1903-10-23

ACT RESPECTING CERTAIN LOAN COMPANIES.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called,
The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) moved :: That item No. 35, consideration of amendment made by the Senate to Bill (No. 24) An Act to extend the power of Loan Companies.-Mr. Thompson-be placed on government orders.
He said : The amendment made by the Senate to this Bill simply changes the title from ' An Act to extend the power of Loan Mr. SPEAKER.
Companies ' to ' An Act respecting certain Loan Companies.' There is no other alteration.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The PRIME MINISTER moved :: That the amendment be read the second time and agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. HENRI BOURASSA (Labelle).: Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day are called, I think this House should not prorogue without giving a little consideration to the Alaskan boundary award.


The PRIME MINISTER.: If my hon. friend (Mr. Bourassa) will allow me to interrupt him, I would say that I think it is quite a proper subject to be brought up, but I would suggest that we dispose of the formal business, which I think may be disposed of in a very short time, so that we can send all the procedure to the Senate, and the matter can be taken up again.



SUPPLY-CONCURRENCE.

[Stage Direction]
House proceeded to consider certain resolutions reported from Committee of Supply.
Post office-additional amount for outside service, $15,000.
["I have only the letter which I have just read, and I will hand it to ' Hansard ' so that the right kon. gentleman may be able to bring it to the attention of the Postmaster General."]
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: I wish to call the attention of the government to a complaint which has been made to me with regard to the postal service at Vankleek Hill. The complaint is as follows :
For the past year our mail service between Vankleek Hill and the following offices, viz.: Stardale. Barb, St. Eugene and St. Anne ie Prescott, Plantagenet, Alfred, Caledonia Springs, McAlpines, &c., has been simply exasperating and the government through its autocratic Postmaster General has declined to even see that the officials do their duty with the present fourteenth century service.
For example. Barb is eight miles from Vankleek Hill, St. EugSne ten miles, Stardale, three miles, Caledonia Springs, eight miles, Alfred, fifteen miles and Plantagenet, twenty-two miles. It takes three days for letters to make these offices.
Here Is a specific example. The Eastern Ontario ' Review ' leaves Vankleek Hill every Friday morning at eight o'clock. This is Monday afternoon and these papers have not yet been delivered at Stardale or Ste. Anne de Prescott.
You will readily understand that in the country the farmers are greatly disappointed and annoyed if they fail to receive their weekly paper for Sunday reading.
Considering the very short distances, I would think that the correspondent who has communicated these facts to me was very much justified in asking me to bring the matter to the attention of the government, which I do in this brief way.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Will you kindly send me the papers ?


Robert Laird Borden: I have only the letter which I have just read, and I will hand it to ' Hansard ' so that the right kon. gentleman may be able to bring it to the attention of the Postmaster General.



WAYS AND MEANS-SURVEYS ON NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding) moved that the House go again into Committee to consider the ways and means for raising the supply to be granted to His Majesty.
['Yes. it is always done.\nResolution reported, read the first and second time, and agreed to.']
Robert Laird Borden: Before you leave the Chair, I would like to ask the government whether any report has been received from the surveying parties which have been sent out over the eastern section of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, and if so, what is the nature of the reports.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We had that matter up in the House, yesterday, I think, and I stated we had no reports on the subject. We have no surveyors out in that section. The Grand Trunk Pacific have had some surveying done.


Mr. CLARKE.: Where ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: All my information comes from the public press. I understand they had surveying parties between North Bay and Winnipeg. Whatever their arrangements may be, however, we have no knowledge except that which is in the possession of the public. Any reports which may have been made are made to the company by their surveyors, and have not been communicated to the government



Robert Laird Borden: I may mention to the Minister of Finance that I propose to make some remarks with regard to the Alaskan boundary award. So far as I am concerned,, it would be convenient for me to do so now, but I see the Prime Minister is not in his place, and I, will delay doing so at the convenience of hon. gentlemen opposite.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: The hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) rose for the jnirpose of making some observations on that question, and the Prime Minister requested that he should postpone doing so until the routine business was completed, as we desired to complete some measures in order to send them to the Senate, and then an opportunity would be afforded for discussion. I may inform my hon. friend that if he desires to bring up the question no objection will be taken, and an opportunity will be afforded during the day.


Robert Laird Borden: I will let the matter stand then until a more convenient time, on the understanding that an opportunity will be given for discussion during the day.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Certainly.


THE LUMBER TRADE IN BRITISH COLUMBIA.
Robert Laird Borden: 
The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It will cause surprise perhaps to some people to learn that there is a demoralized condition of trade in the United States in any branch, because I think we have been advised by many hon. gentlemen opposite that if we only had the tariff as high as the United States, there could be no demoralization of trade in Canada, and that everything would be lovely. It would seem, therefore, that a demoralization of trade may exist as well under a high tariff as under a low tariff. However, that is a large matter of controversy. I have received the same telegram as that which my hon. friend has read. Without discussing the merits of the question, I think he will agree with me that at the present stage of the session it would be impossible to take up the question, and perhaps it is not worth while to debate it. At alt events, that is the view of the government.


Robert Laird Borden: So far as I am concerned, I have never taken the ground that there might not he demoralization of trade in the United States. On the contrary, I have pointed out that many industries in our country are being and will be injuriously affected by American goods being dumped into Canada.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Why do they want to dump them ?


Robert Laird Borden: To get rid of their surplus.


Mr.   F.@: OLIVER (Alta.) As this matter has been brought to the attention of the House, I would like to remind the House that there is at present an investigation being conducted by the government under an Act of Parliament, in regard to the existence of a lumber combine in British Columbia, the allegation being that this combine has unduly and improperly increased the price of lumber to Canadian consumers. If lumber is being dumped, as it is said, into Canada from the state of Washington, all I can say is that it is a very good thing for Canada that it is able to get lumber from the state of Washington at reasonable prices.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I beg to move the following resolution :
Resolved, that towards making good a supply granted to His Majesty on aocount of certain expanses of the public service for the financial year ending June 30, 1904, the sum of $29,385,685.46 he granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.
This, I may say, is the sum which is ascertained by the officers of the House as the result of the various votes which have been passed.
Mr. TAYLOR, I would like to ask the hon. Minister of Finance if he has included the ?32.04 that I have been forced to pay illegally for express matter.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I might say that in order to include that we should require to get a special message from His Excellency the Governor General and perhaps the hon. gentleman would not urge it for the present.


Mr. TAYLOR.: I will allow it to stand over until next session.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not understand this procedure. Why do we need a resolution of this kind when we have already voted these sums by resolutions which have been passed in Committee and concurred in by the House ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This is the usual procedure of the House. These sums are gathered into a total which can be expressed in the Supply Bill and these details are attached to the Supply Bill.


Hon. Mr. FIELDING.: 


George Taylor: Has this money been voted ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes, certainly.


George Taylor: I have been in the House for twenty-one years, and I do not remember of a resolution of this kind having been passed before.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: My hon. friend is entirely mistaken. It is the universal practice.


Hon. Mr. HAGGART.: Yes. it is always done.
Resolution reported, read the first and second time, and agreed to.



SUPPLY BILL.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 271) for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 30th June, 1904.
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first and second time, considered in Committee, reported, read the third time and passed.

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick) moved :: That, order 19 ' House again in committee on Bill (No. 215) to further amend the Criminel Code,' be discharged, and that the Bill be withdrawn.
He said : These amendments to the Criminal Code were prepared for the purpose of meeting certain grievances that existed in certain places and which have been complained of. but during, the discussion I ascertained that the amendments did not go as far as it was considered they should. Since my attention has been brought to the matter ft has not been within my power to give the amendments the consideration that they should have, and therefore, under these circumstances, I think I had better allow the amendments to remain over until next session, because we must have another session at an early date, when the whole matter will be considered.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) moved :: That order No. 20 ' House again in committee on Bill (No. 206) to amend the Act respecting certain works constructing in or over navigable waters,' be discharged, and that the Bill be withdrawn.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hoi).: Sir Wilfrid Laurier) moved :
That order No. 21 ' House again in committee on Bill (No. 3) to amend the Dominion Elections Act, 1900,' be discharged, and that the Bill be withdrawn.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the reason of altogether abandoning this Bill, which contains some very Important provisions, provisions which were stated to be absolutely necessary by the hon. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) in moving for the special committee. The hon. Minister of Finance, as the House will recollect, spoke of a very serious condition of things in connection with the election law and subsequently moved for a committee to which this Bill, originally introduced by the bon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton), was referred. I was not present when the Bill was recently discussed. I was present during the first discussion, but I was under the impression that the principal portions of the Bill, outside of the clause which was called the compulsory voting clause, commended themselves to the judgment of the House, and the members of the government. I would consider it very unfortunate that the Bill should be withdrawn, because it is necessary that amendments should be made to the Election Act at the very earliest possible date. My only regret was that the report of the special committee did not go further and contain certain other provisions the necessity of which I have already pointed out.


The PRIME MINISTER.: The principal feature of this Bill, viz., compulsory voting, failed to meet with favour in the House, because although it received some support there were very strong objections to it on both sides. There were other provisions of the Bill which personally I [DOT] would have highly favoured, but when this Bill came up for discussion the second time, serious fault was found with the drafting of it, and the Minister of Justice undertook to supervise the redrafting. In the pressure of business the Minister of Justice has been unable to give it that attention which so important a matter required. I therefore think it is preferable to let the matter stand until another session, when the election Act should be revised.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
House proceeded to consider amendments made by the Senate to Bill (No. 155) respecting the jurisdiction of the Exchequer Court as to railway debts.-The Prime Minister.
The PRIME MINISTER.: The Bill as it left the House gave permission to any creditor or person at the instance of the Minister of Railways and Canals, to exercise the power given under this Bill. The first amendment of the Senate adds the words :
Or with the approval of the Railway Committee of the Privy Council at the instance-
This enacts that an ordinary creditor may not exercise the power under this Bill, except with the approval of the Railway Committee of the Privy Council.


John Graham Haggart: Hoes it mean that no person can take any proceedings under this Act for the sale of a railway in the Exchequer Court, without the consent of the railway commission.


The PRIME MINISTER.: No ordinary creditor.


Robert Laird Borden: I suppose tlie words :	' Railway Committee of the Privy
Council ' will hereafter be interpreted to mean the Board of Railway Commissioners.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Yes.
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax.) I approve of this amendment ; in fact I suggested when the Bill passed this House, that it was an extraordinary power to give a creditor of the company.
Amendment concurred in.


The PRIME MINISTER.: The second amendment provides that the company shall have failed for thirty days to operate the railway, instead of ten days, as in the original Bill.
Amendment concurred in.


The PRIME MINISTER.: The Bill as it left this House read :
At the instance of a creditor of such person or company having a lien or charge upon the railway or section, or of a mortgagee of such railway or section, to order or decree a like sale of such railway, &c.
According to the |amendlments of the Senate it will read :
At the instance of a creditor of such person or company having a * first ' lien or charge upon the railway or section, or of ' a holder of a first mortgage.'
The word * first ' is inserted before the word ' lien ' and the words ' holder of a first mortgage ' are inserted instead of the words ' mortgagee.'


Mr. MARCIL (Bonaventure).: How is this going to affect the Atlantic and Lake Superior Railway in my county V This Atlantic and Lake Superior Railway has been transferred over to the trustees for the bondholders, and they represent a road on which some $300,000 is due to the people of my county. Are they to remain eternally in possession of this road, debarring all

14772^
other creditors from being paid ? They are obliged by law to run two trains a day both ways, but for the past year they have only been running one train both ways. 1 have also a complaint from the municipal council of the township of Restigouehe, that for the first thirty miles there are no fences on the road, and that it is altogether unsatisfactory. I wish to know if there is any process under the law, by which the ordinary creditors of the road; the labourers, those who furnish material, and those who furnish the right of way, can have any redress ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: I regret that I cannot say what may be the effect of the law with regard to this particular road; that is a legal question on which I cannot express an opinion.


John Graham Haggart: According to the Senate amendment, the action before the Exchequer Court to sell the road, can only be taken at the instance of a person having a first lien.


The PRIME MINISTER.: That is what I understand. The Senate amends the Oth clause by striking out the last words :
But such transfers to trustees shall not exclude such railway from the provisions of this Act.


John Graham Haggart: I draw the attention of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Marcil) to the fact, that his railway is withdrawn altogether from the jurisdiction of the court by this amendment. The court can make no order for sale, if the road is in the hands of trustees.
Mr. MARCIL i(Bonaventure). When this company found it was unable to carry out its undertaking, by a process of law which seems extraordinary to the ordinary layman, the road was handed over to trustees. These trustees are now in the enjoyment of the revenue from that road, and they absolutely refuse to pay one dollar of the debts due to the people of the county. When we ask them to pay anything we are met with the answer : These are Armstrong's debts and we are not responsible for them. The poor people of the county of Bonaventure remain unpaid, while the English bondholders so called, are in possession of the road. Under such circumstances, the law is very unjust to the people of Bonaventure.


Robert Laird Borden: It appears to me that any person having a subsequent lien could take possession of the road, and deal with it as he sees fit.


Charles Marcil: They are in possession of the road now, but they refuse to pay the debts.


The MINISTER OP JUSTICE.: I think the leader of the opposition is quite right when he says that the unfortunate labourer whose daily wage is $1.50 a day, will have Mr. MARCIL (Bonaventure).
a chance of getting paid if he redeems the whole of the bonds.


Robert Laird Borden: Reference was made to a person having a subsequent lien, and the daily labourer, so far as this road is concerned, is, or ought be, in exactly the same position as he is with regard to all roads. I think his claim should be made a preferential claim.


John Graham Haggart: It is made a preferential claim.


Robert Laird Borden: I understood that it was. That is done under most contracts for the construction of railways, so far as I have been able to observe ; and if there has been any difference in that respect in regard to this railway, it is not only unfortunate but absolutely wrong. The men who put their work on the railway should be paid in the first instance ; but I do not say that on that account the bondholders who supply the money to build the road should be put aside. You can protect the interests of both if you deal with the matter properly in the first instance. The proper course in matters of this kind is [DOT] very simple. You should make such a contract with the people who build the railway that the money they raise from the sale of the bonds must be applied to pay the labourers in the first place ; but when you have once taken the money from the bondholders and given them a lien on the road, there is no reason for disregarding the rights they have thus acquired. It is not their fault that the money has not been paid to the labourers. I do not know liow the difficulty arose in this case ; I do not know anything of its history. All I say is that you cannot disregard the sanctity of contracts ; but you should have seen in the first place that the money was applied in payment of the labourers. Were not subsidies granted to this railway ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: Subsidies were granted to build two roads there.
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax.) In your subsidy contract it should be a condition precedent to the payment of any subsidy by this country, that the men who construct the road must show that the people who put their labour upon it are paid. I do not know why the subsidy in this case was not dealt with in that manner. I am not suggesting, as the Minister of Justice implies, that the men are not entitled to be paid. I say they should have been paid. It should have been absolutely Impossible for the people who built the road to receive the subsides until the men were paid. But I say that consistently with that the men who put their money into this road and obtained a mortgage upon it, must be allowed to exercise their right under their mortgage, because you cannot set aside a contract entered into between the bondholders and the company.


The PRIME MINISTER.: All tliis occurred many years ago, at a time when we were not perhaps as cautious with these matters as we are at present. I do not myself see that there is any remedy for these poor people, because, after all, the bondholders have put their money into the road. It is very much to be regretted, but it is hard to see what remedy can be applied.
Amendment concurred in.


