."^-v

^^t.^-

IMAGE EVALUATION
TEST TARGET (MT-3)

{/.

1.0

1.1

U£ m |2.2

«* ..n li|2.0

11.25 i 1.4

1.6

^

/I

7

V

0/

w

Photographic

Sciences

Corporation

23 WIST MAIN STREET

WEBSTER, N.Y. MSSO

(716) 873-4503

k,

CIHM/ICMH

Microfiche

Series.

CIHM/ICMH
Collection de
microfiches.

Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques

€■■

f<S

-.

Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques

Th(
to

The Institute has attempted to obtain the best
original copy available for filming. Features of this
copy which may be bibliographically unique,
which may alter any of the images in the
reproduction, or which may significantly change
the usual method of filminp, are checlted below.

D

m

n

Coloured covers/
Couverture de couleur

r~~| Covers damaged/

Couverture endommagie

Covers restored and/or laminated/
Couverture restaurAe et/ou pelllculAe

Cover title missing/

Le titre de couverture manque

Coloured maps/

Cartes giographiques en couleur

Coloured init (i.e. other than blue or black)/
Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire)

I I Coloured plates and/or illustrations/

Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur

Bound with other material/
Relii avec d'autres documents

ry\ Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion

D

along interior margin/

La reliure serr6e peut causer de I'ombre ou de la

distortion le long de la marge intirieure

Blanif leaves added during restoration may
appear within the text. Whenever possible, these
have been omitted from filming/
II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajoutAes
lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte,
mais, lorsque cela Atait possible, ces pages n'ont
pas AtA filmies.

Additional comments:/
Commentaires supplAmentaires;

L'Institut a microfilm6 le meilleur exemplaire
qu'il lui a 6t6 possible de se procurer. Les details
de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-Atre uniques du
point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier
une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une
modification dans la mithode normale de filmage
sont indiqu6s ci-dessous.

□ Coloured pages/
Pages de couleur

□ Pages damaged/
Pages endommagAes

I I Pages restored and/or laminated/

D

Pages restauries et/ou pellicul6es

Pages discoloured, stained or foxet
Pages d6color6es, tacheties ou piquAes

Pages detached/
Pages ddtachies

Showthroughy
Transparence

Quality of prir

Qualiti inigale de I'lmpression

Includes supplementary materii
Comprend du materiel suppl^mentaire

Only edition available/
Seule Edition disponibic

Th.
poi
of
filn

Ori
be|
the
sio
oth
firs
sioi
or i

rri Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/

I I Pages detached/

r~~l Showthrough/

ryj Quality of print varies/

I I Includes supplementary material/

I — I Only edition available/

Thi
sha
TIN
wh

Ma
diff
ent
beg
righ
reqi
mel

Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata
slips, tissues, etc., have been refilrned to
ensure the best possible image/
Les pages totalement ou partiellement
obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une palure,
etc., ont Ati filmAes A nouveau de fapon d
obtenir la meilleure image possible.

This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/

Ce document est film* au taux de reduction indiqu* ci-dessous.

10X 14X 18X 22X

26X

30X

i/

12X

16X

20X

24X

28X

32X

ails

du

•difier

une

nage

The copy filmed here hat been reproduced thanks
to the generosity of:

Vancouver Public Library

The images appearing here are the best quality
possible considering the condition and legibility
of the original copy and in keeping with the
filming contract specifications.

Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed
beginning with the front cover and ending on
the last page with a printed or illustrated impres-
sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All
other original copies are filmed beginning on the
first page with a printed or illustrated impres-
sion, and ending on the last page with a printed
or illustrated impression.

The last recorded frame on each microfiche
shall contain the symbol — •> (meaning "CON-
TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"),
whichever applies.

Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at
different reduction ratios. Those too large to be
entirely included in one exposure are filmed
beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to
right and top to bottom, as many frames as
required. The following diagrams illustrate the
method:

L'exemplaire film* fut reproduit grAce A la
gAnArositA de:

Vancouver Public Library

Les images suivantes ont M reproduites avec le
plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition at
de la nettetA de l'exemplaire film*, et en
conformity avec les conditions du contrat de
filmage.

Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en
papier est imprimis sont filmis en commen^ant
par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la
derniAre page qui comporte une empreinte
d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second
plat, salon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires
originaux sont filmis en commengant par la
premiAre page qui comporte une empreinte
d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par
la dernidre page qui comporte une telle
empreinte.

Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la
derniire image de cheque microfiche, selon le
cas: le symbole -♦■ signifie "A SUIVRE ', le
symbole V signifie "FIN".

Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre
filmAs A des taux de reduction diffirents.
Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre
reproduit en un seul clich«, il est filmi A partir
de {'angle supArieur gauche, de gauche d droite,
et de haut en bas, en pren&nt ie nombre
d'images nicessaire. Les diagrammes suivants
illustrent la mithode.

rata
)

elure.

a

i2X

1

2

3

■

4

5

6

[This Document is the Property of Hei Britauiuc Mujesty'a Govemmoat

Printid/or the use of the Foreign Office. June 1899.

CONFIDENTIAL.
(7186.)

Part I.

CORRESPONDENCE

KESPBCTINa THE

PROCEEDINGS OF THE JOINT COMMISSION

FOR THE

SETTLEMENT OF QUESTIONS PENDING BETWEEN
THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA.

March 1898 to March 1899.

NW
TABLE OF CONTENTS,

Wo,

6

7

H

!l

10

II

12

13
14

15

16

17
18

19
30

Kame.

Sir J. I'aunoefotc

To Sir J. I'auncefote.
Sir J. Paunoefote

To Colonial OUioo ,
Mir J, Piiunopfote

Colonial Office

To Nir J, I'liunoefote.

Sir J. Piiuncefote

No.

Dktc.

SDBJKCr.

A6
Con&dential

P*«»

To Colonial Office .

Colonial Ollioe

To Sir .1. Pauneefote.

Oolouial Office

Sir J. Pauneefote

To »ir J. Pauucofote.
Sir J, Pauneefote

To Sir. I. Pauneefote.

i» II

91

April 1,

:)« Tel.

".

69 Tel.

1«.

76 Tel.

May 27,

Confidential
76 Tel,

Confidential

107 Tel.

186

187

Confidential

Confidential
1 1 :l Tel.

CoD6clential

:lfi Tel.

11.5 Tol.
211

llRTel.
117 Tel.

28,
31,

June 2,

2,

May 31,

31,

Jane II,

14.
13,

31,

28,

26,
17,

27,
' *29/ '

Mar. 10, 18S8 | Pronutal for a Mixed Cunimiiuiion t<i udjiut

■lifTereiicei! between United Statei and

Canada. Preaiden.: aoei) no objoelion, but

j eoicgettn iirvliininarjr inv<i«tiKatian . .

Prdiuiin.iry dincusaionii. Genernl Foatei and |
Mr. Kaiiron dcsignatril to condurl ..i

Pndiuiinary <ltM;uft.4ionii. List of Kubjecta pru- ,
IMited by Caiwda , . . . . . ,

Sae above. List n»y be oomniunicated to j
United .States' (iovemment . . !

Negotiations coninienced, with ussistuncc of
Sir L. Davifs. List of subjects being pre-
pared. President Mixious for five Conimis-
sionei^ on each bide. Has objected to so
htrge a number

Sends .\o. 5 for observations , . , ,

la sendiD); Prntuool of Conferences. Additions
to list of subjects. CommiBsiou to meet at
Quebec . ,

No objection to five on each side (see No. 5). .

InstruiUons as in No. H . .

Transuiitk Protocol uf Conforcncex containing
.Agreeini-nt for a .loint Commission, with
list of subjects. Other unsettled differences
can be a<ldeJ . . . . , .

Joint Couirairsion.
posals

Preaident concurs in pro-
Propoaes to ap-

iTnuismiu No*. 10 and II
prove

I Concurs in approval

Fonr Cuniniisbionvrs to lie nrnied by Canada !
and one by Great Britain . .

Lr>nl Hcrschcll has agreed to act. Names of
Canr ".an Commissioners. Kate pn>[Kised
for mcctini; should In: uscortained. Canadian
Memariindnm t>> Im sultmilted to Her
Jlajcfly'a (iovernmont. .

Conuiiis'<ion I<. meet at Quebt-c :it omi of .luly.
Names of .\merin\ns likely to be ap|>ointed

Approves Protocol in No. 10

Ontario Lun.lier .\ct. Note from Mr. Day
incloFin>! letter from Mi. Uirkenson and
^otl^rs, and sug^stin^ that Act should be I
i^ut^i pcndmg decisions of Joint Com-

' ' IinslN^ut^i pcndi

^jQAytriil K<»t<'r% ajipointment. N'l' 'ibjoction
•^' Mn.ke tukeuW'Viejv of cxplanati given.

• TMfd Wi'fAlfeft ^dd others will k appointed
High Commissioners .. .. ..

9
9

10

lU

II
11

II

17

[11?73

TABI.B Oy C0NTKNT8.

ti

Xo.

Name.

a

1

A

i-

SI

33
94

35

Quection askeil in the
HuuM uf ('omi-iona
(Mr. DaviU)

Sir J . I'auDcefute

To Colonial Office

No.

312

IHte.

37
38

3«
30

31

33

33

34

35

36

38
89

ColoDisI Oftiee . . IConfitlential

To Colunial Office
Sir J. Pauncefote

221

To Trmnay ..

To Sir ./. rauiioefote. . ; 121 TeL

I

„ .. 122 Tel.

123 Tel
Confidential

Coloni&l OfKce

Sir J. ntuncefote

To Hi^li Commia-
■ionen

Coloaial OCSoe

Coiifidentiali

Its TeL

Tr««»ury ..
Colooial Office

July 1, IHgK
Jane 31,

July 6,

fi,
6,

7,

9,
4,

18,
17,

18,

18,

18,

19,

19.

19,
19,

CunfiilontiRJ

19,

16,

Subject.

>•«•

Qiieation in Parliament as to namee of Com-

inimionera, Jn;. . , 1 7

Ontariii Linnber Act. Ittimimly lins with i
Vuierican I<e);i!ilaturi', who should be uri;ed
to r«|>cal import duty (»ee No. 18) ... 17

Ontario Lumber .Vot. SemU So. IH. Wluit I
annwnr t .. .. ., ..I 18

i

Nutiti>'nii|i|i<>intment of British CommiraionorH |
and Secretary . . . . i 18

Full Htiiteuicnt cjf t'.intidiuu viiiws hiis IioiHi

dispatched from >)ttawa (see No. 1)9) . . lU

Nowfoundlund DidoKates protest against .a
negotiation on Atlantic lishurie:!' nuostion
in wlntdi ihey are not r<?pre.sente<l. Pro-
posed telegram to l':in!idii ,. 19

Concurs in propoieil telegnm (nee Xo. 2R) .. 21

Approval of Prutouul Man informed United |
States' Oovomment (see No. 17). . . . ' 33

1 For sanction of Vjord Herschell's expense!* . . 22

Newfoundland. I'rojioses to np|ioint .Sir J.

Winter as sixt'i Commissioner (see No. 2n) 23

Lord Herschell will start tli" 2()th .luly. \o ;
ohjeetion to postponing meeting for a few
ilays. Instructions to British ConiMiisBionerk \
ivill |,c cnnimnnicated to Uiiiteil States' [
Ooverinncnt . . . . . 23

Nei^ouudland. Sir .1. Winter, if appointed,
would only doiii with Tariff ui d fisheries.
Her Majesty's fiovernmeiit wo ild vonsout
tp a ilixth j\nio;'ican Commisaionerif desired
(see .\o, 30) , . .. .. . . 23

Alaska bouni. ry. Ciiiiidian objection to the

terms of American assent to proposed pro-

1 visional boundary. Sti;jge-.ts that officers

j on both nidcH >'iould not advance beyond

I imsitions now hold . . . . . . •)■(

Ncwfounilland. PropoMil in No. .U) agreed

to by I'niteil States' (inveriiinent .. 24

Transmits full powers. ()li.'<erv;itions cm the
subjects mentioned in the Protocol of tho
301^1 .May . . . . . . . . 24

Ontario Liiudur \ct. Keply to No. 2.'1 . . 31

Alaska boundary. Canailinn (Jovennuent
susifost -,1 prorisional iirrans^nient fir
maintenance of .sM<n.! quo. V line alon:^
the passes or the watershed between the
rivers flowin-; into Tiiiyii I.det and the'
tributaries of tli" Yukim would lie sat'*-'
factory . . . . . ■ .ll

Lonl Heiwheir.< Missiiui. fSanctioiu ctiarfio I
of i-xpcnset (see No. 20) ., ..'33

Views of Canadian Oovernment ou the I
ijuestions referred to the .Joint Couimiaaioa 33

21547B

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS.

No.

JVamv.

Na

Date.

Hvattot.

ftHJ»

40

Colunial Office

• •

.Inly 21, imm

Newfoundland. SiiKKO'ta tliat a Coiiiniigaion
slioiilil lie giren to Sir .1. Winter, ami aup-
pleiiivntary inatrurtinim ia«uml to iitlipr
CouiniisaionerH

37

41

Sir J. PftuoccfoUi ..

96 Tel.

21,

Meetinv of Comuiiaiiion. Tlie lOtb Au^uat ii
the date now propoaod. Appointment of
Mr. Cuolidge aa i.ixtli American (Tom-
niissioner

38

42

To Colonial OHicf . .

• •

81,

Mr. Coolidge'a appointment. It la unneecaaary
to limit Sir J. Winter'a fiinotiona

38

43

Sir J. PaancvfaU-

08 Tol.

22.

American Conmiimioncra propose to publiali
livt of Mubjecta

3H

44

To Sir J. Pnunccfote. .

191

22,

Tranamita inattuctiuna given to Britiitb Cnra-
miaaionera (e»>c -No. M), for communi-
cation to United .Statoa' Ouvenimcnt. To
aak for American inatruotiona or Mcmo-
mndum

89

4ft

To Colonial Office . .

"

32,

Tranamita iuatructiona. wliioli will be commu-
nioated to United iStatea' Gnvemmeut

39

46

To Treaanry

• •

23.

One of tliu Hecretariea of Ilor Majeaty'a Em-
baaay to be attached to Lord Ileracholl.
For aunction of travelling and aubaiatence
exi)cnsc8

39

47

Colonial Office

1

28,

Newfoundland. Concura in not limiting Sir J.
Wintcr'a functiona, but he ahnuld be told to
aupport other Commisaioncra on questions
not aH'ecting Newfoundland (sec \o. 12) ..

40

4H
49
50
51

52

53
54

56

56
67
58

69

60

CI

Sir .1. Paunccfoto

!)9 Tel.

To Sir J. Pauncefote. . , V2H Tel. j
^Confidential;

To Colonial Office ..
Sir J. Pauncefotc

To Sir J. Piiuneefote. .

Coloniul Office
Treaaury . .

To High Commis-
aioncra

Sir J. Pannccfote

To Sir .1. Pnunoefote. .

To Colonial Office ..

Colonial Office, ..

Sir J. Paancefote

100 TeL

131 Tel.

2;io
132 Tel.

104 Tel.

427

25,

26,
27,

27.

27.

27,

28,

18,
29,
30,

Aug. H,
»,

2,

Meeting of Commiaaion. la the 10th Anguat
agreed to (aee No. 41)? .. .. 40

Newfoundland. .Substance of No. 47 40

Liat of subjects. Americans want to publiah !
(aee No. 43) .. .. .. ..] 40

Meeting of Commiaaiuu. Sir J. Winter cannot
reach Quebec liefore the 14tli August. :
Canuilian Government suggest the 20th
August as date of meeting .. ..! 41

Liat of subjects. No objection to publication
(aee No. 50) . . . . . . . . 41

List of subjects may be published .. . . 41

Sanctiunr charge of Secrctary'n exi>cii8c8 (>ev I
No. 4B) . . . . : 41

I

Newfoundland. Appointmentof Sir J. Winter '
Transmits full power . . . . . . , 42

Names of American Commissioners . , 4S

Secretary's expeusea sanctioned (see No. 54). . 43

Newfoundland. Supplouientary instructiona

(aeeNo. S.")) .. .. .. ..'13

Meeting of Commisaion fixed for the 23rd |
August . . . . . . , . ' 43

Lor<l Herechell gone to Paoific coast. Meeting
postponed till the 23rd August. Mr. Tower
to bo attached (see No. 57) . .

Acknowledges No. 44 ,. .. ..

TABLE OF OONTENTH.

rr

'»d.

Nune.

No.

Date.

Hdbjbct.

P-B»

62

Colonlkl Office

••

Ang. 17, 1898

Mr. BoDram recommended aa CMMlian
Secretary to Commiuion

44

63

To OoIobUI Offlee ..

..

18,

Conoura in Mr. Bouraaaa'a appointment A

45

04

Sir J. Pnnncefote

i

840

«

«,

United States' Memorandum. Tranamita
oopiea. It will oonatitnte iiutructiona to
Commiaaionen (aee No. 44) . . .'.

46

65

To High Commii-
rionna

3

19,

Trmnimit< Memorial from Canadian aealere . .

48

'66

Coloi-iM Office

1
»
109 TeL

t

S3,

Cattlc-brandine. Canadian Oovemment an
being conaulted na to referring quoation to
Comiiiiaaion .. .'.

48

67

Bir J. PMrneafote . .
1

24,

Ontorio Lumber Act (aee \oa. IH and 22).
Secretary of State aaka for reply to hia
reqneat tliat applioition of Act to prior
contraeta ahonlil l»< auapcnd(<l . . . '.

49

68

To Sir J. Paanoeiote. .

144 Tel.

95,

Ontario Lumber .\ct. What is the purport of
the Canadian Minute referred to in No. 67 ^

49

69

Colonia! Office

••

86,

Cattle-branding. Matter to be referred to
Comraiaaion (aee No. 86)

49

70

To Sir J. Pauooefote,.

143 Tel.

w.

Cattle-branding. 8aoii< aa above . .

50

71

To CokHiial Office ..

••

31,

OnUrio Lumber .\ot. Should Canadian
Minute be communicated to United Statea'
OoTernment (see No. 68) ?

50

72

LordHerwhcll

1
Saeiet

22,

Naval veeaela on Great Lakea. Suggeett
modification of tlio Arrangement of 1817,
by conceaaiona aa to sbipbuilding. .

50

73

Colonial Office

Sept 3,

Ontario Lumber Act. Canailiari Government
cannot interfere. Government uf Ontario
might aend ilolocate to diacusa matter at
QiMec Canadian Minute ahould be eom-
mnnicated (ace Na 71 )

52

74

To Colonial Office . .

Confidential

5,

Naval veespla on Great Lakea. Tmnsmita
No. 72 for obaenatlona

57

78

To Sir J. Pauncefoto. .

151 Tel.

6,

Ontario Lumber Act. To communicate Minute
(aee No. 7:i) .

58

76

To Colonial Office . .

••

7,

Ontario Lumber Act. C'uncura in euggcation
reapecting Delegate from Ontario in No. 73

58

77

Sir J. Panneefote

1

368

1

Aug. 39,

Clainia of "Wanderer," "Favourite," and
" Kate." Matter referred to American
Commigaionera for their conaideration, and
for auoh action as the I'ommiaaion may deem
competent

58

78

Lord Heraohell

1
i

2

I
1

29,

Proceedings "( ConimiMion. Diecusaiou of
Alien Labour Lnwa, Miniiij; Ke^ulations,
CunveyanceiifPrieouera.Boundnries, Wreck-
ing Biid Sal age. (.'oiiverasition with Mr.
Fairlianka. Viewa of Proaidcnt. British
trmie with Porto Kico . .

58

79

** (1 • •

3

29,

Naval vcsaela on Great Lakea. Diacuaaion in
Commiaaion . .

61

80

Iutellig«nco Uivinon
(Wnr Office)

••

Sept. 10,

Naval veaaela on Great Lakea. No. 72 ahould
bo referi-eil to Colonial Defence Committee

62

81

Lord Herwhell

4

2,

Proceedings of Conmiisaion. DIacussion of
Behring Sea <|uestion, Atlantic fiaheriea, and
.Maskft boundary

63

[1127]

TABLE OP C0NTBNT8.

No.
H2
83

84

8S

8r>

87

88
89

go

91

92
93

94
95

96
97
98
99

Nanie.

Coluniiil OlfiM
Sir J> PsuL'sefute

Colonial Ottiou

To Lord Hersohell
Colooiiil Ofl1o<i

Sir J. Fauuoefote

War Office. .

Ixiril Ilornchell
Sir J. I'auiKflfoto

Lord Ucnciioll

Colonial Office
Sir J. Pauncefote

To Colonial Office
Lord Hersohell

No.

f* M

l» »»

Colonial Office

261

Secret

1 Tel.

Sociat

203

Secret

26.i

26'J

Date.

9
Confidential

10

Sept. U. IH'.I8
tt,

19,

19.

21.

IB.

23,
20,
22.

23,

Oct. 6,

Sept. 26,

Oct. U),
Sept. 30.

Oct. 10,
11,
11,

22,

MUUKCT.

Onturio Lumber Act. Prime Minister of
Ontarii. I>a« heen invited tii go to Quebec . .

Ontiiriu Lninber Act. Traiumitu Mr. I)a^*
luile i-oferred to in >.'o. (17. Canadian
Minute bill l>een ruinmunicntoti (aee Nn. 7'^)

Niivnl veamlii i.n Qreut Lake*. Traniniitii
Mcniamndum of Olonial Defence Com-
mittee (MO Not. 72 and 79)

Naval vcwIm uii Great LakeA.
riiC(imiiieii(liition« in No, 84

Subatanco of

Paga

\iiviil vcisi'ln on Oieal Lakes. War Office
rcgrot ui'ooMity <A nuxlifyinx tho Agree-
ment, but cononr in course recommended
by Colonial Defence Conimitteo . . ..

Cuttlo-branding. Trananiitii Canadian Minute
in reply to HUggcationD of United Stutea'
Oovernmont . .

Naval vcsselii on Oreal Lukes.
Mcniomndiim in No. m

Concurs in

Proceedings of Commission. Discussion re-
»|)ecting Transit Privileges ami Keciprocity

Ontario Lunilrer Act. .Mr. Uay ask* for sus-
liension of it until Comniisiion comes to a
decision (nee No. K.'l) ..

Proceedings of Co-nniisaion. Ci «» of
" Wiindcrcr " and " Favourite." List of
Committees . .

Ontnrio Luiiilior Act. Memorandum by
Ontario A ttornoy-Oenoral

Ontario Lumber Act. <!anailiaM Miuuto com-
municated to United States' Oovernraent
(sec No. '.)2) . .

Ontario Luniljer Act.
Nr.. '.l()»

What answer to

Proceedings of Commission. Claims of
" W.inileror " und "Favourite." Convey-
ance iif prisoners. Transmits American
Meinomn<liim on Alaska boundary, and
ilraft Artioles resiiecting Wrecking and
l^alvuge a'.ul Mining rights

Proceedings of Commission. Transmits ilraft
Artioles respecting .Mien Lnbonrand Inland
Fisheries. Statement with rcgaril to Boun-
dary west of Lake Superior

Proceedings of Commission. Keview of work
done, iJiowing present position of each
question. Trusts Iwstter progress will be
made on meeting again at Washington

.Sauctioi! of Colonial Legislatures. Asks for
iiistinctions as to whether the Treaty
eventually framed should ho made subject
to . .

Ontario LumWr Act. Transmit* correspon-
ilcnce with Canailian Government. N't
iiistnictions should bo sent pending reply
from Canada. .

6H

69

70
72

73

73
74

74

76

77
79

HI
81

82
94
98
101
102

TAIILC OF CONIKNTS.

tU

No.

Suae.

.No.

Dale.

Hl.lUWT.

P.ge

100

To ColoniiJ Offlco . .

••

Oct. Jfi, 18!)8

PriKjiwIings of Cominiiwion. TrannniitM
No. "4. I'r<>|H)iHW til loare final form of
Article on WrerkinK and Salva)^ tn Uird
Hi'racheirH diirrelion

104

lot

Colonial Offlr«

••

Not. 1 .

.Mii-n Laliour I.iiw. Canadiiin Oiivcrmnunt
claim ciimpeuMttiiin for threo lahourori! wlii>
ware refuw>d adminion tn Uniteil StatCH . .

10.1

102

» It

Confidential

7,

Views upon No. 98 na In amotion of CnKiniol
Ij4'gi8lfttiires . .

107

103

To Lord Hrraehcll . .

5

7.

Procwdiiijrj of Cniiiiiiioinon. He|ily to No. 98.
Fully tt(>rce« in views ('xpreiscil . .

107

104

Colonial Offieo

ConSdential

7,

Proceedin(;>i of (Vminiiniun. Conoura in lear-
ing Conveyance of Prinoncr* iiml Wreekini;
and Hulvage !<► l..ird llorwIicUV dincretion.
Transmit- Law (JtBiers' Keport of 1HH6
with regard to Atlantic llfliories (nee No. il7)

108

10«

To Sir J. Pauncofote. .

27:t

8,

Alien Lalwiur Law. To consult L<M'd HorMcliell
on -No. 1111 and present claim if there is no
objection

108

106

Lord Henohell

11

2.

Naval viasela on Oreat Lakes. United
Statcn' tloveninient have po^tpoMc<1 sending
" Frolic " to Chicago . .

109

10?

To Unl HerNhell ..

6

18.

itenctinn nf Colonial Legialaturet. Hon con-
curre<l in opinion that Article XXXII 1 nf
the Treaty o( 1871 would form a prccoilcnt
(sec \o8. H)2 and 1(13)

109

108

To Colonial Office . .

••

19.

Sanction of tVlonial Legialatures. Concum
a> to Article XXXIII of Treaty of 1871.
Tranamita No. 103

110

lOU

To Lord Heruhell ..

7

16,

ProcoedingH of Commi«aion. Leavea full dig-
cretinn »a to Conveyance of Prisonere and
Wrecking and Salvage. .

o.

110

*} J»

8

18,

Atlantic finhericd. Transmits Law Ofilcers'
Keiwrt (see No. 104) ..

Ill

111

Sir J. Paunoefot©

2i»G

a,

Naval veaaeU on Great Lakes. Keports coae
or"Frolic''(8ooNo. lot))

111

11'2

To Sir J. Pauncefote. .

287

24,

Approves steps reported in No. Ill

111

113

Lord Horsohell

12

23,

Proceedings of Coramissiini. Discussion re-
specting boundary in Pa«Hamai|Uoddy Day.

112

lU

i» » • •

13

25,

I'roceedings of Commission. Kopons iliscus-
siona respecting .Vtlantic fisheries. Con-
versation with I'residcnt McKinley on the
<|UC»tion of the Tarifl' , ,

115

115

« n

14
Secret

Dec. 2,

Naval vessels on (ireat Lakes. Koports
negotiations in Committee, and transmits
rough draft of Article for approval

117

116

To Colonial Office . .

Confidential

12,

Proceedings of Conmiiesion. Proposes to ap-
prove Lord Herschell's langiuige with regard
to Atlantic fisheries in Xo. 111..

12(1

117

f» n ••

16,

Naval vessels on Great Lakes. Suggests that
Xo. 11.5 should bo laiil before Colonial
Defence Committee

120

118

Colonial Office

Confidential

19,

Atlantic fisheries. Concurs in approving Lord
Ilerscliell . . . .

121

[1127]

▼iii

TABLE OF CONTBNT8.

No.

Manit).

no Sir J. I'liiiucefoto

120

123

12»
124

125

126
127

128
I'jy

130

131

132

133

134

135
136

Colnnliil Cffioe

To Loril ileraefaell .
To Sir .1. Paiinoerote.

To Lord Honehell .
Lord Heracholl

SSir J. I'aiiiiceft>to

To Colonial Office .
To Sir J. Pftunccfote.

Colonial Office
Board of Trado

To Colonial Office .

To Lord Herscliell .

Iiord Hcrsclioll

To Colonial Office
Sir J. Pnunocrote

To Colonial Office ,
Colonial Oitice

No.

Date.

333

Coufldontikl

2 Tel.

:I13

10
15

3:1
Treaty

CoiiHdentiiil

2 Tel.

Dm. 1*1, I HUH

•«,

Telegniphic

Confidential
!»TeI.

Coniidoutial

SuiukGT.

2«,

30,
22,

22,

Jan. 3, 189U
4,

18,

20,

21,
28,

25,
25,

Onturlu LiiiiilHir Ac'.. Cuiiudlnn Government
Imvc nci warrant for intt-rfurlnK. Han (<ivon
llii'ii .Minuto III Lunl lli'rsi'hell, and will
not cnniniuuicttto it »t pniwnt tn ITnltnd
Stutrx' UovcninionI

Naval vowiola uu Oruul Lak<w. (,'oloniul Ue-
fcnci' ( '(iminittco .ipprovu prupoted Article
(nccNo. 115). .

Naval veawla un (Ireat Lakim. Aniericab
proposal may Ihi accepted

OnUtriiil.iinilii'i Alt. ('uiia<liiin .MciMiirundiim
a|i|N'ar» t>> l>u Idciiticiil with tliwii ulroady
conimuiiioiitud to United Statci' OoTommont
(net' \«. Il'.l)

»••««

Arn's! of T, Mraglier on Kivor .Si. Clair.
TraiiBniitu currespondcuco. .Sugg0fit» refer-
ence to Comraiseion

Transiniln No. 124. Vropoios to approve
Lord Hcmclioll . . • •

.ArrcBl of Meaglicr. Ciimidiiui Mcnionuidum
should lie preDontod to Unitt-d Stntos'
OovcriimenI, who nhould be aakod to drop
tk proaecution iind refer the matter to the
Commimion . .

Arresi of Meagher. Viewx upon the ca«o and
as to what nhould he done

Claytii.i-Hulwer Treaty. Aske for purtiouIrirH
as to modificulions dcKirod hy Uniteil Suites'
Government . . . .

Arroet of Moa^ber. Transmits Not. 125 and
127. Proposes to awiiit result of Sir J.
Pauiicefote s action

ProeocdingH of Commia.tion. .\pprovefi letter
to Mr. Fairbanks, and languago to the
President (sec No. 1'24) ..

Atlantic fisheries. Suggests that selection of
Umpire should l>e left to French, Swiss, and
Kelgian .ludges

Trausmito N". 1 "i2, for obaorvatious

,\ri«8t of Meagher. Ho vrlU be released.

Refrrcl expressed

Arrest of Meagher. Transmits No. 134.
Proposes to ii.wait receipt of Sir J. I'auncc-
foto s despatch, and of the views of Canadian
Qovornment , .

Atlantic fisheriee. Doubts whether Lord
Horsobell's plar. would bo satii lictory to
Canada. Suggests that Arbitrator should
be nominated by a maritime State (see
No. 1.32)

121

121

122

133

Atlantic flshcries. Approves language to

,Mr. Fairlwnksiu No. 1 1 1 .. ..,122

Proci-edings nf Coiuuiissiou. Tronsmits letter
to Mr. Fairbanks ri'S|K!cting .\tlnnlie
lisberios, Heliring Hea. and Alaska tjo
dory, with iMomorandu exchanged on this
lost i|ue8tion. Interview with President
McKinley

1'23

134
I4&

146

140

146

147

147

148
148

M8
149

140

TABLl OV UONTKKTI.

Sxr

No

Name.

137
l:)H

140
141

142

,Tii l.or<l HsrMbaU
Lo^l Hrrwhell

To Colonial OfBec
Sir J. P^uiiccfote

Colonial Oflion

To Lord HkhioIhiU ..

1T.I.
Teliigr»|ihiii

143 Lorl Hnraohell . . ,Tul«i|rr»|>uia

144

US

146

No.

l)»to.

SrWECT.

Jm. iT, 1H»9 AtlauUe IWioriw. Hiitwtnnc* of No. 187

Conflilontial Fab.
.|U Jan.

30,

I,

•i3,

ConOilontial i' >• 1,

fl T»l.

To UrJ Horachell .. .1 Tel

To Sir J. Pauucofote. . .17

Lord Haracholl

147 Que.4tiou iiiike<l in the
House iif Common!
(Dr. Tanner)

148

149

150

ISl

Ii2

153
154

Lord Hemclioll

Telograpluo

. Tole^raphio

Question nakud in the
House of Commoni)
(Mr. Ualiiol)

Lord HerKchell

Sir J. Paunceibte

Lord Horscliell
Sir J. Faunoofote

16 Tel.

69

I9>

14.

16,

17,
21,

21,

2.1,

n,

27,

24,
25,

Atlantic fi.ihorie«. Hifficuliy of .i^rceiug on
.my Movorpign 4« .Arliilratnr. ''anadlana
iipiirovi' kia plan. Would Imi gM lo n-
oeive any other na^Kentiniu («e« N«. I3n) ..

Traniinilii iiliovc. What an-wor ' . .

Arrant of .Meagher. TraiiamiU Mr. liay'x |
I note («o«' No. 13.1)

Atlantir flaheriaa. Kurther objeeiioiu to
Lord llir-^'hi-ll'i plan for winning an Arhi-
' tnilor, liut will not pri">i Iheno viown if
ranailian" approvi- ;«« No IIS)

HBb«(ani u of No. Ill

Alwkii Imiindaiy. C'riai-i approsiching. Ini-
poKsililc tn get 4u an.i«rer aa to whethrr the
wholo ([nieti'iD »horild \,r rnfernd to iirl'i-
tration. Bi'liivn* ue;,'otiiitioim will hnvt- to
he hrokru off. . . •

Alnxka houmlary. f'abini-t agree that ho
should have antbority to brB«k off nego- ^

tia'ims .. .. . ' 1

Abi-ka Ixiunuaiy. Convenmtlon with .Mr.
Whitv. If nej-otiaiions are broken off,
nothing' ran l><) ilonn about Cayton-Biilwor
Ireaty

, . . 1

Proceeding" of Commiaaioii. Nogotiations on

Recipriwity ,uid .\thuitii- FiBhorier. Trana- |

niitf draft ".Vrticlet. for »ettl>'.nent ,if AlaaKa '

boimd.iry and Behring S»»a .|ue»tion«.

(Jannot feci sun- rf a eucccasfal issue

Answer : " Negotiationa are »till proceeding '.

Procctidings of Commiuion. Failure to agree ]
upon reference to urlitration "f Maskn
Injuudjiry question. Coinmissioa hab ad- ;
journo<l till the '2nd Auguat . . . .

Ailjournincnt of Commission. Text of offloial
sliitemcnt given to the preas

PllKt
149

150
I. to

ISl

151

Its

152

153

153

153
162

IH'J

163

Answer :
papcr.i

It will not be potaibla to lay I

163

.\laskii honndiiry. Transnii'.'" document* ox- j
cliiiiiKi'd with Mr. Fairluinks. .\mcrican
Conimi«si<>ner» finally said arbitration ;
might bo arranged. \ projKjmd lased on ;
the Treaty with Veneinela has therefore j
been submitteil . . • . • • j

Arrest of Mcaglier. Canadian Govornmcnt
Imvu exprcsseil tlicir entire .Hatisfuetion at
American reply (see Xo. 140) . .

Alaska Iwuintary. Final proceedings of Com-
mission. Reasons for adjournment . 177

Arrosi of Meagher. Transmits Lord Minto'a
ilespatch. .Substance ooramunicattd to Mr. I
Hny(5ce .\o. loi!) .. .. ..187

164

'77

TABLE OF CONTENTS.

No.

Name.

No.

Date.

SuBJKcr.
f

Pago

165

Mr. Cartwriglit

4

Coofidentia]

Mar. ;!, 1H99

Tninniiiitf' documents to complete llic record
of tlie negotiations

187

156

)? If • •

6

a,

Transmits statement (if act« of oocupalinn on
wliicli the .American Government rely in
order toestiiblisli their clnini to tcrrilory on
the Lynn Canal

200

157

Question aske.l in the
House of Commons
(Mr. Bowles)

••

H,

Answer : " No steps havo, as yet, been taken
for the appointment of Lord Herschell's
successor " , . « • , , , ,

206

158

Colonial Office

Confidential

21,

Canadian Government nek for copy of Lord
Herschell's last Rojiort. I'mposcs to say
that it will be sent, but that it must tie
treated as confidential . .

207

159

To Colonial Office ..

Confidential

23,

tConcurs in answer to Lord Mint" (see
. No. 158)

207

IfiO

Memoraniluni by Mr.
Cartwrigbt

25,

Position nf all the (jueetions before the Com-
mission at the time of the adjournment on
the 2nth February Praft Articles nn
Mining Rights and Boundaries west of
Lake Superior

208

IBI

Memorandum by Mr.
Cartwrigbt

Confidential

27,

Remarks on : Naval vessels on Orcat Lakes,
Fur Seals in Behring Sea, and Alaska
boundary

214

Printed for the use of the Foreign Office. June 1899.

CONFIDENTIAL.

Correspondence respecting the Proceedings of the Joint Com-
mission for the Settlement of Questions pending between the
United States and Canada.

Part I.

No. 1.

■SiV J. Paunce/oie to the Marquess of Salisbury. — (^Received March 19.)

(No. 56. Confidential.)

My Lord, Washington, March 10, 1898.

I HAVE the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your Lordship's telegram
No. 15 of the Ist instant, inquiring whether I could give some idea of the yearly sum
which the United States' Grovemment might be disposed to pay for the suspension of
pelagic sealing, in the event of a suggestion which I had ventured to mate for a
settlement of the fur-seal question on that hasis being entertained.

Shortly after the receipt of that inquiry, I took the opportunity of a private con-
versation with General Foster to discuss with him the possibility of such a solution.
I found him as much opposed to it as to every other proposal which has yet been
made. The main objection, in his view, was that other nations, and especially Russia
and Japan, might immediately claim a similar money conipen nation for their abstention
from pelagic sealing. I pointed out the extreme improbability of such a claim, and
urged, moreover, that such a remote contingency miglit be met by a power on either
side to terminate the agreement on reasonable notice. But I failed to convert him to
my view, and I do not think that there is much prospect of any amicable arrangement
so long as he is intrusted by his Government with the management of their fur-seal
negotiat'ons.

I subsequently availetl myself of the occasion of presenting General Gascoigne
(commanding the Canitdian Militia) at the White House, to converse with the
President on the subject, and generally, on the desirability of appointing a Mixed
Commission who should endeavour to adjust the various questions in difference
between the United States and Canada. Such a Commission, I observed, would be
sitting now had not General Foster insisted on an impracticable condition, namely, the
immediate suspension of pelagic sealing.

The President expressed the most earnest desire to facilitate the settlement of all
those qi;estious, ai^d especially those which related to the development of the gold
mining industry in the Valley of the Yukon, and to the reciprocal facilities which
should be granted by both countries for that purpose in the interest of civilization. As
to the suggested settlement of the fur-soaji question by means of a money payment, he
saw no objection to it in principjo. and-', jf.a". Missed Commission were appointed it
might bo charged to end'cflyour to lyprX out tiijvt scheme failing any other solution.
.But he thought it useless t<) convene, a Mixed Commission until a preliminarj'
investigation had taken pl.ici', witli a viow;,t'o;.f)rriViilf; ;i<, a liasis of arrangement after n,
careful examination of thc'vnHoiis. eom'pMiils* hhtV rf;quirements on both Kitlos. He
iiuaUy proj)osed that I should myself enter upon such preliminary investigation with
[1127] B

2

Mr. Kasson, the United States' Reciprocity Commissioner, and Mr. Day, the Assistant
Secretary of State.

The effect of that arrangement would be to transfer the negotiation from the Fva-
seal Commissioner to the Reciprocity Commissioner, and to let the fur-seal question
rest until revived by the Mixed Commission, should they be fortunate enough to agree
upon some adequate compensation for the suspension by Canada of the national right
01 pelagic sealing.

I did not discourage the idea of such preliminary investigation, as if conducted
with projjer assistance from Canadian Delegates it would probably be as efEective as a
formal Commission. I therefore thanked the President for his suggestion, and said
that I would communicate it to your Lordship.

It is not possible to estimate tlie amount of pecuniary compensation which the
United States would be willing to give for the suspension of pelagic sealing. That
amount would have to be settled by the Mixed' Commission or by arbitration, and,
provided the principle of monetary compensation be accepted, I believe there would he
no difficulty in getting the necessary appropriation from Congress.

T JinvP &C

(Signed) ' JULLVN PAUNCEFOTE.

No. 2.

Sir J, Pauncefote to the Marquess of Salisbury. — {Received April 11.)

(No. 91.)

My Lord, Washington, April 1, 1898,

I HAVE the liouour to report that, upon receipt of your Lordship's telegram
No. 28 of the 23rd ultimo, I addressed a note to the United States' Secretary of State,
copy inclosed, stating the decision of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the
proposed discussion for the revision of the Behring Sea Regulations, and also respecting
the suggestion of a preliminary discussion of the questions at issue between Canada
and the United States.

I have now received a reply from the Acting Secretary of State, Mr. Day, copy of
which I also inclose.

Mr. Day states that " it will be a source of great satisfaction to the United States'
Government " if, " by the pursuance of the methods proposed, all the relations of the
Unitetl States with the neighbouring Dominion can be established on a just and
mutually tulvantageous basis, which shall promote alike their prosperity and their
concord."

Tlie Ilonourable J. W. Foster is desigi\ated to conduct, on the part of the United
States, the discussion respecting the revision of the Behring Sea Regulations, and the
Honourable John A. Kasson to conduct that respecting the other questions between
Canada and the United States, it being agreed that both discussions shall proceed
pari passu.

I have, &c.
(Signed) JULLIN PAUNCEFOTE.

Inclosure 1 in No. 2.
Sir J. Pauncefote to Mr, Sherman.

Sir, Washinyton, March 20, 1898.

I HAVE the honour to state that 1 transmitted, ivithout delay, to my Govern-
ment a copy of your note of the Ist instant, in which you urge that an arrangement
be agreed upon with as little delay as possible for the revision Of the Seal Fishery
Regulations prescribed under the Award of the Behruig Sea Arbitration Tribunal.

I also informed my Government of the suggestion made in the course of my
conversation at the State Department oh tlic subjp.et of a Mixed Commission for a
settlement of questions at issue between Cunadi and the United States, that it might
be desirable to hold a preliminary discussion of those questions with a view to arrivmg
at a basis of arrangement which would justify the assembling of a formal Commission.
I added that it would seem important that both discussions, though conducted
separately, should proceed pari passu.

8

It affords mc much gratification to iuform you tliat I have now received a
telegram from the Marquess of Salisbury, to the effect that Her Majesty's Government
agree to a discussion for the revision of the Behring Sea Regulations, and that the
Canadian Minister of Marine will bo associated with me for the purpose. Purther,
that Iler Majesty's Government also gladly accede to the suggestion for a prclimiuary
discussion of questions at issue between Canada and the United States, for wliich
purpose a Canadian Delegate will be sent to Washington to assist me.

Her Majesty's Government concur in my suggestion that the two discussions
should take place pari passu.

On learning when your Covomment is prepared to proceed as above, I will
communicate with -the Governor-General of Canada with a view to fixing the date for
the arrival of the Minister of Marine and of the Canadian Delegate.

I have, &c.

(Signed)'

JULIAN PAUXCEFOTE.

Inclosure 2 in No. 2.
Mr. Day to Sir .J. Paiincefote.

Excellency, Washington, March 30, 1898.

I HAVE the honour to acknowledge the reception of your Excellency's note of
the 26th instant, in which, after referring to your previous conversation at the Dt,,.;i't-
ment of State, you advise me that Her Majesty's Government agreo to a discussion
for the revision of the Behring Sea B;egulations, in respect to which the Canadian
Minister of Marine will bo associated with you. You were also pleased to iuform
me that Her Majesty's Government accede to the suggestion for a preliminary
discussion of the questions at issue between Canada and the United States, for winch
jjurpose a Canadian Delegate will be sent to Washington to assist you. You f urtlier
suggest, on the part of your Government, that the two discussions should take place
pari passu.

It will be a source of great satisfaction to this Government if, by the pursuance
of the methods proposed, all the relations of the United States with the neighbouring
Dominion can be established on a just and mutually advantageous basis, which shall
promote alike their prosperity and their concord.

To facilitate this result the President has designated tlie Honourable Jolm W.
Poster to conduct, on the part of the United States, the discussion respecting the
revision of the Bchiing Sea Regulations, and the Honourable John A. Kasson to
conduct the discussion respecting the other questions at issue between Canada and the
United States.

In respect to the date for the convenient arrival of the respective Canadian
Representatives, I beg you will put yourself in communication with the gentlemen
named on the part of this Government.

I have, &c.
(Signed) WILLIAM R. DAY,

Acting Secretary.

No. 3.

Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquess of Salisbury. — {Received April 11.)

Washington, April 11, 181)8.

(No. 35.)
(Telegraphic.) P.

MIXED Commission.

With reference to my despatch No. 91 of the 1st instant, I have received from
the Goyernor-Oenoral of Canada by telegraph a list of the subjects proposed by the
Dominion Government for preliminary discussion.

His Excellency has repeated this to the Colonial Office.

Am I authorized to communicate this list to the United States' Government ?

4

No. 4.

The Marquess of Salisbury to Sir J. Pauncefote.

fNo. 69.)

(Telegraphic.) P. Foreign Office, April 15, 1898.

QUESTIONS for discussion between Canada and the United States.

Your telegram No. 35 of the 11th April.

If you see n objection, you may communicate list to United States' Government.

No. 5.

Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquess of Salisbury. — {Received May 27.)

(No. 75.)

(Telegraphic.) P. Washington, May 21,1898.

THE an-ival of the Canadian Minister of Marine took place on 24th May.

It is desired by the United States' Government and Canadian Government that all
matters in difference between them, including Alaska Boundary, Atlantic and Pacific
fur-seal and inland fisheries, bonding and transit privileges, readjustment of duties,
armetl vessels on great lakes, frontier boundaries, alien labourer laws, mining
rights, &c., shall be dealt with by an important Commission, composed of eminent and
impai'tial members, who shall command the confidence of both countries.

Canadian Minister and I have commenced preliminary negotiations with Messrs,
Kasson and Foster. We arc preparing a list of subjects and an entire scheme for
carrying out the proposal. Our proceedings arc of course ad referendum.

Tlie United States' Government are willing the Commission should sit at Ottawa,
with power to move to any other place ; but the President is most anxious that the
Commission should be composed of five members on each side, as he deems it necessary,
in order to facilitate the adoption of its conclusions by Congress, that the influential
members of the Senate and the House of [? llepresentatives] should be ircluded. I
have objected to so large a number, and on that and on any other point I should be
glad to receive your Lordship's instructions.

No. 6.

Foreign Office to Colonial Office.

(Confidential.)

Sir, Foreign Office, May 28, 1898.

WITH reference to the letter from this Department of the 21st instant, I am
directed by the Marquess of Salisbury to transmit to you a copy of a telegram from
Her Majesty's Ambassador at Washington,* on the subject of the informal discussions
noM' proceeding at that capital with regard to the questions pending between the
United States and Canada.

It will be seen that the United States' and Canadian Governments desire that all
matters of difference between them, including the fur-seal question, should be referred
to an important Commission which would command the confidence of both countries,
and that the President of the United States is anxious that it should be composed of
five members on each side.

Sir J. Pauncefote states that he has objected to so large a number, out asks that
he may be furnished with instructions on this and any other point.

Lord Salisbury would be glad to he favoured with Mr. Secietary Chamberlain's
views as to the reply which should bo sent to his Excellency.

I am, &c.
(Signed) FEANCIS BERTIE

.NO. 5.

No. 7.

Sir J. Pauncefote to Ihe Marquess of SalUbury. — (Received May 31.)

Washington, May 31, 189S.

(No. 76.)
(Telegraphic.) P.

PROPOSED Commission on Canadian questions.

I am forwarding by to-day's mail copy of the Protocol of recent Conference, which
was yesterday signal ad referendum. The Canmlian Minister of Marine expressed
himself quite satisfied with the arrangements concluded, and has left for Ottawa.

It is recommended that tlie first meeting should take place at the city of Quebec.

The number of the Commissioners to be appointed on either side is left for future
determination.

The following additions are made to the list of subjects : —

1. Reciprocity in regard to wrecking and salvage on sea coasts.

2. The conveyance, by officers of either country, of prisoners through the territory
of the other ibr trial or punishment.

3. Any other question remaining unsettled between Canada and thi; United
States which it may be agreed by the Commission to take up.

The conclusions arrived at by the Commission are to be embodied in the form
of one or more Conventions, with a view to their ratification by the respective
Governments.

Certain other usual provisions have been inserted.

No. 8.

Colonial Office to Foreign Office. — (Received June 2.)

(Confidential.)

Sir, Downing Street, June 2, 1898.

I AM directed by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain to acknowledge the receipt of your
letter of the 28th ultimo, inclosing copy of a telegram from Her Majesty's Ambassador
at Washington on the subject of the informal discussion now proceeding there with
regard to the questions pending betwee.i the United States and Canada.

In view of the number and complexity of the question.s to be dealt with by the
proposed International Commission, Mr. Chamberlain considers that the larger
number of members would probably facilitate business by rendering it possible to
appoint Committees of the Commission to deal with special questions, and he would
suggest, for Lord Sali8bui7'8 consideration, that Sir J. Pauncefote should be informed
that Her Majesty's Government see no objection to a Commission of five on each
side, as in the case of the negotiations which led to the Treaty of "Washington in 1871.

I am to add that Mr. Chamberltiin docs not consider it necessary to instruct
Sir J. Pauncefote at present on any other point. '

I am, &c.
(Signed) H. BERTRAM COX.

No. 9.

The Marquess of Salisbury to Sir J. Pauncefote

(No. 107.)

(Telegraphic.) P. Foreign Office. June 2, 1898.

WITH reference to your telegi-am No. 75 of the 21st May, regarding questions
pending between the United States and Canada, Her Majesty's Government see no
objection, in view of the number and complexity of the questions to be discussed, to
the proposed Commission consisting of five members on each side.

[1127J

C

No. 10.

Sir J. Pauncefote to Ihf Marquess of Salisbury. — {Received June 9.)

(No. 186.)

My Lord, Wathinalon, May 81, 1898.

WITH reference to m^ telegrams No. 75 and 76 of the 27th instant and this
day respectively, on the subject of the proposed Joint Commission for the adjustment
of quostions in difference between Canada and the United States, I have the honour
to transmit herewith copy of the Protocol of the Conferences, held in Washington,
which was signed on the 30th instant by myself and the Honourable Sir Louis
Davies, Minister of Marine of Canada, on the part of Great Britain, and by the
Honourable John Kasson and the Honourable J. W. Foster, on the part of the tfnited
States.

I have, &c.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

Inclosiure in No. 10.

Protocol of the Conferences at Washington in May, \89S, preliminary to the appointment of
a Joint Commission for the adjvMment of questions at issue between the United States
and Cheat Britain in respect to the relation* of the former with the Dominion of
Canada.

AT the first meeting of the Conferees, held on the 26th day of May, were
present : —

On the part of Great Britain, his Excellency the Right Honourable Sir Jul<an
Pauncefote, G.C.B., G.C.M.G., Her Britannic Majesty's Ambassador at Washington, &c.,
and the Honourable Sir Louis Davies, K.C.M.G., Minister of Marine and Fisheries of
the Dominion of Canada : and, on the part of the United States, the Honourable John
W. Foster, lato Secretary of State of the United States, Ac., ind the Honourable John
A. Kasson, Special Commissioner Plenipotentiary, &c.

At tliis meeting the Conferees considered and adopted the following Declara-
tions : —

There is concurrence of views on botl> sides upon the following points : —

1. It is desirable that all controversies between the United States and Great
Britain iu respect to the Dominion of Canada should be amicably settled, to the end
that their intercourse shall be established and maintained on the principle of a cordial
friendship between coterminous neighbours.

2. To accomplish this result, it is expedient that each should communicate to the
other, in outline, the modification of existing conditions, the concessions, or adjust-
ments which it believes ought to be made for the removal of grievances and for the
improvement of its commercial or international relations with the other.

3. That for the final consideration and adjustment of the questions so presented a
Joint Commission, to consist of members to be appointed by each of the
Governments, should be created witli Plenipotentiary powers, whose conclusions shall
be presented iu the form of a Convention, or Conventions between the two Govern-
ments.

■1. In the meantime it is expedient that informal pourparlers should proceed with
a view to formulate the proijositious to serve as Imses for the consideration and
determination of the Commission to be appoiutetl as a])ove suggested.

At tile second meeting, held on the 26th day of May, the same Conferees being
present, the subjects which sliould lie presented for the consideration and action of the
proposed Joint Commission were presented and discusseu. The number of members of
which the Commission should consist, and the place where the sessions of tlic Commis-
sion should be held, were also considered.

The Conferees on the part of the United States expressed their desire to consult
the wishes of the Canadian Government in respect to the place of meeting of the Com-
mission, and would not object to a convenient point in Canada, if this should be more
agreeable to that Government.

They iiuther expressed the opinion that in view of the number and character of

the questions before tbe Commission, it should be composed of five Representatives of
each Government.

The Conferees on the part of Great Britain were apprehensive that so large a
niunber might be conducive to debate and delay rather tlian to deliberation and
decision.

Without concluding the consideration of the foregoing subjects, tlie meeting was
adjourned until Friday, the 27th.

At tiie third meeting, held on Friday, the 27th May, the same Conferees being
present, the subjects discussed at the previous meeting were again imder consideration,
and the following statement of the subjects to bo presented for the action of the Joint
Commission was agreed upon.

In order to attain a complete concord in the relations between the United States
and the Dominion of Canada, it is expedient to come to an agreement upon the follow*
ing subjects : —

1. Tbe questions in respect to the fur-seals in Behring Sea and tbe waters of the
North Pacific Ocean.

2. Provisons in respect to the Fisheries off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, and in
tbe inland waters of their common frontier.

3. Provisions for the delimitation and establishment of the Alaska-Canadian
boundary, by legal and scientific experts, if the Commission shall so decide, or other
wise.

i. Provisions for the transit of merchandize in transportation to or from either
country across intermediate territory of the other, whether by land or water, including
natural and artificial waterways, and intermediate transit by sea.

5. Provisions relating to the transit of merchandize from one country, to be
delivered at points in the other beyond the frontier.

6. The question of the alien labour laws applicable to the subjects or citizens of
the United Slates, and of Canada.

7. Mining rights of the citizens or subjects of each country within the territory
of the other.

8. Such readjustment and concessions as may be deemed mutually advantageous
of customs duties applicable in each country to the products of the soil or industry of
tbe other, upon the basis of reciprocal pijuivalonts.

9. A revision of the Agreement of 1817 respecting naval vessels on the lakes.

10. Arrangements for the more complete definition and marking of any part of
the frontier-line, by land or water, where the same is now so insucfllieutly defined or
marked as to be liable to dispute.

11. Provisions for the conveyance for trial or punishmer.„ of persons in the lawful
custody of the officers of one country through the territory of the nther.

Any other unsettled difference not included in the foregoing specifications may be
considered and acted upon by mutual agreement of the ConMuissioners representing the
two Governments.

It was also understood that, so far as practicable, and in accordance ^vith the
second paragraph of the Declaration adopted at tlie first meeting, each Government
should communicate to the other, in advance of tlic meeting of the Commission, a
Memorandum of its views on each of tlie aforesaid subjects.

There was also a concurrence of opinion that cacli Government should defray the
exix-nses of its own Commissioners, and tliat any joint expenses incurred by order of
the Joint Commission, and so certified, should l)e paid in ecjual moieties by the
respective Goveraments.

And that the Joint Commission when assembled, should be authorized to determine
from time to time, in its discretion, tlio dates and places of its sessions.

The meeting was then adjourned until Saturtlay the 28th.

At the fourth meeting hold on Saturday, the 28Ui ^lay, the same Conferees
being present, upon the suggestion of Sir Louis Davies, the third clause in the state-
ment of subjects to be submitted to the proposed Commission, and relating to the
jVlaska-Canadian boundary, was anieudod by adding the following words at tlic end
thereof : " by legal and scientific experts if the Commission shall so decide, or other-
wise."

In that connection it was remarked by the Conferees, on the part of the United
States, that, in their opinion, tlie power of the Commission to consider this method of
adjustment already existed in the former terms, and that this addition neither enlarged
nor restricted the powers already granted. They had, therefore, no objection to the
Amendment.

8

It was further agreed that each Government would have the power at any time
after the appointment of its Commissioners to fill any vacancy in its representation
arising from any cause.

Tlie British Conferees desiring time to consult their Government toucliing tjic
numher of Commissioners and the time and place for the first meeting of the Joint
Commission, it was agreed that these points should bo settled by subsequent corre-
spondence between tbo two Governments.

In tbo meantime, tlie Conferees of the United States concurred in the suggestion
of the British Conferee's tliat Quebec might be named as a suitable place for the
assembling of the Commission.

The Conference then adjourned until Monday, the 30th May.

At the fifth meeting held 'on Monday, the 30th May, the same Conferees being
present, Sir Louis Davis renewed the question which had been mentioned at the
meeting on Saturday of submitting to tlie proposed Commission the subject of
reciprocity in wrecking and salvage rights and in the coasting trade, and urged, in
accordance with instructions trem the Canadian Government, that they should be
specificaUy referred for consideration to the proposed Commission.

In reply, it was stated by the Conferees, on the part of the United States, that in
respect to ■wTccking they regarded that question as an " unsettled difference " which
liad been already discussed between the two Governments, and that it could properly
come before the Commission.

Thereupon it was distinctly understood by the Conferees that the question of
reciprocity in wrecking and salvage rights should be submitted to the proposed Joint
Commission.

In respect to the coasting trade, the Conferees, on the part of the United States,
observed that this could hardly be considered a question in difference between the
two Governments. Under existing instructions from their Government they did
not feel at liberty to include it within the jurisdiction conferred upon the Joint
Commission.

Having concluded the subjects before them for consideration, the Conference then
adjourned without date.

In verification of the foregoing Protocol of their proceedings and conclusions, the
Conferees aforesaid have hereunto affixed their names in duplicate this 30th day of May
1898, under reserve of the approval of their respective Governments.

(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

L. n. DAVIES.
JOHN W. FOSTEE.
JOHN A. KASSON.

No. 11.

Sir J. Pauncefolc to the Marquess of Salisbury. — (Received June 9.)

(No. 187.)

My Lord, Washington, May 31, 1898.

IN continuation of my despatch. No. 169, of the 17th instant, I have the honour
to report that the Honourable Sir Louis Davics, Minister of Marine of Canada, arrived
in Wasliington on the 24th, and gave me full explanations of the wishes of his
Government with regard to the proposed discussions in relation to the i'ur-seal Fishery
Regulations, and to all other questions in difference between the United States and
Canada.

He had been instructed to agree to a discussion of the preliminaries for the con-
vening of a Joint Commission, which should deal with the whole of the questions above
mentioned.

On the following morning we called on the Secretary of State, and afterwards, by
appointment, on the President, who received us with the greatest friendliness, and
expressed his entire concurrence in the proposal for the immediate appointment of a
Joint Commission.

I took the opportunity of stating that, in view of the great importance of the
questions which would be submitted to the Commission, I thought it indispensable that
it should be composed of eminent and impartial members, who would command the
confidence of both countries.

The President expressed liis entire assent, and stated that, on the part of the

Tlnitcd States, care would be taken to select the very best men availabls. He added
that he had only for the present thought of one member, whom he considered would
be eminently fitted, although he had not made up his mind on tho subject, He refi-rred
to the Honourable J. A. Kasson, the Reciprocity Commissioner Plenipotentiary.

I replied that I thought such an appointment would be quite satisfactory to my
Government. The President did not mention the name of General Foster, which
makes me hope that, although engaged in the preliminary negotiation* for a
Commission, he will not be appointed a member of it.

On taking leave of the President, we adjourned to the State Department, whei-c,
in accordance with previous am*ngement, I and Sir Louis Davies opened the negotia-
tions, of which a full report is inclosed in my despatch No. 186 of this day's date.

I am now awaiting your Lordsliip's instructions on the subject of the Joint
Commission, and I trust that my action in relation thereto will be approved by Her
Majesty's Government.

I have, &c.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

No. 12.

Foreign Office to Colonial Office.
(Confidential.)
Sir, Foreign Office, June 11, 1898.

WITH reference to my letter of the 31st ultimo, I am directed by the Marquess of
Salisbury to tninsmit to you, to be laid before Mr. Secretary Chamberlain, a copy of a
despatch from Her Majesty's Ambassador at Washington,* inclosing the Protocol of the
Conferences hold at Washington and signed on the 30th May, providing for the appoint-
ment of a Joint Commission for the adjustment of all questions pending between Canada
and the United States.

The Proto<:ol was signed ad referendum, and Lord Salisbury would b& glad to know
whether, in Mr. Chamlierlain's opinion, it may bo accepted and approved by Her
Majesty's Government.

I am also to inclose a copy of a further despatch from Her Majesty's Ambassador,t
giving an account of tho discussions which took place between liis Excellency, the
Canadian Minister of Marine, and the President of the United States, previous to
the holding of the Conferences, and to state that Lord Salisbury proposes, with
Mr. Chamberlain's concurrence, to express approval of Sir J. Pauncofote's proceedings
in the matter.

I am, &c.
(Signed) F. H. VILLIEES.

No. 18.

Colonial Office to Foreign Office. — {Received June 14.)
(Confidential.)
Sir, Downing Street, June 14, 1898.

I AM directed by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain to acknowledge the receipt of your
letter of the 11th instant, inclosing copy of a despatch from Her Majesty's Ambassador
at Wasliington, covering the Protocols of the Conference to discuss the preliminaries
for a Joint Commission for the adjustment of all unsettled questions between Canada
and the United States.

Mr. Chamberlain entirely concurs in the proposal of the Marquess of Salisbury to
express approval of Sir J. Pauncofote's action in this matter.

In regard to the date for the fi/st meeting of the Conference and other matters in
the Protocols, a further communication will be addressed to you when a reply has
been received to the telegram sent to the Governor-Gouei-al on the 10th instant, copy
of which accompanied the letter from this Department of the 11th instant.

I am, &c.
(Signed) H. BERTRAM COX.

[1127J

• No. 10.

t No. n.

D

10

No. 14.
The Marquem of Salisbury to Sir J. Paunce/ote.

Foreign Office, June 16, 1898.

(No. 113.)
(Telegraphic.) P.

JOINT Commission on pending questions.

My ti'l. gram No. 107 of 2n(l .Tune. Govomor-General of Canada has
informed tiiat it is proposed tliut Dominion Government sliould nominate
members of British Commission and Her Majesty's Government one member.

He lias been asked to telegraph names of Canadian members as soon as possible
if his Ministers agree.

been
four

No. 16.

Colonial Office to Foreign Office. — (Received June 22.)
(Confidential.)
Sir, Donning Street, June 21, 1898.

WITU reference to the letter from this Department of the 14th instant, I am
directed by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain to transmit to you, to be laid before the
Marque. 8 of Salisbury, copies oi telegraphic correspondence with the Governor-General
of Canada respecting tlie proposed Joint Commission for the settlement of the questions
outstanding between the United States and Canada.

2. ilr. Chamberlain presumes that Lord Salisbury will now submit the names of
the Jiritisli Commissioners to Her Majesty, and will cause the necessary Commission
and instructions to be prepared.

.3. Before doing so, however, it might be well to communicate the names to Her
Majesty's Ambassador at Washington, with instructions to ascertain whether the date
suggested for the meciting at Quebec will meet the wishes of the United States'
Government.

1-. Mr. Chamberlain thinks it desirable that the Memorandum of the views of the
Do.ninioii Government, which is to be submitted to the United States' Govtjrnment
before the meeting of the Conference, should -be communicated to ller Majesty's
Goveniraent in the first instance, and he has accordingly telegraphed to the Governor-
General to that effect.

5. I am to add that the full names and offices of the Canadian Commissioners
are : —

The Right nonourablc Sir Wilfred Laurier, Q.C., G.C.M.G., Member of the House
of Commons of Canada, President of the Privy Council of Canatla ; the Honourable
Sir Richard John Cartwright, G.C.M.G., Member of the House of Commons of Canada
and Minister of Trade and Commerce of Canada ; the Honourable Sir Louis Henry
Davies, Q.C., Member of the House of Commons of Canada, Minister of Marine and
Fisheries for Canada ; and John Charlton, Esq., Member of the House of Commons of
Canada,

I am, &c.
(Signed) H. BERTRAM COX.

Inclosure 1 in No. 15.

Downing Street, June 17, 1898, (5-60 P.M.

Mr. Chamberlain to the Earl of Aberdeen.
(Secret.)
(Telegraphic.) P.

JOINT Commission.

We consider it very desirable to take advantage of present friendly feeling between
United States and this country to press work forward.

If work can be completed so as not to interfere with Venezuelan Arbitration,
expected to begin next May, Lord Hcrschell has agreed to represent this country.

In order to enable Commission to get to work as soon as possible you should urge
Ministers to expedite preparations.

11

Inclosure 2 in No. 16.

The Earl of Aberdeen to Mr. Chamberlain.
(Telegraphic.) P. [ Undated.]

CONTENTS of vour Secret telegram of 17tli communicatGd to Premlur, who
proposes end of July for meeting of Commission. Hf! entirely concurs in udvisabilty
of early )ueeting for reasons mentioned.

Inclos'iro 3 in No. 15.
7%e Earl of Aberdeen to Mr. Chuinberlain,

(Telegraphic.) P. June 19, 1898.

REFERRING to your telegram of 10th June, following submitted by Ministers
as names of Canadian Members of Commission : —

Sir Wilfred Laurier, Prime Minister ; Sir Richard Cartwright, Minister of Trade
and Commen;e ; Sir Louis Davies, Minister of Marine and Fisheries ; John
Charlton, Esq^., M.P.

They desire to express appreciation of proposal that there shall bo four Canadians
isniong the five British Representatives.

No, 16.

Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquess of Salixhtiry. — (Received June 25.)

(No. 36.)

(Tflegniphic.) P. Washington, June 25, 1898.

WITII reference to your Lordship's telegram No. 11 1 of the 22nd instant, I have
the honour to report that the United States' (lovernmcnt assent to the proposal that
tlio Joint Commission should assemble at Quebec at the end of next month.

The appointment of the United States' Commissioners will be made immediately.
I have reason to believe, though the final selection has not yet been made, that the list
will be as follows : —

Honourable W. B. Allison, of Iowa, ilember of tiie Senate Finance Committee.

Ilonourable George Gray, of Delaware, of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee.

Honourable Nelson Dingley, of Maine, Chairman of the House of Representatives
Ways and Cleans CooBnittee.

Honourable John A. Kasson, and General J. W. Foster.

No. 17.

The Marquess of Salisbury to Sir J. Pauncefote.

(No. 115.)

(Telegraphic.) P. Foreign Office, June 26, 1898.

HER Majesty's Government approve the Protocol of the Conferences at
Washington, signed on the 30th May and forwarded in your despatch No. 186 of the
31st May.

No. 18.

Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquess of Salijibury. — (^Received June 27.)

(No. 211.)

My Lord, Washington, June 17, 1898.

I HAVE the honour to transmit herewith copy of a note of the I5tli instant
from the United States' Secretary of State, inclosing a letter signed by the Honourable Don
M. Dickenson and Mr. Robert Lansing, of counsel for certain firms, Corporations, and
individual citizens of the United States. This note points out that the enforcement of a

12

c^ertain Act of llie Ontario (legislature of December 1897, relating to (lie inanufncturu of
lumber, would inflict grievous hiu'dshii) nn<l serious loss on Americnn luml)cr interestx of
great magnitude, and riiisos (juestions ns to the validity of such retroactive l('};islation.

Mr. Day states that the "questions so raised would necessarily fall in the class of

Knding matters cognizable by the Joint ('oinriiiHHion to amicably settle ull controversies
tween the United States ond Great Uritain in respect to the Dominion of Canada. "
He requests that " Kteps may be taken to bring iibou'l a suspension of the construe
tion of the Ontario Act of December I S97 pending the negotiation for the appomtmenl
of such Joint Commission, and its final ilcterniination of the matters to come before it."

I have communicated copies of the inclosed correspondence to the Governor-General
of Canada.

1 hftvc &c.
(Signed) ' JULIAN I'AUNCBFOTE.

Inclosure 1 in No. 18.

Mr. Day to Sir J. Pauncefolr..

Excellency, Depnrtmn State, VVniiklngton, June 16, 1898.

, 1 HAVE the honour to communicate to yi or your consideration and .such early

action as may he practicable, a letter .'iddresst lo me by the Honourable Don. iVl.
Dickenson and Mr. Robert Lansing, of counsel for certain named firms, Corporations,
and individual citizens of the United States, who hold renewable licences to cut tirabi
on the Crown lands of the Province of Ontario, and nn whose behalf it is averred, that
the application to the existing renewable licences at a recent enactment of the Legislature
of Ontario that nil licences hereafter granted shall require the manufacture of the
lumber in Canado, will work grievous hardship and destroy rights built up during the
jMist under the system of licences heretofore issued and annually renewable.

The magnitude of the interests of citizens of the "nited States as licensees of
Canadian timber land, and the extent of the injury amounting to virtual conti8cati<m of
their large investments in Canada and practical extinctioii of their equally large invest-
ments in the United States which are wholly dependent on their Canadian operations,
ore set forth in the accompanying paper.

These consequences would flow not from any cf)ndition or interpretation contained
in or fairly deducible from the original contract, which is the thing renewable from year
to year under its own terms, but would result from the virtue of substitution of a new
contract entirely variant in purpose and effect from the previous instrument. It is not
alleged that there has l)een any failure to comply with the conditions of their original
licences, which is the express condition of their title to a renewal thereof. In com-
plying with those conditions, the /Unerican licensees have necessarily incurred much
outlay in the Dominion, and on the faith of the terms of their original contract have
made peniianent investments of great value, so that there would seem to be no ground to
dispute the soundness of the o])inion furnished to the parties by several leading counsel
of the dominion " that the renewals arc a matter of right, and the tenure is a vested
interest."

If it were the contention of the Government of Ontario that the contracts conld
be summarily terminated by refusing renewals, the importance of the questions of right
and vested interest would be apparent, and the barrier would be set to any such arbitrary
action.

1 cannot sec that these points of right and vested interest are less soundly taken
when the proposition is to destroy the contract itself by impo.sing such new conditions
upon its stipulated renewal as to render the contracted privilege illusory.

In this relation the observations of Mr. Charlton before the Ontario Legislature on
the 9th December', 1897, as quoted by the memorialists, have a special pertinence.

Should the Government of Ontario adhere to the construction of the Act of December
1897, which it had only announced within a few weeks past, and holds that the conditions
which that Act sets upon the granting of timber-cutting licences after the 29th day of
A))ril last, are capable of being engrafted upon licences p-ior to that date, this would
amount not to renewal of existing licences, but to an abrupt alteration of the essential
terms thereof, thus impairing the validity of existing contracts, and opening to improve-
ment the good faith under which they were entered into. The question so raised would
necessarily fall in the class of pending matters, cognizable by the Joint Commission,

to amicably iteltlc all coDtrovuriy betwucn the United HtutcHaiid Grual Britain in reNitvcl
t«> tlte Dominion of Canada, for the oHtablinhnient of which ne^otintions are pending
under tiic Protocol signed hy the recent Conference of the two GovuriinientH on the 3()th
ultimo. Under the circuniHtanccH, and in furtherance of the harnionioiiH underatanding
for which tho hite ('onfcrcnce waH atMrnblod, and to award the realization of which it
made Huch substantial and auspicious progress, I have the honour to request tluit steps
may he taken to bring about a suspension oi the construction of the Ontario Act of
December 1897, {Hinding the negotiations for the appointn)en^ of such Joint Coinniission,
and its final determinatiiiu of the matter to come before it.

I am advised by Meiwrs. Dickenson and Ijinsinj; that they have had the pleasure of
a conversation with you on the 8th instant, in the course of which they ornlly set forth
the present matter ; the accomiianying brief iias bei-n prepared by them with a view to
laying their statements before you in writing for your further ai.d more ronvenienl
information. They otter to submit a furtlier Memorial un the subjict, which I hope to
be able tt> comnmnicate to you in a few days.

I liave, &e.
(Signed) W. R. DAY.

Inclosure 2 in No. 18.

Af«««r«. DickeiuKn, Lansing and others to Mr. Day.

Bir, Detroit, Michigan, June 11, 1808.

SINCE 1825, before the Confederation and since, it has been a part of the Public
Lands system and policy of the British Oovernments of Canada to sell the standing
timber separate from the land.

The provinces, as well as the Dominion, have ii Crown Lands Dei»artment, and the
system pursued in respect of timber has been t" grant a tenure of the lands in the
form of an annual licence to cut timber.

These licences are subject to curtain Rules and Regulations, which are given the
force of Statute I^w, and upon compliance with these Rules and Regulations the licensee
is given an absolute right to a renewal from year to year, so that upon paying for
the original licences, and certain dues and rents, the purchaser may invest in timber to
hold permanently as an investment, without cutting, or proceed to cut, according to his
election.

It is the express provision of the Ontario Law, as of other provinces, that upon com-
pliance with the conditions the licensee "shall be entitled to a renewal," &c.

Upon this question, too, we have th.J opinion of several leading counsel of tho
Dominion that the renewals are a matter of right, and the tenure is a vested interest.

These licences expire on the 30th April of each year. The renewals are regularly
granted on or before the I st July of each year.

In further evidence of the construction of theae licences, we quote from the speech
of Mr. Charlton, a Member of the Government of Ontario (the Premier), before the
Ontario Legislature on the 9th December, 1807 : —

" Now, Sir, what guarantee has the man who pays the Government 373,000 dollars on
the 13th October, 1892, forSSi square miles for this privilege, and does not intend to cut a
log, and has not cut any ? What guarantee, I ask, 1ms he that on the first day of May next
he will have 1 dollar's interest in that property for which he has paid 373,000 dollars ■
He has no guarantee except his faith on the honour of the Government that they will
deal fairly with him in the future, as they have done with others in the past. In
addition to this he has the record of the Government that so long as the ground rent of
3 dollars per mile is paid each year, so lonjj will they renew his licence from year to year.
This has always been done, and timber-holders have had confidence and have jmid large
sums in that way, depending upon the honour of the Government to do right. Now, Sir,
the licence itself, coupled with the practice of the Government, form a contract which
cannot be broken without violating the principles of justice, and there is not a Judge upon
the Bench in this country who would, after examining this timber licence in connection
with the practice of the Government, say that the Government had any right, legal oi
moral, to impose restrictions upon the exportations of logs cut upon limits which were
sold without notice of such intention."

2. The subject was of little interest to American citizens so long as our own timber
eupply was abundant around the Great Lakes and their connecting waters. But as the
111271 E

14

white pine became depleted and scarce upon this side of the line, the Canadian Govern-
ment, taking notice of the demand, sent the Circulars of the Crown Landi Department
broadcast to American citizens. To letters addressed by American citiz, to the Crown
Lands Department, inquiring as to the nature of the licences and of the tenure, as to the
safety of invi.>stments made in such timber, as to the perpetual character of the grant, and
especially, and most important of all, as to the right to remove the timber when cut from
Canada to the United States for maimfacturing into lumber, official replies were received
advising our citizens expressly in accordance with the construction and interpretation set
out as above under the head of '• I," and that the timber when cut could be removed for
manufacture to the United States.

In consequence, American citizens, in 1884 and 1885, commenced to invest in
large numbers and in great amounts in this Canadian pine under this system of
licences.

Several times since that period an export tax was imposed upon the logs by the
Canadian (jovernments. But this was not burdensome, and as it checked the sales of
timber and thus curtailed that source of great revenue, the taxes were removed. Another
ostensible consideration was the lowering of our tariff on himber, but it is well under-
stood that the first-named was the moving cause.

Once (in 1890), without legislative authority, the Governor-General of the
Dominion in Council imposed a Regulation providing that in al) future licences a
proviso should be inseited that the timber cut should be manufactured in Canada.

No one dreamed then of imposing even that Regulation on old licensees under
purchases prior to that Regulation. However, the Regulation so cut down the sales
that it was never enforced, and was abrogated within a few months.

3. In addition to what American investors paid the Provincial Government of
Ontario under these circumstances, they had invested large sums in improving streams
in Canada, in establishing camps and large plants in and about the business.

More than this, they liave made immense investments in new mills, and in rebuilding
and equipping old ones in this country for the manufacture of the logs so cut from
Canada.

These mills, in the conditions now existing, have practically no other source of
supply except this. But by far the greater part of the expenditure has l)een made upon
the ground in the Dominion. Indeed, in a speech delivered in the Ontario Legislature
on the 21st Deccml)er, 1 897, Mr. Gil)son, tlie Commissioner of Crown Lands, submitted
carefully-prepared statistics, showing an analy.sis of the original cost of pine lumber, and
there demonstrated that four-fiftlis of that cost was in cutting the logs nnd getting them
into tiie streams, and but one-tiftli for milling.

1. In these conditions, on the 17tli December, 1897, the Lieutenant-Governor of
Ontario in Council made this timl)er Regulation : —

" Every licence or permit to cut pine timber on the ungvanted lands of the Crown,
or to cut pine timber reserved to the Crown on lands located, sold, grunted, patented, or
leased by the Crown, which shall be issued on or after tlie 30tli April, 1898, sliall contain
and 1)0 subject to the condition that all pine which may be cut into logs or otherwise
under tlie authority or permission of sucli licence or permit, shall, except as hereinafter
provided, be manufactured into sawn lumber in Canada, that is to say, into boards, deal,
joifts, lath, shingles, or other sawn lumber, or into waney board or square or other timber
in Canada ; ;ind such condition shall be kept and observed by the holder or holders of
any such licence or permit, who shall cut or cause to be cut pine trees or timber under
the authority thereof, and by any other person or persons wlio sliall cut or cause to be
cut any of such pine trees or timber under the authority thereof, and all pines so cut into
logs, or otherwise, shall be manufactured in Canada as aforesaid."

Other Regulations followed, providing a penalty for violation amounting to a for-
feiture of the licence and for a seizure of the property of the licensee.

It was provided, however, by clause C, as follows : —

"Ti.2 foregoing Regul<vt'ons shall not come into force unless and until they shall be
approved by an Act of the Legislature.''

At tho then Session of the Legislature an Act was passed as follo\ s: —

" 1. All sales of pine timber limits or berths by tne Commissioner of Crown lands
which shall be h<,;\;L.*er made, and all licences or permits to cut pine timber on such
limits or i)erths thereafter granted by the Commissioner, shall be so made or granted
subject to the condition set out in the first Regulation of Schedule (A) of this Act, and
it shall be sutHcient if such condition be cited or mentioned as ' the manufacturing
condition ' in all notices, licences, and permits or agreements or other writings.

" 2. Tiie Regulations .set out in Schedule (A) to this Act are hereby approved.

15

" 3. The Lieutenant-Governor in Council may make any furtlicr or additional
Eegulations necessary to enable the Commissioner of Crown lands to carry into eifect
the object and intent of the Regulations contained in Schedule (A).

" df. Section 1 of this Act shall come into force on the passing hereof, and the
other parts of this Act shall come into force on the 29th day of April, 1S!)8."

Schedule (A) referred to in that Art are the Reguliitions above quoted, and referred
to as passed by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council on the 17th December, 1897.

Her M8io''ty's Government of Ontario now construe that Act as applying to existmg
licences, and it is held that American citizens who have invested and operated these
lands on licences purchased and conformed to since 1880, and prior to the passage of
this Act, are subject to its provisions, and that timber cut under them must be manu-
factured in Canada.

5. The effect upon Investors. — It will be seen that the Act did not go into eifect
until the 30th April last, and this constructif>n has only just been realized by the great
body of American citizens • iterested.

These, under the r'A Law of 1 8!19, still existing, must take out their renewal of
licences before the 1st July. To accept that construction, of course means widespread
disaster, and is impossible.

It is not too strong a statement to say that such a construction amounts to contisca-
tion. This result is patent.

We represent but a comparatively small portion of those interested, who have
hastily organized, and these alone have property interests in Canada, taken under these
licences amounting to upwards of 12,000,000 dollars. This is exclusive of their invest-
ments in mill plants on this side, which are a dead loss unless the supply comes from
the Canadian timber investments made by their owners. Moreover, the security of this
standing timber has come to be considered so good, with the good faith of Her Majesty's
Government rjf Oiitario behind it, that nearly every one in interest, whom we represent,
have been large borrowers at American as well as Canadian ban!:s upon the faith of this,
their Canadian property.

The banks, so far as thoy have learned of this construction, demand other security,
and where it cannot be given, refuse to renew.

b should be said in passing, that the law of the provinces permits the mortgage and
transfer of these licences as security.

In addition to this and other injurious effects upon our citizens, which I do not
mention, it may be stated that large numbers of men who are employed in the mills in
the manufacture of lumber, will, by this construction, l)e thrown out of employment.

Appended hereto, is a list of the persons whom we represent, which is being added
to from day to day as the ruling of the Crown Lands Department comes to be more
widely understood.

The temporary organization had prepared a circular to all directly or remotely
interested upon this subject, which, under our advice, has been withheld from publication
or circulation in the hope that rehef might be had, without further .spreading the evil
results of the construction complained of, or tl'.e irritation engendered by it.

We are quite aware that the ordinary rule is, before application can be made to your
Department for relief through diplomatic roprcsentation.s, citizens should be .ab'e to show
tliat they have applied for relief without effect to the authorities of the Government
complained against.

In this case, however, the Act complained of is the .Vet of the Government itself,
■vhich has replied, upon application, that the construction complained of will be enforced,
and it seems to be clear that the jurisprudence of the Dominion or of the niovinces
furnishes no way of relief agaiust such executive action of the Government itself.

We venture to hope, becau.se of the need of immediate relief, that steps may be
taken .as early as may be, to secure a suspension of the injurioas cimstruction of the Act
of the Ontario Legislature of December, 1897, pending the negotiations between the
United States and Great Britain, for the appointment of a Commissioner to adjust differ-
ences between the Governments and pending the Report of such Commission.

We have, &c.
(Signed) DON M. DICKENSON.

ROBERT LANSING.
Of Counsel fo! the Firms, C'orporali'ins, dial imiividualx
named in the Appciulix h<;reto.

16

Inclosure 3 in No. 18.

Appendix.

List of Memberg of Temporary Organization.

(Represented by Don Al. Dickenson and Robert Lansing.)

• Kstste of Brooke.

Wilson Cressy 1 ,

Mrs. W. D. Morton / '

Ski!Iins;s, Wliitntys, unci Barnes.

Holl.ind, Graves, and Montgomery.

Cutler and Savidge.

Brownleo and Co.

Delta Lumber Compauy.

Edmund iJali.

Salliottt! and Ferguson.

David Whitney. Junr.

Alger Smith and Co.

Pclton and Reed.

\V. and A. .McArthur and Co. (Limited).

Swift and Clark

Thompson Smith and Sons.

Albert Pack.

General N. Fletcher iind Sons.

F. \V. Gilchrist.

Comstock Bros.

W. L. and H. I) Churchill.

McKwen ISros. and Co.

South End Salt and Lumber CompRny,

Pitts and Co.

Turner and Fisher.

Michigan Log Towing Company.

fiaginaw Bay Towing Company.

Loveland, Koyce, and White.

Saginaw Solt and Lumber Company.

Mrs. E. .1. H. Richards(m (Estate).

Inclosure 4 in No. 18.

Mensrs. Dickenson, Lansing and others to Mr Day.

Sir, Detroit, Michigan, June 13, 1898.

WE desire to supplement our coiamunication to you of the llth iustaut by the
following very important statement: —

By the Act of I'le 'inperial Parliament of 1866, creating the Confederation of the
Dominion of Canada it is provided that all laws passed by the Legislatures of the
provinces in the Conederation must be submitted for approval to the Dominion Govern-
ment ; and thus thero is conferred upon the Governor-General in Council of the Dominion
a power equivalent to our veto power. Under the Imperial Act mentioned, the laws of
each Legislative Session of the provinces arc transmitted to the Government at Ottawa,
and the action of the latter, as above indicated, may be taken at any time within
one year.

In the Dominion Government, too. is reposed the power of dealing with all questions
affecting coiimierce — a power equivalent to the provision of our written (constitution
conferring upon the Federal Congress the exclusive power to regulate commereu.

Up to this time the Dominion Government has not approved or disapproved of the
Act of December, 1897, the construction of which by the provincial authorities of Ontario
is the subject cf "^his complaint.

You will observe, tlierefore, that the Governor-General of the Dominion in Council
may now intervene either by disapproving of the Act of December 1897, and thus
rendering it nugatory, or by disapproving tlie disastrous construction of the law by the
Ontario Government.

We desire to correct one statement of fact in our comnninication of the 1 1th instant,
on p. 2. Mr. Charlton, whose speech is quoted, was not a Member of the Government,
though one of the staunch supporters of the Government in the Legislature.

We have, &c.
(Signed) DON M. DICKENSON.

ROBERT LANSING.

No. 19.

The Marqutsu of Salisbury to Sir J. Pauncefote.
(No. 116.)
(Telegraphic.) P. Foreign Office, June 27. 1898.

JOINT Commissiou on pending questions : Your despatch No. 198 of the 9th June.

We cannot take objection to Geneml i'oster's appointment, in view of explaoA-
tions now given by United States' Government.

No. 20.

The Marquesx of Salisbury to Sir J. Pauncefote.
(No. 117.)
(Telegrapliic.) P. Foreign Office, June 29, 1898.

JOINT Commission.

Follo^^•ing the precedent of 1871, Lord llerschell and the Canadian members will
be appointed High Commissioners. Their names will be publislied in to-moiTow's
paper.

No. 21.

Question asked in the House of Commons, July 1, 1898.

Mr. Davitt, — To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can
now state tin; names of the members of the Commission appointed to settle
matters of dispute pending between the United States and Canada, and lay upon
the Table of the House the terms of said Commission ;

And whether the draft of the Commission has yet been submitted for
approval tv the United States' Senate.

Answer. '

The names of the members of the Commission ajjpointed by the Queen were
notified in the press yesterday. According to the latest information received from
Her Majesty's Ambassador iit Washington, the names of the American members have
not yet been finally settled.

As regards the draft of the Commission, the lionourable Member probably refers
to the Protocol which was signed at Washington on the .')Oth May, providing for the
appointment of the Joint Commission.

AVe have no information as regards its submission to the Senate. There will
probably be no objection to its presentation to Parliament with other Papers in due

No. 22.

Sir J, Paunctfotc to the Marquess of Salisbury. — {Received July 4i.)

(No. 213.)

My Lonl, Washington, June 21, 1898.

IN my despateh No. 211^ of the 17th instant, I had the honour to transmit to youi'
Lordship e«py of a note from the United States' Government, transmitting n complaint
of certain American limit-holders in the forests of Ontario against tbe rtHrent legislation
of that provinci!, forbidding the export, of logs from those limits unless manufactured
int<j lumber in Canada.

There can be little oi no doubt that the legislation in question is of a retaliatorj
chai-acter, and on that point I would draw your Lordsliip's attention to a speech
delivered by the Uonounible Mr. Uoulten in tfie Canadian Senate on the lOUi Marcli
last, in which ha explains the Canadian grievance in the matter of lumber, and foro-
sliadows the remedy.

[1127] F '

18

On that occasion Mr. Boulten said : —

"We have two nlasses of limit-holders in this country. The limit-holders of
the United States, who take logs across free into the United States' territory, and
manufacture them there, and distribute the products in their own country. We have,
on the other hand, the limit-holders of Canada, who manufacture the logs into lumber
in Canada, and distribute it in Canada and the marketAS of the world. The logs that
are cut by the United States' limit-holders in the Canadian woods go to the United
States fi'op, while the United States' Government impose a duty of 2 dollars per
thousand on boards manufactured in this country. The consequence is, that the
Unitf A States' limit-holders are benefited l)y a discrimination of 2 dollars per thousand,
wh".e the Canadian limit-holder is placed at that disadvantage so far as the United
States' market is concerned. The tendency of that legislation is to give a monopoly of
Canadian timber-limits to American holders, and gradually drive the Canadian
lumber-man out of his own country. "

Mr. Boulten added : —

" The only way that could be stopped is not to allow the logs to go cut of the
country."

The remedy of the American limit-holders would therefore seem to be in the
hands of their own Legislature, who should be urged by them to repeal the import duty
of 2 dollars per thousand on Canadian planks.

This solution will probably commend itself to the Joint Commission if the
alleged grievance should be subiLitted, as proposed, to its consideration.

I have, &c.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEPOTE.

No. 23.
Foreign Office to Colonial Office.

Sir, Foreign Office, July 5, 1898.

I AM directed by the Marquess of Salisbury to transmit to you a copy of a
despatch from Her Majesty's Ambassador at Washington,* inclosing a note from the
United States' Government respecting an Act, passed by the Legislature of Ontario in
December 1897, which provides that licences hereafter granted to cut timber on
the CrowT^i lands of that province shall require the manufacture <if the lumber in
Canada.

The United States' Secretary of State requests that no decision may be taken as
to the construction of this Act pending the appointment of tlie Joint Commission,
which is to meet shortly at Quebec, and which may take cognizance of all controversies
l)(!tween the United States and Canada.

Lord Salisl)ury desires to he informed as to the answer which Mr. Secretary
Chamberlain would wish to bo returned to the communication from the United States'
Government.

Copies of the correspondence have been forwanled by Sir J. Pauncefote to the
Governor-General of Canada.

I nm, &c.
(Signed) F. H. VILLIERS.

No. 24.

Foreign Office to Colonial Office.

Sir, Forngn Office, July 6, 1898.

AVITH reference to your letter of the 21st ultimo, T am directed by the Marquess
of Salisbury to state, for Mr. Secretary Chamberlain's informat'jn, that the Queen has
been graciously pleased to appoint the following gentlemc" vo be Her Majesty's High
Commissioners on the Joint Commission for the adjust-acnt of questions in difference
between the United States and Great Britain in respix;t to the relations of the former
with the Dominion of Canada : —

The Lord Hcrschell, G.C.B., a Member of Her Majesty's Privy Council.

• No. 18,

19

The Right Honourable Sir Wilfred Laurier, G.C.M.G., Member of the House of
Commons of Canada, and President of the Privy Cooucil of Canada.

The Honourable Sir Richard J. Cartwright, G.C.M.G., Member of the House of
Commons of Canada and Minister of Trade and Commerce for Canada.

The Honourable Sir Louis H. Davies, K.C.M.G., Member of the House of
Commons of Canada and Minister of Marine and Fisheries for Canada ; and

John Charlton, Esq., Member of the House of Commons of Canada.

I am to add that Mr. W. Chauney Cartwright, of this Office, has been appointed
Secretary to the High Commission.

The Royal Commission as well as instructions to the High Commissioners are
being prepared.

I am, &c.
(Signed) P. H. VILLIERS.

No. 25.

Colonial Office to Foreign Office. — {Received July 7.)
(Confidential.)
Sir, Downing Street, July G, 1898.

I AM directed by the Secretary of State for the Colonics to transmit to you, for
the information of the Marquess of Salisbury, with reference to the letter from this
Department of the 2l8t ultimo, marked Confidential, a copy of a telegram from the
Governor-General of Canada on the subject of the views of the Canadian Government
on tlie questions which will be discussed by the Joint Commission.

I am, &c.
(Signed) EDWARD WINGPIELD.

Inclosure in No. 25.

The Earl of Aberdeen to Mr. Chamberlain.
(Telegraphic.) [Undated.']

REFERRING to your telegram of 21st June : I have now receivi^d Minute of
Council, of wliich copy goes by post to you to-morrow from New York per steam-ship
" Britannic," containing full statement of considerations and objects which Ministers
suggest Commissioners should have in view.

No. 26.

Colonial Office to Foreign Office. — {Received July 8.)

Sir, Downing Street, July 7, 1898.

WITH reference to your letter of the 8th November, 1897, and to recent co- -
respondence respecting the Joint Commission for the settlement of (juostions at issue
between the United States and Canada, I am directed by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain
to transmit to you, to be laid before the Marquess of Salisljury, a copy of a letter
fi'om the Newfoundland Delegates at present in this (country, piotesting against a
negotiation on the subject of the Atlantic fisheries, on which they are not re-
presented.

