland. The most strained interpretation of the Treaty will not give them the line they claim; but it is not the true construction or meaning of treaties they want to arrive at. It is possession of our new gold country, of which they are rabidly jealous."* By the Washington Treaty of 1871, the United States will probably be put in possession of the Island of San Juan, and we may be sure that before many years elapse, we shall be called upon to cede some other piece of territory to which our neighbours may find it agreeable to set up a claim. In fact Captain Raymond, an American exploring officer, has already reported to his Government that there is something wrong about the boundary of Alaska.† It is astonishing that Great Britain, while consenting to the reconsideration of the Northern Boundary Line, did not insist upon a re-adjustment of the North-Eastern Boundary, as the latter had been obtained by fraud and bad faith. Judge Story, upon learning the existence of the Franklin Map, said that the American Government's conduct was "a most disgraceful proceeding," and "that he was even prepared for the British Government insisting on a reconsideration, if not the annulling, of the Treaty." Senator Benton, one of the strongest supporters * London Times, 27th Sept. 1859; Civilized America, by Grattan, 2nd ed. 1859, note, p. xix. The New York Nation, 29th June, 1871, while noticing Captain Raymond's Report of his Survey on the West Coast of Alaska, says: Captain Raymond's chief errand was to ascertain if Fort Yukon lay within the territory of the United States, since the Hudson's Bay Company had possession of it. He found that it clearly did, and hoisted the flag over it." Grattan, Civ. America, p. 386. of the American claim, observed that "if the maps were authentic, the concealment of them was a fraud on the British, and that the Senate was insulted by being made a party to the fraud," and that "if evidence had been discovered which deprived Maine of the title to one-third of its territory, honour required that it should be made known to the British."* The articles of the Treaty of Washington of 1871, relating to San Juan are as follows: ART. 34. Whereas it was stipulated by Article 1 of the Treaty concluded at Washington on the 15th of June, 1846, between the United States of America and Her Britannic Majesty, that the line of boundary between the territories of the United States and those of Her Britannic Majesty, from the point on the 49th parallel of north latitude up to which it had already been ascertained, should be contiuned westward along the said parallel of north latitude to the middle of the channel which separates the continent from Vancou ver's Island, and thence southerly along the middle of the said channel and of Fuca Strait to the Pacific Ocean; and, whereas, the Commissioners appointed by the two high contracting parties to determine that portion of the boundary which runs southerly through the middle of the channel aforesaid were unable to agree upon the same; and whereas the Government of Her Britannic Majesty claims that such boundary line should, under the terms of the Treaty aboverecited, be run through the Rosario Straits, and the Government of the United States claims that it should be run through the Canal De Haro, it is agreed that the respective claims of the Government of Grattan, Civ. America, p. 391. We cannot fail to observe that in all the treaties between England and the United States, the British Plenipotentiaries have been taken at a disadvantage by those of the United States; the latter, being well acquainted with the places and things concerning which they were treating, have uniformly succeeded in deceiving the British representatives, all more or less ignorant of the interests and resources of the Colonies. Hence the geographical errors and difficulties of interpretation contained in every treaty from that of 1783 to that of 1846; and no one should be surprised if the case is found to be the same in the Treaty of Washington of 1871. Since the signing of the Treaty an American official map has been discovered, showing that the United States have no right to San Juan Island. This map was published in 1848, and is entitled "Map of Oregon and Upper California, from the Survey of John Charles Fremont and other authorities; drawn by Charles Preuss under the order of the Senate of the United States, Washington City, 1848. Lithographed by Weber & Co., Baltimore." It is asserted that the American Government has called in and destroyed all the copies thereof obtainable. Her Britannic Majesty and of the Government of the United States shall be submitted to the arbitration and award of His Majesty the Emperor of Germany, who, having regard to the above-mentioned article of the said Treaty, shall decide thereupon finally and without appeal which of these claims is most in accordance with the true interpretation of the Treaty of June 15, 1846. All the articles from p. 35 to p. 42, inclusive, have reference to procedure only. VI. CONCLUDING REMARKS. Under those circumstances will the portion of the Treaty of Washington relating to the Fisheries and the Canals be ratified by the Provincial Legislatures? There is no room to doubt that Newfoundland, the greater part of whose coast is open to American fishermen by virtue of the Convention of 1818, and which consequently can only be benefitted by the Treaty (their fish not having been free of duty) will ratify it without delay. But Newfoundland cannot benefit by the Treaty until it has been ratified as provided for by Art. 33. With respect to Prince Edward's Island, if we may judge by the past policy of its Government, always hostile to that of the Dominion Government, the legislature of that Colony will also undoubtedly give its assent to it. The Executive Council declared on the 2nd September, 1870, as follows: * "Fairly stated, the old policy revived demands from the people of Prince Edward Island, the exclusion