ALASKAN BOUNDARY COMMISSION.
Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Mr. Speaker, as the House has disposed of the Orders of the Day, I will now proceed with the discussion of the question which I gave notice to the House I intended to bring up. I think it is most important that before we separate some cf the real facts in regard to the Alaskan boundary question should bo discussed in this House. I quite sympathize with the feelings of my colleagues who think that I might dispense with bringing the question up at this time ; but as there will be no other opportunity, I beg of them to stand the ordeal. In the newspapers of Canada, as well as in the private and public utterances of statesmen and important citizens, a good many things have been said on this question which might give birth to feelings between this country and the motherland as well as between this country and the United States which might just as well be avoided. In the first place, we must remember that the recent tribunal had nothing to do but to give a strictly legal interpretation of the treaty of 1825, concluded between Great Britain and Russia in regard to the line that should divide the Russian and British possessions in the North-west. The two questions which were raised before the tribunal were : What was the Portland channel through which the line had to pass before reaching the mainland ? and. what was the chain of mountains, or, in the absence of mountains, what was to be the line, dividing the British and the Russian possessions. and in what way would that affect access from the British possessions to the sea ? The Canadian claim was that if the line were drawn according to the real meaning of the treaty, we would be entitled to the ends of some of the deep inlets which penetrate through that strip of land, and which would give us access to the sea ; while the American contention was that the strip of territory which was acknowledged as being the Russian possession by the treaty of 1825, was to be uninterrupted, so that British subjects would be prevented from having access for the interior to the sea, except by river navigation through that strip of land. Of course, a good many contentions could be made, and have in fact been made, as to the interpretation of the treaty as it stands ; but the question put before this tribunal, as will be found in
the correspondence which has been laid on the Table of the House, so far as that strip of land is concerned, was, not simply what the letter of the treaty meant, but what was the intention of the parties who concluded the treaty of 1825 ? Well, Sir, if one only takes the trouble to go through the British blue-books and read carefully the corres-spondence that was exchanged for three years from 1822 to 1825, between Mr. George Canning, who was then Foreign Secretary in England, and Sir Charles Bagot, who was British ambassador at St. Petersburg, and afterwards with Mr. Stratford Canning, who succeeded Sir Charles Bagot, and who concluded the treaty, I' think no other conclusion can be drawn by any unbiased mind than that it was clearly the intention of the parties that the strip of land should be uninterrupted, and that Great Britain would not have any right whatever to the inlets that penetrated the coast.
Now, Sir, we must remember the facts of the ease as it stood at that time. The intention of Great Britain in opening these negotiations was not to delimit territory ; it was to obtain from the Russian government the repeal of Ukase of 1821, of Emperor Alexander, who had excluded all foreign vessels from navigating within 100 Italian miles of the shore of all territories claimed by Russia, whether in islands or on the mainland. Of course, that pretention was preposterous, and in the following year, at the congress of Verona, Lord Wellington endeavoured to have the Ukase repealed, but did not succeed. Joint action was taken by the United States and Great Britain to bring about the repeal of the Ukase, and for two years negotiations were carried on jointly between the Russian, British and American governments. But the Americans were as clever then as they are to-day, and they succeeded, while still apparently acting in conjunction with the British ambassador, in concluding a treaty with the Russian government without the knowledge of the British government ; and in the treaty concluded in 1824, the United States government acknowledged to Russia the right to bring her posessions down to 54 degrees 40 minutes north latitude. Naturally Great Britain was left in an awkward position, because the question of delimitation was thereby forced upon her, and the discussion began. To show that the British government did not care much about ter- . ritory or about that strip of land or its width, I will quote one sentence from the last despatch sent by George Canning to Sir Stratford Canning, in which he said :
It remains only, in recapitulation, to remind you of the origin and principles of this whole negotiation.
It is ' not ' on our part, essentially a negotiation about limits. It is a demand of the repeal of an offensive and unjustifiable arroga-tion of exclusive jurisdiction over an ocean of unmeasured extent; but a demand qualified and mitigated in its manner, in order that its jus-


John Graham Haggart: Will the liou. gentleman read then the section which, according to him, provides that it shall follow the sinuosities of the coast ?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: That is article 4, which I have just read. The words in the article seem clear enough, and, the letters and other documents make it clearer still. I do not wish to weary the House, hut I could give a dozen quotations, from George Canning, Bagot and others representing the British government, and from representatives of the Russian government as well, to- prove that, so far as the intentions of the parties are concerned, the object sought was to grant to Russia a strip ten marine leagues wide, not from the ocean, but from a line marking the sinuosities of the coast. The object of the portion of the treaty which I have read was only to prevent the Russian possessions from stretching too far inland.
Now, Sir, many facts have arisen since the signature of the treaty to prove what was the meaning the British authorities put upon the treaty, so far as that part of it is concerned. I can refer to official maps published by the British government which show that this reading of the treaty was recognized. I might refer to the case of a

prisoner who was captured by the Canadian authorities in Cassiar district. He was brought through, what was claimed American territory, but what we claimed to be our territory. He protested against being held as a prisoner while in American territory. He was tried at Victoria and was condemned. A protest was made by the Secretary of State of the United States to the Foreign Office in London, and au order came directly to the Canadian government to release this prisoner on the ground that he had been held as a prisoner by British officers on American territory. But, to my mind the *strongest point of all, so far as posterior interpretation is concerned, is the one raised by the agreement entered into between the Hudson's Bay Company and the Russian American Company.


Mr. GOURLEY.: How would that bind the British government ?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I will show the House in a moment. Let my loyal friend from Colchester (Mr. Gourley) control his disloyal feeling for a little while.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: I wish you had such loyalty as mine.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Not more than fourteen years after the signature of the treaty, (he one body of men most deeply interested in that country-in fact the only body that represented British interests in the country-tile Hudson's Bay Company (which company it must be remembered had political and military powers from the British government) made an agreement with the Russian American Company which also had political and military powers from the Russian government. These two companies signed an agreement in 1839, by which the Russian American Company leased to the Hudson's Bay Company most of that strip of coast for five years. The agreement was renewed for several periods of five years. And here is where the official part of it comes in.
When the Crimean war was declared, the two companies thought it advisable, in their mutual interest, to agree that a state of war should not exist in that part of the world. They renewed their lease and had it ratified officially by the British government and by the Russian government. After the war was over, as the members of this House know, there was a change of government in England, and the whole question of the Crimean war and its consequences were made the subject of inquiry. A committee of the House investigated' this agreement between the Hudson Bay Company and the Russian-American Company. Sir George Simpson, governor of the Hudson Bay Company, appeared before that committee and was asked what he knew of the nature and purpose of that agreement. He said that the nature and purpose of this agreement was that the Russians, having very little business now upon that coast, and the


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Hudson Bay Company wishing to do some trade there the latter had leased the coast and got the lease ratified by the British government and by the Russian government, and agreed upon as being a neutral territory during the time of the war. He also produced a map before the House of Commons, and that map is still in the British archives, upon which he had painted in yellow the strip of coast granted by the Russian-American Company to the Hudson Bay Company. That strip of coast as painted upon that map is exactly the territory which is claimed by the American government and has been awarded to them by this tribunal. This is the map which was produced before the British House of Commons, accepted by the British government as showing the title of the Russian-American Company, and it was never contested by either the Canadian government or by the British government. I think this single fact should be sufficient to show that the line of demarcation between the strip of territory belonging to the Americans and the British territory, was acknowledged officially, and the territory outside of that line belonged to the Americans.
The next point I would like to touch upon refers to the Portland channel.
At one o'clock, House took recess.
House resumed at three o'clock.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Before I pass to the question of the Portland channel, I may add that a good deal of the misapprehension which has existed in this country concerning the respective rights of Great Britain and Russia and the United States over the strip of land, has arisen evidently from the fact that the exact phraseology of the treaty, ns viewed in the light of the preceding correspondence as well as of the subsequent facts, was somewhat misunderstood even by some of the Canadian officials. For example, in a report sent to Sir Charles Tupper in February, 1888, Dr. Dawson, referring to that strip of land, spoke of the line as being parallel to the coast, and dropped these expressive words, 'sinuosities of the coast,' which appear in the treaty, and upon which the Russians had insisted all along during the negotiations. This fact shows, I think, a misapprehension on which, for example, Mr. Hodgins of Toronto, has based a very interesting article that was published last year, and that was considered in Canada as a valuable contribution to this question.
To show how far Canadian statesmen were ignorant of the real facts about this treaty,
I may ask members of the House to read a couple of pages of the life of Sir John A. Macdonald, by Mr. Pope, in that chapter which relates to the negotiations for the Washington treaty of 1871. There it will be seen that at the suggestion of Sir Donald A. Smith, who had been and perhaps was then still governor of the Hudson Bay Company, Sir John A. Macdonald insisted and
147S1

secured, or thought he had secured, a valuable right for Canada In putting article 26 in the Washington treaty, providing that British subjects should be free to navigate the Stikine river-forgetting that by the treaty of 1825 we already possessed the right of navigating all these rivers. Of course article 26 of the Washington treaty also added that we had the right to navigate the Yukon and Porcupine rivers. That was a useful right to acquire, but I think the stipulation including the Stikine, with the Porcupine and the Yukon rivers, shows -conclusively that even the Prime Minister of Canada at that time, and the governor of the Hudson Bay Company, did not know that they already held under the treaty of 1825 more than they were asking for in respect to the navigation of the Stikine river. I may also add that in 1874, a report was presented to the Minister of the Interior of Canada, by Mr. J. F. Dennis, Surveyor General of Canada, with reference to thg boundary that was to be traced according to the treaty of 1825. In that report Mr. Dennis mentioned as one of the results of the ^tracing of that boundary	
The crossing of the following rivers on the Pacific coast hy the said ooundary, that is to say : The rivers * Skoot,' ' Stackeen,' * Taku,' 'Isilcat,' ' Chilkaht.'
So it was considered at that time and was not contradicted, that the boundary crossed those rivers that traversed that strip of [DOT]coast, and therefore we could not claim the heads of the inlets since we acknowledged ourselves that the boundary line had to cross the rivers which flow into those inlets.
I need not say that this boundary question is by far the most important of all the questions that were submitted to arbitration, because the answer to it was to decide whether we could have a free port on Canadian territory to reach the Yukon. The other part of the question submitted-that is to say : Where does the Portland channel begin and where should the line pass ?-is a much less important one. But so far as that part of the award is concerned, I am at sea to understand the decision that was reached by the majority of the commission. No one who has studied the map, who has read Vancouver's reports of his trips in that part of the continent, .can come to any other [DOT]conclusion than that 1he four islands, ICan-nagliunut, Sitklan, Pearse and Wales, either all belong to Canada or all belong to the United States. So I think, we must come to the conclusion that if Dord Alverstone acted strictly according to his judicial functions In regard to the former and most impor; tant question, in regard to the latter question, he played the role of a diplomat rather than that of a judge.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: I think you had better .apply that remark to all of them.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Of course, I admit, that a good many things can be said in favour of the American contention, and perhaps it is well


Seymour Eugene Gourley: Has the hon. gentleman a brief from Washington ? Does he think that in this British parliament he is called upon to argue a case that has been ably argued from the American side by paid advocates from Washington ?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I do not intend to be diverted from my argument. Perhaps it would be well for the Canadian people to acknowledge the facts before they indulge in such wild talk as we have seen in some of the newspapers and which perhaps we may hear from the lips of some hon. gentleman in this House.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: I am very proud of the newspapers in Canada for resenting this slur.


Mr. BOURASSA  .@: I think it is just as well that we should study coolly the facts of this ease, so that we may receive a decision like this with a knowledge of the facts, as well as with a certain amount of dignity. When we come to the time of placing the responsibility where we think it should lie, then, perhaps, I might come nearer to my hon. friend in my opinion of British diplomacy.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: Don't, for heaven's sake.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I was going to say that the British Admiralty published a map, dated 15th December, 1896, and corrected in March, 1900-one year after the British plenipotentiaries had held at Washington and Quebec that we were entitled to the northern channel of the Portland canal-in which map the southern entrance, which the Canadian commissioners contended was the entrance to Observatory Inlet, is set down as ' Portland Inlet.' It is not surprising that Lord Alverstone came to the conclusion that the Portland canal was really to the south of the four islands tVhen the British Ad-mirality, even after we had laid claim publicly to the north channel, still published on their official chart the southern channel as being the Portland canal. As far as that is concerned, I leave my hon. friend from Colchester to address his reproaches to the British Admiralty.
Much has been said about the importance of these two little islands, Kannaghunut and Sitklan. As far as their intrinsic value is concerned, I think every body will agree that they are of no value whatever. To speak of their strategic value is to my mind going a little beyond the mark. If Canada should be at war with the United States, I think we would have enough to do, even if my hon. friend from Colchester went in the trenches, to defend other parts of Canada much more important than Sitklan and Kannaghunut islands. The hon. member

from Montreal, St. Mary's (Hon. Mr. Tarte), or Iris organ, ' La Patrie ' of Montreal, lias gone to tlie extent of declaring that the possession of these two islands by the United States threatened the security of Port Simpson. Of course, the hon. gentleman has probably based his opinion upon the fact that the Canadian commissioners, Sir Louis Jettd and Mr. Aylesworth, stated, in what we have seen of their report so far, that these two islands commanded the entrance to Portland canal ; and probably the hon. gentleman has concluded therefrom that they were of great importance to the security of Port Simpson. But if my hon. friend had looked at the map he would have found out that Sitklan and Kannaghunut islands command the entrance of what we call Portland channel, but that they have nothing whatever to do with commanding the entrance to the southern channel or what we call Observatory. Inlet, but what the British Admiralty and the American government call Portland canal. Wales island is the one that commands the entry to the channel.


Hon. Mr. TAKTE.: How many miles are there ?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I have not the scale of the map.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Between what points ?


Joseph Israël Tarte: Between Sitklan island and Port Simpson.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Fifteen miles.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Between twelve and thirteen miles.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Wales island is about half way between Sitklan island and Port Simpson


Joseph Israël Tarte: I have looked at the map.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Therefore, if by the possession of Wales island and Pearse island' we are not able to protect Port Simp-sou against any fortifications that the Americans may erect on Sitklan island, we cannot protect it at all. Even with the possession of Sitklan island, Port Simpson would be no more protected than without it. Wales island is between the two. Suppose we possessed these two little rocks, how would we prevent the American government from fortifying the mainland ? Therefore, I say that the possession of these islands could afford no valuable protection against attack upon Fort Simpson from the mainland.


Mr. WRIGHT.: Does the hon. gentleman know the area of these three islands 7


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I do not know the area, but from looking at the map I should judge that Sitklan island is perhap: one mile in length or a little less, wfliTe fv ales Island is Mr. BOURASSA.
quite extensive and Pearse island still larger. Wales island gives more protection to the entrance to Port Simpson than Sitklan island, which is close to the mainland.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Wales island is beside the channel and the two others are outside of it.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Wales island is really at the dividing line between the two channels.


Joseph Israël Tarte: But inside the channel.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: The southern point of AVales island is between Sitklan island and Port Simpson.


Joseph Israël Tarte: It is something like that, but not quite. The other islands are outside of the mouth of the channel.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: But aside from the intrinsic value of these islands, there is one feature of this incident which I think we cannot too much deplore as representatives of the people of Canada. It is the spirit which has characterized the decision of the majority of the commissioners, in so far as that part of the question is concerned. To my mind, instead of concentrating all our ire and indignation upon the shoulders of a worthy and learned magistrate, who, in regard to four-fifths of his opinions, had certainly facts to justify his decision, we should go to the root of things and find out where lies the real responsibility which has forced upon the people and government of Canada this unfortunate decision. That, I think, would be much more statesmanlike, and would lead to a much clearer and better understanding in the future as to our rights towards the British government. There were two means of disposing of this question-one by diplomacy and the other by judicial arbitration. If there had been an effort to effect a diplomatic compromise of this question, one would have had to have offered something in compensation ; and especially when dealing with a nation like the United States, I think it would have been a very dangerous thing to have gone to them and offered to compromise without having something to offer in compensation. We know too -much about their appetite and disposition. Perhaps hon. members of this House will remember that at the time of the denunciation of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, I stated in this House that the moment the Clayton-Bulwer treaty was abrogated without compensation to Canada our case in regard to the Alaskan boundary was very much compromised. I was violently attacked at that time by some people who are now very hard on the British government and even on the British Crown. I could not explain at that time the whole of my mind, because I could not give public expression to my opinion of the Alaskan boundary question.

I had been connected with the Anglo-American commission to which the question had been submitted, and I could not speak ; but now that the Alaskan question is settled, I may say here what I had in my mind, and that is :	That the moment
Great Britain voluntarily decided not to set off the Alaskan boundary question against the abrogation of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, our case was lost, because it was left for decision to judicial arbitration, and in my opinion, we had no ease from a judicial point of view. That was the opinion of the Hon. David Mills, late Minister of Justice, who published articles in England, stating that the British government had no right to denounce the Clayton-Bulwer treaty without obtaining for Canada a settlement of the Alaskan boundary question. So far as I am concerned, I declare here and now that I would have been the last man to ask Great Britain to give a quid pro quo as between the Clayton-Bulwer treaty and the Alaskan boundary treaty. I belong to that school of colonials who believe that we should ask nothing from the Motherland and give nothing to the Motherland, while at the same time we should preserve the very slight tie which has united us so far. But, Sir, I leave to my strong imperial friends ; I leave it to those who declare from time to time that we must make voluntary sacrifices for Great Britain ; I leave it to them to settle their account with the British government, and especially with Mr. Chamberlain, the Colonial Secretary, who, at that time, had in care the welfare of Canada. I may just point out en passant, that at a time when the sons of Canada were shedding their blood for the empire on the soil of Africa, Mr. Chamberlain was coldly sacrificing the interests of Canada, so far as they were involved in the Clayton-Bulwer treaty and the Alaskan boundary treaty. I repeat, that for my part I would not have asked the British Government to make the abrogation of one treaty dependent on the defining of the other. I think, Sir, that the British government should look to their own interests and that we should look to our own interests. But, as the same time, I point out this fact, to show those who think that the bond of empire should be an exchange of mutual services, that if they calmly study the history of the relations between Canada and the United States as affected by British diplomacy, they will find that the services have been very often on the one side, and the favours very seldom on the other.
Let me point out that the special London correspondent of the Montreal ' Star' published the following quotation from the Loudon 'Morning Post,' a journal which is in close contact with the present British government :
The ' Morning Post ' asks, presumedly with some ulterior purpose : * Has the British government evidence that Canada was anxious above 463
all for a verdict, and also that the Canadian government approved of the selection of an Englishman as a commissioner.'
Within the last day or two, the hon. member for St. Mary's (Hon. Mr. Tarte) has published articles In his newspaper, blaming the Canadian government for having gone to this tribunal and for having consented to this sacrifice of our interests. Well, Sir, so far as the constitution of the tribunal is concerned, the correspondence has been brought down, and now is the time to apportion the responsibility. As lion, members know, when the Washington conference was adjourned, in 1S09, it was decided to leave the settlement of this question to the British and American governments. It was not dealt with until last fall, and then Mr. Chamberlain informed the Canadian government that Sir Michael Herbert-whose death we all regret-had received an offer from Mr. Hay, the United States Secretary of State, to settle this Alaskan boundary question. A tribunal was proposed by the United States government of the very same kind that had been offered in 1899 and refused by the Canadian commissioners. The hon. gentleman (,Hon. Mr. Tarte) has asked in his newspaper : ' Why did the Canadian government consent in 1903 to what they refused in 1899 ? ' I am not here to speak for the Canadian government, but I can speak of what I find in the correspondence, and in that correspondence I find that the Canadian government urged upon the British government the great Inconvenience of leaving the question to be decided by such a tribunal, and offered to have it submitted to the Hague tribunal. To this Mr. Chamberlain replied that this was impossible, as the United States government would not consent. The Canadian government then gave way to a certain extent, and they said : We will consent to have it submitted to this tribunal, provided that the tribunal be composed of jurists of repute, who will decide according to law. Everybody knows what happened. One day we were informed in the press that Secretary Root and Senators Lodge and Turner were to be chosen by the President of the United States as the American arbitrators. On the 18th of February, 1903, the anouncement came officially in a despatch from the Colonial Secretary to Lord Minto. Three days later Lord Minto cabled that his ministers protested strongly against the choice of these commissioners, because their appointment was certainly a breach of the treaty which provided for six eminent jurists. The protest of the Canadian government was couched in such terms that it left the door open for a refusal by the Canadian government to consent to appear before that tribunal.


Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).: The hon. gentleman means that Lord Minto acted on the advice of his ministers ?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Of course. To that despatch the British government replied that it was useless to make any representations at Washington, and they urged most strongly upon the Canadian government the acceptance of that tribunal. I say ' urged ' : the language of the British government is polite-they are always polite in their language-but the meaning is there ; and it is easy to see that the British government wanted to ' force ' on us the acceptance of that tribunal. But there was more to follow. A draft of the treaty was signed and ratified by the British government before they had obtained the final consent of the Canadian government to the constitution of the tribunal, as it had been announced by the government of the United States. Therefore, if we have indignation to express ; if we have sore feelings to give vent to ; let those who are so anxious about the dignity of Canada, not vent them upon Lord Alverstone, who, once appointed, had nothing left but to give a judgment acording to what he thought to be a strict law ; but let them go to the source of all the trouble ; let them go to the responsible statesmen in England who concluded a treaty affecting the interests of Canada without waiting for the opinion of the Canadian government representing the Canadian people. After the tribunal had been organized, there was no recourse but to have the question judged according to law. Lord Alverstone has himself pointed out that in his opinion the line of frontier, as provided for by the treaty, is an absurd one ; but he very properly added that he was not there to change treaties, but to interpret them. Then, Sir, so far as that is cpncerned, I must say that I believe Lord Alverstone has done his duty.
Now, on the broader question of British diplomacy, I want to be clearly understood. I do not say that the British government should take any risk in safe-guarding our interests at Washington. I do not belong to the school who would ask from Great Britain one iota of a sacrifice in order to protect Canadian interests ; but I think I have the right to ask, and every member of this House and every Canadian citizen has the right to ask, that the British government, for the sole purpose of catching American favour, shall have no right to compromise Canadian interests without the will of the Canadian people. That is all I ask from the British government.
Sir, if the members of this House want to have an idea of the great services rendered to the Canadian people at the hands of British diplomacy, in our relations with the United States, I will refer them to a little episode which happened in 1888. One of the arguments made all through the American press and by American commissioners and American diplomats, is that before the discovery of gold in the Yukon, the Canadian government never raised any protest against the occupation of that strip of land,


Samuel Hughes: 
Seymour Eugene Gourley: Tricked by a low Yankee.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Sir Lionel Sackville-West replied to the Marquis of Salisbury that he would lay the matter before the Secretary of State; and here is the letter sent by the British Ambassador to the Secretary of State :
Beverly, Mass., September 10, 1888.
Sir,-I have the honour to Inform you that the Marquis of Salisbury has requested me to bring to your notice a rumour which has reached Her Majesty's government that a charter is about to be granted by the authorities of Alaska for certain privileges in a part of that country which is claimed by Great Britain.
Her Majesty's government presume that this rumour is unfounded, as the territory in question is part of Her Majesty's dominions. '
I have, &c..
(Sgd.) L. S. SACKVILLE WEST.

Wliat was the territory that was claimed, and by what title did we claim that the territory was ours ? The British Ambassador forgot to tell. The result was that the Secretary of State replied that he had never heard anything of the kind. The British Ambassador sent the reply to the foreign office, the foreign office sent it to the colonial office, the colonial office sent it to Sir Charles Tupper, and Sir Charles Tupper sent it to Sir John Macdonald; so that after four months of correspondence and red tape there was nothing left of our claim, and it was never known officially to the United States government that we had once in our life protested against their interpretation of the Treaty of 1825.
My conclusion from all this is that instead of throwing stones at magistrates, instead of complaining in an undignified way of the result of this award, we should take the position as it is, coldly and firmly, and learn from it this lesson, which is not the first nor the last, that if we want to deal with the American government, we should deal directly through an agent at Washington appointed by the Canadian government. Then, instead of it taking three months to have our letters sent to Washington, they could be sent in three days. I do not think I need add any more on this question; but being free, as I have been since this award was given, to speak my mind, which I was prevented from doing for the last five years, I thought I would give a piece of information to the House and the country in regard to what I consider to be the real facts of this case, so that we may draw clear and practical conclusions from the whole history of this Alaska boundary question.


Mr. R. G. MACPHERSON (Burrard).: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to say very much on this question; but as this award affects my own constituency, and possibly takes away some of my voters, I can speak of it with a certain amount of feeling and possibly a certain degree of accuracy. The only reason why we should wish to have any frontier of Alaska, or any part of that country which is contiguous to our own, is because it is a gateway into the golden Yukon. We found in 1897, when gold was discovered in the Yukon, that we were in the position of a man attempting to do business in a store which had only a back door, the front door being closed. We could not get into our own store for the simple reason that somebody else commanded the entrance, and we were obliged to, go around by the back way. Prior to the finding of gold in the Yukon, there was little or nothing known of that Alaskan frontier. Skag-way and Dyea were not in existence, and they would not be in existence to-day had it not been for the discovery of gold in the Yukon country. The Lynn canal is useful only for ingress and egress for that country, though the navigation from Princess Royal 463i
Island up to the Lynn canal is decidedly dangerous on account of the icebergs which come out of Taku inlet and which are carried by the tide backwards and forwards. The terrible disaster which occurred two years ago south of Douglas island, causing the loss of the ill-fated ' Islander ' and the drowning of sixty or seventy people, is within the memory of every man in this House. Had our people been alive to the fact, as this House was, that we had a very knotty question to settle when the Teslin Lake and Telegraph Creek Railway was brought before this House, and had they forgotten the ordinary differences that exist between the two great parties in Canada, and joined together to carry through the railroad that was contemplated-I do not say anything of the question of route-there would be none of the soreness that exists to-day.
There would have been no necessity for an Alaskan boundary award and there would be no feeling in the hearts of the people of Canada to-day that any injustice had been done to them by that award. I do not wish to enter into a discussion of the merits of the case. I claim to be as loyal a Britisher as any man in the empire, but I also claim to be a Canadian and a business man, recognizing business principles as circumstances present themselves. We are face to face with a question, and we must meet it. We have a very rich country in the north, and are practically kept out of it today. The best thing we can do is not to question why we are placed in that position or the motives which led to the decision, but, recognizing the facts as they are, to take the best possible steps to improve' our present position. One hundred miles below Port Simpson we have one of the finest harbours on the Pacific coast, Kittn-maht harbour. During the present session I have had the pleasure of fathering a Bill granting a charter for what is called the Kittamaht harbour and Yukon railway. For the past four years many men in British Columbia whom I know, have recognized the difficulty presented to us as Canadians on account of being shut out from that country by the boundary award. We felt that such an award as has been given was bound to come, because we knew, as every man in this country knows, that whenever a question arose in which Canadian interests were at variance with American interests, Canadian interests were sacrificed to those of the American people, who, I might almost say are our hereditary enemies. I do not say that with any desire to be controversial, but we must recognize facts as they present themselves. We have seen this exemplified in the Ashburton treaty, the Oregon treaty, the San Juan Island affair, and now in the Alaskan boundary award-in every instance the interests of Canada were sacrificed. We know that there is no question about the San Juan treaty, and the Ashburton treaty, but the present

decision may have some controversial features, and I do not wish to go into it. We in British Columbia have always felt, perhaps more strongly than the people of the other provinces, that our interests have been sacrificed. In view of that fact, in view of our being shut out of the country, it behooves our government to undertake the construction of a railway from some point which we are perfectly assured cannot be contiguous to American territory. We must be able to discover such a point, for they cannot take anything more from us ; they have all that is coming to them. I do not think they should be permitted to take any more, and I would never be a party to giving any more Canadian territory to them. But as a loyal Britisher, 1 take the position that we must accept the situation as it is ; we are practical men and must go to work and overcome the practical difficulties that present themselves. To-day we see the Americans standing at the entrance of our Yukon country exacting tolls, trying to bring trade to their own country, and, recognizing that fact, we must seek a route of our own and be independent of them. Within one year of the construction of a road from Vancouver or Kittamaht harbour, it is immaterial which, the towns of Skagway and Dyea will slumber ; they will simply be a monument to the folly of the Americans in not doing the decent thing by us. There will be nothing in them, because there is nothing there to keep them except the trade going into the Yukon country. I would ask the government to consider the question very seriously ; to take it up from a Canadian standpoint, and to subsidize or to build a road from Kittamaht harbour or from Vancouver, north into the Yukon in order that we may be able to say to the Americans that they can keep their front door, that we have a front door of our own.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not propose, under present conditions, to discuss very fully the fairness of this award. I agree with my right hon. friend (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) that until we get the official documents and have the exact reasons given by the arbitrators on each side, including the protest of the Canadian commissioners, we cannot properly discuss the terms of the award or consider the question whether or not that award is one which deserves censure at our hands. My hon. friend from Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) has' undertaken to educate the Canadian people with regard to this matter as to which he says they have been in profound ignorance for some years until he himself saw fit to enlighten them. Possibly he may have got to the bottom of the question ; I have in my possession six volumes comprising the British case and a portfolio of maps comprising something like 100 maps, and the argument of counsel from day to day occupying a great many hundred pages. I have had


Mr.   MACFHERSON@: *
some twenty-five years experience in endeavouring to interpret legal documents, and to analyze facts, but I do not think that, in the short space of time during which these documents have been at my command, or in the short space that lias elapsed since some of them have reached this country, I could have brought myself into quite so cock-sure an attitude as my hon. friend (Mr. Bourassa) has exhibited to-day. I do not think that he or any other gentleman in this House is prepared to say at the present time


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Will my hon. friend permit me to say that I had occasion to study this question for five years, as I have been connected with the Anglo-American commission, and a good many documents that have now been made public, I have not mentioned before, because they form part of the case as brought before the Anglo-American commission. Therefore, 1 had acquired a good deal of information before these documents were made public.


Robert Laird Borden: I admit that my hon. friend (Mr. Bourassa) has had special opportunities to study the matter, yet with all of his opportunities and with the ability which my hon. friend undoubtedly possesses, I greatly doubt whether he is in a position to convince us that the Canadian case, which I believe was very ably presented, is so absolutely absurd and ridiculous as he would lead us to believe. Certainly his comments, if accepted seriously, place Messrs. Aylesworth and Jette in an uncomfortable position. Mr. Aylesworth has delivered a dissenting judgment occupying three columns of the London ' Times ' in support of the Canadian case, which according to my hon. friend (Mr. Bourassa) is absurd and ridiculous and to which, according to him, the people of this country should attach no importance whatever. Let us remember that Mr. Ayelswortli was sworn to give that question impartial consideration, that he is a lawyer of great eminence in the province of Ontario, and that Mr. .Tette is a lawyer of great eminence in the province of Quebec, and when my bon. friend, even with all the information he has on this subject, stands in this House and tells us that the arguments of these gentlemen. in their dissenting opinion, are unworthy of consideration


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I think it would be fair of my hon. friend to admit that I stated at the very beginning of my remarks that as far as the strict legal interpretation of the letter of the treaty is concerned, I did not venture any opinion at all ; I simply said that I was going to state the facts as to what were the intentions of Great Britain and Russia before the treaty was made. As far as the effect of these quotations which I have given are concerned, I do not pretend to judge, and therefore Mr. Aylesworth

and Sir Louis Jette may be right in their interpretation of the treaty without minimizing the force of the documents which I have read.


Robert Laird Borden: Commission were laid before this House on the 5th of June, 1899, and are to be found at page 4259 and succeeding pages of ' Hansard.' In the protocol No. 03, the British commissioners put forward the following proposal as a basis for framing a treaty with regard to the boundary between Alaska and Canada:
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. In the event of their failure to agree within three months of the exchange of the ratification of the present treaty to be selected by-	.
The commissioners of the United States in opposition to that article put forward as Article 2, the following :
The tribunal shall consist of six impartial jurists of repute three on the part of Great 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.
Now, my right hon. friend, in laying these protocols before the House, said :
The tribunal proposed by the British commissioners was a tribunal of three jurists of repute -one to be selected by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council for Great Britain, the other to be selected by the President of the United States and the third to be selected by the two, or, in the event of a disagreement to be selected by a friendly power, the friendly power, however, not being named. With regard to the possible questions which might arise on account of arbitration, the British commissioners proposed to follow identically the rules laid down by the Venezuela treaty.
The United States commissioners, as appears by the statement of my right hon. friend, desired to know whether or not the appointment of a third arbitrator by one of the independent states of this continent would be satisfactory- to tbe Canadian government. To this it was replied, as seen at page 4264, as follows :
To this it was replied that they had considered it. and thought it most objectionable 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 a guarantee of impartiality which is the first qualification requisite for the discharge of the duties entrusted to him.
That is the way the matter was left by the protocol. On the 29th of May, 1899, the Prime Minister in the House used the following language :
I have only to repeat that the position to-day on the 29th of May, is exactly what it was when the commission adjourned on the 1st of February last. There has been no change and, so far as this government is concerned there will be no change.
Therefore, the position of the matter up to that time was this : that in 1899 the Am-Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
ericans had proposed a tribunal of six jurists of repute, three to be selected by each country. The commissioners for Canada had proposed a reference to arbitration, one jurist being appointed by each country, and provision being made for the appointment of a third independent and impartial jurist. They had proposed that the rules laid down in the Venezuela treaty should apply to the consideration of the subject for arbitration. My right hon. friend had declared distinctly on the 29th of May, 1899, that there had been no change, and so far as this government was concerned, there would be no change. Now, that is not the only observation which my right lion, friend made on the subject, because on another occasion during the same year he used the following language :
My mouth is closed on the subject and I cannot speak but there has been a statement made officially by the foreign office conning from the commission itself which has given to the public the reason why we could not agree. The American commissioners did not want to have an umpire. They wanted to have three commissioners on one side and three on the other side. To this we could not agree because such an arrangement would not give us a definite settlement of the question. They also wanted it agreed that if the establishments they made at the head of the Lynn canal were found to be in Canadian territory they would continue to. remain part of their own territory. We could not agree to that.
And further on, in dealing with the same subject, he said :
We came to the conclusion after giving the matter our best thought that the only rules which could be adopted in the position of things which existed in that distant part of the country were the rules so recently adopted for the settlement of the Venezuelan question.
And he also declared his intention to be firm by using further on the following language :
I have only to say this, however, tljat the attitude which we have taken has the approbation of the people of Canada generally, and it is an attitude which must and will be maintained to the end.
Now, the attitude of the United States commissioners with regard to this question was sufficiently indicated by the protocols which they presented in reply to those which were laid before them by the British commissioners. The proposal presented by the British commissioners was exactly the same proposal as that which had practically been forced upon the mother country with respect to Venezuela, a country in which the United States had no direct interest other than that which arose by reason of the so-called Monroe doctrine. An arbitration in that case was forced upon the people of the mother country-I think I can reasonably use the words in view of what we know took place at that time-was forced upon the mother country with respect te certain territory in Venezuela in which

the United States had no direct interest other than that which I have mentioned. The reply to that was that there must be a reference to six jurists, three upon each side, and that the rules referred to could not be accepted. Further, according to the informal negotiations, if there should be a reference to three arbitrators, the third arbitrator must be appointed by a country over which the United States exercised, or claimed at least to exercise a certain influence under the doctrine that I have already mentioned. That should have been sufficient notice to my right hon. friend of the attitude of the American government.
Now what took place after that ? An agitation arose in the United States, or rather an agitation existed in the United States with respect to the control by that country of the Nicaraguan canal. It so happened that under a treaty known as the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, that control which the United States desifled could not be obtained by the United States unless the government of Great Britain would consent to a modification of that treaty. But in dealing with the question of th(e abrogation of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, which was pressed very strongly upon the mother country by the American government, Lord Lansdowne took a ground which might well have had and certainly should have had the support of the Canadian government. In a despatch -which Lord Lansdowne addressed, on the 22nd of February, 1901, to the British ambassador at Washington, it will be seen that the British government at that time thoroughly recognized the fact that these two questions should be dealt with concurrently. The British government recognized the fact that Canada had an interest in the Clayton-Bulwer treaty and in the control of a canal across the Isthmus, and it also recognized the necessity that the latter question should be dealt with only in connection with the Alaskan boundary question, that the Alaskan boundary question should not be left for future determination if that treaty were abrogated. Lord Lansdowne, in a despatch from which I shall have to quote at some length, used the following language :
So far as Her Majesty's government were concerned, there was no desire to procure a modification of that ccnvention. Some of its provisions had, however, for a long time past been regarded with disfavour by the government of the United States, and in the President's message to congress of December, 189S, it was suggested with reference to a concession granted by the government of Nicaragua, that some definite action by congress was urgently required if the labours of the past were to be utilized, and the linking of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans by a practical water-way to be realized. It was further urged that the construction of such a maritime highway was more than ever indispensable to that intimate and ready intercommunication between the eastern and western sea-boards of the United States demanded by the annexation of the
Hawaiian Islands and the prospective expansion of American influence and commerce in the Pacific, and that the national policy called more imperatively than ever for the control of the projected highway by the government of the United States.
This passage in the message having excited comment, Your Excellency made inquiries of the Secretary of State in order to elicit some information as to the attitude of the President.
In reply, the views of the United States government were very frankly and openly explained. You were also most emphatically assured that the President had no intention whatever of ignoring the Clayton-Bulwer convention, and that he would loyally observe treaty stipulations. But in view of the strong national feeling in favour of the construction of the Nicaragua canal and of the improbability of the work being accomplished by private enterprise, the United States government were prepared to undertake it themselves upon Obtaining the necessary powers from congress. For that purpose, however, they must endeavour, by friendly negotiation, to obtain the consent of Great Britain to such a modification of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty as would, without affecting the general principle therein declared, enable the great object in view to be accomplished for the benefit of the commerce of the world. Although the time had hardly arrived for the institution of formal negotiations to that end. congress not having yet legislated, the United 'States government, nevertheless, were most anxious that Your Excellency should enter at once into pour-parlers with a view to preparing for consideration, a scheme of arrangement.
Her Majesty's government agreed to this proposal, and the discussion which took place in consequence resulted in the draft convention which Mr. Hay handed to Your Excellency on the Uth January, 1899.
At that time the Joint High Commission, over which the late Lord Herschell presided, was still sitting. That commission was appointed in July, 1898, to discuss various questions at issue between Great Britain and the United States, namely, vhe fur-seal fishery, the fisheries off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, the Alaskan boundary, alien labour laws, reciprocity, transit of merchandise, mining rights, naval vessels on the great lakes, definition and marking of frontiers, and conveyance of persons in custody. But serious difficulties had arisen in the attempt to arrive at an understanding, and it had become doubtful whether any settlement would be effected.
In reply, therefore, to a request for a speedy answer with regard to the convention, the Marquess of Salisbury informed Mr. White, the American charge d'affaires, that be could not help contrasting the precarious prospects and slowness of the negotiations which were being conducted by Lord Herschell with the rapidity of decision proposed in the matter of the convention. Her Majesty's government might be reproached with having come to a precipitate agreement on a proposal which was exclusively favourable to the United States, while they had come to no agreement at all on the controversy where there was something to be conceded on both sides.
Shortly afterwards Lord Herschell intimated that the difficulties in regard to the question of the Alaskan boundary seemed insuperable, and that he feared it might be necessary to break off the negotiations of which he had hitherto I had the charge. Upon this Lord Salisbury in-