2. There are obvious objections to enlarging the Commission, which has been
Agreed upon, and also to giving a Newfoundland Representative a voice in the dis-
cussion of the many questions referred to the Commission in wliich Newfoundland is
in no way interested.

3. In these eiicumstanees, it appears to Mr. Cliamberlain that the best course
would bo to allow a separate negotiation on behalf oC Newfoundland if the United
States are prepared to agree to that course.

4. But before suggesting that the Uniti-d States' Government should be ap-
proached in the matter, he proposes, if Lord Salisbury coucur.i, to telcgiuph for the
views of the Dominion Government in the terms of the accompanying draft.

I am, &c.
(Siiined) EDWARD WINGFIELD.

Inclosure 1 in No. 26.
Messrs. Winter and Marine to Mr. Chamberlain.

Sir, Westminster Palace Hotel, .My 2, 1898.

YOU ^^'ill doubtless remember that, in the year 1890, a McmlMJv of the Government
of Newfoundland was permitted to visit Washington for the purpose of ascertaining
what arrangements, if any. could be made lietween the United States of America and
Newfoundland, concerning trade and fishery relations.

After a draft AiTangement had been prepared, the Government of Canada,
through the High Coramisaioner, and later, through the Governor-General, protestetl
against the conclusion of any arrangement with the United States, touching the trade
and (especially) the fisheries of any part of British North America, to which Canada
■was not a party. The keynote of that protest is contained in a letter to Lord Knuts-
ford from the High Commissioner, dated tha 27th October, 1890 : " Her Majesty's
Government," he says, " has hitherto invariably recognized the importance of obtain-
ing rmity of action, as far as possible, on the part of all the Colonies interested." In
consequence of this protest, the approval of this arrangement wi»s withheld by Her
Majesty's Government, and has ever sinf" l>cen withheld, because il was considered
that one Colony should not be allowed lo make a separate arrangement which might
affect the trade or fisheries of another, and it appeared that Canada's position with
relation to the United States might be injuriously affected by a prior arrangement
between that country and Newfoundland. Much discontent has neen felt and ex-
pressed in Nevrfoundland in consequence — a state of feeling modified only by the
belief that Canada, on the other hand, would not at any time be allowed a privilege
withheld from Newfoundland, and that the latter, therefore, would never be placed in
a position of disadvantage as compared \vith that of Canada. When, therefore, it was
mooted that a Connnission was to be appointed to settle questions pending between
the United Sates and Canada (including, as we presume, trade and fishery question),
it was taken for granted that N .vfoundland would be invited to be represented upon
that Commission. It is, therefore, with great surprise, a feeling which we are con-
fident will be universally felt iu the Colony, that we have seen the announcement that
a Commission has been appointed in which the Colony has no representation.

Having regard to the principles contended for by the Canadian Government in
lb90, as above stated, and conceded by Her Majesty's Government, we are unable to
understand how a departure from that principle in the appointment of the present
Commission can be justified, or how Her Majesty's Government could ratify any
arrangement niade by that Commission, if Newfoundland were to protest against is
upon tlie same grounds as were hold tf) be good as against her, in 1890. The fisherict
of Newfoundland, and fishing privileges relating thereto, would be of more impoi-tance
to the United States than those of Canada. Newfoundland might, if not prejudiced
by a prior arrangement between the United States and Canada, make a better arrange-
ment with the United States separately, than in connection with Canada, but she has
been forbidden to do so, and it would, therefore, we submit, be manifestly unjust to
pei-mit Canada to make a separate arrangement with the United States, or any
arrangement, without the concurrenc. of Newfoundland.

After the work of the present C.ramittee is done, we beg to ask, ■what will be the
position of Newfoundland r Wilt she be included absolutely in such arrangements as
may have been concluded, or will she be permitted to elect for herself whether she will
become a. consenting party to tlie arrangement V And even if such a right to elect b<'
left to her, is it not obvious her position may be greatly prejudiced, inasmuch as she
will be obliged either to accept in toto an arrangement in the making of which she has
had no part, or incur the damaging consequences of refusal. The injustice of placing
the Colony in such a position needs no elaboration.

As regards the claim which we feel it to be our duty to urge on behalf of the
Colony, we have to say that if thi; material interests of the Colony were alone to be
considered, they might be best served by a separate arrangement for trade relations
with the United States, inasmuch as we Ixilievc that more advantageous terms for the
Colony might thereby be obtained. On the other hand, we recognize the desirability
of unity of action and interest between the Colonies in such matters, wherever
practicable ; and we respectfully submit that upon this basis the rights and interests
of the Colony cannot be adequately secured by any course short of a rejjresentation of
the Colony upon the present Commission, aud the assent of the Colony to the terms of
any arrangement whereby her interests may be affected.

2t

We take the liberty of pointing out that if Newfoundknd is not directly repre-
sented, the Commission will not have power to deal conclusively with fishing piiviloges,
to which the people of the United States have hitherto attached great importance, and
the control, or a share in the control of which belongs to Newfoundland ; and the
Commission might, on that account, be prevented from ofl'ering to the United States
concessions which would Ijo potent in procuring in return concessions of importance
both to Newfoundland and Canada. The exclusion of iTewfoundland, therefore, while
it will possibly, and even probably, be detrimental to the interests of Canada in the
event just suggested, can hardly fail to be iajiirious to Newfoundland, so far as regards
those terms of the arrangement, in the negotiation of which she has had no part, and
which affect her.

It may be objected that the Commission will deal with subjects in which New-
foundland is not concerned. Our answer is that upon any such niatters, iu which
there would be no conflict of interest lietween Canada and NeT'foundland, the Newfound-
land Commissioner would be guided by his colleagues. On the other hand, the
existence of other questions, the settlement of which might aiford a good reason for
the making by Canada of valuable concessions in relation to the fisheries, in return for
other conoossious from the United States, which would be of value to Canada only, is,
in itself, a strong reason for the representation of Newfoundland, whose position in
rehtion to the United States might be prejudicially affected by concessions made by
Canada, and in the compensation for which Newfoundland had no share.

For these reasons, therefore, we beg respectfully to claim on behalf of the Colony,
either a representation of the Colony upon the Commission now about to sit, or
permission to the Colony to negotiate and conclude a separate arrangement for trade
and fishing relations with the United States.

Wo have, &o.
(Signed) J. S. WINTER.

ALFRED B. MORINE.

Inclosure 2 in No. 26.
Draft of Telegram, from Mr. Chamberlain to the Earl of Aberdeen.

NEWFOUNDLAND Delegates now here protest against negotiation on subject
of Atlantic fisheries on which they are not represented.

In view of the position taken up by Canadian Government and by Her Majesty's
Government at their instance, in regard to Bond Blaine negotiations, it is diificult to
reply to this protest.

They claim either representation on Commission or permission to negotiate and
conclude separate ju-rangement in regard to trade and fishing relations with the United
States.

Telegraph at once views of your Minister on these proposals.

No. 27.
Foreign Office to Colonial Office.

Sir, Foreign Office, July 9, 1898.

I LAID before the Marquess of Salisbury your letter of the 7th instant respecting
the protest made by the Newfoundland Delegates against negotiations being carried on
with the United States in regard to the Atlantic Fisheries by a Commission on which
the Government of Newfoundlaud is not represented.

I am directed by the Marquess of Salisbury to state that he concurs in the views
expressed by Mi-. Secretary Chamberlain on this subject, and in the telegram which it
is proposed to address to the Governor-General of Canada.

I am, &c.
(Signed) F. H. VILLIER8.

[1127J

22

No. 28.

Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquess of Salisbury. — {Received July 16.)

(No. 221.)

My Lord, Washington, July i, 1898.

T HAVE the honour to report that upon receipt of your Lordship's telegram
No. 115 of (he 26th ultimo, I addressed a note to the United States' Secretary of State,
informing liim that Her Majesty's Government approved the Protocol of Conferences
signed on the 30th May last, emhodying the result of the recent discussion at
Washington for the settlement of the questions pending hetwecn the United States
and Canada. I have received an acknowledgment of tiiat communication from the
Acting Secretary of State.

I have, &c.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

No. 29.

Foreign Office to Treasury.

Sir, Foreign Office, July 15, 1898.

IN pursuance of an agreement with the United States* Government, which was
recorded in a Protocol signed at Washington on the 30th May, it has been decided to
constitute ii .Joint Commission, to meet at Quebec, for the settlement of questions
pending between the United States and Canada.

Of the five Representatives who have been appointed on behalf of Great Britain,
and who have been given the rank ox High Commissioners, four have been nominated by
the Governor-General of Canada ; the Queen has been pleased to appoint the Canadian
gentlemen whose names have been sulimitted to Her Majesty, and also to select Lord
Herschell to proceed at once to Quebec as one of Her Majesty's High Commissioners.

I am directed by the Marquess of Salisbury to request that the sanction of the
Lords Commissioners of the Treasury may be given for the expenses of Lord Herschell's
special mission to Canada on this important occasion.

Lord Herschell will be accompanied by Mr. Cartwright, of tWs Office, who will be
Secretary to the High Comiuission, and by the Honourable R. F. Herschell as Private
Secretary. He will also take with him a courier or official servant, and a private
servant.

1 am to propose that Lord Her.schell should be authorized to charge to public funds,
under the sub-head for " Special Miosions of the Diplomatic Vote," the cost of travelling,
hotels, and out-of-pocket expenses of himself and his staff.

Lord Salisbury considers that the sum of 200Z. should be granted to Mr. Cartwright
to cover tlie expenses of his outfit and as a gratuity for his employment on the special
mission, and that the wages of the official servant, at the rate of 51. a-month, should be
charged in the Accounts.

The questions to be dealt with by the Commission are numerous, and include
many old-standing disputes of considerable mtricacy. It is, therefore, difficult to
calculate the period over which the sittings will extend, but Lord Salisbury trusts that
three or four months will suffice to arrive at a settlement, at any rate in principle, of
the various subjects.

His Lordship will be happy to furnish any further information which their Lord-
ships may require. He is, however, unable to frame at the present moment any estimate
of the probable cost of Lord Herschell's mission.

I am, &c.
(Signed) F. H. VILLIER8.

23

No. 80.
The Mnrquegs of Salighury to Sir J. Pnuncefote.

Foreign Office, July 17, 1898.

(No. 121.)
(Telcgmphic.) P.

JOINT Commission.

Thn United States' (Jovcmment will probably be glad to take this opportunity of
etfecting a general settlement, and it would be a great advantage if Newfoundland
were represented on the Commission, as two of the heads to be discussed, viz.. Tariffs
and Fisheries, especially affect that Colony.

If they agree, Sir James Winter, the present Premier, would be appointed as sixth
Commissioner.

The Canadian Government concur in the courses proposed.

No. 31.

The Marquess of Salisbury to Sir J. Pauncefote.

Foreign Office, July 18, 1898.

(No. 122.)
(Telegraphic.) P.

JOINT Commission.

Referring to your telegram No. 94 of i7th July, Lord Herschell will start, as
arranged, on the 20th instant, but there would be no objection to postponement for a
few days of meeting of Commission.

In pursuance of Agreement recorded in Protocol that each G'^vemment should
communicate its views to the other before the meeting of t^ Commission, the
instructions to Her Majesty's Commissioners will bo forwarded to j ou for communi-
cation to the United Stetes' Government.

No. 32.

The Marquess of Salisbury to Sir J. Pauncefote.

(No. 123. Coufldential.)

(Telegraphic.) P. Foreign Office, July 18, 1898.

REFERRING to my telegram No. 121 of 17th July.

You may confidentially inform United States' Government that, if appointed, it
would be understood that the Newfoundland Commissioner would only deal with the
two matters indicated. He would recognize the other subjects to be dealt with as
being exclusively of Canadian interest.

Of course. Her Majesty's Government would agi*ee to a sixth United States'
Comnissioner being appointed, if desired.

No. 33.

Colonial Office to Foreign Office. — {Received July 19.)

(Confidential.)

Sir, Downing Street, July 18, 1898.

I AM directed by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain to acknowledge the receipt of your
letter of the loth instant, stating that the Dominion Government has objected to the
terms in which the United States' Government has intimated its assent to the proposed
provisional boundary-line at the head of the Lynn Inlet.

2. Mr. Chamberlain has not yet received the Minute of Council refeiTed to by Sir J.
Pauncefote, but he gathers that the intention of the Dominion Government in their
proposal of April last was simply to secure the maintenance of the status quo at the head
of the Lynn Canal in view of the demand which had been made by the United States*
officer at Dyea that the Canadian officials should cease to exercise jurisdiction at the
summits of the passes and at Lake Lindeman ; and not that they proposed to accept the
watershed there as a provisional frontier pending a final delimitation of the boundary.

u

3. As Lord Salisbury will see on reference to the map, tlic Lynn Conal extends
inland for some 80 miles, and as the Treaty lays down that the frontier is never to be
more than 30 miles from the ocean, the Canadian Govermnent can hardly l)e expected to
agree to accept for an indefinite period the watershed in question as a provisional line, and
in the Memorandum which they have furnished as to the subjects to be discussed by the
International Commission, it will be seen that they suggest that that body should fix a
provisional line. This suggestion agrees substantially with that of Sir J. Pauncefote, and
Mr. Chamberlain would suggest that he should he instructed to propose to the United
States that the officers on both sides at tht- heaii of the canal should lie instructed not to
advance beyond the positions they now hold, and that the question of fixing a provisional
boundary should be left to the Joint Commission.

1 am, &c.
(Signed) EDW.XRD WINGt'IELD.

No. 34.

Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquess of Salisbury. — {Received July 19.)

(No. 95.)

(Telographic.) P. New London, Connecticut, July 19, 1898.

WITH reference to your Lordship's telegram No. 121 of the 17th instant,
suggesting that Newfoundland should he represented on the Joint Commission about
to assemble at Quebec, I have the honour to inform your Lordship tliat the United
States' Government agree to your Lordship's proposal.

I subsequently received your Lordship's telegram No. 123 on tlie same subject,
but under the above circumstences I decided to take no further action.

No. 35.
The Marquens of Salisbwy to the High Commimoners.

My Lord and Gentlemen, Foreign Office, July 19, 1898.

THE Queen having been graciously pleased to appoint you to be Her Majesty's
High Commissioners for the purpose of discussing with Commissioners to be appointed
by the Government of the United States various questions at issue between Great
Britain and that country, in respect to the rolations of the latter with the Dominion
of Canada, and of treating for an Agreement as to the mode of their armcable
settlement, I transmit to you herewith the necessary full powers for the purpose.

"Hie principal subjects to be discussed will be found enumerated in the accom-
panying copy of a Protocol, which was signed at Washington on the 30th May last
by Sir Julian Pauncefote, Her Majesty's Ambassador to the United States, and the
Honourable Sir Louis Davies, Minister of Marine and Fisheries of Canada, on behalf
of Great Britain ; and by the Honourable John Kas,son and the Honourable J. W.
Foster, on behalf of the United States.

The Protocol further provides that any other unsettletl difference, in addition to
those specifically mentioned, may be considered and dealt with by mutual agreement
of the Commissioners representing the two countries.

Her Majesty's Government desire to leave you full discretion as to the manner in
which the various questions slyjuld be discussed and dealt with, and it is therefore
uimocessary that I should furnish you with specific instructions in regard to them ;
but I have the honour to convey to you the following observations for your general
guidance : —

l.—The Fur-Seal FHshery.

By a Treaty concluded at Washington on the 29th February, 1892,* it was agreed
that the questions which had arisen between the Governments of the two countries
concerning the jurisdictional rights of the United States in the waters of Behring Sea,
the preservation of the fur-seals, and the rights of the subjects and citizens of either
country as regards the taking of fur-seals in those waters, should be referred to a

• " Treaty Series No. 8 (1892)."

28

Tribunal of Arbitration, to be composed of goven Arbitrators, two to bo named by each
of the Contracting Parties, and the remaining three by the PruHidoiit of the French
Ri'piiblic, the King of Italy, and the King of Sweden and Norway respectively.

It wasi fiutiier agreed by Article VII of the Treaty that "if the determination
of the foregoini? questions as to the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States shall
leave the subject in such position that the concurrence of Great Britain is necessary to
the estal)lishrnpnt of Regulations for the proper protection and preservation of the fur-
seal in, or habitually resortinji; to, the Behring Sea, the Arbitrators shall then determine
what concurrent Regulations, outside the jurisdictiojuvl limits of the respective Govern-
ments, are necessary, and over what waters such Regulations should extend."

The Trilmnal met at Pans, under the Presidency of the Prench Arbitrator, Baron
de Courcel, and delivered its Award on the 13th August, ]8!)3. ("United States
No. 10 : 1893.")

The decision of the Tribunal was to the etfect that the United States did not possess
any exclusive jurisdiction in Behring Sea nor any right of protection or property in
the fur-seals frequenting tlu; islands of the United States in that sea when such seals
are found outside the ordinarj' 3-milc limit.

The Tribunal accordingly ogreed upon certain Regulations as necessary for the
proper prosecution of the fishery, of which the most important were the following : —

1. That no seals should be taken ut any time and in any manner within a zone
of 60 miles round the Pribyloff Islaui-Js, inclusive of the territorial waters.

2. That there should be a close season, extending each year from the 1st May to
the 31st July, both inclusive, during which no seals should be killed in that part of the
Pacific Ocean, inclusive of Behring Sea, which is situated to the north of the 35th
parallel of north latitude, and eastward of the 180th degree of longitude from Green-
wich, till it strikes the water boundary described in Article I of the Treaty of 1867
between the United States and Russia, and following that line up to Behring Straits.

3. That only sailing-vessels should be permitted to carry on seal fishery
operations.

d<. That the use of nets, fire-arms, and explosives should be lor bidden, though
this restriction was not to apply to shot-guns when the fishing takes plttce outside of
Behring Sea during the season when it may bo lawfully carried on.

Minor Regulations referred to the special licence to be provided for each vessel,
as well as a distinguishing flag, entries by the Master in the official log-book of the
date and place of each fur-seal fishing operation, the number and sex of the seals
captured, &c.

The Regulations were to remain in force until tliey had been, in whole or in part,
abolished or modified by common agreement between the two Governments, but thay
were to be submitted every five years to fresh examination, so as to enable botn
Parties to consider whether, in the light of past experience, any occasion existed for
their modification.

The Regulations came into force in 1891, and the fishery has since been con-
ducted strictly in accordance with them.

Strong efl;'orts have, however, 1)eon made in the United States ever since their
adoption to reopen the whole question, on the ground that they had entirely failed in
their object, namely, the preservation of the fur-seal species, and that unless a speedy
change was brought about, extermination of the herd must follow.

Various proposals have from time to time been put forward, such as the appoint-
mcmt of a Joint Commission who would visit the islands and report as to the effect3
of pelagic sealing upon the herd, and that during its deliberations the respective
Governments should agree upon a modus vivendi in accordance with which sealiii^
would be absolutely prohibited pending the report of such Commission.

To these proposals Her Majesty's Government have found themselves unable t6
agree. They have contended that no sulfieient evidence had been adduced to shoti-
that the Regulations have failed in their effect, or that there existed such ui-g^nt
danger of total extinction of the seals as to call for a departure from the Arbiftal
AMai"d, by which the two nations had solemnly bound themselves to abide. '

The correspondence which has passed between the tivo Governments on tfib
subject during the years ISQo 97 will oe found in the Parliamentary Paper, " United
States No. -4 (1897)," to which your attention is invited. ''^"

Her Majesty's Government, however, fully shared the desire so strongly and so
often expressed by the Government of the United States, that all necessary a^ft
practicable measures should be taken for the proper preservation of the seals ; aii/d fb
189H, after communication with the United States' Government, they arranged for MSFe

ril27] H

21547b

(londuot of an independent inquiry on the Pribyloff iBlAnJa int« the fltate of the herd
hy an Agtmt sont from this country, with a viow to invcHtij^to nioro coiupititoly tlie
question of the necessity of furtlior restrictions iu future years.

The Agent selected was rrofossor D'Arcy Thomuson, of University College,
Duudci!, who visited tlie islands during the season of 18U0, and again in 18i)7. His
Reports, which have been laid before Parliament, " United States No. 3 (1897)," and
No. 1 (1898), are inclosed. Mr. J. Maooua was also present in the islands during both
seasons on behalf of the Canadian Government.

Similar Missions were sent to the islands by the United States' Qovernment
iHidcr Dr. David Starr Jordan, President of the Leland Stanford Univei-sity. Copies
of Dr. Jordan's lleports are likewise annexed.

In the opinion of Her Majesty's Government these lleports do not bear out the
alarming statements which have been made as to the great decrease of recent years
in the herd, and the imminence of its (extinction, though they indicate clearly, and more
especially those for 1897, the necessity for Avatchfulness and prudence in regard to the
future.

It is the earnest desire of Her Majesty's Government that some solution of
the question may be found which, while adequately providing for the interests of
Canada, will insure the preservation and increase of the herd.

The solution that would present the greatest advantages to both parties would
probably be that, in consideration of some equivalent commercial concession by the
United States under some one or other of the other subjects in dispute, Great Britain
should agree to forego for a time the exercise of her right of pelagic sealing ; the
owners of vessels now engaged in it being compensated by tl-; United States' Govern-
ment, to which, or its lessees, would accrue the entire hem it of the suppression for
the time of pelagic >aling.

2. — Fisit 1^' the Atlantic and Pacific Coasts, ifc.

The fishery rights of the U i^ ^d States in British North America are regulated
by Article I of the Convention betTvoen Great Britain and the United States of the
20th October, 1818, which is as follows : —

" Article I. Whereas differences have arisen respecting the liberty claimed by the
United States, for the inhabitants thereof, to take, dry, and cure fish on certain
coasts, bays, harbours, and creeks of His Britannic Majesty's dominions in America,
it is agreed bo'.v.."^n thr High Contracting Parties that the inhabitants of the said
United States *) Jj have, for eVer, in common with the subjects of His Britannic
Majesty, the libcrtj to take fish of every kind on that part of the southern coast of
Newfoundland ' llch extends from Cape Ray to the Ilameau Islands, on the western
and northerrj cut:. it of Newfoundland, from the said Cape Ray to the Quirpon Islands,
on the shores of the Magdalen Islands, and also on the coasts, bays, harbours, and
creeks from Mount Joly, on the southeni coast of Labrador, to, and through, the
Straits of BeUeisle, and thence northwardly indefinitely along the coast, without
prejudice, however, to any of the exclusive rights of the Hudson's Bay Company.
And that the American fishermen shall also have liberty, for ever, to dry and cure fish
in any of the unsettled bays, harbours, and creeks of the southern part of the coast
of Newfoundland, hero above described, and of the.coast of Labrador; but so soon as
the same, or any portion thereof, shall be settled, it shall not be lawful for the said
fishermen to dry or cure fish at such portion so settled, without previous agreement
for such purpose with the inhabitants, proprietors, or possessoi's of the ground. And
the United States hereby renounce, for ever, any liberty heretofore enjoyed or claimed
by the inhabitants thereof to take, dry, or cure fish on or within 3 marine miles of any
of the coasts, bays, creeks, or harbours of His Britannic Majesty's dominions in
America not included in the above-mentioned limits; provided, however, tliat the
American fishermen shall be admitted to enter such bays or harbours for the purpose
of shelter and of repairing damages therein, of purchasing wood, and of obtaining
water, and for no other purpose whatever. But tney shall be imder such restrictions
as may be necessary to prevent their taking, drying, or curmg fish therein, or in any
other manner whatever abusing the privileges hereby reserved to them."

It will be seen that United States' vessels are enabled to enter the bays or
harbours of the British possessions in North America, where they have no Treaty right
of fishery, for the purpose of shelter, and of repairing damages, of purchasing wood or
Walter, and for no other purpose whateve<r.

S7

Amoriam flslieriin'n are thus precluded from purchasing Iwiit, ico, and supplies,
from tnmshipping their Ash or shipping crows, or otherwise; making use of Canadian
harbours as a base for their fishing ofM-rations ; all of which are of gr(5at importanco
for the successful prosecution of th(ur industiy.

Numerous seizures of United States' fishing-vessels by the Canadian authorities
have octjurrod in past years both for fishing in British waters and for Iroquenting
Canadian ports for objects not permitted by the Convention.

Strong protests have in many oases been made by the Government of the United
States, who contend that tlie words " and for no other purpose whatever " must be read
according to their spirit, and not according to the letter ; acd, moi-eover, hold that tlie
denial of ordinary commercial facilities is an unfriendly act.

Attempts liave been made from time to thnv. to arrive at a settlement of the
question by negotiation, whicli have not, however, so far led to any result.

On the 15th February, 1888, a Treaty was signed at Washington by rienijioten-
tiarios appointed by the two Governments,* which provided for the removal of the
restrictions imiiosod upon American fishermen by the Convention of 1818 in consideni-
tion of certain commercial concessions to be made to Canada by the United States.

A Protocol was signe<l at the same time for establishing a modus nivendi by which
the occurrence of disputes might he avoided jiending the ratification of the Treaty.
By the terms of the modus vivendi the United States' fishermen obtained, by payment
of a small toimagc fee, all the cojicessions vefeiTcd to above with reganl to the
purchase of ico, bait, the transhipping cargoes, and shipping of crews.

The Treaty was approved by the Canadian Parliament, and ratified by tlie
Queen, hut was rejected by the United States' Senate.

The modus vivendi, however, notwithstanding the rejection of the Treaty by the
American Senate, has been practically continued by the Canadian Parliament up to
the present time.

Her Majesty's Government are of opinion that the Treaty of 1888 affords a
genera] basis on which the question might now again lie dealt with, though some of
the provisions of that Treaty will roauiro reconsideration.

The matter of the fisheries, so far as the inland waters of the two countri&s are
concerned, relates to a long-standing question between the Canadians and the United
States.

In the Great Lakes, and in all the contiguous waters, the laws which are
universally admitted to bo necessary for the protection of fisli life, viz., the establish-
ment of a close season and the prohibition of cci*tain means of taking fish, have been
rigidly enforced on the Canadian side, whereas on Like Erie and Lake Huron, and
most of the otlier contiguous waters, no such Regulations arc enforced on American
flsliermen, who are able to tish throughout the yeai-, and to rr^.tke use of any
apphances. The absence of Regulations on one aide and their enforcement on the
other have operated unfairly to Canadian fishermen, while at the same time the
absence of such Regulations threatened the entire extinction of some of the more
valuable fisheries.

A few years ago a Joint International Commission, consisting of Professor
Rathbun and Commander W.T.keham, was appointed to consider and report upon the
subject, and to recommend such joint Reguktions and restrictions as might properly
he mutually adopted by the United States and by Canada for the control of these
contiguous inland fisheries. This Commission commenced its inquiries in the spring
of 1893, and presented its final Report on the 31st Pecember, 1896.

The recommendations and suggestions of this Commission the Government of
Canada are willing to accept as providing p fair and reasonable solution of the
difficulties, on condition that the United States' Government are . hie to provide for
the enforcement of the proposed restrictions, and to overcome the difficulty hitherto
experienced in dealing with the matter owing to the claim of the Scatc Governments
to the exclusive control of the fisheries within their respective jurisdictions.

It is desirable that these important subjects should be regulated by the Treaty,
and that provision should be made for the adoption and enforcement in these
contiguous waters of similar fishery laws and Regulations on both sides.

' Uaited State» No. 1 (18S8)."

28

3. — The Alaska Boundary,

The Treaty with Russif. of 1825 dealt with the boundary in two sections : —

1. The part south of !Mount Elias, separating south-east Alaska from Canada.

2. The northern portion, which follows the 141st meridian from Mount Elias to
the Arctic Ocean.

The northern section presents comparatively little uifflculty, the difference
between the surveys made by either side varying only from 600 to 6 feet. It was
agreed by a Convention of the 31st January, 1897, that certain points should be fixed
midway between the two surveys, and that joint surveys should be carried out as
occasion might require, to connect these points, unt 1 the entire line should, in time,
be laid down.

With regard to the southern portion, however, wide divergence exists between
the views of the two GoAemments. From Portland Channel to Glacier Bay there is
no such continuous range of mountains running parallel to the coast, as the terms of
the Treaty of 1825 appear to contemplate. That Treaty, again, provides that the line
should be parallel to the sinuosities of the coast, and that it should never exceed the
distance of ten leagues from the Pacific Ocean. Considering the number and size of
the projections and indentations along the coast, it would be diflScult to trace the
boundary according to the Treaty.

The Convention ^rith the United States' Government of 1802 provided for
the appointment of a .1 oint Commission to ascertain the facts and data necessaiy for
the permanent delimitation of the boundary-line, and the High Contracting Parties
agreed to proceed to consider and establish the line as soon as practicable after the
Report of the Commission should have been received. The period fixed for
the completion of the surveys and the presentation of the final Reports was extended
by a supplementary Convention in 1894, and the Commissioners submitted a Joint
Report with Maps on the 31st December, 1895. This Report contained no recom-
mendations for the determination of an equitable settlement, and no further
discussions have taken place as contemplated in the Convention of 1892.

Proposals for a reference of tiio question to an Arbitration Commission of legal
experts .vere recently made by Her Majesty's Government, but were not definitely
accepted by the TJni' 3d States' Government, though the United States' Secretary of
State authorized L.er Majesty's Ambassador in Apri last to stnto that the question
of arbitration was under the consideration of the two Governments.

About the same time difficulties were apprehended in consequence of the
action of aii United States' officei' at Byea, who requested the Canadian ofiBcials to
cease exercising jurisdiction at the summits of the passes at the head of the Lynn
Canal and at Lake Linderaan, and it was suggested that, pending the discussion
of the question, the watershed at the summits of the passes should be adopted as
a provisional line, and to this the Unitetl States' Government have agreed.

This arrangement was, in fact, a temporaiy recognition of the status quo, and
■was only suggested with a view of avoiding the risk of conflict, which tlie rash action
of an over-zealous officer on cither side might have provoked. But, as the line thus
adopted is more thau 100 miles from the ocean, Her Majesty's Government cannot
reasonably be expected to contin'ie to accord it provisional recognition fc^ an
indefinite period, and, j^ending a definite settlement of the question, a pro\l. iOnnl line
more in accordance with the Treaty stipulations should be adoptevl, whicl. ■. allow
the occupation by Canada of one at least of the ports on this inlet.

There are two special reasons for an early delimitation of this part of the boundary.
In the first place, owing to the discovery of the Kloudyko gold-fields, there has
alremly been a large influx of miners and others into the territory to which access
lies mainly through the strip. The necessity of establishing a '^.iton's frontier on
the inlets on the coast is therefore obvious. In addition to this consideration, there
is the fact that the whole of the s xip ol Alaska bordering on the Pacific is believed
to be auriferous. Prospectors are ilready at work in many places, and Companies
have for some years J)cou mining at Juneau and other places ncjir the entrance to the
Lynn Canal and on the adjacent islands. If gold should be found in large quantities
at jwints in disputed territory serious difficulties may ensue, and Her Majesty's Goven •
meat thcrcfoic consluoi Vnni stcpr. isuould be takon js early as possible for arriving at
an agreement Pi to the intention of the Parties to the Treaty of 1825 as to how the
boundary-line along the strip from Portland Canal to Mouat St. Elias should be drawn.

llcr Majesty's Government are content to leave it to t]\e discretion and judgmont

29

of the Commissioners to devise some machinery for this pu^Tiose, but, for the
reasons above stated, they think it desirable that, if possible, the Joint Commission
should in any case agree upon some provisional arrangement for fixing a temporary
line on the various inlets and rivers traversing the strip, and also at any other point
at which disputes may arise pending a final settlement of the question, and a complete
delimitation of the Srontier.

They have only to remark that the boundary-line must, in the first instance, be
8<jught in the mountains which border the cop^t, and tliat the important condition
that ^he lina is nowhere to exceed 10 marine leagues from the ocean governs it
tlbroughout.

4 and 5. — Transit of Merchandize to and from either Country across intermediate

Territory of the other.

These Articles refer to what is known in Canada and the United States as
transportation in bond.

The contiguity of territory beoween the United States and the Dominion of Canada,
and the fact that in some instances their possessions overlap, led many years ago to an
Agreement, whereby the goods of one country can be shipped across the territory of
the other without being subject to its Customs laws.

Tliis syst<!m has proved of great advantage to the subjects and citizens of both
nations, and it appeai-s advisable to establish it on a permanent basis by IVeaty, and to
make it as broad and as effective as possible consistently with the necessary protection
of the revenue. ,

6. — Alien Labour Laws.

This subject is one which has of late years assumed in Canada serious proportions.
It arises from the fact, that some years ago the Congress of the United States adopted
laws which prohibited the importation into the united States of labourers under
contract.

It is generally admitted that the restrictions imposed by these laws were intended
to apply only to the introduction of certain classes of European labourers working at •
low rates under contract. Unfortunately, however, they were applied in the great cities
along the border in the State of New York, and also in other adjacent States, to
Cana'liaii subjects of Her Majesty seeking work in the territory of the United States.

In self-defence the Cr^nadion P<»*liament found it necessary to enact, in the Session
f'^ 1897, similar legislation intended tc apj,ly to American citizens proceeding to Canada
with the object of seeking work in the DomuJon.

The Canadian Parliament came to this drtermination with mucii regret, and Her
Majesty's Government would welcome an Agreement on thin matter providing for the
complete suspension of such laws ii^ both countries as regauls j)ersons domiciled in
either.

7. — Mining Rights.

Tliis Article, which refers to the mining rights of citizens or subjects of either
country within tlie territory of the other, calls for no special comment. In the vie*
of Her Majesty's Gover."?mciit, the subjects or citizens of either country should enjoy
in the territory of the other the same rights and privileges as are accorded to its own
subjects or citizens ; and th»jy would be glad to see an Agreement concluded to that
eifeci;.

8. — Reciprocity.

It has always biaeu the opinion of the party now in power in Canada that the
geographical position of the United States arid Canada makes a larg^ measure of free
trade between them mos i desirable. The fact, however, that each country has a high
Customs Tariff, whiclj is practically protective, rendera nnitual concessions somewhat
difficult. Mor(!()ver, the fact should not ])e overlooked that Canada, while fully
appreciating the advantage of the Am«>riean markets, has in recent years, l)y the
judicious subsidizing of freight steam-ships and the introduction of the cold storage
[1127] I

80

system, succeeded in finding a profitable market for a large portion of lier surplus
natural products in Great Britain ; that this market is capable of indefinite expansion,
and that in consequence the desirability of obtaining access to the markets of the
United States has been appreciably diminished.

Notwithstanding this fact, it is considered that negotiations for the free interchange
of a wide list of natural products, and for a mutual reduction of duties on a carefully-
selected list of manufactured jjroducts, is still desirable and feasible, though it would,
of course, be impossible for Canada to grant to the United Sta>;es Tariff concessions
without extending them also to such countries as are entitled by IVeaty to most-
favoured-nation treatment in Canada, and it is essential also that the Dominion should
maintain unimpaired its right to grant preferential treatment to the mother country
and other parts of the Empire of which it is a member.

9.— Naval Vessels on the Cheat Lakes,

'■)inion that any

>.'gard to naval

■oy are not satisfied

eviation from the

On this subject. Her Majesty's Government are <t)- :> lI;
modification of the restrictions placed upon the two crto , ■ -
armament on the lakes ought to be very carefully guarded, , .:i
that any sufficient reason exists at the present time for au^
restrictions imposed ]}y the Agreement of 1817. The exercise )y the United States
of a Treaty right, if gi-anted, to place a number of ffvmed vessels on tiie lakes,
might force Carmda to incur very large and otherwise unnecessary expenditure in
arming a similar number of vessels for tlie protection of her own sliores .ind cities.

10. — More complete Definition and Marking "f Frontiers.

This Article calls for no special remarks on the part of Her Majesty's Govern-
ment. It is obviously in the interest of both countries that their frontiers should be
defined in such a manner as to obviate any possibility of doubt or of disputes arising,
and it is not anticipated that any difficulty mIU be experienced in making arrangements
for the complete marking of the boundary where it is now insufficiently defined.

11. — Conveyance of Persons in Custody of the Officers of one Country throv , t iho

Territory of the other.

*<". ■■*';

In this case also, Her Majesty's Government have no special tomm )<i -^ t>^'^;
but, in view of the manner in which the territories of the United States au. ■ tb^
Dominion ai-e connected, and, as mentioned above, in some instances ovoria, •i '"
desirable in the interests of both that some arrangement should be made fov i,b>8
purpose.

The subject should be approached from the point of view of facilitating the
punishment of offenders, and at the same time aifording due protection to the subjects
or citizens of o'ther country.

A copy of this despatch will be communicated to the United States' Go\ ernment
in fulfilment of the engagemeii' that each Qoveri'ment should coniRiinicaie to the
other a Memorandum dealing with the subjects mentioned in the Prot ;

The American Commissioners will, therefore, be iu {Kjssessiv • ■■' ih'i views
entertained by Her Majesty's Government and the Grovernmont c . ja vidth
regard to the treatment of the various matters wliich will engage yo, ittentiun.
It will no doubt be understood that the Commissioners will not be precluded from
making any suggestions they may tlunk proper, <,;• from considering such other
questions as after mutual ivgreemeut the'- mny dcen; ir, useful and suitable to discuss.

Iler Majesty's Government are fin ' coiivint.jti ♦'••Httho Commissioners on either
side will be animated with an earr'-st Jcjire f^ cr ' ; ;:. an honounible and sutisiaotory
solution, and that the result of your ( . ii';onit;-;,» will exereise an enduring inlluenoe
of a beneficent character on the lelatioas of t*<e two countries.

I am. Slc.
(Signed) SALlSliUllY.

'»>*..

ai

No. 36.

Colonial Office to Foreign Office. — {Received July 20.)

Sir, Downing Street, July 19. 1898.

I AM directed by Mr. Secretary Ciiairil)erlain to acknowledge the receipt of
your letter of the 5th instant, transmitting copy of a despatch from Her Majesty's
Ambassador at Washington, inclosing copy of a note from the United States'
Government respecting thn recent Act of the Legislature of Ontario, which provides
that licences hereafter granted to cut timber on the Crown lands of that province
shall require the manufacture of the lumber in Canada.

2. 1 am to request that you will inform the Marquess of Salisbury that
Mr. Chamberlain does not find in the Ontario Law on the subject any provision that
a renewal of a licence on the original terms .s a matter of right.

3. Judging from the speech of Mr. Charlton, cited by Mr. Day and the
petitioners, the claim would appear to rest only on the alleged practice of the Pro-
vincial Government; and so far as the Statute Law is concerned, the Government
does not appear to be under any obligation to grant a renewal of a licence or to refrain
from attaching conditions to such renewal which were not in the original licence.

4. The matter, however, in so ar as it is a question of the disallowance of a
provincial law, is one for the consideration of the Dominion Government, and if they
agree to its being referred to the Joint Commission, Mr. Chamberlain sees no objec-
tion to that course, and has telegraphed to t!.e Governor-General to ascertain their
views.

5. I am to add that the Dominion Government have not, as Messrs. Dickenson
and Lansing appear to suppose, the power to interfere with the Government of
Ontario as regards the construction of the Act, though they have the power to
advise the Governor-General to disallow it.

1 am, &c.
(Siened) H. BERTRAM COX.

No. 37.

Colonial Office to Foreign Office. — {Received July 20.)

Sir, Downing Street, July 19, 1898.

I AM directed by the Secretary of State for the Colonies to transmit to you, for
the information of the Marquess of Salisbury, with reference to the letter from tbia
Department of the 18th July, a copy of a despatch from Governor-General the Earl
of Aberdeen on tho subject of the Alaska boundary.

I am, &c.
(Signed) EDWARD WINGFIELD.

Inclosure 1 in No. 37. ,

The Earl of Aberdeen io Mr. Chamherloin,
(Confidential.)
Sir, Government House, Ottawa, April 4, 1898.

WITH reference to your cypher message of the 8th ultimo, commu'.iicating the
proposals of the United States' Government for the demarcation of a provisional
boundary-line at the head of the inlets bv which access is gained to the Yukon
District, I have the honour to inclose herewith copy of an apjiroved Minute of the-
Privv Council setting forth *hc objections of my Ministers to the course i)n)|)oscd by
the United States' Government.

You will observe that, pending the final settlement of the Alaska boundary, my
Government suggest a provisional arrangement with the United States' Govcinment,
unde- which each Government should remain in possession of the territory occu-
pied by it.

I have, Stc.
(Signed) ABEKDEEN.

Tnclosurt 2 M No. 37.

Extract from a Beport of the Committee of the Honourable the Prim/ Council, approved
by the Governor-Oeneral on the 28/A March, 1898.

THE Committee of the Privy Council have had nnder consideration a despatch,
hereto annexed, dated the 6th March last, from the Right Honourable iVIr. Chamber-
lain, marked Secret, in which the proposition is made that Commissioners should
be appointed under Article I of the Convention of the 22nd July, 1893, to consider
and establish the boundary-line between Alaska and British Columbia, the Commis-
sioners to be instructed, in the first instance, to define a provisional boundary in the
^<ynn Canal region.

The Minister of the Interior, to whom the despatch was referred, submits that,
his judgment, such action would be open to grave objection, for the following
iusons : —

1. Article I of the Convention of 1892 contemplates a permanent and final, not
a provisional, delimitation of the boundary-line. The provisional line, when marked
out, would acquire no validity from the fact that it had been marked out under the
Convention, an agreement between the Governments would be necessary to make it
valid. Nor would it have moral force towards securing such agreement as would a
permanent line agreed upon by Commissioners acting under the same provisions of
the Convention. An agreement between Her Majesty's Ambassador at Washington
and the Government of the United States to adopt a temporary line for the purposes
of administration would secure all that is necessary at the present juncture to avoid
conflict of jurisdiction.

2. The assent of the Government of Canada to an arrangement whereby Com-
missioners, appointed under a Convention which purports to aim at establishing a
permanent line in accordance with the Boundary Treaties in regard to it, should
establish a provisional line, might be construed into an admission on the part of
Canada that the line described in those Treaties is inconsistent with the topo-
graphical features of the region, and therefore impracticable. The Government of
Canada, on the other hand, has always held that it is quite practicable to survey
and mark out the boundary in strict accordance with tiie Treaty description.

3. In order to make plain the fact that ti)p >.lescription of the line in the Treaties
is not inconsistent with the topographical features of the region, and to resolve
existing oiflerences of inter|)retation of the Treaties, it appears essential that the line
be considered as a whole. The determination of a part of it, in accordance with
merely topographical conditions, may defeat this object.

The Committee, on the recommendation of the Minister of the Inte/ior, advise
that your F^xcellency be moved to inform the Right Honourable Her Majesty's
Principal Secretary of State for the Colonies that the Government of Canada is
unwilling, for the reasons stated, to agree to the determination of a provisional line
under the Convention of 1892, but that this Government sees no objection to a pro-
visional arrangement with the United States' Government whereby, pending the
settlement of the boundary question, and as to the territory traversed by the moun-
tain passes which lead from Taiya Inlet, each Government shall remain in possession
of the territory now actually occupied by it, and that, for this purpose, a line drawn
at the summit of the passes or the watershed between the rivers flowing into Taiya
Inlet and the tributaries of the Yukon River would be satisfactory to Canada.

All of which is respectfully submitted for your Excellency's approval.

(Signed) JOHN J. MoGEE,

Clerk of the Privy Council.

No. 38.

Treasury to Foreign Office. — {Received July 20.)

Sir, Treasury Chambers, July 19, 1898.

THE Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury have had before thetti
your letter of the loth instant respecting the exjienses of Lord HersciicH's special
mission to Canada as one of Her Majesty's High Commissioners for the settlement
of questions pending between the United States and Canada.

As recommended by the Marquess of Salisbury, my Lords sanction the charge
against public funds of all the actual expenses for travelling and subsistence of Lord
Herschell and his suite (Secretary, Private Secretary, courier, and valet) whilst
engaged on this mission.

They also sanction the payment of 200Z. ibr outfit and special remuneration to
Mr. Cactwright, of the Foreign Office, who will act as Secretary to the High Com-
mission, as well as of the wages of the courier at 51. a-month.

Their Lordships will be glad to receive an estimate of the total cost as soon as
one can be framed.

I am, &c.
(Signed) FRANCIS MOWATT.

No. 39.

Colonial Office to Foreign Office. — {Received July 21.)

(Confidential.)

Sir, Downiny Street, July 16. 1898.

WITH reference to the letter from this Department of the litli instant, I am
directed by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain to transmit to you, for the information of the
Marquess of Salisbury, copy of a despatch from the Governor- General of Canada,
covering copy of an approved Minute of the Dominion Privy Council, embodying the
views of the Canadian Government on the questions to be discussed by the Joint
Commission.

I am, &c.
(Signed) H. BERTRAM COX.

Inclosure 1 in No. 39.

The Earl of Aberdeen to Mr. Chamberlain.
(Secret.)
Sir, Government House, Ottawa, July 5, 1898.

IN accordance with your telegram of the 21st Juno, I have the honour to inclose
copy of an approved Minute of Council embodying the views of my Government upon
the questions to be discussed by the proposed Joint Commission.

You will observe that the observations contained in the Minute were prepared by
Sir Wilfrid Ijaurier, as President oT the Council, and thereafter duly indorsed by Lis
colleagues.

I have, &c.
(Signed) ABERDEEN.

Inclosure 2 in No. 39.

Extract from a Report of the Committee of the Honourable the Privy Council, approved
by the Governor- General on the \th July, 1898.

THE Committee of the Privj' Council have ha<l under consideration a despatch
by cable, dated the 21st Juno, 1898, hereto annexed, from the Right Honourable
Mr. Chamberlain, as follows : " Send home as early as possible a Memorandum of the
views of your responsible advisers on the various questions to be discussed by the Joint
Commission."

The President of the Council, to whom the said despatch was referred, offers the
following observations as expressing the views and considerations whiob, in his opinion,
ought to be confidentially communicated to tiie Imperial authorities for the guidance
— if the same arc^ approved — of the Commissioners of Her Maj.;^" in the approaching
negotiations, which are soon to take place at Quebec.

'J'he Protocol lately adopted at Washington by RcprrsentativcK of the two High
Contracting Parties embraces twelve Articles, and contains all the subjects wliicli have
actually' given cause, or mav possibly at some time give cause of irritation between
[1127] . . s ^

84

the two nations, and whicli, if successfully di«po<-ed of, would in no small degree add
to the ever-i;rowing friendliness which ought to characterize their relations.

It may Iw advisable to revise seriatim these different subjects.

Article 1st relates to the " fur seals in Behriug Sea, and the waters of the North
Pacific Ocean."

In 1893, the International Tribunal appointed by the same High Contracting
Parties had this subject of tiie fur seals in Behring Sea, and the waters of the North Pacific
Ocean, under consideration. The exact question submitted to the International
Tribunal was whether the subjects of Her Majesty had the right to kill seals in the
above described waters. The affirmative of the question was emphatically determined
by the Tribunal, but at the same time, with the view of protecting seal life, pelagic
sealing, or in otlier words the killing of fur seals on the high seas, was sub. itted to
certain Rules, then and there framed by the Tribunal, which restricted the exercise
of this right in three important respects, viz., time, plnce, and weapons. The Rules
then adopted provide that pelagic sealing should not take place during the month" of
May, Jime, and July ; that at no time could it take place in a zone of GO miles aiouud
the Pribyloff Islands and other seal rookeries, and that at no time should fire-arms be

ject to revision at the end of

used in Behring Sea.

These Rules were made binding for all times, but si
every successive five years.

The An lerican authorities allege that the above Rules have entirely failed of the
object for M liicli they were devised, viz., the protection of seal life ; they assert that
even with th', above restrictions, pelagic sealing causes the killing of a large number
of gravid females, and that, as a consequence, the herds have been constantly
diminishing, and arc now very near complete extinction, and they ask that the Rules
be revised for the purpose of still further adding to the restrictions under which
pelagic sealing is now carried on.

On the other hand, Canadian sealers aver that the stringency of the existing
Rules has made pelagic sealing a very precarious business, and that any addition to
'heir severitv woidd practically amount to a total prohibition of that industry. They
demand relaxation of the Rules alike \nth regard to the extent of the prohibited zone,
the close sciason, and the right of boarding and search.

These respective statements show a conflict of interests between pelagic sealers
and land sealers, which it is extremely diflBcult, if not absolutely impossible, to
reconcile.

There is some reason to expect that the American Commissioners will propose the
total abrogation of pelagic sealing as the only means of preserving the herds.

In view of the undoubted fact that, even %vith the present Regulations, both
pelagic sealing and land sealing have become less and less remunerative, it is suggested
that the abrogation of the former might be considered, provided adequate compensation
be given to those who are now engaged in the business, and provided, likewise, that
some fair equivalent be given to Great Britain for the renunciation by her of the
exercise of an undoubted right.

The Dominion Government is of the opinion that, as the suppression of pelagic
sealing would involve the practical confiscation of the fifty-four Canadian sealing-
schooners, with their tackle and appurtenances, at present engaged in the industry,
and as such suppression would enure entirely to the benefit of the United Stiites and
their lessees on the Pribylolf Islands, full and ample compensation should be a\\ arded
the owners of these sealing-vessels by the Government of that country. The
equivalent that should be given to Great Britain for the renunciation by her of the
rights of her subjects to carry on pelagic sealing in future might well, it is considered,
take the form of some trade concessions to Canada, whose citizens would b(> chiefly
affected by the proposed pvoliibition.

The second Article of the Protocol refers to the fisheries of the Atlantic and
Pacific coasts, and of the inland waters contiguous to their common frontier.

This Article involves tAvo subjects, which are absolutely disassociated, and which
ought to be treated from a diiVerent standpoint. In the Atlantic fisheries there is an
alleged grievance on the part of the Americans ; in th(! inland waters, a grievance on
the part of the Canadians.

The grievance which is complained of by American fishermen on the Atlantic is
not one which may be said to be of the creation either of the British or Canadian
authorities. It simply results from the Convention of 1818, which was freely agree<l
to both by Great Britain and the United States.

The gist of this Convention, in so far an it relates to the subject in hand, is that

86

the American fishemicn have not the right of access to tlie harljours of the British
possessions on the Atlantic coast, except for shelter, repairs, wood, and water, and
that the express prohihitions of that Convention preclude them for purchasing bait,
ice, and supplies, from transshipping their fish, or from shipping crew, or otherwise
making Canadian harbours the base of their fishing operations.

The restrictions thus imposed upon American fishermen have often been the
subject of representations on tlieir part. The Uritish Government has. always been
ready to consider the repi'esentations thus made, and in 18SS a Treaty w;'s agreed to
between Plenipotentiaries appointed by the two nations. The British l'leui|)otontiaries
at that time were the Right Hon. Mr. Joseph Clmmberlaia and Sir Charles
Tupper.

The restrictions above mentioned, imposed upon American fishermen by the
Convention of 1818, were removed in consideration of some trade conccssiv)ns to he
made to Canada by the United States. The Treaty was ratified l)y tlie Imperial and
Canadian Parliaments, but rejected by the American S-^nate.

It is suggested that the proposed Treaty of 1888 affords a fair basis upon which
the same subject may again lie approached.

The modus vivendi offered by the Bi-itish Commissioners at the time of the signing
of the Treaty of 1888, under which United States' fishermen might obtain, on pay-
ment of a small tonnage fee, all of the concessions or privileges they seek with respect
to the purchasing of bait, ice, and supplies, transshipping cargoes, and shipping crews,
was cordially accepted by the American Commissioners, and, notwithstanding the
rejection of the Treaty, has been continued by the Parliament of Canada to this day.
While its privileges are accepted in the terms oflTered by a large number of the United
States' fishing fleet, an almost equally large number of that fleet neglect or decline to
take out their licences under this modus vivendi, but seek afterwards illegally to enjoy
the pri^-ileges they could secure if they paid the small tonnage fee exacted for the
licence.

The consequences have been irritation, expense, and international disputes, all
of which, it is thought, is avoidable if the substance of the Treaty of 1888 should be
incorporated in a new Treaty, with the exception, however, of the provisions of that
proposed Treaty which treated land-locked bays having an entrance of more than
10 miles wide as part of the open sea. That provision seems objectionable, though it
is not advisable here now to point out the objections.

The question of the fisheries so far as inland waters of the two countries are
concerned relates to a long-standing grievance of Camulians against the United States.
In tlie Great Lakes, and in all the contiguous waters between the two countries, the
laws which all civilized nations admit as necessary for the protection of fish life, viz.,
the establishment of a close season and the prohibition of some weapons of destruction,
have been rigidly enforced on the Canadian side, whereas on Lake Erie and Lake
Huron and most of the other contiguous waters no such regulations arc enforced,
and American fishermen can fish all the year round and use the most destructive
appliances. The absence of regulations on one side and their enforcement on the
other have operated most unjustly upon the Canadian fishermen, while at the same
time the former have threatened the entire extinction of some of the more valuable
fisheries.

A few years ago a Joint International Commi&siou, consisting of Professor
Kathlnm and Commander Wakeham, was appointed to consider and report upon the
subject, and to recommend such joint regulations and restrictions as might properly
be mutually adopted by the United States and Canada for the control of thoae inLand
contiguous fishing waters. This Commission commenced its inquiries in the spring df
1893, and presented its Final Report on the 31st December, 18i)6.

The recommendations and suggestions of these Commissioners the Government of
Canada is willing to accept as providing a fair and reasonable solution of the
difficulties, provided the United States' Government is able to provide for the enforce-
ment of the proposed restrictions ; the State Governments, it having been heretofore
understood, claiming the exclusive control of the fisheries within their respective
jurisdictions.

It b suggested that these important subjects should bo regulated by the Treaty,
and that these contiguous waters should be regulated by similar laws on both
sides.

The 3rd Article of the Protocol refers to the delimitation and estalilishment of tho
Alaska-Canadian boundary.

In view of the great discoveries of gold which have of late years been made in the

86

peninsula which includes Alaska on the American side and the Yukon on the
Canadian side, this subject is one of the most important that the Commissiioners will
have to deal with.

It is to he remarked that the boundary between British and American territories
in that section has been determined by the Treaty of 1825 between Great Britain and
Russia, and to some extent also by the Treaty of Washington (1871). It is
suggested that the object of the Commissioners should bo strictly ^a organize a
Tribunal of legal experts to determine the exact location of tliat boundary, and, in the
meantime, to agree upon a conventional line embracing the concession to Canada of
one of the ports on the shores of the Lynn Inlet.

In view, however, of the fact that the subject is one surrounded with con-
siderable difRculties, resulting from the fact that in 18:26 the geography of that
distant locality was but little known, and that there were very few accurate maps, a
proposition may be made to fix and determine the boundary by agreement. It is
submitted that this aspect of the question ought to be left entirely to the judgment
and discretion of the Commissioners.

Articles 4 and 5 of the Protocol relate to the tmnsit of merchandize to and from
either country across intermediate territory of the other, or, in other words, to what is
known in Canada and the United States as transportation in bond.

The contiguity of territory between the two coimtries, and, in some instances,
their interlapping, brousht an agreement many ycai-s ago between the two countries,
whereby tlic goods of one country can bo shipped across the t/Crritory of the other,
without being subject to its Customs laws.

This system has proved of great advantage to the subjects and citizens of both
nations.

There' is no particular suggestion to offer upon it, except that it is advisable to
make it permanent by Treaty, and to make it as broad and as effective as can be
allowed consistently with the necessary protection of the revenue.

The 6th Article refers to the queation of Alien Labour Laws. This subject is
one wlJch of late years has assumed in Canada dangerous proportions. It arises from
the fact that soma years ago the Congress of the United States adopted laws which
proliibited the importation into the United States of labourers under contract.

It is generally admitted hero that the object of these laws was intended to apply
only to certain classes of pauper populations in Europe, but unfortunately they were
applied in the great cities along the' border in the State of New York and other
adjacent States, to Canadian subjects of Her Majesty, who sought labour in the
United States.

In self-defence the Canadian Parliament had to adopt in the session of 1897 a
law largely similar and intended to apply to American citizens seeking labour in
Canada.

The Canadian Parliament came to this determination with much regret, and the
object of this Article is to provide for the abrogation of aU such laws, in so far as the
two countries are concerned.

The 7th Article refers to the mining rights of citizens or subjects of each country
•within the territorj' of the other. This Article requires no special comment ; it is
submitted that the subjects and the citizens of each country should have in the
territory of the otlier the same privileges whicli are granted to its citizens or
subjects.

Article 8 refers to reciprocity between the two countries.

It has always been the opinion of the party now in jMjwer in Canada that the
relative position of the United States and Canada made a large measure of free trade
most desirable between them. The fact, however, that each country has a high
Customs Tariff, which is practically protective, makes mutual concessions somewhat
diflBcult.

Neither should it bo overlooked that Canada, while fully appreciating the
advantages of the United States' markets, has iu recent years, by the judicious
subsidizing of freight steam-ships, and the introduction of the cold storage system,
succeeding in finding a profitable market for a large portion of her surplus natural
products in Great Britain ; that this market is capable of indefinite expansion, and
that in consequence the desiral)ility of obtaining access to the markets of the United
States 1ms been appreciably minimized.

Even iu the face of tliis undoubted ■' ; ^ , the proposition is still maintained that
negotiations on and for a wide list of nat . i". products and a carefully selected list of
manufactured products are still desirable and possible, though, it is important to

87

remark, concessions to be made by Canada should in no wise conflict with the
preferential Tariff given to Great Britain by tlie legislation of lfe97.

The 9th Article provides for the revision of the Agreement of 1817 respecting
naval vessels on the lakes.

The only observation to be offered on this subject is that any modification of the
rattiictions placed upon the two countries with regard tu anuamc.nt on thp li^es ought
to be veiy carefully guarded, and, in fact, that no reason at this time seems to exist
for any deviation from the severity of the restrictions imposMi by the Agreement of
1817. The exercise by the United States of a Treaty right, if granted, to place a
number of armed vessels on the lakes might force Canada to incur very large and
otherwise unnecesstiry expenditure in arming a similar number of vosaels for the
protection of her own shores and cities.

The three last Articles are not of serious importance, with the exception of the
provision for the conveyance, trial, or punishment of persons in lawful custody of
officers of one country through tlu; territory of tlie other.

This subject ought to he approached with the view of facilitating the punishment
of offenders without sacrificing tlie protection of tlii; subjiscts or citizens of eitlier
country, but does not seem to invite any special comment at this moment.

The Committee, on the recommendation of the President of Council, advise U»t
your Excellency be moved to transmit a certified copy of this Minute to the Eiglit
Honourablt! Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for the Colonies.

All of wluch is respectfully submitted for your Excellency's approval.

(Signed) JOHN J. McGEE,

Clerk of the Privy Council.

No. 40.
Colonial Office to Foreign Office. — (Received July 21.)

Sir, Douming Street, July 21, 1898.

WITH reference to your letters of the 9th and the 19th instant respecting the
proposed representation of Newfoundland on the Joint Commission, I am directed by
Mr. Secretary Chamberlain to transmit to you, to be laid before the Marquess of
Saasbury, paraphrases of telegrams on the subject which have been adtiressed to the
Governor-General of Canada and the Governor of Newfoundland.

As the United States' Government entertain no i \ijection to the proiiosal in ques-
tion, and as Lord Salisbury Is aware from unofficial coir aunication with *his Department,
that the Government of Canada has also acceded to it, Mr. Chamberlain presumes that
his Lordship mil cause a commission to be prepared appointing the Honourable Sir
James Spearman Winter, Q.C., K.C.M.G., Prime Minister and Attorney-General of
Newfoundland, to be a member of the Commission, and that he will issue a supplement
to the instructions to the Commissioners, directing them to include in their deliberations
the whole question of the Atlantic fisheries as afTecting Newfoundland as well as
Canada, and also the commercial relation i between the United States and Newfoundland,
and expressing the hope of Her Majesty's Government that a comprehensive arrange-
ment may be arrived at Nvhich will apply to the whole of Her Majesty's Dominions in
North America.

I am, &c.
(Signed) EDWARD WINGFIELD.

Inclosure 1 in No. 40.

Mr. Chamberlain to Govei'nor Sir H. Murray.

(Telegraphic.) P. Downing Street, July 19, 1898, 618 p.m.

UNITED STATES and Canada have agreed to Ne\vfoundland being represented
on Commission by Premier, who will accordingly be appointed.

[1127]

Inclosure 2 in !No. diO.

Mr. Chamberlain to the Earl of Aberdeeii.

(Telegraphic.) P. Downing Street, July 19, 1898, 6'38 p.m.

REFERRING to my telegram of the 11th instant : As I understood that repre-
sentation of Novfoundland on Commission hy the Premier would not be objected to by
your Government, this course was proposed to the United States, and has been agreed
to by them. Winter will accordingly be appointed, and he may be expected at Quebec
about the middle of next month. On all points not affecting Newfoundland he will be
instructed to support Canadian views.

No. 41.
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquess of Salisbury, — [Received July 21.)

(No. 96.)
(Telegraphic.) P.

WITH reference to your Lor
mission.

I am in receipt of a note from
the 10th August as the date for the

Mr. Day informs me that the
formerly United States' Minister in
an additional Commissioner.

Under these circumstances, is
should 1)0 placed on the functions
foundland ?

New London, Connecticut, July 21, 1898.
dship's telegrams Nos. 121 and 132 : Joint Com-

the United' States Secretary of State, suggesting
first meeting at Quebec.

Hon. .Jefferson Coolidge, of Boston, Massachusetts,
Paris, has been appointed by the President to be

it still considered advisable that any limitation
to be exercised by the Commissioner from New-

No. 42.
Foreign Office to Colonial Office.

Sir, Foreign Office, July 21, 1898.

WITII rofcieuco to my letter of the 19th instant, I am directed by the Marquess
of Salisbury to transmit, for the information of the Secretary of State for the Colonies,
copy of a telegram from Her Majesty's Ambassador at Washington,* announcing the
appointment of the Honourable JefiEerson Coolidge as a sixth member of the Joint
Commission on behalf of the United States.

Sir J. Pauncefote inquires whether it is still desired to place any limit on the
functions of the Newfoundland Commissioner.

Lord Salisbury is of opinion that, in the circumstances of the case, it is unneces-
sary that the functions of the Newfoundland Commissioner should be in any way
limited, and proposes, with Mr. Secretary Chamberlain's concurrence, to inform
Sir Julian Pauncefote accordingly.

I am, &c.
(Signed) P. H. VILLIERS.

No. 43.

Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquess of Salisbury. — {Received July 22.)

New London, Connecticut, July 22, 1898.

(No. 98.)
(Telegraphic.) P.

JOINT Commission.

At the suggestion of the AuKsrican Commissioners the United States' Government
desire to publish the list of subjects to be discussed, and wish to know whether H«
Majesty's Government liave any objection ?

• No. 41.

S9

No. Jr4.

The Marifuemi of Satistmry to .Si/r J. Pauncefotf.
(No. 191.)
Sir, Foreign Ojfir.e, July 22, 1898.

WITH reforcDce to recent correspondcnco relative to tlie appointment of a Joint
CommiNsion for the adjustment of all (juostions in dispute between the United States
and the Dominion of Canada, I transmit to your Excellcney herewith, for your
information, a copy of tlie instructions which I have addressed to Her Majesty's IIii?h
Commissioners.*

Further copies are also inclosed for communication to the United States' Oovom-
ment in fulfilment of the engagement that each Government should communicate to
the other a Meraorandimi dealing with the subjects mentioned in the Protocol of tho
30th May.

In transmitting these copies to tho Secretary of State your ExccUoncy should
state that Her Majesty's Government will Ix; glad to receive, as soon as possible, the
corresponding instructions given to the Uniteid States' Commissioners, or a Memo-
randum containing the views of the United States' Government on the various
questions to bti discussed.

I am, &c.
(Signed) SALISBURY.

No. 15.
Foreign Office to Colonial Office.

Sir, Foreign Office, July 22, 1898.

WITH reference to recent correspondence respectins^ the appointment of a Joint
Commission for the adjustment of all matters in dispute between tho United States
and the Dominion of Canada, I am directed by the Marquess of Salisbury to transmit
to you, for the use of your Department, copies of the instructions which have been
addressed by his Jjorilship to Her Majesty's High Commissioners.*

These insti-uetions were settled in communication with your Department, and
have been approved by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain.

I am to add that copies will be forwardetl to Her Majesty's Ambassador at
Washington, for communication to the Government of the United States, in fulfilment
of the engagement contained in the Protocol signe<l at Washington on the 30th May,
that each Government should communicate to the other a Memorandum dealing with
the subjects to be discussed.

I am, &c.
(Signed) F. II. VTLLIERS.

No. 46,

Foreign Office to Treasury.

Sir, ^ Foreign Office, July 23, 1898.

WITH reference to your letter of the 19th instant sanctioning the charge against
public funds of all the actual expenses for travelling and subsistence of Lord Herschell
and his suite during his Lordship's special Mission to Canada, I am directed by the
Marquess of Salisbury to request that you will inform the Lords Commissioners of
the iTcaaury that a telegram has been received from Her Majesty's Ambassador at
Washington suggesting that a Secrctaiy from Her Majesty's Embassy shall bo attached
to Lord Herschell in addition to Mr. Cartwright.

A member of Her Majesty's Eml)assy Avould, no doubt, be in a position to render
useful services to the High Commissioners. He would be able to furnish information
and would undertake tho duty of communicating regularly with Iler Majesty's
Ambassador.

Lord Salisbury therefore concurs in Sir J. Pauncefote's suggestion, and hopes
that the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury will sanction the additional charge

• No. 3».

40

acainst public funds of tho travelling and subsistence expenses of one of the Scerotaries
or the Embassy durinjf tho sittings of tho Joint CommiBsion.

I am, &o.
(Signed) T. H. VILLIKR8.

No. 47.
Colonial Office to Foreiyn Office. — (Received July 25.)

Sir, Downing Street, July 23, 1808.

I AM directtnl by Air. Secretary Chamberlain to acknowledge tlic niooipt of your
letter of the 21. -t instant, inclosing a c()j(y of a telegram from Her Majcflty's
Ambassivdor at Washington announcing the appointment of the Tlonourable Jefferson
Coolidge as a sixth member of th(! Joint Commission on Iw'half of the United States.

In reply, I am to state that I'r. Chamberlain concurs in the answer which Lord
Salisbury proposes ^o return to Sir J. Pauncefote, that it is unnecessary in view of this
appointment to place any limitation on the functions of the Newfoundland Member of
the Commission.

Mr. Chamberlain consid(!rs it desirable, however, that in the instructions which
are to be sent to Sir J. Winter, he should be directed to support the views of the
Britisli and Canadian Commissioners on all questions other than " those in which
Newfoundland is directly interested.

I am, &
(Signed) VRD WINGPIELD.

No. 4P.

Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquesti of Salisbury.— (Received July 25.)

New London, Connecticut, July 25, 1898.

(No. U.)
(Telegraphic.) P.

JOINT Commission.

With reference to your Lordship's telegram No. 128, am I authorized to inform
the United States' Government that Her Majesty's Government agree to the date
suggested by them for the first sitting, viz., the 10th August ?

No. 49.
The Marquea.t of Salisbury to Sir J, Pauncefote.

(No. 128. Conhdontial.)

(Telegraphic.) P. Foreign Office, July 25, 1888.

REFERRING to your telegram No. 96 of the 20th July.

It is not desired, in the cu'cumstanccs, to place any limitation on the functions of
the Newfoundland member of the Joint Commission.

(Confidential.)

On all questions in which Newfoundland is not directly interested he will be
diirectod to supjwrt British and Canadian Commissioners.

No. 50.
Foreign Office to Colonial Office.

Sir, Foreign Office, July 25, 1898.

WITH reference to your letter of the 23rd instant, I am directed by the Marquess
of Salisbury to state that an inquiry has been addressed to Her Majesty's Ambassador
at Vv'ashington by the United States' Government as to whether Her Majesty's
Government would object to the publication of the list of subjects to be discussed by
the Joint Commission, ■nhich is tj meet at Quebec aext month for the discussion and
adjustment of questions now pending between Canada and the United States.

Sir J. Pauncefote adds that publication is desired by the American Commissioners.

41

Lord Salisbury would be glad to be favoured with Mr. Secretary Cbamberlain'a
opinion as to the answer which should be returned to the United States' Ooremment
on the subject.

I am, &c.
(Signed) F. 11. VILLI ERS.

No. 51.

Sir J, Paunce/ote to the Marquess nf Salisbury. — {Received July 27.)

New London, Connecticut, July 27, 1898.

(No. 100.)
(Telegraphic.) P.

JOINT Commission.

With reference to my telegram No. 9!) of the 26th instant, I am in receipt this
day of a telegram from the (Jotemor-General of Canada stating that the Premier of
Newfoundland finds it impossible to arrive before the Hth August, and at his Excel-
lency's request I have informed the United States' Secretary of State of the above, and
have asked whether the 20th August will be convenient to the United States' Com-
missioners for the tirst sitting.

No. 52.
The Marquess of Salisbury to Sir J. Paunce/ote.

(No. 131.)
(Telegraphic.) P.

JOINT Commission.

Referring to your telegram No. 98 of the 23rd instant.

'There is no objection to the list of subjects being published.

Foreign Office. July 27, 1898.

No. 63.

Colonial Office to Foreign Office. — {Received July 28.)

Sir, Downing Street, July 27, 1H98.

WITH reference to your letter of the 25th instant marked " Immediate," I am
directed by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain to request you to inform the Marquess of
Salisbury that he has no objection to offer to the publication of the list of subjects to
be discussed by the Joint Commission at Quebec.

I am, &c.
(Signed) H. BERTRAM COX.

No. 54.
Treasury to Foreign Office. — {Received July 28.)

Sir,

Treasury Chambers, July 27, 1898.
AS recommended by the Marquess of Salisbury in your letter of the iI3rd
instant, the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury consent to the inclusion
amongst the expenses of Lord HerscheU's Mission to Canada, chargeable to the
Diplomatic and Consular Vote, of the travelling and subsistence of one of the
Secretaries of Her Majesty's Embassy at Washington, during the sittings of the Joint
Commission.

I am, &c.
(Signed) FRANCIS MOW ATT.

[1127]

M

42

No. 55.
The Marquess of Salisbury to Her Maiesly''s High, Commissioners.

My Lordf; and Gentlemen, Foreign Office, July 28, 18!)8.

WITH reference to my despatch No. 1 of the 19th instant, 1 have the honour
to inform you that it has heen agreed between Her Majesty's Grovernment and
the Government of the United States, with the concurrence of the Canadian
Government, that Newfoundland should be represented on the Joint Commission,
inasmuch as two of the subjects to be discussed especially affect that Colony.

These subjects are the Atlantic Pisheries, and the question of the readristment
on a mutually advantageous basis of the customs tariffs applicable in each country
to the products of the soil or industry of the other.

They are dealt with under headings 2 and 8 resppictively in my despatch above
referred to.

The Queen has accordingly been graciously pleased to appoint the Honourable
Sir James S. Winter, K.C.M.G., Prime Minister and Attorney-Cfeirdral of Newfound-
land, to be a member of tlie Commission, and the necessary full power to enable him
to act is inclosed herewith.

The Honourable Jefferson Coolidgo, formerly American Minister at Paris, has
been api)ointed by the President as sixth Commissioner on behalf of the United
States.

Y»u should therefore include in your deliberations the whole question of Lue
Atlantic Fisheries as affecting Newfoundland as well as Canada, and also the
commercial relations between the United States and Newfoundland.

By Article I cf the Convention of the 20th October, 1818, which is quoted
textually in my despatch of the 19th July, United States' fishermen are placed under
the same disabilities in Newfoundland waters as in those of Canada ; on the other
hand the G«verni 'ent of Newfoundland desire to secure reciprocal free trade with
the United States in fish and fisli-oil, including seal and whale-oil, end also in
minerals ; and Her Majesty's Govemmeat trust that a comprehensive arrangement
may be arrived at which will apply to the whole of Her Majesty's Dominions in
North America.

I am, <tc.
(Signed) SALISBUaY.

Sir J. Pnuncejnti to the

No. 56.

?.firques.s of Salisbury.-

-{Received .^uly 29.)

(No. 230.)

My Lord, New London, Connecticut, July 18, 1898.

WITH reference to my telegram No. 93 of the 17th instant, 'I have the honour to
transmit l-.erewith copy cf a note from the United States' Secretary of State, giving the
names of the United States' Commissioners, appointed by the President, to represent the
United States' Qovcinment on the Joint Commission.

I have, Sfc.
, ignel) JULIAN PAUNCBFOTF..

Inclosuie in No. 56.
Mr. Day to Sir J. Paunce/ote.

Excellency, Department of State, Washington, July 16, 1808.

i HAVE (he honour to inform you tiiat tlie following gentlemen li/ive been named
by the President to represent this Government o:> the Canadian Commission • —

Hcnouiable Charles W. Fairbanks, United Stales' Senator, from Inui.ma.

Honourable George Gray, United States' Scnotor, from Deiawar.

Honourable Nelson Dinglcy, Member of Congress, from Maine.

Honourable John W. Fosler, of the district of Columbin.

Honours '.)Ie John A. Knsson, of Iowa.

I have, &c.
(Signed) \y. R. DAY.

48

No. o7.

The Marquesn of Salisbury to Sir J. Pauncefote.

Foreign Office, July 29, 1698.

^No. 132.)
(Telegraphic.) P.

JOINT Commission.

The sanction of the Treasury given for charging to Lord Herschell's mission
the subsistence and travelling expenses of i\ Secretary from the Embassy has been
received.

No. 68.
Foreign Office to Colonial Office.

Sir, Foreign Office, July 30, 1898.

I jIM directed by the Marquess of Salisbury to acknowledge the receipt of youi*
letter of the 21st instant as to the representation of Newfoundland on the .Joint
Commission, and I am to transmit, for the information of the Seoretary of State for tlio
Colonies, a copy of the supplementary instructions which have been addressed to tlie
High Commissioners on the subject.*

These instructions were drawn up in consultation with your Department.

I am to add that the full power for Sir James Winter is in course of preparation.

I am, &c.
(Signed) F. H. VILLIERS.

Sir

No. 59.

Colonial Office to Foreign Office. — {Received August 6.)

Downing Street, August 5, 1898.
I AM directed by the Secretary of State for the Colonies to transmit to you. for
the information of the Martjuess of Salisbury, with reference to tho letter from your
Department of the 21st ultimo and to previous communications, a copy of correspon-
dence on the subject of the meeting of the Joint Commission at Quob" c.

I am, &c.
(Signed) EDWARD WINGFIBLD.

'x.closure 1 in No. 59.
Colonial Office to Sir J. Winter.

Sir, Downing Street, July 29, 1898.

I AM dirticted by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain to acquaint you that Her Majesty's
Ambassador at Wiwhington has, at the rerjuest of tlic Canadian Government, inforineil
the Unit(Hl States' Government that you cannot arrive at Quebin; to take uj) your
duties on the Joint Commission before the 14th August, and inquired wliether it will
suit the United States' Commitisioners to neet on the 2()tli of tliat month.

You will b(! inibrmed of the rCj\ A the United Stiites' Government to this com-
munication as soon as it is rtsceived.

I am, &c.
(Signed) II. «ERT11AM COX.

« No. 55.

4*

Inclosure 2 in No. 59.

The Earl of Aberdeen to Mr. Chamberlain.
(Confidential.)
(Telegraphic.) [Undated.]

I AM requested by my Ministers to ask if you would send official credentials to
the Canadian members of the Commission, so that any question may be avoided.

It has now been decided by mutual agreement to meet on the 23rd. Herschell in,
in the meantime, making a trip to the Pacific Coast.

Inclosure 3 in No. 59.
Mr. Chamberlain to the Earl of Aberdeen.

(Telegraphic)

IN reply to your telegram of 2nd.
29th ultimo.

Downing Street, August 2, 1898, -I'SO P.M.
Necessary full powers forwarded by mail of

No. 60.

Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquets of Salisbury. "--{Received August 8.)

(No. 104.)

(Telegraphic.) P. New London, August 8, 1898.

WITH reference to your telegram No. 132 of the 29tli July.

Meeting of Joint Commission takes place 23rd August. Lord Herflchell gone to
Pacific and returns IBtli -lugust. Ho approves of Secretary of this Embassy being
adjoined to him. I have arranged that Mr. Tower should go.

No. 61.

Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquexs of Salisbury. — {Received August 18.)

(No. 247.)

My Lord, Neir London, Connectictit, August 2, 1898.

I HAVE the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your Lordship's despatch
No. 191 of the 22nd ultimo, inclosing copits of the instructions addressed by your
Lordship to Her JIajesty's High Commissioners on the Joint Commission for the
adjustment of all questions in dispute between the United States and the Dominion of
Canada.

I have communicated copies, in accordance with your Lordship's desire, to the
United States' Government, and have stated that Her Majesty's Government will be
glad to receive as soon as possible the corresponding instructions given to tha United
States' High Commissioners or a Memorandum containing the views of the United
States' Government on the various questions to be discussed.

I have, &c.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

No. 62.
Colonial Office to Foreign Office. — {Received August 17.)

Sir,

Downing Street, August 17, 1898.
I AM directed by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain to transmit to you, for the con-
sid(!ration of the Secretary of State for Foreign AflFairs, with reference to previous
correspondence, copy of a telegram from the Governor-General of Canada submitting
the name of Mr. J. II. N. Hourassa, Member of the Dominion Parliament, as Secretary
to the Canadian Commissiouei's at the Quebec Conference.

46

Mr. Chamberlain proposes, should the Secretary of State concur, to inform the
Governor-General that Her Majesty's Government approve this recommendation.

I am, &c.
(Signed) C. P. LUCAS.

Inclosure in No. 62.
The Earl of Aberdeen to Mr. Chamberlain.

(Telefifraphic.) [ Undated.]

DOMINION Grovemment desire to submit [to] approval of Her Majesty's
Government the name of J. Henri N. Bourassa, Member of I'arliament, as Secretary
to Commissioners at Conference at Quebec. Dominion Government consider that he
possesses in the highest degree the qualifications for position, and they hope that the
recommendation may meet with approval of Imperial Government.

No. 63.

Foreign Office to Colonial Office.

Sir, Foreign Office, August 18, 1898.

I AM directed by the Marquess of Salisbury to acknowledge the receipt of your
letter of the 17th instant, inclosing copy of a telegram from the Governor-General of
Canada recommending, Mr. J. H. N. Bourassa, Member of the Dominion Parliament,
for appointment as Secretary to the Canadian Commissioners at the Quebec Conference.
In reply, I am to inforn -ou that Lord Salisbury concurs in Mr. Chamberlain's
proposal to approve this reci mondation.

I am, &o.
(Signed) F. H. VILLIERS.

No. 64.

Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquess of Salisbury. — {Received .lugust 19.)

(No. 250.)

My Lord, New London, Conneciiciit, August 9, 1898.

ON the receipt of your Lordship's despatch No. 191 of the 22nd ultimo, t commu-
nicated to the United States' Government, in compliance with yoiir Lordsliip's directions,
copies of the instructions issued by Her Majesty's Government o Her Majesty's High
Commissioners in the Joint Commission for the adjvistii ' nt of questions at issue
between Canada and the United States ; stating that Hi r Majesty's Government would
be glad to receive as soon as possible the corresponding instructions given to the United
States' High Commissioners, or a Memorandum containing the views of the United
States' Government on the various questions to be discussed.

I have now the honour to transmit to your Lordship copies of a Memorandum
which has been communicated to me by the United States' Secretary of State containing,
in compliance with the stipulations of the Protocol of the 30th May last, tin- views of
the United States' Government on the various subjects set forth in that Protocol. In
forwarding this Memorandum to me Mr. Day stated that it would constitute the
instiuctions given to the American Commissioners nispecting the subjects to come before
the Joint Commission.

I have, &c.
(Signed; JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

[1127]

N

Incjosui-e in ITp. 64.

Memorandum on the pari of the Government of the United Staleg, containing its views on
the subjects set forth in the Protocol signed May 3 , 1898, between the Representatives
of the United States and Cheat Britain.

I. — The Questions in respect to the Fur-seals.

THE Government of the United States, at the end of the first year the Regula-
tions of the Paris Tribunal were put in operation and continuously since that date, has
contended that these Regulations were inadequate for the announced purpose for which
they were adopted — " the proper protection and preservation of the fur-seal ; and it has
sought each successive year to have the Regulations so amended as to attain the niirpose
announced by the Tribunal. It now claims that the joint conclusions of the American,
British, and Canadian experts fully sustain its contention. It believes that the on\j
adequate and effective measure to attain the end had in view by the Tribunal of Arbi-
tration is the total jirohibition of pelagic sealing. It is hoped that the Joint High Com-
mission will be able to agree upon a reasonable and equitable basis to secure this measure
of protection.

II. — The Fisheries off the Atlantic and Pacific Coasts and in the Inland Waters of the

Frontier.

The north-east fisheries have been so long a source of misunderstanding and irrita-
tion that it would be desuable in the interests c? both countries to have the ques-
tions connected with them satisfactorily adjusted by the Joint High Commissipn. The
claim of the United States has been that the two Governments, in dealing with the
Convention of 1818, should take into consideration the subsequent development betweea
the United States and Canada, by a series of reciprocal legislative and executive acts, of a
system of liberal and friendly intercourse with which the restrict .ons of that ancient
instrument are incompatible, and that American fishing-vessels should be admitted to
the same privileges in Canadian ports as are extended to other American vessels, and as
are extended in American ports to Canadian vessels without distinction. It is hoped that
some reciprocal arrangement may be agreed upon which wili recognize the just claim of
the United States.

In the Agreement of 1892 to create a Joint Commission to report upon the
preservation ot the fisheries in waters contiguous tc the TTaited States and Canada, the
Government of the United States recognized the propriety of taking the subject up for
settlement by means of some international arrangement. The American Commissioners
will be instructed to lake the Report of the Joint Commission as a basis upon which to
formulate such an arraiigement, having in view the res[.3ctivc powers of the Federal and
State Governments in its enforcement.

III. — The Delimitation and Establishment of the Alaskan Boundary.

This topic has already been the subject of conventional arrangements, and the
Report of the Joint Commission is now available, and has made it possible for the two
Governments to carry out the stipulation of tho last clause of Article I of the Treaty
of the /?2nd July, 1892, to " proceed to consider aiui establish the boundary in question."
T)ie Government of the United States will expect the Joint High Commission to seek
to execute this stipulation by an atrreenient as to the boundary as fixed by the Aniilo-
Russian Treaty of 1825, and by the American- Russian Treaty of 1867, and, as far as
possible, to delineate the same upon proper maps ; and, further, to provide for the fixing
of boundary marks by a Joint ('nnmission to be hereafter appointed. This Government
has no reason to anticipate any other than a definite and satisfactory settlement of this
important question by the .Joint High Commission.

IV and V. — Transit of Merchandize to and from either country and across intermediate

Territory,

The Government of the United States favours the free transit of merchandize, as
indicated in paragraphs 4 and 5. It deems it, iiowever, important that the present

47

uncertainty respecting the authority under which the bonded system, as now practised
is maintained, should be removed. This siiould be done by equitable conventional stipu-
lations which will subserve the necessities of the two countries, without injuring the
competing interests of the transportation routes.

VI. — The Question of the Alien Labour Laws.

The laws of the United States respecting contract alien labour were enacted with
a view to the regulation of immigration from countries beyond the seas. Any
equitable reciprocal arrangement which may be concerted by the Joint High Commission
with respect to intercourse between the United States and Canada which does not
expose the United States to abuse of its existing laws will be heartily approved by this
Government.

VII. — Mining Rights of the Citizens or Subjects of each Country within the Territory of

the other.

The recent discoveries of extensive deposits of the precious metals in the adjacent
territories of the two countries in the north-west, makes some reciprocal arrangement on
thir subject highly desirable, and the American Commissioners will be instructed to favour
such an arrangement.

VIII. — Commercial Reciprocity.

The Government of the United States is heartily committed to the policy of com-
mercial reciprocity, and trusts that the labours of the Commission will result in some
such arrangement with Canada on the basis indicated in this paragraph of the Protocol.
The United States has found no inconvenience in seeking broad reciprocity, for the reason
that it has always claimed that the most-favoured-nation clause docs not apply to reciprocal
concessions granted for a specific consideration, and has inserted this principle in many of
its Treaties with foreign Governments.

IX. — A Revision of the Agreement of 1817 respecting Naval Vessels on the Lakes.

There is no disposition on the part of the United States to change the spirit of the
Agreement of 1817. The practice of both Govennnents shows that its provisions have
become obsolete with the changed conditions of the Lakes and of naval architecture.
While not iinlar^ing the naval armament, it is believed that a revision of the arrangement
can be made to conform to these changed conditions, without menace to the interests or
safety of either country, and afford ship-builders on both sides an opportunity to compete
for the construction of naval vessels designed for ocean service.

X. — More complete Definition and Marking of the Frontier Line.

It is believed that there can be no difference of opinion as to the desirability of
taking measures to bring this about, and that the Commission will readily agree to an
arrangement to that end.

XI. — Conveyance of Prisoners in custody of Officers of one Country through the Territory

of the other.

Experience has shown that some arrangement for this purpose is desirable, and it will
only remain for the Commission to so draft the arrangement as to prevent abuse of the
privilege and properly respect the laws of the country, of transit.

18

XII.

The question of reciprocity in wrecking and salvage, which it was agreed in the
Protocol, should be included in the subjects to be considered by the Commission, is now
provided for as to the Great Lakes by concurrent legislation. There would seem to be no
objection to applying the same practice to the contiguous waters of the ocean frontier. It
will be for the Commission to determiue whether the existing legislation is sufficient for
that purpose, or whether a conventional Agreement should b"! made respecting it.

No. 66.

Mr. Balfour to the British High Commissioner n.
(No. 3.)
Gentlemen, Foreign Office, August 19. 1898.

I TRANSMIT herewith, for your information, copy of a document,* being a
Memorial of Canadian sealers respecting their interests and the Quebec International
Conference.

I am, &c.
(Signed) A. J. BALFOUR.

No. 66.
Colonial Office to Foreign Office. — {Received August 24.)

Sir, Downing Street, August 23, 1898.

I AM directed by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain to acknowlodge the receipt of your
letter of the 15th instant respecting the suggestion of the United States' Government
that the question of the branding of cattle on the border between the Unitjd Ctates
and Canada should be referred to the Joint High Commission ; and I am to transmit
to you, for the informatior of the Secretary of Stat« for Foreign Affairs, a paraphrase
of a telegram on the subject wliich has been addressed to the Govemor-Generai of
Canada.

I am to observe that the difficulty in referring this question to the Commission lies
in the fact that the branding of cattle is a matter of provincial legislrtion in Canada,
and probably also of State legislation in the United States. Mr. Chamberlain thinks,
however, that the Commission may succeed in recommending suitable mutual legisk-
tion and action by the proper authorities.

The original inclosures in your letter under reply are returned herewith.

I am, &c.
(Signed) C. P. LUCAS.

Inclosure in No. 66.
Mr. Chamberlain to the Earl of Aberdeen,

(Telegrarlii?) P. Downing Street, August 20, 1898, 11'50 A.M.

IT ;s pn^posod by the United States' Government that the question of cattle
branding, dealt with by Order in Council of 30th May, should be referred to Joint
High Commission. If your Ministers concur, Her Majesty's Givemment have no
objection. Reply by telegraph.

* In Colonial OSm, Auguit IS, 1898 (not printad).

49

No. 67.

Sir J. Pauncefote to Mr. Balfour. — (Received August 24.)

(No. 109.)

'Telegraphic.) P. New London, Connecticut, August 24, 1898.

WITH reference to my despatch No. 211 a of the 21st June last, I have the
honour to report that a Minute of the Canadian Privy Council (979 K of the
3rd August), has been transmitted to me by the Governor- General. A copy of the
above Minute was sent to the Colonial Office.

1 have been pressed by the United States' Secretary of State for an answer to his
request that, pending further discussion, the application of the Ontario Act to prior
contracts should be suspended.

He is also anxious to learn whether any decision as to the reference of the
question to the Joint Commission has been reached by Her Majesty's Government.

No. 68.
Mr. Balfour to Sir J. Pauncefote.

(No. 144.)
(Telegraphic.) P.

YOUR telegram No. 109.

T}it Colonial Office have not yet received the Minute. What is the purport of it ?

Foreign Office, August 25, 1898, 3-30 p.m.

No. 69.

Colonial Office to Foreign Office. — (Received August 27.)

Sir, Domiing Street, August 26, 1898.

I AM directed by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain to transmit to you, to be laid before
the Marquess of Salisbury, with reference to the letter from this Department of the
23rd instant, a paraphrase of a telegram from the Governor- General of Canada in
regard to the consideration of the question as to cattle branding by the Joint
Commission, sitting at Quebec.

The Dominion Governmerl having no objection to the proposal of the United
States' Government, Mr. ChuLiuerlain would suggest that Sir Julian Pauncefote
should be instructed by telegraph that Her Majesty's Government are willing that this
matter should be referred to the Joint Commission, as proposed by the Grovernment of
tlie United States.

I am, &c.
(Signed) C. P. LUCAS.

Inclosure in No 69.
Tka Earl of Aberdeen to Mr. Chamberlain.

(Telegraphic.) P. ' [Undated.]

YOUR telegram of the 20th.

Ministers are quite willing that the Commission should consider the subject of
cattle branding.

[1127]

0

50

No. 70.

The Marquess of Salisbury to Sir J. Pauncefote.
(No. 145.)
(Telegraphic.) P. Foreign Office, August 27, 1898.

WITH reference to your despatch No. 104, Commercial, of the 28th July
respecting the branding of cattle on the border of Canada and the United States, Her
Majesty's Government are willing that, as desired by the United States' Government,
the question should be referred to the Joint Commission.

No. 71.
Foreign Office to Colonial Office.

Sir, Foreign Office, August 31, 1898.

WITH reference to your letter of the 19th ultimo relative to the recent Act
passed by the Government of Ontario with regard to the cutting of timber on
Canadian lumber lands, I am directed by Mr. Balfour to transmit to you, to be laid
before the Secretary of State for the Colonies, copies of telegrams which have passed
between this Office and Her Majesty's Ambassador at Washington on the subject.*

I am to inquire whether, considering the contents of the Minute of the Canadian
Privy Council, Mr. Chamberlain is of opinion that it should be communicated to the
United States' Government.

No reply is given to the proposal that the question should be referred to the
Joint Commission, a point on which the United States' Government are pressing for
an answer.

I am, &c.
(Signed) PRANCIS BERTIE.

No. 72.

Lord Herschell to the Marquess of Salisbury. — {Received September 2.)

(Fo. 1. Secret.)

My Lord, Quebec, Augutt 22, 1898.

A CAREFUL study of the papers relating to the 9th of the questions tc ^ e discussed
by the International Commissior, viz. : Naval vessels on the Great Lakes, vi^jich I have
been able to make since my arrival in this country, induces me *o submit the following
views : —

The Agreement of 1817, after the stipulation relating to the vessels to be maintained
on the several lakes, contains the following provision : " No other vessels of war shall
be there built or armed."

On the subject of naval vesdels on the Great Lakes, the instructions to the High
Commissioners state that Her Majesty's Government arc strongly of opinion that any
modification of the restrictions placed on the two countries, with regard to naval
armament on the lakes, ought to be very carefully guarded, and that they are not siitisfied
that any sufficient argument exists at the present time for any deviation from tlie restric-
tions imposed by the Agreement of 1817.

In the Memorandum submittcJ on the part of the Government of the United States
it is stated, when dealing with the subject imder consideration, that there is no disposition
on the part of the United States to change the spirit of the Agreement of 1817, but
that the practice of both Governments shows that its provisiotis have become obsolete
with the change of conditions on the lake and naval architecture. The belief is then
expressed that, while not enlarging the naval armaments, a revision of the arrangement
can be made, to conform to these conditions without menace to the safety or convenience
of either country, and afford shipbuilders on both sides an opportunity to compete tor tlie
construction of naval vessels designed for ocean service.

This obviously points to a desire to remove what for many years has been felt by the
lake shipbuilders of the west to be a serious grievance. They have long complained that

• Nob. 51, 67, and 68.

61

the construction of vessels of war is always entrusted to western shipbuilders to the
exclusion of the shipbuilding yards on the lakes. The answer of the United States'
Government hitherto has been that the Arrangement of 1817 precludes that Government
from giving the work to the lake shipbuilders. Down to the present time, owing, it
may be presumed, to the influence of the eastern shipbuilders, the Government have
been able to maintain this position. It was pointed out by Major Barter in 1892 that
the growth of political influence in the west would in all probability render it impossible
for the United States pennanently to do so.