from their harbours of their best customers-customers who have employed the Colonial marine in importing salt for their use, the Colonial mechanics in manufacturing their barrels ; customers who have purchased their clothing, their provisions and their sea-stores in the Island markets. These men are to be expelled until the forty millions citizens of the United States succumb to the pressure put upon them by four millions of Colonists, and consent to concede reciprocity in exchange for free access to the fishing grounds and harbours of the Colonies." * What line of conduct will be followed by the Government of Canada? Let us interrogate the past and perhaps we may draw a conclusion as to the future. It must be admitted that the policy of the Dominion Government has hitherto been preeminently a national one. Correspondence between the Government of the Dominion and the Imperial Government on the subject of the Fisheries (1871) p. 53. Lord Granville, in a cable despatch to the Governor-General of Canada, dated the 6th of June, 1870, expressed "the hope that the United States fishermen will not be for the present prevented from fishing except within three miles of land or in bays which are less than six miles broad at the mouth."* Evidently the British Government wished to tolerate, for the time being, the pretensions of the United States in the headland dispute. The following answer was returned by the Government of Canada to this request: "Reference is particularly requested to Reports of the 15th and 20th of December last, in which the whole matter in question is fully set forth. The conclusions arrived at were,-that, as the American Government had voluntarily terminated the Treaty of 1854, and ever since failed to consider any propositions regarding an equivalent for our own in-shore fisheries, notwithstanding an intermediate license system which continued to United States citizens the same fishery privileges they had enjoyed under the Reciprocity Treaty, on merely formal conditions, all such concessions should be absolutely withdrawn and our rights duly enforced as they existed and were upheld anterior to that reciprocal compact." † The Minister of Marine in his official report ending 30th June, 1869, said: "The material worth and national importance to Canada of the coast and inshore fisheries in British American waters can scarcely be over-estimated. Their produce and control are of especial value to Nova Scotia, and that Province might reasonably expect from the union of Colonial interests some accession to the vigor and authority with which our exclusive fishery rights within treaty limits have been already maintained by the authorities of that Province. "The undersigned need not enlarge upon the vital and vast importance to the Dominion of Canada of a strict maintenance of those principles of maritime jurisdiction and rights of fishery derivable from the Parent State. Immense as is the intrinsic value of the exhaustless Fisheries which form so large a portion of our material resources, their rightful control and exclusive use possess a peculiar value and significance intimately connected with the new condition aud prospects of this country. The actual situation and future development of these inshore fisheries acquire, if possible, additional importance from the selection of a sea-board line of railway connecting the hitherto separated Provinces of the British North American . Confederation. 31. * Correspondence with the Government of the Dominion, &c., p. † Ibid, p. 30. "If these Provinces must in future depend more fully on their own resources and open new markets for their natural products, our attention cannot now be too soon turned to the development of our vast and valuable Fisheries. They should form the staple of an extensive and lucrative trade with foreign countries, and with the other British Colonies. They provide an important nursery for our seamen, and they afford an inexhaustible field for the skill and energy of our sea-board population. They possess a great and peculiar value to Canada. Their exclusive use, therefore, affords these united Provinces such advantages as a young country cannot too highly estimate, and should on no account neglect or abandon." Accordingly eight well equipped vessels were sent to the Gulf and Atlantic coasts in 1870, by the Government of Canada, to protect our Fisheries against the encroachments of foreign fisher men. Such was the language and the conduct of the Government in 1860 and 1870, and it is needless to add that it has been fully endorsed by the Canadian Parliament. Why should its policy not be to the same effect in 1871 ? It has been already stated by one of the honourable members of the Cabinet, the Hon. Mr. Langevin, that so soon as the Government of Canada heard that the Commission was about to give up the Fisheries for the small consideration mentioned in the Treaty, they protested energetically. The Honourable Minister added:"It will be for England to show to Canada what reasons and inducements there are for us, as a people, to ratify that portion of the Treaty relating to the Fisheries; but, in the meantime, Canada remains free to act, the Government of Canada is untrammelled. I say all the ministers, including the Prime Minister, remain free to act as the interests of Canada may require. Parliament will have the matter laid before it at its next Session, and the representatives of the people will be then in a position to say whether the reasons given by England for the ratification of that portion of the Treaty by us, are such as the true interests of Canada call for." * It has been asserted that the Government of Canada is bound to defend the Treaty, coute que coute, because the First Minister signed it. It is replied that he signed it under protest, and only to further the settlement of the Alabama claims.† We cannot conceal from ourselves, however, that the Honourable Premier's * Montreal Gazette, 15th June, 1867. |