14S00
formed Mr. White that he did not see how Her Majesty's government could sanction any convention for amending the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, as the opinion of this country would hardly support them 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 to a satisfactory settlement in regard to the Alaskan frontier.
The language is very significant and very cjgent. The British government practically look the ground, in that despatch from the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to the British Ambassador at Washington, that contemporaneously with the proposed amendment to the Clayton-Bulwer treaty there must lie some satisfactory arrangement as to the Alaskan frontier. I think the House and the country are entitled to some intimation in addition to any that has already been given by the government, as to whether or not the imperial government in taking that stand not only had the hearty and vigorous support of this government but the energetic and forcible insistence by this government that the treaty should not be abrogated without some satisfactory arrangement being made as to the delimination of the Alaskan frontier. Have we seen the government taking that attitude in this House ? We have not seen anything of the kind, because, on the 5th March, 1902, when I referred to this question in the debate on the address, the right iron. First Minister took the astounding position that Canada had no direct interest whatever in the question as to whether or not the Clayton-Bulwer treaty should he abrogated. No direct interest in it ? I would like to know what part of this empire had any direct interest in the abrogation of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty if Canada had not. Canada had a greater direct interest in the questions connected with that treaty than any other part of the British empire. What was the interest of the United States in the treaty ? The interest of the Uuited States in the treaty was, that having great possessions on the Atlantic and the Pacific and desiring to develop their trade in the east particularly since the acquisition of certain territory in the far east, they were anxious to have control under certain conditions of thte Isthmian canal for the purpose of its construction. Canada had precisely the same interest as the United States. Canada has great possessions on the Atlantic, Canada has great possessions on the Pacific and Canada desires to develop her trade on the Pacific and her trade with the far east. Therefore, if the United States were able to make out a strong ease why the treaty should he denunciated, the case of Canada was such as to entitle her to say that before that treaty should be abrogated Canada must be consulted. What position did the light hon. First Minister take on this subject in the House ? He took this position in his speech on that occasion :
The hon. gentleman says that the Clayton-Bulwer treaty is at an end ; that therefore there Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
is nothing to conceal ; that the treaty negotiated between Lord Lytton and Mr. Clayton has been modified by a recent treaty, and that therefore the papers in the Clayton-Bulwer treaty can be brought down. That reasoning of my hon. friend is fallacious. Canada had no direct interest in the Clayton-Bulwer treaty ; Canada had no direct interest in the Nicaragua canal. Canada had no -more interest in the negotiation of a treaty which affected the Nicaragua canal than she would have in a treaty in reference to the Suez canal, or in any other question between Great Britain and a foreign power in which she was not interested.
Well, it would thus seem, that, instead of supporting and not only supporting hut insisting upon the position which was taken by Lord Lansdowne in the despatch to which I have referred, the government of Canada have taken an indefensible and unpatriotic position. They seem for some incomprehensible reason to have taken the position in regard to the abrogation of the Clayton-Bulwer -treaty that Canada has no real, direct interest in it, and that it was perfectly competent for the Imperial government to abrogate that treaty without coming to any conclusion with the United States about the Alaskan boundary question as to which there was so much delay and so much uncertainty.
The right hon. First Minister has brought down the papers and I have looked through these papers from beginning to end without finding one single word of protest in regard to the Clayton-Bulwer treaty. I have looked in vain for one syllable, word, or communication which indicates that the government of this country declared or suggested that tire Alaskan boundary dispute must be settled concurrently with the abrogation of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty*.
Let us look for a moment at the documents which have been brought down. They are obviously very incomplete because one of the earliest, a despatch from His Excellency the Governor General to the Colonial Secretary, dated 18th November, 1902, refers to a despatch of November, 1901, which has not been brought down. This despatch is as follows :-
Ottawa, November 18, 1902.
Referring to your despatch of October 31st concerning the proposal of the United States for the appointment of a tribunal of jurists to record their reasoned opinions upon the Alaska boundary question, my ministers while declining to give final assent to such proposal, would be disposed to consider it favourably provided the reference to the tribunal should include ail aspects of the question. They think that such a reference as was outlined in my despatch of last November, 1901, might be acceptable.
(Sgd.) MINTO.
We are still in the dark as to wliat this despatch means. It is pi'eceded by a despatch on the 31st October, 1902, which is brought down and which is in the following words :
Despatch from Mr. Chamberlain to -His Excellency the Governor General:-*

London, October 81, 1902.
Proposal unofficially renewed by Secretary of State for United States for appointment of tribunal members of which should merely record their reasoned opinions. See my secret despatch of April 23, 1902. Does this suggestion which would at least afford opportunity to the public in the United States and Canada of comparing their respective cases, meet with the approval of your ministers ?
(Sgd.) CHAMBERLAIN.
On the 11 tl* December, 1902, the Colonial Office replied to the despatch from Lord Minto dated the 18th November, 1902 : Alaska Boundary.
London, December 11, 1902.
Referring to your cable of November 18tli, presume that In event of majority of tribunal agreeing on answer to the reference submitted decision would be accepted as final by your ministers ? Please cable reply.
To which an answer was sent on the 15th December, 1902, which I will not quote in full as I understand this correspondence is to be printed but which expresses the view that : the government of Canada cannot give proper consideration to question submitted till the exact text of the proposed reference or the composition of the tribunal is before them. Then follow certain letters from the British Ambassador to Mr. Hay and from the British Ambassador to the Foreign Minister, Lord Lansdowne. Then follows the text of the treaty which has been entered into, and then the following communication :
London, January 6, 1903.
Secretary of State for the Colonies to Lord
Minto.
Alaska-shall be glad to have as soon as possible views of your minsters on draft boundary treaty which was inclosed in Sir Michael Herbert's despatch No. 317 of the 19th December.
(Sgd.) S. of S.
To which the Governor General sent the following reply :
Ottawa, January 10, 1903.
Sir Michael Herbert,
Referring to your last proposed Alaska boundary treaty, a draft of which was submitted to me, my ministers are satisfied with the questions to be submitted to the tribunal, but they still have the same objection to the composition of the proposed tribunal, and before assenting to it, they would hope that another effort should be made to have the questions to be adjudicated upon submitted either to a board of arbitrators composed in part of independent jurists, not subjects of either state, as proposed in my despatch to Mr. Chamberlain of November, 1901, or to the Hague tribunal.
(Sgd.) MINTO.
I submit that is not an answer which this government should have returned. Nearly four years before, the right hon. First Minister had told the people of this country tlmt tlie attitude which had been taken by tlie government before the Joint High Commission would be persevered in by this government to the end, and would not be departed from. It was the duty of the Prime Minister to have sumitted that treaty to parliament in pursuance of the pledge he had given. On the 12th of January, 1903, when parliament might have been expected to meet at an early date, why was it that the Prime Minister entered into a treaty of that kind without the consent of parliament, and without a provision for ratification by parliament ? Did not the rig'ht lion, gentleman state over and over again in 1899, that his attitude before the Joint High Commission would he persevered in to the endi? Why did lie depart from that course, especially when lie had before him the statement of Sir Charles Tqpper, then leader of the opposition, that as to this question there would be no two parties in Canada, and that the opposition would stand by the government in asserting the rights of Canada just as strongly as would their own supporters ? In spite of his own promise and in face of a united parliament, the Prime Minister, within a few weeks of the meeting of parliament, went back on his pledge and agreed that the question should be referred to this tribunal Let me further ask : why did the government, in respect to a treaty concerning the territorial interests of Canada agree that that treaty should not he subject to ratification by the Canadian parliament ? When the Bight Hon. Sir John Macdonald negotiated the Washington treaty in 1871, he insisted that it should be subject to ratification by the parliament of Canada, so that it might be considered in all its aspects by the Canadian people through their representatives, and lie affirmed or not affirmed, as they saw fit. But this government after giving a direct pledge to the people of Canada to the contrary, turned around deliberately, abandoned their position and entered into a treaty which was not subject to ratification by parliament. This was Canadian territory ; it was territory in which the people of Canada were peculiarly interested, and yet the Premier of Canada, in response to a request from the Colonial Secretary and the British ambassador, put Canada's interests to one side and announced that his government was quite content to enter into this arrangement. There is a despatch here from the Secretary of State for the colonies, dated the 12th of January, 1903, in which he says :
Sir Michael Herbert advocates strongly three judges of the United States Supreme Court, with the Lord Chief Justice of England, the Chief Justice of Canada and the Judicial High Court of Great Britain on the one side as forming a trihunal which would command the highest confidence of all concerned.
On the 18th of January, the British ambassador telegraphed to His Excellency the Governor General as follows :
I have despatched the following to-day to the foreign office :-
Re Alaska boundary.
Secretary of State has again asked me for an answer to-day on the ground that present moment they might not he favourable.

I think there must be some mistake in the wording of this despatch, because the language does not seem intelligible. However, I will read it as it is :
Secretary of State has again asked me for an answer to-day on the ground that present moment they might not be favourable for ratification of treaty and if the question is further postponed senators' attitude may change.
I think there must be a clerical error here.


The PRIME MINISTER.: My hon. friend is quite right. That was a cipher despatch, and it was presumed that it should read :
On the ground that present moment might not be unfavourable.


Robert Laird Borden: That makes it perfectly plain. Then, on the 10th of January, 1903, the British ambassador sent the following despatch to His Excellency : Alaska Treaty ; Canadian reply.
Following sent to foreign office to-day. I am informed by Hay to-day that the Canadian government were satisfied as to terms of reference, but they objected to composition of tribunal and hoped that the United States government would agree to have the' questions to be adjudicated upon submitted either to foreign arbitration or to the Hague tribunal. At the same time I pointed out that the Hague tribunal was especially intended to settle disputes regarding interpretation of treaties. Mr. Hay said in reply, that in view of the alterations he had made in regard to terms of reference he had hoped for the spontaneous acceptance of the treaty, and he regretted that the Canadian government still objected to the tribunal's composition. He could only repeat that he had often said before that the form of arbitration proposed was the only one acceptable to the President, and that a treaty involving submission of questions to foreign arbitration or to Hague tribunal would stand no chance of ratification by the United States senate.
Even if that were so, I do not exactly see what this country was supposed to gain from a reference such as that which the United States proposed. Was there any reasonable cause why this question should not have been disposed of under the same terms and upon the same basis as those upon which an exactly similar question with regard to the boundary between Venezuela and the British possessions in South America was disposed of. There was the question of possession in both cases ; the questions were of the same nature ; we were ready to adopt the same rule that was adopted with regard to Venezuela, and we were prepared to abide by it. But when we knew the attitude of the United States, and especially at a later stage, when we knew the gentlemen who were appointed as commissioners by the United States, what was there for us to hope or expect from the only tribunal to which they would agree ? As I stated in the debate on the address during the present session, the very best we could possibly hope from a tribunal of that kind was that it would be evenly divided in opin-Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
ion, and would accomplish nothing. Was a tribunal of that kind one before which we should consent to appear ? Was it worth while for us to spend $300,000 or $400,000 for the purpose of presenting our case before such a tribunal, when we knew that the very best we could expect would be an even division of opinion ? The time for this government to have withdrawn was in the month of January last when they could very well have explained to the Imperial government that the Prime Minister of Canada had given bis pledge to the people of Canada in parliament that he would not withdraw from the attitude which he had taken before the Joint High Commission, and when he could have further told the government of the mother country that in taking that attitude be had the support of both political parties in Canada, and that the people of Canada were united on that point. If my right hon. friend had then taken that position with firmness, if he had said that we must have an arrangement on the same basis as that upon which the Venezuelan boundary was delimited, or that we must have a treaty subject to ratification by the parliament of Canada, I have not the slightest doubt that the result must have been that this treaty would have been in a different form, or at least that it would have been made subject to ratification by the parliament of Canada.
In a despatch of the 19th of January, 1903, from the Colonial Secretary to His Excellency the Governor General, I find the following :
Referring to Sir Michael Herbert's telegram stating that the United States government is unable to agree to modification of tribunal, I trust that your responsible advisers will now agree to his being instructed to sign the draft treaty. Please reply by telegram as soon as possible.
Then follows the word ' secret ' :
Should be glad to give an early answer to my telegram of 12th January as to British Ambassador Washington's proposal that Chief Justice ' of England, Chief Justice of Canada and Judicial High Court of Appeal of Great Britain, should be appointed as British members of the tribunal.
Next comes a despatch from the Colonial Office to Lord Minto, on the 20th of January, 1S03, as follows -
Re British ambassador at Washington's cable stating that Mr. Hay would prefer London as place of meeting. I should be glad to receive early expression of your ministers' views as to this.
Then follows a despatch from Lord Minto to the Secretary of State for the Colonies of date the 21st of January, 1903, which is as follows :
My ministers, whilst still regretting that proposed tribunal will not he constituted so as to insure cerainty of a final decision being reached on the reference being satisfied with the terms of that reference will agree to accept treaty as contained in the draft submitted to thorn.

A complete and absolute 'withdrawal from the position laid down before the Joint High Commission, a position which, according to my right hon. friend's declaration at that time, was to be persevered in to the end, no matter what might come. Then the despatch proceeds as follows :
With regard to composition of tribunal my ministers are of opinion that it is premature to adopt any final arrangement ; it is sufficient now to have it clearly understood that members of the court to be appointed by His Majesty shall be jurists of repute and British subjects.
They will be quite satisfied if London is selected for sittings of the court.
On the 18th of February the Secretary of State for the Colonies addressed to Lord Minto the following despatch :
H.M.S. Ambassador, Washington, cables President will appoint Mr. Root, Secretary of State for War. and Senators Lodge and Turner as American members of commission Alaskan boundary. Should be glad to have views of your ministers as to British commission.
In the earlier part of the session I brought to the attention of the House-and X will not repeat them-certain views which had been expressed by these gentlemen with regard to the question with which they were to deal in a judicial capacity, and I think it was recognized in this House beyond doubt, if we could believe the statements of reputable journals in the United States, that two of these gentlemen at least, and perhaps three of them, had expressed the most firm and unalterable views respecting this boundary ; and it is needless to say that the views then expressed are in absolute consonance with the decision that has been reached by the tribunal of which they are members. On the 21st of February, Lord Minto addressed to the Colonial Office the following despatch :
Supplementing my last despatch, my ministers call attention to the fact that they agreed to a court of six members on the stipulation conveyed in the treaty that members of said court would be impartial jurists, and in the hope that judges of the highest courts in the United States would be appointed as American commissioners, my ministers also agreeing that British commissioners should be judges of the highest standing.
My ministers most strongly represent that this consideration having been material in causing their assent to the treaty, should be made good. Otherwise the ground upon which they based their assent would be changed and it is feared whole situation would require to be reconsidered.
My ministers would be ready to implement their part of the understanding as to the composition of British side of the commission, but do not think it advisable to submit their views until question raised about American commission is satisfactorily disposed of.
Then follows a long despatch of the 27th of February from the Colonial Secretary, the important part of which is as follows :
His Majesty's government have therefore to choose between breaking off negotiations altogether or accepting American nominations and appointing as their colleagues representatives
who will meet the altered circumstances of the case. They would regard the first alternative as a grave misfortune to the interests of Canada and would prefer that the inquiry should proceed, in confident hope that Canadian or British interests would not be prejudiced thereby as, even in the event of failure, much important information upon controverted points would be collected, and placed before the public, and reasonable settlement at some future time thereby facilitated.
I am sorry to say that the somewhat optimistic view which the Secretary of State for the Colonies took has not been realized ; hut it may be due to the fact that the very plain suggestion which was made in his despatch was not accepted by the government of this country. I have not the slightest doubt, in view of the language used in this despatch by the Secretary of State for the Colonies, that if this government had insisted upon appointing three Canadians upon that commission, their demand would have been complied with ; and could any one complain if three Canadians had been appointed-men who knew how important this question was to this country, and who realized how strongly the people of this country felt with regard to their rights in that connection ? There cannot be the slightest doubt that if the government of this country had taken that course, their suggestion would have been accepted by the government of the mother country,, and we might at least have had a better condition of affairs than that which confronts us to-day, when we have practically lost everything we claimed.
On the 6th of March, 1903, this government addressed a despatch to the Imperial government, which, as it is an important despatch, I had better read in full. Before reading it, let me say in passing that in the debate on the Address on the 13th of March, of the present year, not knowing then that this despatch had passed, I suggested, as strongly as I thought it wise to do, that this government should carefully consider the question whether commissioners for Great Britain should be appointed at all under that treaty. It is true, the negotiations had progressed to a certain extent at that time; I believe ratifications had been exchanged ; but a treaty of that kind could not result in anything, the tribunal could not be constituted, unless commissioners were appointed on behalf of Great Britain ; and, having regard to the character of the appointments made by the American government to this tribunal, I do not think that any reasonable complaint would have been made by the American government if the government of Great Britain had seen fit to stay its hand until the American government should reconsider those appointments, and should place upon that tribunal gentlemen who were in every sense of the word impartial jurists of repute, as called for by the terms of this treaty. I am not speaking of the ability of these gen-