If such was the state of things in 1892, the difficulty of adhering to the Arrange-
ment on the part of the United States is certainly greater to-day than it was then. The
influence of the west has not been diminishing, and with the considerable increase in
shipbuilding, which is certain to result from the events of the rectnt war, the clamour of
the lake shipbuilders for the abrogation of the Arrangement of 1817 by giving the six
months' notice required for its termination, will, I believe, prove irresistible unless the
\rrangement can be so modified as to meet, to some extent, the complaints of the lake
shipbuilders. The modification suggested in 1892 appears to have been that they might
be allowed to build war vessels in sections, »vhich could be taken separately through the
canals to the sea.

Major Barter, in his note of 1892, expresses the opinion that, if this point were
conceded. Great Britain would be placed at a greater disadvantage than if the Treaty of
1817 were to be wholly abrogated. " In the case of complete abrogation of the Treaty,"
he says, " Great Britain could, at any rate, adopt, during pep.ce time, wliat measures she
might deem fit for the maintenance of her naval preponderance on lake waters."

Inasmuch as, in my opinion, we have to face now the question whether the Arrange-
ment of 1817 should be abrogated, or whether it should be so modified as to afford the
lake shipbuilders " an opportunity to compete for the construction of naval vessels
designed for ocean service," I have been driven to consider wliether the view is correct
that we should be better off without any Arrangement at all, than if we were to agree to
such modification as that desired.

The only measures we could adopt in time of peace to maintain naval preponderance
in the lake waters, in case the Arrangement were abrogated, which would not be open to
us if an Arrangement existed, would he to at^d tc the number and strength of our vessels
of war on the lakes. But I think it a mt ttor of absolute certainty that, whatever
addition we made to our naval force there, vrould be immediately followed by a corre-
sponding addition to the United States' navi.l force. Such a competition would, in my
opinion, involve great evils, both financial and political. ^Ye should be involved in
constantly increasing expenditure without any c;.rresponding advant>^ge. Whether each
Power were to maintain one vessel or. the lakes or twenty, their relative position would
be precisely the same, and whatever the number maintained, tlio United States would, in
the absence of Treaty arrangement, inevitably have in reserve the whole resource? of their
lake sliipbuilding yards with some vessels, it might be, even completely equipped and
armed.

In addition to the finmcial waste which, I think, would ensue if there were no
arrangement, there seem to me to be grave political objections to such a state of things.
Each addition that either side made to its naval force on the lakes would give rise in the
other country to an outcry for a similar increase. Irritation and excitement would
certainly be engendered, and acts not sf) intended Viould sure to he represented as
indications of hostility.

If the Arrangement of 1817 were modified by oonMnuing a restriction on the
number of vessels of war, to be maintained on the lakes, but niaking conces^i.ms a., to
construction in the shipbuilding yards, the evils to which I have adverted would be
prevented, and I cannot .see that our position would be at all prejudiced. In so far as
any restrictions. were imposed upon equipping and arming the vessels constructed in the
lake shipbuilding yards, from whicli the United States would be free if ihere were no
arraiigement, it would be so much to the good for Great Britain, thoujfh I admit the
advantage would not be very considerable.

The considerations which I hc.ve brieliy indicated, satisfy me th.it, if the choice has
to be made between an arrangement piodjiiv'd in the direction desired and r'^ arrange-
ment at all, the former is thp bijtt.or qhoicc t'a u;fJ\p in. our interests.

I have had an opportunity of cojisjiiting ^lajor-General Leach, R.E., Colonel
Dalton, R.A,, and Captain White, R.N., who happened to be here for the purpose of the
mission intrusted to thewj jaflJ. have;Comniiihic,Ved ,t(i,'th''m the vie'vs ahi^vo expressed.
I have their authority for stating that th'e;f ciTtir'ely edilcur with them.

1 should be glad to be favoured at the earliest possible moment (though I cannot

62

say when tliis question will como up for discuHsion : it may be necessary to communicate
with nn! by telegraph) with the observations of any naval or military authorities to whom
it may be tliought expedient to refef the question,

I asked General Leach and his colleagues if they had any suggestions to make as
to the restrictions upon the shipbuilding which might be demanded in case of the event
of negotiations for a modified arrangement. None occurred to them beyond a prohi-
l)ition of equipping the vessels with their armaments on the lakes. To this might,
perhaps, be added a stipulation fw the speedy removal to the ocean of vessels constructed
on the lakes when they are ready to receive their armaments.

I should be glatl to knew if there are any further restrictions which would be practi-
cable which occur to tlie naval or military authorities at home, and, further, to bo
informed whether, in case a modified arrangement be agreed to, there would be any
advantage to Great Britain in cither extending or diminishing the term of notice for
abrogation, whicn, under the present arrangement, is six. months.

I have read this despatch to my Canadian colleagues, and find that they take the
same view as myself of the situation and of the course which it would be well to
pursue.

1 h&vc &c
(Signed) ' HERSCHELL.

No. 73.
Colonial Ojfice to Foreign Office. — {Received September 3.)

Sir, Downing Street, September 3, 1898.

1 AM directed by the Secretary of State for the Colonies to acknowledge the
receipt of your letter of the 31st ultimo relative to the recent Act passed by the
Legislature of Ontario with regard to licences for cutting timber in that province.

2. A copy of the Canadian Minute of Council, to which Sir J. Pauncefote refers
in the telegrams which accompany your letter, has been obtained unofficially from
the High Commissioner for Canada, and is inclosed for Mr. Balfour's information,
and it will be seen that the Dominion Government is of opinion that it cannot
constitutionally interfere with the operation of the Act, which deals with a matter
entirely within the competence of the Provincial Legislature.

8. In these circumstances, the only course appears to be to suggest to the
Dominion Government that the Government of Ontario should be inviLcd to send a
Representative to discuss the question with the Joint Commission, in order to see
whether some arrangement can be arrived at.

4. If Mr. Balfour concurs, the Secretary of State will suggest this course to the
Dominion Government, and, in the meantime, he thinks that Sir J. Pauncefote
should bo instructed to communicate to the United States' Government the
purport of the Minute of the Canadian Privy Council, and to add that Her
Majesty's Government are in correspondence with the Dominion Government on
the subject.

I am, &c.
(Signed) H. BERTRAM COX.

Inclosure in No. 73.

Extract from « Report of the Committee of the Honourable the Privy Council, approved
by the Governor-General on the 3rd August, 1898.

THE Committee of tlie Priv-v' Council have had under con.sideration a despatch,
hereto annexed, dated the ITth June, 1898, from Her Majesty's Ambassador to the
United States, transmitting a comn)uniOatron;frQHi; the Honourable the Secretary of
State at Washington, in which, he calls attefttion to the action of the Ontario
Government in adopting certam Crown TTimber Regulations, dated thj
17th December, 1897, requiring that eve ny licence to out. -pine timber on lands
of the Crown issued after tiie ,iOtb, rifi.y of April, 1899, BbaH contain and Jje subject to
tlie condition that all pine which may lie cut into logs shall be manufactured into
sawn lumber in Canada.

68

The Secretary of State, to vhom the despatch was referred, observes that the
Honourable Mr. Day represents that this condition is not consistent with the terms
and Regulations in force at the time the timber berths were sold, and that the
enforcement of the conditions will inflict an injury on the licensees who are citizens
of the United States amounting to a virtual confiscation of their large investments
in Canada, and practical destruction of their equally large investments in the United
States.

The complaint of the licensees is fully set forth in a statement prepared by
their counsel, the Honourable Don M. Dickenson and Mr. Robert Lansing, and
addressed to the Honourable Mr. Day.

The Minister further ol)8erves that in the communication from the Honoiiral)!e
Mr. Day to Her Majesty's .\mbaHsador to the United States ho assumes that the
question so raised would necessarily fall in the class of pending matters (!ogni«able
by the Joint Commission to settle amicably all controversies between the United
States and Great Britain, and he requests that steps may be taken to bring about a
suspension of the Ontario Act confirming the Crown Timl)er Regulations passed in
the Session held in January, 1898.

The Minister states that as the public lands and the timber thereon belong
absolutely to the province, and arc entirely beyond the jurisdiction or control
of the Federal authority, he caused a copy of the despatch and of the letter from the
Honourable Mr. Day, together wiih the statement of the case of the licensees, as
prepared by their counsel, to be forwarded to the llovernment of Ontario for i^uch
action or explanation as that Government might consider proper to decide on. A
re|)ly has been received from the Honourable Mr. Hardy, the Attorney-General und
Premier of the Government of the Province, in which it will be observed he combats
the charge that there has been any violation of the conditions under which the
timber berths were originally sold by the Crown, pointing out that the licences
to cut timber always terminated within a year, and that when the licence for the
subsequent year was issued it was subject to such Regulations as might in the
interim be adopted, and quoting from the Regulations of 1851, he points out that for
some years double rates were imposed on logs cut for export, it is obvious that if the
Regulations permitted a penalty to be imposed for exporting the logs, the rate might
be raised to so high a figure that it would necessarily involve the manufacture of
the logs in Canada, and it is therefore apparent that the recent Regulation is not
altogether new in principle.

The Minister further states that Mr. Hardy's Memorandum also deals with the
right of the Federal Government to disallow an Act of the Provincial Legislature on
a subject-matter which is clearly within its jurisdiction, and under its exclusive
control, and he refers to the British North America Act in support of the contention
in his Memorandum that the power of disallowance vested in tlie Federal
Government is not constitutionally applicable where the rights of the provinces are
so clear.

Section 92 of the British North America Act reads as follows : —

" In each province the Legislature may exclusively make laws in relation
to matters within the classes of subjects next hereinafter enumerated, i.e. : —

" 5. The management and sale of the public lands belonging to the province,
and of the timber and wood thereon.

" 13. Property and civil rights in the province."

The Committee, haviiig regard to the constitutional power of the Legislature of
the province to enact the Statute in question, and as, in the exercise of that power,
the Legislature was clearly within its rights, yet cannot advise the disallowance of
the Statute approving of the Regulations.

The Committee advise that your Excellency be moved to forward a certified
copy of this Minute, together with a copy of the Memorandum from the Honourable
the Premier of Ontario to the Right Honourable Her Majesty's Principal Secretary
of State for the Colonies, and also copies to Her Majesty's Ambassador to the
United States, for transmission to the Honourable I^Ir. Day, United States'
Secretary of State, for the information of the parties interested.

All which is respectfully submitted for your Excellency's approval.

(Signed) JOHN J. McGEE,

Clerk of the Privy Council.
The High Commissioner for Can-atln, London.

[1127]

64

Memorandum uf the Attorney- OeneraL

With reference to the despatch ( f the Honourable the Secretary of Slate of
the Unite) States to Sir Julian Pauncefotc IJer Majesty's Ambassador at Washington,
forwarding a letter from Messrs. Dickinson and Lansinc;, of Detroit, in fiehalf of
certain persons, firms, and Corporatioas engaged in lumbering operations in Ontario,
the Uncler^igned has the honour to repo' t as follows : —

The provisions referred to in the f,aid despatch are the Ontario Act, 61 Vict.,
CK.p. 9, and the Crown Timber Regulations appended thereto.

These provisions require that every licence or permit to cut pine timber on the
ungrante^l lands of the Crown, issued on or after the 30th day of April, 1 '^^, shall con-
tain and be subject to the condition that all pine which may be cut int<; logs or other*
wise under the jiuthority or permission of such licence or permit shall, except as is
therein provided, lie manufiicturcfl into sawn lumber in (^anada.

The despatch claims that the condition so imposed will work grievous hardship
to the persons, firms, and Corporations represented by Messrs. Dickensca and
Lansing and to other citizens of the United States, and will dest'oy rights .■icquired
under the policy heretofore followed by the Department of Crown Lands of this
province in rlealing with timber licences; that the injuries so done wi'l anount to a
virtual confiscation of large investments in Canada, and the practical destruction of
equally large investments in the United States, which are wholly dependent on the
Canadian operations of American lumbermen; that these consequence- result from
the virtual substitution, for the original contract between tlie Cio\> n and the
purchaser of timber lands, of a new contract entirely variant in p. ; ' and effect
from that original contract, and not from any condition or interpretation contained
in or fairly doducible from the original contract; that the annual renewal of timber
licences is a matter of right, and tne tenure thereunder is avestwl interest ; that the
Act in question, if enforced, would impair the validity of existiiiij; contracts, and
would impeach the good faitli under which they were entered into.

The Secretary of State further submits that the questions raised by Messrs.
Dickenson and Lansing will necessarily fall within the class of pending matters
cogniaable by the Joint Commission for the settlement of all controversies between
the United States and Great Britain in regard to the Dominion of Canada, for the
establishment of which negotiations are pending ; and a request is made that steps
may be taken to bring about the suspension of the construction of the Ontario Act
pending the negotiations for the appointment of such Joint Commission and the
final determination of the matters wliicii are to come before it.

The letter of Messrs. Donald M. Dickenson and Robert Lansing to the
Honourable the Secretary of State, bearing date the l]th June last, deals with
this matter in greater detail, but the grounds of complaint are substantially those
contained in the said despatch, and the same requests are made.

In a subsequent letter to the Secretary of State, dated the 13th .June last,
Messrs. Dickenson and Lansing refer to the power of disallowance of Provincial
Acts vested in the Governor-General and the Council, and tliey add that the power
of dealing with all questions affecting commerce is reposed in the Federal Govern-
ment, and it is suggested that the said Act be disallowed, or that the construction
placed thereon by the Government of the province be disapproved by the Government
of the Dominion.

In reply to the several statements and arguments contained in the said State
despatch and the letters of Messrs. Dickenson and Lansing forwarded therewith, the
Undersigned begs to submit the following : —

The timber licences principally affected by the Art and Regulations in question
are those covering territory or timber limits situate on the north shore of the
Georgian Bay in this province, artd were sold by auction in the year 1872 under the
Act then in force, entitled " An Act respecting the Sale and Management of Timber
on Public Lands " (Consolidated Statutes of Canada, 32 Vict., cap. 31), and the
amendments and additions thereto.

Section I of the said Consolidated Act enacted :—

"The Commissioner of Crown Lands, or any officer or agent under him
authorized to that effect, may grant licences to cut timber on the ungranted lands of
the Crown at such rates and subject to such conditions. Regulations, and restrictions
as may from time to time be submitted by the Governor in Council, and of which
notice shall be given in the Canada Gazette."

5S

The form of timber licuncc issued under the said Act and ihe ilcguintionH niu(h;
in pursuance thereof contained the followinjj : —

"Further, under coriHtion that the said licensee or his representative shall
comply witii all Uej^ulatiOiis tliat ;iie or may Ih! imposed by Order in Cimncii."

'I^he said sale was made subjeci lo this Statute, and to the Crowti Tindier
Regulations then in force, beinjj; those <lated tlu^ lOth April, 18(1!), which provided,
amongst other things, "that the berths or limits .... shall be olTercd t(ir sale by
public auction .... at such time and place and on such conditions as the Commis-
sioner of Crown l^nds shall direct."

The conditions of sale contained the following clause: —

"The berths .sold to l)c subject to the Crown Timber Regulations, e.vcept in so
far as such Regulations may be inconsistent with any conditions herein s|)efified,
and also to such Orders in Councd as now exist or may hereafter be passed alfecting
tind>er or territory under timber licences from the Crown."

" Ligences for berths sold will be issued one mouth after date of sale and pay-
nient of bonus and ground rent for the current .season, subject to the i^xistini^ Crown
Timbi-r Regulations, and to such Regulations as may hereafter be estai)lishe(l by
Order in Council, and also to all Orders in Council now existing or hereafter to be
adopted affecting licensed territory."

The Crown Timber Regulations of the Stii August, 1851, which had been
superseded by those in force at ' the time of the said sale, contained the following
paragraph ; —

" ,\II saw log.s cut in future upon' public lancis, if (!xported from the province,
shall b(; |)aid for at double the rates mentioned above respectively " — a measure
ohviously intended to encourage the manufacture in Canada of timber cut upon the
C'rown lands of Ontario.

It is not necessary to discuss tin; r|uesti(m as to whether the licensees are
entitled by law to a yearly renewal of their licences, or to what extent they may be
said to liavs a vested interest therein, as there have been no refusals to issue
renewals of licences ; but it is claimed by the Commissioner of Crown Lands that
they shall he so issued subject to the Act (Gl Vict., cap. 9) and the Regulations set
out in the Schedule thereto.

By the British North America Act (30 and 31 Vict., cap. 3, sec. 92, Imperial) it
ia provided that: —

" In each province the Legislature may exclusively make Laws in relation to
matters coming within the classes of stdijects next hereinafter enumerated, that is
to say : —

"T). Management and sale of the public lands belonging to the province, and of
the tinibcr and wood thereon.

" 13. Property and civil rights in the province.

" 16. Generally, all matters of a merely local or private nature in the
Province."

The public lands situate in the Province of Ontario were and are the lands of
Her Majesty as representing the said province. Timber situate upon the lands
aforesaid, and in respect to which licences to take and cut timber have been issued
by the province, has been one of the principal sources of provincial revenue since
the establishment of the Provincial Government in 1867 under the Act of Confedera-
tion. During the first ten years, 1867-77, the average receipts from tiiiiln-r and
ground rent amounted to 47.5,335 dol. 57 c. per annum ; during the neit ten years to
613,311 dol. lie; and from date until and including 1897 to 1,223,834 dol. SO c.
per annum. The average expenditure for all ordinary purposes of government,
known as "Ordinary Expenditure," during the entire period, was 2,612,561 dol. 5 c.
per annum.

The moneys received from the sale of timber berths and dues on timber cut
tliereon are paid into and form part of tht; Consolidateil Revenue of the province,
and are appropriated for the purposes of carrying on government, legisl.\tion,
administration of justice, education, maintaining public and charitable institutions,
prisons, the assisting and building of railways and public roads, and otherwise
developing new sections of the province, arid for other purposes equally important.

The firms, Corporations, and individuals represented by Messrs. Dickenson and
Lansing have no other right or claim than that conferred by the Statute and
Regulations and the licences issued thereunder from year to year. The accom-
panying Bill, No. 60, is the Act (61 Vict., cap. 9), passed at the last Session of the
Ontario Legislature, and which is the subject of complaint in the despatch of the

5fi

Honourable tlie Secretary of State and the letters of Messrs. Dickenson and
Lansing.

The Undersigned submits that the Lieutenant-Governor in Council had authorify
Tinder tliC Statute and by the terms and conditions of the sale and the Regulations then
in force and the terms and conditions of the contract, and of the licence to make the
Regulations of 1897, contained in Schedule (A) to the Act now in question, and the Legis-
lature of the said province had authority to pass the said Act, and that both th#Act and
the Regulations are cfFective and binding upon the licences, that neither the Act nor
the Regulations are sudi ii variation of the original contract as to constitute a
violation thereof and a breach of faith on the part of the Legislature. From the
Statute, Regulations, advertisement, and conditions of sale hereinbefore set out and
from the licences issued the under, it appears that the right to make new conditions,
Regulations, anfi restrictions was expressly reserved to the Lieutenant-Governor ia
Council, anci it is submitted that the Regulations in question do not go beyon^l his
powers nor beyond the rights so reserved oi the terms of the original contract.

The Undersigned further contends that the Lieutenant-Governor in Council
had power to impose the manufacturing condition without being 8[)ecially authorized
by the said Act of the Legislature of 1898, or the said condition might have been
imposed by a Statute or by both Statute and Order in Council.

New Laws and legislation have from time to time been made, and new conditions
have been imposed upon or in respect of timber licences and licensees, but the
right of the Legislature to make such new Laws, or of the Lieutenant-Governor in
Council to' make new Regulations or to impose new conditions has not heretofore
been challenged.

The Undersigned submits that the timber on the lands of the Crown, being the
property of the Crown as representing the province as before mentioned, and the
right to make bargains or Regulations for the sale thereof, and to impose restrictioiis
or conditions rests not with the Government of Canada, but with the province as
such owner under the powers and rights conferred by the British North America
Act; that tlie question is one of the administration of the assets of the province,
and seriously affects its revenue and the condition of its people, and that it was, and
is, open to the Legislature to make such laws in relation thereto, as may be deemed
to be in the public interest, an'l for the Lieutenant-Governor in Council to make
such Regulations in respect thereto as lie may be advised, and that the Legislature and
Government of Canada have not the right to supervise the same nor to intervene as
between the |)rovince and its timber licensees.

With reference to the suggestion contained in the despatch that the Act
(61 Vict., cap. 9) should be disallowed, the Undersigned respectfully submits that
the power of disallowance e,1.v^;.!J "'t be exercised except in the case of Acts which
are illegal or unconstitutional or which affect the interestsof the Dominion generally,
and that this is now tne well-understood rule or principle upon which the Federal
Government acts in relation to disallowance of provincial legislation.

The Act now in question dees not come within the meaning of the words " regula-
tion of trade and commerce" in the 91st section of the British North America Act
at- interpreted by tlw Cou.'ts in the Citizens Insurance Company v. Parsons,
1 Cartwright, p. 20.'). The Judicial Committ of the Privy Council, in dealing
with tlie construction of these word:-, declared that "they would include political
arrangcmci.tLi in regard to trade requii'.'ig the sanction of Parliament, regulation of
trade in matterb of inter-proviucial concern, and it may be that they would include

general regulations of trade alfecting the whole Dominion Authority to

legislate for the regulation of trade and commerce does not comprehend the power
to regulate by legislation tiie contracts of a particular business or trade."

This doctrine has been repeatedly reanirmed, see for example Bank of Toronto
V. Lambe, 4 Cartwright, ai p. 21.

Kvcn in cases where there has been an expression of doubt on the part of the
Dominion authorities as to the constitutionality of a particular Act or section of an
Act, t' ■; Minister of Justice has again and again advised that the matter should be
left U, .'le decision of the Courts should the question be raised in litigation.

Th- justice or otherwise of iiie Act in question is not to be determined by the
nonj.:.i Government. There is scarcely a general Law affecting civil rights in this
pro\ inc 3 now upon the Statute books which nas not at its introduction been objected
to )ii the ground that it worked injustice or hardship to some class affected by it.
iL .. 'X Mowat, late Minister of Justice, and when Premier aid Attorney-General of
Ontario, in the course of a correspondence with the Federal GovernIr.c^^ upon the

57

question of the disallowance of the Act relating to Niagara Falls Park, o5 Vict.,
cap. 8, saivi (see despatch of the 12tfi April, 1893) : —

"I repudiate the notion of the petitioners that it is the office of the Dominion
Government lo sit in judgment on the right and justice of an Act of the (jntario
Legislature relating to property and civil rights. That is a question for the exclusive
judgnient of the Provincial I^egislature."

In October 1875 the Honourable FIdward Blake, the Minister of Justice, in his
report to Council upon a Petition for the disallowance of an Act respecting the
union of certain Presbyterian churches, 38 Vict., cap. 75, said : —

"The Undersigned does not conceive thai he is called upon to express an
opinion upon the aJlegatioas of tiu' Petition as to the injustice alleged tu he effected
by the Act. Ti'iis was a matter for the Local I egislature."

The late Sir John S. D. Thompson, in his Report to Council dated the
14th April, 1885, upon " .\n ,\ct in respect of certain sums of money ordered by t'le
Legislative Assembly to be impounded in the hands of the Speaker," 48 Vict., cap. 5,
to which objection had been taken on tfie ground that it was an interference with the
private rights of a creditor, said : —

•'Without expressing any opinion as to whether the Act is a just measure or
not, the Undersigned is of opinion that it is within the undoubted legislative
authority of the Legislature of that province, and therefore respectfully recommends
that .t be left to its operation."

In the case of the Nova Scotia Act, 55 Vict., cap. 1, " An Act to amend and
consolidate the Act relating t<j Mi-irs and M;;.> Is," which, it was alleged, affected
the rights of lessees of mineral lands, and changed the terms u|)on which they held,
upon numerous Petitions being presented by capitalists wiio were lessees of coal
areas in Nova Scotia, asking that the Act be disallowed, the Dominion Government
declined to interfere, upon the ground that tlie matters dealt with were clearly
within the legislative authority of tue province (see Report of Minister of Justice,
18th May, 1893).

The Undersigned submits that the disallowance of such an Act as -he one now
in question would be contrary to all precedent, would be an unconstitutional
exercise of the power of the Governor-General in Council, and would be an
unwarrantable i iterference with a matter of purely provincial concern.

Respectfully submitted.

(Signed) ARTHUR S. HARDY,

Attorney-Gene, al.

Department of the Attorney-General,
Ontario, [u;ifJn^erf].

No. 74.

Foreign Office to Colonial Office.

(Confidential.)

Sir, " Foreign OJice, Sep ember 5, 1898.

I AM directed by the Marquess of Salisbury to transmit to you, to be laid before
the Secretary of State for the Colonies, copy of a despatch from the Senior British
Delegate on the Joint Commission now sitting at Quebec,* relative to the question of
naval vessels on the Great Jjakos.

I am to state that his Ix)rdship would be gla<l to be furnished at the earliest
possible date with any observations which Mr. Secretary Chamberlain may have to
offer on Lord Herschell's despatch, of whicli copies have also been sent U) the
Intelligence Division (War Office) and (.he Admu-.'lty.

I am, &c.
Signed) FRANCIS BERTIE.

[1127]

* No. 72.

y

58

No. 75.

The Marquess of Salisbury to Sir J. Pauncefote.
(No. 151.)
Crelegraphic.) P. Foreign Office, September 6, 1898.

WITH reference to your telegram No. 109 of the 24th August respectini? '^"nadian
lumber Laws, inform United States' Government that Her Majesty's Goveiii....3nt are
in correspondence with the Canadian Government on the subject, and you may
communicatf- to them substanoe of Canailian Privy Council Min,ut^o.

No. 76.
Foreign Office to Colonial Office.

Sir, Foreign Office, September 7, 1898.

I AM directed by the Marquess of Saliubury to acknowledge the receipt of your
letter of the 3rd instant, with regard to licences for cutting timber in the Province of
Ontario, and I am to state that his Lordship concurs in the proposed suggestion to the
Dominion Government that the Government of Ontario should be invited to send a
Representative to discuss the question with the Joint Commission, in order to see
whether some arrangement can be arrived at.

I am to add that a telegram has been dispatched to Her Majesty's Ambassador at
Washington in the sense of the concluding paragraph of your letter under reply.

I am, &c.
(Signed) FRANCIS BERTIE.

No. 77.

cJiV J. Pauncefote to the Marquess of Salisbury. — {Received September 8.)

(No. 258.)

My Lord, New London, Connecticut, August 29, 1898.

WITH reference to previous correspondence relative to the cases of the British
sealing schoouers "Wanderer," "Favourite," and "Kate," I have the honour to
rejxtrt that tlie United States' Secretary of State has addressed me a note acknow-
ledging the receipt of my communication of the 9th instant, a copy of which I inclosoa
to your Lordship in ray despatch No. 251 of the same date.

Mr. Day states that he ha.s taken pleasure in causing a copy of my note,
together with copies of the correspondence which has passed between the two GoverL
mcnts to be tmnsmitted to the United States' Commissioners in the Joint Commission
at Quebec " for their consideration, and such action thereon as after studying the
matters the Commission may deem competent."

I have &c
(Signed) ' JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

No. 78.

Lorft Herschell to the Marquess of Salisbury. — {Received September 8.)

(No. 2.)

My Lord, Quebec, August 29, 1S98.

I HAVE the honour to transmit a copy of the Prot/icol reeoi-cling the proceedings
at the first meeting of the Commission, which was held on the 23r(l instjint.

The siicond meeting tx)ok place on the 25th. After iwlopting the inclosed Report
of till' Committee appointed to consider the order of proc(!dure and otlier aiTangoments,
the Commission proceeded to discuss the question of the Alien Labour Laws.

It was made clear by the United States' Commissioners that the American
legislation was not directed against natives or naturalized subjects belonging to the
Dominion of Canada, and, although it was suggested that the Canadian Government
should i>nact laws similar to those passed by Congress, which I stated did not seem
feasible, there seemo<l to be a disposition t« come to an arrangement, and the subject

59

was referred to a Committee consisting of Senator Gray, Mr. Dingley, Sir R. Cartwright,
and Sir Louis Davies.

On the question of Mining Regulations, which was also referred to a Committee
(consisting of two : Mr. Kassonand Mr. Charlton), both sides were mlling to adopt a
reciprocal basis, but it was not decided whether this should be attained by means of
identical regulations observed in either country, or whetlior each country aliould grant
to the citizens or subjects of the other the facilities enjoyed by each in their own
country.

I propose to address a separate despatch to your Lordship respecting war vessels
on the Great Lakes, which was the next subject for consideration.

With reg^ird to the conveyance of prisoners in custody across intervening territory,
the American Commissioners seemed disposed to limit the privilege to cases of
extraditable offences. Sir Louis Davies demurred to this restriction, and said that a
proposed enactment had already been drawn up in Canada and submitted to the Home
Government, wliich he thought would meet the requirements. The Committee named
to report on this question consists of Mr. Kasson and Mr. Charlton.

Senator Gray proposed that the fresli delimitation of the frontier, at various points
wlu^re uncertainty existed, should be dealt with l)y experts except in the case of
Paswunaquoddy Bay, the onlv one in whicli any doubt existed as to the Treaty
Boundary. The difficulty which liad arisen witli regard to a small island in the bay
might be settleu out of hand by the Commission. It was agreed that this matter
should stand over for the present.

A short discussion followed respecting Reciprocity as to Wrecking and Salvage
Rights. General Foster said that tJie privilege granted on the Lakes of assisting vessels
in the waters of the opposite country applied also to contiguous waters on the sea-
board. A difficulty had arisen as to how the phrase " contiguous waters " should be
construed. This might be settled by Treaty and corresponding legislation. I suggested
that the arrangement should be made to apply universally to the saving of life, if not
to the salvage of property. General Foster and Mr. Dingley were (vgainst extending
the privilege to the whole sea-board of the United States. It was settled that this
question should be dealt with by a Committee of four, viz. : General Foster,
Mr. Dingley, Sir L. Davies, and Mr. Charlton.

The Commission adjourned till Monday next the 29th instant, when the fur-seal
question vnll be taken up. Some of the American Commissioners will be obliged to
absent themselves at the beginning of next month, ajid it has been found necessary
to agree to an adjournment from the 2nd to the 2()th September, during which time
no full meetings wiU be held, altliough, it is hoped, at all events, some of the
Committees will l)e able to meet.

Our relations with the United States' Commissioners are very cordial, and, so far
as I ain judge, they are animated by a sincere desire to arrive at a fair settlement of
all the points of dilference.

I had to-day an informal conversation with Senator Fairbanks, Chairman of the
American Commissioners. It arose out of the discussion which had just taken ; 'ace
as to whether there should be a revision of the Scaling Regulations, or an agreeiuent
for the cessation of pelagic sealing upon terms. He told me that he regarded th(!
latter as the only satisfactory solution, inasmuch as it was the only one which could
permanently remove all causes of diit'erencc. He proceeded to say that, when he saw
the President before coming here, the President impressed upon him that his great
desire was to secure a settlement of all questions between the two countries wliich
was likely to be permanent, to remove all causes of friction, and to msure the
maintenance of friendly relations. He added tliat lie had since received several
communications from the President in the same sense.

I replied tliat I was sure all the British Commissioners would be animated
by the same desire. Inasmuch as he gave me this op(>ning, I thought it well to point
out that changed conditions, resulting from the acquisition of povt.s at a distanw' from
their maiidaud might, if tliese ports were t(j be treated in all re-cpects like tlie ])ort9
on the mainland, eiigender ill-foelinj.'. 1 alludexl in particular to one rijspeet in which
this might be the case. The restriction of the coasting trade tv United States' vessels
is secured by prohibition, excluding other vessels from trading between one Unito('
States' port and another. If such a provision were to be applied to ports in isliindj
acciuircd by the United States, it would extend far beyond anything that could
properly l)e culled eoaating trade, and it would prevent Britisli vessels pursuing their
aocuHtom(.'d course of trade by discharging at one of such ports, taking a cargo tlieiico
to New York or some other port on the coast of the mainland, and shipping a cargo

60

from that port for some part of the British dominious. I said that any such
prohibition, interfering with what had been long an accustomed course of trade
would involve hardship, and would be certain to cause irritation. I cited an instance
in point, directly affecting Canada, at the same time pointing out that the question
was one which did not concern the Dominion of Canadii alone. Canadian vessels had
been in tlie habit of taking a cargo of fish to Porto Rico, there loading a cargo of
molasses and rum for New York, and then bringing a cargo shipped at that port to
Canada.

Senator f airbanks replied that the aspect of the case to which I had alluded had
not escaped the notice of the United States' Government and of the Commissioners,
and he repeated that the President's desire was that all questions which could involve
difference or friction should now be settled in a frierdly manner.

This conversation, although not official, may, f tliink, be taken as an indication
of the President's intentions, and of the directions which the United States' Commis-
sioners have received.

I have, &c.
(Signed) HER8CHELL.

Inclosurc 1 in No. 78,

Protocol No. 1 of Proceedings of the Joint High Commission, August 23, 1898.

THE first meeting of the .Joint High Commission appointed by the Governments
of the United States and Great Britain, for the adjustment of questions at issue
between the United States and Gret.t Britain, in respect to the relations of the former
with the Dominion of Canada and the Colony of Newfoundland, was held in the
Parliament Buildings at Quebec on the 23rd day of August, 1898, at noon.

The following High Commissioners were present : —

Honourable Charles W, Fairbanks.
Honourable George Gray.
Honourable John W. Poster.
Honourable John A. Kasson.
Honourable T. Jciferson Coolidge.

Lord Herschcll.
Sir Wilfrid Laurier.
Sir Richard Cartwright.
Sir Louis Davies.
Mr. Charlton.

The Honourable Nelson Diuglcy and Sir James Winter were not in attendance.

The full powers of the High Commissioners of the respective Governments were
produced and reatl and laid on the table, and it was announced on the part, of the
United States that a supplemental full power would subsequently be submitted
providing for the adjustment of differences in regard to the Colony of Newfoundland.

Mr. Chanf.'.or P. Anderson, on the part of the Unitetl States, and Mr. W. C.
CartMTight ant! Mr. Henri Bourassa, on the part of Great Britain, were namwl as
Joint Secretaries on the High Commission.

On motion of the Honourable Charles W. Fairbanks, Lord Uerschell was
unanimously chosen as President of the Commission.

The High Commissioners then referred the consideration of the order of procedure,
and of other arrangements relating to the proceedings of the Joint High Commission,
to a Committee consisting of —

Honourable George Gray.
Honourable John W. Foster.

Sir Richard Cartwright.
Sir Louis Davies.

Tlie Joint High Commission thereupon adjourned until the 25th August, at
11 o'clock, in the forenoon.

61

Inclosure 2 in No. 78.

Report of Committee on Procedure.

THE Committee appointed by the Joint High Commission to consider the order
of TJroceduro and regulations to govern the deliberations of the Commission beg to
report as follows : —

I. The subjects to be considered by the Joint High Commission shall be those
M- ! ibrth in the Protocol of Conferences at, Washington of May 1898, which is as
follows : —

[See inclosure in Sir J. Pauncefote's despatch No. 186 of May 31, 1898.]

II. The order of consideration of the subjects referred to in said Protocol shall
be as follows : —

1. Alien Labour liaws.

2. Mining rights.

3. Revision of the Agreement of 1817, as to naval vessels on the Lakes,

4. Delimitation of frontier boundary.
6. Conveyance of prisoners.

6. Reciprocity as to wrecking and salvage.

7. The fur-seals.

8. The fisheries.

9. Alaska boundary.

10. Ti'ansit privileges,

11. Reciprocity, trade, and commerce.

12. Other unsettled diiTerences. '

III. The Sessions of the Joint High Commission shall begin each day at
11 o'clock in the forenoon, with no Sessions on Saturdays and Mondays, unless other-
wise ordered.

IV. The proceedings of the Joint High Commission shall be strictly secret and
confidential, and no disclosure thereof shall be made except through the Chairman of
the respective Commissions.

V. A Protocol shall be made of each day's proceedings, and shall be submitted to
the Commission at the next meeting thereof for approval, and when so approved shall
be signed I)y the joint Secretaries.

(Signed) R. I. CARTW RIGHT.

L. U. DAVIES.
GEO. GRAY.
JOHN W. POSTER.

No. 79.

Lord Herschell to the Marquess of Salisbury. — {Received September 8.)

(No, 3.)

My Lord, Quebec, Auijnst 29, 1898.

WITH reference to my despatch No. 1 of the 22ud instant, I have the honour to
report that th(i subject of naval vessels on the Great Lakes was introduced at the
meeting of the Commission on the 25th instant, by Senator Fairbanks, who, after
observing tliat the Ari-angement of 1817 was not a Treaty, ])rooeeded to read the notes
exchaitgi'd b(!lween tlie two Governments in that year. He pointed out that, although
the uaviil force on each side was limited, both as to the number of vessels and their
tonnage, vessels of a larger size had been saneiioncMl ))y usage. But, notwithstandi g
that the Agreement had l)een teniporarily violated l)y both Governments for special
n*n8( ns, it might be said, generally speaking, that they had scrupulously lulhercd to
tlie Arrangement. Under the changed eireunistances of the presunt day, a more
modern armament might reasonablv be adopted, but the United States' Commis-
[1127] ^ ■ R

62

sionei's considered that it would he advantageous for many reasons that roeipi-ocal
rights sliould now he estahlished on a peace footinf^, and that no armed vesscsls should
he maintained hy either Government on the Lakes, with the exception perliaps of one
or two vessels to lie used for purposes of instruction and drilling oi the militia on
either side.

With regard to huilding war-ships, he urged that it was desirable that the
opportunities of the Lake sliip-builders should he equalized mth those on the sea-
ho^ird, and that they should he allowed to construct vessels to h(5 scut to the (jcean for
service there Taking a large view of the Agreement, he maintained thut tlie right
of huilding already existed, hut he proposed that the privilege should now be
spccitieally granted to construct vessels of w.ir, under ])ropcr regulations and
restrictions, for use on the ocean. Somi! regulations and restrictions were obviously
necessaiy to prevent abuse of sucl^. a privilege.

I said that I entirely agreed that it was desirable to avoid the evils of competition
in the maintenance of armed forces, and alluded to tlic state of things existing in
Europe, where each nation added to their naval forces in turn to counterbalance the
additions made by others. I concurred in thinking that there would lie great
advantage in doing away with the maintenance of armed vessels, except, perhaps, the
training-ships already mentioned. I quite appreciated the wish of the Lake sliip-
builders to si. are in the building trade, and that this was naturally becoming more
aci 0 as time vent on. There must, of course, be restrictions upon the ship-building,
otherwise Canada would be at a disadvantage, inasmucli as the ship-building resources
of the United States on the Lakes were so much greater. At the same time, I statcid
that this expression of opinion must he taken under reserve imtil I had received
further instructions on the subject from Her Majesty's Government.

Tlie matte* was referred to a Committee consisting of myself and Senator
Fairbanks.

I have, &c.
(Signed) IIERSCUELL.

No. 80.

Intelligence Division to Foreign Office. — {Received September 12.)

THE Director of Military Intelligcmce presents liis compliments to the Under-
Secretary of State for Foreign . ffairs, and has the honour to acknowledge the receipt
of Sir Martin Gosseliu's letter, inclosing Lord Ut^rschell's despatch No. 1 of the
22ud ultimo, relative to the question of naval vessels on the Great Lakes of Canada.

The Marquess of Salisbury is doubtless aware that this question was laid before
tlu; Colonial Defence Committee in Marcb last, and that in their Memoi-andum,
prepared for the consideration of Iler Majesty's Government, the Committee expressed
the opinion that it is of great importance, in the interests of peace and in the militiiry
intert;sts of Canada in tlio event of war, that the original conditions of the Arrange-
ment made between Great Britain and the United States in 1817 should be adhered to
as closely as [wssible.

This Arrangement, however, is terminable l)y either side on giving si.x months'
notice, and it would appear from Iiord Ilerschell's despatch that the Government of
the United States are pressing strongly for an amendment of the Arrangf;ment, and
that in default of Her ^lajesty's Govcrnruent's acquiesc(,'nce in such moditiaition, it is
probalile that the United States will give notice to terminate the Agreement.

'J'he alternative thus presented will in either ease seriously inlluenee the (.'efence
of Canada in time of war. and it is desirable that the question should bo again con-
sidered ill. all its aspects with great cart before any definite decision is given.

Sir .lolm Ardagh ventm-es, therefore, to suggest that it is expedient that Lord
Ilerschell's despatcli slumlil be rolerred to the Colonial Dcfeuje Committee for rejiort:
should this suggestion meet with Lord Salisbury's approval, it would be eonvcmient
if the Colonial OfQee were requested to instruct tiie Committee to consider the
despatch.

18, Queen Anne's Gate, S. W.,
September 10, 1898.

68

No. 81.

Lord Herschell to the Marquess of Salisbury. — {Received September IG.)

Quebec, September 2, 1898.
further Protocols recordinc: tlie

(No. 4.)
My Lord,

I HAVE the honour to iuelose copies of
proceedings of the Commission.

At tlie meeting of the 29th idtimo General Foster i-eviewed tlio liistory of tlie
fur-seJ"! question from tlie date of the Paris Arbitration, and said he was happy to feel
that the question had reach(!d a stage which left very few points for discussion. Tlie
experts wc " practically in agreement on the issues which had been raised in rogai-d
to seal life. He considered that their Joint Report supported in the main all the
contentions of the Unit(!d States' Government, the chi(;f of Avhich M'as that pelagic
scaling is inconsistent with the due protection and preservation of the herd. Tli(>
United States' Goveniment W(n'e still of opinion that the total and permanent aholitioii
of pelagic sealing was the only suuisfautory remedy, and they came before the Commis-
aion, fortified by expert opinion, to ask for that solution.

I made some inquiries as to the revenue derived from the Pribyloif Islands and
the profits of the lessees.

General Foster replied that the United States' Government had received in
royalties and duties over 11,000,000 dollars prior to the arbitration in 1893. Tlie
value of the fur-seal products was greater than that of all the other products of
Alaska combined. It was estimatetl that, if pelagic sealing wove abolished .and the
herd restored to its normal condition, the United States' Government wouUl receive,
including the duties on inanufactur(:d skins, about 1,500,000 doUara annually.

I observed that their revenue would no doubt be greatly increased, more especially
as they would enjoy a practical monopoly. I proceeded to explain the views on which
Uer Majesty's Government had acted since the date of the arbitration. They had
been willing to take steps, in conjunction with the United States' Government, to
a-scertain the real facta. The llejiorts of the experts showed that the feai-s expressed
as to the extermination of the herd were excessive, whilst, on the other baud, there
was more reason than had j)reviously been supposed for the general conttnitions of the
United States' Government as to tlie cn'cet of jielagic sealing in diminishing the herd
of seals. I laid some stress on t)ie natural cause wliicdi liad boon discovered,
accounting to a groat extent for the mortality amongst the pups.

No doubt the retention of pcdagic sealing, under strict regulations, was in several
respects unsatisfactory. It gave rise to many complaints on the part of the s(<alers,
and t-o much friction. The policing of the vicinity of the islands was a source
of considerable ex])ense and ineonvenienee to l;oth Governments. The Unitoil States'
Government estimated their annual (>xi)enditure for this jnirpose at 150,000 dollars, and
had found it so inconvenient this y(>ai' that they had left the p.atrol entirely in
the hands of the British ships. Tlio .sid)slitutiou of complete abolition of pelagic
sealing would be additionally advantageous to the United States by relieving them of
the cost and inconvenience of policing the seas. An agreement by Her ifajcsty's
Govenmient to pnwcnt pelagic sealing, whetlier jjcrnianently or for a long term, would
be the abandonment of an undoubted right, and some counter advantage would be in
justice due in return for sucli abandonment. It had been said that the London fur
trade would benefit by an incrciased supply of skins, but tliis was not a permanent
interest like that of the United States, because it was not secured by any iruaranteo
that the trade would remain in the hands of the London linns; their position might at
any time be seriously affected by Initcd States' legislation.

Her Majesty's (iovernnuMit wore ^villiI)g to negotiate for the susptnision of pelagic
sealing for a lengthened period on condition that the sealers were coni])eusated, and
that some concession were granted by the L'liited States in return for sueli suspension.
The duration of this prohibition was a matter of detail.

Sir Louis Davies gave cxpressi(Hi to the vicnvs of the scahn's themselves, and gave
figures showing the extent of the interests involved. His own opinion, wliich was not
acce])ted by the sealers, was tliat, if iVesh regulations were agreed upon, the spring
flsh 3ry should be abolished, and the period of tlio open .season in Behriug Sea extended.
With rej^rd to the abolition of pelagic sealing, he pointed out that the vessels would
be useless for other purposes.

64

Tlio surrender of the national right would, ho hoped, be met by a relaxation of
trauo regulations in the United States as affecting Canada.

The discussion was continued by General Foster, and it was eventually agreed to
refer the question to a Committee, with the understanding that tliey should in tho
first jjlaec consider tho proposal for tho cessation of pelagic sealing.

The names of the Committee, ns subsequently announced, arc : Senator Fairbanks,
General Foster, Sir Louis Davies, and myself.

The fisheries question was next v„insi(lered. The difficulty of overriding State
legislation on the Pacific Const, and on the borders of the Great Lakes, brought about
a discussion on the Treuty-niaking power of the United States' Government, and it
was decided to adjourn the meeting, bowiuse the United States' Commissioners could
make no declaration on the subject.

On the followiir.^ day the discussion was resumed, but no definite statement was
elicited, and it was understood that tlie opinion of the United States' Attorney-
General would be taken during the ensuing recess.

Mr. Coolidge then opened the question of th(> Atlantic fisheries. His main
position was that the United States were content with the rights wiiich they possessed,
and needed no modification of them. This position rested, however, on the contention
put forward by him tlint the restrictions on access to the Canadian shores, contained
iu the Treaty of ISIb, wdvo no longer in force, iiaving been abrogated by the action of
the two Governments in throwing open their ports to freedom of commerce. He relied
specially on the President's Proclamation in 1S30.

1 maintained that the restrictions of th<! Treaty of 1818 were still in force, and
gave my reasons for contending that his argument was not well founded.

I supplemented his brief sketch of tlie position by a more detailed account of the
various attempts which had been made to settle the questions at issue. I showed, by
the light of experience, that an Agreement, analogous to that of 1888, Avas essential
to avoid constant irritation and recrimination.

It was I'ecogniscil on l)oth sides that the matttsr was of less importance than
formerly, owing to the diminution of the number of American flshing-vessols resorting
to waters in the neigbbouriiood of Canada.

Sir Louis Davies said that tho Regulations had been administered with much
indulgence, especially under the present Government of the Dominion. Ho hinted
that* it would be impossible to continue indefinitely the laxity now permitted. About
one-third of the United States' vessels omitted to take out licences, and persisted in
evading tlio law.

Mr. Dingley having inquired about the bounty given to Canadian fishermen,
Sir L. Davies exjilaincd that this was taken from the proceeds of tho Halifax Award,
iind that the greater ])art of the alleged bounty was distributed annually amongst the
inshore vessels, only about 00,000 dollars being given to the deep sea fishermen.

Sir James Winter merely said that ^'owfoundland adhered to the position taken
up by the Canadian Government.

The Committee, t(^ wliom this question was ref<!rred, consists of Senator Gi-ay,
Mr. Coolidge, Sir L. Davies, and Sir J. Winter.

The discussion of the Alaska boundary occupied the Commission during the
whole of its sitting on the 30th, and was ctmtinued on the 31st.

In opening the question, I dealt with the first part of the line commencing from
Cape Chacon, and said that it was absolutely unintelligible liow any negotiators, with
the maps said to bo available in 1825 before them, could have used the words found in
tlie Treaty to indicate a fine which starts to the cast and goes for a long distance in
that direction before it reaches the Portland Channel.

I thought it well to put forwai'd fully tiie contention which has found much
favour in Canada that the boundary ascends to the north along the channel on tho
east side of .'rinec of "Wales' Island, and not along the channel marked on Vancouver's
ilaps as Portland Canal, but. I may as well observe that I regard tlio contention as
hopelessly untenable.

■\V'itli regard to tlie boundary along the coast, I showed that the English contention
had originally Leen that the line should follow the base of the mountains, whilst the
Ilussian Government insisted that t!ie summits of the mountains would form a more
satisfactory frontier. It A\as clear that, when this definition was adopted, the same
range, namely, that nearest the coast was meant. Count IS^essclrode's despatch, sejiding
the ratification of the Treaty, indicatinl what the llussians had wished to obtain, and
also what they had failed to obtam. Tlioy only got" la lisi^re de la cAte."

My view was that the line should follow the mountains, crossing all narrow « ater»

flS

which were of such width as to be within territorial jurisdiction. The Lynn Canal,
though not at its mouth coming within this category, soon became so, and for 70 or
80 miles this channel extended as a narrow inlet to the interior of the country. I
maintained that it could not be considered as part of the " ocdan " within the meaning
of that part of the Treaty which prescribed that the 10 marine leagues should be
measured therefrom. I pointed out, as a notable fact, that the word " ocdan " had been
expressly inserted in the place of " mer," which was in the original projot, and which
might bo held to apply to salt water generally. The inlets were, moreover, treated in
Article VII as separate and distinct n-om the ocean. I insisted that the term "sinuo-
sities of the coast ' must refer to the general coast- line, as it would be absurd and even
impossible to draw a line inland, corresponding with all the identations.

After reading and commenting upon Mr. Bayard's despatch of January 1886, I
stated that great difficulty would be found in agreeing upon a l)oundary-liiic in literal
accordance with the terms of the Treaty. The Commission could probably only arrive
at a settlement on the basis of some mutual concessions ; failing such a settlement, the

Suestion might be referred to arbitration. In the latter case, it would be necessaiy to
etermine whether the Arbitrator was to endeavour to interpret the Treaty as it
stands, or should have latitude to make an equitable settlement. My own feeling
was that every effort should be made by the Commissioners to settle tlie question
themselves.

General Foster said that all the necessary information was now available. The
Commission should take up the question as provided in the Convention of 1892, and
fix the boundary by the aid of the maps, and of the expert advice which was at hand.

He proceeded to give a long explanation of the views of his Government. He
maintained that the negotiators knew perfectly well where Portland channel was, and
how far it extended, and that they had in general sufficiently accurate information
about the coast for the purpose of describing the line in the Treaty. He quoted at
length from the correspondence which led up to the Treaty, with the view of estab-
lishing this. As I have already stated, I think the United States' argument on this
point irresistible, subject only to the question whether the true entrance to the
Portland Canal is the channel north or south of Wales and Pearse Islands.

He referred to a book by Sir G. Simpson, and to Arrowsmith's Map, both of which
had the authority of the Hudson Bay Company, as showing that the Company
accepted the American interpretation of the Treaty.

I insisted that these documents were of no value whatever as evidence.

He referred to a statement by the Surveyor-General of Canada in 1874, as sup-
porting the United States' contention.

It was not until 1884, he said, that any map was published, showing the line as
now contended for by the British Government. He believed that there would be little
difficulty in tracing the boundary with the help of the new maps, and of the experts,
who had been over the ground.

I made a further statement, concluding with the remark that the most important
point was how to draw the line where the inlets intervened.

General Foster observed, in conclusion, that this was the first occasion on which
any official declaration had been made on behalf of Her Majesty's Government,
showing their views on the subject. The position maintained in Mr. Bayard's despatch
had remained unanswered, and no written statement had ever been delivered to the
United States' Government.

The names of the Committee on the Alaska Boundary are : Senator Fairbanks,
General Foster, Lord Herschell, and Sir Wilfrid Laurier.

I have, &c.
(Signed) HERSCHELL.

Inclosure 1 in No. 81.
Protocol No. 2 of Proceedings of the Joint High Covimission, August 25, 1898.

THE Joint High Commission assembled at 11 a.m., pursuant to adjournment,
and Honourable Nelson Dingley and Sir James S. Winter having arrived, all the
members were present.

The Protocol of the last meeting was read and approved.

[11271 S

The Committee appointed to consider the order of procedure, recommended :
That the order of considfu-ation of the subjects set forth in the Protocol of Coa-
fereuces iit Washington of May, 1898, be as follows : —

1. Alien Labour Laws.

2. Mining rights.

3. Revision of the Agreement of 1817 as to naval vessels on the Lakes.
'1. Delimitation of frontier boundary.

5. Conveyance of prisoners.

6. Reciprocity as to wrecking and salvage.

7. The fur-seals.
8- Tlie fisheries.

9. Alaska boundary.

10. Tmnsit privileges.

11. Reciprocity, trade and commerce.

12. Other unsettled differences.

That the Joint High Commission begin each day of its session at 11 o'clock in
tlie forenoon, with no sessions on Saturdays and Mondays, unless other-wise ordered.

That the pmccedings of the Joint High Commission shall be strictly secret and
confidential, and no disclosure thereof shall l)e made, except through the Chairmen of
the respective Commissions.

'1 hat a Protocol be mode of each day's proceedings, and submitted to the Com-
mission at the next meeting thereof for approval, and when so approved be signed by
the Joint Secretaries.

The loint High Commission then took up for consideration the following subjects
in the order named : —

" The question of the Alien Labour Laws ai)plical)le to the subjects or citizens of
the United States and of Canada," which, after discussion, was referred to a Committee
for consideration and report.

" Mining rights of the subjects or citizens of each country within the territory of
the other," which, after discussion, was referred to a Committee for consideration
and report.

"A revision of the Agreement of 1817 respecting naval vessels on the Ljikes,"
which, after discussion, was refeiTcd to a Committee for consideration and report.

" Arrangements for the more complete definition and marking of any ptirt of the
frontier-line by land or water where the same is now so insufficiently defined or
marked as to bo liable to dispute," I ho consideration of which, after partial discussion,
was postponed.

" Provisions for conveyance for trial or pimishment of persons in the lawful
custody of the officers of one country throuLjh the territorj' of the other," which, after
discussion, was referred to a Committee for consideration and report.

" Reciprocity in wTccktng and salvage rights," which, after discussion, was referred
to a Committee for consideration and report.

It was agreed that on the 2nd September the Joint High Commission should take
a recess until the 20th September

The Joint High Commission thereupon adjourned until Monday, the 29th August,
at 11 o'clock in the forenoon.

Inclosure 2 in No. 81.

Protocol No. 3 of Proceedings of the Joint Hiijh Commission, August 29, 1898.

THE Joint High Commission assembled at 11 a.m., pursuant to adjournment, all
the membere being present except Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who came later, and Sir James
S. Winter.

The Protocol of the last meeting was read and approvcxl.

The Joint High Commission then took up for consideration the following subjects
in the order named : —

" The question in respect to the fur -seals in the B(>hring Sea and the waters of the
North Pacific Ocean," which, after discussion, was referred to a Committee for con-
sideration and report.

«r

" 'rovisions in re8i)ect to the flsht'ries ofT the Atlantic and Pacifii; coasts, and ia
the waters of i heir common frontier," the consideration of which, aftfir partial discussion,
was postponed. The Joint High Commission thereupon adjourned until Tuesday, tho
30th August, at 11 o'clock in the forenoon.

(Signed) CHANDLER P. ANDERSON.

W. CHAUNCY CAIITWRIOHT.
HENRI B0U11AS8A.

Inclosuro 3 in No. 81.
Protocol No. 4 of Proceedings of the Joint High Commission, August 30, 1898.

THE Joint High Commission assemhled at 11 A ii., pursuant to adjournment, all
the members being present.

The Protocol of the last session was read and approved.

Tho Joint High Commission then took up for consideration the following subjects
in the oi-der named : —

' ' I'rovision-s in respect to the Ksberies off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, and in
the waters of their common frontier," which, after discussion, was referred to a Com-
mittee for consideration and report.

" Provisions for the delimitation and establishment of the Alaska-Canadian
boundary by legal and scientific experts, if the Commission sliall so decide, or other-

wise," the consideration of which was not com
The Joint High Commission thereupon
August, at 11 o'clock in the forenoon.

(Signed)

ted.
idjourned until Wednesday, the 31st

CHANDLER P. ANDERSON.
W. CHAUNCY CARTWRIQHT
HENRI BOl itASSA.

luclosure i in No. 81.
Protocol No, 6 of Proceedings of the Joint High Commission, August 31, 1898.

THE Joint High Commission assembled at 11 a.m., pursuant to adjournment, all
the members being present.

The Protocol of the last meeting was read and approved.

Pursuant to the announcement heretofore made, the Commissioners on the part of
the United States presented a supplemental full power, providing for the adjustment
of differences in regard to the Colony of Newfoundland, which was read and laid on
the table.

Tho British Commissioners announced that it was under consideration whether
the full powers already presented on their part should not be supplemented by a more
complete full power.

The Joint High Commission resumed the discussion on the Alaska-Canadian
boundary, which was commenced at the last meeting. The question was referred to a
Committee for consideration and report.

The Joint High Commission then took up the two following subjects, which were
considered together : —

"Provisions for the transit of merchandize in transportation to or from either
country, across intermediate territory of the other, whether by land or water, including
natui-al and artificial waterways and intermediate transit by sea; " and

" Provisions relating to the transit of merchandize from one country, to be
delivered at points in the other beyond the frontier."

The discussion of these subjects was not completed.

The Joint High Commission thereupon adjourned until Thursday, the Ist
September, at 2 o'clock in the afternoon.

(Signed) CHANDLER P. ANDERSON.

W. CHAUNCY CxlRTWRIGHT.
HENRI B0URAS8A.

68

Inclosure 6 in No. 81.

Protocol No. 6 of Proceedings of the Joint High Commitiion, September 1, 189H.

THE .Toint High Oomission assembled at 2 p.m., pursuant to adjournment, all the
members being present.

The Protocol of the last meeting was road and approved.

The discussion of the question of transit of merchandize in bond, which wa«
commenced at the last session, was resumed, and after a full discussion the further
consideration was postponed until after the recess.

The Joint High Commission thereupon adjourned until Friday the 2nd September,
at^l o'clock in the forenoon.

(Signed) CHANDLER P. ANDERSON.

W. CHAUNCY CARTWRIGHT.
HENRY DOTTRA88A.

No. 82.
Colonial Office to Foreign Office. — {Received September 16.)

Sir, Donning Street, September 14, 189S.

WITH reference to your letter of the 7th instant, as regards the objections of the
United States to recent legislation in Ontario on the subject of licences for cutting
timber, I am directed. by the Secretary of State for the Colonies to transmit to you, to
be laid bofore the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, a copy of a telegram from
the Governor-General of Canada on the subject.

Though it is clear from this telegram that the Dominion Ministers do not wish
the Representative of Ontario to be introduced to th(> Joint Commission, the Secretary
of State does not read the telegram as precluding all possibility of a reference to the
Joint Commission in some form.

I am to inclose, for Mr. Balfour's information, a copy of a despatch which he has
addressed to the Governor-General on the subject.

I am, &c.
(Signed) H. BERTRAM COX.

Inclosure 1 in No. 82.

The Earl of Aberdeen to Mr. Chamberlain.

(Telegraphic.) September 10, 1898.

REFERRING to your telegram of 9th September, Dominion Government have
already invited Prime Minister of Province of Ontario to discuss Ontario Lumber Act
with British Commissioners ; they do not favour inviting Representative of Ontario
Government to have such discussion with Joint Commission.

Inclosure 2 in No. 82.

Mr. Chamberlain to the Earl of Aberdeen.

My liord, Downing Street, September 14, 1898.

I HAVE the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your despatch of the
I7th August, transmitting a copy of a Minute of your Privy Council dealing with the
objections of the United States Government to the recently passed Ontario Act with
regard to licences for cutting timber, and to inform you that Her Majesty's
Ambassador at Washington has been authorized to communicate the purport of the
Minute to the United States' Government.

60

2. This Minute, hovrovcr, dooit not reply to the suggestion of the United StnteH'
Government referred to iu my telegram of the 15th July last, that thi! question
should ho rofciTed to the Joint ComrniHsion, a inattcn- on wliieh the United States'
Covernment are desirous of a reply, and I sent you upon the !)th instant a telegram
suggesting that vour Ministers should invite a Representative of the Ontario Govern-
ment to discuss the question with the Joint Commission.

3. Your t<;legraphie reply of the lOtli instant stattis that vour Ministers had
already inviUul the Prime Ministtjr of Ontario to discuss the qu<!stfoH with the British
Commissioners, which is jjerhaps a more suitable mode of acaling with the matter
than that suggt^sted by me.

I trust that the; result of the discussion may be that the British Commissioners
will be enabled to bring forward some satisfactory proposals for aiTanging the
difflfiulty.

I have, &c.
(For the Secretary of State),

(Signed) ' PKEDR. GRAHAM.

No. 83.

Sir J. Paunce/ote to the Marquett of Salinbury. — ^Received Septembtr 19.)

(No. 201.)

My Lord, Neu) Loiulo7i, Connecticut, Hepletr.bf"- o, 1898.

REFERRING to your Lordship's telegram No. 161 of the Gth instant, and to
previous correspoudonce respecting the effei'.ts on United States' interests of a recent
Act of the Ontorio Legislature relating \o the manufacture of lumber, I Imve now the
honour to transmit to your Lordship a copy of Mr. Day's note of the 22nd ultimo, to
which reference is made in my telegram No. 109 of the 24th ultimo, pressing for a
suspension of the application of the measure pending further discussion.

I have cora'"unicat<id to the United States' Government the Minute of the
Canadian Privy (Uncil approved the 3rd ultimo, and I have at the same time, iu
coraplianre with yoiu' Lomlship's instructions, informed the United States' Acting
Secretary of State that Her Majesty's Government are in correspondence on the
subject with the Government of Canada.

I have, &c.
(For Sir J. Pauncefote),

(Signed) HUGH O'BEIRNE.

Inclosui-e in No. 83.

Mr. Day to Sir J. Paunce/ote.

Department of State, Washington,
Excellency, August 2i, 1898.

BY my note of the 15th June last, I had the honour to communicate with you upon
the matter of the effect of certain recent legislation of the Province of Ontario, Canada,
upon certain large vested interests of citizens of the United States in timber lands in
Canada, and to inclose to you a Memorial on the subject addressed to this Department
in Ixibalf of a portion only of the extensive interests involved. I also had the honour
of having one or more interviews with you on the subject, in which it was mutually
suggested, that in so far as the matter related U) the policy of Canada of eufoiviug such
legislation against licences originating in the *'uture, it might properly be made a
matter to bo considered by the Joint High Commission, which was then in contempla-
tion and is now about to begin its sessions. It is to b(! hoped that the general subject-
matter may be so considered by the Joint High Commission, and some satisfactory
conclusion reached.

As T7as pointed out in our interviews, however, and also in my note and in the
Memorial referred to, the particular hardship which was being occasioned by the
enactment, and of which those affected complained, was not the application of it to
future contracts, as to which there can be no vested rights, but was the application of
the enactment to contracts and licences or their renewals, which liad originatod, and
[1127] T

70

Ijcen made between tlie Province of Ontario and United States' citizens prior to the
making of the enactment in question. The belief was expressed that it was not the
intention of the Legislature of Ontario to have the Act so applied; the very serious and.
present consequeneos of such application to vested interests was pointed out, and a
suspension of the application of the Act t« prior contracts was suggested.

"Without wishing to cause inconvenience in the matter, nevertheless, m view of
the large interests which arc involved and are being daily jeopardized, T am constrained
to ask whether the suggested suspension of tlie application of tb.c Act to prior con-
tracts, pending further discussion of the matter, may have been favourably considered
1)y Hci- Ivlajesty's C4ovemment.

I have, &v5.
(Signed) WILLIAM R. DAY.

No. 84.

Colonial Office to Foreign Office. — {Received September 19.)

(Secret.)

Sir, Downinij Street, September 19, 1898.

WITH reference to the letter from your Office of the 12th instant, I am directed
by til" Secretary of State for the Colonies to request you to inform Mr. Balfour tliat
the Lordi Comiuissinners f^f the Admiralty have expressed their concurrence in the
Memorandum b^ the C'oioui; ' Defence Committee on the qxiestion u\ navil vessels
on the Great Lakes of North America, a copy of whicli is inclos(!d, but that owing
to iiu absence of the Marquess of Lansdowne his views on the proposals of tlio
Colonial Defence Committee cannot be obtained liefoi'c, at the earliest, the (evening of
t^e 20th instant.

It is undar.stood llj.it bis Lordship concurs in principle with the views of Lord
Ilei-schcl!, but that lie is of opinion that any revision of the Agreement of 1817 should
be subject to distinctly defined Itegulatiouf.

In thc^e circumstances, it will be for Mr. Balfour to decide what instructions
should be conveyed io Led IlerschL-ll pendinp +! ? receipt of Lord liansdowne's views
on the proposals of the Colonial Defence Committee.

I am, &c.
(Sign(!d) H. BERTEAM COX.

Inclosure in No. 84.

Memoi.indum by the Colonial Defence Commiltee.
(Secret.)

THE Colonial Office have referred to tlie Colonial Def'cr."^ Committee two
despatches, dated tlie 22nd and 29tb August last, from Lord Herscheli, Senior British
Delegate on the Joint Commission now sitting at Quebec, relative to the queslion of
naval vessels on the Great Lakes of North America.

2. The question was last dealt with by tlie Colonial Defence Committoe in their
Memorandum, dated the 8tb March last, wliicli, after setting forth the stipulations of the
Arrangement of 1817, restricting the number, size, and iirTiament of war vessels to be
maintaineo or built by Great Britain and the United States on the lakes, and after
discussing recent action by tl'e United States which did not appear to be entirely in con-
formity with the spirit of this Arrangement, they recommended that when a favourable
opportunity offered, "anainicab!" representation should be made to t!ie United States*
Government as to their apparent de^'arturc from the spirit of a Treaty which has worked
bencfioenf ly for a period of eighty years."

Her Majesty's Govenimcpt concurred in the terms of this Memorandum, and Ho:
Majesty's Ainbasuatlor at Washington '-.as authorized in a ilespatch, ilatcd the utii Aj,ril
last, to make to t' e United States' uovernment, at such time as seemed to him best, tie
representiitioii rciioumcnded by the Color 'a. Defcn.'e Committee.

Sir .Julian Pauncefote reported in ; ■ viat.V dated the llih .June last, that he had
taken several opportunities of mentioi-rin thu matter to tlic Secretary of State at
Washington, and had been assured of the desire of the United States' Government to
maintain the spirit of the Arrangement of 1817. but with such modifications as may

71

appear to be to the advantage of both countries, and to bo called for hy the altered jon-
ditions of the present time.

Sir Julian Pauncefote suggested that the question .should form one of the subjects
referred for discussion to the proposed Joint Commission on Cuiiadian Affairs. He
added as an in.stance of the good-will shown hy the United States in maintaining the
Arrangement of 1817 as well as of the detriment it causes the United States' ship-
building industry, that President Cleveland, in Ifovemhor 1895, confirmed a dini.'.ion of
the Secretary c.f the Navy, declining to receive a bid of the Detroit Ship-building Curapatiy
for the construction of a war ' esriel on Lake Michigan, as being an infringement of tlie
Arrangement with Great Br'.t.ii •

The matter has been, a.; '1 as suggested by Sir Julian Paurcefote, put before the
Joint Commission, which is now sitting, and was discussed generally by them on
the 25th August, and referred to a Committee consisting of Lord Herschell and
Mr. Fairbanks.

3. Lord Herschell is of opinion that, i^i view of the large and growing political
influence of the West, and of the development of the navy of the L^nitcd States, that
country will not agree to continue the Arrangement as it now stands, precluding as it
doea the ship-building yards on the lakes from competing for the construction of naval
vessels designed for ocean service. Between the two alternatives of (1) having the
Arrangeuient of 1817 terminated, and all restriction- with regard to maintaining; and
building ships on the lakes thus removed, and (2) modifying the Arrangement by making
concessions as to construction, under restrictions, of war vessels in t!io ship-building
yards on the lakes, Lord Herschell would choose the hatter ; and he is supported in this
view by his Canadian colleagues (m the .foint Commission, and by Major-Goneral Leach,
R.E,, Colonel Dalton, R.A., and Captain White. R.N. Before, however, comm'tting Her
Majesty's Government to a modification of the Treaty in this direction he has asked for
ins'-ructions. If his proposal is .igreed to, lie will require to be in1'^>rmed us to the
re'^rictions under which naval ship-buildiug is to be permitted. He also wishes for
imtructions as to a Uiodification in the \rrangement which has been proposed l)y Senator
Fairbanks to the effect that no armed vessels should !)e maintained hy either Govern-
ment on the lakes, with the exception, perhaps, of one or two vessels to he used for tlie
purposes of instruction and drilling the militia on either side. He would, .urther, he
"'ad to be informed whether, in case a moditied Arrangement he agreed to, t' ure would
!,, any advantage to Great Britc.in in either extending or diminishing the term of
no '.ce for abrogation, which, under the present Arrangenient. is si.t months.

4. The Colonial Defence Committee recognize the fact, indicatt'd in F.ord
Herscholl's second letter, that the removal of th > restriction to build war vessels on
the lakes will have to be conceded to the Anieiicans ; this will result in their having
an immense advantage over Great Britain in the course of any future war, due to their
large ship-huilding industry on the lakes and to the habit they will tlien have of con-
.structing war vessels there. In return for the concession with regard to building war
vessels the Committee think that tiie British Delegate should endeavour to obtain -in
arrangement by which no actual war-ships should be maintained on the lakes at all ;
this will assist Grept Britain in keeping her one advantage of being first on Lakes
Ontario and Eric hy passing iicr war ships through the canaK on the outbreak o( vvar.
For tills rurpose it will he necessary not only to retain the old Arrangement as regards
the number and location of armed vessels for Revenue service on the lakes, but also to
prevent these vessels being Iniilt as men-of-wa', as •.>as recently done in the case of the
" Gresham," which had torpedo-tubes, gun-position-, &c. It is also ilesirable that no
actual war vessels should be used on the lakes as traiiiii.,.;-vessels for purposes of irilling
militia, To prevent, as far as possible, actual war-ships built nominally for ocean service
being ready for use on the lakes, at once on the outineak of uar it is necesaary to secure
tli.tl only the structure of the vessels, so far as is necessary (o launcli and navigate them
to an .Atlantic po*-,;, or even to Montreal, if in sections, shall be huilt on the lakes. If
once the fitting of arr.iamcTits is undertaken by the lake >hip-liuilders, they will for ever
after have everything at hand ready to turn out a complete war vessel at a nwmeirt''^
notice

• Tlic " Wilti'i- C. Gresh.u'i," laiinchcil nt Clevcljiid in SfptenibiT 189C, and the Algoii-iiiin " ami
"Onondaga," suliaoquently ronstriictcd on th." IhIii's, iiro .d! war vestels, liuilt in contravention of tlic 1SI7
Af^rcement,

It is truf that thtsc vessels hive sincu l.een jiassed throujjh the St. I.avvriMice camis to the sea, and . e, i; in
understood, to lie cmployi'd in Cuban waters; but we are informed that others have been urdered ' replarr tln-m,
and we should have the tame gtounda of remoiistrance if thccc new vessels aie of the type of vessi ol *«■,
instead of the siniple armed vestels conteinplsted in the orixinal Arranfrenicnt.

72

5. The Committee accordingly lecommeud that Lord Heriichell should be
informed —

(1.) That thin proposal to assent to a modification of the 1S17 Arrangement by
making concessions as to construction, under restrictions, of war vessels in the ship-
building yards on the lakes is concurred iu.

(2.) That the main restriction to be asked for i^hould be that proposed by the
United Stales' Government in 18'J2, viz.. that no ve.''"-' constructed on the lakes should
be " there iilatcd, arnieil, equipped, or rendered avail.. Lu as vessels of war.' That the
furtiier restrictions to l)e pressed for are that war vessels built o\\ the i.'kes, either wi»ulo
or in sections, aie to be passed through the canals within a reasonabl' period, a section
for this purpose lieing considered as a whole vessel; and that no war veseol is to return
to the lakes for repair or refit.

(3.) That as regards armed \'essels to be maintained on the lai^es, he slirnld a-sk
that—

(«.) No men-of-war proper should be kept on the lakes,

(b.) No actual war vessels should lie used on the lakes as training vc'.isels.

(c.) The number and location '/ armed vessels to be kept on the lakes for Revenue
service should be as defined in the t817 Agreement, but the maximum size should be
inereaaed to 300 tons displacemen!, and the maximum armament should be reduced to
1 — '^<-pr. gun, which is sufHcieut for preventive service. The Rev essels not to he

used as war vessels, for training, or any other purpose in peace (imt

(4.) That, as regards the term of notice for the abrogation of th*. ..v./ Arraogement,
it would be advanta',eoiis to make it one year.

(Signed) M. NATHAN, Secretary,

Colonial Defence Committee.

September 16, 1898.

No. 85.

The Maryuesa of Salisbury to Lord Her»cheU.

(No. 1.)

(Telerrraphic.) P. Foreign Office, September 19, 1898.

AT rt special meeting called to consider your despatches Nos. 1 and 3, tlio
Coloni.'il Defence Committee have recommended that you should Im; iuformed : —

1. That thoy concu) fn your proposal to assent to a modification of Arrfingcraent
come {') 11! 1817 by mak.ng concessions as to the construction, under restrictions, of
war ves' .'Is 'a the ship-building yards on the Lakes.

2. TUi-i as regards the main restriction to be asked for it should i'oUow the
proposal made by the United SLates' Government in 1892, viz., that no vessels
constructed on the Lakes should be " there plated, armed, equipped, or rendered
available as vessels of wax." That it would further be desirable to secure that war
vessels built on the Lakes, either whole or in sections, are to be passed within a
reasonable period through the canals, a section for this pui'pose being considered sis a
Tvhole vessel ; and that no war vessel is to rctm'n for repair or refit to the Lakes.

3. That as ii.'gnrds the maiutcnauce of armed vessels ou the Lakes, you should
ask that :- -

(a.) There should not be kept on the Lakes any mcu-of-war proper.

(i.) No actual wax vessels on the Lakes should be made use of for training
pui'poscs.

^c.) The number and h^catiou of armed vessels to be kept on. the Lakes for
revenue scu-vices should be as defined iu the 1817 Agreement, but the maximum size
should be iucreased to 300 tons displacement, and the maximum armament should be
reduced to one G-pr. gun, which is sufficient for pr(;veiitive service. The revenue
vessels not to be used as «ar vessels for training or any other puriiose in time of
peace.

1. That it wnuld be advantageous as regards the tcim of notice for the alirogation
of till! new Arrangement to make it one year.

1 concur iu the al)ove, and I authorize you to discuss the question on the lines
indicated in the Committee's rccommeudations.

78

No. 86.

Colonial Office to Foreign Office. — {Received Sepiemhrr 22.)
(Secret.)
Sir, Downing Street, September 21, 1898.

I AM directed by the Secretary of State for the Colonies to transmit to you, for
tlu' information of Mr. Balfour, with reference to tiw letter from this Department of
the lOtli instant, a copy of a letter from tlie War Office on the subject of the question
of naval vessels on the Great Lakes of North i\.merica.

I am, &c.
(Signed) ELWARD WINGFIELD.

Inclosure in No. 86.

War Office to Colonial Office.
<'8ecrei.)
Sir, War Office, September 21, 1898.

I AM directed by the Secretary of State for War to acknowledge the receipt of
your Secret letter of the ICth instant, inclosing a copy of the Colonial Defence
Committee's ^leraoranduni No. 155 M of the same date, on the subject of American
wai'-sliips on the Great Lakes, and to state in replj that tlu; Marquess of Lansdowue,
while regretting tlic necessity of modifying the i\^i'eemeut of 1817, is of opinion that
the course recommended by the Coramitteo is, uudei the circumstances, the wisest to
pursue.

I am, &c.
(Signed) G. FLEETWOOD WILSON.

No. 87.

Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquess of Salisbury. — {Received September 24.)

(No. 263.)

-ily Lord, • New London, Connecticut, September 16, 1898.

IN my despatch N(i. 104, Commercial, I had tiie honour to tmi'smit to your
Lon'ship a copy of a note from the United States' Government, making suggestions
for an arrangement as to the brands used by border cattle-owners, with a view to
tlie better identification of catrle bel'>nging on either side of the Canadian frontier, and
proposing that the question be referred to the Joint Commission.

I duly communicated tj the United States' Government the approval by Her
Majesty's Government of this Intter proposal, contained in your Jjordship's tel(3gi'am
No. 115 of the 27th ultimo. T have nov the honour to transmit herewith copy of t
Minute of tlie Canadian Privy Council, raising objections to the suggestions made bj
the United States, and stating that the Chief Veterinary Inspector of the Dominion
has been commissioned to make a tour of inquiry.

It is expected that he Avill lie t]ierel)y enabled to suggest a plan for the identifica-
tion of border cattle, and that his Report will he of use to the Joint Commission.

I have eomnnmieated a copy of this Minut(> to the United States' (Jovernment.

I have, &c.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

Inc osure in No. 87.

Ejeiract from a Report of the Comvtittee of the Honourable the Privi/ Council, approved
by the Qovemor-Ueneral on ih:- 1st September, 1898.

THE Committee of the Privy Council have
liLreto annexed, dated the 28tli .fuly, 1^";% iron
United "' '
convey

had uudev consideration a despatch,
Her Majesty's Anibassadoi- to tlie

ud States, iransmitting cojiy of u note from the United States' Secretary of State,
jying the observations ot the Vcting Sccretarv of thi; Treasury upon the note
[11271 ' U

u

addressed to liim hy Her Majesty's Ambassador on the 13tli June, 1898, inclosing
copy of an a])provod Minute of the Privy (.'ouiieil of tlic 30th May, 1898, on tiic
subject of the bninding of eattlo for the ])urpo,so of identification on either sid(! of tlio
inteiTiatioi\al boundary-luic, and intimating Hiat Ihe note had been communicated to
tlie MoFt Hon(nimblc tl;e Marquess of Salisbury.

T!ie Acting Minister of Agriculture, to whom the said despatcli was referred,
observes that it is well understood that cattle gmzing on the northern frontier of the
United States and the southern frontier of Canada are already biimded, and in some
instances with identically the bame brand, and it was in connection with tlu'se cattle
that reference was nia-lc in the Minute of Council, rcfci-red to above, to the old pro-
priotory recorded brands, which reads : —

" it is diificult, however, to know how to solve the matter in so tar as the old
proprietory recorded brands now in existence arc concerned. Such l)raTuls in Canada
are verv largely, if not entirely, own(!d by responsible parties who do not dispose of
them, nor arc they likely to bo found guilty of contravening the laws of either
country."

The Minister states that with a vi('w to obtaining all the information possible on
this important question the (Jhief Veterinary Inspector of the Dominion, who is now
proceeding through the North- West 'I'crritorics, has been instructed to make; (,'vory
inquiry and thoroughly post himself with the views of those residing in that country
and wiif. are interested in the cattle industry, and be thus enabled to suggest some
plan by which Canadian and American cattle can be identified.

The Minister further states that as the subject has now been i-eferred to tlic
Joint High Commission, it is hoped the Chief Veterinary Inspector's Report may prove
useful when the subject comes before the Conference for consideration.

The Committee advise that your Excellency be moved to transmit an answer in
the sense of this Minute to Her Majesty's Ambassador to the United States.

All which is respectfully submitted for your Excellency's approval.

(Sisned) JOHN J. McGEE,

Clerk of the Privy Council.

No. 88.

War Office to Foreign OJJice. — {Received Septemhi^ 24.)
(Secret.)
Sir, Win Office. September 23, 1898.

I AM directed by the Secretary of State for War to acknowledge the I'oceipt of
your letter of the 12tli instant, inclosing copies of Lord Herschell's despatches Nos. 1
and 3 on the subject of the Arrangement of 1817 between 'A\\s country and the United
States as to maintenance of war-ships on the Great I*akes of America.

In rtply, I am to state that Lord Lansdowne, while regretting the necessity for
modifying the Agrcemdnt of 1817, has expressed liis concurrence in a Menioranduni
which hn.s been drawn up by the Colonial 1) 'fen(;e Committee as to the lines on which
a modified Agreement should now be drafted.

The Secretary of State for War presumes that a copy of this Memorauduiu will Ixj
forwarded by the Colonial Oflice for submission t.) l^ord Salisbury.

1 liave, *cc.
(Signed) R. Jl. IvNOX.

No. 89.

Lord Herschell to the Marqueng nf Salinbury. — {l-feceived October 3.)

(No. 5.)

My Lord, 'Jjiehr, , Septembvr 20, Is'}*^.

THE Commission sat at 2 i'..M- on the 31st Aufc'ust., and wan again oruupied
Avitli the questions relating to transit privil<?ges which ;irc numbered t :\iui o in th«
Washington Protocol.

Senator Fairbank.'j dwcl' almost cxclusivly upon the grievaricvs of thr Anioricau
railroads against the Canadian Pacifii' Coai|>«)n,\, which, not heiug boitud by the
Interstate Commerce Law, is able to >;onnK'le suceeRsrull^\ with the other trans-
contincntiul lines by cutting rates, grantiutt reoates to shippers, payii g com luis: ions to

75

agents, aud by not j)iiijiiRliing thoir cliarges for a:oofls and paasenger traffic. All tl.eso
proceedings, he sjiid, wore otfcnccs against tlic O^nited States' Law, and it was only by
making use of th(! bonding privileges grau'^'^d l)y the United Stat(!s' (Jovernment that
tlie Company were able to com[)ete for what was in reality interstate traffic;, i.e., from
one point of the Unitrul States' territory to onotluir.

Tlie Grand Trunk and other Canadian Railway Companies submitted tc the
provisions of the Interstate Commerce Act, and it would only be fair that chc
Canadian Pacilic Company should do the ssirae.

lie gave several instances of unequal competition, and explained at some length,
in reply to in()uiries, the objects of the law, its working and application, and tiie t^vils
which it had been design'^d to obviate. According to his information, the Canadian
Patiific Company levied a large tribute (or black-mail) from the American Companies
in consideration of not cutting rates on certai.i portions of the traffic. Proter,ts had
been made by six or eight of these Comimnios. The President had power tr> suspend
the bonding privileges by Proclaniation.

It may be explained that the bonding privileges here referred to consist in
authorizing United Stali.-s' (iustoms' otricors to seal up frciglit;* passaig through Canadian
territory, and to admit them free of duty uiien tiwiy re-enter the United States. The
main lM)nding privilege in this case is really given by the Canadian Government, wiio
allow the goods to pass through without levying customs.

Since the date of this discussion, it has been announced in the press that the
Canadian Pacific Company have notified their readiness to abide by the conditions of
the Interstatt! Laiv.

Senator Fairbanks added a few words on tlie subject of the tolls on the Wellaud
Canal, his contention 'l)eing that they should be abolished in view of the immunity
offered l)y the Eric Canal and others in United States' t<3rritory.

Mr. Dingley called attention t« the refusal oi the Canadian authorities to admit
the free entry of Uva imported from abroad, ,. !iiel' had been bonded at United States'
ports en route. U^nder the Canadian Tariff tea is only imported free when coming
from its place of production, or from a bonded warehouse in tht; United Kingdom.

No Committee lias yet been ajipointefl on these transit questions, and the subjei.t
will be resumed at a later °tage.

At the meeting on the 2nd instant, Sir Wilfrid Lauriei' briefly introduced the
important question of reciprocity in trade, tie said that Canada could propose a
pretty full free list r'or reductionf of Tariff on raw materials. The princii)al items
would be lumber, mirnng products, .sea products, and tlie products of agriculture. A
list of manufactured articles would be submitted later.

Senator Pairi)!inks expri;;scd entire sympathy with the })roposal to adopt a scheme
based upon reciprocal reduetiont .

Sir Ilichard Cartwright Ihoa made a more detailed statement, laying some stress
on the im])ortance of arriving it a thoroughly equitable and i)er;Tianeiit arrangiMiient
which would not require revision in i*:z iicrr futun-. He pointed <mt that the trade
l)etweei' the various States of the Union had rcaiihed an enormous aggrewto, ten or
twelve times as groat as that of the foreign eommer(!e of the United State?, if there
were no customs' barriers between the United States and Canada, or if anything
approaci, 'Ug to free tfade was in force, tlie interchange might amount to hundreds of
millions ol dollars annually. Ev<'n in present cireunistiincos, Canada liought more,
per head o' her population, than any (ither custor/i-r of the United States, not
excepting Tireat Britain.

Coat should be exempted from duty on either side. It was found in th •
Provinces ol' iSova Scotia and Uritish Columbia, and in the Slates ul' Uhio and
Pcnnsyhania. The States would i^ain by obtjiining enal along the sea-board from the
isxtreme last and west of the Uominion, whilst, iu the centre oV the continent, its
admission Avould be greatly appreciated Uy thi' rana<lian Provinces.

It nnist, howe\er, be borno in mind that the high I'arilfs had produced certain
results. 'Pile system of farming had even iieini changed, and Can.adian trade had been
diverted to Great Uritahi. A.« time went on, it would lieeonie ditVieult to a<lui;;t ''reo
trade, on account of the industries which grew up iimh-r the protection of existiuic
Tariffs.

In |)rineiple, however, the near.-n" the Canadian Provinces cimld he assimilated to
the general system of ie'i rst^ato eodunei'ce, tlie more quickly trade would devcloj) o;i
Iwth sides of tlx- frontier.

Sir U. Cariwriglit concluded his remarks by speaking of the hirgc mineral
lesoui'ces of Brilish Coltimbia, aud of the advantages which the United Suites might

76

derive from participating freely in tbc trade which was bound to spring up, and in the
exchange of manufactured articles for mining products.

Mr. Ka.sson alluded to the question of the most-favoured-nation clauses of com-
lucrcial Ti'caties, of which a diil'crent interpretation was adopted in (ireat Britain from
that recognized in the United States.

In reference to some observations made by Mr. Dingley on the Preferential Tariff
fe 'anicd by Canada to Great Britain, I said that the present arrangement could not
piopei-ly be dt!scril)ed as a diseriniination against the United States.

It was eventually decided to refer tlic whole question to a Committee; of six,
namely : Senator Fairbanks, Mr. Dingley, Mr. K:»sson, Sir R. Cartwright, Sir L.
Davies, and Mr. Charlton.

Before adiou/'uug till uie 20th instant, the Commission named Mr. Jefferson
Coolidge and S'v F. < 'artwright to form a Committee on the question of cattle branding
along the frouucr.

A copy of the seventh Protocol is inclosed.

I have. Sic.
(Signed) HEllSCHELL.

Inclosure in No. 89.
Protocol No. VII of Proceedings of Joint High Commission, September 2, 1898.

THE Joint High Commission assembled at 11 o'clock, a.m., pursuant to adjourn-
ment, all the menibei's except the Honoiu-able George Gray, and Sir James S. Winter,
being jiresent.

The Protocol of the last meeting was read and a])proved.

Th(> Joint High Commission then took up for considciiition " such readjustment
and conc(!ssions as may lie deemed mutually advantageous of customs duties
applicable in each country to the products of the soil or industi-y of the other, upon
the basis of H'ciprocal ('(juivalents." This subject, aft«r partial discussion, was
rpfen-ed to a Committee tor consideration and report.

The question of cattle branding for the purjx)se of identification along the
frontier between the United Stati-s and Canada was taken up as an additional subji-ct
for considcnvtion, and after partial discussion was referred to a Committoo for consider-
ation and report.

The Joint High Commission thereuiKjn adjourned, to reassemble at Quebec on
Tuesday, the 20th Seplember, 1898.

No. 90.

Sir ,1. Pauiicefnte to the MuiijUfisn of Salisburi/. — (Reci-ived October 3.)

(No. 265.)

My Lord, AVir Lii-:ilun, Connectirvl, September 22, 1898.

IN my despatch No. 2()1 of the (5th instant I had th<! honour to inclose a copy of
a note from the United States' (iovernment prostdng for a suspension of the Ontario
Act regulating the exvort of lumber, and to report that I had informed the United
States' Government th it Her ^lajesty's Government wen' in cont'spondcmce with the
Hominion (iovernment on this subj<!ct.

T am now in recci])( of a further note from Mr. Day to the effect that he notes this
latter fact with pleas.iTc, and awn'ts the result with intcr<«t. He adds that, in view oi
the large interests inv'lved, and the laps- of time before any relief can t)e attbrded by
the .loint Oontmission, he desires again to invite the attention and action of Her
Majesty's Governne'iit to the sc ivuing, as a temporary measure, of a suspension of this
legislation for the present season and luitil the Joint Commission shall liave come t/>
some decision.

77

I have communicatod the substance of this note to the Governor-General of
Canada.

I have, &c.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

No. 91.

.'ij

Lord Herschell to the Marquesn of Salisbury. — (Received Ociober 6.) ''-

(No. 6.)

My Lord, Quebec, September 23, 1898,

THE Commission reassembled on the 20th instant, and have lield three meetings
this week. As your Lordship is no doubt aware, Senator (}rny has been apjjointod to
serve on the Peace Commission. His place lias been taken by Senator Charles .1.
Faulkner, who arrived yesterday aprt ras present at to-day's meeting. A fresli full
power was produced, associating SenaU)r Faulkner with the other High Commissioners
on tlie jiart of the United States. It is a matter of regret that Senator Gray sliould
have been obliged to sever his cocnection with this Commission. My relations with
him were most cordial, and he showtd a disposition to deal with the various questions
in a fair-minded and liberal spirit. I trust, however, that his successor will prove to
be an equally agroe<abl(! colleague.

During the recess the United States' Commissioners luvv'e obtained the opi lion of
the Attorney-General as to the power of the Executive to enforce fisherj' Regulations
on the Great Lakes and the Pacific coast. Senator Fairbanks made an informal state-
ment to the effect that, although there is no decision bearing directly on this question,
the better opinion is that the Treaty-making power of the Executive would have
jurisdiction in such a case.

I mentioned the claims for the seizures of the " Wanderer " and " Favourite "
and of the " Kate " in Bchring Sea. Senator Fairbanks said that he had heard that
this subject would be brought up for discussion. At the meeting of yesterday some
fresh arrangements were made as regards the constitution of the Committees. A
separate Committee was named tx) deal with the ifis)>eries on the Great Lakes and on
the Pacific coast, the Atlantic fisheries being left to the Committee already appointed.

The boundary questions were also distributed amongst two Committees whose
names were agreed upon.

I have the honour to .iclose copies of the 8th and 9th Protocols and a list of the
Committees as now arrang<id.

I have, &c.
(Signed) HERSCHELL.

InclosuK! 1 in No. 91.
Protocol No. 8 of Proceedings of Joint High Commission, September 20, 1898.

THE Joint High Commission met, pursuant to adjournment, at ll'UO o'clock a.m.
Mr. Charlton and Sir James S, Winter were absimt. It was announced the Honourable
GtHjrge Gray had resigned and that the llonoural)le Charles J. Faulkner had been
appointed to till the vacancy caused by that resignation, but had not yet arrived.

The I'rotoeol ol the last meeting was read and approved.

The genenil arrangements for the meetings of the various Committees heretofore
appointed were then considered and agreed uixm.

The .Joint Hi^-h Commission thereupon ailjourued until "hursdayi the 22nd Sep-
tember, at 10-30 o clock in the forenoon.

Inclosure 2 in No. 91.

Protocol No. 9 of Proceedings of Joint High Commission, September 22, 1898.

THE Joint High Commission met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10'30 o'clock a.m.,
ail the members being present except the Honourable Charles J. Faulkner.

[1127] X

78

' The Protocol of the last meeting was read and approved.

The question of the boundaries, which was considered at the second meeting of
the Commission on the 25th August, was again discussed. The subject was divided
into two parts, one including the question of the boundary-line in Passamaquoddy Bay,
and the other the boundary-line in and west of the Great Lakes These wore then
referred to separata Committees for consideration and report.

At the suggestion of the Committee appointed on the 30th August to consider
the fisheries question, that subject was also divided for convenience into two parts, one
including tlie fisheries of the Great Lakes and Pacific coast, and the other the fisheries
of the Atlantic coast, and the subject so divided was referred to two Committees for
consideration and report.

