Whatever strategic policy may be allowable in Treaty-making diplomacy, it should be controlled by the knowledge that the diplomatist represents the conscience and good faith of his Sovereign, and the dignity and honour of his Nation. The skilled diplomatist who possesses the tact des convenances, may make legitimate use of argumentative strategy, while combining adroitness with integrity; but ever mindful of the radiant light of his representative station;combinations of qualities which will win for him a reputation for sagacity, tact and rectitude, and assure to him a recognized supremacy in diplomatic emergencies. Judged by such standards, the reader can say whether this early venture of American diplomacy illustrated the specialty recorded by the British representative; the conduct charged by the French Minister; as well as the sinister diplomatic qualities frankly avowed by American apologists. *

The Treaty of 1782 was a humiliation to Canada, in the loss of her territory, in the cession of her fishery rights, and in the uncertainty of her boundaries. Lord Townshend, in the debate on the Treaty, well said: "Why should not some man from Canada, well acquainted with the country, have been thought of

* Sir John Macdonald, writing confidentially to a colleague in 1871, respecting the Protocols on the Treaty of Washington said: "The language put into the mouths of the British Commissioners is strictly correct; but I cannot say as much for that of our American colleagues. They have inserted statements as having been made by them, which in fact were never made, in order that they may have an effect on the Senate. My English colleagues were a good deal surprised at the proposition; but as the statements did not prejudice England, we left them at liberty."—Life of Sir John A. Macdonald, by Joseph Pope, v. 2, p. 134.

for the business which Mr. Oswald was sent to negotiate? Dr. Franklin, Mr. Jay, Mr. Laurens, and Mr. Adams, had been an overmatch for him; he either did. not know, or appeared ignorant, how the country lay which he had been granting away, as the bargain he had made clearly indicated." * And a Canadian Lieutenant-Governor reported: "When Mr. Oswald made Mr. Oswald" total ignora peace with the Americans in 1782, he evinced his ance of the total ignorance of the country and its true interests, country. in the line he fixed as the boundary between us."

basis."

obtained

It has been truly said by American writers: "The Bargain with England bargain with England was struck on the American "struck on basis. Considering the only ultimatum they were the American ordered to insist upon, the Americans made a wonderfully good bargain. The United States could, in all reason, ask little more of any nation.”+ And the U. S. has diplomatic history of the subsequent treaties proves other "good that the United States have asked for, and have gen- bargains" of erally struck, further "good bargains" with Great territory. Britain "on the American basis" respecting Canadian territory. Even now efforts are being made by the Ignores CanUnited States to hold Canadian territory, ‡ and ignore in Alaska.

* Parliamentary History, v. 23, p. 391.

+ John Adams (American Statesmen Series) p. 200. "The great object upon which all American minds were bent, was Peace; and they were agreeably surprised at getting it upon such favourable terms." Winsor's America, v. 7, p. 158.

In 1876 the United States directed its Alaska officers to collect duties from Canadian settlers at places on the Stikeen river, which were subsequently found to be seven miles within Canada. “It seems remarkable that while that Government has hitherto refused to define the boundary, it should now seek to establish it in accordance with its own views, without any reference to the British authorities, who are equally interested in a just settlement of the international boundary." Canada Sessional Papers (1878), No. 125, pp. 63, 66 and 144.

Canadian

ada's claims

England endowed the

U.S. with

boundaries on the south, west and north."

Canada's right to be heard in the Alaska boundary dispute. *

A candid historian of the United States reminds the people of the United States that: "However great the "gigantic errors committed by England in the American struggle, it must always be remembered to her credit that, in the peace negotiations, Shelburne, declining all temptations to a contrary course, endowed the Republic with the gigantic boundaries on the south, west, and north, which determined its coming power and influence, and its opportunities for good." But this endowment ened British empire-power of "gigantic boundaries" transferred Great Britain's in America. wealth of empire-territory in Canada to the Republic, thereby weakening her empire supremacy, and Canada's sphere of influence, in North America.