tlemen as Jurists ; I am only speaking of tire fact that two of them at lea'st, and I believe three, had publicly expressed opinions, which it seemed to me rendered impossible their consideration of this question in a very judicial frame of mind. Well, this despatch of the Cth of March, 1903, is as follows :
Referring to your despatch of February 27, my ministers regard the situation with much anxiety. They desire to emphasize the fact that their assent to a treaty which provided for the creation of a tribunal so composed as not to insure finality, was obtained on the stipulation in the treaty that the members of the court would be impartial jurists of repute.
There are here, in the document from which I am quoting, certain asterisks, which indicate that a portion of this despatch has not yet been brought down. It may be brought down at a little later date, as I gather from my hon. friend. The despatch as brought down then proceeds as follows :
Their doubts as to the effectiveness of the contemplated arrangement as1 a means of settlement were in some degree modified by the -assurance that the members of the tribunal would approach the subject with unbiassed minds and that a judicial interpretation of the treaty of 1825 would be obtained. The appointment to the tribunal by the United States government of gentlemen who are not judges and whose known views leave no room for exceptation of a judicial consideration of the question, changes the whole situation. If the whole question were now open to be dealt w-ith entirely from the point of view of Canadian interests, my ministers would hesitate to advise any further participation in proceedings.
Then follow asterisks, indicating that a further portion of the despatch as brought down has been omitted.
My ministers have observed from the public press and have also been officially informed that while the matter is still under their consideration, the treaty has been confirmed by His Majesty's government, and an exchange of ratifications has already taken place at Washington. It is presumed that this fact precludes further discussion and my ministers will therefore proceed to do whatever is necessary on their part to make good the engagements of His Majesty's government, but they must reserve the right to submit to the Canadian parliament the whole correspondence or such statement of the case .as will fully explain the whole matter, and especially the manner in which the assent of Canada was obtained.
My ministers do not agree with the suggestion that the altered circumstances justify a departure on the British side from the disposition previously manifested respecting the composition of the tribunal. If members of the tribunal are to be appointed by His Majesty's government, my ministers are of opinion that only judges of the higher courts, who in the best sense of the words would he impartial jurists of repute, should be chosen.
My right hon. friend and his government perhaps were rather magnanimous in that. I think I expressed the view myself that if we appointed members to that tribunal we should at least appoint persons who had Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
not expressed any opinion on the subject and who were jurists of repute, but I do not remember that we were confined to tbe judges and I believe that we could have found impartial jurists of repute in Canada whether judges or not, who certainly would have fulfilled that definition very much more completely than the three gentlemen who were appointed by tbe United States.


Mr. LEMIEUX.: What about tbe two who were appointed ?


Robert Laird Borden: I hope that pillion. friend does not suppose that 1 am reflecting on the gentlemen who were appointed. If he had followed my remarks closely he would have seen that my point is that Canada should have appointed three instead of two of the jurists. I am not making any comment on the selection of the gentlemen appointed; it would hardly be becoming of me to do so, even if I entertained any doubts. I have never expressed any such views and I have nothing to suggest on the line my hon. friend has just now mentioned. I am only contending that if the government of this country had suggested three Canadians instead of two-and three Canadians, impartial jurists of repute, could easily have been found- I tbink tbe imperial government would have accepted them, and I tbink we would have been absolutely justified in taking that course.
The next despatch, on the 7th of March, to Lord Minto from the Secretary of the Colonies, declares that the ratifications of the Alaskan Boundary Treaty were exchanged on the third instant, and it goes on to say :
Time for the preparation of the case, article No. 2, has consequently begun to run against us and it is important that composition of British half of court, also appointment of British agent should be settled without delay.
Hope,, therefore, your responsible advisers will favour us with their views on these appointments as early as possible.
To this despatch of the Colonial Secretary Lord Minto replied on the 2nd of March :
In view of the short time given for preparation of the case, my ministers desire to proceed immediately, and therefore suggest an early settlement of preliminaries.
As to the composition of tribunal, my ministers suggest Chief Justice of England and two Canadian judges, names to be .telegraphed hereafter.
As to counsel, my ministers desire that Mr. Edward Blake, K.C., London, and Mt. Christopher Robinson. K.C.. Toronto, be of counsel to uphold the British contention, and a junior counsel.
Under that clause of the treaty which provides for the appointment of an agent to represent each party before the tribunal, my ministers desire that Mr. Clifford Sifton, Canadian Minister of the Interior, be appointed to fill such position.
14S09

On the 17th of March Lord Minto telegraphed :
In addition to Chief Justice of England, my ministers propose Sir Louis JettS, a retired judge of the Superior Court of the province of Quebec and now Lieutenant Governor of Quebec, and Justice Armour of the Supreme Court of Canada, as members of the court of impartial jurists under treaty for settlement of boundary of Alaska.
That closes the correspondence as brought down. Now, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that this government have not properly protected the interests of the country in the matter to which I have referred and which I will briefly summarize. In the first place, having declared their determination before the meeting of the Joint High Commission that this question would not be referred, on the part of Canada, to a tribunal the decision of which could not result in any settlement in favour of Canada and from which we could hope only a division of opinion, the government departed from that position without the consent of parliament or notice to parliament, and in doing so did not adequately protect the interests of Canada. I repeat that I cannot understand the reason which induced my right lion, friend, after he had given that pledge to the people of this country and to parliament, to consent to a treaty which was absolutely different from that arbitration which he insisted upon before the meeting of the Joint High Commission. What were the reasons that actuated my right hon. friend in taking that course, especially without notice to parliament, and in entering into a treaty dealing solely with Canadian interests without malting that treaty subject to ratification by the parliament of Canada. By what right did this government, after pledging itself to pai-liament that a certain attitude would be maintained, depart altogether from that attitude to which they were thus solemnly pledged, and which they had adopted in the first instance and consistently maintained with the assent of the British government before the Joint High Commission ? Lord Herscbell, representing the imjierial government. had resolutely taken this position, and he never wavered from it.
In the second, place, for what reason did this government take the attitude that this country had no direct interest in the Clay-ton-Bulwer treaty, and had no right to be heard in regard to the variation of that treaty ? Where is there a line of pretest on that subject addressed by this govern-ernment to the mother country 1 How comes it that without protest from this country the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty has been abrogated without any settlement of the Alaska boundary being coupled with it. How is it that my right hon. friend took the position that Canada was not interested in this treaty and that this government and the imperial government as well, departed from the position so distinctly laid down in the
despatch of Lord Landsdowne to the British Ambassador at Washington when the United States was pressing on the British government the necessity for some modification in that treaty ? I could understand the reasons which might induce the British government to seek to depart from the position It then took, but I cannot conceive any possible reason which would lead ' the government of my right hon. friend to depart from that position and to assume the position which the right hon. gentleman assumed in this House in the debate of last year. My right hon. friend then earnestly argued that there was no connection between the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty amendment and the settlement of the Alaska boundary question; that it was quite a proper course for the imperial	government	to	yield	to
the demands of the United States in the one case without insisting upon an equitable mode of settling the dispute which had arisen in the other case.
For the unfortunate result which this country has now to face, the government of my right hon. friend is responsible. My I right hon. friend is responsible himself, because if on the occasion I have mentioned the proper attitude had been firmly taken	we would	at	least	bein no worse	position to-day	than	wewere before; we would at least have had this matter open and we would not have been confronted with the absolute loss of practically everything for which Canada contended in this case. If the people of this country had been consulted in their parliament, if	this treaty	had	been	discussed by the representatives of the people in this parliament and if Canadians alone had been appointed on this tribunal, I believe that the feeling which has been engendered would have been very greatly minimized even in the case of the loss of outrights; and in questions of this kind, which touch the pride of the people, it is always desirable that if we are to lose, we shall lose in such a way that the people will feel that they have been consulted in the matter and that everything has been done to protect their rights which possibly could have been done by the government of this country. It does not seem to me that the situation will present itself to the people of this country in that way. I regret once more that, behind the back of parliament these proceedings were taken; that, without any consultation whatever with parliament my right hon. friend has seen fit to adopt a course, for which the government are absolutely responsible, and which has resulted so unfortunately for the best interests of Canada.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: My hon. friend (Mr. Borden, Halifax) and myself, however much we may disagree as to certain phases of this question, agree ' in this-that the time has

not come to discuss tlie award which has been rendered in this matter. My hon. friend stated in his opening remarks that it was not advisable at this time-nor have we the information which would enable us -to comment upon the decision which has been given. But later on in his remarks my hon. friend stated that Canada would have probably have had more justice if three Canadians had been. appointed commissioners, rather than two Canadians and the Chief Justice of England. Perhaps my hon. friend is right; and, perhaps, in selecting the Chief Justice of England, as a jurist of repute, to pass upon these questions pending between the Canadian government and people and the British Crown on the one side, and the United States on the other side, we made a mistake-perhaps we should not have confided our interest to the highest expert in England. But, up to the present time, I fail to accept this view. I do not come to such an opinion as that yet, and I do not think we are in a position to maintain against the Chief Justice such harsh language as that which my hon. friend has just uttered.


Robert Laird Borden: I hope the hon. gentleman (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Eaurier) will acquit me of using any harsh language towards the Chief Justice. 1 said that, subject to the consideration of the official reasons which might modify ray views, X could not at present imagine any reason for the course of the boundary around these islands. And if my right hon. friend can comprehend it, I shall be glad to hear his explanation.


The PRIME MINISTER.: But my hon. friend said also that we had made a mistake in not securing the appointment of three Canadians on this tribunal ; that we should have done better, that we should have had more justice, in that case, than we have had by the appointment of the Chief Justice of England. It is rather harsh to suggest that the Chief Justice of England has not treated us as justly as a Canadian would have done.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: Does not the right hon. gentleman's language seem harsh with respect to the two Canadians who decided differently from the Chief Justice ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: I pass no opinion upon the decision of any, but I say there is an implication in the language of my hon. friend (Mr. Borden, Halifax), when he says that, in agreeing to the appointment of the Chief Justice of England, ye made a mistake-when he says fnat tfiree Canadians would have done justice where two Canadians and the Chief Justice of England have not done justice. I say that there is in that an implication against the Chief Justice of England. It is harsh language to use toward that gentleman, and I refuse to accept that criticism until we have before us the reasoned opinion of the Chief Justice, so Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
that we may know whether he is right or wrong. Much as I regret the decision, much as I am surprised at it, I will not pass criticism of that kind, nor suppose that the Chief Justice of England has given an opinion which would not have been given by a Canadian had that Canadian been in his" place.
I have said that I did not rise to express an opinion as to the value of the award. In my opinion, our case on the Lynn canal was not so weak as my hon. friend from Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) seems to think it, nor do I believe it to be as strong as has been represented by some hon. gentlemen on both sides of this House. So far as the Lynn canal is concerned, it seemed to me there was a case which was contentious, a case on which a good deal could be said on one side and a good deal on the other side. In reading the case, as it proceeded before the commission, I came to the conclusion that we had the best of the argument. Perhaps in that I was biassed ; perhaps I was taking a view which was not absolutely justified ; still, that was the opinion I formed. However, I never was free from doubt as to the strength of our case. I always admitted, in my own mind, that there was an argument to be made on the other side ; and, perhaps, our case was such a one as all lawyers have sometimes had experience of-when, going into court, they know that they may expect a decision on either side. But on the Portland canal, it seemed to me we had not only a strong case, but one beyond doubt, one in which there was no argument on the other side. Therefore, it is with surprise, with wonder, with astonishment, I find that the award, instead of giving us the whole of our contention, which seemed clear beyond all doubt, takes from us two islands which belong to us. These islands, I believe, do not in themselves amount to much-they are simply rocks. But they have great importance from the position in which they are. It is a great blow to Canadian interests, as I see them, that we are to lose those islands. But this is not the time to discuss that question. I would advise people to be calm and quiet until we have the whole case before us, so that we, every one, can apply his judgment to the merits of -the decision that has been rendered.
Nor is this the point dwelt upon by my hon. friend. The position lie takes to-day is that we made a mistake in agreeing to refer this question to the tribunal which has settled it. I differ from him, and I think I can make good the position the government took in this matter. The hon. gentleman referred to the position I took in this House more than once, that we would not depart from the position insisted upon before the Anglo-American Commission at Washington with regard to the terms of reference, if they were to involve any surrender of -territory. But what I want my hon. friend to agree to now is this-that he has failed to see the difference between this treaty and

the treaty concerning the Venezuela arbitration case. That which the British side wanted to have was a reference on the lines of the Venezuela treaty. This treaty involved a possible surrender of territory. It was agreed between Venezuela and Great Britain that if the territory of one was found in possession of the other, the territory could be given to the party in whose possession it was, under terms of compensation. For instance, it was agreed that possession for fifty years was to' constitute a title. Under such circumstances, there was to be compensation for the territory that had been taken possession of. We wished to have a similar provision in this treaty, and to provide that if the territory of one country was found to be in the possession of the other, the arbitrators would be at liberty to leave that territory in the hands that held it, subject to such compensation as might be found equitable. But this was not adopted. What would have been the consequence if it had been adopted ? Suppose that the town of Skagway had been found to be in British territory. That town is now in the possession of the Americans. It would have been in the power of the commissioners to allow this territory to remain in the hands of the Americans on such terms as seemed equitable to the commissioners.


Robert Laird Borden: That would follow a certain term of possession under the rules of the Venezuela treaty ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: Yes, the term of fifty years. But, at all events, it was to involve a surrender of territory. Under the award that has been given, Canada is to obtain two islands, Pearse and Wales, which have been in possession of the Americans against our protest. Under the Venezuela treaty it would have been in the power of the commissioners to allow these islands to remain in possession of the Americans under such conditions as they deemed equitable. But the present treaty provided a different rule altogether ; the present treaty provided on the one side and on the other that there should be no surrender of territory-and this is the mistake which has been made by my hon. friend. I would advise him to look again at the terms of the treaty, article I. of which enacts as follows :
A tribunal shall be immediately appointed to consider and decide the questions set forth in article 4 of this convention. The tribunal shall consist of six impartial jurists of repute who shall consider judicially the questions submitted to them, each of whom shall first subscribe an oath that he will impartially consider the arguments and evidence presented to the tribunal.
It was therefore a treaty which involved no surrender of territory. All that was referred to them was the duty of judicially interpreting the terms of the treaty. They were to sit as a court to determine, not what .one party was entitled to and what the other
party was entitled to-because under no circumstances could there be any surrender of territory by one side or the other-but to determine the meaning of the treaty. Under these circumstances, there was no necessity of referring such a treaty to parliament. If there had been any surrender of territory involved, it would have been not only important lout essential that the treaty should have been referred to parliament, because parliament alone can dispose of territory. Even under a treaty of arbitration which involves the surrender of territory, parliament alone can give its sanction to such treaty. But the only thing that was pro-videu for in this case was merely the creation of a court to determine judicially what was the boundary of Alaska by the treaty of 1885.
So far, therefore, our position is very different from what it was in 1899. What were we to do ? I have often regretted, Mr. Speaker, and never more than on the present occasion, that we are living beside a great neighbour who, I believe I can say without being deemed unfriendly to them, are very grasping in their national acts, and who are determined upon every occasion to get the best.in any agreement which they make. I have often regretted also that while they are a great and powerful nation, we are only a small colony, a growing colony, but still a colony. I have often regretted also that we have not in our own hands the treaty-making power, which would enable us to dispose of our own affairs. But in this matter we were dealing with a position that was forced upon us-we have not the treaty-making power. I am sorry to say that the whole correspondence which we have had upon this question since 1899 has not yet been placed before parliament; I am sorry not only that we have not the treaty-making power, but that we are not in such an independent position that it is in my power to place before parliament the whole of the correspondence as it passed between the Canadian government and the British government. But we shall have that correspondence, and it will be placed before parliament at the next session-the whole of it, no matter what protest may come from abroad, we shall have the whole of it. and then this country may know ex-actly*what has taken place, and what share of responsibility must rest upon each of the parties concerned in this matter. But we have no such power, our hands are tied to a large extent owing to the fact of our connection-which has its benefits, but which has also its disadvantages-the faet of our connection with the mother country making us not free agents, and obliging us to deal with questions affecting ourselves through the instrumentality of the British ambassador. *
The question came before us, and what were we to do ? Were we to leave that question forever an open one ? Were we to