The Joint High Commission thereupon adjourned until Friday, the 23rd September,
at 11 o'clock in the forenoon.

Inclosure 3 in No. 91.

Alien Labour Laws —

Senator Faulkner.
Mr. Dingley.
Sir R. Cartwright.
Sir L. H. Davies.

List of Committees.

Inland and Pacific Fisheries —

General Foster.
Mr. Coolidge.
Sir R. Cartwright,
Sir L. H. Davies.

Mining Regulations —

Mr. Kasson.
Mr. Charlton.

Great Lakes —

Lord Herschell.
Sir ^y. Laurier.
Senator Fairbanks,
Senator Faulkner.

Conveyance of Prisoners —

Mr. Kas.son.
Sir L. H. Davies.

Wrecking and Salvage —

General Foster.
Mr. Dingley.
Sir L. n. Davies.
Mr. Charlton.

Behring Sea —

Senator Fairbanks.
General Foster.
Lord Herschell,
. Sir L. n. Davies.

Alaska Boundary —

Senator Fairbanks.
General Foster.
Lord Herschell.
Sir W. Laurier.

Reciprocity —

Senator Fairbanks.
Mr. Dingley.
Mr. Kasson.
Sir R. Cartwright.
Sir L. H. Davies.
Mr. Charlton.

Cuttle Branding —

Mr. Coolidge.
Sir R. Cartwright.

Passamaquoddy Bay —

Mr. Dingley.
Sii' L. H. Davies.

Boundaries >"ent of Luke i^uperior-

Mr. Kasson.

8ir R. Cartwright.

North-east Fisheries —

Senator Faulkner.
Mr. Coolidge.
Sir L. 11. Davies.
Sir J. Winter.

79

No, 92. .

Colonial Office to Foreign Office. — {Received October 7.)

Sir, Downing Street, Octuber 6, 1898.

I AM directed by the Secretary of State for the Colonies to transmit to you, for
the information of the .MarquesH of Salisbury, witli reference to the letter from this
Deijartment of the 15th ultimo, a copy of a (lewpatcli from the Governor-General of
Canada on the subject of tiie Ontario Lumber Act.

I am, &c.
(Signed) EDWARD WTNGFIELD.

Inclosure 1 in No. 92.
The Earl of Aberdeen to Mr. Chamberlain.

Sir, The Citadel, Quebec, .'September 19, 1898.

WITH reference to my despatch of tlie 17th August last relative to repre-
sentations made by the United States' Govcrnmi.-nt in regard to the re(|uirements
of the Crown Timber Regulations of the Province of Onta.io, dated the I7th December,
1897, I have the iionour to inclose herewith copy of an approved Minute of the Privy
Council, submitting a supplementary Memorandum of the Attorney-General of the
province, in justification of the requirements referred to.

I have forwarded a copy of the Minute to Her .Majesty's Ambassador to the United
States.

I have, &c.
(Signed) ABERDEEN.

Inclosure 2 in No. 92.

Extract from a Report of the Committee of the Honourable the Privy Council, approved by
the Governor-General on the lOth September, 18!)8.

ON a report, dated the 3rd September, 1 8!)8, from the Secretary of State, stating
that he has had under consideration the anue.\cd supplementary Memorandum of the
Attorney-General of Ontario respecting rep'-esentatioiis made by tlie Government of the
United States of America with regard to certain requirements of the Crown Tim'oer
Regulations of the 17th December, 1897 :

The Committee, on the recommendation of the Secretary of State, advise that your
Kxcellency be moved to forward a copy of the said Memorandum to the Right
Honourable Her Majesty's Princii)al Secretary of State, for the Colonies, and also to
forward copies to Her Majesty's Ambassador at Wasliington, for transmission to the.
Secretary of State of the United States, for the infornmtion of the parties interested.

All which is respectfully submitted for your Excellency's approval.

(Signed) .JOHN .1. McGEE,

Clerk of the Privy Council.

Supplementary Memorandum of the Attorney-General.

With further reference to the despntcli of the Honourable the Secretary of State of
the United States to Sir .fulian Pauncefoto, Her Majesty's Ambassador at Washington,
fonvarding a letter from Messrs. Dickenson and Lansing, of Detroit :

80

The Undersigned lias the honour to submit the f'olio\viii<; additional con-
siderations : —

1. The timber upon Crown lands in the Province of Ontario being, as alrcmly
pointed out, one of the most valuable assets of the province, it is the paramount duty of
the Legislature of the |)rovincc to adopt such a policy as will best preserve the forests of
I he i)rovince, not merely for the purposes of present revenue, hut for the use and to
supply the wants of the people in t'.io near and remote future; and if in carrying out
this policy the Legislature and Government siiould deem it necessary to change their
former policy in dealing with our forest reserves on account of the too rnpid depletion of
the forests, it is submitted that this course would be justified even if the change iiii]H)sed
a new condition upon the licensees not contemplated at the time of the original sale of
the timber limits, or which, to some extent, might vary the terms or conditions imposed
by the Act in force at the time of the original sale of the timber limits afl'ected by the
new Act or policy, or the terms or conditions otherwise imposed at the time of sale.

2. The limber of the State of Michigan was at one time heavier and more abundant
than thai of the Province of Ontario ; but the policy adopted in that State was not
calculated to preserve, and did not preserve, its timber, and now that the supply in that
State is nearly exhausted, the lumbermen of Michigan are seeking supplies for their
mills in the forests of this ))rovince. The alleged grievance respecting the saw-mills
mentioned in the correspondence of Messrs. J)ickenson and Lansing is not, it is
submitted, one for which the Legislature or Government of this province is responsible,
inasmuch as such mills were long ago erected for the purpose of cutting Michigan and
other American logs, and long before American lumbermen became the purchasers of
their lumber interests in Canada, and woidd necessarily remain upon the hands of their
owners when the Michigan supply became exhausted. The timber resources of this
province, however great, would not continue to meet the unrestrained inroails of
American lumbermen to supply these large mills, while the adoption of a judicious
policy of limitation in the cutting of timber, and of reforestration upon the cut-over
land, and one rccpiiring that Camidian logs should be sawn and manufactured in Canada,
may preserve the pine forests of the province for centuries.

3. The Undersigned further submits that the Statute in question and the Regida-
tions set out in the Schedule tiiereto do not discriminate against any one class of
licence-holders, whether they arc British or American subjects, but are applicable to
all alike.

4. In this connection, it is worthy of note that large sums of money have been
invested by English and American capitalists in both the United States and Canada in
other kinds of business under law s which the Legislature has not hesitated from time to
time to change as the public interests seemed to demand. Legislation a5ecting
contracts of life insurance, of Loan Corporations, and relating to mines and mining, real
and personal property, and other matters as well, furnish examples of this ; yet it has
never been contended, for instance, that an Insurance Company which has commenced
operations and invested funds in its business under an Act regulating Insurance
Companies had any just ground of complaint when the Legislature subsequently
imposed conditions upon the carrying on of its business in Ontario, although such
conditions might materially affect not only the profits and gain ol' the Company, but the
contraci entered into between the insurer and the insured. In the same manner,
legislation has from time to time made changes in the Customs and E.xcise Tariffs under
which industries in which home and foreign capital has been invested have been
materially affected, or have possibly been forced to seek other markets. Attention is
drawn to the Tariff legislation of the United States, which imposes a duty of 2 dollars
per 1,000 feet upon sawn white pine lumber imported into the United States, which
changed arrangements existing between the Governments of the United States and
Canada, and which practically prohibited the importation into the United States of
a large portion of the lumber manufactured at Canadian mills, and thereby undoubtedly
inflicted heavy losses on the saw-milling industry of this province.

6. Further, the United States by the same Tariff jn-ovidcs for the admission to the
United States of pine logs free from duty, and thus, while practically prohibiting the
importation of certain classes of Canadian lumber sawn in Canada, it made it certain
that Canadian logs should be sawn in the United States and not in Canada, when the
sawn lumber was intended for the American market.

6. Again, the Tariff Laws of the United States provide that lumber made from pine
logs produced in the State of Maine, but sawn in Canada, cannot be so sawn in Canada
by Canadian workmen under the penalty of a duty of 2 dollars per thousand feet if again

81

sent into the United States. No provision is here made for the protection of CanadianH
who had erected 'nills in Canada, and provided men, plant, and nmchinery at great cost
lor the purpoHO of sawing those logs in Canada, as had hecn the practice before the
adoption of this new feature of the Tariff Act of the United States. Yet no one can
allege that Congress was not within its strict rights in enacting these clauses of its
Tariff Laws, however hardly they may operate upon those who are adversely affected by
them.

Respectfully suhm'tted,

(Signed) ARTHUR S. HARDY,

Attorney- General.
Department of Attorney-Qpneral, Ontario,
Toronto, Augunt 22, 1808.

No. 93.

Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquess of Snliiburii. — {R?reiv<il Octohnr 10.)

(No. 2G9.)

My Lord, New London, Connecticut, September 26, 1898.

WITH reference to my despatch No. 2rt5 of tiio 22ud instant, communicating to
your Lonlshi]) renewed representations by the United States' Govonimeiit for the
suspension of the OntJirio Act regulating the manufacture of lumber, I have now the
honour to tran.smit herewith copy of an approved Minute of the Privy Council for
Canada,* which I have since received from the Governor- General for communication
to the United States' Government.

This Minute submits a, supplementary Memorandum of the Attorney-General of
the Province of Ontjirio, in which he advances further considemtions which he regards
a.s justifying the requirements of the Act of which complaint is miwlc.

I have communicated a copy of the Minute to the United States' Government as
requested by the Governor- General.

I havj, &c.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

No. 94.

Foreign Office to Colonial Office.

Sir, Foreign Office, October 10, 1898.

WITH reference to the letter from this Office of the 1st instant, I am directed
by the Marquess of Salisbury to transmit to you, to be laid before the Secretary of
State for the Colonies, copy of a further despatch from Her Majesty's Ambassador at
Washington relative to the Ontario Act regulating the export of lurabcr.t

ft will 1)0 seen that tlie Oovemmont of the United States again urge, as a
temporary measure, and until the Joint Commission shall have come to some decision
in the matter, the suspension of the operation of the ^Vct during the present season.

Lord Salisbury would he glad to be informed in due course of the nature of the
reply which should he returned to the United States' Government in regard to this
proposal.

I am, &c.
(Signed) l\ H. VILLIERS.

[1127J

Inclosure 2 in N.i, fZ.

t No. 30.

y

.%.

^,

-^r^T^^-

IMAGE EVALUATION
TEST TARGET (MT-3)

A

4^0

1.0

iiU23.

1 I.I
11.25

|2^
Ui 12.2

1.8

US

IS

U IIIIII.6

V]

«9^

7]

-r

Photograpnic

Sciences

Corporation

'<^^<^

"^^^^

33 WEST MAIN STREET

WEBSTER, N.Y. U580

(716) 872-4503

^W^^
^

i

82

No. 96.
Lord Herschell to the Marquess of Salisbury. — (Reciived October 15.)

gro. 7.)
y Lord, Quebec, September 80, 1898.

THE question of the claimB for seizures of vessels in Behring Sea was again raised
at the meeting of the Commission on the 27th instant, and it nas agreed that the British
Commissinncrs should furnish statements of the amount of compensation demanded.

General Foster said that the matter was quite distinct from the questions hitherto
discussed relative to pelagic sealing in general. He seemed to ohjcct to the presentation
of the claims, and hinted that the American Commissioners might bring forward claims
for improper seizures of vessels on the Atlantic Coast; but Senator Fairbanks did
not pursue that line of argument, and merely asked for a statement of the claims
referred to.

The Committee on the Conveyance of Prisoners through Intervenmg Territory
presented a proposal on which they had agreed for dealing with the question. Senator
Faulkner inquired whether any provision was made for the exclusion of political offences
from the list. Mr. Kasson replied that the Extradition Treaty made no mention of such
offences, and that it did not seem necessary to exclude them specifically. A copy of the
proposed Article is inclosed.

It occa«T3 to me that, in view of the difflcultv as to political offences, it may be
wiser to limit the Agreement to offences for which extradition can be obtained, because
it is, no doubt, understood that political oScnces are excluded on both sides from the
application of the Treaty ; but the addition of provisions with regard to assaults might
involve acts committed by persons who are implicated in offences of a political character,
and I am informed by some of my colleagues that the Senate is so sensitive upon the
point that if there were any doubt as to the absolute exclusion of political offenders from
the arrangement, it might jeopardize the ratification of a Treaty.

Sir Louis Davie t then road the Article drafted on the subject of wrecking and salvage
lights, explaining that the British members of the Committee were unable to accept the
Inst paragraph but one, which is underlined in the copy forwarded herewith. General
Foster and Mr. Kasson spoke in favour of the disputed paragraph. They urged that
large Steam-ship Companies which have wrecking appliances of their own should be
alloved to send for them, instead of being forced to employ a local salvage vessel, which
would be able to fix its own charges, and which would probably not perform the work so
efficiently. Sir Louis Davies' reply to this was that a large Wrecking Company, like
that which exists at San Francisco, might, under such an arrangement, purchase a share
in every vessel trading along the coast of British Columbia, and thus become entitled to
siilve any of those vessels in British waters. Mr. Charlton added that the Canadian
Government had been willing to adopt an unlimited extension of the phrase " contiguous
waters," and to permit the use of wrecking vessels along the whole length of the coasts
without regard to their nationality, but that the United States* Government had refused
that proposal, and should therefore accept the limitations agreed upon, without attempting
to make exceptions to the rules laid down.

Sir Louis Davies tells me that his objection to the extension of wrecking and
salvage rights to more than 30 miles on each side of the frontier, if it is luif to be made
as wc proposed, universal, is based on the considerations that no wrecks t«kc place in the
American waters south of the line, such as Puget Sound and other inland seas, and that
any rights granted to American wreckers along the coast of British Columbia would lead
to the wrecked vessels being taken to American porta for repair. His objection to the
clause not accepted by the British membeid of the Committee was based upon the same
considerations.

The accompanying Memorandum on the Alaska boundary was handed in by General
Foster, who said that it bad been thought desirable to collect the principal documents in
a convenient form, with translations from the French originals, and with extracts from
those papers which did not exclusively concern tlic boundary question. When asked
what the United States' Commissioners proposed in substance, he said that they wished
to follow the wording of the Treaty of 1825, and to draw a line along the summits of the
mountains, never more than 10 marine leagues from the coast.

At the next meeting Mr. Kasson read a proposal which he had prepared in
conjunction with Mr. Charlton on the subject of mining rights. As, however, it was

found that the Committee had acted on the assumption that the mining rights in tho
Canadian Provinces (as well as the Territories) were under the control of the Dominion
Government, the propogal was withdrawn. In the course of the discussion, the American
Commissioners stated, in reply to Sir Wilfrid Laurier, that mining rights in the United
States are the property of the Federal Government, and that a Treaty granting
participation in such rights to British subjects could be enforced by the Executive.

Two members were added to the Committee, Senator Faulkner and myitclf being
named to join Mr. Kasson and Mr. Charlton, but it was subsequently arranged that
Senator Faulkner should not act, and the Committee therefore consists of only three
persons.

On the 29th instant a Committee was appointed on the question of transit privileges.
The members of this Committee are : Senator Fairbanks, Mr. Coolidge, Sir W. Laurier,
and Sir R. Cartwright.

Copies of Protocols X to XIII are inclosed.

I have, &c.
(Signed) HERBCHELL.

Inclosure 1 in No. 96.

Article
Conveyance of Prisoners.

ANY officer of the United States of America, or of any State or Territory thereof,
having in his custody without the borders of Canada, by virtue of any warrant or other
lawful process issued by authority of the United States or of any State or Territory
tliereof, any person charged with or convicted of a criminal offence committed within the
Jurisdiction of the United States or of any State or Territory thereof, may, in executing
such warrant or process, convey such person through any part of Canada to a place in
the United States, if such warrant or process is indorsed (or backed) by a Judge, Magis-
trate, or Justice of the Peace in Canada, or if the authority of the Minister of Justice
of Canada for such conveyance is first obtained.

Diuing such conveyance of such person through Canada, such officer may keep such
person in his custody, and in case of escape may recapture him.

Any officer of the Dominion of Canada or of any Province or Territory thereof having
in his custody, without the borders of the United States of America, by virtue of any warrant
or other lawful process issued by authority of the law of the Dominion or of any Province
or Territory thereof, any person charged with or convicted of a criminal offence com-
mitted in Canada, may, in executing such warrr.nt or process, convey such person
through any part of the United States to a place in Canada, if such warrant or process
is indorsed (or hacked) by a Judge, Magistrate, or Justice of the Peace in , the United
States, or if the authority of the Secretary of State of the United States for such con-
veyance is first obtained.

During such conveyance of such person through the United Slates, such officer may
keep such person in his custody, and in case of escape may recapture him.

The foregoing provisions shall apply only to persons charged with or convicted of
offences of the following descriptions : —

1. Offences for nhich extradition is at the time authorized by any Convention in
force between t'^e Governments of the United States and of Great Britain.

2. Assaul ivith intent to commit grievous bodily harm.

3. Assault upon an officer of the law in the execution of his duty.

The two Governments may by common accord make further or other jiegulations
for certifying the warrant or process under which the person in custody is to be conveyed,
as before provided.

1 m
was

81.
InclosuTC 2 in No. 95.

Wrecking and Salvage.

WHEREAS reciproca] legislntion now exists in the United States of America and in
€anada permitting the vessels of each country respectively to salve any property wrecked,
and to render aid and assistance to any vessels wrecked, disabled, or in distress in the
waters of each of such countries contiguous to the other, and it is desirable that such
legislation be made permanent and bo made to define clearly the meaning of the terms
in such legislation of " the waters of Canada contiguous to the United States " and
" the waters of the United States contiguous to the Dominion of Canada."

It is, therefore, agreed and defined that vessels and wrecking appliances of the
United States and of Canada may salve any property wrecked, and may render aid and
assistance to any vessels wrecked, disabled, or in distress —

1. In the waters or on the shores of the St. Lawrence River where the said river
constitutes the international boundary.

2. In the waters and along the shores of Lake Ontario, Iiake Erie, Lake Huron,
and the waters connecting Lakes Eric and Huron, including I^ke St. Claire.

3. In the St, Mary's River and Lake Superior.

4. And in the waters of the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, along the coast-line and
islands, in all the bays, sounds, straits, and open ocean lying or being within the distance
of 30 miles from the international water boundary-line.

It is further agreed that such reciprocal wrecking privileges shall include all
necessary towing incident thereto, and that nothing in the customs, coasting, or other
laws or regulations of cither country shall restrict in any manner the salving operations
of such vessels or wrecking appliances.

Jl is further agreed that the owners or consignees of any disabled vessel or cargo in
peril may employ their own vessels and appliances for the rescue of salvage of their own
property, whether the same may be within or irithout the limits prescribed in the preceding
clause of this Article.

Vessels employed as above stated shall, us soon as practicable afterwards, mnkc
fiill report at the nearest custom-house of the country in whose waters such salving takes
place.

Inclosure 3 in No. 95.

Vinvt of the United States' Commissioners on the Alaska Boundary, as defined by the

Treaty of 1825.

IN view of the position assumed by the British Commissioners respecting the terri-
tory on the south-east coast of .Alaska between 54" 40' north latitude and Mount
St. Elias, it has been deemed necessary to make a more precise statement of the views
of the Commissioners of the United States on this subject.

It is maintained by the latter that the Treaty of 1825 between Russia and Great
Britain, which delimits the territory in (luestion, is sufficiently explicit in its terms to
determine with accuracy the southern line of boundary, and that the eastern line may
likewise be determined and marked by the .Joint High Commission, with the aid of the
recent surveys made by the Joint Commission created by the Convention of the 22nd
July, 1892.

The Commissioners, on the part of the United States, hold that by the terms of the
Treaty of 1826 the south line of boundary, starting from the southernmost point of
Prince of Wales Island, passes thence to the mouth of the Portland Channel or Canal,
and northerly up thai: channel and the mainland to the 56° of latitude ; and that the
eastern boundary-line of the strip of territory, or " lisi^re," • on the mainknd or con-

• The term "lUiire," aa it occura in Article IV and tlienhcrp in the Treaty of 1828, wa» referred to in tin.'
oral argument before the Fur-aesI Arbitration nt Pnria. The followiog remarki arc t»ken from the argument of
Sir Richard Webater (" Fupteal Arbitration Papers," vol. xiii, p. ibO) :—

" Mr. Jo' 'f* Harlan. — What are the Engliah worda in Article VI corrcaponding to " liaiirc ?"

" Sir Ilikflird Wcbiter.— I aill read it :

" Mai/ croM llie lint of demarcation upon lh» lint ofcoatt.

" The expraaaion ' line of conat ' is not the proper tranalntion — it ought to be ' atrip of coaat.' ' Strip ' ia the
correct tramlation ot ' livierc,' if I may be iirrmitted to ray to, Mr. President, and nu doubt if I am wrong yon
ttill correct lue. ' Lisidre ' is ' selv.ngf ' — ' atrip —like the edge of cloth — ' border.' "

P
d

85

tinent follows tho crest of the mountains (but never more than 10 marine leagues from
the coast), along the sinuosities of the coast, and always on the mainland, till it reaches
the 141° of longitude, in the vicinity of Mount St. Ellas.

While the United States' Commissioners maintain that no other construction can
be given to tho language of the Treaty, they maintain, further, that the negotiations
which led up to the Treaty, and all the subsequent history relating to that territory,
confirm the foregoing as the proper and only interpretation of that instrument.

The Negotiations.

The circumstance which initiated the negotiations resulting in the Treaty of 1826
was the proniulgation, ;mi tlie ith September, 1821, by the Emperor of Russia of an
Imperial Ukase, directing the exercise of jurisdiction for the protection of Russian trade
and commerce over the Pacific Ocean 100 miles from the coaHts of ^orth America to
the south as far as the 51° of north latitude, and from the coast of Asia to the ^Sf of
latitude. On the 18th January, 1822 (Appendix 1, p. 1*), the British Secretary for
Foreign Affairs addressed a note to the Russian Ambassador in London, protesting
against the Ukase as unwarranted in the extent of its claim to the exercise of jurisdic-
tion on the high sea, and expressing doubt as to the correctness of its territorial claim
on the coast of North America. This step was followed by an effort on the part of the
British Plenipotentiary at the Congress of Verona, the Duke of Wellington, October
and November 1822 (p. 9), to secure a retraction of both the claim to jurisdiction as to
100 miles from the coast of the Pacific Ocean and of exclusive sovereignty of ihe coast
to the 61° of latitude. The Russian Plenipotentiary manifested a disposition to satisfy
the demands of Great Britain as to the ocean jurisdiction, and indicated that the
territorial claim would not be pushed further south than the 55° of latitude, that being
the limit fixed in the charter of the Rassian-American Company by the Ukase of the
Emperor Paul in 1799 (p. 12). It was, however, agreed that the negotiations should be
adjourned to London or St. Pctersburgh (p. 12).

Under date of the 5th February, 1823 (p. 16) the British Secretary for Foreign
Affairs, Mr. George Canning, sent instructions to the British Ambassador in St. Peters-
burgh, Sir Charles liagot, to open n' gotiations on the subject of the Ukase of the
4th September, 1623. Meanwhile the Government of the United States had received
notice of the Ukase (p. 1), and having likewise protested against it, instructed its
Minister in St. Petersburgh to open negotiations on the same subject (pp. 17 to 26).
Sir C. Bagot was directed to unite with the .Vmerican Minister, Mr, Middloton, in the
negotiations with the Russian Government (pp. 18 and 19) ; but when it was later ascer-
tained that the United States might on its part advance some claim to the territory
above the 61°, Sir C. Bagot was instructed by Mr. George Canning, 15th .January, 1824
(p. 41), to discontinue liis joint negotiations with the American Minister, and thence-
forward the British negotiations were entirely independent of those on the part of the
United States.

First Neyotintions.

Soon after the receipt of Secretary Canning's instruction of the 15th January, 1624,
Sir C. Bagot set on foot and pressed his negotiations to a definite Lssue, as is shown by
his despatch to Secretary Canning of the 17th March, 1824 (p. 49). The Russian
Government having practically agreed in 1822 that the jurisdiction over the high sea
claimed in the Ukase of 1821 would not be enforced, the territorial question \>.i. to
be adjusted with a view to enabling the Russian Government to witlidraw the Ukase
with as little loss of pride as possible (pp. 19 to 100) ; and hence the negttiations of
Fehriiary and March were confined to tlic question of the boundary to I)c fixed between
the Russian and British possessions on the nortlt-west coast of North America, and
mainly to the determination of ono point, viz., the boundary-line of latitude on the
coast.

Sir C. Bagot presented to the Russian Plenipotentiaries successively three distinct
propositions. The first of these, verbally made, as stated in his despatch, was " a line
drawn through Chatham Strait to the head of Lynn Canal, thence north-west to the
140° of longitude." This was practically tlie line which had l)een suggested by Secretary
Canning (p. 19), and in the informal Conferences during- the joint negotiations with the

' All pa|T« refercncet are to tho Aupendictii which accninpanleil this paper, unleii olherwiio stated.
[1127] Z

86

United States had been indicated by Sir G. Bagot (p. 27)) except that the present proposal
included Sitka in Russian territory.

The Russian Plenipotentiaries declined to accept this proposal, and at the request
of Rir C. Rngot, submitted in writing a counter-proposal (p. 53), which was in effect the
same as suggested by Count Nesselrodc at Verona (p. 12) and by Baron Tuyll in October
1822 (p. 13). This counter-proposal indicated latitude 55° as the proper boundary,
basing the claim on the Ukase of Paul of 1790 ; but "as the parallel of 55° cuts the
southern extremity of Prince of Wales Island," the P! ■nipotentiarics suggested that the
southernmost extremities be fixed as the boundary of Russian territory, and, they add,
" to complete the line of demarcation and render it as distinct as possible, the Plenipo-
tentiaries of Russia have expressed the desire to make it follow Portland Channel up to
the mountains which bordtr the coast " (p. 53). This line of the southern boumlary of
Russia, so distinctly indicated, was never varied from, but consistently maintained
throughout all the subsequent negotiations by Russia.

After this specific proposition, Sir C. Bagot modified his first proposal by offering to
accept "a line traced from the west toward the cast along the middle of the channel
which separates Prince of Wales and Duke of York Islands from all the islands situated
to the north of the said islands until it touches the mainland " (p. 54).

In opposition to this (second proposal) the Russian Plenipotentiaries submitted a
paper of some length sustaining the expediency and justice of their proposition to fix
" as limits upon the coast of the continent, to the south, Portland Channel " (p. .'56).
Sir 0. Bagot replied to this paper in a Memorandum of equal length by woy of a refuta-
tion of the Russian observations, and concluded by submitting a third and final proposal,
viz., " a line drawn from the southern extremity of the strait called " Duke of Clarence's
Sound," through the middle of this strait to the middle of the strait which separates
Prince of Wales and Duke of York Islands from all the islands Ijring north of those islands,
thence toward the east through the middle of the same strait to the mainland ' (p. 58)*.
In submitting this proposal. Sir C. Bagot " gave it clearly to be understood that it con-
tained his ultimate proposition" (p. 61).

This (third) proposal was laid before the Emperor, and within ten days the Russian
Plenipotentiaries, under his orders, communicated "their finai decision, and that they
must continue to insist ujjon the demarcation as described by them in the first paper "
(pp. 01, 50}. Thereupon Sir C. Bngct stated to the Russian Plenipotentiaries " that I
was sorry to say that I must now consider our negotiations as necessarily suspended, so
fav at least as the question of territorial demarcation was concerned " (p. 61); to which
they replied : —

" His Imperial Majesty regrets to see them (the negotiations) terminated at the
present time, but be is pleased to believe that the final decision of the London Cabinet
will prevent these discussions from being barren of result " (p. CO).

It thus appears that the main point under discussion in this first negotiation was
the attempt to agi-ee upon the southern boundary of the Russian possessions, and that
the territory in dispute was that lying in a triangle marked by the Duke of Clarence
Strait, the Portland Channel, and a point on the mainland about latitude 56°. This is
made perfectly clear by the note of Count Nesselrodc of the flth (17th) May, 1824, the
Chief Russian Negotiator, to Count Lieven, Russian Ambassador in London (p. G3), a
copy of which was delivered to the British Government (p. G7). Attention is called to
the following language in tliat note : —

" Russia cannot stretch her concessions further. She will make no others, ind she
is authorized to expect some concessions on the part of England" (p. 65).

w
wr

Second Negotiations.

The expectations of Russia were not to be disappointed, for in the month following
Secretary Canning informed Count Lieven that Sir C. Bagot would be instructed "to
admit, with certain qualifications, the terms last proposed by the Russian Government."
The qualifications related not to the southern boundary, but to the " lisi^re," to the
boundaiy near Mount St. Eli is, and to the free use of the rivers, straits, and waters
(p. 07). In his instruction t > Sir C. Bagot, Secretary Canning said : —

" Her Majesty's Government have resolved to authorize your Excellency to consent
to include the south points of Prince of Wales Island within the Russian frontiers, and

* It will be noted thnt tliis i'l tubstantmlly tlie same line ai that indicated on the new Map laid before the
Joi:it High CcmuiitBloa bj tbt Britith Comniitiioueri.

87

to take aH tho line of demarcation a line drawn from the southernmost point of Prince of
Wales Island from south to north through Portland Channel, till it strikes the mainland
in latitude Be"" (p. 72).

Henceforward the subject of the southern boundary disappears from the negotia-
tions the claim of Russia to the line to and along the Portland Channel being granted.
Secretary Canning informs Sir C. Bagot :

" There are two points which are left to be settled by your Excellency : —

" 1 . the eastern boundary of the strip of land to be occupied by Russia on tho
coast;" and

2. The right of resorting to the territory and waters conceded to Russia (p. 73).

The second negotiation appears to have been confined mainly to a discussion of
this second point. Sir C. Bagot in again reporting ihe suspension of negotiations
(p. 81), says :

" There are three points upon whi^h the differences appear to be almost, if not
altogether, irreconcilable." The first two poin'^ were the opening for ever to the
commerce of British subjects of Novo Archangelsk (Sitka) and the coast of the " lisilrc,"
and, third, privilege to visit for a term of years the other parts of Russian America.
See also the Russian statement of the differences (p. 92).

The Russion Plenipotentiaries were willing to grant the privileges described in the
first two points for a period of ten years, but refused to permit any foreign cammercial
intercourse with its territory north of latitude 59 or 00° (pp. SI, 92). Secretary
Canning, having failed in tills second attempt to reach an agreement at S*.. Petersburgh,
proposed to transfer the negotiations to London (pp. 97, 98) ; but in the interim
Mr. Stratford Canning returned from his mission at Washington, and he was sent as a
Plenipotentiary to St. Petersburgh, entrusted with the task wliich his predecessor had
failed to accomplish.

Third Negotiations.

The iii.slructions to Mr. S. Canning, contained in Secretary Canning's despatch of
the 8th Dc ember, 1824 (p. 99), authorize him to accede to the Russian proposition to
admit British commerce to the port of Sitka and the territorial waters of tlie " lisi^re "
for a period of ten years, in the terms fixed in the Russian -American Treaty (pp. 101-2)
which had already been concluded. This left only the eastern boundary of the " lisii^'re "
to be deQnitely fixed. The instruction to Mr. S. Canning on this point was to fi? the
line at "the summit of the mountains which tun parallel to the coast," with the concition
that the line should not extend beyond 10 leagues from the coast (p. 101). The Russian
Plenipotentiaries desired, first, to make the ;" lisierc " 10 leagues wide throughout the
whole extent, and finally, to make the summit of the mount, ins the invariable line
without any restriction as to width ; but they finally yielded to , 'lo British proposition
(pp. 116, 117). With this last point adjusted, the negotiations which had extended
through three years were brought to a close by the signature of the Treaty of the
16th (28th) February, 1825.

The foregoing review, divided in three stages, developed three points of difference,
viz. : —

1. The southern boundary ;

2. The course and limit of the " lisi^re ; " and

3. The period and extent of use of the disputed territory by British subjects.

The first two are the only ones which have given rise to discussion in the Joint
High Commission. •

The Portland Channel.

The American Commissioners hold, as stated, that under the terms of the Treaty
of 1825 the southern boundary must be drawn from the southernmost point of Prince of
Wales Island along the line of Si" 40' to the niiuith of the Portland Channel, and thence
along tiiat channel and mainland to the .56° latitude.

1. No other line can be drawn unless it can be shown that some other channel was
known at the time of the negotiations as Portland Channel.

2. No other such body of water was ever described by navigators or existed on any
map. The Portland Channel as it now appears on the British ^\.dmiralty Charts and
United States' official Maps was named, 8ur\eyed, and chartered about 1794 by Vancouver,
and all maps of tho region (as far as known) up to the negotip*'Q:i of the Treaty of 1825
followed his designation and location.

88

3. The negotiators of the Treaty on both sides were fuUjr conversant witli the
geographical locations on the coast ; although respecting the interior of the mainland
accurate geographical knowledge did not then exist.* The documents relating to the
negotiations show they were in intimate relation with tho Companies competing for the
control and trade of the region in dispute, the Russian-American Company on the onp
side, and the Hudson's Bay and North-west Companies on the otlier (pp. 3, 0, 8,
S4, 42, 07) ; and they had in their possession, and consulted, the best and latest maps of
tho region (pp. 2i, 27, 42, 59, 92).

4. The negotiators were accurately informed as to the location of Portland Channel.
Baron Tuyll, in advising Count Nesselrode as to the line which should be adopted in
the south, fixes it " at the southern point '•f the Archipelago of Prince of Wales and the
Observatory Inlet (a branch of Portland Channel), which are situated almost under that
parallel " (C6°) (p. 14). Sir C. Bagot, in referring to the proposition of the Russian
Plenipotentiaries, said of it : —

" A line of demarcation drawn from the southern extremity of Prince of Wales
Island to the mouth of Portland Channel, thence up the middle of this channel until it
touches the mainland, thence to the mountains bordering the coast, would deprive Her
Britannic Majesty of sovereignty .... over all the inlets and small bays lying between
latitudes 50" and 54° 46' " (p. 54).

Count Nesselrode, in reporting to Count Lievcn the first negotiations with Sir C,
Bagot, wrote : —

" In order not to cut Prince of Wales Island, which, according to this arrangement,
would remain to Russia, we proposed to carry the southern frontier of our domains to
latitude 54° 10', and to make it abut upon the continent at the Portland Canal, of
which the opening into the ocean is at the same latitude as Prince of Wales Island, and
which lias its origin inland between 56° and 50" of latitude" (p. 04).

5. The negotiators understood that the line was to be drawn from the soutliern
extremity of Prince of Wales Island to the mouth of and up the Portland Channel, and
not up the Duke of Clarence Strait. Sir C. Bagot, as already noticed, proposed to run
the divisory line " from the southern extremity of the strait called ' Duke of Clarence
Sound ' through the middle of this strait " to the coast of the mainland at tlie latitude of
60" north (p. ')S). In writing to Secretary Canning, he stated that his object in
making this proposition was " to preserve uninterrupted our access to the Pacific Ocean,
and secure to His Majesty the 50'' of north latitude as the British boundary on
the coast" (p. 51). His language cjuoted in ])aragraph 4 shows that he propo.4ed
the line of Clarence Strait, because the line to and up the Portland Channel, as proposed
by the Russian Plenipotentiaries, would deprive Great Britain of sovereignty over t!ie
mainland and " over all the inlets and small bays lying between latitude §0" and 54" 40'.''
The quotation already made from Count Nesselrode shows that his proposition was to
make the southern boundary " abut upon the continent at tho Portland Canal, of which
the opening into the ocean is at the same latitude as Prince of Wales Island." He
proceeds : —

" After some discussion, the last counter-propositions of Sir Charles Bagot were
to include all of Prince of Wales Island within the Russian territory, but to stipulate
that our boundary-line, on leaving this island, should follow the pass called Duke of
Clarence Sound, and should not strike the coast until above 50° north latitude.

" This diifcrence, if regarded on the map, would appear insignificant at the first
glance. It is nevertheless so essential to us that it is absolutely impossible for us to
accept the plan of demarcation traced by the Plenipotentiary of His Britannic
Majesty" (p. 04).

As has been shown, the proposition of Russia making the Portland Channel the
boundary, was formally agreed to by Great Britain, and in all the subsequent corre-
spondence and negotiations it is taken for granted as the southern boundary. See the
four projets of Treaty submitted later (pp. 74, 86, 100, 111); Sir C. Bagot, p. 82; and
Count Nesselrode, p. 94.

0. All the English and Russian maps issued immediately, and continuously for many
years after, the Treaty was negotiated, inc'ictatc ihe Portland Channel or Canal as the

* The following names of locations, places, or ptrts uf tho territu.-y in dispute are mentioucU in the papers
relating to the negotiations : —

Mount St. Elioi, Cross Sound, Lynn Channel or Harbour, Chatham Strait, Norfolk Sound, Norfolk Island,
Cook's Inlet, .4lmiralty Island, Novo Archangisk and Sitka, King George's Archipelago, King (icorgo's Island,
Stephens Passage, Duke of York Island, Duke of Clarence Sound or Strait, Prince of Wales Island, Portland
Channel or Canal, Observatory Inlet.

■\.

89

sontliern boundarj of the Russian possessions on the mainland,
these will be made hereaftei .

Reference to some of

The " Lisiere."

Next to the fixation of the southern boundary, which marked in that direction the
Russian possessions on the continent, the subject which created the most discussicm
with the negotiators was the extent towards the east wliicli this territory sliould nave.
It is apparent from the documents that two conflicting interests liad to be met and
reconciled. First, the Russian-American Company, which by Imperial ('barter had
Seen granted powers both of government and exclusive trade in Russian America, had
it the time of the negotiations occupied the islands along the North American
continent as far as .bout latitude .'j"'^ and had established a trade in hunting and fishing
several degrees further south (pp. 5'!, (Mi). On the other hand the Hudson's Hay and
the North-west Companies (British) had established posts in the interior of the
continent cast of the Rocky Mountains and along the Mackenzie River, and were
iiashing their trade towards the Pacific Ocean ; Lut from the statement of the Hudson's
Bay Company to Secretary Canning, dated the 25th September, 1822, it appears that
the nearest post of that Company to the Pacific Ocean north of latitude 64° was on
Eraser Lake, at least 120 miles east of the nearest tide- water.

The Representatives of the respective Governments were, througliout the negotia-
tions, keenly alive to the interests of the C&mpanics above mentioned, and were seeking
to acquire for them as much territory on the mainland as possible. In Baron 'i'uyll's
letter to Count Nesselrode is found the earliest Russian suggestion " to make all possible
attempts " in favour of tbeir Company by securing a boundary on the continent as fur
south as possilile, whicii iie said should be at least at 65 degrees, as "any nearer neigh-
bourhood of the English establishments could not fail to be injurious to that of" Sitka
(p. 14). When the negotiations were about to be entered upon M. Poletica com-
municated and approved the views of the Russian-American Company which, in fixing
the boundaries on the continent, ' had mainly in view the establishment of a barrier at
which would be stopped, once for ai.', to the north and to the west of the coast allotted
to our American Company, the encroachments of the English agents of the amalgamated
Hudson's Bay and North-west English Com])any " (p. 34).

At the same time the Hudson's Bay Company was pressing upon its Government
its claim to open access to the ocean, as is seen by reference to the communication to
Secretary Canning above cited, a claim which the latter brought to the attention of the
Duke of Wellington, in view of the negotiation to be opened at Verona. Sir C. Bagot,
in enumerating the chief objects to be attained by the isoicotiafions iie was earring on,
specially states "they were to secure the emboucimres of such rivers ns might aflford an
outlet for our fur trade into the Pacific" (p. lO). And in presenting the line of
Clarence Strait in substitution of the Russian line along the Portland Channel, he states
his object was to "preserve uninterrupted our access to the Pacific Ocean" (p. 51).
And in further explanation lie says the line of tl.'o Portland Channel " would deprive His
Britannic Majesty of sovereignty over all the inlets and small bays lying between
latitudes 50° and 64° 45' ... . of essential importance to its (Hudson's Bay) commerce '
(p. 54).

The Russian Plenipotentiaries, in answer to these reasons, stated, in effect, that the
object of proposing the line indicated by them was to reserve the coast of the mainland
for the o])erations of their own Company, and to exclude its competitors (p. 5^). The
situation was described by Count Nesselrode to Coiint Lieven in the following terse and
frank language : " Thus, we wish to keep, and the English Companies wish to obtain "
(p. 65).

In further explanation, he said : —

" If Prince of Wales Island remains to us, it is necessary that it can be of some
utility to us. Now, according to the plan of the British Ambassador, it would be for us
only a burden, and perhaps an inconvenient one. That island, in fact, and thu
establishments which we might .set up thereon, would find themselves eutiiely isolated,
deprived of all support, surrounded by the domains of (ireat Britain, and at the mercy of
the English establishments of the coast. We would exhaust ourselves in the cost
of guarding and watching our part, without any compensation to alleviate tlie burden."
And in this connection he made the positive declaration, already (juoted, " Russia cannot
stretch her concessions further. She will make no others " (p. 05).

[1127] 2 A

90

It thus ap])earB that the Ru88ian Oovcrntncnt wan determined that a strip of
territory should he secured on tlic coast for the; puriMMC of protecting; the trade of the
Riisman-Amcrican Company, and of excluding Uh competitors, and it has been shown
that HO fnr ns the coast from 54" 10' to W is concerned, this was conceded by Great
Britain. It has also been Hceii that the eastern boundary was fixed as proscribed in the
Treaty after an inefl'cctunl attempt on the part of Itussia to make the summit of the
mountains the unvarying line*

This line is to " follow the summit of the mountains situated parallel to the coast "
(Article III), but when more than 10 leagues from the coast the boundary " shall
be formed by a line parallel to the windings" (ICnglish Foreign Office translation for
"sinuosity") " of tlie coant " (Article IV). The maps of that period indicate it
continuous line or chain of mountains following the coast, around Lynn Canal, and up to
Mount St. Elitts, and the documents relating to the negotiations show that it was
the belief of the Plenipotentiaries that such u chain of mountains existed, and that
it would be found about 10 leagues from the coast. Secretary Canning thus describes
this line: "The summit of the mountains whicli run parallel tiv the coast, and which
appear, according to the map, to follow all its ' sinuosit^s ' " (p. 101), and the word
"siuuosit^s" is the term used by him elsewhere in describing the course of the
mountains around the inlets of the coast" (p. 72).

It is plain that the Russian negotiators understood that Articles III and IV gave to
Russia a continuous strip of territory (" lisiirc "; around all the bays and inlets of the
ocean up to longitude 141". This is confirmed by Articles VI and VII, by the first of
which the right of free navigation is given to British subjects of "all the rivers and
streams which, in their course towards the Pacific Ocean, may cross the line of
demarcation upon the strip (' lisi6re ') of coast," [and by the second the privilege is
given British subjects for a period of ten years to frequent, for the purposes of fishing
and trading, " all the inland seas, the gulfs, havens, and creeks on the coast mentioned
in Article III." 1'hese grants are inconsistent with any other theory than the complete
sovereignty of Ruf.sia over not only the " lisi^re ' on the mainland, but also of the waters
of all bays or in'ets extending from the ocean into tne mainland. This is tl"> more
manifest when the facts attending the Russian- American Treaty oi 1824 are iv .ailed.
It was more than once stated during the British negotiations that the same privileges
granted by Article IV of the American Treaty as to visiting the interior waters on
the Russian-American coast would be granted to British subjects. The privilege was
limited by the American Treaty to ten years, and at the expiration of that term notice
was given to the Government of the United States by the Russian Minister in
Washington that the privilege had expired (p. 134), and a notification to that effect was
made in the public press of the United States (p. 135). The year following the
notification an American vessel was seized for visiting the waters in question, and a
lengthy diplomatic correspondence ensued, in which the Government of the United
States sought to have the privilege extended for another period of ten years, but it was
refused, and no satisfoction was given for the seizure of the vessel (pp. 135-37).

Other facts attendmg the history of the Treaty subsequent to its execution are in
strong corroboration of the contention that Portland Channel constituted the southern
boundary of the Russian territory, and that the " lisiiire " follows around the inlets or
indentations of the coast. Soon after the conclusion of the Treaty an oflScial map of
Iforth America was prepared by the Russian Government and published in 1827. In
this map the boundary-line of the Russian territory in America begins at the southern-
most extremity of Prince of Wales Island, proceeds thence to the mouth of Portland
Channel, up that channel and the mainland to 56" of latitude, and thence at a distance
of about 10 leagues from the coast, following its sinuosities, around Lynn Canal to Mount
St. Elias. Tlie original of this map will be produced to the Joint High Commission.

The Hudson's Bay Company.

On the British side there is equally strong official authority of a similar character
tu support the contention of the American Commissioners. It has been shown that the

* It is interi'stiug to uoic tliat, while the iiritith Government was very strenuous In requiring the eastern
litiiit of thf- " tiiiire " to be kept within 10 leagues of the coatt, i-'ccretnry Canning, in his first instruction to
Sir C. liagot, s^iiil it would be cxpeuieiit tu assign " i limit, say, of jO or 100 miles from thu coaat beyond whieh
the Russian posts should not be extended to the eastward " (p. 45).

ri\
be

01

•ip of
)f the
ihown
Great
in the
)t' the

oaHt "
Bholl
»n for
ate a
up to
. was
that
icribes
"liich
word
the

British negotiators of the Treaty oi 1825 were influenced almost entirely in their
negotiationH by the wishes and interests of the Hudson's Bay Company. The repre-
sentatives of that ComiHiny were in constant communication with Secretary Canning by
personal interviews and by letters (pp. (5, 7, 15, 42, 40) ; the boundary-line which they
recommended was accepted and urged by the Britisii Government (pp. 43, 47) ; and
when negotiatirms were broken otT tlicy were not resumed t'll tLi» Company was hoard
from, ami its views were again adopted and pressed (pp, 6(5, 07).

In 1857 an investigation was had of the affairs of the Hudson's Hay (Company by a
Select Committee of the British House of Commons, and a lengthy printed Report of
its proceedings was published. Prom that Report it appears that at the time of the
negotiation of the Treaty of 1825, and for many years thereafter, this Company
possessed all fhe powers of government in Hritisli territory in the vast extent of the
north-western jwrt of America, both e.xecutive and judicial, and was, in fact, the only
British authority in that region (see Report, Appendix IV, pp. 138, 139, 140, 141).
The Governor of the Comimny and of the Territory, Sir George Simpson, was cxninined
before the Select Committee, and testified that he had been Governor for thirty-seven
years, and, hence, held that jiosition at the time of the nci^otiiitions. He says he was
familiar with the disputed territory on the north-west const, having travelled over it in
the course of his duties as Governor (p. 138) ; and he stated that about the year 1839
his Company made an arrangement with the Russian-American Company, by which the
former leased the " lisiere " described in the negotiations and Treaty. On this point
his testimony is as follows (p. 109) : —

" 1026. Besides your own territo">, I think you administer a portion of the
territory which belongs to Russia, under some arrangement with the llussian Com-
pany ? — A. There is a margin of coast, marked yellow in the map, from 50" iO' up to
Cross Sound which we have rented from the Russian-American Company for a term of
years.

" 1027. Is that the whole of that strip Y— A. The strip goes on to Mount
St. Elias.

" 1028. Where does it begin ? — A. Near Fovt Simpson, in latitude 64°, it runs up
to Mount St. Eliaa, which is farther noith.

" 1029. Is it the whole of that strip which is included between the British territory
and the seaP — A, Wc have only rented the part between Fort Simpson and Cross
Sound.

'• 1030. What is the date of that arrangement ? — A. That arrangement, I think,
was entered into about 1839.

" 1031. What are the terms upon which it was made ? Do you pay a rent for that
land? — A. The British territory runs along inland from the coast about 30 miles; the
Russian territory runs along the coast; we have the right of navigation through the
rivers to hunt the interior country. A misunderstanding existed upon that point in the
first instance ; we were about to establish a post upon one of the rivers, which led to very
serious difficulties between the Russian- American Company and ourselves. We had a
long correspondence, and to guard against the recurrence of these difticulties it was
agreed that we should lease this margin of coast and pay them a rent. The rent was, in
the first instance, in otters. I think we gave 2,000 otters a-year ; it is now converted
into money. We give, I think, 1,500/. a-year."

On a subsequent day Sir George Simpson was recalled, and said (p. 140) : —

" 1732. Chairman. — I think you made an arrangement with the Russian Companj-
by which you hold under lease a portion of their territory ? — A. Yes.

" 1733. I believe that arrangement is that you .hold that strip of country which
intervenes between your territory and the sea, and that you give them 1,500/. a-year for
it ?— Yes.

" 1734. What were your objects in making that arrangement ? — A. To prevent difl5-
culties existing between the Russians and ourselves — as a peace offering.

" 1735. What was the nature of those difficulties ? — A. We were desirous of passing
through their territory, which is inland from the coast about 30 miles. There is a margin
of 30 miles of coast belonging to the Russians. We had the right of navigating the
rivers falling into the ocean, and of settling the interior country. Difficulties arose
between us in regard to the trade of the country, and to remove all those difficulties we
agreed to give them an annual allowance : I think, in the first instance, 2,000 otter
skins, and tuterwards of 1,500 a-year.

" 1788. During the late war which existed between Russia and England, I believe
that some arrangement was made between you and the Russians by which you agreed
not to molest one another ? — A. Yes, such an arrangement was made.

02

" 1780. By the two Companies? — A. Yon; and Government conflrmed the Arrange-
ment

" 1710. You agreed that dii neither side should there bo any molestation or inter-
ference with the trade of the dillercnt (larticg ? — A. Yen.

"17'11. And I believe that that wa« strictly observed during the wliole wnrf
—A. Yes.

" 1712. Afr. Hell. — Which Government confirmed the arrangement, the Russian or
the English, or both 1—A. Hoth (iovernments."

It thus ap])ear8 that the right.s of the ltuH.sian (tovcrnmcnt and its Roproscntative,
the Hussian-Aiiicrican Company, were rccngnizod in this formal manner as to the
" lisir-ri.' ;" and tiic map to whicii !*ir (5. Simpmm refers as describing the area of the
RuHsian territory in (jiiestion is iippi-nded to the Report of the Committee, and is the
one of whicli a copy has been <'xhiliited to tiie Joint lliirh (Jommission. It descrilics the
boundary in exact conformity with ilie contention of the United States' ComniissionerM.
It is incredible tliat a Britisli autliority would at that period formally recojfnize the right
of Russia to this territory, or that Sir fi. Simpson would so accurately decribe it, if any
question jiad existeit at that day as to the meaning of llie Treaty of 182.').

Cannduin Recognition.

It will be showp that all the official Canadian maps for many years after the Trep*--
delimit tliC "lisiire" in accordance with the American view. In the Sessional I'apck.i
published by the Canadian Government will be found various documents and Acts
tending to show that the territory in question belonged to the United States; for
instance, in 1874 the Llurvcyor-General of the Dominion, in a communication to the
Minister of the Interior, Indicated that Portland Canal was on the boundary-line, and
that this line was carried up and around Lynn Canal (p. 1 12) ; a statement of the Royal
Geographical Society is inserted in the Sjessional Papers of a similar purport (p. 143) ; a
Judicial Officer of Brilish Columbia eoiicrdos that the territorial line crosses the Stikine
River at least 15 miles above its mouth (p. 143); and the celebrated case of Peter
Martin is an evidence of the recognition of the territorial authority of the United States
in the same region by both tiie Governments of Canada and Great Britain (p. 144).

Occupation by the United Slates.

" Enlightened statesmen and jurists have long held as insignificant all titles of terri-
tory that are not founded on actual occupation, and that title is, in the opinion of the
most esteemed writers on public law, to be established only by practical use." (Secre-
tary Canning to the Duke of Wellington, p. 8.)

The foregoing incontestable principle of international law was based u{)on the
opinion of Lord Stowell (British Case : Fur-seal Papers, vol. iv, p. 376), and was con-
stantly insisted on by the British ucgotiators in framing the Treaty of 182.'). The
territory in question has been in the continued occupation of llus.sia and the United
States from the date of the Treaty up to the present time, a period of seventy-three
years. If we follow the principle insisted upon by Great Britain in its pending arbitration
with Venezuela, and recognized in the IVeaty which provides for that arbitration, this
uninterrupted possession would give the United States a just claim of sovereignty,
even aside from the Treaty. Some of the acts evidencing the occupation and exorcise
of sovereignty on the part of Russia have already lieen cited. Those on the part of the
United Sla,tes are numerous and most conclusive. Upon the execution of the Treaty of
Cession of 1807, United States' troops were dispatched to occupy the territory, and
stations were established at various points, one of which was at Tongas, between latitudes
54" 40' and ."i.^", just north of the Portland Channel. No map was attached to or accom-
panied the Treaty of 18G7, hut immediately after the signature of the Treaty an official
map was ])repared under the direction of the Secretary of State of the United States,
indicating' the territory ceded by Russia by that Treaty, which map has been laid before
the Joint High Commission ; and it has ben seen that it conforms to the views v<f the
United States' Commissioners respecting the boundary. Other acts of occuii ition and
sovereignty on the part of the Government of the United States are cited in
.'Appendix VI, such as the establishment of customs offices in the •' lisit^ic," and the
enforcement by revenue vessels of the revenue and other laws of the United Slates both
on the mainland and on the waters of the inlets and arms of the sea as far as the head

off
con

int«
the
the
u i

Stai
eise
Car

mei

abl(
and

at I
(

the

the
up<

mc

SOI

fiir
8e

m

wj
at

nter-
wiir f
nn or

itivc,
the

f the
this
the

inerH.

rii^ht
any

U8

of narigation (p. 116); the OBtabliHhinont of Qovcrnmcnt antl other itchools, and the
control of the native., in fbc " Vini^re " (p. 1 17) j the criiiHing of naval vchhoIh in the
interior waten* just dcHcribed to enforce order amon^; the native Indian triben (p. I 4It) ;
the eRtabliniinient of poat-offireH and ixtflt-roadft in the territory in (|ueHtiou (p. IW) ; and
the setting apart by Act of < 'ongrcHH of certain portions of this territory for special uses,
u in the case of Annette Island (p. l/iO).

It may be safely asHcrted that in no part of the territory chiimcd by the United
States' CommiHsioners under the Treaty of 18:26 has there Insen any occuiiation or exer-
cise of sovereignty on the part of the authorities of (3roat Britain or the Dominion of
Canada.

Inclosurc 4 in No. 95.
Protocol No. 10 of Proceedings of Joint I'l , Committion, l^eptember 28, 1808.

THK Joint High Commission asscmblcu at 11 a.m., pursuant to adjournment, all the
ineml>er.H being present, including the 'I lourah. Charles ,>. Faulkner.

The Protocol of tlie last uiceling .xis read nnd kv roved.

The fall power of the High Commissioners o. 'lu United Suite!«, incliiditig tiiu Ilonoui-
able Charles J. Fauiki t, appointed in place '>! t. „ ''onourable George Gray, wa.'' presented
and laid on the table.

Tlie Joint High Commission thereupon oajourned until Tuesday, the 27th September,
at 1 1 o'clock in the forenoon.

(Signed) CHANDLER V. ANI»ER80N. W. CHAUXCY CARTWRIGHT.

HENki P0UIIAS8A.

> Inclosure Q ii> No. 95.

Protocol No. 11 of Proceedinyg of Joint High Commission, September 27, 1893.

THE Joint High Commission assembled at 11 a.m., pursuant to udjournment, all
tte members being present.

The Protocol of the last meeting wa.s read and approved.

The Committee to whom the question of conveyance of prisoners was referred at
the meeting of the 2.')th August, presented a joint Report, which wa.s ordered to be laid
upon the table, and a copy furnished to each of the High Commissioners.

The Committee to whom the question of wrecking and salvage uas referred at tlie
meeting of the 25th August, presented a Report sliowing a partial concurrence. After
some discussion it was ordered that the Report be laid upon the table, and a cony be
iumiabed to each of the High Commiasioners.

The Joint High Commission thereupon adjourned until Wednesday, the 2Bth
September, at 1 1 o'clock in the forenoon.

Inclosurc (3 in No. 95.
Protocol No. 12 of . -oreedings of Joint High Commission, September 28, 1898.

THE Joint Commission aagcuibW at 11 a.m., pursuant to adjournment, all the
members being present.

The Protocol of the last meeting was read and approved.

The Committee on Mining Rights, appointed at the meeting of the 25th August,
was increased by the addition of another member representing the British Commission.

The Joint High Commission thereupon adjourned until Thursday, the 29th September,
at 11 o'clock in the forenoon.

[11.27]

2 B

04

Inclosure 7 in No. 96.
Protocol No, Id of Proceedings of Joint High Comminsion, September 29, 1898,

THE Joint High OommiMsion asttembled at 1 ) o'clock A.M., pursuant to adjourn-
ment, all the members being present.

The Protocol of the Inst meeting was read and approved.

The following subjects which had been partially discussed at the meetings of the
3l8t August and 1st September, viz : — " Provisions for the transit of merchandize in
transportation to or from either country, across intermediate territory of the other,
wiiether by land or water, including natural and artificial water-ways, and intermediate
transit by sea," and " Provisions relating to the transit of merchandize from one country
to be delivered at points in the other beyond the frontier," were together referred to a
Committee for consideration and report.

The Joint High Commission thereupon adjourned until Friday, the 30th September,
at 11 o'clock in the forenoon.

"Ne

tranf

Statt

pape

Faul

had

Gent

authi

sionc

has 1

No. 96.

Lord Hernchell to the Marquess of Salisbury. — {Received October 20.)

(No. r.)

My Lord, Quebec, October 10, 1898.

I HAVE the honour to inclose a copy of the draft Agreement submitted to
the Commission on th(! 1th instant by the Committee on the Alien Liibour Law.
Sir ^\'il^rid Laurier inquired whether the wording adopted would enable Canadians to
proceed to tlu' United St^itcs and work under contract. He pointed out that, in
somr cases, labourers or mechanics bad been allowed to cross the frontier, but were
subsequently prevented from working, ou the ground that the importation of aliens
under contract was prohibited. Sir Liouis Davies suggested that the word " unre-
stricted " shou.ld be inserted before " passage of persons." Senator Faulkner said that
tlie (;mploynicnt of workmen could not be stopped xmless it were found that their
actual adiiiission into the country had been illegal. He considered that the proposed
wording was sufiHeiently explicit. The question was reserved for future con-
sidemtion.

On the Gth instant Senator Fairbanks proposed that, as the Commission had
reached a point at which an adjourntnont would be of advantage, the sittings should
i)p discontinued from the 10th October to the 1st November. Sir Wilfrid Laurier
thereupon said that the British Commissioners would be ready to meet at Washington
after the recess. H(! desired, however, that if the Commission were so fortunate as to
agree upon a Treaty, it should be called the Treaty of Quebec. This was a matter of
sentiment, to which he hoped there would be no objection. Senator Fairbanks at
once replied that the reservation was quite agreeable to him and to his colleagues.

Although the Commission will only adjourn till the 1st November, it is imder-
stood that some extension of the period will be necessary, and that the (^xact date of
our next meeting shall be fixed bv arrangement betwecii Senator Fairlianks and
myself. Neitlicr of the two Senators will be able to attend at Washington until after
the elections, which are to be held ou the 8th November, and Sir W. Laurier cannot
leave Canada before the arrival of the new Governor-General. A meeting will,
however, take place on the Ist November, and I trust that th.e work wi!I be resumed
about the 10th.

With regard to the boiuidary west of Lake Superior, Sir Richard Cartwright
stated, at the meeting of the 7th instant, that Mr. Kasson, who is associated with him
on the Committt'n, mshed to consult the Department of State as to c.-rtain maps in its
possession. IMr. Kasson explaincjd that, so far, no difficulty had arisen, but that the
circumstance mentioned by Sir P.. Cartwright prevented the Committee from sub-
mitting their Report before the recess. It appears that the '^"uadian Government
have beeu able to show, by tlit production of the maps attached to the Ashburton
Treaty, tliat their contention with I'cspect to this part of the boundary is absolutely
correct. Mr. Kasson merely wishes to examine the maps at Washington to make sure
that tlicy correspond with the Canadian maps.

At to-day's meeting Sir Loui;: Davies read the inclosed Agreement, which had
been drafted 1)y the Committee, on the inland and Pacific coast fisheries.

Stat<
Unit
Unil
thei
least

the

pors(

who

mori

for

coui

Co)
for(

bei

me
iip(

Oe

>um-

95

. I thought it well to call attention to a paragraph which has appeared in tho
" New York Herald " respecting the work of the Commission. A copy of it is
transmitted herewith. Tlie information purports to have been obtained from tho
State Department, and is supplied by the Washington correspondent of the news-
paper. Mr. Dingley, speaking in tho absence of Senator Fairbanks and Senator
Faulkner, stated, positively, that no sucli reports as are described in tlu; paragraph
had been sent to the Secretary of State by the American Commissioners ; and both
General Foster and Mr. Kasson assured mo that the State Department could not have
authorized the correspondent to make tho statements referred to.

I said that it was quite satisfactory for me to know that tho American Commis-
sioners hafl not reported in the sense of the " Herald's " telegram.

Copies of Protocols Nos. It to 1!) are inclosed. The Protocol of to-day's meeting
has not yet been submitted to the Commission.

I have, &c.
(Signed) HERSCHELL.

Inclosure 1 in No. 96.
Draft Agreement respecting Alien Labour.

IT is hereby agreed that, notwithstanding anything in the laws of the United
States or of the Dominion of Canada to the contrary, the passage of persons from tho
United States to the Dominion of Canada, and from the Dominion of Canada to the
United States, shall be allowed, where such pei-sons are native or naturalized citizens of
the United States, or British subjects, native or naturalized, and have resided for at
least one year in the Unittid States or in the Dominion of Canada respectively.

The foregoing provision shall not bo construed so as to affect the right of eitlier
tlie Unit(^d States or the Dominion of Canada to exclude idiots, paupers, insane
persons, i)erson8 suffering from a loiithsome or a dangerous contagious disease, persons
who have been convicted of a felony or other infamous crime or misdemeanor involving
moral turpitude (not including political offences), polygamists, and persons imported
for immoral purposes ; or the right of either country to exclude natives of other
countries whose immigration is, or may be hereafter, proliil)ited by legislation.

Inclosure 2 in No. 96.
Protocol No. 14 of Proceedings of Joint High Commission, September 30, 1898.

THE Joint High Commission assembled at 11 o'clock a.m., pursuant to adjourn-
ment, all the members being present except Sir James S. Winter.

The Protocol of the last meeting was read and approved.

After arranging for the meetings of the Joint Committees, the Joint High
Commission theiuupon adjourned until Tuesday, the tth October, at 11 o'clock in the
forenoon.

Inclosure 3 in No. 96.
Protocol No. 16 of Proceedings of Joint High Commi.'sion, October 4, 1898.

THE Joint High Commission assenil)l(Hl at 1()%"5() o'clock a.m., all the members
being present except Sir Jam(!s S. Winter.

The Protocol of the last meeting was road aiul approved.

The Committee, to whom the (lucstion of Alien liabour Laws was i-eferred at the
meeting of the 25111 August, presented a Joint Report, wliicli was ordcired to b:; laid
upon the taljle, and a copy furnislurd to eacli of the Higli Commissioners.

The Joint High Commission thereupon adjourned until Wednesday, the 5th
October, at 11 o'clock in the forenoon.

90

Inclosure 4 in No. 96.
Protocol No. 16 of Proceedings of Joint Hiyh Commission, October 6, 1898.

THE Joint High Commission assembled at 11 o'clock a.m., pursuant to adjourn-
ment, all the members being present except Sir James S. Winter.

T?he Protocol of the last meeting was read and approved.

In order to allow the meetings of the Joint Committees to be held, the Joint Hi^h
Commission thereupon adjourned until Thursday, the 6th October, at 11 o'clock in the
forenoon.

Inclosure 5 in No. 96.

Protocol No. 17 of Proceedings of Joint High Commission, October 6, 1898.

THE Joint High Commission assembled

at 11 o'clock A.M., pursuant to adjourn-
ment, all the members being present.

The Protocol of tlic last meeting was read and approved.

It being undei-stood that the work of the Joint High Commission had reached a
stage at which an adjournment would be advantageous, the Commission agfv^ to take
a recess from the 10th October to the 1st November. The British Commissioners
expressed their willingness to resume the meetings at Washington,

In order to give time for the sessions of the Joint Committees during the day, the
Joint High Commission thereupon adjourned until Friday, the 7th October, at 11
o'clock in the forenoon.

Inclosure 6 in No. 96.
Protocol No. 18 of Proceedings cf Joint High Commission, October 7, 189S.

THE Joint High Commission assembled at 11 o'clock a.m., pursuant to adjourn-
ment, all the members being present.

The Protocol of the last meeting was read and approved.

After fixing the times for the meetings of the Joint Committees during the day,
the Joint High Commission thereupon adjourned until Saturday, the 8th October, at
10 o'clock in the forenoon.

Inclosure 7 in No. 96.

Protocol No. 19 of Proceedings of Joint High Commission, October 8, 1898.

THE Joint High Commission assembled at 10 o'clock a.m., pursuant to adjourn-
ment, all the members being present.

The Protocol of ihe last meeting was read and approved.

To permit the meetings of the several Joint Committees, the Joint High Com-
mission thereupon adjourned until Monday, the 10th October, at 10 o'clock in the
forenoon.

(Signed) CHANDLER P. ANDERSON. W. CHAUNCY CARTWRIGHT.

HENRI BOURA88A.

97

Inolosore 8 in No. 96.

Draft Agreement respecting Inland Fisheries.

THE High Contracting Parties, recognizing the necessity of uniform and effective
measures for the protection and preservation of the food fishes in the waters contiguous
to the United States and Canada, herehy agree that the times, seasons, and methods of
fishing in such contiguous waters, and the nets, engines, gear, apparatus, and appliances
which may be used therein, shall be fixed and determined by uniform and common
international Regulations, restrictions, and provisions, and to that end agree to
appoint, within three months after this Convention goes into effect, a Commission, to
be known as the International Fisheries Commission, consisting of one person named
by each Government. It shall be the duty of this Commission, witliin six mouths
alter being named, to prepare a system of uniform and common international Regula-
tions for the protection and preservation of the food fishes in each of the waters
prescribed in this Article, which Regulations shall embrace close seasons, limitations
as to the character, size, and manner of use of nets, engines, gear, apparatus, and other
appliances, a system of registry for commercial fishing in waters where required, and
such other provisions and measures as the Commission shall deem necessary.

The two Govnmments agree to put into operation, and to enforce by legislative
and executive action, with as little delay as possible, the Regulations and restrictions,
with appropriate penalties for all breaches thereof ; and the date when they shall be
put into operation shall be fixed by the concurrent Proclamations of the President of
the United States and the Governor- General of the Dominion of Canada in Council.

Such BrCgulations and restrictions shall remain in force for a period of four years
from the date of their executive promulgation, and thereafter for one year from the
date when either of the Governments of the United States of America or Great
Britain shall give notice to the other of its desire for their revision, whereupon tlic
Commission provided for in this Article shall make a revision thereof, which Revised
Regulations, if adopted by the two Governments, shall remain in force for another
period of five years, and until a further notice of revision is given. It shall, however,
be within the power of tlw two Governments, by joint or concuiTcnt action, upon
the recommendation of the Commission, to make modifications at any time in the
Regulations.

It is agreed that the waters within which the aforementioned Regulations are to
be applied shall be as follows : —

1. The territorial waters of Passamaquoddy Bay.

2. The St. John and St. Croix Rivers.

3. Lake Champlain.

4. The St. Lawrence River, where the said river constitutes the international
boundary.

5. Lake Ontario.

6. Niagara River.

7. Lake Erie.

8. The waters connecting Lake Erie and Lake Huron, including Lake St. Ciair.

9. Lake Huros and its connecting bays.

10. St. Mary's River and Lake Superior.

11. Lake of the Woods.

12. Tlie Strait of Juan de Fuca, those parts of Washington Sound, the Gulf of
Georgia and Puget Sound, lying between parallels 48" 10' and 49° 20'.

13. And such other contiguous waters as may be recommended by the Inter-
national Fisheries Commission, and aj)proved by tlie two Governments.

It is agreed, on the part of Great Britain, that the Canadian Government will
protect by adequate ReguL;'i,ions the food fishes frequenting the Fraser River.

The Commission shall continue in existence so long as this Article shall be in
force ; and each Government shall have the power to fill, and .shall fill, from time to
time, any vacancy which may occur in its representation on the Commission, Each
Government shall pay its own Commissioner, and any joint expenses shall he paid by
the two Qovarnmeuts in equal moieties.

[1127J

2 C

98

Incloiure 9 in No. 96,

Extract from the " New York Herald " of October 9, 1898.

REPORTS have reached the State Department from the American members of
the Commission which has heen sitting in Quebec, showing that little progress is
being made in settling the (iiu^stions which are being considered.

I was told to-day that, so far as the Department has been advised, none of the
questions before the Commission have been finally disposed of, and they will be
discussed, when the Commission reconvenes in this city, on the 1st November.

The British and Canadian members, I was told, have been making exorbitant
demands, and are apparently unwilling to grant concessions in return for those which
have been offered by the Representatives of this Government.

This spirit is deeply regretted by Administration officials, who had hoped that,
in view of the pleasant relations between tht; two Governments, an arrangement for
disposing of all the irritating questions bntweon the United States, Great Britain, and
Canada could be entered into without any great difficulty.

No. 97.

Lord HerscheU to the Marquess of Salisbury. — {Rtceived October 20.)

(No. 9. Confidential.)

My Lord, Quebec, October 11, 1898.

AS the Commission has now adjourned for some weeks, it may be well that I
should indicate the point which the negotiations have at present reached. Although,
as will be seen, on all tlie minor questions, the prospect of a satisfactory arrangement
is all tliat can be desired, I cannot say the same iis regards the more import«'int questions
in difference.

From what has passed in conversation with individual Commissioners, I was led
V) the conclusion some time ago that they would not commit themselves to anything
which could be represented as a settlement of these until after the November
elections.

Senator Faulkner, indeed, told me frankly that this ^vas the case, although he said
his fellow-Commissioners Avould of course not admit it. Senator Fairbanks too, has
more than once hinted immistakably that it was likely to be advantageous to continue
the negotiations in AVashington, laying stress on the great interest which the President
takes in the conclusion of a Treaty. 1 understood him to mean that, if the members
of the Commission were under the direct influence of the President, they would be
more likely to assume an attitude of concession.

In meetings of our Committees, General Foster has put the case of the Unit;.a
States in the; jnost aggressive and ur nmpromising fashion, in spite of occasional state-
ments that he was desirous of dealing with the question in a friendly iind conciliatory
spirit.

Owing to the attitude of General Foster, Senator Fairbanks volunteered the state-
ment in confidence that General Foster was only representing himself, and was
certainly not representing either Senator Fairbanks or thi; President. It has been
very evident on more than one occasion that the relations of General Foster and
Senator Fairbanks have become strained. I trust, therefore, that when we resume our
negotiations at Washington, the obstacles to a complete settlement, which now seem
so serious, may become less formidable.

Alien Labour Laws, Conveyance of Prisoners, Wreckir.j and Salvage, Inland and Pacific

Coast Fisheries,

The Committttes on these four questions liave submitted their proposals, which I
have forwarded to your Lordship in my despatches Nos. 7 and 8 of the SOtlrSejjteralK t.
and the 10th instant. In each case the agreement arrived at seems to be satisfactory,
although they may require some flight modification before thc^ ire definitely aaopt»:d
liy the Commission

09

Bra of

!88 is

Cattli-hranding along the Frontier.

The Committee on this subject have agreed that it shall be dealt with by means
of corresponding regulations made by the two Governments, instead of an International
Agreement. •

Boundaries west of Lake Superior and in Passamaquoddy Bay.

l^oth these questions seem to be within immediate prospect of settlement. In my
despatch No. 8 of yesterday, I have reported what was said in the Commission as to
the boundary west of Lake Superior.

that,
for
and

Transit Privileges.

The two questions under this head have be«n discussed at informal Conferences,
but the Committee have not yet lield any meetings. In view, however, of the tone of
the discussions in the Commission, which were referred to at some length in my
despatch No. 5 of the 20th ultimo, I do not anticipate any great difficulty in disposing
of the points at issue.

Mining Regulations.

Although the Committee have not yet agreed upon a Report, t have had a dis-
cussion with Mr. Kasson since the date of my despatch No. 7, and I am led to think
that it will be possible to arrive at a settlement by which the United States and
Canada shall respectively place the citizens of the other country upon the same footing
as their own citizens as regards all mining rights. At i^resent the grant of mining
rights by the United States' Government is restricted to citizens of the United States,
all aliens being excluded. There is no similar restriction in any of the Canadian
provinces, though there has been at times an agitation in favour of a similar restrictive
enactment. A Treaty which would prevent any such restriction, in both countries, is
regarded by myself and my colleagues as desirable.

Ship'huilding on the Great Lakes.

The United States' Commissioners on the Committee are prepared to agree to
the limitations suggested by the Colonial Defence Committee, as stated in your
Lordship's telegram of the 19th September, with the exception of one point, the only
one which is likely to give rise to difficulty, viz., the character of the training ship
or ships to be used on the Lakes. I learn from Vice-Admiral Sir John Fisher that,
in the view of our naval authorities, training can best bo carried on in .sheds on
shore rather than by the use of guns on board ship. I have placed this view, as
that of a " high naval expert authority " before Senator Fairbanks, who will consult
the United States' Navy Department on the subject.

Behring Sea.

The assessment of the compensation to the owners of sealing vessels and to the
persons employed in the scaling industry has been gone into very carefully at the
meetings of the Comraitt«o, but the views exj)ressed on either side were so widely
divergent that it was finally settled to send experts to Victoria to endeavour to arrive
at an agreement and to lay before the Commission the result of their inquiries. Ir
oases where these persons differ they will submit their separate conclusions. The
United States' Commissioners admit that we are entitled to claim some concession
from the United States beyond compensation to the sealers, if the right of pelagic
sealing is abandoned, but they have not yet indicated their view as to the; form
which this concession should take, nor have we hitherto made any proposition on th&
subject.

100

Reciprocity.

The Committee appointed to deal witli this subject have held several meetings,
but do not seem to have made much progress towards a settlement. The truth is
that, where two countries have each pursued a policy of protection, there are
almost insuperable difficulties in the way of a reciprocity Treaty of any considerable
extent.

Whenever it has been rumoured that a concession was about to be made by a
modification of the Tariif affecting any particular article, whether a natural production
or manufactured, the United States' or the Canadian Commissioners, and sometimes
both, have been almost overwhelmed by protests and deputations. The utmost to be
hoped for is, I think, that some small step may be taken towards a freer interchange
of commodities, and that the way may be paved for further progress in that direction
in the future.

Alaska Boundary.

We have discussed this question at great length. When I had carefully
investigated it, and got together all the materials available — for I found that it had
not been thoroughly studied or thought out by any Canadian official — I came to the
conclusion that the British claim so to draw the boundary-line as to leave the greater
part of the Lynn Canal, or at least the upper part of it, within the British possessions
was much stronger than it at first appeared. At the same time, the boundary, a.s
shown in various maps, to some of wliich an appearance of official sanction ha.s been
given, and certain official documents, and oven acts, of the Canadian Government,
afford countenance to the United States' claim to the whole of the Lynn Canal. I
think the Argument which I presented has made an impression upon the United
States' Conunissioncrs, and has shown that their title to the upper part of the canal
and to the towns of Dyea and Skagway is not so clear as they thought. As regards
the line parallel to the coast, until it reaches thi; Lynn Canal, General Foster, to whom
the Argument has mainly been left on the part of the United States, said that they
were prepared to make concessions by bringing it nearer to the sea-coast. This u,
however, of minor importance, and the main controversy will un'joubtedly relate to the
territory at the head of the canal.

It is impossible to forecast what turn the negotiations as to the Alaska boundary
will ultimately take. If a reasonably fair compromise of conflicting views is possiljle,
we shall be found quite willing to accede ti it. If it be not, the only alternative
would seem to be a reference to arbitration. The divergence of view results entirely
from the different constructions placed upon the terms of the Treaty of 1826. These
questions of construction might readily be solved by a competent jurist, and, when
solved, there will be no serious difficulty in fixing the boundary-line upon the map,
owing to the complete survey which has been made by the two Governments.

Atlantic Fisheries.

The subject appears likely to present the greatest obstacles in the way of a satis-
factory settlement. The United States' Commissioners are not prepared to adopt the
■ Treaty of 1888 as the basis of an arrangement. They assert that it would be impossible
for them to grant the free importation of ft^h, and to obtain ratification by the Senate
of a Treaty which conceded the British claim that, under the Treaty of 1818, there
Mas a right to prevent United States' vessels landing their flsn and obtaining the usual
trading facil'^'es accorded to vessels of other descriptions in Canadian ports. It appeai-s
that, in 1888, one of the main grounds insisted upon for refusing to ratify the Treaty
was that it might be regarded as an admission that the rights claimed by Great
Britain on behalf of Canada under the Treaty of 1818 were still in full force, whereas the
alteration by the United States and Great Britain of their Navigation Laws in 1830,
which permitted the entry of vessels of each country into the ports of the other for
purposes of trade, put an end to the condition of things existing in 1818 and
subsequently till 1830, under which what appeared in the Treaty of 1818 to be
restrictions, were redly concessions to fishing- vessels of rights to which other trading
«hips could lay no claim.

Duiing the last two or three years, and more especially during the present season,

101

iiugs,

th is

are

arable

the rights which the Government of Canadn claim under the Treaty of 1818 have
been enforced with extreme leniency in the hope that a settlement with the United
States might be arrived at. Sboiild no arrangement be come to, the pressure to
assert Canadian rights and to apply them strictly will become irresistible, and the
inevitable result will bo that some, and perhaps many. United States' fishing-boats will
be seized and condemned. It is obvious that this would immediately produce an
acute crisis, inasmuch as the United States would imqucstionably adhere to the
contention, which they have from time to time put forward, with, however,
little justification, that some of the rights claimed by Canada under the Treaty
of 1818 are not really possessed by her. If, therefore, the object of the present
negotiations is to be attained, some understanding must be arriv(!d a.t with
regard to the fisheries question. It is true that it is of less importance than was
formerly the case, owing to the large diminution in the number of United States'
flshing-vessels which comt into, or into the neighbourhood of, Canadian waters. Hut
the seizure of even a single vessel, under the Treaty rights claimed by the one
country and denied by the other, might endanger the good relations between the two
countries. ;

I have pointed out to the United States' Commissioners who are dealing with this
question that, if it is impossible to secure a settlement on the basis of the Tri-aty of
1888, it is for them to suggest some other means by which the same result may be
arrived at. At present they have made no suggestion in this direction, and the
subject stands over for further deliberation when we meet again.

It seems to me that in the last resort, if nothing else can be done, we might
agree to refer to arbitration the question whether, and if so to what extent, the
stipulations of the Treaty of 1818 hat e been affected by anything which has happened
between that date and the present. If that question were once determined, the
danger of the present situation would be removed, because the rights of the two
countries would be accurately and, as between them, conclusively ascertained. We
have, of t-ourse, no right to demand " free fish." If, when oar rights were established,
the United States' Government did not think :t worth whUe to grant us free fish in
return for the relaxation of such restrictions as we were entitled to impose, we could
not complain. On the other hand, they would have no right to complain if we
enforced our ascertained rights.

I think one ca'ise of the difficulties which Ixrset us at present is that those con-
nected with the fishing interests of Massachusetts are persuaded that they have a right
to get, and will get, as of right, some of the advantages which we maintain would be
concessions. It is, thei-efore, very difficult to form an op'nion as to r. liether they would
be willing tliat free fish should be granted if they were once satisfied that they could
not obtain free entry into Canadian ports for all piu^ioses on any otlici' terms. My
Canadian colleagues would certainly find it difficult to agree to such an arbitration
unless it were actampanied by some concession on the part of the United States, but
they would be prepared to agree to it if free fish were granted as a modus vivendi
pending the arbitration. It might be further stipulated that there should be a meeting
of a Representative of each Government after the Award was given, to consider, in
view of it, what arrangement should be made between the two countries or whether
any further arrangemont was necessary.

I have, &c.
(Signed) HERSCHELL.

No. 98.
Lord Herschell to the Marquess of Salisbury. — {Received October 20.)

(No. 10.)

My Lord, Quebec, October 11, 1898.

I OBSERVE that the Treaty signed at Washington on the 15th February, 1888,
contains a provision (Article XVI) that it shall be ratified by the Queen, " having
received the assent of the Parliament of Canada and of the Legislature of Newfoundland."

It will bt necessary to consider whether, or in what respects, any agreement
embodied in a Treaty by the present Conitnission should be made subject to the approval
of the Canadian and Newfoundland Legislatures.

I do not find that other Treaties with the United States require, as a condition of
ratification, the assent of Parliament, whether Imperial or Colonial, althougi) the
[1127] 2 D

102

President's ratification is always dependent upon the " advice and consent " of the United
States' Senate.

In the United States, the Treaty-making power is not vested in the President alone,
nor cnn he ratify any Treaty without the advice and consent of the Senate. In Great
Britain, the Queen has power to conclude Treaties and to ratify them under the Royal
Sign Manual, without reference either to the Parliament of the United Kingdom or to a
Colonial Parliament, though legislation may be requisite to give full effect to their
provisions.

The provisions of the Treaty of 1888 had reference exclusively to the Atlantic
Fisheries, which were mutters of immediate concern to Canada and Newfoundland alone,
and none of those provisions could become effectual without legislation.

In the present case, if a Treaty is entered into, it will deal with matters of Imperial
interest, and with some that would need no legislation to bring the Treaty into operation.
For example, the delimitation of the boundary between the two countries in Alaska
would become operative as soon as tiie Treaty was ratified. The same may be said, so far
as Canada is concerned, of the proposed Agreement that Unitd States' citizens should
have in the Dominion of Canada the same mining rights as natives of Canada. Again,
the question of armaments upon the Great Lakes is one of direct Imperial concern
which would necessitate no legislation ; and so is the question of pelagic sealing, though
an Imperial Act would be required to give effect to any Agreement prohibiting it.

Under these circurnstances, it strikes me that it would be out of the question to
require, as a condition of its ratification by the Queen, that the Treaty should have
received the assent of the Parliament of Canada and the Legislature of Newfoundland,
unless it were made a condition that the ratification of the Treaty should be made subject
also to the consent of the Imperial Parliament. But there .seem to be obvious objections
to such a course.

It would be a serious matter to concede that a revision of Treaties made with Great
Britain, however important such a revision may be to the interests of the British Kmpire,
and however dangerous to the peace of the country it may be if there is no such tevision,
was dependent on the assent of a Colonial Legislature, consisting, it must be remembered,
not only of a Cliamber directly representing the people, but of a Senate sometimes in
oj^positioii to the popular Chamber and the Ministry of the day. In the next place it has,
1 believe, never been the practice to make the ratification of any Treaty subject to the
consent of the British Parliament. I have not the opportunity here of referring to any
constitutional works, and am speaking from memory, but unless my memory deceives me,
1 have heard proposals made in the House of Commons within the last twenty years that
all Treaties should be made subject to the approval of Parliament, and I believe such
proposals have been resisted by the Government and defeated.

My jiresent impression certainly is that a change in this respect would not be advan-
tageous, in the negotiation of the 1888 Treaty, only one of the Commissioners was
nominated by the Canadian Government ; the majority were the nominees of the Imperial
Government. In the present case four of the Commissioners have been nominated by the
Canadian Government. They include the Prime Minister and two other members of
the Canadian Cabinet. There seems, therefore, no reason, for making the assent of the
Canadian Parliament a condition of ratificaliou, when the consent of the British
Parliament is not made requisite to the ratificaiion of Treaties which the Imperial
Ministers of the Crown negotiate.

I shall be obliged if your Lordship will favour me with the views of Her Majesty's
Government on the point to which I have called attention.

I have, &c.
(Signed) HERSCIIELL.

No. 99.
Colonial Office to Foreign Office. — (Received October 21.)

Sir, Downing Street, October 22, 1898.

I AM directed by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain to acknowledge the receipt of your
letter of the 10th instant, inclosing copy of a despatch for Her Majesty's Ambassador
at Washington, dated the 22nd September, stating that he has received a further note
from the United States' Secretary of State on the subject of the Ontario Lumber Act,
in which Mr. Day renews his request that the operation of the Act may be suspended

108

for the present season, as a temporary measure, and until the Joint Commission shall
hnvc come to some decision in the matter.

I am to transmit to you, for the information of the Marquess of Salisbury, a copy
of a despatch from the Governor-General of Canada, inclos-ing a copy of a despatch
from Sir J. Pauncefotc, transmitting a copy of Mr. Day's note of tlio 22nd August,
which was referred to in his Excellency's despatch No. 201 of the (ith September, a
copy of which was received by this Department from the Foreign Office on the 3rd
instant.

Lord Aberdeen has not yet communicated to Mr. Chamberlain the vi(!ws of his
Govornment upon the request of the United States' Government for the temporary
suspension of the Ontario Act, and I am to inclose, for Lord Salisbury's information,
a copy of a telegram which has been addressed to the Governor-General on the subject,
and to state that Mr. Chamberlain would suggest that, ])cnding the reply of the
Canadian Government, no instruction should bo given to Her Majesty's Ambassador
at Washington as to the reply to be made to Mr. Day's note.

I am further to observe that no decision has yet been arrived at upon the question
of referring t.ie objection of the United States' Government to the Ontario .Act to the
Joint Comro ssion.

I am, &c.
(Signed) H. BERTRAM COX.

Inclosure 1 in No. 99.

The Earl of Aberdeen to Mr. Chamberlain.

Sir, The Citadel, Quebec, September 26, 1898.

WITH reference to previous correspondence on the subject of a recent Act of the
Legislature of the Province of Ontario regulating the issue of timber licences, I have
the honour to transmit to you, for your inforraatinn, <!opy of a despatch which I have
received from Her Majesty's Ambassador to the United States, communicating an
inquiry from the United States' Acting Secretary of State, whether the suggested
suspension of the Act, as regards contracts concluded prior to its enactment, is likely
to bo favourably considered.

I have, &c.
(Signed) ABERDEEN.

Inclosure 2 in No. 99.

Sir J. Pauncefote to the Earl of Aberdeen.

My Jjord, New London, Connecticut, September 8, 1898.

I HAVE the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your Excellency's dcc",iatch
of the 18th ultimo, transmitting copy of an approved Minute of the Canadian Privy
Council on the subject of a recent Act of the Ontario Legislature relating to the
manufacture of lumber, to which is appended a Memorandum of the Attorney-General
of Ontario dealing with the question.

r have the honour to inform you that I received on the 24th ultimo, a note on this
subject from the United States' Acting Secretary of State (a copy of which is inclosed)
inquiring whether the suggested suspension of the application of the Ontario Act to
prior contracts, pending further discussion had been favourably considered by Her
Majesty's Government.

In reply to that note I communicated to the United States' Government, a copy
of the Minute of your Excellency's Privy Council above referred to, together with the
Memorandum appended thereto of the Attorney-General of Ontario, and I added that
Her Majesty's Government were corresponding with the Caimdian Government on the
subject.

I have, &c.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

10*

Inoloaure 3 in No. 99.

Mr. Day to Sir J. Pauncefote.

Department of State, Washington, D.C.,
Hxcplleiicy, August 22, 1898.

BY my note of tlio 15th June, 18J)8, I had the honour to communicate with you
upon the matter of the effeet of certain recent legislation of the proviiicjc of Ontario,
Canada, upon certain large vested interests of citizens of the United ,St*ites in timber
lands in Canada, and to inclose to you a Memorial on the subject addressed to this
Department in behalf of a portion only of the extensive interests involviul. I also
had the honour of bavins; one or more interviews with you on the subject, in which it
was mutually suggested that, in so far as the matter related to the policy of Canada
of enforcing such legislation against licenses originating in the future, it might
properly he made a matter to be considered by the Joint High Commission, which was
then in contemplation, and is about to begin its sessions. It is to be hoped that the
general subject matter may ho so considered by the Joint High Commission, and some
satisfactory conclusion n-ached.

As wa« pointed otit in our interviews, however, and also in my note and in the
Memorial ref(!rrert to, the particular hardship M'hich was being occasioned by the
enactment, and of which those affected complained, was not the application of it to
future contracts, as to which there can be no vested rights, but was the application of
the enactment to contracts and licenses or their renewals, which Ixad originated and
been made between the Province of Ontario and United States' citizens prior to the
making of the enactment in question. The belief was expressed that it was not the
intention of the Legislature of Ontario to have the Act so applied. The very serious
, and present consequences of such application to vested interest* was pointed out, and a
suspension of the application of the Act to prior contracts was suggested.

Without ^^^shing to cause inconvenience in the matter, nevertheless, in view of
the large interests which are involved and are being daily jeopardized, I am con-
BtrAined to ask whether the suggested suspension of the application of the Act to prior
contracts, pending further discussion of the matter, may have been favourably con-
aidered by Her Majesty's Government.

I have, &c.
(Signed) WILLIAM R. DAY.

Inclosure 4 in No. 99.
\ Mr. Chamberlain to the Earl of Aberdeen.

( Telegraphic.) P. Downing Street, October 21, 1898, 5-30 p.m.

WHAT answer does yoiu- Government recommend to notes of Fnited States'
Becretary of State pressing for temporary suspension of Ontario Lumber Act ?

No. 100.

Foreign Office to Colonial Office.

Sir, Foreign Office, October 26, 1898.

IN continuation of previous correspondence, I am directed by the Marquess of
Salisbury to transmit, to be laid before the Secretary of State for the Colonies, copy of
a further despatch from Lord flerschoU respecting the proceedings of the Joint Com-
mission.*

As regards the proposal drafted by the Committee on the conveyance of prisoners
through intervening territory, it will be seen that Lord Herschell suggests that, in view
of the difficulty as to political olTcnces, the best course may be to limit the Agreement
to offences for which extradition can he obtained ; and I am to state tliat his Lordship

• No. 05.

106

propoMB, with the concurrence of Mr. Ghamberhiin, to inform Lord Uencheil, iu reply,
that diicretion is left to the British Coounissioners to settle tlic final form of this
Article, as well as that dealing with wrecking aud salvage in the manner which may
seem to them most advantageous.

I am, Ac.
(Signed) FEANCIS BERTIE..

No. 101.
Colonial Office to Foreign Office. — (Received November 2.)

Sir,

Downing Street, November 1, 1898.
1 AM directed by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain to transmit to you, for the considera-
tion of the Marquess of Salisbury, cop) of a despatch from the Governor-General of
Canada, inclosing copy of an approved Minute of the Dominion Privy Council, in which
his Ministers request that a claim for compensation should be presented to the United
States' Government in the case of three Canadian labourers, who were recently refused
admission into the United States by an American CustomH officer ncting, ns he alleged,
under the provision of the United States' Alien Labour Law.

A copy of the Law in question will be found on p. 137 of a Parliamentary Paper on
alien immigration issued by the Board of Trade in 1893 (C. — 7113).

I am, &c.
(Signed) H. BERTRAM COX.

Inclosure 1 in No. 101.
The Earl of Aberdeen to Mr. Chamberlain.

Sir, The Citadel, Quebec. September 22, 1898.

I HAVE the honour to forward herewith, for your consideration, copy of an approved
Minute of the Privy Council, setting forth the circumstances under which Messrs. James
Beid, W. Hawley, and F. Hawley, residents of the Province of Ontario, who had pur-
chased labourers' excursion tickets to North Dakota, were stopped on their entrance
into the United States at Port Huron by United States' officials, and refused permission
to proceed to their destination.

You will observe that the officials iu question «i:'.ege the provisions of the Alien
Labour Law as justitication for the action complained of, though it does not appear that
the men prevented from entering had violated that Law ; and my Ministers suggest that
the matter should be brought to the notice of the United States' Government, and a
claim presented for suitable redress to the persons aggrieved.

I have, &c.
(Signed) ABERDEEN.

i\ IncloBure 2 in No. 101.

Extract from a Report of the Covimittee of the Honourable the Privy Council, approved by
the Governor-General on the lOtli September, 1898.

