CANADA. AND THE UNITED STATES.
[To TDB EDITOR OP THE " SPECTATOR:] SIR,—Articles, even paragraphs, in the Spectator carry far and have weight. At this distance we are apt to look on them as English intellect crystallised. Your paragraph of February 25th concerning the close of the negotiations at Washington was, therefore, a surprise. We hope that English intellect will not crystallise in quite that fashion. You tell us that "Canadians are always a little obstinate." That is a point of pride with us. Our obstinacy in 1774, in 1812-14, in 1837, in 1861, in 1866 saved Britain a great Colony, and preserved our own institutions and laws for us. I need not crowd your columns with needless verbiage to prove the point. But you go further; you tell us we are obstinate in thinking of "our own rights rather than of the broader interests of the Empire." The Canadian view is different. We had not recognised that there were any in- terests of ours that were not those of the Empire too. Our fisheries are surely somewhat Imperial ; they are the territorial waters of the Empire. Our boundaries are surely Imperial; they are the boundaries of her Majesty's domiuions in North America. It is not necessary to contend that a disputed boundary in Alaska is as important as a similar case in Africa or Asia. But you go farther, and in doing so you raise a serious question. You tell us that the Commis- sioners have failed, and that the professional diplomatists will " chuckle "—if such very grave personages ever do chuckle—at the failure. Now, waiving the question as to " failure " (seeing that the meeting is postponed till August 2nd), there are two necessary comments to be made on your remark.
(1) The professional diplomatists do not, as a rule, conclude treaties. All the treaties and conventions with the United States—the Treaty of 1794, the Treaty of 1814, the Treaty of 1818, the (awful) Treaty of 1842, the Treaty of 1854, the Treaty of 1871, the (repudiated) Treaty of 188S—were arranged either by Ministers in office, or by persons specially appointed outside of the regular ranks of professional diplomacy.
(2) The choice of Canadian Commissioners jointly with English Commissioners is no longer a matter of choice or of concession, it is an established right, which Canada has persistently, " obstinately " claimed, and which has been finally and permanently conceded. I need only refer to the appointments of Sir Alex. Salt, of Sir Chas. Tupper, Bart., of Sir John Thompson, at various times previous to the present larger and more Canadian Commission, to prove the point.
Since the circular despatch of Lord Carnarvon to the various Colonial Governments in 1878, no treaty has been entered into by Great Britain without the rights and con.
sent of the Colonies being reserved. The two Treaties of 1862 and 1865 that stood in the way were abrogated in 1897.
And hereafter the self-governing Colonies are free to make their own arrangements with Great Britain and each other.
Your paragraph if crystallised into official conduct would cause a good deal of trouble to professional and Ministerial personages. Pray do not consider us obstinate in contending for our own line in Alaska; it is not oars alone, it is yours as well. The number of people who have in England invested
their money in British Columbian mines are gainers by our obstinacy. The dispute is one of those "burthens of empire "
of which the Spectator wrote so eloquently a couple of years ago, before the newer phrase of the "white man's burthen" had come into vogue.—I am, Sir, &c.,
[Oar correspondent may rest assured that we did not mean the least disrespect to Canada. Whenever Canadian questions are involved, it is of course not only right, but necessary, that
Canada should be a party to the negotiations. All we desire is that Canada should take a wide and not a narrow view of her and our interests.—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