leave that frontier forever a hone of contention ? Were we to leave a condition of things under which it might happen, in case of a discovery of gold being made in the disputed territory, that American miners and Canadian miners would rush in and a clash might occur which would eventuate in conflict and bloodshed, and difficulties which the mind shudders to contemplate ? We had to come to some conclusion, and after long negotiations which will be seen when the whole correspondence is brought down, we did decide upon this reference. The offer was made to us of accepting this treaty which implied a judicial interpretation of the treaty of 1825, the result of which could give nothing to our opponents and could take nothing away from us, but which would simply determine what were our rights under that treaty. I think it was the duty of the Canadian government to put an end to this unfortunate condition of things to which I have referred. That is the position which we took upon the case. We wanted to have the treaty judicially interpreted. We wanted no territory from the Americans, we wanted simply that which belonged to us. That was the proposition made to us, and we decided to accept it.
Now, after we had given our assent to this treaty, after we had consented to refer the question to this tribunal, which was to be composed of six impartial jurists, we were notified that the jurists which were to be appointed by the American government were gentlemen who, with all respect be it said, could not qualify as impartial jurists. JThey had expressed their opinions upon this question already with a good deal of emphasis. We protested against the appointment of these gentlemen, and we asked the British authorities to convey our protest to the president of the United States, representing that gentlemen who had expressed upon the floors of Congress opinions upon tliis question, could not come within the term ' impartial jurists,' such as were contemplated by the treaty. And, Sir. wliat took place ? Before our protest had been taken into consideration the treaty was ratified by the British authorities. Then another difficulty arose. What were we to do under those circumstances, the treaty having already been ratified ? His Majesty had given his [DOT] assent to it, His Majesty, who is the only person in the British empire who has a right to sanction a treaty. Under such circumstances what were we to do ? I want to know what our friends on the other side would have done. I ask my hon. friend the leader of the opposition what would have been their conduct on that occasion. What would have been the consequences if we had declined to give our assent ? The consequences probably would have beefl that the American authorities would have planted the American flag upon the disputed territory. and we would have been obliged either Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
to retire with disgrace, or to go to war to preserve our rights. That would have been the consequences. Therefore, we said : No, we will do the best we can in the condition of things in which we find ourselves. We confided our rights to the judgment of men who, we believed, were able to defend them before the tribunal. We thought that we could entrust our case to a commission of impartial jurists, who would judicially interpret that treaty. The proposition was made to us that the British government should appoint the Lord Chief Justice of England, Lord Alverstone, to represent the British side. Well, Sir, according to my bon. friend (Mr. Borden) I made a mistake. I confess that when it was proposed to us that we should have at the head of that commission the Lord Chief Justice of England, I thought that in the hands of a gentleman of his distinction our interests would be secure. My hon. friend suggests that I made a mistake, that we should have insisted upon the appointment of three Canadians instead of two ; he suggests that Canadian interests would have been more secure in the hands of three Canadians than in the hands of the Lord Chief Justice of England, associated with two Canadians. Now, Sir, this means, if it means anything, that the Lord Chief Justice of England, who was charged with the judicial intei'pretation of that treaty, did not judicially interpret it. but allowed Itself to be biassed by influences which it is a shame to mention or to suppose. If it means anything, it means that if the Lord Chief Justice of England could have judicially interpreted the terms of the treaty and apportioned the rights of the parties according to law and justice, then a Canadian would have gone against his conscience and reached a different conclusion.
Sir, I refuse to accept that proposition. But I believe, that, in submitting our rights to the Lord Chief Justice of England, we had every reason to suppose that our interests would be as safe as they could be in the hands of anybody, and that the government of Canada made no mistake in that respect. I would not be disposed to believe it at this moment. I shall wait until we have the reasoned opinion of the Lord Chief Justice of England. But, that is not the proposition ; that is not the remedy. It is not because we accepted one form of commission or another. I shall show a little later on where the remedy is. My hon. friend also made it a matter of reproach that we had accepted a tribunal of six instead of a tribunal of seven or of any odd number. It is true that we objected again and again to a tribunal composed of six members, but for what reason-not that there would not be as much justice in six as in seven, or nine, or five, or any other odd number, but because a tribunal consisting of six members, or of any even number, did not ensure to us that condition of finality which

we thought ought to be a condition of such a reference. If there were six commissioners there might be three on one side and three on the other side. If you had seven you would have an opportunity to have finality, but that is not an argument to show that we would have had any more security with seven than with six. Suppose there had been four commissioners opposed to us. Suppose there had been a seventh commissioner appointed by the republic of France, or by the Emperor of Germany, or by the King of Sweden, or by any other friendly power, and suppose that the seventh arbitrator had stood between Sir Louis Jettfi and Mr. Aylesworth, then the tribunal would have been composed of three commissioners on the one side and four on the other, and we would have been no more advanced than we are at this moment. Therefore there is nothing in that argument. The only thing that we feared in having a tribunal composed of six members was that there should uot be the condition of finality, but there is the condition of finality as the tribunal has been composed. But the difficulty is not there. The difficulty, as I conceive it to be, is that so long as Canada remains a dependency of the British Crown the present powers that we have are not sufficient for the maintenance of our rights. It is important that we should ask the British parliament for more extensive power, so that if ever we have to deal with matters of a similar nature again we shall deal with them in our own way, in our own fashion, according to the best light that we have.


Robert Laird Borden: May I ask my right hon. friend a question ? Did he not state, in regard to the colonial conference, during the debate on the address in the present session that the political relations were absolutely satisfactory and that no modifications of any kind were required 7


The PRIME MINISTER.: I stated that in so far as the relations between Canada and the empire with the view to an imperial federation or matters of a similar character were concerned, our relations were perfectly satisfactory, but I never stated that we should not have any more power in regard to our own autonomy. I stated that our relations were perfectly satisfactory, but I certainly never intimated that our powers should not be augmented in regard to treaty making. But, the hon. gentleman should remember that we have gained something if we have lost something by the treaty. It is important that we should be calm in regard to this matter. We have lost something, but we have not lost every thing. The Americans have not gained every thing they wanted. They have not gained everything they wanted on the Lynn canal, because, if they had, the boundary would not have been fixed at the summit of the White pass, but it would have been extended to 404
Lake Bennett. Moreover, on the Portland canal we have gained two islands. We have gained those parts of our contention if we have not gained everything. Such is the condition then that we have to deal with at this moment. It is not as bad as some parties are disposed to believe it is, but at all events it will be bad enough to cause us to look to the future to see what will be the condition and to try and remedy it. If there is a thing which I regret it is that in 1898 the Yukon Bill which was passed by this House was not permitted to become law. If the Yukon Bill had become law we would not have had this question confronting us at this moment. The White Pass Railway would in all probability not have been constructed and this Yukon Railway would have been extended to the Stikeen river, and from the Stikeen river to Observatory inlet, so that at this moment we would have had connection upon Canadian territory between Observatory inlet and the waters of the Yukon. But, that was not done. However, it is no use to look back to what is past It behooves us at an early day to see what steps should be taken to establish communication upon Canadian territory between the rest of the Dominion and the Yukon. I am not prepared to say what we should advocate. I am not prepared to say what we should recommend. But it is a question for all Canadians and they should be prepared for some sacrifice in order to establish communication between that distant part of our country and the more settled parts of Canada.


Robert Laird Borden: May I ask my right hon. friend if he did not say that he accepted as absolutely satisfactory the political relations existing between Canada and the mother country 7 Here is what he said:
As to the political relations which exist between Canada and the colonies generally and the mother land, they are perfectly satisfactory, they could not be improved, and any attempt which has been made with a view of improving them has cnly led to Utopia.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Mr. Speaker, I was a member of the government when in 1899 the question of the Alaskan boundary was discussed before the joint high commission. A memorandum was then prepared. I hold it in my hand. It contains a statement of the different propositions that were debated then. The government of the United States declined positively to consent to an arbitration. The right hon. Prime Minister (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier), who was, of course, the leading man on the Canadian side, in Washington, suggested an arbitration. Our United States friends suggested a commission of jurists. The right hon. Prime Minister, and the government, sided with him altogether, declined to accede to such a proposal. In point of fact I am within the memory of the House when I say that the

negotiations of tlie joint high commission were broken off on that point. The right lion, gentleman, at the opening of parliament, informed the country that the two governments being unable to agree on the Alaskan boundary the negotiations were broken off. That was the position when I ceased to be a member of the administration. We had exhausted every posible means of coming to some understanding. The government of Canada had offered to the government of the United States to give up what we thought were our rights to the Lynn canal provided we got the harbour on the Lynn canal which is called Pyramid harbour. The memorandum which I hold in my hand contains that statement. They declined to accept that offer.


John Graham Haggart: Where is it published that our government consented to give up our right to the Lynn canal ?


Joseph Israël Tarte: During the negotiations that offer was made; it is a public offer. The government of Canada offered to renounce what they thought were our rights on the Lynn canal, provided they were given a harbour at Pyramid harbour. I believe I am responsible for that offer; 1 believe that under the circumstances it was a good offer.


John Graham Haggart: We have no evidence of that published.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I am stating the facts. The United States government declined to accept our offer.


The PRIME MINISTER.: My hon. friend is all wrong there.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I am not wrong; I have the document here.


The PRIME MINISTER.: My hon. friend is referring to things which took place before the negotiations, and which resulted in nothing.


John Graham Haggart: Are these pourparlers published.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I am not aware that they have ever been published.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I thought they had been.


Mr. BELL.: It was a matter of common knowledge at the time, that the proposition was made, that Dyea should remain United States territory, but that Pyramid Harbour should be given to the Canadians as a free port, and that the United States commissioners considered it for a time, but it was rejected on account of strong opposition from the Pacific coast.


The PRIME MINISTER.: It was rumored that there was a compromise suggested between the two sides.


Joseph Israël Tarte: The newspapers reported at the time that the possession of


Joseph Israël Tarte: Pyramid Harbour was offered as a compromise, and that the United States refused to accept our proposal. They wanted a commission of jurists, and the Canadian government then broke off negotiations. In 1903, things took another turn. Negotiations for a reciprocity treaty were started- I do not say by this government officially- but by emissaries of this country-


The PRIME MINISTER.: If my hon. friend means that we started, any negotiations I dissent.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I have stated very distinctly that the government of this country did not start these negotiations but that emissaries from this country, important men from this country went to Washington


Mr. PARMELEE.: Name.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I shall. The hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) went to Washington and offered his good offices which were accepted, for a reunion of the Joint High Commission. The country has a right to know that at the very same time negotiations started again for the settlement of the Alaskan boundary question. Our American friends were so sure, that we were anxious for a treaty of reciprocity that they simply applied the screws. These are the facts of the case.


The PRIME MINISTER.: No, they are not.


Joseph Israël Tarte: These are the facts of the case.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I say no. I say that before Sir Michael Herbert's time, negotiations for the settlement of the Alaskan boundary were going on up to the time of Lord Paunceforte's death, and Sir Michael Herbert simply took up the continuation of them.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I say that the dates coincided exactly with the records of the case as we have them in our possession now. The negotiations started for a settlement in one way or another of the Alaskan boundary question. The right hon. gentleman has made a speech to-day which many of us are able to applaud. I cheerfully approve of some of his words. He has said that we have not been treated as we should have been. He is more than right in that. But he believed that when he consented to the appointment of the chief justice of England as one of these jurists, that our case was in safe hands. I fully appreciate his position. It is rather difficult for the Prime Minister of a British colony to say that our case was not safe in the hands of the chief justice of England; but we are confronted with the fact that the two agents appointed by the Prime Minister, men of high standing. Sir Louis Jette and Mr. Aylesworth ; they have stated over their own signatures-with the consent and knowledge of the government

of Canada I suppose-that the Chief Justice of England has not decided on judicial grounds. We are not making that statement here; it has been made in England over the signatures of the authorized agents of the Canadian government, and it has been circulated broadcast all over the world. Now, if the chief justice of England has not decided on judicial grounds, he has decided on some other grounds. The right lion, gentleman says that we have not ceded any territory. Permit me to ask him not to play on words. The contention of the Canadian government was that the boundary was to be thirty miles above the mouth of the Lynn canal, and they claimed the possession and ownership of the upper waters. But according to the decision of the tribunal, not only have we not the upper waters of the Lynn canal, but the frontier is thirty-five miles from the shore of these upper waters. If we are not losing and ceding territory by that, I do not know what we are doing. We are losing and ceding thirty-five miles, not of water, but of Canadian territory which we claimed to be ours. It has been said, and I believed it up to a few days ago, that this commission of jurists was not to decide finally. On that point the Prime Minister has not made himself clear. He stated at the opening of the session that the commission would not give any final judgment, but we are confronted to-day with the fact that the judgment is final. Our case is lost, the sentence is given, and it cannot be annulled. The right hon. gentleman also said that we have not enough power in these matters. Will he permit me to ask him what the consequences would have been, if when he found that the American government were in bad faith-because they were in bad faith-he and his colleagues had said :	We will not be a party
to that commission ?
My right hon. friend says we have not sufficient powers. If instead of appointing commissioners, under the circumstances that tun e been known to us, the government of Canada had taken a firm stand and had simply said to the government of England * He cannot possibly do anything, at any rate before meeting parliament. I believe they would have occupied safe ground. It was a new condition of affairs, which nobody suspected would exist. There was not a member of parliament, not a minister of the Crown, who a year ago would have believed we could have been treated as we have been. It was inconceivable that the British ambassador at Washington could have signed a treaty in which we were after all the only parties interested, without waiting for the answer of the Canadian government ; and, in my humble opinion, instead of saying to-day, when our case is lost, that our powers are not sufficient, the right hon. gentleman and his colleagues should have taken a firmer stand then, and should have told the English government: 404*
We cannot possibly take part in proceedings of that character. The Canadian people, and the British people themselves, would have applauded such a course. Of course, the Yukon, when it is looked at in the large map of the world in the Foreign Office or in the Colonial Office, in London, may not look very big. The English statesmen have to deal with large problems ; they deal with the affairs of the world ; and they are naturally anxious to remain at peace with all the friendly nations, perhaps especially with the United States. We all share in the desire to have peace with our neighbours ; but we have lost a great deal in our desire for peace-for commercial peace, for peace of all kinds. When the Clayton-Bulwer treaty was denounced, for the sake of peace we did not say a word ; we simply bowed our heads. A few weeks ago when Mr. Chamberlain started his campaign for preferential treatment with the colonies, some of the most important newspapers in the United States threatened us with the withdrawal of the bonding privilege if England would dare to give a preference to Canada. That is going a little too far. I beg to assure my right hon. friend that in the remarks I am making now, I am animated by no other desire than to make our position clear. I understand his position ; it is a difficult one. 1 do not feel inclined to blame him too much. I know that he was in a tight corner. The British government were asking him to give his assent. I know it is rather difficult for a governor of a British colony under such circumstances, to say : I will not do it. But would it not have been better, in the interests of the British empire itself, if such a stand had been taken ? Suppose that one of these mornings our American friends said, unless this or that is done, the bonding privilege shall be taken away from the Canadian people ? The more we yield, the more we shall be asked to yield. In my humble opinion the government should have taken a firmer stand. But it is not too late, after all, to improve our position. I quite share the views of the right hon. gentleman on this point, that if we had had the railway which was not built, perhaps we might have been in a better position. The Americans would not have felt that we were dependent upon them. We can now build railways to the Yukon ; but the position, commercially, will not of course be very good. If I remember well the distances,
I think it would be necessary to build about 800 miles of railway through the mountains. It is a long distance. We have spent large amount of money in improving the Lewes and Yukon rivers. We are completely shut out from all those waters. Now, I do not share at all the view expressed a day or two ago by an important newspaper published in Ottawa, that we must go on our knees to the Americans, and ask them to give us back those two small islands. Let us try to find another harbour. If the government

14S24
act energetically, I believe they will get the support of men of all shades of politics. Let the government make up their minds to build the railway. Let them make up their minds once for all to be independent of the Americans, and the Canadian nation will cheer them. If I have been a little hot in my remarks, I say again that I have no desire to blame my former colleagues, but I believe they should have taken a firmer stand, and I want to impress- on them the desire of the Canadian people that the firm stand that ought to have been taken in the past should be taken now.
Let me conclude these few remarks by saying that what is true in this case is true commercially. The United States have been too much led to believe that we are dependent upon them commercially. They are selling to us millions and millions of dollars worth of merchandise, and they laugh at us. They simply take you by the throat every time they have a chance to do so. If we had grappled with them long ago, as we should have done, if we had raised the wall long ago, as we should have done, they would have been dealing with us in a different way. They would have been asking for concessions from us instead of taking us by the throat. Mr. Speaker, this incident which is a calamitous one, will have,
I hope, good results. The Canadian people feel badly over that award. They feel badly at the Chief Justice of England. It is a pity indeed ; but, after all, if the Chief Justice of England has not dealt judiciously with our case-and that is the statement of two men in whose honour and calmness I have great confidence, Sir Louis Jette and Mr. Ayleswortli-then, we have a right to feel sore at the Chief Justice of England, and it is our duty to say so. The right lion, gentleman has gone very far to-day, farther perhaps than any other Prime Minister has gone before. The Canadian people will not perhaps reproach him for that, because, being six millions of people, energetic people, we feel that we are quite capable of holding our own. We do not desire to attack anybody, but we feel confident that we can live and grow bigger. If we want to grow bigger, let us profit by this lession. Let us make ourselves independent of our American friends. Let us equip our harbours in winter and summer, so- as not to be afraid of the bonding privilege being taken away from us. Let us do it now. Let us arrange our tariff in such a way that they will understand that we can dispense with then-markets. We are not selling much to them. They are simply selling to us things which we can buy elsewhere. Let us make ourselves independent of them in every possible way, and let us see that our influence is felt in England. The affairs of Lug" land are conducted in the ordinary way of business. I am not sure that my hon. friends on the treasury benches have done everything that might have been done in that


Joseph Israël Tarte: respect. I say again it is not conceivable that the British ambassador at Washington would have dared to sign a treaty dealing with the interests of Canada without even waiting for the answer of the Canadian government. On that point the right hon. gentleman has not given the country the explanations that I believe we had a right to expect. He tells us that there is some correspondence which has not been yet published. Ministers of the Crown are, of course, not free to publish all the correspondence that passes under their eyes, but the country will feel more anxious than ever to see'the papers that have not as yet been published.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: I have listened with much pleasure to the debate in many of its phases. I stand perhaps on a little different ground from a great many people in this House. I am an imperialist; I love the British empire and I hope that Canada and all the colonies will remain together for ever. I therefore think that I am in a little different position from the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) and I think he should not have interfered in this family quarrel. This is a family quarrel, and I will admit a Frenchman or a Dutchman or any other man who is loyal to this empire to interfere in this family quarrel. He himself is very civil and kindly but while I have been in this House he has imin-essed me with the idea-it may be untrue and if it is I will be glad to retract it-that he does not stand for the empire, but that his ambition is that Canada shall be torn away from this empire and form a little insignificant community by itself. I am expressing my sentiments and I will express them everywhere; if there were ten million people before me I would express my opinion. I speak with deference, but I do not think that in a matter of this kind the hon. member for Labelle (Mi. Bourassa) should intrude his opinions.