ON a Report dated the 6th September, 1898, from the Secretary of State, submitting
a communication from Messrs. Wilson and Wilson, Solicitors, Napaiiee, Ontario, repre-
senting that James Reid, W. Hawley, and F. Hawley, of the Village of Enterprise,
Ontario, had purchased farm labourers' excursion tickets to Cavalier, North Dakota,
from the ticket agent of the Grand Trunk Railway at Tam worth, Ontario. That the
persons named were simply going to North Dakota in search of work, and that they had
no contract with any person in Canada or the United States for work after their arrival
in the United States.

The Minister states that in order to enable them to get a return ticket at a cheaper
rate, the Grand Trunk Railway Company gave the parties a paper which set forth that if
the parties worked as inrni labourers daily for thirty days between the 18th August and
the 16th day of November, 1898, and that a farmer in North Dakota certified to the
fact that then the return ticket to Napanee would be sold them at a reduced rate.
[1127] 2 E

106

The Holicitors for the particH repreHent that they started nn the trip on the 18th
August, and w ;rc stopped at Port Huron hy the United States' Customs officer, who
refused to allow them to proceed on their way, and ordered them to return to Canada
at once.

The partiefi complained that as they had made no contract in any way with anyhody
for employment in the United States, tlioy had not violated the Alien Labour Law.

The facts are set forth more fully in detail in the accompanying letter from the
solicitors.

They allege that the action of the United fltates' officials subjected them to loss and
inconvenience, and they claim that they are entitled to compensation from the United
States' Government for the illegal action of the officers at Port Huron.

The Committee, on the recommendation of the Secretary of State, advise that your
Excellency be moved to forward a certified copy of this Minute, and the letter of
Messrs. Wilson and Wilson hereto attached, to the Right Honourable the Secretary of
State for the Colonies, for transmission to the (jlovernment of the United States, and
that that Government be pressed to compensate the parties for the loss they have
sustained.

All which is respectfully submitted for your Excellency's approval.

(Signed) JOHN J. McGEE,

Clerk of the Privy CouneU.

Dear Sir, Napanee, August 20, 1898.

We have been consulted by W. Hawley, Esq., of Enterprise, Ontario, with
reference to a claim he has for comiicnsation, for being deported from the United States
by the United States' Iinmigrntiou Officer stationed at Port Huron, Michigon ; and we
will be pleased to have you make tlemand on the United States' Government for
compenHation in the matter on Mr. Hawley's behalf.

The facts of the case are as follows : —

Mr. Hawley, on the 17th August last, bought a farm lab^ ror's excursion ticket
to Cavalier, North Dakota, from the Grand Trunk Railway ticket agent, stationed at
Tamworth, Ontario, and on the ISth August he started on his journey. Mr. Hawley
was simply goin j to North Dakota in search of work, and had no contract with any
person, either in Canada or the United States, for work after he had arrived in the
States. Accomjianying the railway ticket that he bought was an agreement with the
Grand Trunk Railway that, in case the holder of the ticket should have a certificate, which
was attached to the agreement, properly executed by a farmer in North Dakota, certifying
that Mr. Hawley had worked as a tarm labourer daily for thirty days at least between
the 18th day of August and the 16th day of November last, the holder would be entitled
to a ticket enabling him to return to Napanee for the sum of 18 dollars, which is very
much below the ordinary railway fare for the trip,

Mr. Hawley started on the trij) on the 18th instant, and arrived in Port
Huron at 5 a.m. on the 19th instant. On his arrival at Port Huron, the United States'
Custom-house officer stopped him, and before inspecting his baggage demanded his
ticket. Mr. Hawley handed over his ticket, and then the United States' Customs officer
marked his baggage with *' O," and had it put in the shed, and refu.sed to allow Mr. Hawley
to proceed on his way, and ordered him to return to Canada at once, and threatened
to arrest him if he did not so return. The officer also took up the certificate mentioned
and stated that he refused to let Mr. Hawley proceed because the certificate was
evidence of a contract between the farmers of the Western States and the Grand Trunk
Railway Company for the importation into the United States of foreign labourers and
their employment, against the laws of the United States.

About 8 A.M. on the 19th instant the Immigration Agent of the United States
stationed at Port Huron arrived at the station, and the United States' Customs officer
handed over the ticket and certificate of .VIr. Hawley to the Immigration Agent, who
then instructed Mr. Hawley that he would not allow him to proceed on his way, nor
would he surrender his ticket to him until he had procured a ticket for Canada, and
Mr. Hawley's ticket was surrendered to him only after he had purchased a ticket for
Canada and after he was actually on board the train to return to Canada, he having
purchased a ticket for Samia.

Mr. Hawley returned to Napanee to-day, having lost no time unnecessaiLly on his
trip from Sarnia.

As we have stated before, Mr. Hawley was simply going to North Dakota to look.

107

for work, and had made no contract in any way witli anybody for employment in the
United States contrary to law.

Mr. Hawiuy is undoubtedly entitled to conipcnHation from the United States'
Government for the illegal action of their officers stationed at Port Huron, and wc would
resjHjctfully reciucst, on Mr. Ilawloy's behalf, that a demand for redress he made on the
United States' Oovernnient.

Any further information in the matter that is required to enable a demand to be
made we will gladly furnish.

We beg leave to state that we have written the Grand Trunk Railway Company in
reference to the matter.

Yours very respectfully,
(Signed) WILSON and WILSON.

Honourable W. R. Scott,

Secretary of State, Ottawa.

No. 102.

Colonial Office to Foreign Office. — {Received November 7.)

(Confidential.)

Sir. Downinij Street, November 7, 1898.

I AM directed by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain to acknowledge the receipt of your
letter of the 3rd instant, inclosing copy of a despatch from Lord llcrschell, raising the
question whether, and in what respects, any Agreement embodied iu a Treaty by the
present High Commission should be made subject to the approval of the Canadian and
Newfoundland Legislatures.

I am to state, in reply, that Mr. Chamberlain agrees with Lord Herschell that the
scope of the present negotiations is wider than the scope of that which resulted in the
Convention of 1888, and that if an Agreement is reached on several of the questions
under discussion, such Agrcemant could not properly be made subject to a proviso
such as is embodied in Article XVI of the Convention of 1888, and he would,
as regards any provisions of the Treaty which could not take effect without Imperial
or Colonial legislation, suggest that Article; XXXIII of the Treaty of Washington.
1871, would seem to fumisli a convenient precedent, while, as to any provisions whioh
would need no legislation to bring them into operation, the Treaty should take effect
on ratification.

I am, &c.
(Signed) H. BERTRAM COX.

No. 103.

The Murque.is of Saluihury to Lord Herschell.
(No. 5.)
My Lord, Foreign Office, November 7, 1898.

I HAVE had under consideration your despatch No. 10 of the 11th instant, iu
which the question is raised as to whether the ratification of any Treaty which may
result from the labours of the present Joint High Commission should be made subject
to the assent of the Parliament of Canada and the Legislature of Newfoundland, as
provided in the Treaty signed at Washington on the 15th February, 1888.

I am of opinion that it would not only be unnecessary, but unwise, to make the
ratification of a Treaty subject to the approval of Parliament, whether Imperial or
Colonial ; and I fully agree with the views expressed in your despatch as regards the
adoption of such a course on the present occasion.

I am, &c.
(Signed) SALISBURY.

108

No. 104.

Colonial Office to Foreign Office. — {Received November 8.)

(Confidential.)

Sir, Downing Street, November 7, 1898.

I AM directed by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain to acknowledge the receipt of your
letters of the 22nd, 27th, and 28th ultimo, inclosing copies of Lord Herschell's
despatches Nos. 7, 8, and 9, relating to the proceedings of the Joint High Commission
at Quebec, and of your letter of the 26th ultimo respecting the instructions to be
issued to the British Commissioners on the subject of the conveyance of prisoners
through intci vening territory, and on the subject of wrecking and salvage.

Mr. Chamberlain concurs in the proposal of the Mai-quess of Salisbuiy to inform
Lord Herschell that discretion is left to the British Commissioners to settle the final
form of the Articles dealing with these subjects in the manner which may seem to
them most advantageous.

As regards the question how far Article I of the Convention of 1818 has been
affected by subsequent legislation, which Lord Herschell discusses in his despatch
No. 9 of the 11th ultimo, in dealing with the subject of the Atlantic Fisheries, I am
to inclose copy of a Report of the Law Officers of the Crown on the point, dated the
5th of August, 1886,* which Mr. Chamberlain would suggest should be sent out for
his Lordship's information, if he has not already been furnished with a copy.

I am, &c.
(Signed) H. BERTRAM COX.

No. 105.

The Marquess of Salisbury to Sir J. Paunc^fote.
(No. 273.)
Sir, Foreign Office, November 8, 1898.

I TRANSMIT to your Excellency herewith a copy of a lettoi- from tlie Colonial
Office.t relative to the desire expressed by the Canadian Government that a claim for
compensation should be presented to the United Stctes' Government on behalf of three
Canadian labourers, who were recently r(>fused admission into the United States by an
American Customs officer at Port Huron, acting, it is alleged, under the. provisions of
the United Stat,es' Alien Labour Law.

By that Law, the immigration into the United States of persons Morking under
contract is forbidden, but, in the present case, the mon state that they were going to
North Dakota in search of work, and that they had no contract with any person in
Canada or the United States for work after their anival in the United States, though
they had an agreement, which is described in the Minute of the Canadian Privy
Council -iccompanying the Colonial Ofiice letter, with the Grand Trunk Railway
Company, by which they would obtain a return ticket at less than the usual rate.

The question of the Alien Labour Law is, as you are aware, one of the subjects
now under discussion by the Joint High Commission, and Lord Herschell, in his
despatch No. 8 of the iOth ultimo, of which a cojjy is inclosed,* reports what passed
in the Commission on the subject, and forwards the draft Agreement submitted to the
Commission by the Committee, to wliom tho question was referred.

As Lord Herscliell is now in Washington, it would be advisable that your
Excellency should consult him on the subject, and if, after so doing, you see no
objection to such a course, yov. may bring the claim to the notice of the United
States' Government.

I am, &c.
(Signed) SALISBURY.

• Not printed

t No 101.

109

No. 106.

Lord Herschell to the Marquess of Salisbury. — {Received November 14.)

(No. U.)

My Lord, Washington, November 2, 1898.

ON the 17th ultimo the United Smtos' Government addressed a note to Her
Majesty's Ambassador, stating tliat the Secretarj' for the Navy wished to lend the
United States' ship "Wasp" (a converted cruiser) to the State of Illinois for the
purposes of drill aud instruction of the naval militia of that State, and asking that the
passage of the " Wasj) " to the Lakes might be appropriately facilitated by the Cana-
dian Government.

Sir Julian Pauncufotc at once forwarded the application to Ottawa, and also
repeated a telegram which he received subsequently from the State Department, to
the effect that th(! "Wasp" was a .) large to pass through the canals, and that the
" Frolic " had therefore been sr/: ^tituted.

As I was at Ottawa attb'; time, the Governor-General communicated the papeiis
to me ; aud, after considtatiou with Sir Wilfrid Laurier, I telegraphed to Sir .Julian
Pauncefote at New London, saying that it would be very undesirable to prejudge the
questions now under discussion in ihe Commission by admitting a vessel through the
canals, to be handed over to the State of Illinois. Such a step might seriously
interfere with the negotiations, and with the ratiiication of any Agreement.

I pointed out that a Chicago newspaper had already treated the projected dispatch
of the " Wasp " as an abrogation of the Agreement of 1S17, and as involving the
sanction of building war-ships on the Lakes.

1,1 accordance with my suggestion Sir Julian Pauncefote called Mr. Hay's
attention to these considerations, and asked him, privately and unofficially, whether
the request of the Navy Department could not be withdrawn, pending the result of the
pres^ent negotiations.

I also wrote on the subject to Senator Fairbanks, who replied that the arrango-
mentc bad been made without his knowledge, and tliat he had wi'ittcn to the
Secretary of State, on receiving my letter, to ask that any furth(!r action might bo
suspended.

On my arrival at Washington I called on Mr. Hay vr'ith. Sir .7. Pauncefote, wIjo
Md already spoken to him; we were informed that notliing houKI be done in the
uB.tiev until the spring, and that the Governor of Illinois had been notified accord-
'ugly. The " Evening Times " of last night announced that the "' Frolin " would
lie up for the winter, as it was toe late in the season to send her up the
St. ;fjawrence.

[ have, &c.
(Signed) HERSCHELL.

No. 107.

The Marquesn of Salisbury to Lord Herschell.
(No. 6.)
My Lord, Foreign Office, November 15, 1898.

WITH reference to my despatch No. 5 of the 7tb, I transmit to you, for your
information, a copy oi' a letter from the Colonial Office: on tlie question as to whether
any Treaty resulting from the labours of the Joint High Commission should be
raadc subject to the assent of the Parliament of Canada or of the Legislatur(> of
Newfdundland.*

In my reply, of wliich a copy is also inclosed,+ I have concurred in the cpiniou
expressed by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain, fhat as regards any provisions in the Treaty
wiiich could not take effect without Imperial or colonial legislation, Article ZXRIIf
of the Treaty of Washington of 1871 would form a convenient precedent for adoption
on the present occasion.

I am, &c
(Signed) SALISBURY.

[1127]

No. IOl'.

t No lOS.

2 F

110

No. 108.
Foreiyn Office to Colonial Office,

Sir, Foreiyn Office, November 16, 1898.

I AM directed by tlu; Marquess of Salisbury to acknowledge the receipt of your
letter of the 7th instant, relative to the question raised by Lord Herschell in his
despatch No. 10 of the 11th ultimo as to nhether any Treaty resulting from the'
labburs oi' the present Joint Iligh Comraission should be made subject to the assent
of the Parliament of Canada or of the Legislature of Newfoundland.

I am to state that his Lordship agrees with ]\Ir. Secretary Chamberlain, that aa
regards any provisions which could not take effect without Imperial or colonial legis-
lation. Article XXXIII of the Treaty of Washington would furnish a convenient
precedent.

On the general question it would, in Loi-d Salisbury's opinion, be both unnecessary
and unwise to make the ratification of a Treaty subject to the approval of Parliament,
whether Imperial or colonial, and I am to inclose, for Mr. Chamberlain's information,
a ftopy of a despatcl^ addressed to I<ord Ilerscbell fully concurring in the view^'
expressed by him as regards the adoption of such a course on the present occasion.*"''
' I am, &c. * 1 I. •

(Signed) F. H. VILLIEIIS.

No. 109.

TTie Marquess of Salisbury to Lord Herschell.

(No. 7.)

5!y Lord, Foi eiyn Office, November 18, 1898.

I HAVE been iu communication with the- Secretary of State for the Colonies
vi'lativc to the propo.sed Aj-t.cles dealing with tlie questions of the convbyaj'.ct" of
prisoners tbr(»ugh interver, ng territory, and of wrecking and salvage rights, infeloscd
in your dospateh No. 7 of thi' 30th Scpti-mbcr last.

AVitli regard to tli" former your Lordship reports that the qut'stion was raised in
the Commission a.s to whether any pro^'iijlon was made for' the dxclusion from tho
proj^os(;d arrangciaent of persons ciiargcd with political offences. You suggest that
in vie^\• ot the difficulty ;is to political o'Tenci^s it may be wiser to limit the Agreement
to offences for which c.xtradition can b(! obtained, because it is, no doubt, understood
that political ofTonces arc; excluded on botli sides from the application of the Treaty ;
but the addition of provisions with regard to assaults might involve acts committed
by persons who are implicated in offences of a political character.

There will be opportunities while the High GommisFion is in Session at Washington
of ascertaining wiiether the ratiiication of a Treaty would be j(.>opardiz(!d were there
any (l()u1)t as to thr absolute exclusion of political offenders, and Her Majesty's
Government consider it desirable to leave discretion to tho British Iligh Commis.sionots*
to settle the final form of tbe Arficle. ''

The draft Article I'olative to wrecking and salvage rights will doubtless be further
discussed in Committee, and in this case also Her Majesty's Govornmtr.it deain) to give
your Lordship and your colleagues full authoritv to affect a settlement in the ma2mer
which may seem most advantageous.

I am, &c.
(Signed) SALISBURY.

Ill

No. 110.

The Marquess of Salisbury to Lord Herschell.
(No. 8.)
My Lord, Foreign Office, November 18, 1898.

IN regard to the question raised by your Lordship in your despateli No. 9 of the
11th ultimo, on the subject of the Atlantic fisheries, as to how far Article T of tho
Convention of 1818 has been affected by subsequent logi.slation, I should wish to call
your attention to a Report of the LaAv Officers of the Crown on the point, dated
5th August, 1886, of which a copy is inclosed.*

I am, &c.
(Signed) SALISBURY.

No. 111.

Sir J. Paimcefote to the Marquess of Salisbury. — {Received November 19.)

(No. 296.)

My Lord, * Washington, November o, 1898.

I HAVE the honour to report that on the 17th ultimo T received a request from
the United States' Secretary of State; for permission for the United States' vessel of
war " Wasp " (a converted yacht) to pass tlie Lakes, being destinod for Illinois waters,
for the pUi'poriT, of the drill and instruction of the naval militia of that State.

On the 2l8t ultimo I received a telegram from Colonel Ilay expressing tlie desire
of the Secretary of the Navy to substitute the United States' ship " Frolic " for the
" Wasp," the latter vessel being too large to go through the canals.

I brought both these applications to the knowledge of the Governor-General of
Canada, and on the 23rd October I reetnved a telegram, addressed to me by Lord
Herschell from Ottawa, with the concurrence of Sir Wilfrid Ltiurier, representing how
undesirable wete the proposed steps, and suggesting the lixpediency of inducing the
United States' Government to withdraw their request, pending the negotiations of the
.Joint Commission. '

I thereupon brought the matter to the knowledge of the Secretary of State, and
I have now been informed by him that at his instance the Secrotairj' of the Navy hds
agreed that the request for the passage of a United States' vessel to the Lakes shall, be
suspended, pending the result of the discussions of the Commission on the general
question. I have informed the Governor-General of Canada, and I understand that
Lord Herechell has reported to your Lord.ship fully upon the above.

I have, &c. •
(Signed) JULLYN PAUNCEFOTE.

No. 112.

Tkt Marquess of Salisbury to Sir J. Pauncefqte.

(No, 287.)
:,^ Foreign Office, November 25, 1898.

I HAVE received your Excellency's despatch No. 296 of the 5th instant, reporting
your action in connection with the request of the United States', authorities tluit the
war-vessel " Wasp " should be permitted to pass the Lakes (;r her way to Illiuois
waters.

I approve the steps taken by you to obtain the withdrawal of this application
pending the negotiations of the Joint High Commission.

I am, &c.
(Signed) SALISBURY.

• Si-e Ny. 104.

112

No. 113.
Lord Herschell to the Marquess of Salisbury. — {Received December 5.)

(No. 12.)

My Lord, Waghington, November 23, 1898.

I HAVE the honour to iuclose copies of Protocols Nos. 20 to 29.

On the 17th instant, the Committee on the boundary in Passamaquoddy Bay laid
before the Commission the facts with regard to the small island, haK-an-acrc in extent,
a'wnt whicl' there has always been a diflFiculty. The question, which appears to be of
very siua'."'. importance, was referred back to the same Committee, consisting of
Sir Louis Da\ies and Mr. Dingley.

The Committees on raining regulations, transport facilities, and reciprocity have
held several meetings, and the C()mmitt(>e on the Bchring Sea question resumed its
discussions tliis week, the experts who were sent to Victoria having arrived at
Washington.

I have, &e.
(Signed) HERSCHELL.

Inclosure 1 in No. 113.
Protocol No. 20 of Proceedings of .hint High Commission, Quebec, October 10, 1898.

THE Joint High Commission assembled at 10 o'clock a.m., pursuant to adjourn-
ment.

The Protocol of thi; last meeting was read and approved.

The Committee to whom tlio subject of fisheries in contiguous waters was
referred at the meeting of the 22ud September, presented a Joint Report, which was
ordered to be laid on the table, and a copy furnished to each of the High Commis-
sioners.

Thtj Joint High Commission thereupon adjourned to reassemble at Washington on
Tuesday, the 1st November, at 11 o'clock in the forenoon.

(Signed) CHANDLER P. ANDERSON. W. CHAUNCY CARTWRIGHT.

HENRI BOURASSA.

Inclosure 2 in No. 113.

Protocol No, 21 of Proceedings of Joint High Commission, Washington,
November 1, 1898.

SOME of the members of tlie Higli Commission met at the Department of State
pui^suaut to adjournment, but in accordance M'ith an understanding come to since the
last meeting, a further adjournment was made until the 10th November, at 11 o'clock
in the forenoon.

(Signed) W. CHAUNCY CARTWRIGHT.
HENRI BOURASSA.

CHANDLER P. ANDERSON.

113

Inclosure 3 in No. 113.

Protocol No. 22 of Proceedings of Joint High Commission, Washington,
November 10, 1898.

THE Joint High Commission assembled at 11 o'clcKsk, a.m., pursuant to adjoui-n-
ment, at the Department of State, and after having paid an official visit to the
Secretary of State, proceeded to the Executive Mansion were the members were
presented to the President. All the members were present except Sir Wilfrid
Laurior, Sir Louis Davies, Sir James S. Winter, and th(! Honourable T. Jefferson
Coolidge.

After reassembling at the Conference Rooms, the Protocols of the last two
meetings were read and approved.

In order to allow time for the meeting of the Sub-Committee during the day, the
Joint High Commission thereupon adjourned until Friday, the 11th November, at
11 o'clock in the forenoon.

(Signed) W. CHAUNCY CARTWRIGHT.
HENRI B0URA8SA.

CHANDLER P. ANDERSON.

Inclosure 4 in No. 113.

Protocol No. 23 of Proceedings of Joint High Commission, Washington,
November 11, 1898.

THE Joint High Commission assembled at the Conference Rooms at
11 o'clock, A.M., pursuant to adjournment, all the members lieing present except
Sir Wilfred Laurier, Sir James S. Winter and the Honourable T. Jefferson
Coolidge.

The Protocol of the last meeting was read and approved.

After arranging for the meeting of the Sub-Committees, the Joint High
Commission adjourned until Tuesday, the 15th November, at 11 o'clock in the
forenoon.

(Signed) W. CHAUNCY CARTWRIGHT.
HENRI BOURASSA.

CHANDLER P. ANDERSON.

Inclosure 5 in No. 113.

Protocol No. 24 of Proceedings of .hint High Commission, Washington,
November 15, 1898.

THE Joint High Commission assembled at the Conference Rooms at
11 o'cl<x;k, A.M., pursuant to adjournment, all the members being present except
Lord Hcrschell and the Honourable John A. Kasson. The Honourable Charles
W. Fairbanks was requested to take the chair in the absence of Lord Hersehcll.

The Protocol of the last meeting was road and appr.ivcd.

Ammgcments were made for the meetings of the Sub-Committees during the day,
and it was agreed that the question of the boundary-line in Passamaquoddy Bay
should be the first subject for consideration at the nnjoting on Thursday next.

The Joint High Commission thereupoa adjourned until Wednesday, the 16th
November, at 11 o'clock in the forenoon.

(Signed) W. CHAUNCY CARTWRIGHT.
HENRI BOURASSA.

CHANDLER P. ANDERSON.

L1127]

2 Q

lU

luclosure 6 in No. 113.

Protocol No. 26 of Proceedings of Joint High Commission, Washington,
November 16, 1898.

THE Joint High Commission assembled at the Conference Rooms at
11 o'clock, A.M., pursuant to adjournment, all the members being present except
Lord Herschell and the Honourable John A. Kasson.

The Protocol of the last meeting was read and approved.

After arranging for the meetings of the Sub-Committees, the Joint High Commis-
sion adjourned until Thursday, the 17th November, at 11 o'clock in the forenoon.

(Signed) W. CHADNCY CARTWRIGHT.
HENRI BOURA88A,

CHANDLER P. ANDERSON.

Inclosure 7 in No. 113.

Protocol No. 26 of Proceedings of .Joint High Commission, WashingtOi:,
November 17, IP''*^.

THE Joint High Commission assembled at the Conference Rooms at
.11 o'clock, A.M., pursuant to adjournment, all the members being present.

The Protocol of the last meeting was read and approved.

The Committee to which the question of the boundary-line in Passamaquoddy
Bay was referred at the meeting of the 22nd September, brought up the subject
heiore the Joint High Commission for further instructions, and after a general
discussion the question was again referred to the same Committee for consideration
and report.

The Joint High Commission thereupon adjourned until Friday, the 18th
November, at 11 o'clock in the forenoon.

(Signed) W. CHAUNCY CARTWRIGHT.
HENRI BOURASSA.

CHANDLER P. ANDERSON.

Inclosure 8 in No. 113.

Protocol No. 27 of Proceedings of Joint High Commission, Washington,
November 18, 1898.

THE Joint High Commission assembled, pursuant to adjournment, at the
Conference Rooms, at 11 o'clock, a.m., all the members being present.

The Protocol of the last meeting was read and approved.

Meetings of the Joint Committees were arranged for, and the Joint High
Commission then adjourned until Tuesday, the 22nd November, at 11 o'clock in the
forenoon.

(Signed) W. CHAUNCY CARTWRIGHT.
HENRI BOURASSA.

CHANDLER P. ANDERSON.

Inclosure 9 in No. 113.

Protocol No. 28 of Proceedings of Joint High Commission, Washington,
November 22, 1898.

THE Joint High Commission assembled, pursuant to adjournment, at the Confer-
ence Rooms, at 11 o'clock, a.m., all the members being present except the Hojiourable
Charles J. Faulkner.

115

The Protocol of the last meeting was read and approved.

Arrangements for the meetings of the Joint Committees were made, and the
Joint High Commission thereupon adjourned until Wednesday, the 23rd November, at
11 o'clock in the forenoon.

(Signed) W. CHAUNCY CARTWRIGHT.
HENRI B0URA8SA.

CHANDLER P. ANDERSON.

Inclosure 10 in Xo. 113.

Protocol No. 29 of Proceedings of Joint High Commission, Washington,
November 23, 1S98.

THE Joint High Commission assembled, pursuant to adjom-nment, at the Confer-
ence Rooms, at 11 o'clock, a.m., all the memliers being present.

The Protocol of the last meeting was read and approved.

The Joint High Commission then arranged for the meetings of the Joint
Committees, and thereupon adjourned until Friday, the 23th November, at 11 o'clock
in the forenoon.

(Signed) W. CHAUNCY CARTWRIGHT.
HENRI BOURASSA.

CHANDLER P. ANDERSON.

No. 114.

Lord Herschell to the Marquess of Salisbury.— (Received December 5.)

(No. 13.^

My Lord, Washington, November 25, 1898.

SINCE our arrival at Washington the Committee appointed to deal with the
question of reciprocity has held several long meetings, but without, so far, any definite
result.

It is not to sit again for the present, and I believe (hat the American Commissioners
wish to confer with several of the Senators before another meeting takes place.

No suggestion having been made by my American colleagues with reference to the
North Atlantic fisheries, the question upon wliich the dilFerence between us appeared
most acute, I thought it well to see Senator Fairbauits privately, and to acquaint him
very frankly with my views upon the present situation. I pointed out to him that on
several of the subjects in difference we had shown ourselves ready to make considerable
concessions in the direction desired by the United States, whilst, on the other hand, we
had heard nothing of any corresponding concessions on their part ; that if a Treaty was
to be arrived at it must be by a process of give and take, and that any Treaty whicii did
not tihow a fair equivalent for the concessions made by Great Britain would not serve the
end in view, namely, the removal of friction and the establishment of good relations
between the two countries. Any A^eement which was to effect this end must be such
as could not be regarded as a triumph by either side, and though it might be impossible
to devise a Treaty which would give complete satisfaction to every one in both countries,
it nmst be such as would be generally regarded as just and equitable. I stated that as
regards the Atlantic fisheries the United States' Connni,;sioners treated as out of the
question an arrangement wliich was agreed to by the Administration of 18H7 when the
feeling in the United States towards Great Britain was of a very different character from
the friendly one by which the United States were now said to be animated. I said that,
as far as T could learn, the opposition to such an arrangement emanated chiefly from the
fishing town of Gloucester, Massachusetts, and that it seemed strange that it should be
regarded as more important to conciliate a single town in one of the States than at the
risk of giving ofllence to the inhabitants of that town to insure a satisfactory settlement
with Great Britain. I added that it was not what I had been led to expect when
assured of the very strong anucable sentiment which now animated the people of the
United States.

Senator Fairbanks listened to these representations in a perfectly friendly manner,
and in no way resented them. He told me that the Senators from Massachusetts had
very strong feelings on the subject of the Fishery Arrangement of 1S88, and he added that

lie:

he niiglit tell ine, in oonfidencc, that endeavours had been made by the Hoston Chamber
of Commerce, as well as by members of the Commission, to change their views, but
hitherto without success. He stated that the Henators in question were very influential
Members of the Senate, and that their opposition to any Treaty would be a most serious
matter.

1 said, in reply, that I was quit5 aware of the difficulty which might be experienced
bj' Senator Hoar and some dthcr members of the body in agreeing to the ratifirntion of
a Treaty which was obnoxious to all the arguments which they had advanced as grounds
for refusing to ratify that of 1888, and that, therefore, I should he quite willing to enter-
tain a project for the settlement of the question which would relieve them from this
ditficiilty, if one could lie devised. The arguments advanced in the Majority Report of
the Committee of Foreign 'Relations of the Senate in 1888 (see inclosure in Sir L.
Sackvillc-West's dcspatcli No. 192, of the 2ftth May, 1888). made it clear that tlie views
of (treat Britain and of the United Slates differed as to the construction in several
respects of the Treaty of 1818, and as to the rights which now subsist under it, and
that during the last two years, especially, Canada had asserted the rights which she
believed herself to possess with extreme leniency, in the hope of some settlement being
arrived at.

Senator Fairbanks interposed with the observation that ('anada had acted during
that time with great generosity.

I proceeded to say that Canada had, of course, no right to insist on the free
importation of fish. If it were not conceded, >>he could only revert to what she believed
to be her rights. If no agreement were arrived at, it would be impossil)le for the
Government to avoid enforcing those rights, and if the United States adhered to the
position which they maintained in 1888, a situation of acute controversy would imme-
diately arise. It seemed to nie, therefore, essential that the rights which Canada and
the United States respectively possess under the Treaty of 1818 should be couclu.sively
determineu by agreement or arbitration, which (except war, which might be dismi.ssed
from consideraticm) were the only ways of cndiug the controversy. If the former was
impossible, the latter would be the only alternative, but even if the rights were
ascertained by arbitration, there must be some modus civendi in the meantitno,
and the one which seemed most feasible rnd desirable was the admission of fish free
of duty.

Senator Fairbanks neither assented to nor dissented from the views I expressed,
but said he thought it better that the consideration of the question should not be pressed
forward for the present. I asked him if he meant that it bad better be left over till the
Senators arrived in Washington for the meeting of Congress at the beginning of next
month. To this he frankly replied in the affirmative. He added that he should like to
read me a copy of a Resolution which had been transmitted to the Commission and to
the President from the Cleveland (Ohio) Chamber of Commerce.

This Resolution urged very forcibly the impoitance of reciprocal trade arrangements,
but stated that it was of far greater importance that good relations should be established
between the two countries by removing the causes of difference which had arisen, that
individual interests ought not to stand in the way of doing ,so in a ju.st and
equitable manner, and that at the present time the conditions were more favourable for
such a settlement than they had been for a very long time past. The Senator, after
reading the Resolution to me, said he did so because it accurately expressed the views
both of himself and of the President.

Before I left, Senator Fairbanks thanked me for coming to see him privately ; he
said that he had told the President that T was coming, who had expressed great s;itis-
faction, and said that he thought progress was more likely to be made by a fresh
interchange of opinion between us than by meetings of the Commission.

Senator Fairbanks stated that this was his view also, and that though, of course, we
should each consult our colleagues, matters had now reached a sta^e at which agreement
was more likely to be arrived at by meetings between himself and me than by fighting
the matter out in Joint Committees.

During a brief conversation which I had with the President when dining at the
White House, he expressed very much the same views as are embodied in the Resolution
to which I have alluded. He said that the matters in difference were, after all,
comparatively speaking, of small importance, and that what he wanted was to see all
those differences settled and brushed aside, so as to leave the field clear for more
impo'fant questions.

Information which I have received from persons of influence in Boston, entirely
unconnected with the Commission, quite bears out Senator Fairbanks' view that the

117

difficolty with the Massachusetts Senators is a very real one. I have no doaht the
President will exert all the influence he can to induce the Senators to concur in Homc
reasonable settlement.

It may be of interest to your LorJship to know that the President, in the course ot
his conversation with me, observed that, in his opinion, the time had come to reconsider
the question of the Tariff; that no one had been more strongly impressed than he had
with the importance of protection to the interests of the country, and that he belieyed
its effects had been beneficial. At the dame time, he thought that the circumstances
had changed, and rendered freer trade relations with countries outside the States
expedient. One great difficulty in the way of such a change had been to find any
means of revenue as a substitute for customs duties ; but the war had gone far to
remove this difficulty by inducing a sanction of forms of internal taxation, which would
not othcnvisc have been assented to. There would doubtless be a modification of those
taxes in certain particulars, but some of them would unquestionably become permanent.
I do not think the President contemplates any immediate or widespread change in the
direction of diminished protective duties, but there is, I feel sure, a growing tomlency in
some parts of the United States which have been most strongly protectionist to view the
Tariff question in a new light, and to contemplate an effort to secure trade in external
countries, even if it be at the cost of some increased admission of foreign competition in
this country.

We are proceeding with the discussion of the other questions which have not yet
been made the subject of a Report by a Committee ; but, for the reason I have given, it
aeems hopeless to expect any real progress with some of the most important questions
until a few days after the meeting of Congress on the ,5th December. Whilst the delay
IB vexatious, I feel that no good would be done, but rather tb". reverse, by attempting to
press these matters forward.

T QflyQ &C

(Signed) ' HESSCHELL.

No. 116.

Lord Merschell to the Marquess of Salisbury. — {Received December V2.)

(No. 14. Secret.)

My Lord, Washington, December 2, 1898.

SINCE our arrival here we have continued, in the Committee appointed for that
purpose, the discussion of the proposed modification of the Agreement of 1817, relating
to naval veseels on the Great Lakes.

As the result of this discussion, my American colleagues handed me yesterday the
proposal which I inclose.

It will be seen that, as regards the provisions prohibiting the maintenance upon the
Great Lakes of any naval armament or vessels of war, and that permitting the construc-
tion of na.'al vessels there, subject to certain limitations, it complies substantially with
the requirements on which the Colonial Defence Committee suggested I should
insist.

As regards the ship-building clause, for the word " plated " the expression " armour-
plated " has been substituted. This change was made to meet the objection, which
seemed to be a valid one, that the word " plated," if strictly construed, would prevent
the building of any iron ship.

A further concession has been made by prohibiting tlio completion of more than
one vessel at the same time. The stipulation is probably not of great importancr:, but
so far as it goes it is in the right direction.

The condition that the vessel is to be delive.-ed at the Atlantic sea-boaid
before the completion of any other vessel will serve to secure compliance with the
requirement that the delivery at the Atlantic sea-board shall be within as early a time
as practicable.

We did not think it necessary to insert a provision that no war-vessel should
return to the Lakes for repair and refit. It appeared to us that this would be excluded
by the proposed Agreement, at all events under existing conditions.

It has never been doubted that the Americans have no right to bring ships through
the canals to the Lakes except by the permission of the Government of Canada, and
that the access to lind from the Atlantic by these waterways is under the control of
[1127] 2 H

118

Cau<adii is acknowledged by tiiu concluding words of the proposed ship-building clause,
which limit the right of access to the purpose there mentioned.

As regards the revenue-cutters, the proposal departs in three particulars from the
requirements suggested in the Memorandum of the Colonial Defence Committee. The
maximum number allowed is six, instead of four.

It was stated by my Americnn colleagues that it was not contemplated that more
than four at the most sliould be employed at the present time, or probably for a very
conBiderabie time to come ; but it was pointed out that the population might grow to a
very great extent on those parts of the shores of the Lakes which were as yet unoccupied,
and that for this reason a larger number might be required than present conditions
demanded.

They were very anxious that any arrangement now come to should remain
undisturbed for as long a period as possible, and therefore thought it well to provide
some margin for the future. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who, of course, knows more of
the conditions and prospects than I do, thought the proposal not an unreasonable
one.

The suggestion that the local n of the vessels kept on the Lakes for revenue
purposes should be as defined in the 1817 Agreement does not appear suitable in the
existing conditions. The 1817 Agreement made provision for maintaining four war-
ships. One of these was to be kept on Lake Champlain, one on Ontario, and two on the
"Upper Lakes." By this, I suppose, were meant Lakes F.rie, Huron, Michigan, and
Superior. There is no need for a revenue-cutter upon Lake Champlaiu. As regards the
other Lakes, it is suggested that if any provision as to location is to be inserted there
would have to be alternative provisions for their distribution, according as three or four,
or UKjre, were employed, and, moreover, that there are objections to restricting the use
ot Tossels in the revenue service to particular localities, and not permitting them to be
employed whore their services may be from time to time needed. There seems force in
these suggestions, and here again Sir "Wilfrid Laurier does not regard the matter as of
serious importance.

The only other point requiring comment is the size of the revenue-vessels. The
American Commissioners have been in communication with the Secretary of the
1'reasury on this point, and they state tliat it has been the practice of late to build their
reTenue-vessels of 800 to 900 tons displacement, that very severe weather is often met
wiih in the Upper Lakes, and that this course is considered more advantageous than
employing vessels of smaller size. It will be seen that 900 tons is the figure in the
proposal, but the Commissioners stated that they would be willing to agree to 800 tons,
but thought it impossible to assent to a lower figure.

As the residt of our first discussion, my American colleagues proposed that, though
neither Government should hereafter maintain upon the Great Lakes any naval arma-
ment or vessels of war, either Government might maintain upon those Lakes " not more
than two vessels of a displacement not exceeding 1,100 tons each, with an armament for
eacli of not more than six guns of a calibre not exceeding 4 inches, and not more than
eight guns of minor calibre, such vessels to be used for the purpose of naval instruction
and training."

At a meeting of the Committee held after I was in receipt of the Memorandum of
the Colonial Defence Committee of the 16th September, and of your Lordship's
instructions thereon, I conveyed to my colleagues the purport of the instructions I had
received, and also a Memorandum I liad prepared embodying the views of Vice-Admiral
Sir John Fisher, for the purpose of showing that the training of a naval militia could be
as effectually, or indeed more effectually, carried out by means of guns under a shed on
shore than by guns on board the training ship, and I urged that the training ships to be
used on the Great Lakes should not have any guns. My American colleagues stated
that they would confer with the Secretary of the Navy on the subject. It will be seen
that as the result of the discussions here, the provision relating to training ships
embodied in the inclosed proposal is a considerable modification of that originally put
forward. They have reduced the maximum tonnage from 1,100 to 1,000 tons. They
have also reduced the number of guns of a calibre not exceeding 4 inches from six to
two, and the number of guns of minor calibre from eight to four, and also inserted the
condition that the vessels should be unarmourcd. They stated that their practice had
been to carry out the training by means of guns on board ship, and that they did not
think it possible for them to make such a change as I had sus;gcsted. They assured me
that their desire had been, as far as possible, to meet my views. They further stated
that they had been strongly urged to insist on four training vessels, one for each State
bordering on the Lakes. They had, however, obtained acquiescence in their suggestion

113

that there should be only two training ships, but that each of them sliould be lent to
two States for traininc; during different partH of the year. Tlioy represented that the
training of a naval militia on the Lakes for service in the Atlantic was a matter in which
the States bordering on the Lakes felt a deep interest, which was indeed shared by the
people generally.

Tiie recommendation of the Colonial Defence Committee is " that no actual war
vessels " should he used for training purposes on tlio Lake«i. I am not sure tliat I quite
apprehend the meaning intended by tlie words " no actual war vessels." They were
differently interpreted by two naviil officers of whom I asked their meaning. One
construed them us prohibiting the use of vessels with guns on board, the other as only
excluding any vessel on tlie present strength of the navy.

The use of the qualifying word "actual" seemed to me to indicate that the words
were not intended to preclude the use of every vessel which could be called a war ship.
I am not sure, therefore, whether ray instructions were intended to exclude the presence
of any guns on board these training ships. My American colleagues pointed out, and I
apprehend truly, that there were plenty of merchant-vessels on the Lakes which might
within a few hours have guns put on board, and be made practically as effective for war
purposes as training ships of the character they suggested would be. When I discussed
the matter with Captain White, R.N., at Ottawa, I found that he did not attach great
importance to the question whether the guns were on board the training vessels or not
for the reason I have just indicated, that if kept on shore in a condition to be put on
board the operation could be so speedily carried out. My impression is, as the result of
much communication on the subject with my American colleagues, that it will not be
possible to arrive at an agreement in which the provision as to training ships is very
substantially modified. 1 am fully alive to the objections which may be ta.:en to the
proposal as it now stands, but I feel satisfied that if the Agreement of 1.817 is
abrogated, and no other substituted, the result will be that the Americans will keep on
the Lakes as training ships four vessels, very likely of larger dimensions and of heavier
armaments than those proposed. This conclusion is based upon the following considera-
tions : the jealousy of the individual States is such that each will exert great pressure to
have a training ship for its exclusive use. And ina.smuch as it will probably not be
practicable to give what they would regard as their legitimate share of the ship,
building trade to the Lake ship-builders, I think this would afford an additional motive
for complying with the wishes of the States. Any one who has not lived for some time
in this country can, I think, scarcely realize the force of pressure wliich local interest
brings to bear upon the Executive, and how apt they are to yield to such pressure, or
how very difficult it is for them to resist it.

Upon the whole, I do not think it likely that any better arrangement can be
secured in the place of that of 1817 than the one now proposed. I have already given
my reasons for thinking that it would be very unfortunate if no agreement were arrived
at, and the matter were dealt with by a simple abrogation by notice of the subsisting
arrangement. The situation is, I admit, unsatisfactory, whether there be such an
arrangement as that proposed or none at all ; but the latter would, in my judgment, be
the more unsatisfactory of the two. I should further state that ray American colleagues
are quite willing that the term of notice for abrogating the Treaty should be oue year,
the period suggested by the Colonial Defence Committee. They were disposed to think
that the arrangement should continue for several years certain, and afterwards until the
stipulated notice were given. I do not know whether this would be considered advisable.
I am not sure that it might not subject the proposal to greater opposition in the Senate ;
it will certainly not in its present form be regarded with complete satisfaction.

I may add that the proposal, if assented to, would obviously require some verbal
alteration to put it in a suitable form ; but the consideration of this has been deferred
until we see whether an agreement can be arrived at.

In conclusion, I submit to your Lordship that if the other subjects referred to the
Commission can be satisfactorily disposed of, it would be very desirable, as a matter of
policy, that the Treaty should contain a provision relating to naval vesseb on the Great
Lakes ; and if T had power to accede to the views of my American colleagues as regards
this subject, it might aid in the settlement of some of the other questions.

I must beg your Lordship to favour me with instructions by telegraph as soon as
possible after the receipt of this despatch, as it is very important that I should be ablo.-
to deal with it at the earliest practicable date.

I have, (fee.
(Signed) HERSCHELL.

120

<• Incioaure in No. 115.

Proposal respecting Navnl Vensels on the Oreat Lukes.

THE High Contracting Parties agree to annul thoir Agrucuiunl of 1G17 in respect
to the maintenance of a naval force and the conBtructiun of armed veHsels on the Great
Lakes, and in lieu of such Agreement stipulate as follows : —

Neither GoTernmcnt shall hurcaftei maintain upon the Great Lakes any naval
armament or vchscIs of war.

Either Qovcrnniunt may hereafter maintain upon the said Lakes not mon- than two
unarmourcd vessels of a maximum displacement of 1,U00 tons each, with not more than
two guns of a calibre not exceeding 4 inches, and four guns of minor calibres, each ; such
vessels to be used only for the purpose of naval instruction and truiniu;^ .

Each Government may maintain, not exceeding, six revenue-cutters for police and
revenue service only, such revenue-cutters not to exceed 900 tons displacement, and
armed only with, not exceeding, one f5-pr. rapid-fire gun each.

Either Government may make use of the industrial establishments on the shores of
said Lakes for building the above-mentioned vessels, and also for the construction of
naval vessels for use upon the high seas as herein provided, but not otherwise ; but such
naval vessels shall not he armour-plated, armed, equippe<l, or rendered available for war
on said Lakes. Not more than one of such vessels shall be completed at the same time ;
it shall be delivered at the Atlantic sea-board within as early a date as practicable after
its completion and before the completion of any other such vessel, and for that purpose
shall have access to all the waterways to the Atlantic sea-board.

No. 116.

Foreign . .,♦ to Colonial Office.
(Confidential.)
Sir, Foreign Office, December 12, 1898.

WITH reference to proAnous correspondence relative to the Joint Commission
now sitting at Washington, I am directed by the Marquess of Salisbury to transmit to
you herewith, for the information of the Secretary of State for the Colonies, a copy of
a despatch whioh has been received from Lord Herscholl respecting the present state
of the negotiations.*

I am to state thm: J- is I'loruship proposes, with the concurrence of Mr. Chamberlain,
to inform Lord Upi-scIil-I. that his language to Senator Fairbanks in regard to the
question of the No ■> U Atlantic Fisheries is entirely approved by Her Majesty's
Government.

I am, &c.
(Signed) F. H. VILLIERS.

No. 117.

Foreign Office to Colonial Office.
(Secret.) ' "

^ir, Foreign Office, December 16, 1898.

WITH reference to your letter of the 19th September last, I am directed by
the Marquess of Salisbury to transmit to you herewith, for the information of
Mr. Secretary Chamberlain, n copy of a despatch from Lord Herschell,t giving an
account of the discussion which has taken place in the Committee of the Joint High
Commission on the proposed modification of the Agreement of 1817, relating to naval
vessels on the Great Lakes.

Lord Salisbury would suggest that the matter should be at once laid before the
Colonial Defence Committee for consideration and report.

Lord Herschell is anxious to receive instructions on the subject by telegraph as
soon as possible.

I am, &c.
(Signed) F. H. VILLIERS.

• No. J 14.

t No. 115.

121

No. 118.

Colonial Office to Foreign Office. -^(Received December 20.)

(Confidontial.)

Sir, Downing Street, December 19, 1898.

I AM directed by Mr. Swrntary Chamberlain to acknowledge the receipt of your
letter of the 12th instant, inclosing copy of Lord llorscheU'si despatch No. 13 of the^
2Bth November, respecting the present ntnte of the .foint Commission negotiations,
and to request you to inform the MarqiUfss of Salisbury that he concurs in his
Lordship's proposal to inform Lord llerseholl that liis langua<>^e to Senator Fairhiiiiks
in regard to the question of the Ivorth Atlantic Fislieries i.s (.'utiroly approved by Her
Majesty's Government.

I am, &e.
(Signed) II. BERTRAM COX.

No. 119.

Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquexs of Salisbury. — {Received December 26.)

(No. 332.)

alj Lord, Washington, December 16, 1898.

WITH reference to my despatch No. 261 of the 6th 8cptcml)cr last, relative to
the suspension of certain legislation of the Province of Ontario relating to the
manufacture of lumber, I have the honour to transmit heiewith copy of an approved
Minut(! of the Canadian Privy Council, • which haa been furnished to mo by the
Govemor-G(!neral of Canada.

This Minute points out that, under the Constitution of Canada, the Dominion
Government have no warrant for suspending or interfering with the legislation
refferred to.+

In view of the fact that the lumber question is before the Joint High Commission,
I have given a copy of the inclosed Minute to Lord Hcrschell, but have thought it best
to defer, for the present, communicating with the United States' Government.

I have, &c.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

No. 120.

Colonial Office to Foreign Office. — {Received December 28.)

(Confidential.) *

Sir, Downing Street, December 27, 1898.

I AM directetl by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain to ackuowledge the receipt of your
letter of the 16th instant, covering a coj)y of a despatch from Lord ncrschell, in
which he discusses very fully the proposal made by the Representatives of the United
States on the Joint Commission for a modification of the existing agreement as to the
question of naval vessels on the Great Lakes.

I am to request you to inform the Marquess of Salisburj- that thi ■ ^/roposal was
referred to the Colonial Defence Committee, who have expressed the opinion, in which
Mr. Chamberlain concurs, that it should be accepted.

I am, &c.
(Signed) EDWARD WINGFIELD.

• Not piinted.

t See incloiurea in Colonial Office Utters o:' S«|i((mber 3 and October 6, printed on pp. 53 and 79.

11127] 2 I

122

.No. J21.

The Marquess of Salisbury to Lord Herschell

(No. 2.)

(Telegraphic.) P. Foreign Office, December 29, 1898.

NAVAL vessels on the Great Lakes. The proposal of the United States' Com-
missioners, forwarded in your despatch No. 14, Secret, of the 2nd December, should,
in the opinion of the Colonial Defence Committee, he accepted. You may therefore
proceed in this sense.

No. 122.

The Marquess of Salisbury to Sir J. Pauncefote.

(No. 313.)

Sir, Foreign Office, December 30, 1898.

I HAVE received your despatch No. 332 of the 16th instant, inclosing copy of a
Minute of thfi Canadian Privy Council relative to the suspension of certain legislation
of the Province of Ontario relating to the manufacture of lumber.

Your Excellency states that in view of the fact that the lumber question is before
the Joint High Commission, you have given a copy of the Minute to Lord Herschell,
but liavc deferred for the present communicating it to the United States' Government.

The Memorandum annexed to tliis Minute appear, however, to be identical with
those inclosed in Colonial Office letters of the 3rd September and 6th October last
respectively (sec Joint Commission print of the 3rd September, Section 1, and
7th October, Section 1).

Your Excellency reported in your telegram No, 109 of the 24th August last that
the fli'st of these two Memoi-andums hud been communicated to you ])y the Govornor-
Ooneral of Canada, and you were authorized by my telegram No. 151 of the 6th
September to communicate the substance of it to the United States' Government.

With regard to the ■ ocond Memorandum, your Excellency reported in your
despatcii No. 269 of tbj 26th September having receivd it from the Canadian
Government, and having communicated a copy of it to the ' Jnited States' Government.

I am, &c.
(Signed) SALISBURY.

No. 123.

The Marquess of Salisbury to Lord Herschell.

(No. 10.)

My Lord, ' Foreign Office, December 30, 1898.

1 HAVE received your despatch No. 13 of the 2r)th ultimo, respecting, tb»>
proceedings of the Joint Commission since your arrival at Washington, in wliici v.
report that no suggestion having been made by your American colleagues with
reference to the North Atlantic Fisheries, tlie subject on which the dift'erencc between
British and United States' Commissioners appear to be most acute, you had thought
it advisable to see Senator Eairbank privately, and to acquaint him frank'y »vith your
views^n the present situation.

I have to iulorm your Lordship that your language to Scnetor Pairbanks in
regard to this question is entirely approvct. by Her Majesty's Government.

I am, &c.
(Signed) SALISBURY.

128

No. 124.

Lord Herschell to the Marquess of Salisbury.'— {Received December 31.)

(No. 15.)

My Lord, Washington, December 22, 1 893.

THE Commission adjourned on the 19th instant, and will not meet again till the
6th January. Copies of the Protocols up to date are incloied.

The aecon'.papying copy of a letter which I have addressed to Senator Fairbanks
will acquaint your Lordship with my views upon the present situation as regards the
three principal questions, viz., the fisheries, the Behring Sea question, and the Alaska
boundary.

I also inclose copies of the Memoranda exchanged between Senator Fairbanks and
myself during the last week with respect to the Alaska boundary, from which your Lord-
ship will observe that the Committee on that question, which includes General Foster
and Sir Wilfrid Laurier, besides Senator Fairbanks, have not yet arrived at any agree-
ment for a settlement of the boundary, and that the line in the neighbourhjod of the
Lynn Canal presents the greatest difficulty.

Sir Julian Pauncefote transmitted to me the telegram approving the proposed clause
in respect to the British carrying trade between the newly acquired American posses-
sions and the coasts of the United Status.

In view of the communications which had already passed between his Excellency and
the American Government on that subject, wiiich includes questions not affecting
Canada alone, 1 thought it best to submit the draft to the Secretary of State.
Sir J. Pauncefote agreed that tliis would be the proper course. I accordingly called
upon Mr. Hay, and urged the desirability of inserting such a clause in the Treaty,
lie promised that the matter should at once be laid before the President. I took advan-
tage of the opportunity to express my views upon the various questions as to which the
Coniniibsiou has hitherto failed to come to any satisfactory understanding.

At my request, Mr. Hay said ho would arrange for me to have an interview with
Mr. McKinley on the following day, and I was accordingly received at the White House
yesterday afternoon.

My interview was of a satisfactory character. I pointed out to the President the
critical stage at which the negotiations had arrived, and, repeating the arguments con-
taineil in my letter to Senator Fairbanks, I assured him that, in my opinion, unless the
attitude of the United Sitites' Commissioners greatly altered, a Treaty would be impos-
sible. I added that I almost despaired of a successful result of our negotiations.
He said, emplmtically : " I dca't despair. A Treaty musl be made. The highest
interests 'f the two countries require that it should be." With regard to the question of
the compensation to the sealers, he said it would be absurd to let a matter of 100,000 or
20<.',C00 dollars stand in the way of a settlement.

As to the Alaska boundary, he agreed with me that it would bo lamentable if we
were driven to have an arbitration about 't. He suid, 'vith emphosis : " You can
settle it >is well as any Arbitration Tribunal cr uld ;" and entirely assented to my position
that the proper way to adjust it was by co.aproniiso. I urged that the best course was
to let Canada have a port on the Lynn Cr.na), 'V'.d adduced nrguments to show that this
was the most reasonable form of compromise. Whilst not expressing directly his concur-
rence in this view, he did not intimate dissent. On the contrary, he said : " You must
have something you want." We then discussed the question of arbitration. He
acquiesced without reserve in m^- view that I could not fairly be called upon to agree to
an arbitration as to part of the boundary only, and said : "If there is to be an
arbitration at all, it must be aboat the whole boundary." 1 then stated fully the argu-
ments in favour of the propose-i clause as to the carrying trade. 1 pointed out that
though in itself n small matter from a pecuniary point of view, its insertion would be
taken as a practical indication of the Iriendly feeling of the United States, whilst if no
such concession were made irritaJon would certainly be provoked, and the main object
of the pending negotiations, which was to secure the maintenance of friendly relations
between the tuo countries, might be frustrated.

The President, whilst expressing himself sympathe.ically as to the object in view, did
not commit himself to an appro I'al of the clause. He told me, however, that imme-
diately on receiving the draft of it from Mr. Hay, he had called upon the Treasury to
make a report to him on its scope and effect.

124

I thought it prudent to say that, in calling his attention as I had to the critical
stage which the negotiations had reached, there was no intention on my part to make
any complaint against the United States' Commissioners, but that sometimes I could not
help feeling that they were too timid, and were (oo much influenced by apprehension as
to the action of the Senate, and gave, perhaps, undue weight to opinions expressed by
individual Senators as an indication of the way in which the Treaty would be dealt with
if it came before the Senate for ratification. The President replied that he thought this
might be so ; that, personally, he had no fear as to its ratification if a Treaty were once
agreed upon, the feeling in favour of it being so deep and widespread. He assured me
that he would himself take the matter in hand, and that he would see the United States'
Commissioners during the recess, and try to " stiffen them up." He took leave of me with
great cordiality, and in doing so repeated, with much warmth : " A Treaty must be made."
If his views prevail, the prospect of a fairly satisfactory Treaty is a hopeful one, but
whether he is strong enough to enforce them may be doubtful. Some people allege that
he is wanting in firmness of purpose, and is always influenced by the last comer.
Whether this be so or not, I have myself no means of judging.

I ht T", .'■!
(Sigued'i ru •- OHELL.

Inclosure 1 in No. 124.

Protocol No. 30 of Proceedings of Joint High Commission, Washington,
November 25, 1898.

THE Joint High Commission assembled pursuant to adjournment at the Con-
ference Rooms at 11 o'clock A.it., all the members being present except Sir Richard
Cartwright.

The Protocol of the last meeting was read and approved.

After arranging for the meetings of the Joint Committees, the Joint High
Commission adjourned until Tuesday, the 29th November, at 11 o'clock in the fort,
noon.

(Signed) W. CHAUNCY CARTWRIGHT. CHANDLER P. ANDEP OM .
HENRI BOURASSA.

Inclosure 2 in No. 124.

Protocol No. 31 of Procrerlings nt Joint High Commission, WaMngton,
November 29, 1898.

THE Joint High Commission assembled pursuant to adjournment at the Con-
ference Rooms at 11 o'clock a.m., all tiio members being present except Sir Richard
Cartwright.

The Protocol of the last meeting was read iind approved.

After agreeing upon what Joint Committee meetings should be held (^ .J' .r the day,
the Joint High Commission adjourned until Wednesday, the 30th November, ux ' lock
in the forenoon.

(Signed) W. CHAUNCY CARTWRKIHT. CHANDLER P. ANLBRS^)N.
HENRI BOURASSA.

//'*r-\

125

IncloBure 3 in No. 124.

Protocol No. 32 of Proceedings of Joint High Commission, Washington,
November 30, 1898.

THE Joint High Commission assembled pursuant to adjournment at the Conference
Booms at 11 o'clock a.m., all the members being present.

The Protocol of the last meeting was read and approved.

Meetings of the Joint Committees during the day were arranged, and the Joint
High Commission then adjourned until Thursday, the Ist December, at 11 o'clock in
the forenoon.

(Signed) W. CHAUNCY CARTWRIGHT. CHA!^DLER P. ANDERSON.
HENRI BOURASSA.

Inclosure 4 in No. 124.

Protocol No. 33 of Proceedings of Joint High Commission, Washington,
December 1, 1898.

THE Joint High Commission assembled pursuant to adjournment at the Conference
Rooms at 11 o'clock a.m., all the members being present.

The Protocol of the last meeting was read and approved.

Arrangements were made for the meetings of the Joint Committees during the
day, and the Joint High Commission thereupou adjourned until Friday, the 2nd, December,
at 11 o'clock in the forenoon.

(Signed) W. CHAUNCY' CAETWRIGHT. CHANDLER P. ANDERSON.
HENRI BOURASSA.

Inclosure 6 in No. 124.

Protocol No. 34 of Proceedings of .Joint High Commission, Washington,
Decatiher 2, 18»8.

THE Joint High Commission assembled pursuant to adjournment at the Con-
ference Rooms at 11 o'clock a.m., all the members being present except Sir James 8.
Winter.

The Protocol of the last meeting was read and approved.

Having arranged for the meetings of the Joint Committees, the Joint High
Coinmission adjourned until Tuesday, the Oth December, at 10"30 o'clock in the
forenoon.

(Signed> W. CHAUNCY CARTWRIGHT. CHANDLER P. ANDERSON.
HENRI BOURASSA.

Inclosure 0 in No. 134.

Protocol No. 35 of Proceedings of .Joint High CommissioK, Washington,
December 6, 1898.

THE Joint High Commission assembled pursuant to adjournment at the Conference
Rooms at lO-SO o'clock a.m., all the incnibers being present.

The Protocol of the last meeting was read and approved.

After arranging for the meetings of the iloint Committees during the day, and in
order to permit further meetings on Wednesday without interruption, the Joint High
11127] 2 K

126

CommiHsion adjourned until Thursday, the 8th December, at 10 o'clock in the fore-
noon.

(Signed) W. CHAUNCY CARTWRIGHT. CHANDLER P. ANDERSON.
HENRI B0URAS8A.

Inclosure 7 in No. 124.

Protocol No. 36 of Proceedings of Joint High Commission, Washington,
December 8, 1898.

THE Joint High Commission as.sembled pursuant to adjournment at the Conference
ii 10 o'clock A.M., all the members being present.

':{_ ' Protocol of the last meeting was read and approved.

Joint High Commission arranged for the meetings of the Joint Committees
during the day, and then adjourned until Friday, the 9th December, at 10 o'clock in the
forenoon.

(Signed) W. CHAUNCY CARTWRIGHT. CHANDLER P. ANDERSON.
HENRI BOURA88A.

Inclosure 8 in No. 124.

Protocol No. 37 of Proceedings nf Joint High Commission, Washington,
December 9, 1898.

THE Joint High Commission assembled pursuant to adjournment at the Conference
Rooms at 10 o'clock a.m., all the members being present.
The Protocol of the last meeting was read and approved.

Having arranged for the meetings of the Joint Committees, the Joint High Com-
mission adjourned until Monday, the 12th December, at 10 o'clock in the forenoon.
(Signed) W. CHAUNCY CARTAVRIGHT. CHANDLER P. ANDERSON.
HENRI BO UR ASS A.

Inclosure 9 in No. 124.

Protocol No. 38 of Proceedings of Joint High Commission, Washington,
December 12, 1898.

THE Joint High Commission assembled pursuant to adjournment at the Conference
Rooms at 10 o'clock a.m., all the members being present.

The Protocol of the last meeting was read and approved.

The meetings of the Joint Committees during the day having been arranged for,
the Joint High Commission adjourned until Tuesday, the 13th December, nf 10 o'clock
in the forenoon.

(Signed) W. CHAUNCY CARTWRIGHT. CHANDLER P. ANDERSON.
HENRI BOURASSA.

Inclosure 10 in No. 124.

Protocol No. 39 of Proceedings of .hint High Commission, Washington,
December 13, 1898.

THE Joint High Commission assembled pursuant to adjournment at the Conference
Rooms at 10 o'clock a.m., all the members being present.
The Protocol of the last meetiug was read and approved.

127

Arrangements were then made for the meetings of the Joint Committoes during the
interviil, and the Joint High Commission adjourned until Friday, the 16th December, at
10 o'cloclc in the forenoon.

(Signed) W. CHAUNCT CARTWRIGHT. CHANDLER P. AJTDERSON.
HENRI B0URA8SA.

Inolosure 11 in No. 124.

Protocol No. 40 of Proceedings of Joint High Commission, Washington,
December 16, 1898.

THE Joint High Commission assembled pursuant to adjournment at the Conference
Rooms at 10 o'clock a.m., all the members being present except Sir James S. Winter.
Tlie Protocol of the last meeting was read and approved.

Having made arrangements for the meetings of the Joint Committees during the
day, the Joint High Commission adjourned until Saturday, the 17th December, at
10 o'clock in the forenoon.

(Signed) W. CHAUNCY CARTWRIGHT. CHANDLER P. ANDERSON.
HENRI B0URA8SA.

Inclosure 12 in No. 124. >

Protocol No. 41 of Proceedings of Joint High Commission, Washington,
December 17, 1898.

THE Joint High Commission assembled pursuant to adjournment at the Conference
Rooms at 10 o'clock a.m., all the members being present except Sir James S. Winter.
The Protocol of the last meeting was read and approved.

After arranging for the meeting.s of the Joint Conanittees during the day, the Joint
High Commission adjourned until Monday, the 19th December, at 10 o'clock in the
forenoon.

(Signed) W. CHAUNCY CARTWHilGHT. CHANDLER P. ANDERSON.
HENRI BOURASSA.

Inclosure 1.3 in No. 124.

Protocol No. 42 of Proceedings of Joint High Commission, Washington,
December 19, 1898.

THE Joint High Commission assembled pursuant to adjournment at the Conference
Rooms at 10 o'clock a.m., all the members beiuR present except Sir James S. Winter.
The Protocol of the last meeting was read and approved.

After arranging for the progression of tne work during the recess the Joint High
Commission adjourned, to reassemble at Washington on Thursday, the 5th January,
1899.

(Signed) W. CHAUNCY CARTW^RKiHT. CHANDLER P. ANDERSON.
HENRI BOURASSA.

128

'Indosurc 14 in No. 124.

Lord Herschell to Senator Fairbanks.
(Confidential.)
Dear Senator Fairbaniis, Washingtoi\, December 21, 1898.

IT seems to me well that, as nrs are now separating for a recess, I should state my
views as to the position in which our negotiations stand,

The three most iniportant questions submitted to the Commission are those relating
to the Atlantic fisheries, the seal question, and the Alaskan boundarj. Whether a
Treaty can be arrived nt or not must necessarily depend upon how far these can be
adjusted.

From tlie outset it was hoped by Great Britain that the Atlantic fisheries quest, n
might be settled uu the basis of the arrangement agreed to by the two Governments in
188J?, or, at all events, by a provision for " free fish " in retuvn for a renunciation by
Great Britain of the rights of restriction which she claimed under the Treaty of 1818.
In view of the past history of the question, from the date of the Treaty down to the
present time, this seemed the most natural and, for many rea.'«>ns, the most desirable
solution of the question.

Down to a late period the British Commissioners entertii .led the hope tliat this
solution might be agreed to. When they were recently informed that this settlement
was impossible, owing to the strong local feeling opposed to it, they were most
desirous of finding some way out of the difficulty. When it was first suggested some
months ago that it might be found impossible to gran* " free fish," it was stated <m
behalf of the British Commissioners that they were willing to entertain the consideration
of any other concession by the United States which could be suggested in lieu thereof.
No such suggestion having been forthcoming, it was intimated that the British Commis-
sioners would be "ilHiig to agree to an arbitration wliicli .should settle beyond dispute
what were the British riglits under the 'i'r<>aty of 1818, the present mWiu vivendi con-
tinuing or some other being arranged for in the meantime. They felt that this course
would be calculated to prevent disputes which might otherwi.se arise between the two
countries, and create great difficulties in the future. At the same time, they cannot
conceal the fact that this mode of adjustment is a great disappointment to them, and
will be a great disappointment to the people of Canada, who had hoped, and, indeed,
expected, that with the friendly feeling prevailing — whic'. has been declared to exist, and
which, we believe, does exist — an arrangement not le.ss favourable than that of 1888
could be secured. It is obvious that if the provisions of the Treaty dealing with this
question are unpalatable this renders concession on other points more difficult, and
makes it essential that the Canadian Government should be able to justify on their merits
the agreements made under other heads of the Treaty.

Nor, ngain, has it been possible down to the present time to obtain the admission
free of duty of lumber and of some agricultural products, which would gain for a Treaty
a large measure of support in Canada.

I turn now to the seal question. In the Memorandum on the part of the Govern-
ment of the United States, containing its views on the subjects submitted to the Com-
mission, it was suggested that the only satisfactory mode of dealing with the question
in respect to the fur seals was the prohibition of pelagic sealing, and it was hoped that
the Joint High Commission would agree upon a reasonable .and equitable basis for
securing this. T!ie British Commissioners, in accordance with their instructions, have
readily concurred in negotiations for tliis purpose, laying down only two conditions : that
there must be fair and equitable compensation to the owners of sealing-vessels and to
others engaged in the industry, and that there must be some adequate concession in
consideration of Great Britain giving up her national right and unaertaking to enforce
the prohibition ; also that in estimating the value of this concession it must be taken
into account that the abandonment of the national right and the enforcement by the
British Government of the prohibition would, according to the contention of the United
StfUes throughout the entire controversy, cniiro very largely in a pecuniary point of
view to the benefit of the United States either directly or through their IcBsees, or in
both those ways.

As regards the compensation to be made to those engaged in the sealing industry,
the negotiations have made much progress, but are now at a critical point. 1 think
that the difference between us is partly due to the different points of view from which
we regard fb.e matter. Your point of view is that the sealing industry, even if allowed
to continue as nt piesent, could not la.st long niul could not be profitable. This is not

129

our point of view. Whilst we admit that pelagic sealing has had the eflFect of
diminishing the numhers of the seal herd, our impression is that a state of things has
been brouglit ahout, in which, though not increasing in numbers, the seal her.l may not
continue to diminish. I have done my bes*^ to ascertain, without the slightest prejudice
in favour of the sealers, whether sealing as now conducted and with the prii^es >vliich now
prevail is a profitable occupation or not. I have come to the conclusion that it is. And
it must be remembered that prices are now decidedly abov" their worst, and although
they may, of course, relapse, it is at least as probalile that they may reach a highur point
than the present. At all events, I liave satisfied myself that the sealing population
entertain a strong convicticm that it would be better for them to continue their iniUistry
than to be bought out, and that they would not submit to tliis with satisfaction even if
the conipoDsation suggested on our part were provided for tbeui. 'i'hey may be wrong
in the views which they entertain, but they liave surely as aiuch right to entertain ih'ise
views as the Gloucester fishermen have to entertain tiieirs with regard to the effect of
the suggested arrangement as to " free fish." The views ol the Glou'.'ester fishermen
have practically closed the negotiations tor siieii an arrangement. Whilst I do not mean
to suggest that I or my colleagues would allow the views of tlie sealers conclusively to
control our settlement of the matter, we feel thrit we are in honour hound, not to
stipulate for less compensation, for men who are to be suddenly called upon by the
power of the State to discontinue their callinir than in our judgment tliey ought to he
fairly content with. Moreover, it must he remembered that if a 'I'reiity were agreed to,
which fell short even of this satisfaction, it would encounter the voliement hostility of the
sealers, and that this would spread widely throughout Canada, anil might endanger the
existence of the present Canadian Government and the ratification of the Treaty.

We are constantly reminded, as we ask for one arrangement or another, that any
Treaty made by the United States requires for its ratification a two-thirds vote in the
Senate, and that this renders the suggested ar'^angement impossible, even though the
United States' Commissioners might themselves approve of tliem. May I not in fairaesa
ask that our position should also sometimes be taken into account "- ft i'' surely much
more difficult for us to defend taking a smaller sum than we thiiik reasonably necessary
for the compensation of those whose calling is t > be violently put an end to by the
abandonment of a national right than for ycm to justify a somewhat larger sum than you
may think adequate when the abandonment of that right will, according to the views
insisted upon by the Jnited States for ma.ny years, not only prevent an asset of the
United States from ceasing to have any value, but make it a very valuable one.

The difference between us as regards the amount to be assessed is hapjiily, though
considerable, not really great, in view of the magnitude of the interests involved. I am
prepared to urge a substantial reduction from (be 750,000 dollars named by us, but there
is a point beyond which I could not go, because, in my lionost judgment, it would very
likely be fatal to the Treaty and to the existence of my colleagues as a Government.
The chief obstacle is created by the proposal that the settlement should be on the basis
that the sealers should retain their vessels. We have alwnys insisted on a settlement on
the basis that these should be ceded,jbecause we felt satisfied that this number of vessels
thrown upon the Canadian market, either at once or within a limited interval, would
result in next to nothing being obtained for them. If iliey came to be United States'
property, we believe that they would be a nnich more valuable asset. Moreover, it does
not seem to us right that the sealers, whose business is to be expro])riated for the
benefit of others, should take tiieir chance of what they might obtain. Surely wc, who
are asked to legislate against our own subjects, ought to be allowed a potent voice when
the basis of compensation is to be adjusted. I trust, however, that the ditficulty will not
b(> found insuperable. There would seem to be sufficient interests involved in the
United States to enable a settlement to he arrived at on the basis of the cession of the
vessels and their outfits on the one hand, and an increase of the sum available for
compensation to the sealers on the other.

As regards the consideration to be given for surrendering the national right, when
I ascertained that you were not prepared to make any substantial concessions in the
directions <lesired by u.s, and that no suggestion was offered for an adjustment of this
matter, T confess 1 despaired of a settlement on the lines upon which we had been
proceeding. Later on, however, it occurred to me that an adjustment might in part, if
not altogether, be found in an arrangement that there should be paid to Canada a
certain proportion of the receipts derived from the seals taken on land. I am extremely
pleased to find that this scheme has been favourably viewed. Altlnnigh the percentage
suggested does not seem to us adequate, I entertain a confident hope that we might
arrive at an equitable settlement.

[ll::?] 2 L

180

I pass iKiw to the (luestion of the Alasknn Ijoimdary. In view of the Memuiiiiida
already itHoivocl from and transmitted to you, I am able to treat thiH question hriefly,
though I I'wn I rcjU'ard the situation with respect to it as most threateninj;-. I liavo, in
the Jlemorandum sent in answer to yours of yesterday, pointed out why 1 tliinlc it
essential that the boundary should he delimited throughout, and that this can only
\te done by agreement, or, lading agreement, by arbitration. 1 own I have cIuuk to the
hope that we might settle this boundary question by compromise. " Give and lake " has
often been suggested ns a proper mode of arriving at a settlement of disputed boundary.
It has seemed to me tliat between two nations whose dispo.sition to one another was
friendly, and who neither of them desired to take undue advantage of the other, siieh a
settlement ought not to be impossible. It would, I think, be a lamentable conclusion to
be obliged on this question also to have recourse to arbitration, and to announce to the
world that it was out of the power of the two nations to arrive at an agreement on such
a question.

The only part of the boundary where it is of any grave importance whether your
contenticjn or ours be well-founiled is in tlie neighbourhood of the Lynn Canal. If this
part of the question could be settled by agreement, I do not think tiie rest ol' it would
present substantial difficulty. Our view is that on the true construction of the Treaty
the line ought to be so dra.vn as to leave all the land surrounding the upper part of tlic
Lynn Canal in British territory, and that nothing has been done or happened since the
date of the Treaty to vary the rights which on its true consiruction we were entitled to.
Your contention is that the line ougla to be .so drawn as to include the whole of the land
bordering on the Lynn Canal within the United States.

I quite recogiiize that there are weighty arguments in support of the United States'
view. I do not deny that if tiie mutter went for decision to some independent Tribunal
it might quite possiljly be held to be the correct one, but, o» the other hand, there are
arguments of cogency and foice in support of the British contention, and I am far from
thinking it impossible tliat such a Tribunal as I have mentioned might sustain it. Under
these circumstances, how is it possible for me to accede to the demand that without any
consideration for doing so 1 should agree to have the boundary d^awn according to the
claim of the United States?

I would ask with the utmost earnestness what defence or justification 1 could offer
Were I to do so. 1 should, of course, be met by the inquiry : Did you think there was
nothing in tlie British Case that you abandoned their claim ? Speaking truthfully and
honourably, I could only answer this in the negative.

Why, then, would be the next question : ]3id ^ou without any agreement by way of
compromise abandon the British claim ? To this the only answer could he : Because
the United States demanded the concession, and would make none in return.

I would beg my colleagues to put themselves in my place, and to consider
whether they could themselves do, or could I'airly be asked to do, what is required
of me.

1 have suggested by way of compromise that the boundary-line should leave all the
land bordering on the Lynn Canal within United States' territory, except Pyramid
Harbour and a strip of land behind it, giving access to Canadian territory. This pro-
posal concedes almost the whole of the territory in dispute to the United States.

Even if their claim be much stronger than the British, this would, I submit, be a fair
compromise.

I do not see how 1 could ask less of the disputed territory to be assigned to Great
Britain without practically conceding everything to the United States and abandoning
the entire British claim. 1 named Pyramid Harbour, but should be quite prci)ared to
entertain the suggestion that it should be some harbour other than that.

If, as I have proposed. United States' vessels were to have in any harbour which,
under the suggested compromise, was within the Canadian boundary the same rights in
in all respects as Canadian vessels, T cannot think that any important interest of the
United States would be at all seriously affected. It must be borne in mind that the
United States are entitled al the utmost to a narrow strip of land a few 'uiles deep at
the sides of and at the head of the Lynn Canal, and that this strip of land is of u.se
chiefly if not entirely for the purpose of pas,sage across it into Canadian territory, and,
further, that the United States are entitled to the land on either side of the entrance of
the canal and commanding it.

Surely, under these circumstances, such a compromise as that suggested would, as
between nations negotiating in a friendly spirit ; a very reasonable one. If an
agreement by way of compromise be impossible, t!.* •«; seems to me, as I have pointed
out, to be no other course hut arbitration.

131

The Mcmoraiulum last received indicates a willingness to agree to an arbitration as
to some parts ot the boundary in dispute, but not as to all. JIow can I assent to this
except by conreding the American claim as regards other portions of tlic boundary
without receiving anything in return for this concession ? I cannot see that sucli a ,
suggestion is fair and equitable.

It is proposed specifically tliat there should Ije a submission to arbitration of the
question whether the line drawn from Prince of Wales' Island along the Portland Canal
passes to the south or to the north of Wales' and Pearse's Islands. With wliat reason
can I be expected to submit that question to arbitration so long as the United States
are unwilling to submit to the same arbitrament tlic (jucstion of the boundary in the
neighbourhood of the Lynn Canal, when in my opinion the title of Great Hritain under
the Treaty to Wales' and Pearse's Islands is far clearer and nmch less open to dispute
than that of the United States to the land round the northern part of the Lynn Canal ?

I am quite alive to the difficulties which might arise if an arbitral Tribunal were
to decide that Dyea and Skagway, which have been for a few years occupied by the
United States, were in British territory. I have shown myself willing to ease the situa-
tion and avoid these difficulties by suggesting an agreement that Dyca and Skagway
should belong to the United States in any event, but I feel sure that you will see that I
ask nothing more than is. just when I claim some concession in return for it, which is to be
independent of the contingency of the arbitration.

I can assure you that I am and have been throughout most anxious to find a solution of
the questions at issue which should be fair to us. and, as far as jiossible, acceptable to you.
I have tried to look at them in every light, and to see your side of them a.s completely as
my own.

I should be unwilling to obtain more than I thought a fair equivalent for what I
gave, because what I above all things desire is a Treaty which shall be felt on all sides
to be a reasonably fair and common-sense settlement of questions not a little difficult
and complicated.

Believe me, &c
(Signed) HERSCHELL.

Incloaure 15 in No. 12-i.

Draft of an Article respecting the use of Harbours in the Lynn Canal.
(Received from Senator Fairbanks, Decei. i)er li.)

IT is further agreed, on the part of the United States, that all commercial vessels
of the Dominion of Canada shall have froe ingress and cgnvss to and from the Lynn
Canal in the territory of Alaska, and to and from any port or harbour thereof, as freely.
and on the same terms, and subject to the same conditions as the co)nuicrcial vessels of
the United States, and subject to no other charges or restrictions than those applied to
like vessels of the United States. All merchandize arriving at any port established on
said canal and destined to any place in the D< minion of Canada may be landed at such
port for transit across the intervening- territory of Alaska without the payment of duty,
under such proper Regulations of the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States as
shall be required for the prelection of the revenue. For the greater facility of such
transit trade, it is further agreed that the Dominion of Canada may establish at such
port an office, with neces'sary agents, for the supervision of such transit aiid (if so desired)
for the collection of Canadian customs duties on all merchandize in transit as afore-
said.

In like manner, all merchandize arriving from Canada at the inland f'nmtier of
Alaska and destined for export by way of said canal to any foreign eonntry, or to any
Canadian port, may be transported from said frontier to the part of exportation on the
said canal, and may be thence exported without the payment of duties thereon, under such
proper Regulations for the protection of the revenue as the Secretary of the 'JVeasury
of the United States shaU prescribe.

The Secretary of the Treasury of the United States and the .Minister of Trade and
Commerce of the Dominion of Canada may, by common accord, make such additional
Regulations for giving ell'ect to the foregoing provisions as they shall find appropriate
and expedient.

182

Inclosure 10 in No. 124.
Memorandum respecting firing the Boundary in Alaska,
(Received t'rora Senator Fairbanks, December 14.)

THE -Joint Hijrh Commission, in inirsunnce of the stipulation contained in the last
clause of Article I of the Convention of the 22nd July, 1892, " will proceed to consider
and establish the boundary-line in question."

To this end they will consult the Report and surveys of the Commission appointed
under the said Convention, and agree upon the points by longitude and latitude where
the eastern boundary-line crosses the rivers named in the proposed surveys mentioned
in the correspondence between the two Governments in 1873-7.') (see Canadian Sessional
Papers, vol. xi, No. 12.'j, 1878, pp. 10, 28, 37, &c.) and such other rivers and points as
may be agreed upon.

They will further provide for the fixation and marking by a Joint Commission of
experts of the said points of the boundary agreed upon.

Inclosure 17 in No. 124.

Memorandum respecting the Lynn Canal.

(Given to Senator Pairbanks, December 16.)

THE proposed Article in reference to the Lynn Canal assumes the boundary to be
so fixed as, in accordance with the contention of the United States and contrary to the
contention of Great Britain, to give the whole of the shores of the Lynn Canal to the
United States.

It thus decides the entire question there at issue in favour of the United States,
and gives only certain very limited commercial concessions in relation to the ports on
the canal to Canada.

The British members of the Committee arc unable to regard this as a fair and equit-
able settlement of the question of boundary. They propose, in lieu thereof, that it should be
agreed that the United States should have the whole of the land bordering on the Lynn
Canal except Pyramid Harbour and a strip of land from that harbour to the boundary-
line, such as to secure access thereto by the Dalton trail. This would give almost the
whole of the disputed territory in that region to the United States, and even supposing
the force of the claim of the United States to that territory to be considerably stronger
than that of Great Britain, would seem to be a just and equitable settlement by way
of compromise of the dispute.

As regards Pyramid Harbour, the British Commissioners would assent to an
agreement giving equal rights to United States' and Canadian vessels in that
harbour.

If this should not be accepted the Briti.sh Commissioners propose, as an alternative,
that provision sliould be made for the delimitation of the boundary by legal and scientific
experts, with a stipulation that, should Great Britain be found entitled to the land
bordering on the upper part of the Lynn Canal, Dyea and Skagway, with a strip behind
them to the present provisional boundary-line, .should, nevertheless, belong to the United
States, whilst, on the other hand, should the United States be found entitled to the
land bordering on the upper part of that canal. Pyramid Harbour and a strip of land
securing access to the boundary by Dalton trail should belong to Canada.

Should neither of these proposals be acceptable, there seems to be no alternative
but to leave the question of boundary to be determined according to the true construc-
tion of the Treaty of 1825 (and a consideration of other circumstances if, and so far as,
they affect tlmt determination) by legal experts.

133

IncIo8ure 18 in No. 124.
Memorandum respectino the Alaska Boundary.
(Given to Senator Fairbanks, December 16.)

THE question of the boundary in the neighbourhood of the Lynn Canal haring
been separately dealt with from the rest of the boundary in diupute, it has been thought
convenient to continue this separate treatment for the moment.

It is to be observed that, whilst as regards the Lynn Canal there is to be a
complete surrender of all territorial claims by Great Britain, the proposals made offer
no concession to the British view in other parts of the boundary, although, in the
opinion of the British members of the Committee, their position as to the territory in
disput* there is very greatly stronger than the position of the United States in claiming
the territory round the Lynn Canal.

They are unable to understand the object of the proposal that the boundary should
be determined only at points where it was thought desirable a quarter of a century n^^o
that the boundary should be fixed, and at any other agreed points. The circumstaiwes
at the present time are, in their opinion, altogether different, and the obligation appears
to be imposed on them to provide for a delimitation of the whole of the boundary from
its southernmost point to the point where the boundary-line encounters the 141st degree
of longitude. Any other course appears to them open to the gravest objections. They
are quite wiUing to endeavour to fix this boundary by, agreement with the United
States' Commissioners, but this will be impracticable if it can only be attained by a
surrender throughout of what they believe to be the rights o^ Great Britain. It can
only be accomplished on the basis of concessions on both sides, which can be regarded
as fair equivalents. If no agreement is possible, the only mode of making " provisions
for the delimitation and establishment of the Alaska-Canadian boundary " seems to
them to be by means of legal and scientific experts.

Inclorare 19 in No. 124.

Memorandum rvith respect to the Points for Fixing the Alaskan Boundary.

(Bicceived from Senator Fairbanks, December 20.)

THE proposition as to the Kxation and marking of the eastern boundary on the
rivers and at the points to be agreed upon is modified or enlarged, su as to provide —

1. For a submission to arbitration of the question ■• .w" ler the line drawn from the
southernmost point of Prince of Wales' Island in the j. -^'eijor .54° 40', to and along
the Portland Canal, passes to the south or to the north of Wales' and Pearse's
Islands; and

2. In case of failure to agree upon the place on the rivers and other points
indicated where the eastern boundary crosses thcni, such matter of difference shall
likewise be submitted to arbitration.

Inclosure 20 in No. 124.
I
Memorandum as to proposed Agreement for Fixing the Alaskan Boundary.

(Sent to Senator Fairbanks, December 22.)

I AM not sure that I understand the new proposal, but I gather that it is intended
to limit the " fixation and marking " of the Alaskan boundary to certain points to he
agreed upon, and also to limit it to the eastern boundary, thus excluding, as I understand,
the northern boundary. Moreover, there is no provision as to what is to be done if an
agreement is not arrived at as to the points where the boundary is to be fixed.

[1127] 2 M

IM

The proposal nppears to me (juitc inadinis&iblc q9 a solution of the question. The
Protocol on tills subject which deHCvihes the purpose for which the High Commission wat
appointed ia in these terms: "Provisions (iir the delimitution and establifhment of the
Alasku-Caimdian boundary by legal and scientific experts, if the Commission shall so
decide, or otherwise."

This apptaiv to me to re.-^der it our duty to make provisions for the delimitation
and establishment r>f the boundary between Canadii and Alaska throughout, and not
merely at particular pieces. To adopt the latter course would be, as it seems to me, to
fail to discharge the duty in terms imposed upon us. Moreover, it would, in my opinion,
be very mischievous td leave the boundary in part undetermined and without any pro-
vision for its delimitation. It would be to court futi:ro differences which the very object of
our mission is to render impossible. In a case of disputed boundary between two
countries, thcie seem to me to be only two ways in which a ditt'erence of opinion can be
aoiusted. Those wavs are: agreement between the parties, or an adjustment of tbeir
legal rights by independent per:ons. If the former be impossible, the latter seems the
only alternative open, and it is one which was unques.ionably in contemplation as
possible.

it has been suggested that the view of Great Britain that the upper part of the
Lynn Cai'al is within her boundary is an arterthouglit, and oiily recently adopted. This
is quite a mistake.

In a report made in 1886 by an official who had been instructed by the British
Government to investigate and report on the ([uestion of the A'as' ')oundary, reasons
were stated at great length for coming to the conclusion that the part of the canal

was within Hritish territory. More recently an official of the C Office, reporting

on the question, whilst not adopting in its entirety the Canadian view as to the boundary
generally, maintained strongly, and gave his reasons lor eu doing, that the upper part of
the Lynn Canal was within the British boundary.
iVashington, December lil, 1898.

Sir.

No. 125.

Sir J. Pmmcefote to the Marquess of Salisbury. — {Received December 31.)

(No. 33. Treaty.)

My Lord, Washington, December 22, 1898.

ON the 20tli September last I received from tic Governor-General of Canada
a despatch, of which I have the honour to inclose a copy herewith, respecting
the arrest of one Thomas Meagher by a United States' Deputy Collector of Customs
named Avery in the River St, Clair, which forms the boundary between the State of
Michigan and Canada.

In the opinion of the Canadian authorities, this act constituted a forcible
abduction of a Canadiarx subject from Caniidiau territory.

I at once laid the case before the .Department of State, with a request for
immediate inquiry, with a view to making such rejiaration as the circumstances
might be found to call for. Mr. llay referred the matter to the proper authorities
for inve8ti;:;ation, and on the 19tli November sent me the incloscfl Memorandum
by the United States' Attorney-General, which I at once forwarded to the Government
of Canada.

I have the honour to transmit herewith Lord ilinto's reply to this communica-
tion, with its inclosurcs, from which yoiu* Lordship will perceive that I am rctjuested
to communicate to the United States' GoA^ernmeut the opinion of the Dominion
Government that they are entitled to ask that the prosecution against Meagher be
abandoned, without prejudice to sueli claim for compensation as he may be found to
have, and that Avery be surrendered to the Canadian authorities to be tried in
Canada for the offence of having forcibly abducted Meagher from Canada.

The case has assumed such invportauce that I do not propose to take any further
step pending instructions from your Lordship.

I would suggest that perhaps the '/ost method of dealing with it would be to
obtain the consent of the United States' Government that it should be referred to the
Joint High Commission, who have separated for the Christmas holidays, but meet
again on the oth January.

185

I should bo much obliged if I could bo loformcd by tolej^raph bcforo tbat date
■wbother I am autUorizod to adopt this method of procedure.

I have, &c.
(Signed) rULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

luclosure 1 in No. 125.
The Earl of Aberdeen to Sir J. Pnuncefote,

Sir,

The Citadel, Quebec, September 20, 1898.
I HAVE the honour to forward herewith copy of ii letter from the Do])artiiient
of the Secretary of State of Canada, tr.iusmittinf? copies of letters and affidavits in
regard to the alleged forcible abduction from Canadian teiTitory of one Thomas
Meagher by a United States' official to the United States, where he is now detained.

I shall be obliged if your Excellency will be good enough to make this matter the
subject of such representations to the United States' Government as you may consider
likely to insure the speedy liberation of this man from custody.

I have, &c.
(Signed) ABERDEEN.

Inclosure 2 in No. 125.

Mr. Pelletier to the Governor-General's Secretary, Ottawa.

Department of the Secretary of State, Ottawa,
Sir, September 17, 1898.

AT the instance of the Minister of Justice, I have the honour to transmit to you
herewith copies of the letters of M. K. Cowan, M.l'., and of affidavits referring to the
abduction of one Thomas Meagher, and to request that his Excellency may be moved
to forward the same to Her Majesty's Ambassador at WashJugton for the purpose of
being communicated to the proper authorities of the L^nited States.

I am further to state tbat it is assumed the Government of the United States will,
under the circumstances, lose no time in setting Meagher at liberty.

I have, &o.
(Signed) P. PELLETIER,

Acting Under-Secretary of State.

Inclosure 3 in No. 125.

Mr, Cowan to Mr. B. Mills.

Dear Sir, Windsor, Ontario, August 30, 1898.

HEREWITH I inclose you affidavits of Thomas Meagher, complainant, and
Samuel D. Craig and Alexander Weber, eye-witn(!sses, which speak for themselves.
I have this morning had a conversation with Mr. Lucking, partner of Maybury,
Mayor of Detroit, who is acting for Meagher. lie informs me that twenty-five
affidavits can be got if necessary. We are anxious to have this man extradited. Will
you kindly let me know by return mail what steps are uecessai-y (1st) to procure his
extradition, (2nd) to make a claim for compensation against the American Govern-
ment. Could you not make application for his extradition from Ottawa. J am also
writing Mr. Hardy, and inclosing him a copy of the affidavits. The affidavits inclosed
you are originals, as you will observe, and the certificate of the Notary before ^»hom
the same were taken is attached to them. Meagher's preliminary examination will
take place in about a couple of weeks.

Yours truly,
(Signed) M. K. COWAN.

186

Inclosure 4 in No. 126.
Mr. Cowan to Mr. D. Mills.

My dear Mr. Mills, Windsor, Ontario, September 8, 1898.

HEREWITH I inclose you copy of a letter received this morning by me from
J. E. Cartwright, Deputy Attorney-General. I also return you affidavits which jvere
forwarded to you, and which you return to me. You had hetter retain these, as they
set out all the facts in connection with this case. I think a claim should be made or.
the Washington authorities for the return of Meagher to Canada, Dnd aft«r that i»
secured, we will then make u claim for compensation. I am writing the Deputy
Attorney-General to-day.

I remain, &c.
(Signed) M. K. COWAN.

Inclosure 5 in No. 126.

Mr, J. R. Cartwright to Mr. Cowan.

Dear Sir, V^indsor, Ontario, September 7, 1898.

KEFEKRING to your letter of the 30th ultimo, I beg to say that, assuming
the facts to be as alleged, it appears, to say the least, very doubtful whether the case
is one of abduction within the Treaty. It would aeem rather a matter for diplo-
matic remonstrances loo'-ing to the return of Meagher than one for extrrdition
proceedings.

Yours truly,
(Signed) J. R. CARTWRIGHT.

Inclosure 6 in No. 125.
Deporition rj Mr. Thomas Meagher.

State of Michigan, County of Wayne, ss. :

THOMA.S MEAGHER (commonly spelled Mahor). being duly sworn, deposes
and says that he resides in the township of Chatham, county "^f Kent, Ontario,
where he has resided for the past fourteen years, bis residence being about 3| milcn
from the village of Port Lambton, Ontario.