And weak

*In view of the many efforts of certain newspaper correspondents in the United States to prejudice public opinion against the Canadian Government's action respecting the Alaska boundary, the following historical precedent may be cited: In 1831, when the King of the Netherlands made his Award on the Maine boundary, Mr. Preble, of that State, was American Minister at the Hague, and served the King with a protest against his Award. He sent his despatch and papers to the U. S. Secretary of State by a tedious route, via Paris, Brest, and New Orleans, to Washington; while by the more expeditious route, via Liverpool and New York, he sent a pressing recommendation to the Governor of Maine, urging that the Legislature should protest, in advance, against any Award by a Foreign Potentate which might in any way affect Maine or deprive her of any portion of the State territory, for the benefit of England. The "State Rights" protest, was thereupon formulated, and successfully aroused public sympathy for Maine, some weeks before the official Award reached the U. S. Government. This mauvais tour soon became known to the Government, and caused much embarrassment; but American public opinion had been inflamed, and made hostile to Great Britain in advance; and the President and his political party, being on the eve of a Presidential election, reluctantly rejected the Award: See Grattan's Civilized America, v. 1, p. 353. + Winsor's America, v. 7, p. 150.

An equally congratulatory opinion on this endow- Great Britain 66 gave most ment of the United States has been expressed by a well- and took known American commentator on International Law: least." "It has been frequently said that, of all the Treaties executed by Great Britain, this Treaty was the one in which she gave most and took least. And in view of the fact that Great Britain at that time held New York, Charleston, and Penobscot, and had almost unchecked control of American waters, her surrender— not merely of the entire territory claimed by the Colonists, but of the Indians in that territory whom she had held under her allegiance, of the rights of the Refugees she had pledged herself to protect, and of the Fisheries, in which she conceded to the United States a joint ownership,-presents an instance of apparent British sursacrifice of Territory, of Authority, of Sovereignty, alleled in and of Political Prestige which is unparalleled in the Diplomacy. history of Diplomacy."

render unpar

correspon

The diplomatic correspondence during the early Diplomatic years of this century furnishes materials for a history dence since of the embittered international relations between the Revolution, shows embitUnited States and Great Britain,-born of the Revolu- tered relation, matured by the frenzied terrorism of Robespierrian tions. France, and made passionate by the drastic and retaliatory policy which Great Britain was forced to adopt to counteract the effect of Napoleon's Berlin decrees of 1806, prohibiting neutral commerce with the ports decreed closed to British trade; and also in the defence, single-handed, of her island-shores from a threatened invasion by her bitter and war-trained enemies, and in maintaining her supremacy as a Sea Power. Her estranged American kindred showed no consideration

* Wharton's History and Digest of International Law, v. 3, p. 907.

tion for Great

Britain's emergent necessities during Napoleon's

No considera- for the cruciate and emergent necessities of their then isolated, but domineering, old Motherland; whose foreign and sea policies they then passionately denounced, but which they have since admitted were justified by International Law, as being "necessary measures of selfdefence, to which all private rights must give way.'

wars.

Difficult to harmonize U.S. policy in construc

tion of treaties.

Case of the Mississippi boundary line.

There is much also in that correspondence, and also in the correspondence respecting the subsequent Treaties suggested, agreed to, and rejected, which make it difficult to harmonize the policy and the arguments of the United States in their diplomatic discussions, as well as in their one-sided interpretation of their Treaties, with Great Britain.†

The Treaties of 1782-83 had assumed that the boundary line on a "due west course" from the Lake of the Woods, would strike the Mississippi (for all the proposed boundary lines converged to that river), and thence down the middle of that river to latitude 31°. Uncertainty By Mr. Jay's Treaty of 1794, the uncertainty of the due west course was admitted; and it was there agreed that the boundary line should be adjusted "in conformity to the intent of the Treaty of Peace." It was subsequently admitted that the head waters of

admitted in 1794.

* Moore's History and Digest of International Arbitrations (1898), v. 1, p. 841. Lord Stowell held that the British orders of blockade were resorted to as a defence against the injustice and violence of the French; and that they were justly reconcilable with those rules of national justice by which the international actions of independent States were usually governed. See his judgments in 1 Dodson's Reports, 133; and Edwards's Reports, 314 and 382.

In one case the United States contended that Great Britain intended to abandon the right of visitation because no mention of it was made in the slave trade clause. But on a claim by Great Britain to hold a certain boundary they contended that the words describing it in the Treaty, must govern. Grattan's Civilized America, v. 1, p. 414.