Rodolphe Lemieux: He is noti a member of the family.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: He is but he has taken such a course with reference to the affairs of Canada that he ought not to intrude in this debate. I want to compliment the leader of the opposition on his speech. I think he has taken a strong, a patriotic and a national stand upon this question. I have often in this House attacked the imperial government. I did not attack the imperial government with a view to undermining that government, with a view of bringing about the separation of Canada and the other colonies from the empire, but because I believed in a household where brothers and sisters are growing up if they want a wholesome opinion they should at times sit down and criticise each other in order that the household may stand together before the world for weal or woe. Therefore when I

have attacked the policy of the British government it has not been to undermine British sentiment in this country, but to call the attention of the British public to the fact that they must change their policy in order to make it world-wide and sufficient to meet the new conditions that are growing up in this empire. The hon. member for Burrard (Mr. Macpherson) says that he should intrude in this debate because the territory in dispute touches his constituency. I want to tell him that this territory touches my constituency ; it touches the constituency of every man in Canada as much as the constituency of the gentleman who happens to locally represent it. It is Canadian territory, it is British territory and every man who owes allegiance to the flag is as much interested in that territory as the man who lives on its soil. I understand the doctrine of the hon. member for Labelle to be that Canada must not fight or serve the empire unless Canada is attacked. I say that Canada must serve the empire and stand for the empire if India or Australia is attacked, with the same energy and force as if Ottawa were attacked, and therefore I want the hon. member for Burrard to take a little broader view of this question than that it affects his constituency. I say that this affects deeply the interests of Canada and of the empire. It is the most vital question that has been settled in Canada for two centuries. We lost an enormous amount of territory in Maine and we know the difficulties which that loss has brought to Canada. Now on the Pacific coast we have lost 500 miles of the coast line of this country. Canada is only commencing her national career and already we are about to fling a line up to Tort Simpson on the southern extremity of this territory which we have lost. But when we want to fling a railway line two hundred or three hundred miles further north to develop this country we find that we are shut out from the sea-coast for 500 miles of our coast line. Canada is a commercial and a maritime country and no misfortune ever fell upon the country of a more grave character than that which lias fallen upon the people of Canada. Some people think it is bad enough to lose these islands, but what is that to losing 500 miles of the coast of your country which shuts you in ?
The hon. gentleman talks about a railway. A railway will help us out of our difficulty to some extent, but it can never help us in our trade upon the ocean. When the Pacific ocean is exploited, as it soon will be, and bears to Canada, perhaps more trade than the Atlantic, we shall be shut out from that ocean for 400 miles of the most important part of our coast because to-day trade is going north and therefore the United States commands the strategical point in regard to Canadian trade on the Pacific. I do not wish the disaster that has happened
to Canada to be minimized because it is a disaster which will grow in importance day by day ; but in every misfortune there is some silver lining to the cloud. I see some idle papers in the United States are talking about this disaster which has happened to Canada creating in this country a feeling in favour of the United States. Thank God it will create a bitter feeling towards the United States. Thank heaven that from this moment no man who is a Canadian will cherish anything but the most fearful dislike to the people who have wronged us out of our territory; thank heaven the idea of trade relations with the United States, thank heaven the idea of reciprocity will be killed in the minds of every Canadian. I say unhesitatingly, and I know; the question from top to bottom, that we have been wronged out of this territory, wronged absolutely wronged out of this territory. I believe that in my heart and therefore I see amid the difficulties that surround us, one good thing-that there will grow up in the hearts of the people of Canada a determination to have nothing to do with these people who have wronged us for one hundred years out of territory that justly belonged to this country and therefore I see in this award the destruction of all idea of a reciprocity treaty. I hope that now we will build up a tariff wall against these people and let them know we are Canadians.


Mr. BELCOURT.: I am afraid that is the mercantile argument.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: I hope this disaster will bring us this compensation ; that is the only hope there is in the situation. Now, I want to deal with one or two of the difficulties raised by the Prime Minister. I think it is unfortunate that the Prime Minister has started the doctrine he has to-day in the interests of Canada. I would not mind the hon. member for Labelle starting this doctrine, but I think it is unfortunate that it should have been started by the Prime Minister of Canada. He endeavours to show that our difficulties have arisen because of our not having the treaty-making power. I want to tell the right hon. gentleman that this correspondence which I have under my hand shows that Canada has had the treatymaking power in relation to this matter just as fully as the imperial government. That is shown in every line of this correspondence, throughout all these negotiations. Let us look at the matter constitutionally. In theory, the treaty-making power is in the hands of the King, but the King exercises that power under the advice of his ministers, where the empire is concerned, where there is no self-governing parliament. But where there is a self-governing parliament, as in this country, the King exercises that power in conjunction with the ministers of the Crown in Canada, because the ministers of the Crown here ai<* as much ministers of the King of England

as tlie Prime Minister of England is a minister of the King. This parliament is charged with territorial jurisdiction over this country, and we are as much a part of the treaty-making power of this empire, so far as Canada is concerned, as is the imperial government. That, Sir, is the doctrine we must lay down in Canada. Therefore, I take issue with the Prime Minister, and I say it would be a vicious doctrine to advance, that the British government may make a treaty affecting the territory of Canada, against our will and consent. This treaty was made with the consent of the government of Canada, as much as it was with the consent of the government of England. Let us be fair and square in this matter. 1 am willing to place the blame upon the English government if they deserve it, and I have shown that wherever they deserve blame I have not been slow to blame them.
But when I blame the English government, let no man think I am blaming the English people. I admire the English people, because in this country we are all sprung, those of us who speak English, from the English, the Scotch or the Irish race. But, thank God, the most of us are sprung from them as they were 150 years ago, when they were a dominant race. But in the last 00 years that race has decayed. But that does not destroy the love and reverence we have for the British empire, by any means. What we have to do is to assist Joseph Chamberlain and the other public men, in dumping the present breed into the sea, and starting another generation of Englishmen, who will restore the splendid traditions of the British empire. I have never ceased drawing attention to the fact that the government of England does not, and has not for 60 years represented the great traditions of the British race. The English people are governed by a decadent class, which has grown up weak and impoverished in will. It is the. fault of Canada, it is the fault of Australia and, to some extent, of South Africa. We blame the imperial government, but you must recollect that up to within fifteen or twenty years Canada was regarded merely as a source of weakness to the British empire. There were stories told all over the world that we were drifting away from the empire, that we were drawing towards the United States. That being so, can we blame the British government for at times being weak in the presence of foreign powers ? Can we blame the empire, if, in the presence of her foes all over the world, when she was uncertain that her colonies would stand .by her in the hour of danger, she should faii to exhibit some of her old-time vigour and boldness ? Therefore, it does not lie in the mouth of the hon. member for Labelle, who is opposed to Canada standing up for the empire, to blame Mr. Chamberlain or any other man for not standing up for Canada. If Canada Mr. GOURLEV.
is not going to stand up for the empire, by what right can we require the empire to stand up for Canada ? I am prepared to require that the English government should stand up for Canada, because I am prepared to stand by the English government and empire in all corners of the earth. Therefore, I have always felt free to criticise the imperial government, and 1 feel free to criticise them to-day, and also to criticise this government for their action, and to hold them responsible for its consequences. Where there is a wrong committed in a British country there must be responsibility for it. Now, I want to make some comments upon the British government-not that we have any power over that government, but I want to point out to the people of England that their government has gone wrong in this matter, in order that the people of England may deal witli their government. I believe that when the people of England are aroused over this matter, as they are in Canada, they will deal with their government as we shall deal with our government, when the poeple sufficiently understand the pusillanimous course they, have pursued in this matter.
Now, let me proceed to say that the right hon. gentleman, in negotiating this treaty, was just as much responsible for it as Sir Michael Herbert or Mr. Joseph Chamberlain, or any other member of the British cabinet. The right hon. gentleman was a party to all of these negotiations from beginning to end, and at any moment he could have said : I will go no further with these negotiations-and there would have been an end of it. The British government says in this correspondence : If you don't agree, then all the negotiations must be broken off. They admitted the power of this government to determine these negotiations. Therefore, you not only had the treaty-making power, but you were the chief factor in the treaty-making power, so far as the boundary commission was concerned. Now, I think it is a little ungenerous for the Prime Minister to seek to arouse prejudice in this country by saying that we had not a right to change the complexion of this treaty. I say we had, and therefore it is that I point to this government as the occasion of the enormous humiliation to which the people of Canada have been subjected. I confess that I have been humiliated past endurance for a week, and I think every man in Canada must have felt the most bitter regret at the untoward and unfortunate events which have happened in this connection. But allow me to refer again to this correspondence and to another remark the Prime Minister made.
At six o'clock, House took recess. .
I
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: Mr. Speaker, when the House rose at six o'clock, I was endeavouring to show that the treaty-making power nominally rests with the King, that in England it was exercised under the advice of his ministers there, and, so far as Canada was concerned, it was exercised upon the joint advice of his ministers in England and his ministers In Canada. I had proceeded to show that in this case the British cabinet had abdicated their right to advise the King, and had constituted themselves a medium to hand the correspondence from Washington to the cabinet at Ottawa. This being the case, the responsibility for this treaty, in every respect, rests with the right lion, the Prime Minister and his government. And I think it was unfair of the right lion, the Prime Minister to suggest that the unfortunate result in this case was due to the fact that Canada had not the treaty-making power. The government of Canada has the treaty-making power in reference to Canada, and the territorial jurisdiction over Canada as fully as the government in England has the treaty-making power and territorial jurisdiction over the mere affairs of the United Kingdom. I want to show that the government of England made this treaty, step by step, on the advice of the cabinet at Ottawa. There is not a detail that appears in this treaty, that was suggested by the cabinet in Canada, that was not incorporated in the treaty. The government in England admitted the right of the cabinet at Ottawa to advise completely, in regard to this matter. This is proven by the correspondence. In the second letter, in the correspondence brought down, which is from Lord Minto, and addressed to Rt. Hon. Joseph Chamberlain, dated November 18tli, 1902, we find the following :
Referring to your despatch of 31st October concerning the proposal of the United States for the appointment of a tribunal of jurists to record their reasoned opinion on the Alaska boundary question, my ministers will decline to give final assent to such proposal.
Why, these words are In themselves an acknowledgment on the part of the ministers that they have the whole negotiations in their own hands :
My ministers would be disposed to consider it differently, provided reference to the tribunal should include all aspects of the question.
Then, we find, a few days afterwards, Sir Michael Herbert, in Washington, incorporated these identical words in his despatch to the Secretary of State in Washington. This despatch Is dated the 18th of December, just a month following the other :
My dear Mr. Secretary,-Since our interview this morning I have had time to examine the Alaska boundary treaty which you handed me. You will remember I told you that Lord Lans-downe was prepared to entertain favourably the idea of the tribunal, provided the terms of reference were so framed as to include all aspects of the question.
There is the identical language of the despatch by Lord Minto to the Colonial Office incorporated in the despatch to the British ambassador at Washington. This is only another proof that the British government admitted that, in reference to every aspect of this case, the ministry at Ottawa had the fullest rights. Therefore, I think it is very unfair, after the British government liad treated our government not merely with courtesy, but with a full acknowledgment of their'right to intervene in the negotiation of the treaty affecting the territory of Canada, for the right hon. Prime Minister to make the allusions he did. I do not wish to say anything unkind to any minister; but in a case so delicate as tliis one, a case in wliicb the words of the Prime Minister will have very special weight in forming and guiding public opinion, I cannot but think his utterance was unfair to His Majesty's ministers in England.
I was astonished to hear the right hon. Prime Minister make the declaration that Canada had not the treaty-making power. While, of course, that power is nominally in the King, yet the King exercises it upon the advice of his ministers. The ministers in England might, I will admit, arbitrarily refuse to allow the advice of ministers of the Crown in Canada to have weight. But, if they did that for an instant, the whole organization of the empire would be upset, and this people would question that right before we took another step in connection with the empire. I bad known always that the government of Canada was consulted fully in every matter with reference to treaty-making since confederation. Sir John Macdonald, when Prime Minister was not only consulted, but was made one of the high commissioners to negotiate the treaty of Washington. And that treaty was made subject to the ratification of this parliament -the most complete acknowledgment, on behalf of the Crown, that the treaty-making power, so far as it refers to the territory of Canada, rested as completely with the parliament of Canada as the treaty-making power in relation to the United Kingdom, rested with the imperial parliament. I appeal to any constitutional lawyer in Canada to say if that is not the correct interpretation of the constitution of the empire at the present time. Had any other interpretation been attempted, had the right of the Canadian ministry to advise on this subject been questioned tlie right hon. Prime Minister could have followed the lead of Cecil Rhodes. Twenty-five years ago the German empire laid hands upon a part of the British empire in British South Africa, trusting to the weakness of the British cabinet, and tlie hesitation of the ministry to meet these aggressions with an ultimatum, under which Germany would have backed down so quickly that there would have been no time to raise a question. But the British government weakly permitted Germany to appro-

m
priate a part of South-west Africa. Then, Germany advanced her posts and took Bech-uanaland, the design being to cross and join hands with the Boers, which would have cut off the extension of British influence to the north, and would have confined British South Africa to a little strip around the cape. The ministers in England acted supinely. They set no particular value upon South Africa. The cabinet in South Africa spent days and days in cabling, endeavouring to get the British government to take direct and positive action to drive Germany out of Bechuanaland. Receiving no satisfaction, they acted. Under the inspiration and leadership of Cecil Rhodes, that government passed a minute of council and transmitted it to the ministers in England, telling them that if the British Crown would not defend South Africa to pull down their flag. Cape Colony would float its own flag, and would fight Germany alone and singlehanded. In an hour came back the answer that fleets would sail and armies would move to save South Africa. Cecil Rhodes solved that question then and there, that, so far as a British colony is concerned, the government of the colony was supreme in power in dictating its policy.
That was twenty-five years ago and if it had not been for that splendid attitude of Cecil Rhodes, the Boers would have united with the Germans in South Africa and the whole domain that we own in South Africa would have been appropriated by the German Empire. Cecil Rhodes had to act the part of a hero and had to act the part of a man with a dominant mind in his dealings with the imperial government. In this instance how differently was the right lion. Prime Minister treated. The right bon. Prime Minister might have followed that distinguished precedent in the negotiations leading up to the composition of the tribunal. but it was not necessary, because, in these negotiations, the government of England only acted as an intermediary to hand the correspondence from Washington to the government at Ottawa. The government at Ottawa alone are responsible for the negotiations leading up to this treaty. As we come to understand the matter better the people know that, and no amount of misrepresentation will avail to colour the situation one jot or tittle. The people of Canada are intelligent and they will soon come to know the truth. They will read the correspondence and they will know exactly the position we are in. I must say that I was amazed when I heard the right hon. Prime Minister undertake to defend himself. Instead of guiding the hon. member for Labelle, instead of telling that young man that he was pursuing a wrong course in this country, a course that could not commend itself to the English or the French speaking people, he encouraged him in it. I believe that the feeling is growing so strong in Canada that there will not be


Seymour Eugene Gourley: the slightest distinction between French and English in their devotion to the empire. Occasionally they get a bad leader in the province of Quebec and a bad leader can perhaps work more evil there than a bad leader can in one of the English speaking provinces, but I believe the people of Quebec are sound at heart and that though they are misled by the hon. member for Labelle they will go in the right way. Instead of making himself strong in this empire that hon. gentleman will make himself a false guide of public sentiment everywhere and therefore the right hon. Prime Minister, to whom we must look to direct public sentiment in correct channels, should have repudiated the statement of that hon. gentleman that we had not the treaty-making right and that we had been sacrificed by Chamberlain. Chamberlain has done more for this empire in half an hour than a million of hon. members for Labelle could do in a million years. I am afraid that the hon. gentleman is not sincerely interested in the welfare of Canada. I may be wrong, but we have a right to judge men's hearts by the conduct they exhibit and that is my conclusion in reference to the hon. member for Labelle. I hope I am wrong. I do not wish to say that there is any man in Canada who entertains any opinion that it is improper for him to entertain as a citizen of this country, but I am bound to come to a common sense conclusion in reference to a man's heart from the conduct which he manifests. That is my conclusion in reference to the hon. member for Labelle, and it must be the conclusion of the right lion, the Prime Minister, who has had more intimate associations with the hon. gentleman than I have had. Instead of encouraging him in that line of argument he should have depreciated it. He should have said : The government of England gave us the freest hand in reference to this treaty' and if there is a mistake the government of Canada is prepared to shoulder it and to meet the people of this country on that issue. I am sorry to have to charge either the government of England or this government with dereliction in this respect but I am much more pleased to be able to charge this government than the imperial government with it, because, if we were to charge the imperial government with this matter, it would create a profoundly injurious feeling in the empire. But, this government, I find from reading this correspondence, are alone responsible for the whole difficulty that has occurred. The right hon. Prime Minister has sought to shield himself behind the name of Lord Chief Justice Alverstone as if that would help the situation. There have been many chief justices of England who have illustrated the genius of the English race and there have been many other chief justices of England who have illustrated the worst features of English character and life. There have been some very learned chief justices