Deponent is i^5 years of age, unmarried, and live? with his father and mother
at the place aforesairl. Doponcnt and his father together constructed, about five
years ago, a smull iteam-launeh which depi lent was navigating in the River
St. Clair on the morning of the 19th August, a.d. 1838, when deponent s boat was
about 300 or 400 feet below the Marshland Club-house near the American short,
and was just turning his boat around to go up stream when he was approached by
Mr. Henry Avery, who resides, as deponent understands it, a jmrt of the year at
Port Huron and pari of the year at his summer residence on the north "hannel of
the St. Clair River, so called.

Avery was in a row boat with a man by the name of Louis Benoir. Avery asked
deponent if "he had any eggs." Deponent said, "None to sell." He then aslonl
deponent if ho v.ould tow him up-stream as far as Joe Bedoro's, and ridponent con-
sented, took the line of the boat, and started up-stream and across the river. Aft«r
going a short distance Avery asked leave to get on the launch, and deponent ga.,; him
leave. He drew alongside and got into the laimch. He stood near tlie engine for a
time and asked ho'v it worked ; then he went forward, and he observed a box of eggr.
which Jay in full view. He then exclaimed in substance *" deponent " You're a
damned liar, you have got eggs." Deponent said, " I told you I had no eggs to
sell."

137

At this time deponent's boat Tras about in th*! middle of the channel going up
stream and towards the Canadian shore. Dcponei^t was taking the Canadian side,
because there was less current than on the ^Vmencan side and a shorier distance.
Then Avery asked deponent to take the American side. Deponent said, " No, he
was going up the Canadian side." Avery then demauded that he himself should steer,
which deponent declined. Avery then grabbed 0:10 tiller rope, and in the struggle
for possession of the same between depoaent and Avery, the steering apparatus waa
thrown out of gear.

Th3 boat had been headed partially towards the Canadian shore, and by the
accident to the steering gear the boat he idcd full towards the Canadian side, and in a
few moments ran aground on the Canadian shore nearly opposite the Marshland Club.
It was as near as may be directly opposite the ^ mmer residence of Samuel D. Craig,
of Detroit, Michigan.

Before striking ground Avery pulled out a revolver, and, pointing it i»t deponent,
shouted : " If you do t .o'_ stop tlie engine while I am counting three I will shoot you,"
accompanying it \vitl> otlier vile "anguage. Deponent made no reply, and cMd not stop
the engine. As the boat struck tlie sliorc deponent jumped out on the land-, where
there was about C 'iches of water. Avery grabbed deponent as he jumped over the
side, and he called to Benoir to bandcutf deponent. Deponent struggled to free
himself and avoid being handcuffed, aud Avery shouted to Benoir to " slug him with
the handcuffs." Tenoir struck at dtsponent with the handcuffs, but did not hit him, and
deponent freed one hand, and struck Benoir in the face Deponent did not hit nor
injure Avery in any way. They finally overpowered deponent, dragged him into their
boat, and handcuffed him. They then rowed across to the Riverside Hotel. Avery
then took dc^ionent upstairs in the hotel into a small bed-room, and handcuffed him to
the bed-post One cuff was around deponent'': 'ijft wiist and the other around the
bed-post, and all done in such a way that deponent could neither lie down nor stand
up, but was oiiliged to sit on the side of the bed.

All of the foregoing transpired between the hours of 11 and 12 o'clock, Detroit
city time, ilic lOti; August, 1898.

Within an hour after deponent was confined in the bed-room Avery brought from
eight to ten diffen^nt ladies, opened the bod-room door, and showed deponent to them.
Some of tbem refused to step inside of the bed-room. Deponent heard Avery say on such
occasions : Come and have a look at him." About two hours after deponent wad
firet put in the bed-room Mr. Samuel U. Craig and Mr. Alexander Weber tiilked
to deponent through the transom over the door of the bed-room. Deponent was given
his dinner and supper by employes of the hotel. At bed time Avery came to the
room and changtHl the handcuffs in such a way that deponent could lie down, but he
was still handcuffed all night. In the morning deponent was changed tack to the
original position, and lie was kept han,(cuffed in that position until about 11 o'clock,
when Avery and said Craig canu; together to the room, and the handcuffs were

removed, and deponent was permitte{'
handcuffed, and was taken down by
where the handcuffs were remove^
handcuffs, and finally prevailed upc .'
togi.'tlier. Soon the regulai' steam

to wash his hands and face. He was again
. iig aud Avery to the bar-room of the hotel,
Craig pleaded with Avery to remove the
'.cry to do so. All three had a glass of wine
.■ Port Huron approached the dock, aud i> jry
again started to put the handcuffs ou deponent, but, on the inti rvention of Mr. (^raig,
aud assurances from this dcpoiiGnt that he v;ould not seek to get away, Avery
conseuLcd to leave off the handcuffs. He t^jok deponent ou the steamer to Port Huron,
where deponent was put in the county gaol in the same ward with seven other
prisoners confined for different offences, fiepouent was confined in said county gaol
continuously from Saturday, the :Wth August, at about 5 o'clock in the afternoon,
until 0 o'clock in the evening of the ^fith August, 1898, when he was released on bail.
In the meantime, deponent had been taken twi(;2 before Commissioner E. IT. Harris.
Deponent further says that he was never ' '''--.j arrested in his life, nor charged with
any offence. Deponent understands that he wa.s charged bcfoi'c the Commissioner
with smug^jling one box or cmte of eggs and one-half bushel of red ripe cherries, aud
it is charged in the complaint that (inn smuggling took place on the 7th day of July,
A.D. 1898.

Depuiiout fiu'ther says tlia^ at the time of his- arrest, abduction, and imprisoinntjnt

aforesaid at the Riverside Hotei Avery had no warrant for deponent, and he did not

make known in any way to deponciit why he was arrested, nor did he claim to liavc

any authority to do so, except that at tUe Riveraidc Hotel he said that he was a United

[1127] 2 i\

138

States' officer, but he did not claim that he had any warrant against deponent, or that
any complaint had been made against him.

(Signed) THOMAS FRANCIS MEAGHER.

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 27th day of August, a.d. 1898.
(Signed) Dukbin Newton, Notary Public,

Wayne County, Michigan.

Inclosure 7 in No. 126.

Deposition of Mr. Samuel D. Craig.

State of Michigan, County of Wayne, ss. :

SAMUEL D. CRAIG, being duly sworn, deposes and says that he resides at
Detroit, Michigan, and he has a summer cottage near the Marshland Club, St. Clair
Plats, Harsen's Island, St. Clair County, Michigan. That he is also a member of said
Marshland Club. That deponent is 5'^ years of age., that he has been a Justice of
the Peace for the city of Detroit for four years, that he has been Deputy County
Clerk of Wayne County, Registrar of Probate Court for said County, Under-SherifiE of
Wayne County, Clerk of the Police Court of the city of Detroit, and for five years
and upwards he held the position of Tally Clerk of the House of Representatives of
the United States' Congress.

Deponent knows Henry Avery and Thomas Meagher, both of whom are referred
to and mentioned iu the affidavit of Thomas Meagher, hereunto annexed.
Deponent has read the affidavit of Thomas Meagher hereunto annexed, and knows
its contents. Deponent was close to said parties when Avery first accosted Meagher
and when Meagher took his boat in tow, and deponent saw the entire occurrence
between the parties up to the time that Meagher was taken into the Riverside Hotel,
and deponent knows of his own knowledge that the facts set out in said Meagher's
affidavit detailing said transaction, arrest, al)dii?tion, and confinement in the Riverside
Hotel are true.

Deponent further says that the river is quite narrow opposite the Marshland
Club, that he distinctly saw the entire transaction, including the pointing of the
revolver at the head of Meagher, heard tho siiouts of Avery in which he threatened
to slioot Meagher, saw tlie struggle lietwoen the parties and its precise location, and
deponent swears that said struggle and arrest took place iu Canada, on the Canadian
shore of the St. Clair River, almost directly opposite deponent's summer cottage
aforesaid.

Deponent saw that Meagher had control of his launch until nearly the time
that it struck the ground, and that he had entire control of the engine until that
time. After Meagher was confined in the Riveraide Hotel, deponent requested Avery
to pi;rmit deponent to see MeaglKU-, which he absolutely refused. The proprietor of
tl'o hotel also refused a similar request made to him by deponent after Avery had
left the hotel and gone up the river. Deponent told Avery in conversation that he
had gone outside ot his jurisdiction and authority entirely in making the capture of
Meagher in Canada. Avery said " that he knew his business." Deponent requested
Avery to take Meagher to Port Huron and have him arraigned. Avery declared that
" he knew his business, and that he would keep him there as long as he damned
pleased."

Deponent further says that Meagher was kept confined in the Riverside Hotel
about twenty-four hours. Two regular imssenger-steamers touched at Riverside
after the arrest on the same day he was arrested. Deponent furtlier says that
the arrest was made between the hour? of 11 and 12 o'clock in the forenoon of said
day. After the refusal of Avery and the hotel proprietor to allow deponent to see
Meagher, and about two hours after he was first confined, deponent was permitted by
tho wife of the proprietor to talk through the transom above the bed-room door to
Meagher.

Mr. Alexander Weber was with deponent at this time. They both could see
him through the transom by standing on chairs. Meagher was handcuffed to tho
bed-post iu such inauuer that he was compelled to sit on the side of the bed. He was
in the same position on the next day between 10 and 11 o'clock in the forenoon, when

139

deponent went to the room with Avery, and then occurred what is described in
Meagher's affidavit.

Between the 20th and 26th August deponent saw Meagher twice in the county
gaol at Fort Huron.

And further deponent says not.

(Signed) SAMUEL D. CRAIG.

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 27th day of August, a.d. 1898.
(Signed) Dcebin Newton, Notary Public,

Wayne County, Michigan.

Incloiure 8 in No. 126.

Deposition of Mr. Alexander Weber,

State of Michigan, County of Wayne, ss. :

ALEXANDER WEBER, being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is a resident
of Detroit, Michigan, and is 45 years of age ; that he owns a summer cottage on
Harsen's Island, St. Clair County, Michigan, next door to that of Samuel D. Craig
and about 100 feet distant. That in the forenoon of the 19th August, a.d. 1898,
deponent was on his own premises aforesaid, and he saw what transpired between
Henry Avery, Deputy Collector of Customs, and Thomas Meagher, as detailed in che
affidavits of Thomas Meagher and Samuel D. Craig hereunto attached, and which this
deponent has read.

When Avery approached Meagher deponent was near enough to hear the
conversation between them, and the entire occurrence took place in plain view of
deponent. Deponent says that the account of said transaction given by Thomas
Meagher and Samuel D. Craig i' aid affidavits is accurate and correct. Deponent is
thoroughly familiar with the :^hbourhood in question, having dwelt there in
summers for about fifteen years, hkI he says that said struggle and ^rrest took place
on the Canadian shore of said St Clair lliver. this deponent saw Meagher over-
powered and taken into the boat of Averj- by A •■ cry and Benoir, and carried across to
and confined in the Riverside Hotel. Deponiut saw Meagher ii the bed-room hand-
cuffed to the bed-post. This deponent saw by standing on chair and looking
through a transom. Deponent lias known Meagher for three or four years past from
seeing him pass up and down in his steam-launch. Deponent says that the arrest of
Meagher took place, as near as he can fix the hour, between 11 and V2 ')'elock in the
forenoon of said day. Deponent says that he should think tliat in the neighbourhood
100 people saw the transaction.

And further deponent says not.

(Signed) ALEXANDER WEBER.

Subscribed and sworn to before mo this 27th day of August, a .
(Signed) Dubbin Newton, Notary Public,

Wayne County, Mich'ujan.

1898.

Copy of Certificate attached to the above Affidavit.

No. 1831. — Notarial Jurat.

State of Michigan, County of Wayne, ss. :

I, Henry M. Reynolds, Clerk of the said County and Clerk of the Circuit Court
for the County of Wayne, which is a Court of Record having a seal, do hereby certify
that Durbin Newton, whose name is subscribed tfl the Jurat of the annexed instru-
ments and therein written, was, a< tlis time of taking such Jurat, a Notary Public in
and for said county, duly commissioned and qualified, and duly autliorized to tako tho
same.

140

And, further, that I am well acquainted with the handwriting of such Notary
Public, aucl verily believe that tho siguulure to the said Jurat is genuine.

In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand i)"d affixed the seal of the
said Court and County, at Detroit, this 27th day of August, a.d. 1898.

(Signed) HENEY M. REYNOLDS, Clerk.

(By Walter H. To\\ers, Deputy Clerk.)

Inclosure 9 in No. 125.

Colonel Hay to Sir J. Paunvefote.

My dear Sir .Tulian, Department of State, Wa.ihingtnn, November 19, 1898.

PURSUANT to the conversation between you and Mr. Hill on the 15th November
relating to the arrest of Thomas Meagher by Henry Avery, United States' Deputy, in
which it was arranged that a Memorandum by the Attorney-General upon this case
should be transmitted to you, I send herewith the inclosed Memorandum.

Very truly yours,
(Signed) JOHN HAY.

Inclosure 10 in No. 125.

Memorandum as to the Case of Thomas Meagher {or Maker).

MAHER is cliai'ged with smuggling in the eastern district of Michigan, and
alleges that he was forcibly abducitod into the United States from Oanataan territory
without warrant. Tlie facts, as reported by the United States' Attorney, are as
follows : —

Thomas Meagher (or Maher) was arrested by Henry L. Avery, a Deputy ( 'oUector
of Customs for the district of Huron, Michigan, on the St. Clair River, on the 21st
August, 1898, and on the following day defendant was taken before United States'
Commissioner E. W. Harris, charging him (Meagher), under B. S. Section 3082,
with .smuggling certain merchandize; temporary bail was fivofi at 1,000 dollars, and
none being ofTored the defendant was committed to the cstody of the United States'
Marshal. The bail was subsequently reduced to 300 dollars, and was furnished on the
26th August, 1898. After some adjournments, which were had upon the motion of
defendant's counsel, the examination was bad before United States' Commissioner
Harris on the 7th September, 1898. The Oovemment offered testimony in ])roof of
tiu! charge, which was not disputed, and the Commissioner thereupon announced that
he would hold the defendant to await the. action of the Grand Jury ; but, at the
reciuest of counsel for defendant, held the examination open to ^^■"f t.he defendant iin
opportunity to procure a new bond to onswcir any indictment whicti might be
presented against him. No defence was made on the examination. On the 13th
September, 1898, the Commissioner made an oi-dcr holding the defendant to await the
action of the Grand Jury, and the defendnit Avas readmitted to bail.

The United States' Attorney has reei iitly been directed to present the case to the
Federal Grand Jury at Detroit on the 17tli instant, and if an indictment is found to
hold the ease in statu quo, and not t' proceed to trial for thirty days or until
further instructions are given.

Meagher has made some compl.iint nf harsh treatment and indignities afttir his
arrest and while he was in custody. The testimony offered on behalf of the United
States at the examination tends to show that the defendant has been guilty of
smuggling on repeated occasions. As to the charge of forcible abduction, it appears
from the testimony that Meagher was arrested by the Deputy Collector of Customs
upon the former's boat in American waters, and that after such arrest Meagher
headed his boat tor the Canadian shore, which was finally reached; there, on the
Canadian shore, or in the shallow water contiguous thereto, Meagher was over-
powered by the deputy and by another man who nceompanied the deputy to a.ssist him,
and retaken to the American side. There appears to be no doubt from the testimony

141

that the Deputy Collector boarded Meagher's boat and made the arrest in American
waters, and that during the struggle which ensued the boat crossed the line into
CJanarlian waters, and ultimately ran aground on the Canadian shore ; that Meagher
did not escape from the Deputy Collector and was not recaptured, but that the act of
arrest wliicli he resisted was continuous until he was finally overpowered and brought
hack to the American side. The circumstance that Meagher was in a boat on water,
and was so far in control of the tiller as to head the boat towards the Canadian shore,
and the additional circumstance that he resisted the process and endeavoured to escape,
were the only reasons why ho succeeded in crossing the line temporarily, being imme-
diately brought back, and why the arrost was not completed and perfecterl, and
Meagher's resistance overpowered on the American side of the line.

In the correspondence on the subject, referring to the case of Peter Martin in the
volume of " Foreign llelations for 1877," pp. 200-271, it has been suggested that the
fundamcMifal position of this Government was that the recapture of Martin in the
United States was unlawful, and that this was tlie basis of its olaim of Martin's
unlawful imprisonment under the sentence for the original offence committed in
Canada, as well as for the subsequent a.ssault committed in United States' territory.
But the imprisonment under the latter .sentence was unlawful, because it was imposed
in punishment of an alleged crime committed within the jurisdiction of the United
States; and, conceding as to the recapture, it must be remembered that Martin
escaped and was actually recaptured in our territory. In the present case, however,
there is the broad distinction that the oftence was committed in' the United States ;
that Meagher was captured and placed under arrest in tlie United States ; that he was
not recaptured in Canada, but merely crossed the line temporarily and, so to speak,
accidentally, imder the peculiar circumstances of the case, in consequence of his o\ra
tortious conduct and the aggravation of his original offence by resisting arrest and
endeavouring to escape. He was immediately brought back to the United States, as
part of the original act of arrest made and technioally carried into effect there.

In the Martin ca«e, the restraint was illegal when placed upon Martin in the
United States. In this case, the restraint was not illegal liecause it was not placed
upon Meagher in Canada, but in the United States.

Can it, therefore, be successfully contended, under these circumstances, that alj
punitive process falls absolutely at the boundary-line of the country when that line is
crossed by a criminal under arrest endeavouring to escape, who thereby aggravates his
original offence, and that illegal restraint was put upon Meagher in Canada, and that
bringing him back from Canada immediately after he has crossed the line without
breaking the continuity of the arrest is a violation of the sovereignty of the Dominion
of Canada ? Under such circumstances, both Governments are interested in reaching
a result which will strengthen rather than weaken the administration of the law. It
is not asserted as a principle of international law that an officer of one sovereignty
may exercise in another sovereignty any compulsive force whatever over the citizens
or .subjects of the latter ; but, in keeping in view the facts shown in the case and the
mutual interests of both Governments in the subject, which affects an extensive
boundary on land as well as on water, it is submitted that there was no invasion or
infraction of the sovereignty of the Dominion of Canada in this ease ; that there was
no intention on the ])art of the officer of the United States to exercise power in any
other sovereignty or to pursue and retake an otfender there, and there was in reality
no such result. Tae officer of the United States made an arrest Avithin the territory
of the United States. When the line was accidentally crossed he retained eonti"ol of
his prisoner, and brought him back immediately, without any cessation of the process
of arrest.

It is submitted that the tortious conduct of the offender, which compelled the
officer of the United States to cross the Canadian line, cannot be taken as justification
of himself, or as constituting upon the part of the officer of the United Statiss any real
breach of the sovereignty of the Dominion of Canada.

It is linallv submitted that, inasmuch as a case might occur in which Canadian
process under similar circumstances would require to be vindicated and upheld,, it is to
the common interest of both Governments to provide for mutual recognition of their
respective process and warrant, so far as such facts as are here involved demand.

[1137]

2 0

142

Inclosure 11 in No. 126.

OovernoT'Oeneral the Earl of Minto to Sir J. Pauncefote.

Sir, Government House, Ottawa, December 15, 1898.

IN reply to your Excellency's despatch of the 22nd ultimo, transmitting
copy of a Memorandum j)repared by the Attorney-General of the TJnited States in
regard to the abduction from Canada of one Thomas Meagher, I have the honour to
inclose herewith a copy of a letter from the Department of tlie Secretary of State of
Canada covering copy of a Memorandum drawn up by my Mi)iister of .Justice, who,
your Excellency will observe, is of opinion that the circumstances warrant a request
tliat the prosecution against Meagher be abandoned witliout prejudice to any claim
for compensation he may be found to have, and that Avery, the oflBcer who effected
his arrest, should be surrendered to be tried in Canada for the offence of having
forcibly abducted Meagher from this country.

I have, &o.
(Signed) MINTO.

Inclosure 12 in No. 125.

Mr. Pelletier to the Gnvernor-Oeneral's Secretary, Ottawa.

■ Department of the Secretary of State, Ottawa,
Sir, December 12, 1898.

WITH reference to Sir Julian Pauncefote's despatch of the 22nd ultimo, covering
copy of a Memorandum of the Attorney-General of the United States in relation to
the abduction from Canada of one Thomas Meagher, I have the honour to transmit a
Memorandum prepared by the Minister of Justice in reply, and to recommend that
his Excellency the Governor-General bo humbly moved to send a copy of the same to
Sir Julian Pauncefote for communication to the proper authorities of the United
States ; and that his Excellency be also moved to intimate that, under the circum-
stances, he is advised that the Government of Canada is entitled to ask that the
prosecution against Meagher be abandoned, without prejudice to such claim for com-
pensation as he may be found to have, and that Avery be surrendered to the Canadian
authorities to be tried in Canada for the offence of having forcibly abducted Meagher
from Canada.

I have, &c.
(Signed) P. PELLETIER,

Acting Under-Secretary of State.

Indosure 13 in No. 125.
y.Iemorandum as to the Case of Thomas Meagher.

I UAVE before me a Memorandum of the Attorney-General of the United States
in reference to the illegal arrest and detention of Thomas Meaghc>r, and upon which I
desire to make the following observations : —

The facts, as reported to me, show that Mr. Meagher, at the time the Deputy
Collector of Customs (Avery^ liailed him, was near the boundary between Canada and
the United State?, iu the St. Clair River, on the Canadian side. Avery, the Deputy
Collector of Cuscoms at Port Huron, and another man, both of whom were in a skiff,
asked Meagher to take them in tow, and they throw him a line from their boat.
After he complied with Avery's wish, Avery asked to be admitted into Meagher's
vpcLi, to see her machinery. T(j this Meagher gave his assent and took Avery on
board, the other man romainiug in the skiff. Avery then requested Meagher to run
across the river to the American shore, but this Meagher refused. Then Avery tried
to take the wheel, or tiller, from him and turn the yacht in that direction, l)ut
Meagher unshippad the tiller, turned on steam, and ran directly for the Canadian
shore. When Avery saw that Meagher would not obey hira ho drew a revolver,
cocked it, and said he would give him wliilehe counted three to comply, and if he did

im

La

so

pui

gu:

wa

148

not obey him he would shoot ; and he commenced counting one, two, three, but did
not shoot. lie then struck Meagher with a handcufif after the yacht had reached the
Canadian shore. In the struggle which there ensnwl Avery dropped his pistol into
the river, and he called to his assistant in the skiff to give him another handcuff.
When he succeeded in arresting Meagher, he forcibly took him into his own skiff and
conducted him to the American side of the Rivsr St. Clair, leaving Meagher's yacht
and the other man on the Canadian shore.

These are the facts as they transpired in Canada.

If Meagher was on the American side of the boundary-line when he was first
hailod by Avery, he was there by virtue of a right secured to him under Treaty with
the United States, which makes the navigation of the River St. Clair, from bank to
bank, common to both countries.

Meagher, I understand, claims to have been on the Canadian side of the boundary,
in the River St. Clair, when Avery came on board his yacht ; so that it is not accurate
to say that any arrest was made in American waters. Meagher was not put under
arrest when Avery first came on board ; he was requested to steer his boat to the
American shore, which, if ho had complied with, he would not, in all probability,
have been informed that there was any intention of arresting him, until he had landed
on the Ur''^')d States' side; but when he refused to comply with Mr. Avery's request,
then Mr. A>ory undertook to take forcible control of the yacht.

If Mr. Meagher had beon legally arrested on the American side of the bouudary-
line, the arrest could not be regarded as a continuous arrest. It was made under the
authority of the United States' Municipal Law, which operates only within the tei-ritory
of the Republic.

Once Meagher's boat was upon the Canadian side of the boundary, Avery possessed
no legal authority from the United States which could there be enforced. He was
under Canadian Law and not under the Law of the United States ; and it was a gross
violation of the sovereignty of Her Majesty in the Dominion of Canada for an official
of the United States' Customs Department to undertake forcibly to seize a British
subject on British soil, to put. him in irons, and to carry him to the United States' side
of the boundary.

Whatever authority the Deputy Collector (Avery) may have had in tlie United
States, ii, came to an end when the boundary-line was crossed. If Meagher was.
upon the American side when arrested his seizure on the Caiiadian shore was a fresh
taking within Canadian jurisdiction, and, therefore, without authority. The rule is
well settled, and the municipal laws of the United States, like the municipal laws of
any other country, operate within the United States and not elsewhere, as the
authority of every nation is absolute and exclusive within its own territory
(Church V. Hubbard, 2 Craneh, S. C. R., 23*).

The seizure of a person or his prcjv^rly for a breach of the municipal law of one
nation cannot bo made within tlic ('j.-ritory of anotlu r ; and especially is this true of
the Customs Laws of another State, wfcich are often hostile to the commercial interests
of other countries, and, therefore, lie wholly outside of anv recognized rule of comity
(The Appolou, 9 Wheaton, S. C. R., 362).

^n this case the Attornty-Goneral of the United States has endeavoured to uphold
the extension of tbe legal p "ocf sses of that country bey i-.i its territorial limits, so as
to subject Mcaghci jnd his '' jat (which was forcibly taken from the Canadian shore
to the United States, wh- it was tied up) to the jurisdiction of the United States.
This position cannot b'.- successfully maintained. " Every exertion of this sort," says
Hallec, " beyond the linnts of the Republic is a more nullity, and incapable of binding
such persons or property. '

The Attorney-G(!neral oudep.ours to draw a distinctif^, in this regard, between
the case of Peter Martin and the ease of Mr. Meagher. That attempt is unsuccessful,
and is based upon an inaccurate statement of the facts. Martin was residing in
British Columbia. He committed an assault ujjon a British Columbian officer
in the extenuation of his duty; he was sentenced at Laketon to fifteen months'
imprisonment at Victoria, in British Columbia. To send him from the gaol at
Laketon to Victoria it was necessary to convey him by way of the Stickeeu River, and
so through United States' territory. The party landed on the bank of the river for the
purpose of cooking food. While thcro the prisoner obtained possession of a loadetl
gun, and made a deadly assault upon one of the constal)les. He did not escape. He
was overpowered ond conveyed by nteamer tf) Victoria. Martin was tried upon liis
arrival at Victoria for this assault, but this was not the sole ground upon which the
American Government claimed that he should be given up. Secretary Fish s.nd that
[1127] 2 P

144

if the Colonial officers, in transporting Martin from the place at which ho was
convicted to the place of his imprisonment, conducted him at any time through the
territory of the United States, n violation of the sovereiafnty of the United States had
heen committed, and the removal of the prisoner from the jurisdiction of the Uuiled
States to British soil was an illegal, violent, and forcible act, which co\ild not justify
the subsequent proceedings, whereliy he has been, is, or may be restrained of his
liberty. At Victoria, ^Martin was sentenced to the term of one year and nine months'
imprisonment with hard laI)our for his assault upon the officers in whose custody he
was "vhile b(!ing conveyed through American territory, which sentence was to take
effect immediately upon the expiration of fifteen months. Now, Martin was
discharged, upon tlie demand of the United States, not only from the conviction for
the assault made in American territory during the transportation, but also from the
sentence wliicli had been pronounced at Laketon, because of the attempt of British
officials to exercise jurisdiction, under the laws of British Columbia, by conveying him
through the territory of the United States.

The principle involved in that case is that involved in the forcible arrest of
Meagher.

The same rule of law may be illustrated by the i)roeeedings in connection with
the "Chesapeake," which had been forcibly taken possession of by certain confederates,
who had gone on board of her as passengers when she was sailing between Now York
and Portland, and who ultimately ran her into Sambro, in the Province of Nova Scotia,
where the leader of those confederates (one Brain) left her. At this port, one of the
United States' steamei-s entered and found the "Chesapeake" in the possession of some
of lior original crew. There were two British subjects on hoard, who were engineers,
and had been engaged in that capacity by the confederates, who had taken forcible
possession. Tlioy were made prisoners in the port by the United States' officer.
There was also nn board a schooner, lying in the same port, one of the confederates
named Wade. Wade was taken from the schooner and put in irons. Mr. ScAvard, in
this casiO, suggested to 'Lord Lyons that the " Chesapeake " should be allowed to remain
in the hands of her naval captors, and she would be delivered up to the British
authorities if required, the United States making demands for the extradition of the
men and the delivery of the vessel, the men having been left at the port of Halifax.
Tlic British authorities, in that case, regarded the capture of the vessel and the foi'cible
taking of the men in British waters as a violation of British sovereignty ; and so the
formal delivery of the vessel to the British authorities, the setting free of the men, and
an apology and disclaimer from the United States was asked.

Mr. Dana, in discussing this case, observes that the naval officers of the United
States, as belligerents, had no right to arrest these men or to take the vessel 'v.ithin
]?ritish territorial jurisdiction, and a disclaimer and apology by the United Stati.% he
says, became necessary, and was freely tendered.

There is no exception to the rule that every voluntary entrance into the tcn-itory
of another State, for the purpose of enforcing there a municipal law of anotluir
country, or a belligerent right, is a gross violation of its sovereignty. When tlie fact
is established, its importance is paramount. The arrest of persons in the one case,
and the capture of the vessel in the other, come to an end, and the property and the
person seized, whether upon a reliance on foreign municipal law, or upon a belligerent
right, cannot be upheld.

This rule is well established, though it may be carried further witli respect to acts
of war than with respect to acts under a foreign municipal law. In the case of the
" Vrow Anna Catharina," 5 C. Robinson's Report, Sir William Scott says : —

" The sanctity of a claim of ten-itory is undoubtedly very high. The Court is at
all times disposed to pay attention to claims of this species, and to none more readily
than to those which concern the territorial rights in the State of Portugal. When the
fact is established, it overrules every other consideration. The capture is done away
with ; the property must be returned, notwithstanding that it may actually belong to
the enemy ; and if the captor shall appear to have erred willingly, and not merely
through ignorance, he Mill be subject to further punishment. It is to be remembered,
however, at the same time, that it is a point on which foreign States are extremely
liable to be misinformed and abused by the interested representations of those who are
anxious to catch at their protection. The claim of territory is, therefore, to be taken
as a matter, of stricti juris, and to be made out by clear and unimpeached evidence.
The right of seizing the property of the enemy is a right which extends, generally
speaking, imiversalJy, wherever that property is found. The protection of neutrtd
territory is an exception to the general rule only ; it is not, therefore, to be considered

U5

as disrespectful to any Gavornment that the facts upon which such claims are founded
should he accurately examined."

In civil caaes there is really less room for controversy, hecauso there is no pre-
sumption tlint the vi^ht to enforce the municipal law extends to the person or property
wherever found. The presumption is the contrary. It extends to the person only
witliin tlie jurisdiction whore that municipal law can operate, and it certainly cannot
operate heyond the bouniJarios of the State.

This rule is well illustrated in the trial of one Davis, while on hoard an American
vessel, for shooting a native of the Society Islands near the shore. It was hold tiiat
the murder was committed not on hoard the American vessel, from which the shot was
fired, l)ut in the canoe in which the native who was shot was at the time his life was
taken, and it was in that ease held that Davis could not be convicted under the laws
of tlie United States, because those laws were not in force in the place where the man's
life was taken (2 Sumncrs, C. C. R.).

The Attorney- General of the United States, in his Memorandum, says that
Meagher, in attempting to escape, aggravated his original offence. If Meagher was
arrested in American territory in the first instance, which ho denies, he escaped within
British jurisdiction, where; the municipal law of the United Stat(!s could not have any
force ; and it would lead to very great disorder indeed, and possibly to bloodshed, if
the Government of the United States were to give any countenance to the attempt
on the part of any officer of the United States to exercise jurisdiction under the law of
that country in British territory.

Under the circumstances, I am clearly of opinion that the only proper course is
to abstain from attempting to prosecute Meagiier, a subject of Iler Majesty, who has
been forcibly abducted from this country, for the alleged offence of having violated the
Customs Laws of the neighbouring Republic. I am of opinion that the forcible
abduction of Meagher by Avery, and the acts of cruelty by which it was accompanied,
entitle the Government of Canada to ask for the sun-ender of Avery to the Canadian
authorities, to be here tried for bnying forcibly abducted Meagher from this
country.

(Signed) DAVID MILTS,

Minister of Justice,

Ottawa, Deceviber 7, 1898.

No. 126.

Foreign Office to Colonial Office.

(Confidential.)

Sir, Foreign Office, January 3, 1899.

IN continuation of previous correspondence, I am directed by the Marquess of
Salisbury to transmit to you, to be laid before the Secretary of State for the Colonies,
a copy of a despatch from Lord Herschell,* reporting an Interview with the President
of the United States, and inclosing copies of furthc p"otocols of the Joint High
Commission, as also copy of a letter to Senator Fairbanks stating his views as to the
present position of the negotiations.

Lord Salisbuiy proposes, with Mr. Secretary Chamberlain's concurrence, to
approve the terms of Lord Herschell's letter to Senator Fairbanks as Will as the
li''.iguage which he held to the President.

I am, &c.
(Signed) F. H. VILLIER8

* No. 12^.

14A

No. 127.

Foreign Office, January t, 1899.
^8, Tronty, of the 22nd ' December

The Marquess of Salisbury to Sir J, Pauncejotn.
(No. 2.)
(Telegraphic.) P.

WITH reference to your despatch No.
Meavher case.

The Momorandum of the Canndian Minister of Justico should be presented, and
you should ask United Htates' Government to drop the prosecution of Meagher, and
to refer to the Joint High Commission the su))sequont questions of compensation
and of handing over Avery for trial in Canada.

No. 128.

Colonial Office to Foreiyn Office. — {Received Jamiary 5.)

fiGr, Downintj Street, January 5, 1899.

I AM directed by Mr. Secretary ChainOtrlain to acquaint you, for the information of
the Marquess of Salisbury, that he has received from the Governor-General of Canada
copies of correspondence which has passed between him and Her Majesty's Ambassador at
Washington, respecting the forcible abduction from Canadian territory of one Thomas
Meagher by an United States' Revenue officer.

2. Mr. Chamberlain understands that this correspondence has been communicated to
Lord Salisbury by Sir .1. Pauncefotc, with a suggestion that the questions raised in
Lord Minto's despatch of the 1.5th ultimo should be referred to the Joint High
Commission.

3. It appears to Mr. Chamberlain that in its present stage the matter is one for
treatment by the ordinary diplomatic means rather than by the High Commission.

4. It is not disputed that Meagher, whether be was originally arrested in Canadian
waters or not, did actually escape on British territory, and was there forcibly recaptured
and conveyed to American soil.

.5. Such action on the ])art of an American officer, Mr. Chambci'lain has no doubt,
■will be readily admitted by the United States' Government to be a violation of the
sovereignty of Her Majesty, for which ;in apology is due ; and Mr. Chamberlain considers
that Her Majesty's Government arc entitled to ask for such an apology, and for the
cessation of all proceedings in the United States' Courts against Meagher,

6. He would suggest, therefore, for Lord Salisbury's consideration, that Sir J.
Pauiicefote should be instructed, in presenting to the United States' Governnieiit the
Memorandum of the Canadian Minister of .Justice of the 7th December, to state that Her
Majesty's Government consider that tlie action of Avery, tlie United States' Revenue officer,
was a violation of Her Majesty's sovereign rights, and that tliey are confident that tlie United
States' Government will acknowledge this to be the ease,aud will at once order the proceedings
pending against Meagher to be dropped. The question whether Meagher is entitled to compcm-
sation and whether Avery should be handed over to the Canadian authorities for trial for the
forcible abduction of Mea2;hcr might then be referred, if the United States' Government so
wish, either to the Joint High Commission or, perhaps move suitably, to Lord Herscbell and
one of the American legal members of the Commission.

I am, &c.
(Signed) H. BERTRAM COX.

No. 129.
Board of Trade to Foreign Office. — [Received January 6.)

Sir.

Board of Trade, January 5, 1899.
I AM directed by the Board of Trade to acknowledge the receipt of your letter ot
the 22nd ultimo transmitting copies of a despatch from Her Majesty's Ambassador at
Washington, dated the 8th December, and of a telegram addressed to his Excellency
by Lord Salisbury on the 21st ultimo, regarding the desire of the United States'
Government to obtain the consent of Great Britain to a modification of the Cla^yton-
Buhver Convention of 1830, with a view to the construction of the Nicaraguan Canal,

147

and asking for the observations of tliis Board on Sir J. Paunccfoto's despatcli. In
reply, I am to say tluit, before making any detailed observations on this important
subject, the Board would desire to see particulars of the modiflcationH proposed by the
Uni^ted States' Government, and they would accordingly be glad to be favoured with
any information as to these proposals which Sir J. Pauncefote may ascertain in
compliance with Lord Salisbury's telegram.

In the meantime they are causing a statement to be prepared for communication
to the Foreign Office, embodying such information as can be derived from the various
sources at their command, relatmg to the commercial aspects of the projected Canal
in relation to British trade interests.

I am, &c.
(Signed) A. E. BATEMAN.

No. 130.
Foreign Office to Colonial Office.

Sir, Foreign Office, January 9, 1899.

I AM directed by the Marquess of Salisbury to acknowledge the receipt of your
letter of the .'ith instant relative to the abduction from Canadian territory of Thomas
Meagher by an United States' Revenue officer.

The correspomJence exchanged on the suWect between the Governor-General of
Canada and Her Majesty's Ambassador at Washington had already reached his
Lordship through Sir J. Pauncefote, a copy of whose despatch is annexed.*

The Secretary of State for the Colonies will observe from the accompanying
telegram,! which was sent to his Excellency on the 4th instant, after communicatiou
•with your Department, that Her Majesty's Ambassador at Washington has been
instructed to present the Memorandum of the Canadian Minister of Justice to the
United States' Government, and to ask that the prosecution of Meagher be dropped.
This request and the communication of Mr. Mills Memorandum appear to indicate
sufficiently that, in the view of Her Majesty's Government, the action of Avery, the
United States' Revenue officer, was a violation of Her Majesty's sovereign rights, and
Lord Salisbury proposes, therefore, to await the result of Sir J. Pauncefotc's action on
the inclosed telegram before sending him further instructions in the matter.

I am, &c.
(Signed) F. H. VILLIERS.

No. 131.

The Marquess of Salisbury to Lord Henchell.
(No. 1.)
My Lord, Foreign Office, January 18, 1899.

I HAVE to acknowledge the receipt of your despatch No. 15 of the 22ud ultimo,
reporting an interview with the President of the United States, and inclosing a copy
of a letter which you addressed to Senator Fairbanks, containing a statement of your
views as regards a settlement by the Joint High Commission of the Atlantic Fisheries,
Behring Sea, and Alaska Boundary questions.

The terms of your Lordship's letter to Senator Fairbanks, as well as your
language to the President, are approved by Her Majesty's Goverument.

I am, &c.
(Signed) SALISBURY.

[1127]

• Ko. 12«.

t No, i;

2Q

146

No. 132.
Lord Hemchell to the Marqiivmi of Salisbury.— (Received January 20.)

(Tolographic.) P. Washington, January 20, 1809.

IT seems almost inevitable that tbo question of the rights under the Treaty of
1818, with regard to tlio Atlantic fisheries, should bo referred to arbitmtion.

The provision for the nomination of a third Arbitrator, in case those named by
Great Britain and the United States cannot agree upon one, presents some difficulty.
My Am.M'ican colleagues suggest that the third Arbitrator should ho nominated by the
President, of the Swiss Confederation. I imagine that this anangoment would not be
deemed satisfactory. The Americans object to leaving the selection to an. of the
Monarchs who have been mentioned.

It has occurred to me that we could count on seciiring an eminent and trust-
worthy jurist, if the nomination were confided to the First Presidents of the Courts of
Cassation in France-, Switzerland, and Belgium.

I shall be glad to receive an early reply by telegraph from your Lordship as to
whether this scheme is considered advisable and i)racticable.

No. 133.

foreign Offic to Colonial Office.
(Confidential.)
Sir, Foreign Office, January 21, 1899.

WITH reference to previous correspondence on the subject of the proceedings of
the Joint Commission now sitting at Washington, I am directed by the Marquess of
Salisbury to transmit to you herewith, a copy of a telegram which has been received
from Lord Herscbcll,* stating that arbitration on the North Atlantic Fisheries question
seems almost inevitable. Lord Ilerschell points out that a difficulty is likely to arise
as to the nomination of the third Arbitrator if those named by the two Powers cannot
agree on one. Ho suggests that the nomination might be left to the three Presidents
of the Coi'j-ts of Cassation of France, Belgium, and Switzerland.

I am to state that, before replying to Lord Ilerschell, Lord Salisbury would be
glad to be favoured with Mr. Chamberlain's views on the matter.

I am, &c.
(Signed) F. H. VILLIER8.

No. 18'i.

Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquess of Salisburii. — (Received January 23.)

Washington, January 23, 1899.

(No. 9.)
(Telegraphic.) P.

MEAGHER abduction case.

With reference to your Lordship's despatches Nos. 6 and 7 of the 11th instant, I
am informed by the United States' Secretary of State that it has been decided to
release Meagher from his b.ail. United States' Government dn not admit facts as
stated by Canadian Minister of .Justice, and disavow any act of violence if committed
in Canadian territory. They express regret at the unfortunate occurrence.

Mr. Hay hopes that the explarxations afforded, and the regret expressed, may be
accepted as satisfactorily terminating the incident.

I have informed the Governor- General of Canada of the above, and shall report to
your Lordship by next mail.

* No. 132.

14D

No. 135.
Foreign Office to Colonial Office.

Sir, Foreign Office, January 25, 1809.

WITH refcronco to my letter of tlio 9th in^tjint rcapoctiiiLr the casr of Tliomas
Mcnffhor who was arrested liy a United States' Customs officer in Cnnadian waters,
and taken in custody to the United States for trial, T am directed by the Mar([uess of
Salisbury to transmit to you a copy of a tele<,'min which has been received froiu Her
Majesty s Ambassador at Washinj^ton on the subject.*

Sir J. Paunccfoto states that Meagher has been discharged from his bail, and that
the Secretary of State has expressed disavowal of the act of the Amtiricau Customs
officer if commitf,ed in Canadian territory, and his regret at the unfortunate occurrence.
Ms. Hay hopes that his explanations and (ixjiression of regret will be accepted as a
satisfactory conclusion of the incident.

Lord Salisbury would suirgest that befoce considering tho matter fui-ther, it would
be as well to await the receipt of Sir .f. Pauncefote's despatch, and also the views of
the Canadian Government to whom his ExcoUeucy has communicated Mr. Hay's reply.

I am, &c.
(Signed) F. H. VILLIERS.

No. 136.

Colonial Office to Foreign Office. — (Received January 26.)

(Confidential.)

Sir, Downing Street, January 25, 1899.

I AM directed by ilr. Secretary Chamberlaiu to acknowledge the receipt of your
letter of the 21st instant, inclosing copy of a tc^legram from Lord Herschell as to the
selection of an Arbitrator for tho North Atlantic Fisheries question, in case it should
be necessary to refer it to arbitration.

Mr. Chamberlain is not aware that the United States' Government have hitherto
objected to the nomination of Arbitrators by European Sovereigns, and he considers
that Her Majesty's Government would be establishing a bad precedent if they yielded
to what seems an unreasonable prcijudice against monarchical nominations.

Mr. Chauiberlain doubts very much if the arrangement suggested by Lord
Herschell for leaving tho nomination in the hands of tho Presidents of the Courts of
Cassation of France, Belgium, and Switzerland would result in a nomination .satisfactory
to the dominion, and, looking to the nature of the questions to be decided, he is of
opinion that the best arrangement would be to have an Ai'bitrator nominated by a.
maritime State with fisheries, say Sweden and Norway, Italy, or Holland.

I am, &c.
(Signed) II. BERTRAM COX.

(No. 1.)

(Telegraphic.) P.
LOOKING to

No. 137.

The Marquess of Salisbury to Lord Herschell.

Foreign Office, January 27, 1899.
the nature of the questions to be discussed. Her Majesty's
Government consider that the best arrangement would be nomination of Arbitrator by
a Maritime Strtt« with fisheries, such as Sweden, Italy, or Holland.

Colonial Oilice arc doubtful if arrangement suggested in your telegram of 20th
January would result in uoinination of an Arbitrator satisfactory to the Dominion,

It is also feared that to yic^ld to what seems an unreasonable prejudice against
monarchical nominations would establish a bad precedent.

Ni. 1J3-).

160

No. 138.
Lord Herschell to the Marquess of Salisbury. — (^Receiifd January 30.)

(Telegraphic.) P. Washington, January 80, 1899.

1 DULY received your Lordship's telegram of the 27th instant. It appears that in
my desire to be concise I did not make my meaning sufficiently clear.

The Americans have not objected in principle to the nomination of an Arbitrator by
any Monarch, nor have we demurreil to nominations by Republican Presidents. But there
are obvious reasons why we cannot consent to ask France or Switzerland to nominate.
Objections are entertained by the Americans to several Soveroiii;ns : to the Kings of Italy
or Sweden, on account ot the decisions in the Behring Sea Arbitration ; to the King of the
Belgians, by reason of the Halifax Award ; and to the German Emperor, ov/ing to the
present relations between the United States and Germany. It was generally agreed that
there was? a difficulty in applying to the Enmeror of Russia, because the Anglo-American
entente has been represented by many persons on both sides of the Atlantic as being
directed against Russian predominance. The choice has become extremely limited, and it
may prove impossible to agree upon any ruling Sovereign.

it was in order to avoid the deadlock which might thus be caused that I made the
suggestion conveyed in my telegram of the 20th. I do not understand on what grounds
it is regarded as doubtful whether that suggestion would result in the choice of an
Arbitrator satisfactory to Canada. My colleagues who represent the Dc.iinion entirely
approve of it. The question to be referred to the Arbitrators would be a very simple one,
and might be determined by any capable lawyer.

We are doing our best to eliminate the necessity of any recourse to arbitration in
regard to the Fisheries, as also In the case of the Alaska Boundary. But it may prove
impossible to settle these (juestions otherwise.

I shall be glad to receive any other suggsstions for meeting the difficult}, and to
know what course I should take.

No. 139.

Foreign Office to Colonial Office.

(Confidential.)

Sir, Foreign Office, February 1, 1899.

WITH reference to your letter of the 2fAo ultimo, I am mrected by the Marquess
of Salisbury to transmit to yea, to bo laid beforo Mr. Secretary Chamberlain, a copy
of a further telegram from Lord Herschell* relative to his suggest iou for the nomina-
tion of an Arbitrator on the North AtLmtic Fisheries question, in the event of the
Joint High Comraission being unable ic. arrive at an agreement on the point.

Lord Herschell states that the American Commissioners have not objected to
nomination by monarchies, but he points out that for asons which he gives, the
choice is extremely limited, and that it nnay be impoHsibic to agree on any Sovereign.
He does not underrtand wh;- it should be considered doubtful whether selection by
the Presidents of the Cturts of Cassatirn of Franco, Belgium, and Switzerland would
result in the choice of an Arbitrator satisfactory to the Canadian Government, as the
matter to be submitted would be very simple, and such as might be determined by
any capable lawyer.

Lord Salisbury would be glad to be informed i.f Mr. Chamberlain's views as to
the native of the reply, which should be returned to Lord Herscljell.

I am, &c.
(Signed) F. H. VILLIEES.

No. 13?.

Ittl

No. 140.

899.
hat in

tor by
there
ninate.
f Italy
of the
I the
that
icrican
being
and it

Sir J. Pavncefote to the Marquess of Salisbury. — (Received February 2.)

(No. 30.)

My Lord, Washington, January 23, 1899.

W[TH reference to your Lordship's despatches Noa.'S and 7 of the 11th instant
relative to the arrest of Thomas Me.igher, and to my telegram No. 9 of this day's date, I
have the honour to transmit herewith copy of a note from the United States' Secretary of
State, informing me, in compliance with the request set forth in my note of the 5th instant,
th.it Meagher will he discharged from the arrest made and from the bail given by hini for
his apppyarance.

iVIr. Hay adds that the United States' Government aisavow any act of force against
Meagher, if committed in Canadian territory, and regret the unfcrtunate occurrence.

i have forwarded a copy of Mr. Hay's note to the Governor-General of Canada.

I have, &c.
(Signed) JULL\N PAUNCEFOTE.

Inclosure in No. 110.
Mr. Hay to Sir J. Pauncefote.

Excellency, Department of State, H''ashiuytoi., January 21, 1899.

I HAVE the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your note of the 5th instant,
inclosintr a Memorandum from the Minister of Justice of Canada in relation to the case of
Thomas Meagher.

After due consideration of this case, I take pleasure in saying that your request will
be granted, and the said Meagher will be discharged from the arrest made and from the
bail given by him for his appearance. This will relieve him from the necessity of any
further action on hi» part, as it leaves him at liberty.

In reference to the other suggestion made in regard to Mr. Avery, I beg to say that,
as t!iis Government is : dvised, the tacts are not precisely stated in the .\1eraorandiim of the
Canadian Minister of .lii.stice ; tliat this Gov^rnnient is persuiided that even on the facts
stated in the Memorandum there was no felonious intent on the part of Mr. Avery, the
Deputy Collector cf Customs ; and if he did the act con)plained of, yet, as this Governmen
understands the facts, he did not commit any intentional violation of British sovereignty,
and if such violation vvas eominitted, it was done involuntarily and unintentionally in the
endeavour of the Deputy to eff'oct an arrest which, in his judgment, he had a right to
make, and which he believed was ;mdevtaken within the territory of the United States,

This Government disavows any ac^ of force, if any was executed, against Meagher in
Canadian territory, and regrets the unfortunate occurrence ; and in view of the senti"ient8
of friendship existing between the two Govcnnnents, it is hoped that these explanations
and expressions of regret will be accepted as a satisfactory conclusion of the incident.

I have, he.
(Signed) jOHN HAY.

No. 141.

Colonial Office to Foreign Office. — (Received February 7.)

(Confidential.)

Sir, Doijtting Street, Fehuary 7, 1899.

I AiNi directed by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain to acknowledge the recnipt of
your letter of the Ist instant, inclcsin copy of u further telegram front Lord
Hcrsoliell, ',n which lie explains his suggestion for the nomination of an Arl>itrator
on tlio Nortli Atlantic fisheries (luestion in the ovi'ii^ of the .Joint High Commission
being unable to arrive at an agreement on the pom',.

Ill reply, I am to acquaint you, for the i'i.''orn)ati()n of the Marquess of
Salisbury, that it appears to Mr. Chanibeilain tliot if a nomination by France oi
Swit/.'.n-iand is out of the questio;., a nomination ly a body in which a Frenchman
ami a Swiss would have a controllin;, inlliicnce woihl be eciua'ly objectionable.
[1127] 1 11

15fl

Mr. Chamberlain adheres to Iiis objection to the course proposed, and to his
opinion that a selection by a Maritime' State would be the best arrangement; but if
the Canadian members of the Commission entirely approve Lord nersehell's
suggestion, as they are said to do, he is not prepared to press Iiis opinion, in a case
where the interests and responsibility are entirely Canadian.

I am, &c.
(Signed) H. BEUTRAM OOX.

No. 142.

The Marquess of Salisbury to Lord Herschell,
(No. 2.)
(Telegraphic.) P. Foreign Office, February 8, 1899.

WITH reference to your telegram of 30th January respecting the nomination of
an Arbitrator on the North Atlantic fisheries question, it is pointed out by the
Colonial Office that if it is out of the question that the nommation should be made by
France and Switzerland, it would ho equally objectionable if the nomination were
made by a body in which a Frenchman and a Swiss would have a controlling
iniiuence.

Colonial Office adhere to the opinion that the best antingcment would consist of
selection by a Maritime State, but as your suggestion is entirely approved by the
Commissioners for Canada, they will not press their objection in a ease whore entirely
Canadian interests and responsibilities are involve<L

No. 143.
Lord Herschell to the Marquess of Salisbury. — {Received February 12.)

(Telegraphic.) P. Washington, February 12, 1R99.

A CRISIS in our negotiations seems imminent. We were apparently approaching
an agreement on the Alaska boundary dispute, but in conse((ut?nce, as we believe, of the
pressure which has been exercised by interests affected on the Pacific Coast, the proposals
of our American colleagues, with regard to a port on the Lynn Canal, have become such
as to involve a practical surrender of all our claim in tiiat locality.

Having failed to come to an agreement on this subject, we proposed a reference to
arbitration. The American Commissioners in repiy to this drafted a proposal for a ( om-
mission of Inquiry, the eflPect of which would be to leave the whole dispute undetermined,
and to make it a subject for future ne.i^otiat-'on between the two Governments. We
jiointed out that in default of agreement the dispute coidd oidy be settled by arbitration,
and that in view of the action of the United States' Government in the lioundary question
with Venezuela a refusal on their part to have recourse to arbitration would create a very
grave situation; we should have to consider whether in that tvcnt it would be proper or
useful to proceed with the negotiations on other points. It was impossitdc to obtain a
detinite answer as to whether arbitration would be accepted.

A ])roposal for arbitration was banded to iis yesterday morning, but it was so worded
as to conclude in favour of the United States the only important question, viz., the
boundary in the neighbourhood of the Lynn Canal, and only the other parts of the line
were to be left to arbitration.

This proposal we at once rejected, and we inquired whether it was to bo regarded as
a refusal to submit the entire (luestioii to urbilration. The answer was in the negative,
but we were still unable to get a definite reply to the question whether the whole bouiidniy
should be referred. Wc handed in a .Memorandum insisting on our right to ehiim arbitra-
tion on the whole dispute. The American reply to this fences with our incjuiry, and
prufceds to suggest that the settlement or' the remaining questions ought not to be
abandoned owing to the failure to settle the Alaska boundary.

I have repeatedly pointed out that if we leave unsettled the question which is most
likely to give rise to conlhet and wiiieii, umreuver, is capable of adjustment by moihods well
recognized among friendly Powers, it seems uaelcss to remove the smaller causes of

163

difference, not to mention the irritation which would be aroused by the refusal to adopt a
reference to arbitration in view of the circurastiuices I have already alluded to. I should
be willing to offer the terms of reference contained in Article IV of the Treaty with
Venezuela.

If it is impossible to agree on arbitration, uiy present impression is that we shall have
to break off the negotiations, much as I should regret such a couree. I shall be obliged if
your Lordship will favour ir.e vvith instructions at the earliest possible moment as to wliat
should be done in the present situation.

No, 144.

T)ie Marquess of Sulisbury to Lord Herschell.
(No. 3.)
(Telegraphic.) P. Foreign Office, February 14, 1899.

THE Cabinet have considered your telegram of yesterday, and have decided that,
if you think such a course advisable, you should have authority to break off
negotiations.

With the assistance of your Canadian colleagues, you arc better able than wc are
here to form a judgment as to the amount and value of such concessions as you may
have been able to obtain for Canada, and the question turns on this point.

No. 145.

The Marquess of Salisbury to Sir J. Pauncefote.
(No. 37.)
Sir, Foreign Office, February 15, 1899.

I SAW Mr. White tn-day, and informed him that Lord Herschell had intimated
his fear that it might be necessary to break off the negotiations of which he had hitherro
had the •hurge. The United States' Government declined to adopt his views with respect
to the Alaska boundary, and, whicii was more serious, declined even to refer the proposals
ho made to arbitration. If they adhered to this policy, ho did not see that it was possil)le
that any agreement could be arrived at. I told him that this telegram from Lord
Herschell had been laid before tlie Cabinet, and hod received their unanimous assonr.
I further said that under those circumstances I did not see how we could sign any
Treaty with respect to the Clayton- Bui wer arrangement, as the opinion of this country
would scarcely support us in making a concession which would be wholly to the benefit of
the United States at a time when they appeared to be so little inclined to come tc a
satisfactory settlement in re;:ani to the Alaska fiontier.

I am, &c.
(Signed) SALISBURY.

No. 146.

Lord Herschell to the Marquess of Salisbury. — {Received February 16.)

(No. 1.)

My Lord, Washim/lon, February 7, 1899.

SINCtS the Commission resumed its meetings on the ."-th January it has been
constantly eugaged on a discussion of the questions which thi'ii remained unsettled.
Much delay has inevitably resulted from the illness and death of Mr. Dingley. lie had
taken a most prominent part in the deliliorations with reference to the rcriprocity
arrangements for the admission of natural protluctsand mannfnctures free of ihity across
the frontier between the United States and Canada. This circumstance rendered it
im])0ssiblc to push forward with the vigour which miglit otherwise have been displayed
by us the adjustment of the other matters under discussion.

164

My Canadian colleagues regard it as of vital importance to them to obtain Tariff
concessions with reference to a number of articles, and notably lumber and certain
agricultural i)roducts. Their view has been that if they could obtain these conccBsions
the Treaty would have so powerful a backing in Canada that they would be able, in
respect of the other matters in difference, to accept and justify a settlement which
otherwise would he tlie subject of violent and ])erhaps successful attack by political
opponents.

I may observe that the members of the Canadian Government who are my
coUca^Tucs on the Commission have exhibited a very reasonable disposition, but from
what [ have heard from themselves, us well as from conversations I have had with other
members of the Dominion Government, it is evident to me that all the members of that
Govcrnuient are not actuated by an equally reasonable spirit. This naturally increases
the difficulties of my colleaguc;i, and adds to their desire to obtain such Tariff concessions
as would be widely popular.

During Mr. Dingley's illness, and until the appointment of his successor after his
death, consideration of the reciprocity question was practically suspended. The
appointment of his successor was delayed for a considerable time, inasmuch as the
Pi-esident was desirous of appointing the Member of thi; House of Representatives who
succeeded Mr. Dingley as Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. He thought
it expedient that the Member occupying this jjosit.on should be a party to the signature
of the Treaty, .so that he might undertake its explanation and defence in the House of
Ri'presentatives when the financial questions requiring the concurrence of that House
came before it. It was not for some little time after Mr. Dingley's death that the
Speaker of the House Jiominated his successor, and after this thft .successor's consent to
serve on the Commission had to be obtained. Mr. Payne's powers were only presented
to the Commission on the 2nd instant, but he commenced taking part in the deliberations
of the Reciprocity Committee on the evening of the 30th January.

As regards minerals, and some minor agricultural j)roducts, there seems no doubt
that a satisfactory arrangement can be arrived at. So far as lumber and hay are
concerned, the prospects are to my mind not promising. It is no doubt highly desirable
that the tree admission of lumber into the United States should l)e secured, inasmuch as
Ontftri.»h;is passed a retaliatory law which has caused great irritation, and is sure to give
rise to still more when it comes to he enforced in the ensuing lumber season. My
Canadian colleagues are, therefore, naturally bont upon obtaining this concession, but
the lumber interest opposed to it is very powerful, and is to be found in many States.
The only hopeful feature is that quite recently the great newspaper interests, especially
of the eastern and central States, ha-.e commenced a vigorous campaign in support of
free paper and pulp, and, as associated with these, free lumber. On the other band, a
combination of paper makers, ^^•ith an enormous capital, has taken up the battle on the
other side, I am quite unable to forecast the result.

Although, as 1 have said, the suspendon of reciprocity negotiations has incidentally
affected the settlemenL of orher questions, we liave nevertheless been actively and
constantly engaged in the discusrifin of them. When it became certain that we could
not obtain the admission offish free of du'.y on the Atlantic coast, it at first appeared as
if the only mode left open for avoiding future disputes was to refer to arbitration the
qncstion« in controversy a,- to the rights which now subsist under the Treaty of 1818, and
the definition of the I)ay! '•eferred to in that Treaty. We felt, however, that this after
all was not a satisfactory solution of the difficulty. Sir Louis Davies and I, therefore,
devised more than one scheme, and discussed them with our American colleagues on the
Committee. I may state that, as Sir James Winter was not in Washington at that time,
I was added to the Committee appointed to deal with the subject of the Atlantic
fislicries. The schemes to which 1 refer involved the maintenance of the right which we
claim under the Treaty of 1818 to exclude fishing-vessels from Canadian ports except
when entering them for one of the purposes .sjiecitied in the 1st Article of the Treaty.

The objections to these schemes seemed to us, after full discussion, to be insuper-
able. Sir Louis Davies, after consultation with his colleagues, cnme to the conclusion
that if the question of the bays coidd be settled, the most satisfactory course would be
to abandon the rights of exclusion, which we claim under the Treaty of 1818, and to
admit .isliing-vessels into the ports of Canada for commercial purposes as freely as
ordinary commercial vessels, reserving, however, to Canada full power, if it were deemed
advisable, to prohibit the sale or exportation of bait and the shipping of crews, or to
impose conditions or restrictions upon tiiem. I heartily concurred in this view. The
Treaty restrictions could serve j useful purpose except as a lever to obtain the conces-
fiicm of free fish. But it seems certain that if the control over the bait supply, which

166

Canada iiiiJonbtedly possesses, quite apart from the Treaty of 1818, does not afford
;-i:(licieiU l3vcrage for securing "free fish," the addition of the power of exclusion
contVrred hy the Treaty would not suffice for that purpose. Wiiilst then on ttie one
hand thi , power of cxchision cannot serve any useful purpose, it operatcH on the other
hand in n nianiRT distinctly prejudicial to the interests of Canada. It tends to limit
thf ii'.imljor i)f fishing-vessels which come to purchase provisions aud supplies of all
Kinds, and thus to hamper and restrict what would otherwise bo a profitable trade. I
may add that the doubt which suggested itself whether it would be possible tcy enforce
restri' ..^ on the sale of bnit, if thought desirable, supposing free admission were
allowcc ^or other purposes, was set at rest by the opinion of the experts consulted by
Sir Louis Davies, that no difficulty need be apprehended on this score.

Whilst, itowever, it seems clear that the rights of exclusion which have been so
long insisted upon nmy be abandoned, not only without detriment hut with advantage
to Caniuia, the fishermen of the provinces interested liavc, unl'orfuniitt'ly, always been
taught t'l look upon them as of great vaiue, and their abjinJonuient would un(iuf'8tion-
ably rai-e a great outcry. Both Sir Louis Davies and Sir James Winter vivho has
receiitlv returned to Washington) coiisequoiuly ieul themselves unable to venture to
sign a Treaty involving that abandonment, unless they are able to gain sujjport for it
by Tariff concessions of importance to the maritime jirovinces and Newfoundland
respectively. Sir James Winter desires chiefly the free admission of mineral products,
which, as I liave said, will probably be obtained. The agricultural products, which, in
Sir Louis Davies' opinion, must be admitted free if he is to nrnke the proposed
concession, are amongst thee still under the consideration of the Reciprocity Committee.

Wo have had prolonged liscussions with regard to tlic Settlement of the Alaska
boundary. Our American colleagues, who are members of the Committee dealing with
that subject, whilst stating that it would be impossible for them to concede the sovereignty
of any harbour on the Lynn Canal, suggested tiiat they should, witiiout parting with the
80verei;;;nty, grant the use of Pyramid Harbour and a strip of land behind it to the
Canadian boundary, which should be exclusively under Canadian juri.sdiction so long as
the grant lasted. They handed to us a document in which it was proposed that the
grant should he oidy for a period of fifty years. Whilst we expressed ourselves willing
to consider this proposal as a basis for negotiation if the details could be satisfactorily
arranged wo strongly objected to l!ie limitation of the term, and insisted that the grant
should continue as long as we maintained a custom-house and a sufHcicnt police force
for the preservation of order. We handed them the inclosed draf*, which modified tlieir
proposal in this respect, and omitted one or two minor provisions, with which I need not
trouble your Lordship. When we came to discuss this proposal, they raised serious
obje(!tion on account of the eft'ect which, by reason of the navigation laws of the two
countries, it would have upim the carrying trade if Pyramid Harbour were to be treated
as a Rritibh port. British vessels would thus be enabled to convey goods from United
States' ports to the Klondyke, which they had never hitherto done, whilst United
States' vessels would be precluded from carrying goods from Canadian ports to Pyramid
Harbour. We have uot seen our way to accede to their proposition that for the purpose
of the navigation laws the new harbour should bo treated as a United States' har' our,
whihst they, down to the present time, insist on adhering to it, and compromise on the
point, though perhaps not absolutely impossibL , is difficult. We proposed that all the
ports in the Lynn Canal sliould be used on precisely the same terms by the ves-sels of both
nations, but they are unwilling to consent to this.

As regards the rest of the boundary-line, we have been able to adjust almost every
part of it, conditionally on a satisfactory settlement being arrived at with reference to
the harbour on the Lynn Canal. The line fixed upon runs between that close to the
coast which we put forward and the one at a greater distance from the coast which the
United States have hitherto insisted on. It is so described in the inclosed .Memorandum
thai, our experts inforui us, it can lie cheaply and with certainty laid down. A part of
the line for a short distance to the north-westward of the Lynn Canal, and also that part
where it enters the Portland Canal, have been left open to further discu.ssion. We are
again delilierating on the matter to-day.

1 inclose a copy of the proposal with regard to the Behring Sea question now under
discussion. Senator Fairbanks has named to me the sum of r)(J(),00<> dollars as the liuiit
to iihich the United States would be prepared to go as a settlement of the compensation
to tile owners of the sealing fleet and those engaged in the industry, leaving the vessels
and their outfits in the possession of tlie owners. This is a great advance on any
previous proposal, and does not substantially differ froui the sum which w j had been
prepared to accept, viz., 000,000 dollars, and a cession of their vessels and outfits by the
[1127] 2 S

166

owners. We have viot yet ngreed upon the sum to which we are entitled in respect
of the wrongful treatment of four vessels by the United States.

The amount of the percentage to be paid annually by the United States out of their
receipts from the seal taking on the Pribyloff Islands has been the subject of much
cu;:trovcrsy. We considered that if the increase in the herd became very large owin^r
to the cessation of pelagic scaling, the percentage to be paid shoidd be proportionately
increased. This was vehemently op])osed by the United States' Commissioners. We
ultimately made a modified proposal on a different basis. Taking '.iO,0(Mi roughly as the
number of seals which might be obtained on the islands even If pelagic sealing
continued, we proposed that the percentage of the receipts to be handed over should
only apply to the excess over 20,000 taken in each 3'ear, the effect of which would be
to graduate the share of Canada, making it proportioaately Jireater according as the
growth of the herd became greater. This was assented to in principle by our American
colh'agnes, but the percentage remains undetermined, and what we insist upon will
depend upon the concessions obtained under other parts of the Treaty.

There seems at this moment to be a disposition to make substantial Tariff conces-
sions, but whilst I think the desire of the President and Cabinet to secure a Treaty and
to yield whatever is necessary for the purpose is as great as ever, there is a point beyond
which they will feel them.selves unable to go, so that in the present state of mind of my
colleagues [ cannot even now regard it as certain that our negotiations will have a
successful 'ssue. They are being subjected to what I cannot but regard as unreasonable
pressure on the part of several of their colleagues in the Canadian Cabinet to refuse to
assent to some of the arrangements which they would themselves consider, if not as
altogether satisfactory, at least as such as they ought to assent to rather than allow the
negotiations to fail an 1 the controversies to remain unsettled. I need hardly say that I
have used such persuasion as I could to induce them to follow the dictates of their own
judgment, uninfluence.l by representations often the residt of very imperfect acquaintance
witli the situation, whilst at the same time I have not urged them to do anything which
I did not believe to be for the best intercts of Canada, even if Imperial interests were
wholly excluded from consideration.

Copies of the Protocols since the beginning of January are inclosed.

I have, &c.
(Signed) HERSCHELL.

Inclos'-re 1 in No. 146.

Draft Article respecting the Alaska Boundary, handed to American Commissioners,

Fehrwinj 2, 189!).

THE line commencing at Cape Chacon, which is the most southern point of Prince
of Wales Island, shall ascend northerly to the entrance of Portland Canal, west of Wales
and Pearce Islands, thence upwards through the centre of said canal to the mouth of
Bear Eiver, thence from n peak on the right b;ink of Bear River northerly to another
peak on the 56th degree of north latitude ; thence by intervisible peaks, as much as
possible in a straight line to Big Mountain, thence in the same way to Kate's Needle,
thence in the same way to a peak 7,10!) feet high in the vicinity of the junction of the
Tolusque River with the Taku, thence in the same way to the Wliite Pass, thence in
the same way to the Chilkoot Pass, thence in the pame way to a peak 7,'!00 feet high
east of the 136tli degree of longitude, thence in the same way to Black Mount, which
lies about three miles east of the same degree of longitude, and about 50° >>' of north
latitude, thence in the same way to a peak lying at the northern extremity of Joim
Hoi)kins' Glacier, thence in the same way to Mount Pinta, thence in the same way to
Mount Cook, thence in the same way to Mount St. Eilias.

There shall be granted to Her Britannic Majesty the po;-.session of Pyramid
Harbour on Chilkat Inlet of Lynn Canal, and a strip of territory along the Cliilkat
River, the whole to be inclosed in the following limits : commencing on the sea-shore
at the 69" 10' of north latitude, and thence west in a straight line to the summit of the
hills at a point where the said degree 59° 10' of north latitude is intersected by the
degree 135° 30' of longitude, and thence upwards by intervisible pealis along the range
of mountains parallel to the valley of the Chilkat River, to the point of intersection of
the? above described boundary lino. Reverting to the above-mentioned starting jmint
on the sea-short, tlie line shall proceed to Pyramid Island including the same, thence in
a straight line to a peak on the hills of the right bank of the Chilkat Jtiver, overlookiag

167

Catistyaskali village, from the said peak upwards by intervisible summits, along the
range of mountains parallel to the valley of the Chilkat River, to the point of intersection
of the above described boundary line.

The said port and territory within the above limits shall be subject to the exclusive
jurisdiction of the Dominion of Canada, and of its laws civil and criminal. It is agreed,
however, that the rights of individuals and corporations heretofore acquired in the said
port and territory shall be resj)ccted.

It is further agreed that should the Canadian Government cease to maintain a
custom-house at said port or a police force sufficient to preserve order in said port
and territory, the privileges above granted shall terminate, and the said port and
territory shall revert to the United States, but all concessions of laud made aurl all
rights and privileges previously granted by the Canadian Government shall be
respected.

It is stipulated that vessels of the United States and of British or Canadian
register shall have equal treatment in the harbours of Pyramid, Skagway, and
Dyea.

Inclosure 2 in No. 146.

Draft Agreement respecting Behring Sea.

THE High Contracting Parties mutually and reciprocally agree that their
respective subjects, citizens, and vessels shall be prohibited from engaging in pelagic
sealing in any \^&xi of the waters of the Xorth Pacific Ocean and Behring Sea, and that
every person or vessel ofl'eniling against this prohibition may be seized and detained by
the naval or other duly commissioned officers of either of the High Contracting Parties,
but they shall be handed over as soon as practicable to the authorities of the nation to
which they respectively belong, who alone shall have jurisdiction to try the offence and
impose the penalties for tlie same, the witnesses and proof necessary to establish the
offence being also sent with them; and they a^ree, further, to prohibit the use of any
British or United States' port by any persons for any purposes whatsoever connected
with the operation of pelagic sesling, and to prohibit the importation or bringing of any
undressed fur-seal skins taken by such prohibited pelagic sealing into any British or
United States' port, and by the necessary legislation and enforcement of appropriate
penalties thereunder to make sue!) prohibitions effective.

Such prohibition, however, shall not apply to Indians dwelling on the coasts of the
territory of tlie United States or of the dominion of Canada, and carrying on pelagic
sealiui; in canoes not transported by or used in connection with other vessels, and
propelled wholly by paddies, oars, or sails, and manned by not more than five persons
each, in the way hitherto practised by the Indians without the use of fire-arms,
provided such Indians are not iti the employment of other persons, nor under contract
for the delivery of tlio skins to any person.

The prohibitions aforesaid which the 'iovcnnnent of Great Britain agrees to enact
and the penalties which it agrees to enforce shall take effect from the date when payment
is made by the United States of the sum of dollars in this Article herein-

after agreed to be paid.

The Government of the United States agrees to pay to the Governnient of Her
Britannic Majesty within months of the exchange of ratifications of this

Treaty the sum of dollars as compensation to the British subjects engaged

in pelagic sealing, and in settlement of all claims against the United States arising out
of th(! operations of pelagic sealing.

'I'he Government of the United S^Ates further agrees to pay annually to the
Governnient of Her Britannic Majesty per cent, of the gross amount in each

year, received by the Government of the United States, from the taking of fur-seals on
the Pribylotr Islands, or which it is entitled to receive from any persons for or in respect
ol the right to take the same after deducting from the gross amount aforesaid such
proportion thereof as 20,000 bears to the number of seals taken on the said islands. The
first annual payment siiall be made years from the day of the payment of

the sum of dollars above mentioned, and all subsequent payments on or

befori' the same day in each succeeding year.

The prohibitions hereinbefore provided for on the part of the Government of Iler
Britannic Majesty shall continue in full elfect and be enforced so long as such annual
payments, as aforesaid, continue to be duly made, and ao long ai the prohibitions

188

hereinbefore provided for on the part of the United States continue in foil effect and are
enforced.

The term " pelagic sealing " as used in this Article is defined to be the killing,
capturing, or pursuing, in any manner whatsoever, of fur-seals on the high seas.

^yi reasonable facilities slmll be afforded from time to time by the High Contracting
Parties to each other for the settlement and determination of the amount herein agreed
to be paid annually and for ascertaining tlie n lual catch which may be taicen by the
Indians.

Inclosure 3 in No. 146.
Protocol No. 43 of Proceedings of Joint High Commission, Washington, Janunri/ 5, 1890.

THE Joint High Commission assembled pursuant to adjournment at the Conference
Rooms at 1] o'clock a.m., all the members being present except the Honourable Nelson
Dingley and the Honourable .John W. Foster, who were prevented by illness from
attending, and Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Mr. John Charlton, and Sir James S. Winter.

The Protocol of the last meeting was read and approved.

Arrangemenls were made for the meetings of the Joint Committees during the day,
and the Joint High Commission thereupon adjourned until Friday, the 6th January, at
10 o'clock in the forenoon.

(Signed) W. CHAUNCY CARTWRIGHT. CHANDLER P. ANDERSON.

HENRI B0URAS8A.

Inclosure 4 in No. 146.

Protocol No. 44 of Proceedings of Joint High Commission, Washington, January 6, 1899.

THE Joint High Commission assembled pursuant tu adjournmt.it at tlic Conference
Rooms at 10 o'clock a.m., all the members being present except the Honourable Nelson
Dingley and the Honourable John W. Foster, who were prevented by illness from
attending, and Sir James S. Winter.

The Protocol of the last meeting was read and approved.

After arranging for the meetings of the Joint Committees, the Joint High
Commission adjourned until Monday, the 9th January, at 10 o'clock in the forenoon.
(Signed) W. CHAUNCY CARTWRIGHT. CHANDLER P. ANDERSOW.

HENRI BOURASSA.

Inclosure 6 in No. 146.

Protocol No. 45 of Proceedings of Joint High Commission, Washington, January 9, 1899.

THE Joint High Commission assembled pursuant to adjournment ut the Conference
Rooms at 10 o'clock a.m. The Honourable Nelson Dingley and the Honourable
John W. Foster were prevented by illness from attending ; Sir James S. Winter was also
absent.

The Protocol of the last meeting was read and approved.

After making arrangements for the meetings of the Joint Committees 'during the
day, the Joint High Commission adjourned until Tuesday, the 10th January, at 10 o'clock
in the forenoon.

(Si-med) W. CHAUNCY CARTWRIGHT. CHANDLER P. ANDERSON.

HENRI B0URAS8A.

159

IndoBure 6 in No. 140.
Protocol No. 46 of Proceedingn of Joint High Commission, Washington, January 10, 1899.

THE Joint High Commission assembled purHimnt to adjournment at the Conference
Scorns at 10 o'clock a.m. The Honourable Nelson Dingley and the Honourable
John W. Foster were prevented by illness from attending ; Sir James S. Winter was also
absent.

The Protocol of the last meeting was read and approved.

The Joint High Commission then arranged for the meetings of the Joint Committees
during the day, and adjourned until Wednesday, the 11th January, at 10 o'clock in the
forenoon.
(Signed) W. CHAUNCY CARTWRIGHT. CHANDLER P. ANDERSON.

HENRI B0URA8SA.

Inolosure 7 in No. 146.|
Protocol No. 47 of Proceedings of Joint High Commission, Washington, January 11, 1899.

THE Joint High Commission assembled pursuant to adjournment at the Conference
Rooms at 10 o'clock a.m. The Honourable Nelson Dingley and the Honourable
JohnW. Foster were prevented by illness from attending ; Sir James S. Winter was also
absent.

The Protocol of the last meeting was read and approved.

Having arranged for the meetings of the Joint Committees during the interval, the
Joint High Commission adjourned until Friday, the 13th January, at 10 o'clock in the
forenoon.

(Signed) W. CHAUNCY CARTWRIGHT. CHANDLER P. ANDERSON.

HENRI BOURASSA.

Inclosure 8 in No. 146.
Protocol JVo. 48 of Proceedings of Joint High Commission, Washington, January IS, 1899.

THE Joint High Commission assembled pursuant (o adjournment at the Con-
ference Rooms at 10 o'clock a.m. The Honourable Nelson Dingley and the Honourable
John W. Foster were prevented by illness from attending ; Sir James S. Winter was also
absent.

The Protocol of the last meeting was read and approved.

After arranging for the meetings of the Joint Conmiittees during the interval, the
Joint High Commission adjourned until Alonday, the 16th January, at 10 o'clock in the
forenoon.
(Signed) W. CHAUNCY CARTWRIGHT. CHANDLER P. ANDERSOJS.

HENRI BOURASSA.

Inclosure 9 in No. 146.
Protocol No. 49 of Proceedings of Joint High Commission, Washington, January 16, 1899.

THE Joint High Commission met at 10-30 o'clock in the forenoon at the rooms of the
President of the Conunission, pursuant to an arrangement made since the last meeting.
Sir Richard Cartwright, Sir James S. Winter, the Honourable Charles J. Faulkner, and
the Honourable John W. Foster were unable to be present.

The Protocol of the last meeting was read and apjjroved.

The Joint High Commissioners being apprised of the death of their colleague, the
Honourable Nelson Dingley, Member of Congress from the State of Maine, adopted the
following note, and ordered that it be entered in the Protocol of tliis day's proceedings,
and communicated to his family : —

" The Commissioners luive heard witli profound sorrow of the death on the 13th
instant of their distinguished aasociale, the Honourable Nelson Dingley, of Maine.
1.1127] 2 T

160

Whilst tlie death of thia eminent and useful atntcsraan is regretted by all his countrymen,
the Commissioners feel that they have special reasons to deplore the loss of one who had
rendered valuable aid in their Councils, and whose kindly disposition and friendly senti-
ments bad endeared him to his colleagues.

"The Commissioners desire to express to Mrs. Dingley, and to the other members
of his family, their sincere and heartfelt sympathy in the affliction which has befallen
them."

As a luither mark of respect for Mr. Dingley's memory, the Joint High Commission
at once adjourned. The next meeting was fixed for Tuesday, the 17th January, at
10 o'clock A.M.
(Signed) W. CHAUNCY CAKTWRIGHT. CHANDLER P. ANDERSON.

HENRI B0URA8HA.

Inclosure 10 in No. 146.

Protocol No. 50 of Proceedings of Joint High Commission, Washington, January 17, 1899.

THE Joint High Commission assembled pursuant to adjournment at tlie Con-
ference Rooms at 10 o'clock a.m., all the members being present except Sir Richard
Cartwright.

The Protocol of the last meeting was read and approved.

After arranging for the meetings of the Joint Committees during the interval, the
Joint High Commission adjourned until Thursday, the 19th January, at 10 o'clock in the
forenoon.

(Signed) \V. CHAUNCY CARTWRIGHT. CHANDLER P. ANDERSON.

HENRI BOURASSA.

Inclosure 11 in No. 146,

Protocol No. 51 of Proceedings of Joint High Commission, Washington, January 19, 1899.

THE, Joint High Commission assembled pursuant to adjournment at tlie Con-
ference Rooms at 10 o'clock a.m., all the members being present except Sir Richard
Cartwriglit and the Honourable Charles J. I''aulkner.

The Protocol of the last meeting was read and approved.

The Joint High Commission arranged for the meetings of the Joint Committees
during the interval, and then adjourned until Saturday, the 21st January, at 10 o'clock
in the forenoon.

(Signed) W. (CHAUNCY CARTWRIGHT. CHANDLER P. ANDERSON.

HENRI BOURASSA.

Inclosure 12 in No. 146.

Protocol No. 52 of Proceedings of Joint High Commission, Washington, January 21, 1899.

THE Joint High Commission assembled pursuant to adjournment at the Conference
Rooms at 10 o'clock a.m., all the members being present except Sir James S. Winter
and the Honourable Charles .1. Faulkner.

The Protocol of the last meeting was read and approved.

After making arrangements for the meetings of the Joint Committees during the
interval, the Joint High Commission adjourned until Tuesday, the 24th January, at
10 o'clock in the forenoon.
(Signed) W. CHAUNCY CARTWRIGHT. CHANDLER P. ANDERSON.

HENRI BOURASSA.

101

IncloBure 13 in No. 146.

Protocol No. 63 of Proeeedii'j of Joint High Commission, Washington, January 24, 1899.

THE Joint High Commission assembled pursuant to adjournment at the Conference
Rooms at 10 o'clock a.m., all the mcmbcrn beinp; present except the Honourable John
W. Foster, who was prevented by illness from aC iiding.

The Protocol of the last meeting was road nd approved.

Arrangements were made for tiic meetings of the .loint Committees during the
interval, and the .loint High Commission thereupon adjourned until Thursday, the 2Gth
January, at 10 o'clock in the forenoon.

(Signed) W. CHAUNCY CAHTWRIGHT. CHANDLER P. ANDERSON.

HENRI B0URAS8A

Inclosure 14 in No. 146.

Protocol No. Si of Proceedings of Joint High Commission, Washington, January 26, 1899.

THE .Joint High Commission assembled pursuant to adjournment at the Conference
Rooms at 10 o'clock a.m., all tlie members being present.

The Protocol of the last meeting was read and approved.

The Joint High Commission arranged for lii" meetings of the Joint Committees
during the interval, and then adjourned until Tii ,day, the 31st January, at 10 o'clock
in the forenoon.
(Signed) AV. CHAUNCY CARTWRIGHT. CHANDLER P. ANDERSON.

HENRI B0URA8SA.

Inclosure 16 in No. 146.

Protocol No. 5o of Proceedings of Joint High Commission, Washington, January 31, 1899.

THE Joint High Commission assembled pursuant to adjournment at the Conference
Rooms at 10 o'clock a.m., all the members being present except the Honourable .John
W. Foster and the Honourable .lohn A. Kasson.

The Protocol of the last meeting was read and approved.

Arrangements were then made for the meetings of the Joint Committees during the
interval, and the .loint High Comuiisaion adjourned until Thursday, the 2nd February,
at 10 o'clock in the forenoon.

(Signed) W. CHAUNCY CARTWRIGHT. CHANDLER P. ANDERSON.

HENRI BOURASSA.

Inclosure 16 in No. 146.
Protocol No. 66 of Proceedings of Joint High Commission, Washington, February 2, 1899,

THE Joint High Commission assembled at 10 o'clock a.m. at the Conference
Rooms pursuant to adjournment, all the members being present, including the Honour-
able Sercno E. Payne, appointed to fill the vacancy caused by the death of the
Honourable Nelson Dingley.

The Protocol of the last meeting- was read and approved.

The Full Power of the High Commissionor.s of the United Stiitcs, including the
Honourable Sereno K. P.nyne, appointed as aforesaid, was presented and laid on the
table.

The .foint High Commission tlicroupon arranged for the meetings of the Joint
Committees during the interval, and adjourned until Tuesday, the 7th February, at
10 o'clock in the forenoon.

(Signed) W. CHAUNCY CARTWRIGHT. CHANDLER P. ANDERSON.

HENRI BOURASSA.

102

No. 147.

Quettion asked in the House of Commont, February 17, 1899.

Dr. Tanner, — To nsk the Under-Secretary ol' State for Foreif^n Affairs wliether the
Anglo-American Commission dealinj,' with the fisheries (juestioii has fallen
through, and what details will ha afforded on this question.

Amioer.

Negotiations arc still proceeding, but I am unable to make any further statoment
on the subject at present.

No. 148.
Lord Herschell to the Marquess of Salishurij. — {Received February 21.)

(Telegrajihic.) P. WaBhlngton, February 21, 1899.

A FEW days after the dispatch of my telegram of the 12th instant the United
States' Commissioners stated that they were prepared to proceed with negotiations
for a reference of the Alaska boundary question to arbitration.

A proposal based on the Treaty between Great Britain and Venezuela was
therefore ttrawu up and submitted to our American colleagues on the 17th instant.
Their counter-proposal which was handed in on the 18th provided for the apjjoint-
ment of three jurists on either side, with no Umpire. It also stipulated that all
towns or settlements on tide water, settled under the authority of the United States
and under the jurisdiction of the United States, should remam within the territory
and jurisdiction of the United States.

In a Memorandum of the same date we stated our objections to the counter-
proposal, and said that we must refer the matter to Her Majesty's Government.

An exchange of views ensued, in the course of which the American Commissioners
did not show any disposition to accept the appointment of an Umpire unless the
selection was made from some country on one of the American continents.

Our reply to this suggestion was to the efTcct that in view of the policy long
maintained and recently reasserted by the Government of the United States towards
the other countries on those continents, the selection of an Umpire by any such
nation would not offer the requisite guarantee of impartiality.

With respect to a proposal that the Commission should proceed with the
remaining questions and leave the Alaska boundary to be settled by direct negotia-
tion between the two Governments, we stated that the manner in whicli we should
bo prepared to adjust some of the other important matters under consideration nuist
depend upon whether it were possible to arrive at a settlement of all the questions
which might at any time occasion acute controversy and even conflict.

At tiie final meeting, whicli to(;k place yesterday, " it was agreed that the
Commission should adjourn, to meet at Quebec on the 2nd August next, unless
some other dat(! should be agreed upon by the Chairman of the respective
Commissions."

The Commission separated on friendly terms. Our American colleagues were
most anxious that the negotiations should not be broken off but merely adjourned.
1 think they hope that a solution of this difTiculty may be found by means of
<iiplomatic negotiations, and the other matters may, not improbably, be adjusted
without serious difBculty after that has been done.

If it were not for the following reasons I should have been ready to continue the
negotiations and press for a settlement. In the first place it was clear that consider-
able delay must occur before any settlement could be expected. Secondly, it had
become imperatively necessary that the Canadian Ministers should return to Ottowa.
Thirdly, 1 considered that in present circumstances there was a better j)rospect of
nbfaining a favourable result by outside negotiation than by negotiation in the
Commission.

I shall bo detained hero for several weeks by my accident, which has proved to
be Hcrioiis. If your Lonislup sees no objection, I shall make use of tliis detention
to endeavour to do soinetliinj:; l)y means of direct personal ncgotiationH, to wliii.h I
have reason to believe thai the United States' Government would be well
dispose*'.

An otficial statement has been made public, and it was arraiipjod that all that
passi'd at the meeting of the Commission should be regarded as confidential.

No. 149.

Lord Hertchell to the Marqiiesi of Snlislmry. — {Received February 22.)

(Telegraphic.) En clair. Washington, February 21, 1H99.

I'OLLOWING official Statement issued to-day :—

" Commission adjourned to in(!ot Quebec 2nd August, unless Chairmen of respective
Commissions shall agree upon anotlu'r date. Commission has made very substautial
progress in settlement and adjustment of many of questions upon whieli it has been
earnestly engaged, hut it has been unable to agree upon the settlement of the Alaskan
boundary. This problem has been complicated and difTiindt one, but Commissioners,
acting in utmost friendliness and cordiality, iiave been unable to agi'ce ujKjn satisfac-
tory adjustment. DilRculties, apart from immediate delimitation of this boundary
by Commission itself, arise from conditions under which it might be referred to
arbitration.

" British Commissioners desired that whole question should be referred on terms
similar to those provided in reference of Venezuela boundary-line, and which, by
providing an Umpire, woidd insure certainty and finality. United States' Commis-
sioners, on other hand, thought local conditions in Alaska so ditferent, that some
modifications of Venezuela boundary reference should be introduced. They thought
reference should be rr le to six eminent jurists, three chosen by '-nch of High Con-
tracting I'arties withoi,„ providing for an Umpire, tiiey believing that finality would
be secured by majority vote of jurists so chosen.

"They did not sec any pres(>nt pmspcet of agreeing to European Umpire to be
selected in manner proj)oscd by IJritish Commissioners, while British Commissioners
wen; unwilling to agree to selection of an .Vmerican Umpire in numner suggested by
United States' Commissioners. United States' Commissioners further contended that
special stipulations should be made in any reference to arbitration that existing
settlements on tide waters of the coast should in any residt contipue to belong to
United States. To tlus contention British Commissioners refused to agree. It was,
therefohj, deemed advisable to adjourn to a convenient date, in order to enable respec-
tive Governments to further consider subject, with respect to which no conclusion yet
reached."

No. 150.

Antwer given in the House of Commons to Question ashed by Mr. Dalziel,

Februavy 23, 1899.

THE Anglo-American Commission has adjourned until the 2nd August. In
certain points progress has been made towards a settlement, and it is hoped that
further negotiations may resolve the (luestions sffiU in dispute. Meantime the
Commissioners have requested that all which passed in the Commission may be
considered confidential, so that it will uot be possible to lay papers on the subject.'

[1127]

2 U

im,

No. 161.

Loid Herschell to the Marquess of Salisbury. — (Received February 27.)

(No. 2.)

My Lord, Washimjton, February 17, IS'JD.

1 INCLOSFi copios of tlie documents and letters exchanged between Sonator Fair-
banks aud myself with regard to the Alaska boundary sinco the 7th instant, wlien my
despatch No. 1 was written.

The :;it;iation Ijocame so serious, owing to the refusal of the American Commis-
sioners to consent to arbitration on the whole length of the boundary, that f thouglit it
well to telegraph to your Lordship on the 13th instant, reporting what had passed, and
asiking for instructions as to the course which I should adopt if it were foimd impossible
to come to any agreement for a reference to arbitration. Since !hat date further
corre.'.ponJence has taken place, concluding with Senator Fairbanks' letter of yesterday,
in wiiich he finally declares that the American Commissioners dc not regard it at all
impossible to devise a method or agree upon a Tribunal of Ari)itration by which the
rights of boi/h parties may be fairly secured and settled, and that they are prepared to
procei'd to elect tliis purpose.*

in consequence of this expression of a willingness to proceed with the negotiations,
th'j inclosed draft of an Arbitration Treaty was suhniitted by us yesterday evening for
tie consideraiion of the American Couiniissioners. Your Lordship will observe that the
('(raft follows with very «lighl alteration the wording of the Treaty with Venezuela of the
2nd February, 1897.

General Foster, who has been unwo'.l for some time past, left last night for the
south, .n-l it is believed that ho will take no iurther part in the proceedings of the
Commission, although no statement with regard to his dCj^arture has been made to us by
our \i lerican colleagues. It maybe hoped that, in his absence, matters will proceed
more .noothly, if we take into account the strong disinclination which he has always
sliown to submitting tiic Alaska boundary question to arbitration.

I have, &c.
(Signed) HERSCHELL.

Inclosure 1 a. No. 161.

AlABE* BotTNBAKT.

Memorandum received from United St'ites' Commissioners, February 9, 189!).

Artiilt

-Alaskan Boundary.

IN order to facilitate the final adj;istment of all points in difference in respect to
the boundarv-line between the territory of Alaska and tiie liritlsli territory adjacent
thereto, the High Contracting Parties mutually agree upon the following provisions: —

1. It is admitted that the terrif.oriiil Hue dividing tlie said possessions of the
resjjective Governments is to be a,scertai:i(!d and established as early as possible in
accordance w th the definition thereof containoil in Articles HI and IV of l,lio Conven-
tion between Russm and Gre.it Britain, daied the ilSth (lOth) February, 1S25, and
reproiluced in Article I of the Conventi(wi between Russia and the United Status, dated
the 30th March. 1»67.

2. A Commission to consist of foni meml'.frs— two to be named by each ( ioverinnent :
one to be a legal expert, and one an expert of established reputation in tliu science of
geography and geodesy — shall he appointed. Their duty shall be to examine all thi-
facts, toi)ographical o'- historical, Hubnii('.jd t;) then: on the part of either Government
and which bear upo' the, true apjil'diion and meaning of the definitive clauses of said
Convention of ]82i» as sicceptod by the part '^ hereto.

Said Commissioners sliall make oath - rit;.. to perform their duties under this
.Article without fear, partiality, or favour. ' i'ey snail have liberty to visit the localities
in dispute if they deem it necessary, and to take evidence.

)9.
"air-
iiiy

165

3. They shall make joiiit report in quadruplicate, one for each of the Govern'nents
and one for the Commissioners of each party, upon all points at issue upon whir/i they
shall agree.

i. They shall also make report upon all points on which they tail to agree, showing
distinctly their differences in respect to said line of dcirareation.

5. if they cannot under their oatlis agree upon the true Conventional lioundary-line,
and can establish and accord upon a convenient compromise line intermediate of the
opposing views of said Commissioners, they shall carefully define and report such
intermediate line in a special report to each of the two Governments over their
signp'ares.

C). Upon receipt of said ports, the respective Governments will enter into direct
uegotiations for a Convention establishing a peiMnanent line of ijoundary.

Said Commissioners shall be appointed within two niimths from the date of the
ratification of this Treaty ; shall meet and organize within two months thereafter ; and
thenceforward shall proceed with all dispatch.

Each of the High Contracting Parties shall present its ease in writing for the
consideration of said Commission.

Each Government shall pay one-half of the Joint expenses of the Commission,
including such assistuits as they may need, and shall compensate its own Commissioners
and pay all e.xpen.ses incurred in its own behalf.

Said Commission shall miike the report or reports hereinbefore required of them
within two years from their first meeting.

Inclosure 2 in No. 151.
Alaska-Canadian Boundaky.

Memorandum .sent to United States' Commissiovem, February 9, 1899.

THAT provisions for the delimitation and establishment of th(! Alaska-Canadian
boundary be made in the following numner, that is to say :—

That it be referred to an eminent jurist to he appointed by the President of the
1',' ited States and an eminent jurist to \w appointed by Her Bntannic Majosty on the
noi ination of the .Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and a third eminent jurist
^to be named) or (to be agreed up(m by the jurists appointed as aforesaid), or in default
thereof to be appointed by ( ), to determine what is the line of

den arcation between the possessions of the High oontracting Parties commencing from
the southernmost point of the island called Prince of Wales' Island as far as* Mount
St. Elias, that the jurists appointed as aforesaid shall i)e assisted by sucli scientific
experts as they see fit to appoint (o the end that such lino of demarcation as aforesaiil
may be delimited and established by the Jurists appointed as aforesaiil in accordance with
the legal rights of the High Contracting Parties muler or l)y virtue of llie Tieaty of
1825.

Provisional arrangements shall be m.ade by the iiigh Commission covering the
period until the line is detennined as aforesaid.

Tncdosure 3 in No. l-M.

AliASKA UOUNUARY.

Memorandum communicated by American Commisnioners, Februnrij 11, 189!).

Proposition for Treat, j Proitision «.v to Alaskan Boundary.
A J0MM18SI0N shall be appointed consisting of —

to determine and delineate upon suita le maps the boundnry-line between the territory of
Alaska and the Dominion of Canaca troiu tiie .souihernmcat point of Princ«' of \i'alu«'
Island to Mount St. Klias, in accordance with the Treaty between Russia au'' (iieal
Britain of the 28th February^ 1825, under ihc following terms and conditions; —

1 . The Conimission daM consider and determine wlietiier the line, to l)e drawn from
the southernmost point of Prince of Wales Island in the parallel of 5i° 40' along the
Portland Channel to the u6th degree of latitudi', passes to the south or to the north of
Wales and Pearse Islands.

2. The ComniisKion shall consider and determine where the houndnry-lino, departing
from the point (in the 56th decree of latitude ahove indicated, crosses .iie Skoot, Stitkine,
and Takii Rivers, tue mountain passea north of (he head of T vnn Caual, the Chilkat,
Tatshenshini, and Alsek Rivers.

3. Ik'tween the points to hr determined, us indicated in the last ahove paragra])h, and
also between the Alsek River and Mount 8t. Elias. the Commission shall <loliiieate the
boundary as near as mav be following int^rvisiblc mountain peaks

The determination and award of the Commission shall be accepted by the Govern-
ments of the United States and Great Britain as final and coiiclusivo.

Notes on Proposition.

As a Convention has been entered into and is now pending in the St<iate respecting
the boundary-lino between Mount St. Elias and the Arctic Ocean, no ac\'"n as to that
portion of the boundary is necessary on the part of the Joint High Comm '

The territory which is proposed above to be submitted to arbitr.ntio> . ^ially in
paragriijib 2, is substantially in accord with an arrange. nont which was ])roposed by the
CnittHi States in 1873 and approved by the British Government (see "Canadian
Sessional Papers," vol. .xi, No. 125, 1878, pp. 10 to 37).

Inclosurc 1 in No. 151.
Memorandum sent lo United States' CommissioHers, February \1, 1S99.

THE British Commissicners are unable to accept the proposal made, inasmuch as
it assumes in favour of the I'nited States a matter in dispute and limits the arbitrr»tion
to a portion of the disjiuied b mndary.

They have already stated in previous communications that, in their opinion, they
are entitled, in default of an Agrecniert, lo have the whole of the disputed boundary
referred to arbitration. By the I'rotocol in pursuance of which this Commission assembled,
provision was to be made for the delimitation and establishment of the Alaska-Canadian
boundary, thpl is, ihe whole bouidary witliOiit limitaiioii. In the opinion of the British
Commissioners, .-i: • provision can only be mnde in the terms of the i'rotocal (in default
of agreement as to the boundary) by an agreement for some steps to i)e taken, which
will, if taken, necessarily result in a delimitation of the whole boimdary, and they know
of no other steps wiiich will accomidish this except a reference to arbitration.

Inclosure 5 in No. 151.

Senator Fairbanks to Lord Herschell.

International Commission, Washington,
My dear Lord Herschell, Fel—nry 11, IS'M.

I HAVE the honour to acknowledge the receipt of youv note of to-day respecting
our proposal of yesterday for settling the Alaskan boundary. The American Comrnis-
siorers regret that you feel oidiged to decline theii ju'oposal, and make no suggestion of
modification which would be agreeable lo you, anC. which they might further consiilcr.

Von would not, we trust, hope that we should recur to .\our proposal of arbitration
submitted on Friday last, which took absolutely no note of the; rights and equities which,
in other 'i'reati^ s of Arbitration, have been recognized as necessary.

As we understand, you feel impelled to invite the further instructions of your
Govcmmcnt upon the subject. We shall hope that you may be permitted to make such
reasonable niodificp.tions ot either your proposal or the one last submitted to us that we
may entertain them, for we arc desirous, in our aiutiml interest, of putting this subject
at rest.

167

May we not suggeat that pendiug ydur further advices that we proceed with the
reniaiuiiig questions in the Protocol r They are well advanced; in fact, nothing but
formal assent is necessary to disp'jse of several of them. The differences with respect
to othi;r3 have been reduced to a very small number, and in the main do not seem
insuperable.

Wo have not felt that the settlement of any question should depend upon our
ability to agree upon wholly unrelated questions. The Protocol does not recognize any
such dependency, nor does tlie course of our negotiations from the beginning give
•jround for such an interpretation of our duty.

The American Commi;.3ioucrs desire to proceed, ii agreeable to you and your
colleagues, with the speedy consideration of the remaining cjuestions, while you await
the further instructions of your Government, to the end that we may arrive at early
conclusions.

We most sincerely hope that we may reach amicable results upon all questions, and
if that be impossible at the moment, then, that we may adjust and remove from our
paths as many as possible. •

I have, &c.
(Signed) CHARLES W. FAIRBANKS.

Inclosure 6 in No. 151.
Lord Herschell to Senator Fairbanks.

My dear Senator Fairbanks, Washington, February 13, 1899.

I HAVE the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter dated the Uth
Febr'iary, which, however, was only delivered to me at 5 o'clock yesterday afternoon, I
have shown it to my colleagues.

Wo are somewhat surprised that the American Commissii.ners should regret that we
feel oblged to decline their proposal of the 10th instant, as though it were unreasonable
on our part, l)ut wo think that the regre- of the American Comriissioners cannot have
been mingled with any surprise. Many raonths ago they were made aware of the views
of the L.itisji Government with regard -o the bearing of the Treaty of 1825 upon the
territorial rights round the upper part o.' the Lynn Canal. In support of those views 1
advanci'd an elaborate argument founded upon the language of the Treaty. The matter
was much discussed. I listened to lengthy arguments advanced on the other side on
behall of the American (Commissioners ; whilst I .-idnnti-ed that they were weighty and
deserving of consideration, I '.ndicated that they did not, in my opinion, displace those
which T luul put forward. We (hen proceeded to negotiate with a view to settle the
boundary by way of compromise.

On the Rth December last Memoranda were received from the American Com-
missioners propofing that we should abandon all our claim to territory in the neighbour-
hood of the Lynn Canal, but that in consideration of this com'nercial vessels of the
Dominion of Canada should have the right to use all ports and luirhours on the Lynn
Canal as freely and .subject only to the .same conditions and restrictions as those of the
United States. It was also proposed that the Dominion of Canada might establisli an
office for the collection of customs and superintendence of transit there. In a Memo-
randum sent by us on the IGth December, it was pointed out that the American proposal
assumed tl'.e boundary to be fixed in accordance to the contention of the United States
and contrary to the con'ention of Great Britain, and that the British t'ommissioners
were unable to rjgard this as a fair and equitable settlement of the question of
boundary. We proposed that Pyramid Harbour and a strip behind it should belong to
Great Britain, and stated that if this were not acceptabh; there seemed no alternative
but to leave the question of boundary i > tiie determination of legal experts.

The American Commissioners aftc wards made an offer by way of compromise con-
siderably in advance of their previot i proposal, it is nol necessary for the present
purpose to state the details of the subse<|uent negotiations. It ultimately seemed
impos-sible to arrive at an agreement. The British Conmiissioncrs, therefore, reverted
to the suggestion of an arbitration as to the imtirc boundary-line, which they had made
on the l()th December.

'J'ho proposal to wliicli your letter refers involves an abandonment by fJreat Britain,
without any consideration, of all claim lolaii''. In tin •■•eighbonrhood of the Ijynn Canal, a
proposal which had been rejected in Dccouihcr last, evci. when coupled with fiie conces-
sion of rights at all ports and harbours in the Canal. It tacitly assumes that the
[1127] 2 X

168

arguiVicnts which I advanced were absolutely without foundation in point of law. I do
not question the undoubted right of the American Commissioners so to regard them, but
it is surely not quite reasonable to expect me to take the same view.

Your letter states that .ve made no suggestion of modification which would be
agreeable to us, and which tlie American Commissioners might further consider. We
submit tlmt this is hardly uccurate. In the Memorandum which we handed you in reply
to your proposal, we maintain that the whole of the disputed boundary between Prince of
Wales Ir'.and and Mount \it. Elias should be dealt with without assuming any part of the
dispute in favour of the United States, as wub tlone \>y the terms of your proposal. The
view indicated in our JV/eraorandum involved the excision of the first two terms
and conditions inserted in your proposition, an'' Jie consequent modification of the third.

You trust that wo would not hope that you should recur to our " proposal of
ari)itration submitted on Friday last,* which took absolutely no note of the rights
and equities which in other Treaties of Arbitration liave been regarded as necessary."
We must recall to j'our recollection tlie circumstances under which our proposal of
arl)itfation was submitted on Wednesday, not Friday, last. When an agreement to
settle the boundary seemed impossible, we repeated our proposal of arbitration, and
asked whether you were wilhng to consent to it. To this we were unable to obtain a
distinct reply, either in the aliii-mative or negative. You asked me to submit a proposi-
tion on the subject in writing. I pointed out that it was scarcely fair to expect me to
draw out an Arbitration Agreement until 1 had learnt whether arbitration was accepted
in principle. As, however, you pressed the matter, J. said I would draw a sketch of an
Agreement cm the subject, which would lje sufficient to ascertain whether the proposal of
arbitration was to be agreed to. It never occurred to me, under the circumstances,
that I was expected to insert any detailed provisions or more than the barest outline. I
may observe that your "proposition for a Treaty provision as to Alaskan boundary" is
even more destitute of details than the document I transmitted to you. It was quite
oi>en to you, and it would, we suggest, have been the natural course to add to our pro-
posal such provisions /elating to " rights and equities " as you refer to in your letter. If
an ar])itration covering the entire boundary in dispute is assented to in principle, we are
prepared at once to discuss all the details of such an arbitration, and to assent on our
p.Trt to any reasonable piovisions which have been recognize ' as necessary in Treaties of
this description. In considering all the details, we shall be prepared to act in the most
conciliatory spirit.

In that part of your letter which rekces to my inviting the further instructions
of my Government, you write under a misconception of the observations I made. I
stated that if jou refused to settle the dispute between us as to the boundary by
arbitration, I should feel it necessary to ask for instructions from my Government.
Jifo in.structions are necessary for the negotiation of an agreement for arbitration. We
have full poivers vested in us for that purpose. If then you are prepared to negotiate
for such an Qgieement on the basis of a reference of the entire dispute, we are ready at
once to enter on a discussion oi the provisions to be contained in it. We think we are
fairly entitled to ssk for an early answer on this point. We see no advantage in delaying
negotiations as to the boundary dispute, and transferring our attention to other subjects
which, have been under consideration.

We have not suggested that unless every one oi" the questions submitted to the
Commission can be settled, none of them should be ; but it appears to us that the
Alaska boundary is the one of all others which it is most important to have settled,
if good relations are to be maintained between Great Britain and the United States.
The nature of the difference is such, that from circu nstances which may arise at any
moment, and which are too obvious to need statement, acute controversy, and even the
risk of conflict, may ensue.

Moreover, it is a question which there will be no l)ettor cl-.ance of settling at a future
time than there is now, and one which, in our opinion, may be settled without difficulty by
nations acting in a friendly sjiirit. On other points we are asked to make concessions
with a view to avoid friction and dilferenoes in the future. We an.' wilhng to do so, but
we cannot fee! it reus<mable that we shoulrt b' r<quired to take such a course, if thi.«
far f^reater cause of danger is to remain lu e.xistence wiien, in our opinion, L might
(juite well lie removed.

We cordially reciprocate your oxpressidn of sincere hope that wo may reach amicable
results on all questions.

(Si-lied) UKHSCHELL.

I'cbrunrv SO.

169

Inclosure 7 in No. 151.
Senator Fairbanks to Lord Herschdl.

My dear Lord llerschell, Washlmjlon, Fehruunj 14, 1890.

1 HAVE hail the honour to receive your note of yesterday, which 1 have sub-
mitted for the consideration of my colleagues. I observe that you directed the attention
of your colleaf^ucs to my letter of the 1 1th instant. 'I'liis was quite correct, as I com-
mitted it entirely to your discretion.

Vou are fully warranted in assuming that your decliniition of our last proposnl did
not e.\citc surprise (although we received it witli regret), for we had been made aware of
the present views of the British Government •' with regard to the bearing of the Treaty
of 1825 uimn the territorial rights round the upper jiart of the Lynn Canal." Our first
advices upon this subject were received at your hands since our Sessions l)egan at
(^uel'ec, and were so recent that they were distinctly impro.sed upon our minds. But
we iiad hoped that our views advanced in opposit'on to your very iilile and earnest
presL'ntation had modified your views in some degree. We had indulged the conviction
that you would arrive at the conclusion to which wo had come, viz., that we should
eml)ody as the .';ubjoct matter of the arl)itration such matters only as weie in dispute
between our Governments at the date the Joint High Commission was created ; and not
merely such question;^ as niiglit be raised by the respective Commissions in tlie progress
of our deliberations. We had understood that we were to consider and determine the
disagreements of our res])ective Governments (unless otherwise mutually agreed) which
had engaged their attention prior lo the signal ure of the Protocol of the 30th May,
1898. The various subjects of the Protocol weie, as we believed, ts) l)e read in con-
nection with the actual controversies and contentions existing at the date it was
adopted. This iuterp*'etation is definite and specific ; any other leads to doubt and
confusion.

The American Conmiisiiioners have not felt justified in agreeing to the submission
to arbitration of that part of tue bound.ary for the rirst time put in actual dispute since
^e assembled at Quebec, and now contemplated in your last proposal. They feel that
their jjosition is founded in good rea.son.

Bince the Treaty of 1825 Hussia and the United States have claimed and e.^ccrcised
undisputed sovereignty over and possession of the territory to which you have lately for
the first time made claim, and v,i^ submit that the British Governnieut and authorities
ba^'e acquiesced therein. No .suggestion by your Government has ever been made to
eir.her Russia or the United States, so far as we are aware, froji 182." until our Com-
iiii.ssion a.isembled, that the British Government at any *ime cituer jxercised or asserted
right of dominior. and possession over that portion of the corriimy excluded from arbitra-
tion by our suggested submission.

In our conlerences we have invited you to recall ;\ single instance in history
where a nation has been cither asked or lias consented to arbitrate its right to
territory over which it liar; exercised unchallenged sovereignty for so long a p^iriod of
time.

We have not failed to recognize that some differen'"" of views had arisen long
prior to our (usenibling as to -iiere the international houndary-lino inland crosses
certain rivers and mountain passes: and our proposal i)rovides for tiie submission to
arbitration of all ijuestions and of all points whicli have been the suliject of corre-
spondence between the two Governments up (o the lime of the assembling of the
Joint High Commission. Beyond that we have felt thai you could not with good reason
expect us to go.

If the views you now present have been urged upon ilio attention of the Govoni-
tncnt of the United States at any time prior lo the original Protocol, we shall esteeia
it a favour if yon ivill be good enough to direct us to the fact and date ; furtlier, .vs
shall be plea-'ed if you will advise ;is at what time since 18i.'5 the British Government
made claim on either Kussiii or the United State;i to Any territorial rights round the
upper part of tJie Lynn Canal.

We regard our propositio-.^ for arhitradoii .'is embracing the entire subject-iuaitcr of
dispute wiicn the Protocol was executed by t!ie two Governments; th't it is entirely
just and equitable in its recognition of long-estnlilished rights, and we earnestly ;rust that
U may yet commend itself to yoxn favourable consideration and iM'capta'.ico,

It i^, of course, to be undort-lood that pending arbitration the Government of thii

170

United .States will (•ontinuc in force tlie present very liberal jnovisions for tlio aecom-
modation of British commerce at the liead of Lynn Canal.

I am pleased to In corrected with respect to my impression r,s to your intention of
inviting the further insti.ictions of your Government. We are prepared to proceed with
all proper dispatch.

I am pleased to observe that we quite misunderstood you as holding " that unless
every one of the ([uestions submitted to the Counnission could be settled, nono of them
should be." We grant that the (juestion of the Alaskan boundary is a very important
one, though we do not regard it as the one of most importance. However, you do not
too much emphasize the need of its settlement, and we sbnll hope that in the friendly
spirit which you cxpe s we may jet see our way to its solution. Upon this qnosticm, us
upon others, wc lo r.i ,. ask you to make ci)nce>sions with a view to avoid friction and
differences ii ti.- u^.ir>,, where we i-ro not at all times ready to make in the very amplest
measure equlv.ilent concessions.

If our last proposal is incn^mble of reasonable modification in your view, it may
be well U> put aside the boundary question for the moment and resume the consideration
of the several other questions committed to us and confessedly of great importance.
Some of tliem in our view are of more practical imuortance to the neighbouring peoples
than the boi:ndary question.

I liave, &c.
(Signed) CHARLES W. FAIRBANKS.

Inclosure S in No. 151.

Lord Hcrschull to Senator Fairbanks.

My dear Senator Fairbanks, Washington, Februa} y 15, 1899

YOU state in your letter of the I'ith February that the Ainericaii Commissioners
have not felt justified in agreeing to the submissiiin to arbitration of that part of the
liouudary question for the first time put in actual dispute since .vo assembled at Quebec,
and n^ w contemiilated in our last proposal. The part of the bou'idary refer, d to is
tliat ill the neiglil'ourhood of the T.ynn Canal. You intimate that you had iudulgtd a
conviction thar wo should arri\o at the conclusion to which you bad conio, that ive
should en\b'>dy as tb.o subject-matter of the arbitration such matters only as were in
dispute belueen our Governments at the date that the Joint High Commission was
created, and that the various subjects id' the Protocol were to be read in connection
with the actual controveisies and contentions existing at the time it w^as adopted. You
state further that your first advices as to the views of the British Government with
regard to the upper pint of the liynn Canal were received at our hands after our Sessions
began at Quebec.

The statement that the views of the British Government had not been made known
till that time is erroneous. The instnicticns given us by the British Government made
it perfectly c!i:.:r that the upper part of the Lynn fanal was claimed as British torritorv.
It is pointed out that the boundary lino must nowlicre exceed 10 marine leagues from
the ocean, and that the provisional line adopted at the summit of the passes above the
Lynn Canal being more ihan 100 mil's from the ocean, a provisional line more in
accordance with the Treaty stipiilntiors should, periling ;i definite settlement of the
question, be adopted, which would allow the ocrupntlon by Canada of one at least of the
ports on that inlet.

A copy of these instructions was sent on thf Tut August to the United States'
Secretary of State. On the Tith August he acknowledged the receipt of "the instruc-
tions in which arc cmboi ied the views of Her Miijesiy's Government ou the subject set
forth in the Protocol of the -lOth May." No suggestion was made by the Secretary of
State that the views on the Alaska boundary embraced matters outside the Protocol.
On the contriry, after he had been made aware of the views of Her Majesty's Govorn-
meiil a- lOthe Ala-kii boimdnry, he forwarded (otho British G-ovemment a Memorandum
•' ou the part of the {io\eiinuetit of the Tnited States containing its views on the subjects
.set forth in the Prctocol signed orv the SOth May, 1898." With regard to Alaska
boundary, ho says : —

" The n(!poit of the Joint Commission is now avaihibio, and has made if possib'-
for the two Goveruments to carry out the .stipuliitiou of the last clause of Article I /f

adval
tlie
not il
clean
said

are

to til

till

171

the Treaty of the 22nd July, 1892, to ' proceed to consider and estal>li.sh tlic boundary
in question.' " That is '.o say, us u reference to the Treaty will show, ilie boundary
i;omnieniniig at the i outhern imint of Prince of Wales' Island and terminating at Mount
St. Elias.

"The Government of the United States will expect the Joint High Commission
to seek to execute this stipulation by an agreement as to the boundary as fixed by the
Anglo-Russian Treaty of 1825, and by tlie American- Russian Treaty of ]8()7 and as far
au possible to delineate the same upon proper maps."

The British instructions and the JMemorandum on the i)art of the United States'
Government were in your hands prior to our first meeting. On the OOth August I
brought before the Commission the claims of the British Government as to the course
which the boundary-line ought to take, and oven at tiiat early date pointed out that,
failing agreement, the question could only be settled l)y arbitration. General Foster
stated the opposing views of the United States' Government, The discussion occu-
pied two (lays, ^o suggestion was then made that the claim to the upper part of
the Lynn (I'anal, tlu^ argument witii re.-.i). ct to which tuok a great part of the time, was
a matter which, by the terms of the PioiocdI, wiis :iot submitted to us for Jeteiniination.
The matter was referred to a Sub-Committee, and iliis particular part of tiie question
was again argued for many bonis without any such jioint being raised. After tlint, the
■.;egotiations proceeded on the basis of an endeavour to arrive at an agreement as to the
course of the boundary-line, and those negotiations related mainly to the 'loundary in
tho nigbbourhood of the L^nn Canal. We maintained that in respect of our teriitorial
claim in that region .vj ought to possess a port on the canal, and suggested that if this
were not agreed to there should be an arbitration as to the boundary-line. The
American Connnissioners offered us certain rights in ports on the Lynn Canil in con-
siiieration of our giving up our territorial claims around a jwrtion of it, wliich, however,
seemed to us insufficient.

In your letter of the 24th December, lHi)8, you speak of the contention with regard
to the upper part of the Lynn Canal as "the really material difference between us with
respect to the Alaskan boundary." You say that the question of that boundary " is a
grave one at present. The difficulties which surround its solution will only incrciise
by the lapse of time, and it seems to mo wc will be recreant to our duty if we do
not eftiect a solution and embody it in a Treaty for the ratification of our res])eetive
Governments." You proposed that wc should have Pyramid Harbour, with cverylliing
but the sovereignty of the soil, all bei ^ granted that was of any commercial or prac-
tical value, to wit:: port customs and transit privileges." ^ot a suggestion at that
time that our claim to a part of the Lynn Canal was not a matter for determination
undor the terms of the Protocol. The negotiations proceeded for weeks after our
return in January, and, indeed, until Wednesday last, on the same basis. When on
that day an agreement seemed iinpossiblo, and we asked for an arbitration, we were
not even theu told that a part of our claim was not within the terms of the Protocol;
and as late as last Friday, when a proposal .^..^ made by you for a Joint Commission of
experts to report with a view to a Convention, the first clause of that proposal con-
tained a formal admission that the territorial line dividinj;- the possessions of the
respective Goverimients was to be ascertained and established as nearly as possible
in accordance with the definition thereof contained in Articles III and IV of the
Convention between Russia and Great liiitain of 1825. And now, after month- of
negotiation, chiefly with reference to the part of the boundary near the Lynn t.'amil,
we are told tiiat this is a matter not within the purview of our negotiations, and with
which you are, therefore, not competent to deal by way of arbitration.

We cannot but feel seriously aggrieved by the course which has been taken. A
vast amount of time, valuable to us, has been wasted. We think we ought in common
justice to have been informed at the very outset that this view was to b'^ insisted on, if
it is now to be nmin'ained, and not allowed to waste our time ana our trouble in
advancing arguments upon a (|uestion which, after six months, wo are told was not before
the (Jommission. You do not >tate when yon arrived at the conclusion that this was
not a nnittei- within the purview of thi Protocol. We at least h;ive made it perfectly
clear throughout that we took a coni ary view, and you have not until yesterday done or
said anything to disabuse us of it.

We arc ()uite unable to concur in your construction of the Protocol. Tiie words
are " provisions for the delimitation and establishment of the Alaska-Canadian
boundary." The natural meaning of this is the entire boundary. Yon seek to limit it
to those parts of the boundary as to which tiicic had been actual controversy prior to
the Frotoco;. This seems to us an impossible construction, and one which could not
[1127] 2 Y

172

have been in the contemplation ol" the partiesi, and which we have conclusivclj shown
was not on the Tdli August regnrdeil by the United States' Government as having- been
in their eoiitem|)hition. So far as we are aware, there had been no controversy in terms
between the two (iovernnicnts as to any specific parts of the boundary, except on the
Stikine in 1870 and recently at the top of the pass above Uyea. If yonr view of the
Protnciil bo correct, it would exclude from treatment the whole of the boundary except
at these two points. The fact is that Great Britain has never placed before the Govern-
ment of the United States in detail its contention as to the line which the boundary
should take. No occasion necessitating this has ever arisen, but she has always main-
tained that the boundary when dealt with must be adjusted in accordance with whatever
was the true elTect of Articles III and IV of the Treaty of 1825. Nor has the United
States ever subpxitted to the British Govcnmient any comjdcte statement of her claim.
It is true that in 1S73 General Grant suggested a joint survey to mark the boundary at
points on certain rivers, one of Avliich indicated that in his view the boundary ran there
above the Lynn Canal, but no apiiropriation for this purpose having been obtained, tlic
matter dropped and the British Government never expressed its assent to the view-
indicated by General Granl.

When in 188.5 Mr. Bayard again brought the matter before the British Govern,
ment, the only part of the boundary to which he specifically referred is that which
passes along the Portland Canal, the point of his argument being that the rest of the
boundary was incapable of delineation in strict accordance with the Treaty. In 1892
a C(mvention was made between Great Britain iind the Ifnitcd States respecting;- the
Alaska boundary. By the first Article it was iigreed that a joint survey should be made
of tlie part of the boundary line from the latitude of 54° tO' to the ill" of longitude,
with a view to the ascertainment of the facts and data necessary .'o the permanent
delimitation of the boundary-line "in accordance with the spirit and intent of the
existing Treaties in regard to it between Great Britain and Russia, and the United
States and Russia." Not a hint is there given that the United States, as late as the
year 18!)'J, questioned the right of Great Britain to have the boundary-line between the
points named permanently delimitated iu accordance with the spirit and intent of the
Treaty. Indeed, their right to have i*. so delimitated is expressly recognized. The
surveys provided for in order to accomplish that object have been completed, and we are
now told that even if the contention of Great Britain, which has been placed before
the Commission, be correct, she is not entitled to have part of that boundary-line
delimitated in accordance with the spirit and intent of the Treaty. 'I'he British Com-
missioners do not for a moment wish to exclude the United States from the contention
that, oven though the Treaty bear the meaning contended for by Great Britain, the
United States has, by pralongcd occupation, or in any other way, obtained a title to
territory which w-ould otherwise be British. We have had no evidence brought before
us that, S'.nce the Treaty of 182.5, Russia and the United States have, as alleged^ exer-
ci.sed undisputed sovereignty over, and possesf;ion of, the territory now- under discussion.
We do not admit it to be the fact. The only evidence adduced appears to us to prove the
contrary, and to show that such possession as there has been is only of recent date, and
we believe that the suggestion by the United States that she may have acquired a
title otherwise than under the terms cf the Treaty by any assent and acquiescence of
Great Britain is a very recent one indeed. We repeat, however, that as to this point
also, we are desirous that the United States should have the full benefit of any right she
possesses, whatever be its origin.

When we proceeded to discuss the boundary-line, it became evident that the
difTei'encc between us depended upon a divergence of views as to the true interpretation
of the terms of tlie Treaty. It will not, we imagiuf , be questioned that there is in the
laniruagc used fair iironnd for :i difference of opi ion. At all events it will not, we
trust, be doubted that our view is as honestly held as your own. As far as regards
myself pers(mally, I am bound to confess that your hope that General Foster's arguineut
had altered my views has not been realized. What then is to be done when two friendly
inns differ as to the construction of a Treaty or as to m.atters of fact, or their legal
ct, which are alleged to have modified t'-.e rights which it originally created ':- \Ve
know of nothing except to obtain tl^e opiniim of a capable Tribunal, both independent
and impartial. A delay will not render the matter more easy, and it is impossii)le to
exaggerate the gravity of iho dangers which nniy arise if it bo left unsettled. Agree-
ment being declared impossible, we see no alternative, if arbitration is rejected, but a
perpetual risk of conflict. You have suggested no other means of obviating- it. Great
Britain las no desire to secure any pan of the territory in dispute, which does not
belong to her. Differing as she does from the viev/ of the United States as to the true

na
eff

178

effect of the Treaty and other circumstances, she asks that these differences may be
referred for decision to an impartial Tribunal.

We trust you will give to tho observations we have made your most earnest
consideration.

Yours, Ac.
(Signed) HERSCHBLL.

Inclosure 9 in No. 161

there is nolliiiig in the- proposals
the progress of our iiugotiations

it was distinctly understood at
without predjudicc. Wc could

concei-sionB which the American

Semtor Fairbanks to Lord Herschell.

My dear Lord Herschell, Washimjlon, February 16, 1899.

IT is quite true, as stated in your letter of yesterday, that the instructions of your
Government were sent to our Government a few days before the Quebec meeting, but
they did not in fact come to the attention of the Commissioners until they assembled at
Quebec. You will no doubt recall the observation made by General Foster during your
presentation of the Hritish Case upon the boundary that the view then advanced by you
respecting the head of Lynn Canal was the first distinct statement ol" the British claim.
I do not recall that you seriously disputed it. However, this is of little practical moment.
It is a non-essential detail. The pregnant fact was stated in my letter as follows : — " VVe
had understood that we were to construe and determine the disagreements of our respective
Governments (unless' otherwise ajfreed) which had engaged their attention prior to the
signature of the Protocol of the 30th May. 1898."

The views you have urged witli respect to the Lynn Canal had not been presented to
the United States ()rior to the signature of the Protocol, nor at any time prior to the
instructions of your Government, which came to our Commlrsioners substantially at the
opening of the Quebec meeting.

I shall not detain you by recurring to many of the details of your letter, about
some of which we arc not in entire agree:i;ent, for it seems to me it would not advance
the end we each desire.

It seems to the American Commissioners that
which the two Commissioners have exchanged in
which can be fairly construed against either, for
the outset that all proposals were to be made
not well negotiate U|)on any other basis. The
Commissioners have been pleased to otfbr have been made solely in the interest of an
amicable settlement and irrespective of strict rights.

Tnc first clause of the proposal of last Friday for a Joint Commission of " Kxperts
contained a formal admission that the territorial line dividing the possessions of the
respective Governments was to be ascertained and establisiied " in the manner you
suggested. But the proposal was rejected. The " admission " was purely tentative and
was submitted under the general understanding without prejudice. We had not
supposed until tho receipt of your letter that a contrary view was entertained.

We indeed regret that you should feel auy measure of personal disappointment at the
course of the negotiations. We have always accommodated oursehes, so far as possible,
to your convenience as to procedure. I am not aware that we have at any time failed to
accede to your wishes with respect to the precedence to be given in tlie consideration of
the various subjects of the Protocol.

It was agreed on all hands that a compromise of the boundary was preferable to
arbitration. Until recently ^^( did not despair of reaching an adjustment witiiout resort
to the alternative of arbitiation. It is, of course, possible wo should have earlier abandoned
an effort to compromise this troublesome problem.

So soon as arbitration became inevitable, and it was necessary to agree upon the
subje::t-matter of arbitration, you were promptly advised as to our views with respect to
its scope. To iiave advanced them before wo abandoned all effort at compromise would
have been obviously premature.

You say, " So far as we are aware, there lias been no eontrovery in terms between the
two Govcraments as to any specific parts of the boundary, except on the Stildne in H76,

and recently at the top of the pass above Dyea The fact is that Great ISritain

has never placed before the (loveruinent of tho United States in detail its contention us to
the line which the boundary should take."

This is precisely our claim. We have insisted that Great Britain has not questioned

174

the right of the possesBion of the United States to the territory at the head of Lynn Canal
uiiti! since liii' orif^inai Protocol. Wi' have continuously insisted tliat Russia and the
United States Imvc, since 1S2.'), possessed the waters and land nhout the head of Lynn
Canal ; that during more recent years Skagway and Dyeu have hcen huilt, and no
question li:is been raised until since the iirigiiia! Protocol as to whether or not
they were within the territorial limits of the United IStates. This is a fact of
moment.

You say, "Ivor has the United States ever suhmitted to the British Government
any complete statement of lier claim." We are unadvised as to this, otherwise than by your
letter. Heing in undisputed possession of the territory, it would seem thiit there was little
occasion for the Government of the United States to define her claims.

We have felt that you would be disposed to recognize the territorial rights which the
United States have ac(piiied by occupation, regardless of Treaty provisions, and are
1,'ratified to be assured by your letter that such is your pur|)()sc.

Yo\i say, " We have luul no evidence brought before us that since the Treaty of 1825,
Russia and the United State have, as alleged, exercised undisputed sovereignty over and
possession of the territory now under discussion. We do not admit it to be the fact."
Without entering further into the discussion upon the subject of adverse possession by Russia
and continued liy the United States, we hut repeat that tiiere is, in our opinion, ample
evidence of adverse possession from an early date. It would he of little profit to further
amplify this subject, except to observe that there is no one so far as we are aware, other
than Russia and the United States, who claims to have had possession from 1825 down to
the present moment.

We are not in accord witli your view tiiat we Inivc suggested no other means of
avoiding confiict than arbitration, in view of our several propositions hitherto submitted to
you.

We do not regard it at all impossible for the Commissioners, really desiring an
adjustment, to devise a method, or agree upon a tribunal arbitration by which the rights
of both parties may be fairly secured and settled. We are prepared to j)roceed witii you at
any time to effect this purpose.

I have, &c.
(Signed) CHARLES W. FAIRBANKS.

Inclosure 10 in No. 151.
Draft Arbitration Treaty.
ARTICLE I. •

An Arbitral Tribunal sliall be immediately appointed to determine the boundary-
line between the Territory of Alaska and the Dominion of Canada within the limits
defined in Article III.

ARTICLE II.

The Tribunal shall consist of three jurists of repute — one on the part of Great
Britain, nominated by the members for the time being of the Judicial Committee of
Her Majesty's Privy Council ; one on the part of the United States, nominated by the
President ; and of a third jurist, to be selected by the two persons so nominated, or in
the event of their failure to agree within tlirec months of the exchange of ratifications
of the ^.resent Treaty, to be selected by

In case of the death, absence, or incapacity to serve of either of the two Arbitratora
nominated aforesaid, or in the event of either of such Arbitrators omitting or declining
or ceasing to act as such, another jurist of repute shall be fortiiwith substituted in his
place. If .such vacancy shall occur in the case of the Arbitrator nominated by Great
Britain, the substitute shall be appointed l)y the members for the time being of the
Judicial Committee of the Her Majesty's Privy Council. Ff .such vacancy shall occur in
the case of the Arbitratiir nominated by the United States, he shall be appointed by
the President. In case of the death, absence, or incapacity to serve of the third

I7r>

Arbitrutor selected an aforesaid, or in the event of such Arbitrator omitting or declining
or ceasing to act a.s such, another jurist of repute shall be forthwith substituted in his
place who shall be selected by the two other Arbitrators, or in the event of their failure
td agree within one month of such vacancy occurring, by

ARTICLE III.

The Tribunal shall determine and delineate on suitable maps the boundary-line
between the Territory of Alaska and the Dominion "'" Canada from the southernmotit
point of Prince of Wales Island to Mount St. Elias, in accordance with the Treaty
between Russia and Great Britain of the 28th February, 182u.

ARTICLE IV.

In deciding the matters submitted, the Arbitrators shall ascertain all fact.-i which
they deem necessary to a decision of the controversy, and shall be governed by the
following Rules, which are agreed upon by the High Contracting Parties as Rules to be
taken as applicable to the case, and by such principles of international law not incon-
sistent there'tith as the Arbitrators shall determine to be applicable to the case : —

Rules.

(a.) Adverse holding or prescription during a period of fifty years .shall make
a good title. The Arbitrators may deem exclusive political control of a district, an
well as actual settlement thereof, sufficient to constitute adverse holding, or to make
title by prescription.

(6.) The Arbitrators may recognize and give elTect to rights and claims resting on
any other grounds whatever valid according to international law, and on any principles
of international law which the Arbitrators may deem to be applicable to the case, and
which are not in contravention of the foregoing Rule.

(c.) In determining the boundary-line, if territory of one Party be found by the
Tribunal to have been at the date of this Treaty in the occupation of the subjects or
citizens of the other Party, such effect shall be given to siu h occupation as reason,
justice, the principles of international law, and the equities of the case shall, in the
opinion of the Tribunal, require.

ARTICLE V.

The Arbitrators shall meet at within sixty days

after the delivery of the printed Arguments mentioned in Article VIII, and shall proceed
impartially and carefully to examine and decide the matters submitted to them as herein
provided on the parts of the Governments of Her Britannic Majesty and the United
States of America respectively.

Provided always that the Arbitrators may, if they shall think fit, hold their meetings,
or any of them, at any other place or places which they may determine.

All questions considered by the Tribunal, including the final decision, shall be
determined by a majority of all the Arbitrators.

Each of the High Contracting Parties shall name one person as its Agent to
attend the Tribunal, and to represent it generally in all nuitters connected with the
Tribunal.

ARTICLE VI.

The printed Case of each of the two Parties, accompanied by the documents, the
official correspondence, and other evidence on which each relies, shall be delivered in
duplicate to each of the .Arbitrators, and to the Agent of the other Party as soon a.s
may be after the appointment of the momhers of the Tribunal, but within a period not
exceeding months from the dale of the exchange of the ratification of this

Treaty.

[1127] 2 Z

^,

*'!*^"V!o.

IMAGE EVALUATION
TEST TARGET (MT-3)

/

/.

^/

/.

%

w
^?i^

€

1.0 !^ia

1^

III.8
1.6

>

1.1 i.-^i

hlUL.

1-25 1 1.4 ,

4

6" —

►

/j

^

?

Photographic

Sciences

Corporation

23 WEST MAIN STREET

WEBSTER, N.Y. MS80

(716) 872-4503

^S

■^

:^

176

ARTICLE VII.

Within months after the delivery on both sides of the printed Case,

either Part}- may in Jike manner deliver in duplicate, to each of the said Arbitrators
and to the Agent of the other Party, a Counter-Cnse and additional documents, corre-
spondence, and evidence, in reply to the case, documents, correspondence, and evidence
80 presented by the other Party.

If, in the Case submitted to the Arbitrators, either Party shall have specified or
alluded to any Report or document in its own exclusive possession without annexing
a copy, such Party shall be bound, if the otiier Party thinkf, proper to apply for it,
to furnish that Party with a copy thereof, and I'ithcr Party may call upon the other,
through the .Vrbitrators, to produce the originals or certified copies of any papers
adduced as evidence, giving in each instance notice thereof within thirty days after the
delivery of the Case, and the original or copy so recjuested shall be delivered as soon as
may be, and within a period not exceeding forty days after the receipt of notice.

ARTICLE VIII.

It shall be the duty of the Agent ot eacli Party, within months after the

expiration of the time limited for the delivery of the Counter-Case on both sides, to
deliver in duplicate to each of the said Arbitrators, and to the Agent of the other Party,
a printed Argument showing the points and referring to the evidence upon which his
Government relies.

The Arbitrators may, if they desire any further elucidation with regard to any point,
require oral argument by Counsel upon it, or a written or printed statement or argument,
but in such case the other Party shall be entitled to reply either orally or by written or
printed statement or argument, as the case may be.

ARTICLE IX.

The Arbitrators may, for any cause deemed by them sufficient, enlarge the periods
fixed by Articles VI, VII, and VITI, or any of them, by the allowance of thirty days
additional.

ARTICLE X.

The decision of the Tribunal shall, if possible, be made within three months from
the close of the arguments en both sides.

It shall be made in writing, and dated, and shall be signed by the Arbitrators who
may assent vO it. The decision shall be in duplicate, one copy whereof shall be delivered
to the Agent of Great Britain for his Government, and the other copy shall be delivered
to the Agent of the United States of America for his Government.

ARTICLE XI.

The Arbitrators shall keep an accuratr record of their proceedings, and may appoint
and employ the necessary officers to assist thoin. The may also emplo)' any scientific
experts whose assistance they may deem uecessary for the discharge of the duty intrusted
to them.

ARTICLE XII.

Each Government shall pay its own Agent, and provide for the remuneration of the
Counsel employed by it, and of the Arbitrators appointed on its behalf, and for the
expense of preparing and submitting its case to the Tribunal. All other expenses
connected with the arbitration shall be defrayed by the two Governments in equal
moieties.

177

ARTICLE XIII.

The High Contracting Parties engage to consider the result ot tlie proceedings of
the Tribunal of Arbitration as a full, perfect, and final settlement of all (lucstions referred
to the Arbitrators.

ARTICLE XIV.

The present Treaty shall be duly ratified by Her Britannic JIajesty and by the
President of the United States of America, by and with the advice and consent of the
Senate thereof, and the ratifications shall bo exchanged in London or in Washington
within months of the ratification thereof.

No. 162.

Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquess of Salisbury. — {Received February 27.)

(No. 16.)

(Telegraphic.) P. Washiugton, Fehntanj 27, IS99.

:MEAGHER abduction : My despatch No. 30 of the 23rd .January.

T communicated the answer of the United States' Goveniment to the Govemmeut
of Canada. The latter, without prejudice to any possihli; ekim for illegal dt^tcMition,
have requested me to express their entire satisfaction at the terms of the reply.

I have accordingly addrescnd a note in this sonso to the Secretary of State.

No. 163.

Lord Herschell to the Marquess of Salisbury. — {Received March 4.)

(No. 3.)

My Lord, Washington, February 24, 1899.

WITH reference to my despatch No. 2 of the 17th instant, I have the honour to
inclose copies of the Protocols down to the date of the adjournment of the Com-
mission.

I also transmit seme notes of the proceedings at the meeting on the afternooit
of the 18th instant, after the delivery of our Memorandum in reply to the American
counter-proposal as to the term? of an Arbitration Treaty.

The last meeting was held on Monday, the 20th instant, for the purpose of
determining the manner in which the agreement to adjourn should be recorded in
the Protocol of the previous Saturday.

The following statement, which I prepared and which was read to the C'om-
mission on Monday, will best explain the circimistanccs under which it was deemed
advisable to arrange for an adjournment : —

"When it became apparent ten days ago that the prolonged negotiations for
th<' settlement of the Alaska boundary question by way of compromise would not
result in an agreement, the British Commissioners at once proposed that the
boundary-line should be settled by arbitration. By the Treaty between the two
Powers of the 22nd .Tune, 1892, it was agreed that the necessary surveys should be
marie in the jighbourhood of the l)oundary-line with a view to its doliniitatiou in
accordance with the true spirit and intent of the Treaty of 1825. ITnfortuuiitely a
difTL'rence of ojiinion exists as to the construction of that Treaty, and t.^reforc as to
what is required to give effect to its true spirit and intent. Until this difference is
solved it is impossible to say how the line ought to i)e drawn. There seemed to thf
British Commissioners no means of arriving at a solution except by arbitration, and
arbitration of such a nature as must necessarily result in a detcrminatitin of the
matters in controversy. Until this was done, delimitatiou was iinpossible and the
boundary-line must remain in dispute. They were (piite willing tiwit the whole
question should be adjusted with a full regard to what justice and the ctiuitiesof the
case required. They tliougiit that the V'.'nc/.uelau lioundary Agreement uiigiit well
be taken as a precedent, and suggested aibitration on those lines.

178

" The United Stntes' Cnmmissiuners have innde a eoutitcr-prdposition that the
question shoultl be left to n body of jurists nominated in eqiud ntinibers by each
country. They also require that all towns and settlemeiiti; nn tide-water, settled
under the authority of the United Rtates should continue to be United States'
territory, even though they should prove to be on the British side of the line.

"The objections of the British Commissioners to these |)roposal8 were that
after much time had been occupied anti e.xpense incurred, we might be no nearer to
the solution of our differences or to the <leliinitation of the boundary than at present,
and that although some boundary disputes mi^ht be left undetermined even for a
long period without danger, fhe speetly dclimiiaiion of this houjidary '.v.is, under
existing circumstances, of urgent importance. They also pointed ;)ut that the form
of arbitration which they had proposed provided timt such elfect '<h(>idd be given to
United States' occupation of what proved to bo British territory .-is justice, reason,
and the equities of the case required.

" .\ discussion of the differences between the British and United States' Cum«
missioncrs made it clear that a solution of them was not to be looked for in the near
future. The United Gtates' Commissioners objected on principle to a European
Umpire. Whilst the British Commissioners had no objection in priiuiple to the
appointment of an Umpire belonging to the .American continents, they pointed out
that whereas many jurists of the hignest ctninence and repute were to he found in
Kuropc, this was not the case as regards the continents of Amc-i-a outside the
United States and Canada.

" The Canadian Commissioners, of whom one is the Prime Minister, and two
others occupy important offices in the Cabinet, have remained absent from the seat
of their Governmeni at great, inconvenience for several months. Their return without
further delay is now urgently necessary. In view then of the prospect that, even if
an agreement as to the mode of settlement of the Alaska boundary can be ultimately
arrived at, there is no near pros|Hx:t of such a result, the British Commissioners
have C(, 'le to the conclusion tiiat it would be better to suspend the negotiations for
the present.

" It was suggested by the United States' Commissioners, that even if agreement
on the Alaska boundary were for the present impossible, an endeavour should be
made to arrive at an agreement on the other subjects in the Protocol. The British
Commissioners do not consider it practicable to adopt thr course. The manner in
which they would be prepared to adjust some of the othe. important matters unrier
consideration must depend in their view upon whether it is possible to arrive .-tt a
settlement of all the questions which might at any time occasion acute controversy,
and even conflict. Of these the Alaska boundary question, in their opinion, stands
in the forefront."

A long discussion ensued, and it was eventually agreed on both sides to insert
in the Protocol only a short account ol what passed in order to avoid as much as
possible any record of divergent views which might necessitate further arguments
and rejoinders.

I telegraphed to your Lordship un the 21st instant a summary of the final pro-
ceedinas, and gave the reasons which had led me to consent to the adjournment.

I Iiare, &c.
(Signed) HEKSCHELL.

Inclosure 1 in !so. 153.

Protocol No. ^7 of Proceeding* of Joint High Commission, IVashington, February 7, 1899.

THK Joint High Commission assembled pureuant to adjournment at the Con-
ference llooms, at 10 a.m., all the members being present except Honourable Charles
J. Faulkner.

The Protocol of last meeting war read and approved.

The Joint High Commission made arrangements for the meetings of the Joint
Committees durip'j the interval, and then adjourned until Friday, the 10th Februarj,
at 10 o'clock in -ue forenoon.
(Signed) W. CHAUNCY CARTWIIIGUT. CHANDLER P. ANDERSON.
HENRI BOURASSA.

179

InolosTue 2 in No. 158.
Protocol Xo, 58 of Proceedings of Joint High Commission, Washington, February 10, 1899.

THE Joint Uigh Commission assembled pursuant to adjournment at the Conference
Eooms, at 10 A.M., all t'.io members being present.

The Protocol of the last meeting was read and approved.

The Joint High Commission, after arranging for the meetings of the Joint Com-
mittees during the interval, adjourned until Tuesday, tho 14th February, at 10 o'clock
in the forenoon.
(Signed) W. CHAUNCY CARTAVRIGHT. CHANDLER P. ANDERSON.
HENRI Bf) JRA88A.

Inclosure 3 in No. 153.

Protocol No. 59 of Proceedings of Joint High Commission, Wnshington, February 11, 1899.

THE Joint High Commission assembled pursuant to adjournment at the Con-
ference Rooms, at 10 a.m., all t\u' members being present except Mr. John Charlton,
Honourable John W. Poster, and Honourable T. Jefferson Coohdge.
The Protocol of the last meeting was reml and approve<l.

The Joint High Commission thereupon adjourned until Wednesday, the
16th February, at 10 o'clock in the forenoon.
(Signed) W. CHAUNCY CARTWRIGHT. CHANDLER P. ANDERSON.
HENRI BOURA88A.

IncloBi.i'c 4 in No. 163.

Protocol So. 60 of Proceedings of Joint High Commission, Washington, February 15, 1899.

THE Joint High Commission assembled pursuant to adjournment at the Con-
ference Rooms, at 10 a.m., all the members l)ciug present except Mr. John Charlton
and Honourable T. Jefferson Coolidgc.

Tho Protocol of the last meeting was read and approved.

Tho Joint High Commission thereupon adjourned until Thursday, the 16th
February, at 10 o'clock in the forenoon.
(Signed) W. CHAUNCY CARTWRIGHT. CH.£lNDLER P. ANDERSON.
HENRI B0URAS8A.

Inclosure 5 in No. 153.
Protocol No, 6 1 of Proceedings of Joint High Commission, Washington, February 16, l^brf.

THE Joint High (Commission assembled pursuant to adjournment at the Con-
ference Rooms, at 10 a.m., all tho memlwrs Iwing present except Lord Hersobeil and
Honourable John W. Foster, who were detained by illness.

The Protocol of tho last meeting was read and approved.

A recess was then taken until 5 o'clock in the afternoon, and upon reasiembling
the subject of tho Alaskan-Canadian boundary wa? taken up for discussion.

The Joint High Commission thereupon adjourned until Friday, the 17th February,
at half-past 10 o'clock in the forenoon.
(Signed) W. CHAUNCY CARTWRIGHT. CHANDLER P. ANDERSON.
HENRI B0URA8SA.

[1127]

8 A

IneloauTc 6 in No. IM.
Pntarol No. 62 of Proeeedingx of Joint High Conutiitnon, iViuhington, February 17, 1899.

i'HB Joint Hiffh ConimiBaion aasemblud porsuuit to ■djoornment, «t 1030 a.m.,
at the Confcrcnco Rooms, all the membere being prcr«nt except Lord Uerechell and
the Honourable John W, Foster, who wore detained by llneM.

Tlie Protocol of the iaHt ineetin); was read and Approved.

Tlu^ 8ubjeat of the Alaskan-Canadian boundary was Uken op for discumion, after
which the Joint Hiffh Commission adjourned until Saturday, the 18th Februarj, at
10 o'clock in the forenoon.
(Signed) W. CUAUWCY CARTWllIGHT. CHANDLER P. ANDERSON.

Inclosure 7 in No. 153.
Protocol No. 03 of Proceedings of Joint High Commitnon, IVofhington, Ptbnuiry 18, 1809.

THE Joint High Commission assembled pursuant to adjoomment at the Con-
ference Rooms, at 10 o'clock, a.m., all the members being present except Lord Herschell
and the Honourable John W. Foster, who were detained bj illness, and Sir Richard J.
Cartwright.

The Protocol of the last meeting was read and approved.

The question of the boundary between Alaska and Canada was again taken up for
discussion.

'I'he British Commissioners represented that the Coinmisnon having been unable
to agree on that question, it should be rnrerrcd to arbitration. They therefore made
the following propor.ition as a basis to h: proceeded ujwu in framing a Treaty : —

Article 1. An Arbitral TribunnI shall be immediately appointed to determine the
boundary-line between the territory of Alaska and the Dominion of Canada, within
the limits defmed in Article 3.

Art. 2. The Tribunal shall consist of three jurists of repute : one on the i)art of
Great Britain, nominated by the members for the time being of the Judicial Com-
mittee of Her Jfnjesty's Privy Council ; one on the part of the Unit«d States, nominated
by the President ; and of a third jurist to be selected by the two persons so nominated,
or in the event of their failure lO agree within t>.rec months of the exchange of
ratifications of the present Treaty, to be selected by

In cose of the death, absence, or incapacity to serve of either of the two Arbitrators
nominated as aioresaid, or in the event of eithci- of such Arbitrators omitting or
declining, or ceasing to act as such, unothcr jurist of repute shall l>e forthwith sub-
stituted in his place. If such vacancy shall occur in the case of the Arbitrator nomi-
nated by Great Britain, the substitute shall be appointed by the members for the time
being of the Judicial Committee of Her Majesty's Privy Council. If auch vacancy
shall occur in the case of the Arbitrator nominated by the United States, he sliall be
appointed by the President. In case (<f the death, absence, or inca|)acity to serve of
the third Arbitrator, selected as aforesaid, or in tlie event of such Arbitrator omitting
or declining, or ceasing to act as such, another jurist of repute shall be forthwith sub-
stituted in his place, who shall be selected by the two other Arbitrators, or in the event
of their failure to agree within one month of such vacancy occurring, by

Art. 3. The Tribunal shall dct(!rmine and delineate on suitable maps the boundary-
line between the territory of Alaska and the Dominion of Canada from the southernmost
point of Prince of Wales Island to Mount St. Hlias, in accordance with the Treaty
between Bussia and Great Britain of the 28th February, 1825.

Art. 4. In deciding the mnttcrs submitted, the Arbitrators shall ascertain i, facts
which they deem necesHary to a decision of the controversy, and shall be governed by
the following Rules, which arc agreed upon by the High Contracting Parties as Rules to
be taken as applicaole to the case, and by such principles of international law
not inconsistent therewith as the Arbitrators shall detcrmiue to be applicable to the
ease.

M

RnUi.

(a.) Adverse holding or prescription during a period of fifty years shall make a good
title. The Arbitrators may deem exclnsivo political control of a dirtrict, as well aa
actual settlement thereof, suflicient to constitute adverse holding or to make title by
prescription.

(A.) The Arbitrators may recognize and give effect to rights and claims resting on
any other ground whatever valid according to international law, and on any principles
of international law which the Arbitrators may deem to be applicable to the ease, and
which arc not in contravention of the foregoing rule.

(r.) In determining the boundary-line, if territory of one party shall bo found by
the Tribunal to have been at the date rf this Treaty in the occupation of the subjects
or citizens of the other i'arty, such effect shall hn given to anch ooeupstion as reason,
justice, the principles of international law, and the equities of the case shall, in the
opinion of the Tribunal, r«<)uic«.

Art. 5, The Arbitrators shall meet at within sixty days after the delivery of

the printed Argument mentioned in Article 8, and shall proceed impartially and carefully
to examine and decide the matters submitted to theni as herein provided, on the parts
of the Governments of Her Britannic Majesty and the United States of America
respectively :

Provided always that the Arbitrators may, if they shall think fit. hold their
meetings, or any of them, at any other place or places which they may determine.

All questions considered by the Tribunal, including the final decision, shall be
determined by a majority <if all the Arbitrators.

Each of the High Contracting Parties shall name one person as its Agent to
attend the Tribunal, and to represent it generally in all matters coimected with the
Tribunal,

Art. 6. The printed Case of each of the two Parties accompanied by the documents,
the official correspondence, and other evidence on which each relies, shall ])e delivered
in duplicate to each of the Arbitrators and to the Agent ol' the other Party, as soon as
may be after the appointment of the members of the Tribunal, hut within a period lot
exceeding months from the date of the exchange of the ratifications of ,his

Treaty.

Art. 7. V/ilhin months after the delivery on both sides of the printed Cise,

cither Party may, in like manner, deliver in dujilicate to each o*' the .said Arbitrators
and to the Agent of the other Party, a Counter-Case and additioi, il documents, corre-
spondence, and evidence in reply to the Case, documents, corresponQence, and evidence,
as presented by the other Party.

If in the Case suhmiUod to the Arbitrators either Party shall have wpecifieu or
alluded to any report or document in its own exclusive possession without unnexiiiif u
copy, such Party shall be bound, if the other Party tliinks proper to ai)])l.v for it, to
furnish that Party with a copy thereof; and either Party may coll upon the other,
throuifh the Vrbitrators, to produce the originals or certified copies of any pn))crs adduce'!
as evidence, giving in each instance notice thereof within thirty days after the delivery of
the Case, and the original or <u)py so requested shall be delivered as soon as may be
and within a jwriod not exceeding forty dajs after the receipt of notice.

Art. S. It sliall be the duty of the Agent of each I'arty within months .after

the expiration of the time limitcl for the delivery of the Counter-Case on both .sides, to
deliver in duplicate to each of the said Arbitrators, and to the Agent of the other
Party, a printed Argument showing the points and referring to the evidence upon whicli
his Government relies.

The Arbitrators may, if they desire any further elucidation with regard to any
point, require oral argument by Coun.'<el upon it, or a written nr printed statement or
argument, but in such case the other I'arty .shall be entitled to reply either orally or by
written or printed statement or argument, as the ease may be.

Art. 9, The Arbitrators may, for any cause dcenied by them sufficient, enlarge
the periods fixed by Articles 0. 7, and s, or any of them, by the allowance of thirty dnys
additional.

Art. 10. The decision of the Tribunal shall, if possible, l)e made within three
months from the close of the argum'.'nts on both sides.

It shall be made in writing, aiid dated, and shall be signe( y the .\rbitrators who
may assent to it. The decision shall be in duplicate — oni copy whereof shell be

delivered to tho Agent of Great Britain for hiH Government, and the other copy aball
be delivered to the Agent of the United States of America for his Govemiiicnt.

Art. 11. Tho Arbitratoni ^4hall keep an accurate record of their proceedings, and
may appoint and employ the necesMary officers to assist them. They may also employ
any scientific experts, whose assistance they may deem necessary for the discharge of
the duty intrusted to them.

Article 12. Each (iovernment shall pay its own Agent, and provide for the
remuneration of the Counsel employed by it, and of the Aihitiator^ appointed uu its
behalf, and for the expense of preparing and submitting its case to the Tribunal. All
other expenses connected with the Arbitration shall be dcfrnycd by the two Govern-
ments in equal moieties.

Art. 13. 1^10 High Contracting Parties engage to consider the rt w\t of the pro-
ceedings of the Tribunal of Arbitration as a lull, perfect, and final settlement of all
questions referred to the Arbitrators.

The Commissioners of the United States announced that they accepted the pro-
posals made as the basis of adjustment, but desired an amendment in relation to the
Arbitral Tribunal and a modification of Rule (c) to make it conform to the present
local conditions in Alaska.

They then presenteu the Project of Articles, as modified, which was as follows : —

Article 1. An Arbitral Tribunal shall be icnmediately appointed to determine the
boundary-line between the territory of Alaska and the Dominion of Canada within the
limits defined in the following Article 3.

Art. 2. The Tribunal shall consist of six impartial jurists of repute, three on the
part of Grent Britain, nominated by the members for the time being of the Judicial
Committee of Her Majesty's Privy Council, and three on the part of the United States,
nominated by the President.

In case of the death, absence, or inca|)acity to serve of either of the Arbitrators
nominated as aforesaid, or in the event of either of such Arbitrators omitting or declining
or ceasing to act as such, another impartial jurist of repute shall be forthwith nominated
in his place by the same authority which appointed his predecessor.

Art. 8. The Tribunal shall determine and if practicable delineate on suitable maps
the boundary-line between the territory of Alaska and the Dominion of Canada from
the southernmost point of Prince of Wales Island Lo Mount St. Elias in accordance with
the Treaty between Russia and Great Britain dated the 28th (I6th) February, 1825,
and the Treaty of cession from Russia to the United States dated the 30th March,
1867, or as the same shall be cstablislied hy said Tribunal under the Rules hereinafter
provided.

Art. 4. Before deciding the matters submitted, the Arbitrators shall ascertain all
geographical, historical, and other facts which they deem necessary to a decision of the
controversy, and shall be governed by the following Rules, which are agreed upon by the
High Contracting Parties as'-Rules to be taken as applicable to the pase, and by such
principles of international law not inconsistent therewith as the Arbitrators shall
determine to be applicable to the case.

Rules.

(a.) Adverse holding or prescription during a period of fifty years shall make a good
title. The Arbitrators may deem exclusive political control of a district, as well as
actual settlement thereof, sufficient to constitute adverse holding, or to make title by
prescription.

(b.) The Arbitrators may recognize and give effect to rights and claims resting on
any other ground whatever valid according to international law, and on any principles of
international law which the Arbitrators may deem to be applicable to the case, and which
are not in contravention of the foregoing Rule.

(r.) In considering the " coast," referred to in said Treaties mentioned in
Article 3, it is understood that the coast of the continent is intended, la determining
the boundary, if territory of one Party shall be found by the Tribunal to have been at
the date of this Treaty in the occupation of the subjects or citizens of the other Party,
such effect shall be given to such occupation as reason, justice, the principles of inter

188

national Intv, and the cquitiex of the t-asc shall, in the opinion of the Tribunal, require ;
und all toHna or Hettlemcnts on tide-water, settled under the authority of the United
States iind under the jurisdiction of the United States at the date of this Treaty, shall
remain within the territory and jurisdiction of the United States.

Art. '}. The Arbitrators shall meet at within sixty days after the

delivery of the printed arguments mentioned in Article 8, and shall proceed imi>artialljr
and carefully to examine and decide the matters submitted to them, an herein provided
un the parts of the Governments of Her Britannic Majesty and the United States of
America respectively :

Provided always that the Arbitrators may, if they shall think fit, hold their mcutinga,
r any of them, at any other place or pieces whicli they may determine.

All questions considered by the 'i'ribunni, including the final decision, shall be
determined by a majority of all the Arbitrators.

Bach of the High Contracting Parties shall name one puri«(>ii us its Agent to attend
the Tribunal, and to represent it generally in all matters connected nith the
Tribunal.

Art. G. The printed Case of each of the two Parties, accompanied by the documents,
the official correspondence, and other evidence on which each relies, shall be delivered
in dupliciite to each of the Arbitrators, and to the Agent of the other Party, as .soon as
may be after the appointment of the members of the Tribunal, but within a period not
exceeding months from the date of the exchange of the ratifications of this

Treaty.

Art. 7. Within months after the delivery on both sides of the printed Case,

either Party may, in like manner, deliver in duplicate to each of the said Arbitrators, and
to the Agent of the other Party, a Counter-Case and additional documents, correspondence,
and evidence, in reply to the Case, documents, correspondence, and evidence so presented
by the other Party.

If, in the case submitted to the Arbitrators, either Party shall have specified or
alluded to any report or document in its own exclusive possession without annexing a
copy, such Party shall be bound, if the other Party thinks proper to apply for it, to furnish
that Party with a copy thereof; and either Party may call upon the other, through the
Arbitrators, to produce the originals or certified copie.s of any papers adduced as evidence,
giving in each instaiice notice thereof within thirty days after the delivery of the Case,
aud the original, or copy, so requested, shall be delivered us soon as may be, and within
a period not exceeding forty days after the receipt of notice.

Art. 8. — It shall be the duty of the Agent of each Party within months

after the expiration of the time limited for the delivery of the Counter-Case on both
sides, to deliver in duplicate to each of the said Arbitrators and to the Agent of the
other Party, a printed statement or argument showing the points and referring to the
evidence upon which his Qovemment relies. The other Party may submit reply
thereto.

The Arbitrators may, if they desire further elucidation with regard to any point,
require oral argument by Counsel upon it, or a written or printed statement or argument,
but in such case the other Party shall be entitled to reply either orally or by written or
printed statement or argument, as the case may be.

Art. 0. — The Arbitrators may, for any cause deemed by them sufificient, enlarge the
periods fixed by Articles 6, 7, and 8, or any of them, by the illowance of thiity days
additional.

Art. 10. — Tlic decision of the Tribunal shall, if possible, be made within three
months from the close of the arguments on botii sides.

It shall be made in writing, and dated, and shall be signed by the Arbitrators who
may assent to it. The decision shall bo in duplicate — one ■copy whereof shall be delivered
to the Agent of Great Britain for his Government, and the other copy shall be delivered
to the Agent of the United States of America for his Government.

Art. 11. — The Arbitrators shall keep an accurate record of their proceedings, and
may appoint and employ the necessary ofiicers to assist them. They may also employ
any scieiitidc- experts whose assistance they may deem necessary for the discharge of the
duty intrusted to them.

Art. 13. — Each Government shall pay its own Agent and provide for the remunera-
tion of the Counsel (if any) employed by it, and of the Arbitrators appointed on its behalf,
and for the expense of preparing and submitting its case to the Tribunal. All other
expenses connected with the Arbitration shall be defrayed by the two Governments in
equal moieties.

[1127J 9 B

Art. 13. — The High Contracting Partien engage to consider the rcHult of the
proceedings of tho Tribunal of Arbitration us a full, perfect, and flnal Htittleinent of all
questions referred to tho Arbitrators.

A recuss of the Joint High CommiHsion was then taken until 3 o'clock, p.m. Upon
reassombling the British ('oinmifmionera stated that they were abgolutely unable to
accept the nioditlcation to their proposition, suggested by the American Commissioners,
and gave the reasons of their dissent as follows : ••

The British Commissioners having considered the amendments suggested to their
proposal of yesterday, for a reference to arbitration of the Alaska-Canadian boundary-
line by the United States' Commissioners, regret that they are unable to agree to the
same for the following reasons : —

1. Because the suggested amendment to Article 2 does not provide a Tribunal
which would necessarily, and in the possible event of differences of opinion, finally
dispose of the question. On the lltb February, the British Commissioners submitted
that, in their opinion, " such provision can only be made in the terms of the Protocol (i n
default of agreement as to the boundary) by au agreement for some steps to be taken,
which will, if taken, necessarily result in a delimitation of tho whole boundary." They
adhere most strongly to this opinion, and cannot depart from it.

2. Because the suggestion in sub-section (r) of Article 4, that " all towns or Settle-
ments on tide-water, settled under the authority of the United States and under the
jurisdiction of the United States at the date of this Treaty, shall remain within the
territory and jurisdiction of the United States " is a marked and important departure
from the Rules of the Venezuela boundary reference, which provided that all equities
arising from possession or other facts alleged by either of the Parties to the reference
should be left for the consideration and determination of the arbitration, and be 'ven
by them such weight as reason, justice, and the principles of international law and the
equities of the case should require. The words added by the United States' Commis-
sioners claim that an effect should be given to their occupation of land in British
territory which justice, reason, and the eauities of the case do not require.

'J'hc British Commissioners further object to the declaration added to the first part
of Article (c), as follows : —

" In considering the ' coast ' referred to in said Treaties mentioned in Article 3, it
is understood that the coast of the continent is intended."

While it was probably only intended by this clause that the line should be drawn
upon the continent, the language used is open to misconstruction.

Holding these views, the British Commissioners are of the opinion that no useful
end will be served by further pressing at the present time the negotiations, and must
refer the matter to their Government.

Ill the exchange of views in respect to the constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal
which followed this communication, inquiry was made by the United States' Commis-
sioners whether the British Commissioners had considered the question of selecting an
Umpire from the American continents.

To this it was replied that they had considered it, and thought it most objection-
able, in view of the policy long maintained and recently reasserted by the Government
of the United States towards the other countries on the said continent. The selection
of an Umpire by any such nation would not, in their opinion, offer the guarantee of
impartiality, which is the first qualification requisite for the discharge of the duties
intrusted to him.

In view of the reference ot the subject to their Government, as announced liy the
British Commissioners, the Commissioners of the United States regarded it unnecessary
to make any further observations upon the subject of the Alaskan boundary.

They then proposed that the Joint High Commission should proceed to a determina-
tion of the remaining subjects of difference named in the original Protocol. They
regarded it as unwise to further defer the adjustments so nearly concluded after full
consideration. Several subjects were so far advanced as to assure the probability of a
settlement. If, then, all differences except one could now be adjusted, would it not be a
m6st commendable advance in neighbourly friendship ? Could not our respective
Governments be trusted to settle the principal remaining difference by direct
negotiation P

The United States' CommiBsioners further regretted the suspension for any long

186

tim« of the negotiations in view of the progress already made in solving the
differences.

They, therefore, urged that the Joint High Commission should advance to a
conclusion their negotiations upon the remaining Hubjects as early ns possible.

The British Commissioners replied that all such questions should bi- deferred until
the boundary question had been disposed of, cither by agreement or reference to
arbitration. The manner in which they would be prepared to adjust nome of the other
important matters under consicferation must depend, in their view, upon whether it is
possible to arrive at a settlement of all the (|uestions which might at any time occasion
acute controversv, and even conflict.

The Joint High Commission thereupon adjounied until Nfonday, the 20th February,
at 10 o'clock in the forenoon.
(Signed) W. CllAUNCY CAR'l'WRIOUT. CHANDLEJl 1'. ANDEU80N.

luclosuru 8 in No. 1S8.

Protocol No, 64 of Proceedinys of Joint Hioh Covimiiinon, Washington, February 20,1899.

THB Joint High Commission assembled pursuant to adjournment at the C(m.
fercnctf Rooms, at 10 a.m., all the members being prosout except Lord Hcrschell and
Honourable John W. Foster, who were detnincd by illness, and Sir Richard J.
Cart Wright.

The Protocol of the last meeting was read and approved.

It was agreed that the Commission should adjourn to meet at Quebec, the
2nd August next, unless some other date should be agreed upon by the Chairmen of tho
respective Commissions.
(Signed) W. CUAUNCY CARTWRIGHT. CHANDLER P. ANDERSON.

Inelosuro 9 in No. 153.

Notes of Proceedings at the Second Meeting of February 18, 1899.

Senator Fairbanks proceeded to explain the American counter-draft for arbitration
presented this mornin!^. Ho said that tho United States had proposed a Tribunal
similar to that mentioned, and sti-ongly adhere<l to by Ijord Salisbury in his iiegotiation.s
with Mr. Olney. Moreover, Venezuela was not in the same close relation to Great
Britain as the United States. lie thought Groat Britain might well accept arbitnvtion
without provision for a foreign Umpire. His opinion was tliat the six Arbitrators
would arrive at a n;sult, if it wore agreed that the finding of tins Board should l)c filial.
The American Arbitrators would be chosen from parts of the country far removed from
tho localities interested in the dispute. They might certainly have some bias if they
came from the Pacific Coast, but jurists from tho Eastern States would be (juito
impartial. If the Arbitrators failed to come to a decision, the matter might be taken
up anew.

With regard to the proposed additions to Rule (c), he said that the force of thr
provision already inserted respecting the equities of the case, &c., was fully rccoijuizcHl ;
but tho two American towns on tho Ljnu Canal could not be left in uncertainty as to
their disirasal. They had been built within tho last few years by United States' citizens,
who relied on their being situated in American territory. Great Britain had j)ermittod
these people to acquire rights there without protest ; she might have protested at once.
It would be a misfortune for Canada itself if these places came into its possession. It
was impossible to remove the prejudices of the people. If after all these; yeare a
change wore made, the same trouble would exist as in Alsace-Lorraine If those towns
were ultimately to be left to the United States by the pfocess of arbitration, why not
say 80 at once, and avoid the excitement which would be aroused by public sentiment
and prejudice P

186

The R«9nator cominunctHi lomo obwsrvHtionii witli roipect t»i tlio interpolation in
Rule (f) n>«i|><><-ting the inonnini? of the word "coast," m iwcd in tho Trraty of 1826;
but it wnii ciiiiHidcred uniiefoiisiiry to diHCUM thnt jioiiit nt tlic urost'nt tnoinont.

H»' wild, ill foiioIiiMion, timt it would Im- wijII to agree on tin' rest of tho bouudary-
llnr, leaving only the uufistionii in i'ortinnd Canal and Lynn Canal to arbitmtion.

Sir If. lAiurier reniied that wo had n-ncluid a stage at which arguniont* had l>ccomo
tueleM. Mr. Fairlmnks' minarks did not omivinor him that the draft ))ro|xuuil for
arliitmtion handed in liy the Kritifth CouirnlHuioiiers ought not to Ihj adhered to. The
final voiw in the matter Nhould rtwt witli »oine [uTnon who had nothing to do with
the ({uivtion at issue. Tho nationality of the Ari)itrator must give him some biaa. In
six months this Commission had failcnl to settle even tho terms of reference to nrhitra-
tioii on this question, although no body of nu'n coiild be more anxious to eome to an
agreement.

'llie Umpire might Iks taken fH)m any country in Ruro|>e, and there was no reason
to depart fn)m so recent n precedent as the Venezuelan alTnir. He admitted that the
Americans nt Dvea and Skaguav might feel aMrieved, bnt we had ofTeri'd from the
first that these two places ahould be left t«) the United States on condition of a port
being cwlwl to us.

Urmitor Fairbanks pointed out that the Arbitrators could pve a fiiml decision,
whereas the Commissioners had been obliged to take into consideration tho possible
action of tlie Senate.

Hfnator /•'aulkner obser\'ed that the Arhitrators could first make up their minds o
to the legal position, and then apply any principle of equitable adjustment which
might be found necessary.

Mr. Kaston agreetl with Sir W. Jjaurier that arguments were now useless. He
asked, however, whethe.' an Umpire from the American continents would bo
acceptable.

Sir U'. Laurier replifd that the history of the Latin nations on those continents
was not such as to justifv such a selection.

Mr. K(i»>oii mc'itiuiuHl Mexico as a country where a good Umpire could be found,
lie then suggested that tho Governments might name an Umpire, in case the
Arbitrators failed to arrive at a decision.

Sir \V. Laurier said ho was prepared to trust to the two Governments to settle
everything. He fervently hoped that, in view of the ^)re8ent failure, both oountries
would jiress their respective Governments to come to an understanding.

Mr. Kamon believed that tho Governments would be able to settle any points which
the Arbitrators left undetermined.

Senator Fatrhanks then spoko of the serious effect which might be produced by the
breaking up of this Commission. The attention of the world would be called to it. It
was very desirable that nothing shoidd occur to interrupt tho friendly feeling now
growing up between the two countries. To separate without any agreement would
lead to a renewal of the old feeling, and of tho controversies and recriminations
of former years. It was a matter to be deeply considered. Arbitration might be mode
impossible in the future. If all the (questions except the Alaska boundary were dealt
with, tho mischief-makers would be silenced. If an arbitration could not be agreed
upon now, tho settlement of the other questions would help tho settlement of this one
also. " We ought to give something to the world."

Sir iV. Laurier observed that the United States would neither agree to any
settlement nor refer to arbitration.

Senator Fairbanks said it was true that the Americans would not have a European
Umpire, but the British likewise refused to accept an American.

Mr. Payne said that the Commission might agree on all questions except the
Alaska boundary. That question was vital, and could not be compromised. The
United States proposed the same form of Tribunal as had been proposed by Lord
Salisbury, who adduced cogent arguments in its favour. There was no saying whether
the plan might not succeed.

Sir L. Davies stated that Sir W. Laurier was obliged to go back to Ottawa at once,
and that the Commission was quite justified in separating, in view of all the existing
circumstances.

187

No. 164.

Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marqueti of Salubury. — (Received March 18.)

<No. tiO.)

My Lord, tl'anhington. February 25, 1890.

WITH reforenco to my despatch No. .30 of tlw; 2.3rd ultimo, reHpjtting the arrest of
ThoTuus Meof^lier, I have the honour to transmit herewith copy of a despatch from the
Goveruor-Gcnornl of Cnnadii, to whom I iind coinmunicatcd .\lr. Hay's note No. 1324.

I have addressed a note this day to the United States' Secretary of State in the
sense of the last ])iira);raph of Lord Minto's despatch.

I have, ice.
(' ed) JULIAN PAUNCKKOTE.

IncloHuro ii N >. 1C4.
The Earl of ic to Sir J. Pnuncefole.

2 Sir, Ootnni- a Hoiue, Ottawa, February 2i),\%yQ.

' DULY commuiiicated to my Minis' i ynvir Eicelicncy's despatch No. 7 of the
iiSrd uhimo, inclosing copy of a note fro-i the Vnitcd StattV Secretary of State, in .viiich
he stated that Tiiomas Me.igher, who • ud hecn urrcsteil in Canadian waters by a United
Status' otficial, and deported into the United Stile, iiad hcen discliarged from arrest, and
from the bail given for his appearance, and disavowed on ''"half of the United States
Oovernmeiir, any act of force against Meagiier in Caniidian wutei ;.' tiie same time
expres.sing regret for the unfortunate occurrence; md I ;ui. row advised by my Ministers
th.it this" Government is entirely siitisfied with these explanations and expressions of
regret, and does net propose to take any further action in the matter.

In conveying this expression of satisfaction to the United States' Government, I
would rcciucit your Excellency to explain that the C.i.i.idian Government does not desire
to express any opinion which might interfere with any eloim Mr. Meagher might make tor
illegal detention.

I have, &c.
(Signed) MIMO.

No. 155.

Mr. Cartwrtght to the Marquess of Salisbury. — (Received March 13.)

(No. 4. Confidcntial.l

My Lord, Washington, March ?,, 1899.

IN order to complete the history of the negotiations of the Anglo-American
Commission at Washington, 1 have the honour to inclose copies of some further
documents which were exchanged between Lord llerschell ami Senator Fairbanks.
A tlcipatch in this sense was prepared for Lord llcrsciicir.s signature, but, as his
death supervened so suddenly, it bad not yet !;een submitted to his approval. In
view, however, of tlic adjournment of the Commission, i feel it my duty lo forward
the papers, which have h "^n in my possession for some time past.

In his despatch No. 2 of the 17th February, Lord llerschell inclosed, witii other
documents, a copy of a communication addressed by him to Senator Fairbanks, in
which reference was made to Mr. Kai;janks' letter of the 21th December. I now
transmit a copy of that letter, and of a supplementary one of the 26th December,
both of these being in reply to Lord Herschell's letter of the 21st December, of
which a copy was inclosed in his Lordship's despatch No. 15 of the 22n(l.

There follows a copy of Lord Herschell's further letter of the 31st December
from Ottawa, forwarding Memoranda with regard to bonding privileges and to the
Alaska i)oundary. No answer was returned by Senator Fairbanks, because the
Commission reassembled a few days afterwards.

riie next paper is a copy of a Menloranduni respecting the carrying trade

betwi;cn the United States and its newly-acquired possessions of Porto Rico and

Hawaii. This Memorandum was sent to Senator Fairbanks by Lord HersciicII on

the 30th December, in explanation of the proposal with reference to Bririsfi vessels

[1127] 3 C

mm

188

trading between those islands and United States' ports on the continent of Amcriea
Mr. Fairbanics had already been supplied with a copy of the proposed clause, the
terms of which were approved by your Lordship in a telegram to Her Majesty's
Ambassador dated the Iflth December.

Lord Herschell had again occasion to write privately to Senator Fairbanks
about the work of the Commission on the 24th January. A copy ol that letter is
also inclosed.

The accompanying letter, marked Private and Confidential, was addressed to
Lord Herschell by Senator Fairbanks on the 9th February, having reference to the
Alaska boundary. The Memoranda exchanged on that day were sent home in Lord
HerscheM's despatch No. 2 of the 17th February.

I have, &c.
(Signed) W. CHAUNCY CARTWRIGUT.

Inclosure 1 in No. 1C5.
Senator Fairbanks to Lord Herschell.

Washington, D.C., December 24, 1898.
21st instant reached oie after your departure for

Dear Lord Herschell,

YOUR note of the
Ottawa.

T have read with interest your views with respect to three of the questions
submitted to the Commission, namely, the Atlantic Gsheries, the seal question, and
the Alaska boundary, questions of confessedly of great importance, though 1 do not
think they outrank the transportation question, of which you make no mention.

You seem to hold the viev/ that in the consideration of the matters submitted
for our determination, we had not betni as liberal in concessions as yourself and
your colleagues. It seems to me, on tiie contrary, that the American Commissioners
nave yielded many points ; and with respect to tlie three questions whicli you liave
^iven exceptional prominence, they have made very substantial concessions in the
interest of a just settlement, not all, of course, that you could wish, but, speaking
largely, all that thus far they have felt justified in making.

You need no reassurance that there is not one of the American Commissioners
who is not quite as heartily in favour of an amicable settlement of the questions
committed to our consideration as either yourself or your colleagues ; and they at
no time have lost sight of the fact that no adjustment could be effected oxcept by
observing the "give and take" policy to which you refer. I may further say that
they desire no setllemeut whatever which shall not be absolutely as just and
equitable to British as to American interests. They will have failed of their
purpose if the letter of the Treaty shall contravene those broad principles of justice
and right which mupt be the foundation on which any permanent adjustment
rests.

I observe your suggestion that the British Commissioners had early hoped that
the Atlantic fisheries' question might be adjusted upon the basis of the Agreement
between the two Governments in 1888, or by the provision for " free fish."

The very decisive vote by ivhich the Arrangement of 1888 was .'••yected in the
Senate wouldl seem to give little warrant for the belief that we «vould be able to
carry its provisions into a new Treaty. It failed to receive a majority vote of the
Senate ; whereas, by our Constitution, as you are well aware, a t\ 'o-thirds vote was
necessary for ratification.

To tlic |)roposit!on for " free fish " the American Commissioners have given the
most attentive consideration. You very promptly advised at the oursct of the
negotiations tiiat ii was doubtful if free fish could be granted. Our refusal to agree
to your proposition was not altogether because the Gloucosler fishermen objected to
it, but because the American Commissioners did not think that it was accompanied
by an offer of equivalent concessions.

Pending an arbitration as to what were the respective rights of the two
Governments, under the Treaty of 1818, &c., the American Commissioners have
agreed to pay to Canada the licence fees required, while our contention is that they
are unwarranted under the Treaty in dispute. Can it be that this concession,
which is for the time being an abandonment of the claims of the American fisher-
men, is not a real and substantial one ? Ii the American Commissioners accept the

199

modus Vivendi pending arbitration as to their actu?' ••ights in the premises, and
oblige their Government to pay to Canada the lictice fees required, is there just
ground for questioning their liability ?

I observe your suggestion that it has not been possible thus far to obtain
consent to the free admission of lumber and certain sta;ilo agritniltural prcflucls, as
desired by the British Commissioners, although a considerable list of artiiSles has
been agreed upon by the Sub-Committee charged with considering the subject of
reciprocity.

The difficulties witli which we have to deal are not new to the present negotia-
tions. For some fifly years the statesmen of the two countries, except during the
existence of the Treaty of 1854, have been engaged in the consideration of the
subject of improving the commercial relations between them. It will be observed
that tiie chief articles which are desired to be arlinitted free iiow have been
frequently urged for free admission hitherto. Like articles are produced in
abundance in tliis country, and the difficulty of placing them in a reciprocal
schedule have been so frequently emphasized that nothing furtlier need be said
with reference thereto. The pending negotiation has, it seems to me, established
the fact that we can safely agree upon a larger measure of leciprocity than has
been possible at any time except in 185-4.

The seal question has deservedly received much of our attention. Our views
have widely differed as to the ultimate effect of j)elagic sealing upon the sealing
indu.stry. A modification of the Regulations as contemplated by the Award of the
Paris Tribunal has seemed impossible, and the only rational alternative has seemed
to be the absolute cessation of pelagic sealing. In this as[)ect of the case but two
questions are presented : First, wliat is the value of the national interest which
Great Britain surrenders? and, secondly, what should be the basis of compensation
to those who shall be obliged to withdraw from the industry ?

I frankly admit that, under the Paris Award, Great Britain has a national right,
for which sh^ is entitled to some concession. In our view of the history of the
industry, however, and the inevitable result if present |)ractices are not stop[)ed, I
regard it as a nominal rather than a substantial interest. What the future of the
industry will be is purely speculative — purely problematical. I am not one of those

f)repared to admit that it will be restored to any great measure of prosperity— at
east, for many years to come.

I quite concur with you in the fact that there should be adequate compensation
rxiadc to those engaged in the sealing industry. In considering a basis of compensa-
tion to them, we nave not lost view of the necessity which rests upon our Canadian
friends to satisfy those who are to be prevented from further pursuing their calling.
We have, therefore, proposed not only that they should be paid for the fair present
value of their vessels in commission and those out of commission, because of the
unprofitable nature of the industry — in short, we not only propose to purchase the
entire fleet at its present value, pay one year's profits to the owners, one year's
wages to the captains, &c., but leave the fleet in the hands of the owners. As you
are aware, fully 40 per cent, of the fleet has been out of commission during several
years past. Why ? Obviously because there was, and is, no reasonable or profit-
able demand for it. With a continued diminution of the seal herd, it is not fair to
presume, not only that the vessels not in commission will continue inactive, but that
the number in commission will diminish. Our original contention was that the
unused vessels should not be taken into account; but the American Commissioners
have conceded this point, desiring to deal fairiy with all those engaged or prepared
to engage in the sealing industry who might have an equitable claim upon the
consideration of the British Government.

You inquire, " May 1 not, in fairness, ask that our position siiould also soms!.
times be taken into account ? " In what j)recedes you will observe timt wc l)av<!
endeavoured to take into account your position. We offer to |)rovide compensation
in fair measure for all interests, as I have above indicated, havin.'> any equitable
claim HI order that there may be no just ground of complaint upon the part of any
of the subjects of Great Britain.

You will not overlook the fact that the Congress of the United States lias but
recently appropriated 473,000 dollars to those who'will be chiefly the beneficiaries
of the propoBea settlement.

Tne provision for the per centum of the receipts of the Pribyloff Islands is a
concession which has been heretofore urged, but, until now, always refused by our
Government. Your renewal of the suggestion at the present advanced stage of our

loo

I
negotiations seems to us to ofTer a solution compatible with the mutual interests of
the two countries. I am pleased to know that the viows of our Government have
so fur changed as to make possible a settlement of thi^ feature of the question in
conformity witli your general wishes. The fund which will be derived upon the
basis of our present proposal will be considerable from the outset, and, if your views
of a complete restoration of the herd are I'.appily well founded, will continue to
inrrease, and might v.ell constitute a bounty fund for the Victoria seafaring
population. It is gratifying to observe tliat you are inclined to believe that,
although our views as to a scttU-ment of the sealing question are still considerably
apart, there may yet be an agreement.

I must beg leave to disagree with you as to the elfect of our p.-oposition for the
settlement of the Alaskan boundary. I feel that we have made a very important
concession. The question is a grave one al present. The diificidtics which
surround its solution will only increase by the lapse of time, anil, it seems to me,
we will be recreant to our duty if we do not effect a solution and embody it in a
Treaty for the ratification of our respective Governments. We have been disposed
to treat this subject with all possible liberality and to meet you upon some common
ground.

Are you quite right in your conclusion that we have proposed no substantial
concession ?

You say to us, " Your contention is that the line ought to be drawn so as to
include the whole of the land bordering on the Lynn Canal within the United
States." This is an accurate statement of our contention with respect to *.he really
material difference between us with reference to the Alaskan boundary. ' beg to
recur to our proposal. We distinctly offered the fullest and freest possible use of
Pyramid Harbour (an offer we would, 1 dare «ay, be willing to extend to some other
equally acceptable harbour) at the head of the Lynn Canal for customs purposes.
This olTer embracerl all bui the sovereignty of the soil. It has seemed to us that it
is a practical compliance with the wishes of your Commission. It grants all that is
of any commercial or practical value, to wit, port, customs, and transit privileges,
and avoids the rock upon wiiich the Treaty would undoubtedly suffer shipwreck in
the United States' Senate.

No one can appreciate more sensibly than yourself and your distinguished
colleagues the gravity of ceding sovereignty to a foreign Power over a port or
harbour midway of the American domain upon the coast.

By accepting this proposal of settlement, you would not be without defence, as
you seem to apprehend, as \ou will have secured, according to our view, a very
substantial concession o'" rights and privileges, tantamount almost to the sovereignty,
which is all that we will hold. You are, ol course, aware that our Government haa
never, prior to our present negotiations, been disposed to grant so much.

In your Memorandum respecting tlie Alaskan boundary, of even date with your
letter, you say : —

"It has been suggested that the view of Great Britain that the upper part of
the Lynn Canal is witliin her boundary is an afterthought, and only recently
adopted. This is quite a mistake. In a Report made in 1886 by an official who had
been instructed by the British Government to investigate and report on the question
of the Alaskan boundary, reasons were rjtatcd at great length for coming to the
conclusion that the upper part ol the Canal was within British territory. More
recently an official of the Colonial Office, reporting on the question, whilst not
adopting in its entirety the Canadian view after the boundary generally, maintained
strongly, and gave his reasons for so doing, that the upper part of the Lynn Canal
was within the British boundary."

It is not claimed, I believe, that the Report of 1886 was ever brought to the
attention of the Government of the United States; nor is it pretended that the
subsequent Report was ever called to its notice.

It has seemed to roe that this is a fact of much significance. The developments
within the zone of the present dispute have been carried forward rapidly for severa.
years, and the attention of the civilized world has been fixed upon Alaska as never
before.

Dyea and Skagway rapidly grew in pop\ilation and importance, and not until
comparatively recently was there any well-dcfincfl and positive claim made by Great
Britain that they were upon British soil. Why this delay in :alling the attention of
the United States to its trespass, if such it was ? Here was a palpable invasion of
British rights, if our contention is ill-founded ; and no adverse claim was asserted

191

until years after the Report of 1886. Taking into account all the attendant
circumstances, is the suggestion that the claim of 1898 is an afterthought a rash
one, to say the least ?

I indulge the hope that a careful consideration of the concession of
privileges, &c., which we propose for the accommodation of British commerce
across American territory and within some suitable harbour, will commend itself to
your good judgment.

You will receive a Memorandum upon the subject of arbitration supplemental
to what we have hitherto submitted, so that I need make no further observation on
that subject at this moment.

As I said at the outset, I regard tiie transportation question of equal rank, iu
importance, with the three questions to wiiich you tiave addressed yourself.

We iiave not been prepared to accept the view that, in enabling Canadian
Transportation Companies to engage in what is American domestic traffic, we were
not granting concessions of very great importance. What is now being done by
sufferance we are willing should become a right fixed by Treaty. There is only one
condition on which the right is to be granted, and that is that Canadian carriers
shall observe, so far as practicable, the same comlitions inposed upon American
carriers under similar circumstances. Tlicy shall make piib'.ic their rates, changing-
them only as our laws prescribe ; they shall not pay rebates, or favour special
shippers or communities to the injury of others, &c. Any infraction of the laws to
be punished after proper hearing, by the withdrawal for the time being of the
bonding privilege. The fact that the Canadian Companies iiave their sites outside
of the United States renders it impossible for our Courts to enforce the same
penalties that are imposed upon the American Railroad Companies and their odicers
for violating the laws. The fear that the reserved right to suspend the bonding
privilege might be exercised at the instance of American competitors and harshly is
to impeach the high character of the authorities charged with the administration of
our inter-State commerce laws. We desire Jiat the Canadian Railroad Companies
shall enjoy the freest possible competition for American traffic consistent with the
laws which operate upon th«ir American competitors. This is the sentiment of
important sections of the United States, which will stand guarantors, I dare say,
against any injustice or oppressive use of the power reserved to secure the proper
ent'orcement of our laws.

American railroads participating in the transportation of Canadian traffic shall
in a reciprocal manner be subject to the jurisdiction of Canadian authorities.

In what I have said I have not intended to put any limitation upon your
purpose to meet all the questions engaging us in the vefy fullest, broadest, and
moat equitable spirit. We have the amplest evidence of your desire to effect a just
settlement.

In the light of what you have said, 1 believe that on our reassembling a further
comparison of our views will enable us to reach a solution of the questions which
have so long and so seriously taxed our attention.

I have, &c.
(Signed) CHARLES W. FAIRBANKS.

Inclosure 2 in No. 166.
Stnator Fairbanks to Lord Herschell.

Dear Lord Herschell, Washington, December 26, 1898.

I .\M in receipt of your Memorandum as to the proposed .\greement for
fixing the Alaska boundary, dated the 21st instant.

1 inclose you herewith our supplemental Memorandum bearing upon the same
subject for your consideration.

Very respectfully,
(Signed) CHARLES. W. FAIRBANKS.

11127J

8 D

m

Inclmure 3 in No. 166.
Supplemental Memorandum.

THE intention of the proposal submitted by us was to provide for fixing the
whole of the southern and eastern boundary of Alaska as far as Mount St. Ellas.
The boundary beyond that point to the Arctic Ocean has beeii already arranged by
a Convention now pending in the Senate of the United States. It is quite possible,
and very desirable, for the Joint Commis&ion, if there should be a concurrence or
reconciliation of views, to delineate upon maps the entire course of this boundary,
with the aid of the joint surveys and experts at hand, and the American Commis-
sioners are quite ready to enter upon that work.

The proposal mado by us was coupled with the offer of the use of a port or
harbour at the head of Lynn Canal for customs or transit purposes. It was hofjed
that offer would be accepted as a concession on the part of the United States of
sufficient valun to induce the British Commissioners to return to the mcti)o<i of
settlement contemplated by their Government in 1873-75 for a location of boundary-
marks on the rivers named, and a sufficient number of other points between the
head of Portland Channel and Mount St. Elias, which, in the opinion of Surveyoi-
General Dennis, might be sufficient for all time (Sess. Papers, cited p. 28). The
advantage of such a basis of settlement, in the absence of a better, is that in case
of a disagreement as to anv point of the line contemplated the particular disagree-
ment might be submitted to arbitration, together with the line along the approach
to Portland Channel.

An examination of the Protocol shows that the words "by legal aid and
scientific experts, if the Commission shall so decide, or otherwise" was an amend-
ment at the instance of the Canadian conferee, and that the American conferees
accepted it as neither enlarging or restricting the powers of the Ccmmissioners as
already agreed upon. The instructions of the American Commissioners are to seek
to execute the stipulations of the la^t clause of Article I of the Treaty of the
22nd July, 1892, by an agreement as to the boundary', and, as far as (lossible, to
delineate the same upon proper maps ; and, further, to provide for the fixing of
boundary-marks by a Joint Commission to be hereafter appointed.

We are not aware of any proposition of the Hritish Government embodying its
views or wishes as to that portion of Alaskan boundary now in dispute other than
or different from that made in 1873-75 and cited in our first proposal, until the
subject was presented in the Conferences at Quebec. If any report by an official of
an mvestigation made in 1886, or of a later date by a Colonial Office official, claiming
any portion of the Lynn Canal, has been adopted by the British Government, that
fact has not been communicated by it to the Government of the United States.

Inclosiire 4 in No. 165.

Lord Hertchell to Senator Fairbanks.

Governor'General'f Office, Canada,
Dear Senator Fairbanks, December 31, 1898.

IF I reply to your letter it is not in any controversial spirit, but because I think a
frank interchange of views is calculated to promote agreement, if that be possible, or if it
be impossible, which I most earnestly trust may not jirove to be the case, to enable us to
ascertain this at an early date, if a Treaty can be readied, I shall not grudi^e a mc.iient
of the time I have spent on this side of the Atlantic, but, if it cannot, you will think it
but natural that I should be averse to prolonging luy stay.

You intimate that I do not sufficiently a|)preciate the concessions you arc prepared
to make. I will deal with these in turn in reference to the several subjects discussi <t in
reference to your letter; but I cannot avoid making this general observation. The
foundation of the view that what you offer are concessions appears to me to be — and i ask
you to consider whether this is not so — that where we differ as to the respective rights of
the two countries, the contention of the United States is clways the correct one, and that
the British claim is always without any foundation.

1 . As regards the Atlantic fisheries you refer to the vote, by which the Arrangement
of 1888 was rejected by the Senate, as conclusively showing that a two-thirds majority

19*?

oould not be obtained for any such Agreement at the present time. I cannot so regard it.
! believe ! am right in thinking that the division in 1888 proceeded upon strict
party lines. The vote was quite as much directed ai!:ainst the Administration as against
the Treaty. The appointment of the Commission and its negotiations were denounced as
unsanctioned by the Legislature, and, indeed, contrary to its express desire. Many of the
aiguments most forcibly urged ajjainst ratification would be wholly inapplicable to an
arrangement entered into by our Commission. Moreover, the state of feeling then
existing between the two countries was very different from that which we have been led
to believe happily prevails at present. You say that, pending the arbitration " the
American Commissioners have agreed to pay to Canada the licence foes retjuired, while
our contention is that they are unwarranted under the Treaty in dispute," and you treat
this as an abandonment for the time of the claim of the American fishermen. Our point
of view is different. We regard the fishermen as obtaining, by virtue of a licence, what is
more than an equivalent for the small sum which it costs, and they undoubtedly, by virtue
of it, gain privileges to which they have no claim whatever on any poi-siblc aspect of the
Treaty relations between the iwo countries. The matter is after all a sjnall one, for it
relates only to a modus vivendi until the arbitration is concluded, which must necessarily
cover but a very short period of time. But I do not understand the American Commis-
sioners to have agreed to pay "the license fees required." This was tl)c orii^inal
suggestion. The American Conmiissioners who are members of the Sub-Committee
dealing with the question expressed themselves unwilling to agree to this, and were
prepared to go no further than to agree to the payment of a lump annual sum, ai-rived at
by taking the average over a series of years of the number of vessels in respect of wliieh a
licence bad been taken out, and required that, in consideration of this payment, all United
States' iishiiig-vessels, without any limit as to number, should be entitled to the privileges
which a a license covers. This is a very different proposal. It is obvious that if the
€lovernment were to pay the license fees, a much larger number of fishing-vessels might
take advantage of the arrangement than have hitherto taken out licences, with the result
that a much smaller sum per vessel might be received for the licences than at present
You will. I am sure, see on retlection that such a proposal, which could only be given
effect to in this country by legislation, would encounte- vehement opposition from the
fishing interests. In my view it would be far preferable to this that the modus vivendi,
which has been in opemtion now for several years should continue unchanged, pending
the arbitral decision. The design of the original proposal was to secure that a licence fee
should be paid in respect of all tishing-vessels alike, which is, of course, only fair, without
the necessity of resorting to penal proceedings against those who attempted to obtain,
without payment, what others had to pay for.

2. I cannot quite read the history of the last fifty years relating to commercial inter-
course between the two countries as you do. It seems to mo that political leaders in both
countries have, more especially since the Treaty of 18.'.4 came to an end, for the most
part been seeking to erect barriers to obstruct commercial intercourse between the two
cuuntri'.j. I will not dwell further, however, on this difterence of view, which is of no
practical importance, except in so far as the policies adopted render an agreement for
freer interchange of commodities less easy. I fully appreciate the formidable obstacles in
the way of a change, and do not wish to underrate your difficulties ; but the fact remains
that the reciprocity provisions, to which so far you have been able to agree, will not
excite any substantial interest or support in Canada ; and you are, I feel sure, alive to the
grave difficulties to which the present Tariff Law relating to lumber has given rise, and
to the importance of removing this source of irritation if it can be done — as I believe
it can^ — with results on the whole beneficial and not prejudicial to the United States.

3. It seems to me that you do not attach suificient weight to the fact that you have
no right to require us to stop pelagic sealing, and to put an end at once to an industry at
present carried on by our subjects. It is said that pelagic seuliag and land scal;;ig, if both
carried on, would eventuate in a destruction of the entire industry. You suggest that.
under these circumstances, we should for a considenition give up exercising our right of
pelagic sealing. Another solution would be that we should acijuirc your right to take the seals
on land. If this were the basis of our negotiations, would not you insist that the conside-
ration should be rather what you thought fair, than what we thought fair ? May not we,
then, justly claim the same? This is the real point at issue. One or two of your other
remarks, however, demand observation.

You intimate personal doubts as to the future of the iudustry if pelagic sealing is
abandoned. We are, however, surely entitled to negotiate on the basis of the views
repeatedly pressed upon us by the United States' Government, and repeated by them down
to the present time, and nut on individual opinions. I rather demur, therefore, to your

194

saying, " if your views of the complete restoration of the herd are happily well-founded."
You treat one year's profits as reasonably sufficient to compensate those whose business it
to be stopped. I think this quite inadequate, having due regard to all the circumstauces.
1 do not think three years' profits would be extrava;:ant. I must add that I cannot see
that the recent appro])riation bv Congress of 473,0(X) dollars is at all relevant. Although
the appropriation was recent it had reference to events which took place many years ago,
and covered merely compensation in respect of' wrongs then sustained.

4. As to the Alaskan Iwnndary : Here again it seems to me with deference that
you decide in your own favour the question as to the territory in dispute, treating the
Uritisli claim to it as absolutely without foundation, and practically ask me to do the
same. For you ask me to be content with tlie concession of privileges "for the accom>
nuidation of British commerce across American territory and v/ithin some suitable harbour."'
1 am afraid I cannot nfrreo with you in- regard in j; the possession by Canada of a port on
the Lynn Canal as a grave matter which might seriously prejudice the interests of the
United States. Honestly, I do not see iiow it could be so. It is not, I think, quite
accurate to speak of sucii a port as " midway of the Americnn domain on the coast."
The coast proper is to the south on either liide of the entrance to the canai. Seeing that
this entrance from the ocean is very narrow, and would be commanded on both sides by
undoubted United States' territory — tliat is to say, that the United States could, in case of
war, absolutely control what may be termed the neck of the bottle, how could it be to their
detriment, or to the advantage of Canada in such a case to possess a port at what I may
call the bottom of the bottle ?

You are quite right in saying that neither of the Reports I referred to had ever been
communicated to the United States. I never suggested that they had been. Such a
course would have been very unusual. I only alluded to them for the purpose of showing
that from the time when the matter was first seriously investigated the British Govern-
ment liad held the opinion 1 submitted to yoo. 1 do not for a moment maintain that this
afi'ects tlie rights of the parties, which depend on the true construction of the Treaty of
1825, and whilst I still assert that the idea tiiat the present claim is an afterthought is
unfounded, I insist that my argument, if a valid one, would be none the less sound — •
even if the contrary were the case. It must be remembered that in 1886 Mr. Bayard, on
behalf of the United States, put forward the view that north of the Portland Canal the
boundary-line could not be drawn in strict accordance with the terms of the Treaty, and
that some conventional line ought to be agreed upon. Since that date, so far as I am
aware, neither Government has communicated to the other a statement of the course
which, in their opinion, that line ought to take between the Portland Canal and Mount
Elias. It is only " comparatively recently " that Uyea and Skagway have come into
existence and have prominently invited attention.

0. I do not differ as to the importance of the transportation question. It may truly
be said to be of as great importance as some of those with which I have dealt, but it
seems to me to tall within an entirely different category. As to the others, differences — and
acute differences — have arisen, and must continue to arise, unless some agreement be
arrived at, but as regards the question of transportation, it is not so. There is no contro-
versy as to the rights of the parties. We are in complete agreement as to them. As
regards the proper aspect of the bonding privilege?,, I admit that we are not at one. You
consider that in " enabling Canadian Transportation Companies to engage in what is
American domestic traffic," you are "granting concessions of very great importance." I
am unable to regard the bondini; arrangement as mainly designed to enable Canadian
Companies to compete lor American traffic. The goods bionded belong to United States'
citizens. They send them by a Canadian route liecause they deem it to their profit and
advantage to do so. If they could be more advantageously sent by another line, that
would be their route. The effect of the bondiug is to enable United States' citizens to
transmit their goods by the most convenient and advantageous route without being
subjected to the payment of duty. The Canadian Company does not possess itself of
the property of united States' citizens and transport it whether they will or no. The
United States' citizens are the motive power creating the traffic. The Canadian Trans-
portation Company, of course, incidentally benefits from this by earning freight which it
otherwise would not ; but you nmst pardon me for doubting whether the bonding
arrangement has been continued out of regard for Canada, or as a concession to Canadian
Companies to enable them to engage in this traffic.

It must be remembered that precisely the same advantages are possessed by United
States' Transportation Companies carrymg between two points in Canada, owing to the
existing bonding arrange ments, as are possessed by Canadian Companies conveying
goods from the United States through Canada to a United States' destination. The

196

aoiount of freight thus earned has, I think, been under-estimated by you. The
inforiuntion I have received tends to show that as regards one of the Canadian Companies,
namely, the Canadian Pacific Railway, the ubohtion of bonding on both sides would not
be to their detriment. I, however, do not regard the bonding through Canadian territory
us a concession to United States' Companies by C'anada any more than 1 do the bonding
through the Uniti'd States as a concession by the United States to C'unudian Companies.
Here, happily, our differences cease. We are quite agreed tliat it would be unreasonable
that Canadian Transportation Companies should be able to carry between two United
States' places without being as eii'ectualiy bound by the laws which regulate such traffic,
when conveyed by United States' 'rrunajioitation Companies, as those Companies are.
I think it will be more convenient if 1 say nothing i'uither on the subject here, but
emi;ody my views on your suggested clause la a separate .Nk'niorandum. 1 alsu send
«ioii;e observations on your separate Memorandum as to the Alaskan boundary.

In conclusion, let me assure you tiiut I have anxiously studied all you have said in
your letter. I haveagain surveyed ail the questions, with a sineore attempt to do so without
partiaUty or prejudice ; but 1 cannot sutist'y myself iliat il 1 ••ere lo give my udliesion to
your proposals, as they stand at present, 1 should lie concuriing iii a just and equitable
sclllement of our diflierenccs, and oae which 1 could witli a clear consiience defend.

Inciosnre 5 in No. 155.

Memorandum respecling Transportation Privilegea sent to Senator Fairbanks,

WHILST I cannot but entertain grave objections to the clause proposed, with
reference to bonding and transportation, it is certainly not because I differ at all as to the
justice and propriety of the object sought to be obtained. I fully agree that Canadian
Transportation Companies carrying between two points in the United States ought, in
respect to such trrffic, to obey the laws of the United States which apply thereto when
conveyed by United States' Companies, and that this obedience should be capable of being
efiiectually enforced. My criticisms, therefore, have reference not to the ^-nd in view, but
to the means proposed to be employed.

In the first place, it is suggested that the findings of tho Interstate Commerce Com-
mission should be conclusive as against Canadian Companies, botb as to the law and as to
questions of fact. In the case of United States' Companies its findings are without any
similar effect, and cbedience m the law can only be enforced by indictment tried by Judge
an*! iury, or by the grant of an injunction by a Judge. 'I'here is, therefore, a review of
the iaeis as well as of the law by a duly constituted Tribunal of the United States before
any penal consequences follow. The distinction seems to me vital. Is it unnatural that
I should be unwilling to submit Canadian Companies in respect of carriage by them in
die United States to the conclusive sway of a Commission under whose control tho United
Status are unwilling to place similar interests of their citizens 'f In adopting this position
1 do not, as it seems to me, impeach the high character of the Interstate Commerce
Commission, any more (if I may be permitted the illustration), than a Frenchman attacks
the honour of the army when he objects to regard the decision of n Court-marlial as
inlallible. Let me invite your attention to what might well happen if your proposal were
adopted. Tiie Interstate Commerce Commission have held, let us suppose, that a
Canadian Company and a United States' Company are both by similar acts violating the
law — this finding is conclusive upon the Canadian Company, and the penalty provided
for must automatically follow ; tho finding in the case of the United States' Company
only leads to proceedings in a Court of Law, which, let us suppose, holds that there lias
been no violation of the law, thereupon the United States t'ompany can continue the
course of action condemned by the Interstate Commerce Commission, whilst a Canadian
Company is compelled under a heavy and inevitable penalty, to refrain froui doing what a
United States' Court has held lawful and has sanctioned m the case of its competitor. I am
sure vou nmst agree with me that this would be inequitable, and would, nalnrally, be
viewed as a scandal. The objection is, of course, not removed by the proposed addition ot
one Canadian to ttie Interstate Commerce Commission. It seems to me of the very
essence of a just arrangement that the law which is enforced against the United States and
[1127] 3 E

196

Canadian Companies alike should be the same, and that the enforcement of it should be
equally certain and effectual in both cases.

This leads me to the second objection to your clause, viz., the nature of the proposed
penalty. It is of an extremely stringent character, and might come to be enforced agsiinst
Canadian Companies, whilst from the very different scheme applicable to United States'
Companies the law was practically unenforced in their case. 1 think it impossible to
doubt that as the law stands at present obedience by United States' Companies is not
always enforced. This is to my mind established by the fact that many public bodies,
and, indeed, the Interstate Commerce Commission itself, urge that the Legislature should
provide some better means than exist of enforcing the law. Is it unreasonaljle that
under these circumstances I should object to a drastic penalty in the case of Canadian
Companies whilst there is no security that any effective penalty would compel rival
United States' ('Ompai)ies to conform fhemselves to the law ? You may say that the
position of the Canadian Companies is, at present, a precarious one, because the bonding
privilei:'! mijiht at any time be put an end to by the Executive Government. I i)uite
admit this, but I should infinitely prefer tliat the matter should rest with the Kxecutive,
who would have regard to the whole situation and consider what was reasonable and fair,
than that the bonding should depend upon the findinp;8 of tlie Interstate Commerce
Commission. At all events you will see, that to submit to the inevitable in the sliape of
the present situation is one thing, and to put my hand to an agreement for a scheme
which 1 cannot feel to be just and equitable is quite another thing.

There is a further difficulty about your proposal which you will at once appreciate.
Your clause deals only with the case of Canadian Companies carrying through Canada
between United States' places, but you, of course, admit that it must contain a corre-
sponding provision with reference to United States' Companies carrying through the
United States between places in Canada. Now Canada has not at present any body
corresponding to the Interstate Commerce Commission. Nor has it any law on quite the
same lines as the Interstate Commerce I^w, though it has been, I believe, for some time
in contemplation to legislate in that direction. A Treaty does not with us as it does with
you constitute a law. This, as you will ;)arceive, constitutes a serious obstacle in the way
of the insertion in the Treaty of a provision corresponding with yours to cover the
converse case-
Two courses seem to me *o be open to carry out in an unobjectionable manner the
object we both have in view. The one would be an agreement that any question arising
as to the conformity to the respective laws applicable to them of a Company carrying
through Canada between United States' places, or of n Company carrying through the
United States between Canadian places should be referred to an International Commission
Tribunal or body of Arbitrators, and that suitable means should be provided for enforcing
its decisions. The disadvantage of this course would be that it would involve the insertion
in the Treaty of somewhat elaborate provisions which would need to be thoroughly
thought out and rendered coniplete, and which yet could have no effect in Canada without
subsequent legislation. The objections to this stereotyping a code of law of this descrip-
tion are obvious. The other course is one which I outlined to jou in conversation. It
is that the principle upon which we are agreed should be distinctly established by the
Treaty, and that both nations should engage to take steps in concert to render obedience
to the law capable of being effectually enforced. The Powers could then confer on the
subject, and bring into simultaneous operation suitable measures. I do not think it would
be difficult to frame them. They would not necessarily be such as 1 have already
described ; more than one scheme has occurred to me, but its ultimate hope would have
to depend somewhat upon the changes which you determine to make for the purpose of
making your Interstate Commerce Law more effective. Meantime, the bonding privilege
would remain just as it is at present. It would still be precarious, and your powers in
relation to it would be unchanged. 1 feel confident that under these circumstances the
Canadian Companies would make cvecy effort to comply with the law.
I should propose some such clause as the following : —

" It is hereby agreed between the High Contracting Parties that they will with all
convenient speed confer witii one another and take steps in concert to secure that the
obligation of Canadian Companies and carriers conveying traffic from one place to another
in the United States to conform in respect of such traffic to the laws of the United States
relating thereto, and that the obligation of United States' Companies conveying traffic
from one place to another in Canada to conform in respect of such traffic to the laws of
Canada relating thereto should be effectually enforced, and, further, to secure that the
laws of the United States and Canada respectively relating to the conveyance of trafQc
between any places in the United States and between any places in Canada, respectively.

197

between which goods are carried by Canadian Companies and United States' Coiujianies,
respectively, shall be effectunily aad equally enforced against all Companies or carriers,
whether United States' Companies or carriers or Canadian Companies or carriers conveying
traffic between such places respectively."
International Commiaiiion, Ottawa,
December 31, 1898.

Inclosure 6 in No. 155.
Memorandum respecting Alaska Boundary sent to Senator Fairbanks.

IT is, I daresay, my fault, but I still do not understand tiie proposal submitted i to
fixing the Alaskan boundary. My difficulty arises from the introduction of ihe words
"the southerr and eastern " boundary of Alaska as far as Mount St. Elias. The southern
boundary, I /resume, refers to where the line enters the Portland Canal. From the
Portland Cf .lal the line is for a considerable distance an eastern boundary, but whichever
view be cr rect it becomes, in passing from the east to the west side of the Lynn Canal, a
northern ooundary. Is it intended to exclude this ? If not, why are the words '• the
southern and eastern boundary" inserted, and why is it not simply said, "The whole of the
boundary of Alaska as far as St. Elias " ? Is it, or is it not intended to assent to the
proposal that if we cannot agree, the question where the boundary-line runs throughout
should be referred to arbitration ?

The suggestion made in 18G3, and any opinion then expressed by Surveyor-General
Dennis appear to me out of place at the ])rcsent time. It is impossible to say at what
point the question where the line runs might not turn out to be important owing to
mineral discoveries hereafter. The danger under these circumstances of leaving any part
of the boundary undetermmod will, 1 am sure, be obvious.

From the time when Mr. Bayard in 1886 made his suggestion of a conventional
boundary, owing to the difficulty of drawing the boundary-line strictly according
to the Treaty of 1825, neither Government has, so far as I am aware, communicated
its views to the other as to the course which the boundai-y-line should take
throughout..

Ottawa, December 31, 1898.

Inclosure 7 in No. 155.

Memorandum with reference to proposed Clause vrith reference to Hawaii and Porto Rico

sent to Senator Fairbanks.

IT may be well that I should explain the exact scope and purpose of the propose;!
clause with reference to British vessels trading to Hawaii and Porto Rico, and some
of the agreements which we desire to urge in support of its insertion in the Treaty.

It seeks to create by agreement an exception in a united class of cases from a pro-
vision that the Ports of Hawaii and Porto Rico should fall under the Coasting Regulations
of the United Stutes, and that thus the carriage of j-assengers and goods therefrom to a
United States' port should be in all cases confined to United States' vessels. It would
not touch the application of those Regulations to the island ports which have become
United States' ports as a general rule. All traffic between theni and the United States would
still be confined to United States' vessels except in those cases only where vessels coming
from a British port had traded there. Its sole object is to leave undisturbed an accustomed
course of trade by British ships. The adoption of the clause would take nothini; from
the United States which it has heretofore enjoyed ; it would do no more than leave to
British shioping and not deprive it of a course of maritime adventure which it has hitherto
and for long pursued.

From a pecuniary point of view the matter is not a large one. As regards Hawaii it
would ofiTect chiefly the traffic of vessels sailing between New Zealand and San Francisco,
and calling at Hawaii in the course of their voyage. As regards Porto Rico, its main effect
would be to permit Nova Scotian and New Brunswick schooners to discharge fish at Porto

in

Rico, and, as has been their wont, to take thence a cm-go for New York or another United
States' ])ort on thn continent, loading at that port tiieir return cargo to Nova Scotia or
New Brunswick.

It wuiild work very considerable hardship if tins accustomed course of maritime
commerce were put nn end to. Although, us I have suid, the matter is of small pecuniary
importance, I rc^^avd its politicnl importance iis tar from small in relation to the state of
feelinf; between the two countries which we on both sides desire should be as friendly as
possible.

The iinnesation of Hawaii and the recent acquisition of Porto Rico owing to the late
war must necessarily result in prejudice to British commerce as soon as United States'
goods lire admitted tree of duty whilst the United States' Taiiff is applied to British
imports. But in so far iis t'ic prejudice experienced is the inevitable result of unnex.ition
to tiic United Slates, owing to the provisions of its coustitution, British subjects, though
they may suffer, cannot well complain of tlie inevitalile. They would, however, 1 think,
not unuaturaliy feel sore if to this were added uti interteience with the accustomed course
of maritime commerce which was not inevitable.

The amount of the carrying trade ivhich would be aft'ected by the suggested agreement
is not likely to increase under the new conditions. Oii the contrary, the Tariff charges to
which I have alluded will tend to diminish it. But I am sure tnat such an agreement would
tend to prevent irritation, and that the assent to it of the United States would be welcomed
as an indication of friendly feeling.

Oovemment House, Ottawa, December 30, 1898.

Inclosure 8 in No. 168.
Lord Herschell to Senator Fairbanks.

(Private.) International Commission, Washington, B.C.,

Dear Senator Fairbanks, January 24, 1899.

I AM led by what passed at our meeting to-day to send you these few lines. I
do not think you <iid full justice to our position, which, indeed, you aecmed even to
resent. You could not, of course, take exception to the principle that some agree-
ments can only he made if counter-agreements are procured, for you have acted
upon it. You said, for example, that you would give bonding privileges if certain
concessions were made on our side. We did not see our way to give these, and
pointed out our objections. Wc made a counter-offer. This you did not see your
way to accept. Result: As we would not give what you asked, no bonciing
privileges are to be inserted in the Treaty. I do not complain of this ; you were
within your rights. Again, we had a difficulty about inserting restrictions you
desired as to canal tolls. Result : No grant of right to use Lower Hudson in
connection with canals. 1 do not complain of this either ; I only point out the fact.
Now, as regards tlie matters in which we are interested, you have said, " We will
not settle the Atlantic fishery question as it has always been settled hitherto."
We did not say, "We will settle on no other basis." We havetripd hard to find one.
You said, as to the Alaska boundary, that you could not give us the sovereignty
of any port on the Lynn Canal. In my opinion, we were, as a fair compromise,
fully entitled to this, and should have been justified in saying, "We will take nothing
less." We were very unwilling to do so, and quite prepared to consider your
proposal ; but unles;! we can defend on their merits, as a fair settlement, by them-
selves, of three important questions, the result arrived at, we can only do so if we
can point to concessions made in other parts of the Treaty which will make it
palatable. You would be, 1 am sure, the first to regret that the net result of the
Treaty should be to turn out of office my colleagues — the representatives of a party
which has been condemned by not a few as too friendly to the United States. The
consequences would he disastrous to the relations of the two countries. And yet, if
they have to apologize for every settlement of disputed questions as being, tliough
not satisfactory, the best they can get, and have nothing to point to which will give
any extended satisfaction, you will, as a politician, appreciate the danger. This is
the bearing which the reciprocity question has on some of the others. With a
satisfactory arrangement under that head wc could carry what otherwise would be
impossible' I am sure your candour will lead you to view aright these considerti-

109

tiona. I have so high a regard for your opinion that I am sure that when you seem
to sugge&t unreasonablencsa on our part it is because you have not fully appreciated
o;'r fHMition.

I am still looking forward to the fulfilment of the Preniclent'H words : " You
must have something that you want."

Ever yours truly,
(Signed) HERSCHELL.

P.S. — This needs no answer.

H.

Inclosure 0 in Ho. 155.
Senator Fairbanks to Lord Hemchell.

(Private and Confidential.) Iniernationnl Commission, U'nsliinijton, D.C.,

My dear Lonl Horschcll, i''pbru(iri/ [), 189!).

I RhXKIVKD your private and confifleiitial notu ialo last niglit on my return
from a meeting of the Sub-Committee on reciprocity.

I appreciate fully your suggestions with reference to the arbitration of the
Venezuelan boundary dispute. I am quite famili.'ir wit!i that matter, and regard
the course of Great Britain as in the fullest degree most honourable. She has lost
neither dignity nor prestige — in fact, I believe she has increased her already strong
bold upon the admiration of all nations.

With reference to the Alaskan boundary, we have been engaged in an effort at
adjustment without resorting to any of the e.vpedients contemplated by the Protocol.
We early furnished you a Memorandum of our view of an equitable and just settle-
ment. Later, you were good enough to submit a counter-Memorandum, which was
followe<l by a further Memorandum by the United States' Commissioners. Our
views are so divergent that it would seem we were unable to reach an agreement
among ourselves.

You cannot regret a hopeless division between us upon this important subject
more than I. VVe have given to ft the most earnest and exhaustive consideration
in the hope that we might conclude a settlement, and not leave open the question
for the consideration of others.

You regard our last proposition as taking less a.'vanced ground than the one
we made some two months ago. I do not accede to this view ; yet, if it were
entirely correct, there is no substantial liarm done, as each of our propositions has
been rejected.

We have only now come to the point where it becomes necessary to provide for
the delimitation of the boundary "by legal and scientific experts or otherwise."
We desire that you should outline some plan of delimitation within the scope of this
provision of the Protocol. This will afford a basis for further consideration. Before
this is done, it is quite too early, it seems to me, to discuss the question raised by
you yesterday with reference to the subject of arbitration.

I sincerely hope that you will not feel disposed, as you were inclined to do
yesterday, to rest the entire negotiations upon the success or failure to reach a
settlement of the Alaskan boundary question. We have not supposed that unrelated
questions would be held in suspense because of any failure to settle one or more of
those remaining.

I should deeply deplore the result if, after so many months of patient and loyal
work by both Commissions, we should accomplish nothing whatever. Such a result
might lead to a serious misunderstanding of the relations and purposes and the
really cordial good-will which now exist between the two countries.

Faithfully yours.
(Signed) CHARLES W. FAIRBANKS.

[1127J

3 F

200

No. 166.

Mr. Cartwright to the Marquei* of Salinbury.— {Received March 13.)

(No. 6.)

My Lord, iVaghington, March 3, lRt>9.

WHEN the question of referrinp; tlic AInskan luiundnry dispute to nrhitratioii wa«
under discussion n fortnight ago, Lord Hersciiell inforinud nie tliat he had received from
Senator Fairbanks a statement of tlie acts of occupation on which the United .States'
Government relied, in order to cHtaldish their claim to the territory on the Lynn
Canal.

I have the honour to trBn«^nnt to your Lordsiiip the letter in question, which was
found amongst Ix)rd Herschell's private correspondence.

I may add that Lord Ucrschell wished to forward the inclosed papers, although ho
did not attach much importance to the evidences of occupation which they purport to set
forth.

T have, &c.
(Signed) W. CHAUNCY CARTWRIGHT.

InoloBurn 1 in No. 156.
Senator Fairbanks to Lord Herschell.

Dear Lord Ilerschell, Washington, December 4, 1898.

I TAKE pleasure in handing you herewith such supplemental dojuments, informa-
tion, &c., us we have bearing upon the question of the Alaskan bounda? y.

Very respectfully,
(Signed) CHARLES \V FAIRBANKS.

Inclosure 2 in No. 16fi

Memorandum as to Information requested respecting ihe Alaskr Boundary Question,

THRKE accompanying documents (17th April, 1834, IC'h April, 1854, and 18th
March, 1849), being tcanslations from the Ruesian-American a chives in the Department
of State.

2. It appeal's that a fort was established at the mouth of t'le Siak|n, or Stikine, River
by the Russians in 1834 (see Tichmenefi', vol. i, p. 264 sq.) and a settlement of some
character, usually official, has been maintained since th.-it date. The United States
exercised customs authority for about 10 leagues up that river as early as 1873. A school
under American auspices was established at the head of Lynn Canal in 1 881,* and has been
maintained as a Government school since 1 885. Other place .« are noticed in Appendix (VI)
to "Views of United States' Commissioners." The Russian and American authorities and
commercial Companies have exercised exclusive authority and trade to the head of the
inlets, and have had undisputed control and supervision of the Indians occupying that
territory since 1825, with the exception of the period wh' n the territory in question was
occupied by the Hudson's Bay Company as lessees, with ''he approval of both the British
and Russian Governments. Other torts or posts than tnc one named have existed, tlie
details of whose location are not at hand.

3. A Customs-house was established at Dyea the 2r,rd July, 1897.

* See locloiiire 3 in Nc. 95.

in

101

Inolo8ure 3 in No. 166.
Traiulaliont from the Ruitian-American Archive* in the Department of State,

Board of Dirertom of the Runiiiun Ameriain Company to Pnit-Capldin rind Kniijht Ivan
Antonovilch Kupreianoff, Chief Manaijer of the Rtutian- American Colonics.

April 17, 1839.

FROM the deHpbtches of thn. Board of Directors, you aro accjuaintcd with the
correspondence relating to the claimii of the English Hudson Bay Company, which
has demanded nn indemnity of '2'2,150/., as damages for preventing a vessel i)e!ont;ing to it
from entering the Stachin River.

The Board of Directors employed all pnssihle arguments to resist these claims, but,
finally, upon a fresh solicitation of the Gnglisli Ambassador, Mr. Milbanke, on the
15th December, 18.18, it received orders from the Minister of Finance for ttie Russian-
American Company to come to a rwat'cable settlement with the Hudson Bay Company.

Thereupon, the Board of Directoi-s informed the Minister of Finance, on the
20th December, that it was ready to como to a peaceable settlement with the Hudson Bay
Company upon the bases set forth in that statement, and that, from a desire to conciliate
it »<< much as possible, to reconcile our mutual interests, and to prevent hostile collisions
in . ture, Rear-Admiral Baron Wrangel, a member of the Council established over the
Company, had entered into a correspondence with the Directors of the Hudson Bay
Company in order, by some means of preliminary private negotiations, to prepare and
facilitate official communications.

From this correspondence, it was discovered that the Hudson Bay Company would be
glad to lease, for a certain number of years, at an annual payment of rent in furs, some
portion of the Russian possessions in America, bounded on the north and south by the
Stachin River, and, at the same time, it declared its readiness to carry to our colonics, for
a moderate commissiun, a full annual supply of goods and provisions; but, for a closer
examination and agreement on these subjects, and in order to arrive at a peaceable settle-
ment of the Stachin afTair, the Directors of the Pludson Bay Company proposed that they
should send, about the middle of January of this year, to Bremen or Hamburg, one nf
their members, to meet there a person empowered by the Russian-American Company to
conclude a definitive Contract.

The Board of Directors, thinking that the matter in dispute might perhaps be settled
by this means, in a manner satisfactory to Iwth parties, requested permission to enter into
official negotiations, and to conclude an Agreement upon the basis suggested by thi«
Board ; and Rear-Admiral Baron Wrangel declared iiis readiness to undertake this
commission.

On the 8th January, the Minister cf Finance informed the Board of Directors that,
vpon the report of the Vice-Chancellor, it had iilc.ised His Imperial Majesty to signify his
Royal Assent to the proposal of this Board to come to an agreement wii h the Hudson Bav
Ct/mpany, both with regard to an indemnity for the Stachin matter, and concerning a. ieasi;
to it' for a certain number of years, of some portioii of our territory along the English
frontier, on the north and south of the Stachin River, and, also, to the sending Baron
Wrangel beyond the frontier to enter into definitive negotiations with the Plenipotentiary of
the Hudson Bay Company.

In pursuance of this Imperial Order, Rear-Admiral Baron ^\'rangel, furnished with full
powers for the conclusion of the Agreement in (|uestion, left St. Petersburgh on tlie
8th January, crossed the frontier, and executed the Contract with Mr. Simpson, the
Plenipotentiary of the Hudson Bay Company, on the '25tli January (6th February). He
sent this document to the Board of Directors, supplementing it with a copy of his Esccl-
len^v's letter to Mr. Simpson, and of the latter'* reply.

Rear-Admiral Baron Wrangel executed the ln)])crial orders with emment succoss,
persuading Mr. Simpson, the Plenipotentiary of the Hudson Bay Company at the same
time to renounce its claim against the Russian-American Company for the Stachin affair,
and concluded, with Mr. Simpson, an Agreement which promises to produce advantageous
results for the Russian-American Company, according to the calculations recited in detail
in the inclosed copy of the Report of the Board of Directors to the Minister of Finance,
dated f-- 3rd March, No. 40.

Id communicating this to you, the Board of Directors has the honour to send you
inclosed a copy, in the English language, of the Act concluded with the Hudson Baj^

Company, together with a translation in Russian, and a copy of the letter of Rear- Admiral
Uaron Wrangel to Mr. Simjison, supplementary to that Act, top-ether with a co;i if the
latter's reply, in order that you may make, carefully and without fail, the arrau^, .ments
and preparations dependent upon you ; and it instructs you especially : —

,1. To give orders for the surrender to the Hudson Bay Company, by the 1st June,
1840, of the coast (excluding the islands) and the interior portion of the mainland
belonging to Russia, lying between Cape Spencer, which forms the north-western point of
the entrance to Cross Bay, and latitude 54° 40', that is to say, all the coast of the
continent and of the interior portion of the mainland (together with tiie right of free
navigation and trading in the waters of that coast and of the interior portion of the
mainland), lying to the south-east of a line drawn from the said Cape Spencer to Mount
Fairweather, together with the exclusive right of trading in those places; all of which has
been leased to the Hudson Bay Company for ten years, counting from the 1st June, 1840 ;
and to give orders for the evacuation by that date of all the posts and forts now occupied
by us on that coast and in the interior of the niainiand above described, making it your
duty to see that all the other provisions of the 1 st Article of the Act concluded with the
Hudson Bay Company, are carried out on the part of our colonial authorities and of the
places and persons dependent upon us, in the strict and full meaning of the term — not
merely in appearance, but in the most practical manner. The Board of Directors request*
you, when giving up Fort Dionysius (from which you will remove the arms, r.mmunition,
and goods, as the movable property is not included in the surrender to the English), to
write to the Hudson Bay Company's Commander, giving him your opinion as to the
number of the garrison which it is necessary to maintain in the fort in order to keep the
natives in sufficient awe, as, otherwise, the English, by relying upon too weak a force, may
tempt the savages to hostile enterprises, the effects of which may be injurious to botb
them and ns. You will endeavour to impress upon the natives the fact that wo are the
friends of tiic English, and that, knowing this, they must not make any hostile attempts
against the latter.

While thus observing, with all strictness and with the requisite care, tiie 1st Article
of the Contract you may nevertheless avail yourself (at your discretion, and by no meant
neglecting the interests of the Russian-American Company) of the right given us by
Article 2, of hunting and trading, and maintaining relations with the islands and in the
straits. By the terms of this latter Article, the English iiave no right to trade for sea-
otters caught in the waters of our possessions, nor for beavers or river-otters caught
within our boundaries. Nov can the Russian-American Company buy :i'e furs of animals
killed in the territory leased to the English.

2. The Hudson Bay Company binds itself to puy, or to delivery annually, to the
Russian-American Company, ns a payment of rent, for the said portion of our possessions
leased to it, 2,000 out-going otter-skins (rejecting unborn and injured skins) taten on
the western side of the Rocky Mountains, making the first delivery of 2,000 otter-skins
on the Ist June, 1841, or earlier. In addition to this, it agrees to deliver lo the Russian-
American Company during the ten years : («) all the out-going otters taken by it on the
western side of the Rocky Mountains, not exceeding 2,000 skins, at the price of I /. 3».
and (6) also, 3,000 skins of out-going otters, taken on the eastern side of the
Rocky Mountains, at the price of 1/. 12s. per skin. (The rest of this paragraph
relates to -kins.)

3. Relates tj the purchase of provisions and goods from the Hudson Bay
Company.

4. Relates exclusively to the delivery of goods and provisions.

The remainder of this letter consists ol instructions to execute all the provisions ot
the Contract faithfully.

Directors :
(Signed) I. PROVOFIE.

A. SEVERIN.

Inclosures.

Extract from the report of the Board of Directors of the Russian-American Company
to the Minister of Finance, dated the 'Aril March, 1839, No. 40.

Baron Wrangle's letter of the aBth January, and 6th February, 1839, to Mr Jordan
Simpson, the Representative of the Hudson Bay Companv.

2f)3

Mr. Simpson's reply of the same date.
All the inclosures aie in Russian.
The copies of the Contract, in English
missing.

and Russian, referred to as inclosures, are

Russian-American Company, Archives, Correspondence, vol. XII, 1839, p. 286.

Extract from the Report of the Board of Directors of the Russian- American Company to
His Excellency the Minister of Finance, March 3, 1839.

YOUR Excellency was pier..-, d, on the 8th January last, to notify the Board of
Directors of the RuS8ian-Amerifi>'i Company, that, in consequence of the report of the
Vice-Chancellor to the Bmpe>'jr, His Imperial Majesty had been pleased to signify his
assent to the proposals of this Board, to come to an agreement with the Hudson Bay
Company, hoth concerning the indemnity for the exclusion of a vessel belonging to it,
from the Stachin River, and with regard to leasing to it, for a certain number of years,
Booie portion of our possessions bordering on the English territory north and south of'
the Stachin River ; and, also, to the sending Rear- Admiral Baion Wrangle beyond the
frontier for the purpose of concluding negotiations with the Plenipotentiary of the Hudson
Bay Company.

In fulfilment of this order of His Imperial Majesty, the Board of Directors of the
Russian-American Company furnished Rear-Admiral Baron Wrangle with full powers,
and give him permission to enter into the necessary relations with Mr. Simpson, the
Plenipotentiary of tlie Hudson Bay Company, and to exert himself to the utmost
to procure the abandonment of the claim of the Hudson Bay Company on account of the
Stachin aflalr, which had given rise to correspondence between our Government and that
of Great Britain.

Reai-A'Imiral Baron Wrangle left St. Petersburgh on the 8th January, crossed the
frontier, and executed the commission intrusted to him ; and delivered to the Board of
Directors of the Russian American Company the original Act concluded by him at
Baiiiburg, on the 25th January and-6th February, with Mr. Simpson, the Plenipotentiary
of tile Hudson Bay Company, and, as a supplement to that Act, a copy of liis letter to
Mr. S'Mipsoii and of the latter's reply.

The Board of Directors of the Russian-American Company has the honour to transmit
to )our Excellency certified copies of these documents, with a translation into the Russian
language.

From these documents your Excellency will see that Rear-Admiral Baron Wrangel
executot the Emperor's orders with distinguished success ; induced Mr. Simpson, the
Plenipotentiary ol the Hudson Bay Company, to abandon entirely its claim against the
Russian-American Company on account of the Stachin affair, and concluded with
Mr. Simpson an Agreement which promises adviintageous results to the Russian-American
Coiuj)auy, for the following reasons : —

1 . The coast of the mainland of the Russian possessions, leased to the Hudson Bay
Company, is very poor in river otters, being only 10 leagues in width, and by far the
greater part of the otter-skins hitherto received by us from the natives are procured by the
latter at second-hand from the inhabitants of the interior of the continent (the remainder
of the document relates to the commercial advantages which the Russian-American
Company expects to derive from the Agreement).

Mr. Jordan (George) Simpson.

Dear Sir, Hamhury, January 25 {February C), 1839.

As a supplement to this Agreement, concluded by us this day between the Russian-
American Company and tlie Hudson Bay Company, I hereby certify that it is agreed that,
during the period often years, counting from the 1st June, 1840, the Russian-American
Companj will not encourt'.gc f.^reigners to visit the north-western coast of America for tlie
purpose of purchasing goods from them with the exception of such as may be of the
greatest and most indispensable necessity to flic Russian Colonies, or in payment for work
or constructions executed in the Russian-American Company's dockyards on the north-

f 1 l»)7'l

[n27"i

3 G

204-

west coast of America, or when it is found necessary to purchase a vessel or ship for the
service of the Russian-American Company. At the same time, it is, of course, under-
stood that, if a strange or foreign vessel should remain in the Russian possessions on the
north-westeru coast for the sake of shelter from bad weather, or for prohibited traflSc, and
if, in such case, the Russian-American Company shouid not have either the means or the
right to compel such vessel to discontinue such traffic and depart, such fact must not
serve as a reason for the Hudson Bay Company for the retention and non-payment to the
Russian-Aroerican Company of the rent agi-eed upon for the right granted to it of trading
in the said portion of the continent.

I have, &c.
(Signed) Baron WRANGEL.

His Excellency Baron Wrangel, Hamburg, January 25 (February 6), 1839.

I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of this date, with regard
to the Agreement concluded by us between the Hudson Bay Company and the Russian-
American Company on the 6th February, 1839 ; and, in reply thereto, I have tft say that
I am perfectly satisfied with your assurance that the Russian-American Company, during
the continuance of that Agreement, will not encourage any foreigners to visit the north-
western coast for the purpose of trading ; and, furthermore, that the Hudson Bay Company
will not evade the payment of rent, or retain the rent, provided by the Agreement con-
cluded with the Russian-American Company, in consequence of the circumstances or
incidents mentioned in your letter.

I have, &c.
(Signed) SIMPSON.

Inclosure 4 in No. 166.
Translations from the Russt n-American Archives, Correspondence, vol. XXI, p. 57.

Board of Directors of ihe Russian- American Company to Post-Captain and Knight Stepan
Vasihitch Voevdski, Chief Manager of the Russian- American Colonies, April 16,
185i.

AS a supplement to its despatch of the 14th January, 1854, the Board of Directors
inclose herewith copies of the replies of Privy Councillor Seniavin, Assistant Minister of
Foreign Affairs, and of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Addington, from which
your Excellency will see that our Government and that of England have recognized the
neutrality of the two Companies during the present war, and therefore the property of the
Company on the coast may be regarded as safe.

In communicating this to your Excellency, the Board of Directors instructs you to
take such measures as, upon the closest examination on the spot, you may find practicable
for the security of the Company's property on board ship and in the passage from the
district.

The Board of Directors, on its part, intends to send to the Colonies, for your use in
this year's navigation, a screw-steamer belonging to the Company, but furnished with
Hamburg papers and flags, to be used in the Company's business.

In addition to this, the Board of Directors, for the purpose of supplying its vessels
with neutral flags, has sold (according to their papers) the vessels " Nicholas," " Sitka,"
and " Kamchatka," and it consequently places part or all of these vessels at your
disposal, to bo sent to San Francisco, if there is any necessity for it, for which you must
select a safe time — to wit, the autumn, when the presence of hostile cruisers on the sea is
not to be expected. At San Francisco these vessels will receive neutral flags and papers,
in accordance with an arranj^ement made to that effect, and, under these neutral flags, these
vessels may be employed at your discretion for voypges outside of the Colonies.

At the same t'iue, you are instructed to keep in view the fact that these vessels,
being under a neutral flag, must perform their voyages under the instructions of the firm
to which, according to their papers, they lave been sold ; and hence, when sending any of ■

205

these vessels to San Francisco, you will have to give information to M. Rostromitinoff as to
the voyages which have been assigned to the vessels by you, and Kostroraitinoff will see
that the vessels receive the proper documents from the firm to which they are supposed to
belong.

With regard to your relations with the Hudson Bay Company, the Board of
Directors requests you to remember that those relations must remain friendly, as hereto-
fore, and that, as the Hudson Bay Company co-operated efficiently with us in the
attainment of the neutrality of our possessions, it is proper for the Colonial Government to
be particularly obliging in its intercourse with the agents of the Hudson Bay Company, and
to show them all possible courtesy in all matters.

In conclusion, the Board of Directors hopes that during the continuance of the war
with England, when the external activity of the Company must necessarily be greatly
diminished, your Excellency will pay special attention to the development in the Colonies
of the ice, lumber, and store industries, as those articles can always be exported from the
Colonies in foreign vessels.

(Signed) V. KITIRIN [?], Chairman.

SL. STOLSniEFF [?].
E. VEASHIN [?].

\\l

Russian-American Company, Archives, Correspondence, vol. XXI, p. 60.

Sir, St. Petersburgh, March 31, 1854.

THE Imperial Minister has had the honour to bring to the Itnowledge of His
Majesty the Emperor the letter addressed to you by Mr. Colville, Director of the English
Hudson's Bay Company, and the certified copy of that dated the 22nd March last, in
which Mr. Addington informed him, in the name of the Principal Secretary of State of
Her Britannic Majesty, that the Government of the Queen, on condition of reciprocity,
undertook to cause the possessions of the Russian-American Company to be respected
during the whole continuance of the war ; but that the territorial neutrality would not be
extended to the Company's vessels which might be met on the high seas by Her Britannic
Majesty's cruisers, which would be authorized to capture them with tiieir cargoes, and
which would have the right to blockade its coasts and ports.

His Imperial Majesty, taking into consideration the peculiar situation of the Russian
Colonies in America, has deigned to authorize me to inform you. Sir, that, as a matter of
reciprocity, the Imperial Government permits the neutrality of the territorial possessions
of the Hudson's Bay Company in America, and engages not to cause them to be attacked
during the whole continuance of the war, but that he likewise reserves to his cruisers the
right to seize such vessels of the said Company as they may meet on the high seas, and to
capture them and their cargoes, as well as to blockade its coasts and ports.

Have the goodness, Sir, to inform the Directory ol the Hudson's Bay Company that
the necessary orders will be given immediately to all the Imperial authorities to execute
and cause to be executed, so far as they are concerned, these determinations of His
Imperial Majesty, which render definitive the engagements taken conditionally by the
British Government with regard to the Russian- American possessions.

Accept, &c.
(The original is signed) LEON SENIAVINE.

Correspondence of the Russian-American Company, vol. XXI, p. 61.

Sir, Foreign Office, March 22, 1854.

I am directed by the Earl of Clarendon to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of
the '28th February, inclosing a copy of a letter from the Russian-.\nierican Company,
suggesting that an arrangement should be entered into for a state of neutrality being
ol)served as regards the possessions and ships of tho Hudson's Bay Company and the
Russian-American Company on the north-west coast of America.

Ton state that it would be satisfactory to tlie Governor and Committee of the
Hudson's Bay Company if some such arrangements as that suggested could bo made, as it
would relieve them from anxiety and risk.

206

1 am to state to you, in reply, that, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, Her
Majesty's Government will consent to the proposed arrangement being entered into
between the two Companies, and instructions will accordingly be given to Her Majesty's
naval officers and others not to commit hostilities on land within the Russian dominions
on the coast of America.

I am to add, however, that the proposed neutrality will, as far as Her Majesty's
Government is concerned, be territorial only, and confined to the land, and that its
operation will not extend to the high seas, but that all Russian vessels and goods thereon,
whether the property of the Company, of the Government, or of individuals, and whether
going to or '^.om the possessions of the Russian-American Company, will be liable to
capiuic by ^^er Majesty's ships, and that the coasts and ports of those possessions will be
liable to n;.val blockade.

I am, &c.
(Signed) H. U. ADDINGTON.

(Not addressed.)

A true copy with the Governor of the Hudson's Bay Company.

Inclosure 6 in No. 156.

Translations from the Russian- American Archives, Correspondence, vol. XVII, p. 546.

Board of Directors of the Russian- American Company to Fleet-Captain of the First Rank,
and Knight, Michael Demetrius Shehenskoff', Chief Manager of the Russian-American
Coloiies, March 18, 1849.

IN consequence of a proposal made by the Hudson's Bay Company to the Russian-
American Company with regard to the renewal of the Contract (up to the 31st May,
1850) now existing between them on the former basis, with the exception of some changes,
rendered necessary by the circumstances of the day, and for the advantage of both Com-
panies, for a further term of nine years, to the 31st May, 1869, that is to say, to the
expiration of the Charter of the Hudson's Bay Company, the Board of Directors preseuied
a Memorial to the Minister of Finance, who, on the 29tli January of this year, through
the Department of Manufactures and Interior Commerce, informed the Board that, in
consequence of bis report of the 22nd .January, it had pleased His Majesty the Emperor
to signify His Imperial consent to the above-mentioned Petition of the Board of Directors
of the Russian-American Company. The Board has the honour to inform your Excel-
lency of this in advance ; but a copy of the new Contract, signed by us and the Directors
of the Hudson's Bay Company, will be sent you this year, for your guidance, by a vessel
chartered bv us.

(Signed) V. ALANSKOFF [?], Presiden'..

A. ATOLIN, Member.

N. KUSOFF, Ditto.

No. 157.

Question ashed in the House of Commons, March 14, 1899.

Mr. Bowles, — ^To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is able to give the
name of the probable successor to the late Lord Herschell on the Anglo-American
Commission.

Answer.

The Joint Commission has adjourned till the 2nd August next, and no steps have
as yet been taken for the appointment of Lord Herschell's successor.

207

No. 158.

Colonial Office to Foreign Office.-— {Received March 21.)

(Confidential.)

Sir, Downing Street, March 21, 1899.

I AM directed by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain to request you to inform the
Marquess of Salisbury, with reference to previous correspondence respecting the Joint
nigh Commission negotiations, that lie has received a telegram from the Governor-
General of Canada, of which a paraphrase is inclosed, stating that his Ministers desire
to learn the contents of Lord IlerscheH's last Report to the Foreign Office on the
impossibility of the Joint High Commission coming to an agreement on the Alaska
Boundary question, and that they request permission to communicate it to the
Canadian Parliament, unless it is absolutely confidential.

2. The despatch to which the Canadian Government refer has not yet been
communicated to this Department, but in view of the last paragraph of Lord llerschell's
telegram of the 2l8t February, reporting that it had been agreed that all that had
passed between the members of the Commission should be considered confidential,
Mr. Chamberlain presumes that nothing should be published in addition to the official
statement already issued.

3. He proposes, therefore, if Lord Salisbury concurs, to inform the Dominion
Government by telegraph, that the Report referred to will be sent, but that in view of
the understanding between the Commissioners that all that had passed between them
should be treated as confidential, it will be impossible to communicate its contents to
the Canadian Parliament.

I am, &c.
(Signed) H. BERTRAM COX.

Inclosuro in No. 158.

The Earl of Minlo to Mr, Chamberlain.
(Confidential.)
(Telegraphic.) P. [Undalecl.]

ALASKA Boundary.

My Ministers desire to learn contents of Lord ncrschell's last Report to the
Foreign Ofiice on the impoissibility of agreement of .Joint Commission.

They request permission to communicato it to the Canadian Parliament, unless it
is absolutely confidential.

No. 169.

Foreign Office to Colonial Office.
(Confidential.)
Sir, Foreign 0/fice, March 23. 1899.

I AM directed by the l^farquess of Salisbury to acknowledge the receipt of your
Confidential letter of the 21st instant, inclosing n paraphrase of a telegram from tlie
Governor-General of Canada, relative to Lord llerselipU's Report on the failure of the
Joint High Commission to come to an agreement en the Alaska Boundary question.

I am to inform you that Lord Salisbury concurs in the reply which Her Majesty's
Secretary of State for the Colonics proposes to send to the Goveruor-Geucnirs
telegram.

I am, &c.
(Signed) F. H. VILLIERS.

[1127]

3 H

loe

/-:

No. 160.

Memorandum showing the Position of the Questions before the Anglo-Americnn Commission
on February 20, 1899, when the last Meeting look place at fVashington.

THE first four questions referred to in this Memorandum were dealt with by
the Committees at Quebec. Lord Ilerschell reported in his despatch No, 9 of
the 11th October, 1898, that in each case the agreement arrived at seemed to be
satisfactory, althoufjh they might require some slight modification before they were
definitely adopted by the Commission.

1. Provisions for the conveyance for trial or punishment of persons in the lawful
custody of the officers of one country through the territory of the other,

2. Reciprocity in wrecking and salvage rights.

The preliminary discussions on these two questions are recorded in Lord HerschoU's
despatch No. 2 of the 29th August, 1898. Tlie Articles drafted by the Committees,
and the discussions which took place when they were presented to ihe Commission,
will be found in Lord nerschell's despatch N' 7 of the 30th September.

The last paragraph but one in the Article on wrecking and salvage was not
accepted by the liritish members of the Committee, and was only inserted in order
that the point involved might be considered by the Plenary Commission.

3. TTie question of the Alien Labour Laws applicable to the subjects or citizens of the
United States and of Canada.

4. Provisions in respect to the fisheries off the Pacific Coast, and in the inland waters
of the common frontier.

Lord Herschell reported the pr»liminary discussions on these questions in his
despatches No. 2 of the 29th /.Jgust, 1898, and No. 4 of the :ind September
respectively, and the draft Agreements submitted by the Committees were inclosed
in his despatch No. 8 of the 10th October.

It will be seen from tliis last despatch tliat Ihe draft Agreement on the Alien
Labour Laws was not regarded as quite satisfactory by the Canadian Commissiouers,
and that the questions raised by them were reserved for future consideration.

5. A revision of the Agreement of 1817 respecting naval vessels on the Great Lakes.
Lord Hemchell,' The proposal drafted by the Committee was sent Iiome in Lord Herschell's

No. 1, August 22; despatch No. 14 of the 2nd Decemhor, 1898, and was approved by Her Majesty's
nI' li'\"'^"" ^''' Government, but the question was not further di.scu8scd with the United States'
bc'ri; i898. '" Commissioners. The considerations wliich led to the mloption of this form of
agreement are fully set forth in the despatches noted iu the margin.

0. Mining rights of the citizens or subjects of each country within the territory of the
other.

The draft Article prepared by Mr. Kasson in consultation with Lord Ilerschell is
annexed to this Memorandum. It was riot presented to the Commission because
Lord Ilerschell would not give his dciinitive consent to the last paragraph until the
reciprocity negotiations should be further advanced.

The question is referred to in Lord llerschell's despatches No. 2 of the 29th
August, 1898, No. 7 of the 30th Septcmljcr, and No. 9 of the 11th October.

7. Arrangements for the more complete definition and marking of any part of the
frontier-line by land or water where the same is now to insufficiently defined or marked
as to be liable to dispute.

This question, being divided into two parts, was referred to separate Committees.

The l)oundary west of Lake Superior is mentione<l in I/jrd Herschell's despatches
No. 2 of tlie 2!)tli August, 1898, and No. 8 of tlie 10th October.

The American maps, attaclicd to the Webster-Ashburton Treaty, were examined
after the Commission removed to Washington, and were found to bear out the con-
tentions of the Canadian Government. The annexed Article was thereupon prepared
by a Commitico consisting of Sir 11. Cartwright and Mr. Kasson, but for some reason
or other was never submitted to the Commission. It merely provides for the appoint-

* See pp. 50, 61, tod 117.

Mrnmisnon

t with by

No. 9 of

ned to be

thpy were

the lawful

[lersohell'a
oiumittees,
jmmission,

e was not
d in order

Izens of the

land waters

ons in his
September
re inclosed

1 the Alien
imissiouers,
n.

2t Lakes.
Uersc hell's

p Majesty's
ted States'
is form of

itory of the

lerschell is
on beiiause
)h until tlic

if the 29tli

part of the
d or marked

Jommittees.
1 despatches

o examined
at the con-
m prepared
some reason
;he appoint-

209

ment of one geographer or surveyor on each side to ascertain and mnik the
boundary-line, and to report all points of agreement or disagreement to their Govern-
ments ; a third Commissioner to be named in the case of disagreement.

With regard to the boundary in Passamaquoddy Bay, nothing took place
subsequently to the ITth November, when the matter in dispute was fully discussed
in the Commission without any result being arrived at. Lord Herschell reported,
in bis despatch No. 12 of the 23rd November, 1898, that the question, which
appeared to l)e of very small importance, had been referred back to the original
Committee, which consisted of Sir L. Davies and 3Ir. Dingley.

8. Cattle-branding for the purpose of identification along the frontier between the
United States and Canada.

The Committee on this subject agreed that it should be dealt with by means of
corresponding llegulations made by the two Governments instead of an International
Agreement. See Lord Herschell's despatch No. 9 of the 11th October, 1898.

9. Provisions for the transit of merchandize in transportation to or from either
country across intermfdiate territory of the other, whether by land or water, including natural
and artificial waterways, and intermediate transit by sea.

Provisions relating to the transit of merchandize from one country, to be delivered at
points in the other beyond the frontier.

These two questions were dealt with by the same Committee. A list of the Lord Henchell.*
despatches in which they are mentioned is given in the margin. No. .'5,

A great deal of time and labour was ex|)ended on the points involved. Repre- ^fP'*"'**" '^Pj
sentativcs of both Canadian and American railways were summoned to Washington. jg"gg • '^° ' '
Lengthy proposals and counter-proposals were drafted, and earnest endeavours were ly^j. Cirtwrieli'
raado on both sides, notably by Senator Fairbanks and Lord Herschell, to arrive at a No. 4, Murcn 3,

solution of the difficulties. 1899 ( Utter part nf

In a Memorandum of the 31st December, 1898, Lord Ilerschell said : " Whilst I Jncio.uro* l and u
cannot but entertain grave objections to the clause proposed with reference to bonding "° "'"" "*''
and transportation, it is certainly not because I differ at all as to tiio justice and
propriety of the object sought to be obtained. I Cully agree that Canadian Transpor-
tation Companies carrying between two points in the United States ought in respect to
such traffic to obey the laws of the United States which apply thereto, when conveyed
by United Slates' Companies, and that this obedience should bo capable of being
elfectually enforced. My criticisms, therefore, have reference uot to the end in view,
but to the means to be employed."

Senator Fairbanks attached perhaps imdue importance to the questions at issue,
with which he had long been familiar in his capacity as a railway lawyer, but they
are not, at any rate, matters of direct concern to tlio Imperial Government. Moreover,
there i, no diirerence of ojiinion as to the principles on which they should be adjusted,
nor are any actual concessions required from either eotmtry.

Lord Ilerschell came to the conclusion that no Treaty stipulation could bo
devisid which would be entirely satisfactory, and he considered that the existing state
of things might be allowed to continue without any risk of serious complications.
There seemed to him to be little danger of the bonding privileges on both sides
being abolished. Tlie information which he had received tended to show that sucli
abolition would not be tfl the detriment of the Canadian racific Railway Company,
against whose alleged misdemeanours the proposed regulatio'.is were mainly directed,
because that Company would gain greater advantages in the East from the al)rogation
of bonding privileges than those which they would lose in the western part of the
continent.

10. Provisions in respect to the Fisheries on the Atlantic Coast.

From tlie last of Lord Ilerschell's despatches quoted in the margin, it will bo i,„rd Herschell, f

seen that tlie Canadian Commisoioners eventually determined to ai)andon tiie rights No. 4,

of exclusion against American iisliing- vessels claimed i)y Great Britain under the Treaty Si'i'icmtjer 2 ;

of 1818, if the question of the bays could be settled, and if they could gain Tariff ^|J- '-'^""ober 11 ;

Concessions of importance to the maritime proviiujcs and to Newiouudiand. November 25 ;

Lord Iler8ch<>ll went on to say that the free admission of certain mineral products, No. V),

desired by Sir James Winter, Mould proI)ably be obtained, but that the rolaxatiini of IJe^'mber 22, 18!W

the Tariff en agricultural products, for the benefit of Nova Scotia and Now Brunswick, y^ i" Fel.ruary 7

was still under the consideration of the Ilecii)rocity Committee. isiiy." ' ,

The earlier despatches show that it proved impossible from the very outset to j

• See pp. 74, 9?, and 187. f S«e pp. 63, 98, 115, 123, 153, and 187. >

Mr. Cartwri)jht,
No. 4, March 3,
1899(Incloiurei
1 and 4).

210

obtain tlio free admission of fisli into tho United States, in return for the abandonmant
of the restrictive measures against American iishing-vossels, altliough tliis concession

Lord Herachell,*

No. 6,

beptrmber 20 ;
No. 9, October 11
No. 13,
Novpniber 25,

1898 ; No. 1,
February 7, 1899.

Mr. Cartwright,
No. 4, March 3,

1899 (Invloaiirei
1 ^nd 4).

was granted in tho unratiflcd Trcatv of 1888.
Tlie difficulties encountered m

in this particular negotiation have been clearly
explained by Lord Ilorscholl ; but the following extract from his despatch No. 9 of
the 11th October, 18JB, is worthy of attention, in view of tiie failure to arrive at
au understanding : —

" During the last two or three years, and more especially during the present
season, tho rights which the Government of Canada claim under the Treaty of 1818
have been enforced with extreme leniency, in the hope that a settlement with tlie
United States might bo arrived at. Should no arrangement be come to, tho pressure
to assert Canadian rights and to apply them strictly will become irresistible, and
the inevitable result will be that some, and perhaps many. United States' fishing-boats
■will be seized and condemned. It is obvious that this would immediately produce
an acute crisis, inasmuch as the United States would unquestionably adhere to tho
contention which they have from time to time put forward, with however little
justification, that some of the rights claimed by Canada under the Treaty of 1818 are
not really possessed by her."

It was not anticijjated latterly that the question of the bays (or headlands) would
cause much difficulty. Tho American Commissionera expressiid their willingness to
accept the exclusion of American fishing-vessels from such bays as might be thought
worth protecting, without being too particular as to the width of the entrances.

11. Such readjustment and concessions as may be deemed mutually advantageous of
customs duties applicable in each country to the prodv,''tB of the soil or industry of the other,
upon the basis of reciprocal equivalents.

Tuere is not much information on this subject in Lord Ilerschell's despatches
quoted in the mai'r;in. He was not a member of the Committee, and although he
followed its proceedings witli interest be used to say that the matter was one for
negotiation between the United States and Canada, and that it did not alfect tlie
home Government. He was further if opinion that these Tarilf questions should
be dealt with separately, and he did not approve of their having been mixed up with the
political differences with which the Commission had to deal.

The following is an extract from his despatch No. 9 of tho 11th October, 1898 : —

" The truth is, that where two countries have each pursued a policy of protection,
there are almost insuperable difficulties in the way of a Ileciprocity Treaty of any
considerable extent. Whenever it has been rumoured that a concession was abou*;
to be made by a modification of the Tariff affecting any particular article, whether a
natural production or manufactured, the United States or the Canadian Commissioners,
or sometimes both, have been almost overwhelmed by protests and deputations.
The utmost to be hoped for is, I think, that some small step may be taken towards
a freer interchange of commodities, and that the way may be paved for further
progress in that direction."

Senator Fairbanks stated in his letter of the 2'ltli December that a considerable
L'st of articles had been agreed upon by the Committee charged with the subject of
reciprocity, and that the pending negotiati'on had established the fact that tlie United
Stat(!s could safely agree upon a larger measure of reciprocity than had been
possible at any time except in 1854.

To this Lord Herschell replied that the reciprocity provisions, to which so far
tho United States' Commissioners had been able to agree, would not excite any
substantial intcjrest or support in Canada. Ho added : " You are, I feel sure, aUve
to the grave difficulties to which the present Tariff Law relating to lumber has given
rise, and to the imi)ortance of removing this source of irritation if it can be done — as
I believe it can — with results on tho whole beneficial and not prejudicial to the United
States."

President McKinlcy observed in the course of a conversation with Lord Herschell
in November last, that in his opinion the time had come to reconsider the question
of the Tariff. He thought that the circumstances had changed and rendered freer
trade relations with countries outside the United States expedient.

After reporting the substance of this conversation. Lord Herschell said: "There
is, I feel sure, a growing tendency in some parts of the United States which have
been most strongly protectionist to view the Tariff question in a new light, and
to contemplate an effort to secure trade in external countries, even if it be at the
cost of some increased admission of foreign competition in this country."

• See pp. 74, 98, 115, 163, and 187.

211

ic,

and

The lost despatch from Lord Ilerschcll in which reciprocity is mentioned
contains the foliowin<^ statements : —

" As regards minerals and some agricultural products thoro seems no doubt that
a satisfactory arrangement can bo arrived at. So far as lumber and hay are concerned,
the prospects are, to my mind, not promising. It is no doubt highly desirable that
the free admission of lumber into the United States should bo secured, inasmuch as
Ontario has jwssed ft retaliatory law which has caused great irritation, and is sure to
give rise to still more when it comes to bo enforced in the ensuing lumber season.
My Canadian colleagues are thevoforo naturally bent upon obtaining this concession,
but the lumber interest opposed to it is very powerful, and is to bo found in many
States."

The general impression s'.'cmed to be that the reciprocity negotiations would
have a better prospect of succcias if resumed at a later date, and Lord Herschell was in
favour of putting them aside for the moment.

It has been stated al)ovc, in connection with the fisheries question, that the free
admission of certain mineral products desired by Newfoundland would probably be
obtained, and at one time there was some hope that the concessions on agricultural
products and on lime, which would benefit New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, were
within reach.

With regard to the larger concessions which might be considered as an equivalent
for the abandonment of pelagic sealing mid of the rights of exclusion against American
fishing-vessels on the Atlantic coast, it seemed possible some months ago that
the Americans might be induced to consent to the admission of fish free of duty on
tho Atlantic and Pacific coasts. According to the United States' Constitution
the customs duties must be uniform in all the States, and therefore " free fish "
could not be granted on the Pacific side without a corresponding admission on
the Atlantic seaboard.

At this stage of tho negotiations there was also a prospect that the liutios on
coal might ho abolished both in Canada and tho United States. The result would
have been satisfactory to British Columbia, which would have gained a better
market for coals from tho Nanaimo mines, in the Island of Vancouver, and to tho
central portion of tho Dominion which would have got coal more cheaply from the
neighbouring States of the Union ; but rightly or wrongly, the coal-owners in Nova
Scotia considered that, notwithstanding the advantages which they would derive from
free access to the New England States, they would lose still more owing to tho
competition of American coal on equal terms at Montreal, and there were no doubt
other obstacles to such a very important and wide-reaching change of Tarifi".

With regard to the vexed question of lumber, hopes were more than once enter-
tained that the American duty of 2 dollars i)er 1,000 feet might be taken off, and
there are certainly strong interests in tho United States which are in favour of this
course, but at the datn of the adjournment of the Commission these hopes had fallen
to the ground in spite of the strenuous efforts made by Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and
the promises of sympathy and support which he received from the President.
It had become more than doubtful whether the duty would even be reduced by
one-half, as had been confidently expected in the earlier negotiations.

12. The quenlions in respect to the fur-seals in Behring Sea and the wateri of the
North Pacific Ocean.

The despatches on this subject show that it was decided from the very first to
endeavour to arrive at an understanding for the cessation of pelagic sealing.

Lord Ilersohell said, in his letter to Senitor Fairbanks of the 21st December,
that there must be fair and equitable compensation to the owners of sealing-vessels
and to others engaged in the industry, and that there must be some adequate cou-
cjcssion in consideration of Great Britain giving up her national right and undertaking
to enforce the prohibition; also, that it must be tiiken into account that tho
United States' Government or their lessees, or both, would benefit very largely in a
pecuniary point of view from the action of Great Britain.

The latest draft of tho proposed Agreement on this question was submitted by the
British Commissioners at the end of January, and forms Inclosuro 2 in Lord Herschell's
despatch No. 1 of the 7th February, lie stated in that despatch that Senator Fairbanks
had named 500,000 dollara as the limit to which the United States would be prepared
to go as a settlement of the compensation to the sealers, leaving the vessels and their
outfits in tho possession of the owners; that this figure was a great advance on

[1127]

See |ip. 68, 77, 82, 98, 123, 153, and 1887.

Lord Herschell,*
No. 4,

September '2 ;
No. 0,

September 2.'i ;
No. 7,

September 30 ;
N... i\ October 1 1 ;
No. 15,
Deeember 2'2,
1898

(liicloaure H) ;
No. 1, February 7,
1899 (and
Inclosure 2).

Mr. Cartwriirht,
No. -t, March :!,
1899(lnclosurei
1 oud 4).

3 I

212

Lord Herichell,*
No. 4,

September 2 ,
No. 7,

September 30
(and Iiicloture 3) ;
No. 9, October 11;
No. 15,

December 22, 1898
(nnd Inclosurcs
14 to 20): No, 1,
Kebruary 7 (and
Incloture 1);
No. 2,

Icbruary 17 (aiid
liiclosures) ;
No. 3,

1 ebruary 24, 1899
(and Incloaurea 7
niid 9).

Mr. Cartwri(fbt,
No. 4, March 3
(and Inclosiires 1,
3, 4, 6, and 9) :
No. 5, March 3,
1899 (and
liieloeurefi).

any previous proposal, and that it did not substantially dilTcr from tlio s-m which
wo had been prepared to accept, viz., 600,000 dollars and a cession of their vessels
and outfits by the owners.

With ref^nrd to tho amount of tho porcentogo to bo paid annually by the United
States out of their rcceij)t8 from the seal-takiniy; on tho I'ribylolV Islands, ho added :
"Wo considorod that if tho increase in tho herd became very larj^ owing to the
cessation of pelagic scaling, tho percentage to be paid should \w proportionately
increased. This was vehemently opposed by tho United States' Commissioners,
We ultimately made a modified proposal on a dilTenmt basis. Taking, roughly,
20,000 as the number of seals which might l)c obtained on the islands oven if pelagic
sealing continued, we proposed that ithc percentage of tho receipts to bo handed
over should only apply to the excess over 20,000 taken in each year, the cllV'ct of
which would be to graduate the share of Canada, making it proportionately greater
according as the growth of the herd became greater. Tliis wos assented to in
principle by our American colleay ac , but the percentage remains undetermined."

Claims for compensation in respect of the wrongful treatment of four British sealimj-
vessels.

Lord Herschell stated, in his despatch No. 1 of the 7th February, that no
agreement had yet been come to respecting these claims. It was, however, hopwl to
obtain from the United States' Government a small sum, in addition to the 500,000
dollars named by Senator Fairbanks, for the settlement of the claims of the " Wanderer,"
" Favourite," and " Kate."

The case of the " Coquitlan " ia more difficult. Lord Ilerschell had no doubt as
to the justice of tho claim, but there was not sufiicient proof in support of the several
items. The orniers claimed 110,000 dollars, and refused to abate their demand.
After going through the schedule with Sir Louis Davies, Lord 1I( rsehell reduced the
total to something over 70,000 dollars. He subsequently said be would accept 5u,OoO
dollars, but this lost figure was not mentioned to the American Commissioners.

13. Provisions for the delimitaton and establishment of the Alaska-Canadian boundary,
by legal and scientific experts, if the Commission shall so decide, or otherwise.

Lord Ilerschell reported, in his despatch No. 9 of the 11th October, that after
carefully ifavestigating the question he had come to the conclusion that the British claim
80 to draw the boundary-line as to leave the greater part of the Lynn Canal, or at
least the upper part of it, within the British possessions, was much stronger than it
at first appeared. Ho thought that the argument whicli he had presented liad
made an impression upon the United States' Commissioners, and had shown that
their title to the upper part of the canal and to the towns of I)yca and Skaguay
was not so clear as they believed.

The draft Article handed to the American Commissioners on tho 2nd February,
1899, is given as an inclosure in Lord Herschell's despatch No. 1 of the 7th February.
He says in that despatch : —

" Our American colleagues, .... whilst stating that it would bo impossible for
them to concede the sovereignty of any harbour on the Lynn Oanal, suggested that
they should, without parting with the sovereignty, grant the use of Pyramid Harbour
and a strip of land behind it to the Canadian boundary, which should bo exclusively
under Canadian jurisdiction so long as the grant lasted. They handed to us a
document, in which it was proposed that the grant should bo only for a period of
fifty years,

. . . . " We strongly objected to the limitation of the term, and insisted that the
grant should continue as long as we maintained a custom-houso and a sufficient
force for the preservation of order. We handed them the inclosed draft, which

modified their proposal in this respect They raised serious objection on

account of the effect which, by reason of tho navigation laws of the two countries,
it would have upon the carrying trade If Pyramid Harbour were to be treated as a
British port. British vessels would thus be enabled to convey goods from United
States' ports to the Klondyke which they had never hitherto done, whilst United
States' vessels would be precluded from carrying goods from Canadian ports to
Pyramid Harbour.

" We have not seen our way to accede to their proposition that for the purpose of
the navigation laws the new harbour should be treated as a United States' harbour,
whilst they, down to the present time, insist on adhering to it ; and compromise on
the point, though perhaps not absolutely impossible, is diificult. We proposed

* Sec pp. 63, 83, 98, 133, 1<8, 164, 177, 187, and 200.

which
vossols

0 United

0 nddt'd :

to tiio

■tionatcly

issioncrs.

roughly,

f pelagic

0 haiuiod

clfcct of

(greater

il to ia

ml"

h

tliat no
lopwl to
e oOO.OOO
'andercr,"

213

that all the porta in the Lynn Canal should bo used on precisely the same terns by
the vessels of both nations, but thoy aro unwilling to consent to this. As
regards the rest of the boundary-lino, we have been able to adjust almost every
part of it, conditionally on a satisfactory settlement being arrived at with reference
to the harbour on the Lynn Canal."

The negotiations never got beyond this point. Tho navigation laws were an
insuperable difficulty, although that objection was not foreseen by tho American
Commissioners, who had offered as far back as tho I'tth December that " all commercial
vessels of tho Dominion of Canada shall have free ingress and egress to and from
the Lynn Canal, and to and from any port or harbour thereof, as freely, and on
tho same terms, and subject to tho same conditions, as tho commercial vessels of the
United States, and subject to no other charges or restrictions than those applied to
like vessels of the United States."

A violent agitation sprang up in the Western States against any " cession of
United States' territory," but Lord Horschell considered that even if we relinquislied
our claim to Pyramid Harbour, as an olf-set to tlie American occupation of Dycu
and Skaguay, it would still be impossible to obtain tho commercial privileges
which had actually been offered to us on the 14th December.

After some further efforts to arrive at an understanding tho question of
arbitration was mooted, and a long correspondence ensued on this, which led to no
result.

Tho Commission adjourned on tho 20th February " to meet at Quebec on the
2nd August next, unless some other date sliould bo agreed upon by tho Chairmen
of tho respective Commissions."

w. c^AU^XY cartwright.

March 25, 1899.

Annex 1.

Beeiprocal Mining Rights.

Draft Article.

THE • ght of mining and the BcquiHition of mining rights within the Dominion of Canada are
conceded to citizena of tlie United States upon the same terms and conJitious wliich are at the
time enjoyed by natives of tho Doiiiinion.

Reciprocally, and as coinponwition therefor, the right of mining and the acquisition of mining
riglitfl within the iuriHdiction and dinposul of the United States aro conceded to tlio subjects of Her
Majesty resident ni Canada upon the same terms and conditions which are at the time enjoyed by
citizens of the United States.

Tho minors of tho respective countries entering the territory of tho other shall each be
entitled to the entranco free of duty of liis accompanying outfit, niclnding liin wearing apparel,
tent, fur robes, or woollen and rubber blankets for his personal use, cooking utensils, mining
implements for manual use, and whatever articles are necessary and appropriate for his pereonal
comfort and use as a miner in such territoiy, the value not to exceed hi the aggregate 26(1 dollars,
together with provisions for his journey and for a period of two months after his jirrival. The
respective Governments of the Dominion of Canada and of the United States shall make suitable
Regulations in a liberal spirit for giving effect to this provision.

Where mincra' licences, certificates, or other oflieial papers are required by either Government,
tho same shall bo provided at convenient points on tho visual lines of travel, with terms, conditions,
and charges, if any, oiiually applicable to miners of both countries.

Nothing in this Article contained shall be deemed to restrict tho power of either tho United
States or tho Dominion of Canada to modify their legislation in respect to mining or the acquisition
of nuning rights, but the terms and conditions provided therein shall be equally and reciprocally
applit^ablo to miners of both coimtries.

Should any restrictions not equally applicable to all transfers of B\ich property hereafter bo
imposed by law in either country upon the transfer of mining property or mining rights from
citizens of the United States to the subjects of Her Majesty resident in Conada, or from the said
subjects of Her Majesty to citizens of the United States, tlio right of the other country to enact
corresponding legislation is hereby reserved.

No charge or other restriction shall be imposed in tho country of production upon the transfer
thence to any other country of tho product of tho mines embraced within the provisions of this
Articla.

su

Annex 2.

Boundary Wtit of Lake Superior.

Drajl ArticU.

IN order to provide for the flTnipnlilo iidjiistmont of posnihlo diflerenceo «nd confllctH of
junBdiction in riHiicct to tlio iiitcrimtimil liimiiiliirvliiio licrciimffor dfacribed, it ih nprood tbnt
wlmiioviT (liffirencos Hhall nriHU in reHpcet tn tlus prciisu limits of tlio rcgpectivc iintional
'uriHdictioDS betwcon tli(! point wlioro tlm lioiiiidiiry-liiio eiiters tho Iroquoiw or Ht. I.iiwrt'tico
{ivor iiud wefttwnrd to Kniny Lnko, iiB (U'Hniilii.Ml in tlio Treaty coiiclud(>d at Waifliinj^on on tho
'Jth day of Auj^uHt, 1H12, and known as tho Wclister Ashlmrton Tieatv, and as fnrther delinoati'd
on tho maps ccrtiliiMl by tlio Hignatmes of Daniel VVehHter and Aslinurtoii to bo tho niajis oi
boundary agreed to by said 'J'reaty, the hi>^li Sif^natorT Partius bIibII each appoint ono expert
Konjrraplier i.r sxirveyor as a ConiniiHHinTK-r, iind the two ConuniKHionerH ho aiijMUnted. after niakinR
oath in WTitinp that they will iiniiartially and faitlifnily perform this duty, shall by common accord

i'

5

proceed to ascertain tlio boundary-lino so brou;ilit in questinn, and shall desiffnate and mark tho
Haniu iu suoh manner, by monunients on land, or by marks or raufjes from the chore where tho
boundary is a water-lino, as shall bo most i>racticable and certain, an<l shall make joint report of
all points of their apreonicnt and of their (liBaKreemont, if any, to both Governments. Their joint
afjTeomeiit shall bo accepted as deterniiniiiK the line in (juestion. In case of their disapreemeut,
tho High Contracting rarticB shall agree upon a third impartial Commissioner, whose Award upon
the point or points of disagreenient shall be accepted as iinal. The reasonable expemttm of such
Commiseion ihall bo paid by tho two Parties in equal moieties.

No. 161.

Confidential Memorandum by Mr. Card, ' 'ht on some of the Questions submitted to the

Anglo-Americu,. 'Commission.*

Naval Vessels on the Great Lakes.

THE draft Article or> this subject was duly laitl before the Canadian Commissioners,
and was approved by thcp.: : but it should be mentioned that there has latterly been
a considerable ag'tntlo.i ''.n .Canada apainst allowing even unarmed and incomplete
vessels of war to pass Ihr./iigh the Canadian canals after being launched on the
Great Lakes; that tho li.tence of trnining-sliips on the lakes is regarded as a constant
source of danger, ami tlou the abandonment of the former provision for the maintenance
of one vessel of war, however small, on each lake is much regretted by British uaval
officers.

These points were brought to Lord Herschell's notice, and he frequently discussed
them with his Canadian colleagues, lie considered the objections to bo unreasonable
in view of the precarious character of the existing Agreement, but he realized the
importance of the strong and widesiiread feeling which prevails in Canada. It may,
perhaps, be doubtful whether the three Canadian Ministers who arc members of the
Commission will feel justified in signing an Agreement which runs counter to public
opinion, and whether they will readily consent to the terms of the proposed Article in
the face of an opposition which comprises prominent members of their own party as
well aa the bulk of their political opx)onents.

Fur-seals in Behring Sea.

There are one or two points in the draft Agreement which call for observation :

In the first place, it seems hardly necessary, and it is certainly very undesirable, to

provide that " every person or vessel offending against this prohibition may be seized

and detained by the naval or other duly commissioned officers of either of the High

Contracting Patties." The right to board and seize British vessels in Behring Sea has

* See Mr. Cartwright'i MemoraoJum of .March 25, 1899.

216

been greatly abused by the Americans during the last few yearn, and it is rot unlikely
tha* on the slightest pretext, or on a vague suspicion that vesscln arc in piirtiuit of
Hcali*, Amcricnn naval officers may, in the future, as in the past, search such vcbbcIs,
seize them, niid order them home. The two Governments agree " to prohibit the ues
of any British or United States' port by any persons for any purposcM whatfioever
connected with the operation of pelagic Healing, and to prohibit the importation or
bringing of any undressed fur-seal skins taken by such prohibited pelagic Healing into
any Hritish or United States' port." It is presumed that the Oovcrmnents of Russia
and Japan will agree to maintain the same prohibitions, and it nill thus be almost
impossible for any vcsscIh to carry on pelagic sealing. In these circumstances, there
SHoms to be no sufficient reason for conferring on American officers the right to " seize
and detain " British vessels.

It should also be observed in connection with the general prohibition ugainst
pelagic aealing that the Russian and Japanese seal rookorie.s will benefit largely from
it in the future, and that apparently there has been no question of asking the Govern-
ments of Russia and Japan to contribute to the compensation of the pelagic soaleis.

With regard to the annual payment to be made by the United States' Government,
it v.uuld bo more satisfactory if the percentage could be calculated, not on the gross
amount received by the United States' Government, or which it is entitled to receive
fron» any persons in respect of the right to take tur-seals on the Pribyloll' Islands, but by
taking a Axed sum per head, or per 1,000, on the actual number of seals killed on the
Islands or brought into the market for sale.

AUuka Boundary,

The question presents g^eat difficulties.

Lord Herschell held that under the Treaty of 1825 with Russia, Great Britain was
entitled to a great part, or at all events to the upper part, of the Lynn Canal, although
he did not pretend to predict with any certainty what the decision of an Arbitrator
migbt be.

After arriving at a conclusion as to the true interpretation of the Treaty, the
Arbitrator would have to take into account the facts that the Americans l.ave been
in possession of the whole canal for some few years, and that two towns, Dyea and
Skaguay, have sprung up under American auspices, and arc now under American
Administration, Lord Herschell recognized that it is practically impossible to ousi the
Americans from those places; and our case in this respect is weakened because no protest
was ever made by Her Majesty's Government against the occupation of the disputed
territory.

The American Commissioners were no doubt much impressed with the weight
of Lord Herschell's arguments ; Senator Gray, who was on the Committee at Quebec,
admitted quite recently, in a private and •■onfidential manner, that he thought our
case a strong one. Even before Lord Herschell appeared on the scene, the United
States' Government showed a strong disinclination to refer the matter to arbitration.

In these circumstances, the Americans made t^70 very substantial offers in the
Wfty of concession. The first, on the 14th December, was thot British vessels should
be allowed to trade with any port on the Lynn Canal on terms of absolute equality
with American vessels, and that every possible facility should be afforded to British
subjects. The text of this proposal left no doubt whatever that British vessels would
be allowed to participate in the carrying trade between other American ports and
those on the Lynn Canal. The second was that Pyramid Harbour ■■ roiJd to all
intents and purposes become a British port for a considerable number oi* years, the
Americans retaining only the nominal sovereignty. This proposal would likewise
have enabled British vessels to trade between American ports and Pyramid Harbour.

The negotiations broke down, partly because the proposed surrender of Pyramid
Harbour leaked out and gave rise to u violent agitation in the Western States, but
still more because the Americana interested in the carrying trade from San Francisco
and elsewhere discovered that they were threatened with competition. Lord Herschell
regretted that the original proposal bod not been accepted by us, but when the agitation
arose he felt it was too late to go back to it, especially as the American Com-
missioners could not be persuaded to ta^ie a strong line against an organized body of
ship-owners. "

The reason for asking for Pyramid Harbour, independently of our btlief that
L1127] 3 K

216

we wevt entitled to a port on the Lynn Canal, was that the Canadian Ministers
wished to be in a position to institute an alternative all-British route to the Klondike
in case the Americans should impose dift'erential or exorbitant railway rates, or other
obstacles, on the route already established by way of Djea and Skaguaj-. It would not
be difficult to construct a competing railway from Pyramid Harbour by the Dalton Trail.
But it is not likely that this would be done. A good deal of British capital is invested
in the railway now in course of construction, and there would be much opposition on the
part of British subjects, as well as from Americans, to any other railway scheme.
It is far more probable that, after incurring considerable expense in forming settlement
and in organizing an Administration at Pyramid Harbour, the Canadian Government
would find it impossible to divert the trade from Dyea and Skaguay, and Pyramid
Harbour would become a useless possession — in fact, a white elephant.

Nevertheless, it would not be politic to abandon our demand for a port of our own
unless we can obtain all the facilities we require at the American ports.

There are many objections, on our side, to the proposal for arbitration. In the
first place, the definitive settlement of a questior, which has already been allowed
to drag on too long, would be unduly postponed. The difficulties of opposing any change
in the ownership of the territory in dispute are increasing day by day. Secondly, we
admit that it it impossible to obtain Dyea and Skaguay for Canada, and the Americans
will not consent to any terms of reference which do not make it quite clear that those
towns shall, in any event, remain under American jurisdiction.

This being so, it is extremely undesirable for both Governments that the Award
of an Arbitrator should be pronounced. As we cannot get Dyea and Skaguay, it will
be very awkward if the decision shows that they ought to Lave been ours. The terms
of reference will, of course, relieve the Arbitrator from the obligation to award those
to Canada, but if he gives a port on the Lynn Canal to Canada it will 1)e perfectly
clear that, in his opinion, the opposite side of the canal ought equally to be Canadian.

Lord Herschell's first proposal was as follows : " That provision should be made
for the delimitation of the boundary by legal and scientific experts, with a stipulation
thai., should Great Britain be found entitled to the land bordering on the upper part
of the Lynn Canal, Dyea and Skaguay, with a strip behind them to the present
provisional boundary, should i.evertheless belong to the United States, whilst, on the
ether hand, should the Unit'id states be found entitled to the land bordering on the
upper part of that canal, T'yrnmid Harbour and a strip of 'and securing access to
the boundary by Dalton Trail should belong to Canada."

The proposal was a perfectly equitable one, but after all that has passed, it is
illusory to suppose that the United Status' Government would place itself in the
position of being obliged to admit Canadian jurisdiction at Pyramid Harbour even if
the Arbitrator decided that the whole of the Lynn Canal belonged to the United States.
This state of things would be more difficult for the United States' Government than
the contingency already contemplated, in which Ave should have to jjut up with Pyramid
Harbour in spite of the fact that the whole of the upper part of the Lynn Canal
had been adjudged to be British territory according to tht true interpretation of the
Treaty.

It is evident from what hus been said above that the decision of the Arbitia*or,
whatever it might be, would aggravate the feeiiiig already aroused on either side.
There seems to be only one combination of circumstances which would prevent .ser'"' j
dissatisfaction — viz., supposing (1) that Her Majesty's Government should conse*
10 a reference to arbitration which expressly excluded Dyea and Skaguay froii.
the operation of the Award, and (2) that the Arbitrator should decide in favour of
the status quo and give the whole of the Lynn Canal to the United States, It is.
indeed, conceivable that the Arbitrator's decision might be adverse to our contention,
although, in view of Lord Herschell's opinion on the subject, thi; re'^uit i?annot
be regarded as probable ; but we can hardly consent to the terms of reference hitherto
required by the United States.

Senator Fairbanks said, with much re. son: "If you admit that the two towns
must ultimately remain in American possession, why not say so at once and allay
the uncertainty and consequent irritation now prevailing?" We asked that this
question should be left to the Arbitrator, to be dealt with " as justice, reason, and
the cf^uities of the case required, ' uiid ;vc implied timi, <vith this amount of latitude,
the Arbitrator would certamly not disturb the existing state of things. But the
An oncans were not natisfied ; they could not afford to leave t;\eir citizens in doubt
aa to the eventual disposal of settlements which had been founded in the honest belief
and conviction that they were situated in territory belonging to the United States.

217

From a practical point of view, it is difficult to see what nsefu! purpcjc would be
served by an arbitration in which the main points of difference muit almost necessarily
be withdrawn from the consideration of the Arbitrator, or be settled beforehand by the
parties to the arbitration. . ^^.^^^^^ ^ CHAUNCY CARTWRIGHT.

March 27, 1899.

^ff^^v^ip iiivff . H iLMii fl« m^ '" "•■