and there have been some-I speak as a lawyer familiar with the law courts of England-who are no more worthy of respect than any judge in Canada, in reference to the Lord Chief Justice of England I would rather have had the Chief Justice of Nova Scotia on that tribunal, or I would rather have had the Chief Justice of British Columbia than the Lord Chief Justice of England. I will frankly say that as a Canadian I believe that there is more will power and active business capacity about a Canadian than about any Englishman be he Lord Chief Justice or Prime Minister. I believe that the average intelligence of the Canadian is infinitely ahead of the average intelligence of the Englishmen in the same rank of life, and I believe that the ordinary lawyer in Canada is all round a much better man than the average lawyer in England. I say that with all respect to the British empire and as a devoted imperialist. We have the highest civilization that exists in the whole world and I believe that more general intelligence exists in Canada than exists in any other country in the world. I have said that the right lion. Prime Minister attempted to shield himself behind the name of the Lord Chief Justice of England. I am not concerned in defending the Lord Chief Justice of England nor am I concerned in attacking him. I think the proper course to take is the course which the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) took, to await the opinion which is said to have been delivered by the Lord Chief Justice. We have no right to condemn any man upon a general opinion until we know the reasons upon which it is founded. When I get the reasons upon which he founded that opinion I will criticise it with the same freedom as if it were the opinion of any mechanic or cabman in the city of Ottawa. X will not be deterred from criticising his opinion any more than I would be from criticising the opinion of any lawyer or judge in Canada. If the right hon. gentleman had consulted men like the Chief Justice of Nova Scotia, a highlander who would have faced these boasting Yankees and told them that they had enough of the territory of Canada and that they couldi not get another foot of it, the result might have been different. He would not have yielded and he would have brought as much intelligence and discrimination to bear upon the case as the Lord Chief Justice of England. As a Canadian I think that the hon. member for Labelle did not do justice to the position that our Canadian jurists occupy in this country. X am willing that Englishmen shall have all the credit they deserve but I want to put forth the claim that we have lawyers in Canada who occupy a position as high as that of any lawyer in the world. There is no divine superiority for any man because he happens to reside in England. This case is res judicata. On the side of Canada there were three arbitrators. Two of them decided in favour of Canada and therefore Lord Alverstone is the dissenting arbitrator. The majority of the court on Canada's side decided against Lord Alverstone and he should have accepted that decision on the part of Canada. The tribunal as far as Canada is concerned was composed of three members and the majority of the tribunal representing Canada decided in favour of Canada from the facts which they had heard. I shall not imitate the hon. member for Labelle and undertake to review the case. I do not know whether he is a lawyer or not, but I think he followed a very foolish course. This whole matter was left to the court, all the facts have been presented to it, and the members of the tribunal have rendered their judgment. I am bound to believe that Lord Alverstone was wrong and I am bound to accept the decision of the majority of the court composed of Canadians as being the proper one.
I am bound by the majority opinion of the court, and consequently, X must conclude that Lord Alverstone is wrong. I do not know either Sir Louis Jette or Mr. Ayles-worth, and I am not concerned to compliment or eulogize them, but they were chosen by the government of Canada for a very high judicial mission ; they heard the full argument as well as Lord Alverstone, they decided in favour of Canada, and I believe that their decision is right. If two English judges had decided a question against a Canadian judge, fancy Englishmen having the slightest doubt as to who was right. So far as Lord Alverstone's opinion is concerned, the thing is res judicata; Canada was right and Lord Alverstone improperly decided against her interests. We must inferentially conclude that Lord Alverstone was wrong, but we have in addition the statement of Mr. Aylesworth, who knows all the facts, that the judgment was not come to upon judicial grounds. lord Alverstone occupies the unenviable position therefore of being condemned twice over. Judges must submit to criticism, and Lord Alverstone, the lord Chief Justice of England, must not escape criticism any more than if he were the lord Chief Justice of Timbuctoo. I am bound as a Canadian, to accept the decision of the two eminent Canadians who were thought worthy to sit in this tribunal, and accepting their decision, I am bound to hold that Canada was not properly supported by Lord Alverstone. Mr. Ayleswortk's dissenting opinion occupies three columns of the ' Times,' and in that opinion he says :
I have merely to say that the course the majority of the tribunal has decided to take with regard to the islands at the entrance of the Portland canal is in my humble opinion so opposed to the plain requirements of justice.
If one of the judges was free to discuss Ijord Alverstone, thus, surely, I am relieved

from any qualms when 1 discuss his conduct here.
-is in my humble opinion so opposed to the plain requirements of justice and so absolutely irreconciliable with any disposition of any branch of the case, upon principles of a judicial character, that I respectfully decline to affix my signature to it. [DOT]
For a lawyer, trained to use language in a constrained sense, that is a most powerful indictment of Ford Alverstone. I have never been in England, although some of my family live there. However, from knee-high, English papers flooded my home, and before I knew anything about Canadian papers, I became, more or less saturated with English public opinion. I have read the diplomatic correspondence of this empire for seventy or eighty years, and I know that for sixty years the diplomacy of England has been chiefly marked by a desire to avoid war at any cost. Why, in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries Englishmen would have shot off their guns and sent out their ships, and retribution would follow any who dared to touch part of the empire. Let me say incidentally, that the iniquitous free trade doctrine that Cobden introduced lias degraded the public sentiment ol' England. It seems to strike the very heart of Englishmen and to degrade them. In the history of Great Britain there is a mark, as pronounced as if a mountain range had been erected, to divide the period between sixty years ago and afterwards. There has been evidence of a marked decadence of the great spirit, that once told the world : Don't touch our territory, or we will seek redress with our ships, our arms, and our men. With the era of free trade the most marked indications of decay set in. Germany could steal British territory, the United States could flout her in the face, France could do likewise, and England would bow. That Js not the fault of the British empire, hut it is tlie fault of the weak and impoverished race that is living in England at the present day. England has got vastly rich in the last sixty years, the merchants of England find tlieir ships bearing them wealth from every corner of the earth, and the English government lias got under the control of the rich merchants and the Jews of London, and whenever her territory is assailed, instead of being revenged these men of commerce say : Take the kicks and the jibes and the outrages of fortune, but don't declare war, because if you do, we may lose 8100. And so, England that in the past was honoured the world over, lost her honour, because every nation in the world knew that she would not fight. Let it go abroad that a nation will not fig'ht for her territory and her rights, and every nation in the world will attack her. But, let it be known that the smallest nation on earth will defend her territory, and she is honoured and respected. Look at the history of Switzerland, a little country with a million people, Mr. GOURLEY.
which for three hundred years has defied every power in Europe. She is honoured and respected by the great nations, because every nation knows that if Switzerland is attacked it will be a war of extermination. Switzerland maintains her independence today because of her pluck, and a daring and courage, while England with all her wealth, has been buffeted by every nation of the world. The Prime Minister knew the diplomacy of England, and especially her diplomacy in reference to the United States.
I am a strong imperialist, but I have been trying to bring public opinion to bear upon the unworthy people of England to-day, to let them know that the time is past for subserviency, and that while the people of the old country may submit to humiliation, we in this young country never shall. No matter how degenerate men may be in England, when the race breathe the free air of Canada, they become regenerated. It is impossible for us to bow to humiliation. I want to find out who is responsible for the appointment of Lord Alverstone, and I am happy to say that this correspondence points out to me clearly that the whole error lies at the door of the government of Canada, so that I am pleased to find that the member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) was wrong in trying to mislead the people of Canada to think otherwise.
With reference to the treaty, I find that when it was sent out to Canada a very important alteration was made in it. That would have given the right hon. the Prime Minister ample opportunity to have said at once : This treaty does not preserve the rights of Canada which were given to us by the treaty made between England and Russia in 1S25. In that treaty there was a clear boundary established. If the arbitrators had not been allowed to alter that boundary, there would have been no doubt as to the decision ; and I venture to say that when the opinion of Lord Alverstone comes to this country, it will be found that it is based upon the change that was made in the treaty with the consent of the Prime Minister of Canada. In the old treaty made between Russia and England in 1825 the boundary was set out as clearly as words could define it. The boundary was never at any time to exceed ten marine league's, or thirty miles, from the coast. Mountains were referred to, but only in case they should be within ten marine leagues of the coast. But what happened ? The United States knew that if that question were submitted to a tribunal the decision would be against them, and what did they do ? When the treaty of arbitration was made, they had a clause put into it which enabled that tribunal to take into consideration matters which had happened before and after the treaty was committed to writing. Everybody knows that when nations get together to make a contract a number of discussion^ occur. One nation claims this or that ; but in the end, when

the matter is committed to writing and the treaty is once ratified, you cannot go outside of the terms of that treaty. Everything is in it, and it is simply a matter of the interpretation of the words, unless there is found to^ be some latent ambiguity requiring explanations. In this case it is not pretended that there was any ambiguity. The language was clear and distinct, and if that treaty had been submitted to a judge, even to Lord Alverstone, and he had been bound down by the simple words of the treaty, we would never have lost the two islands, but would have preserved our rights intact. But when the treaty of arbitration was sent out this extraordinary clause was found in, which was no doubt cited by Lord Alverstone in coming to his decision. A draft of the treaty was sent to this government, and I have no doubt that this government must have acted in concert with the English government in order to help them out of this difficulty. The clause I refer to is as follows :
The tribunal shall also take into consideration any action ot the several governments or their respective representatives preliminary or subsequent to the conclusion of said treaties, so far as the same tends to show the original and effective understanding of the parties in respect to the limits of their several territorial jurisdictions under and by virtue of the provisions of said treaties.
Under that clause of the treaty Lord Alverstone could throw away the treaty on which we had relied for our rights with regard to the boundary, and could listen to all the cock-and-bull stories set up by the Americans with reference to what had taken place before and after the treaty, and could found his decision upon them. The government of Canada could have insisted that our rights should be preserved in the fullest manner by the treaty, which fixed the boundary in such a way -that no court could get over them. I went over this whole matter for a couple of months with the late Mr. Justice Mills. We happened to lodge together in the Russell House, and we went over this matter night after night, and I had-the benefit of his vast information on the whole subject. I found him better informed on this question than any Canadian I have since met, and it was his opinion that under the terms of the old treaty the United States had not a leg to stand upon. I hold that the first mistake of the government of Canada was in permitting the introduction of a clause like that, which struck at the very foundation of the article in the treaty by which our rights were secured.
Then, in the appointment of the commissioners the Prime Minister was not taken by surprise. I find by this correspondence that as soon as the American commissioners were appointed he was informed of their appointment. He knew that the English government had departed entirely from their notion of having six jurists to deal with the
matter ; and when the names of the United States jurists were submitted, the most ample opportunity was afforded -to the government of Canada of stepping out and refusing to go any further. I am boun'd to say that the government of Canada did remonstrate against the American commissioners. But what happened ? Here is the most ample evidence that the government of. England said at once : If you object to these people the negotiations will be abandoned. What more could the government of Canada want ? I understood the Prime Minister to allege to-day that the treaty had then been signed. No matter whether it had been signed or not. Here are the words of the British government :
His Majesty's government have therefore to choose between breaking off negotiations altogether or accepting American nominations and appointing as colleagues representatives who will meet -the altered circumstances of the case.
His Majesty's government say that they have nothing to do but to break off the negotiations if the Canadian government object to the American commissioners. That was all that was necessary ; they would have had to say to the American government that if. they did not keep their agreement with reference to the appointment of jurists the treaty was off, because that was the very basis of the negotiations. But there seems to have been some secret influence working from London on the government of Canada, because what they rejected by one mail they accepted by the next. We find that the Prime Minister withdrew his objection and suggested the name of Lord Alverstone as one of the British commissioners. I saw that by a paper in London it is made to appear that Lord Aiverston-e's appointment was forced on the government of Canada by the English government, and I inferred' that from what the hon. member for Labelle said. I see that the matter is being discussed in England :
The 'Morning Post ' recalls the earnest recommendation of Sir Richard Webb in March last that the British commissioners be all Canadians, arguing the appointment of a single Englishman to be unjust to Canada and impolitic for the empire. The ' Post ' asks, presumably with some ulterior purpose : ' Has the British government evidence that Canada was anxious above all for a verdict, and also that the Canadian government approved of the selection of an Englishman as a commissioner ?'
The English ' Post ' suggests that some people here were so anxious for a verdit that they were willing to sacrifice the interests of Canada for the purpose of getting a verdict, and willing to take anybody as a commissioner. It asks if there is evidence that the Canadian government nominated Lord Alverstone. I am bound to say that the evidence is here. Lord Alverstone is the nominee of Canada, he was our appointment. If he was our appointment, we should acknowledge that fact and should not leave any doubt about the matter in the English

public mind. I find in a despatch of Lord Minto to the Colonial Office the following
passage
In view of the short time given for the preparation of the case, my ministers desire to proceed immediately, and therefore suggest an early settlement of preliminaries.^ As to the composition of the tribunal my ministers suggest the Chief Justice of England and two Canadian judges, names to be telegraphed hereafter.
Then the despatch proceeds to name the counsel who are to carry on the arbitration for Canada. I want to know from the Prime Minister why three Canadians were not nominated. I observe that Sir Richard Webb, in the Colonial Office urged upon this government or the Imperial government, that there should be three Canadian commissioners. Who is Sir Richard Webb ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: I do not know, and there is no foundation at all for this statement.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: Is he connected with the Colonial Office ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: I do not know him at all.
' Mr. GOURLEY. Did you know of him in connection with the correspondence ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: I did not.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: I see in this despatch :
The * Post' recalls the earnest recommendation of Sir Richard Webb, in March last, that the British commissioners be all Canadians, arguing the appointment of a single Englishman to be unjust to Canada and to the interests of the empire.


The PRIME MINISTER.: If Sir Richard Webb made such a recommendation to the British authorities it Was never conveyed to us.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: I cannot imagine why, in a case of this kind, three Canadians were not selected ; it is a reflection on the people of Canada that the three commissioners should not have been chosen from Canada. Had it been 500 miles of the coast of England along the channel or the North Sea, which had been claimed by France, do you suppose that England would agree to the appointment of two Englishmen and one Canadian as a board of arbitration ? I venture to say that not a man in England would consent to the appointment of any man not an Englishman. Territory should be in the keeping of men living on the soil and no other man should be permitted to dispose of it. Therefore I say that the government of Canada made an extraordinary mistake and a mistake which will become more apparent as it becomes more fully understood by the people of Canada. It is no use hiding from ourselves the fact that the diplomacy of England in North America for sixty years has been weak. I have heard the Prime Minister himself say that he was not in


Seymour Eugene Gourley: sympathy with the diplomacy of England on this" continent. Therefore you were warned and notified that the British diplomacy was weak, and when you had the opportunity of removing it to Canadian diplomacy you should have done so. What is the use of being forewarned if you are not forearmed ? Why did you not insist ? Had I been more familiar with the procedure in this House the first year I was here I would have moved that three Canadians be appointed on the committee. However, when I heard the Prime Minister say that he was no lover of British diplomacy on this continent I thought that when he had the choice he would have had three Canadians and if he had had three Canadians we would not have had this difficulty to-day.
Another thing that lias struck me is the fact that there was never any suspicion about the United States commissioners giving in or losing in this arbitration. There was not a word of that kind in their press or the press of England ; they all took it for granted that the. United States commissioners would stick to their case. The just settlement of this question is the just settlement of the relations of England and this country and in the settlement of this question we must ascertain whether the English government has done us wrong in not looking after our territory or whether the fault lies at the door of the Canadian government.
I would prefer that it should lie here, even if the right hon. gentleman should escape the auger of public opinion in order that ^ it might not create feelings that might prejudice the existence of the empire. Therefore I want to know why it is that from the very moment Lord Alverstone's name was mentioned it was stated in the American papers, professedly inspired, that Lord Alver-stone was to decide in favour of the United States. There must have been some agreement between the government of England and the government of Canada that the government of Canada was to consent to the sacrifice of Canada in order to serve some supposed imperial policy. It is clear to my mind that it was communicated from the Foreign Office in London to the Secretary of State in Washington that the United States had nothing to fear, to go on with the treaty that England would appoint a man who would decide the case in favour of the United States, as England wanted to get rid of the case and to preserve the friendship of the United States, and that England was willing to sacrifice the interests of Canada and had succeeded in getting the government of Canada to accede.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Does my hon. friend say that seriously ?


Seymour Eugene Gourley: I believe that in some way or other the government of Canada was overcome by the government of England. The thing was rigged in this way. They said to the government of Canada : You can ap-

point two Canadians and let the Chief Justice of England be appointed as well ; the Chief Justice of England will decide in favour of the United States, your tfwo people can dissent, that will protect you in Canada and settle this question for the empire and relieve us of a great difficulty. However there is no doubt that the people will arrive at as correct a conclusion in this matter when it has been fully explained to them, as any logician. Public opinion invariably forms a conclusion better than a logician of the character of Goldwin Smith, who always goes wrong although he is a trained logician.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Does my hon. friend pretend to say there was a secret agreement ?


Seymour Eugene Gourley: I was reasoning from the facts.


The PRIME MINISTER.: My hon. friend is all wrong.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: Then how did the United States get the knowledge as soon as Lord Alverstone was appointed that he was going to decide for them ? And now as a matter of fact after he has decided for them I undertake to say that the State Department at Washington had some information from some source, that he was to decide for them.


The PRIME MINISTER.: That I do not know.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: We must understand the whole question from beginning to end and I do not believe that Lord Alverstone is to blame ; I believe that he was appointed on that commission with instructions, in the interest of the empire, to give the award that he has given.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Does my hon. friend know that Lord Alverstone had to take an oath that he would interpret the treaty judicially ? And does he think that in the face of that


Seymour Eugene Gourley: The Englishman's idea of ' judicial interpretation ' would be to serve the interests of the empire. I want to call the attention of the Prime Minister to the fact that he must have known-he did know -of the extraordinary opinion in England with regard to the importance of the good will of the United States to the empire. That opinion is incorrect. The people of England have more to gain by sticking to Canada than by kow-towing to the United States; yet, I do not find a single word in this correspondence calling the attention of the English government to that fact. There is the clearest evidence, on the contrary, that this government permitted that opinion in Great Britain to go on, and become stronger day by day. If this government wish to serve the empire, they should let the people of England know that they must look to Canada for their support
on this continent, and not to the United States. Every time they sacrifice the interests of Canada, in order to conciliate the United States, the people of the United States become more greedy and grasping, and the people of this country become more alarmed and dissatisfied.
There must have been some understanding, somewhere and somehow, that the commission would uphold the contentions of the United States. Why, the determination of this tribunal was known in the United States three months before it was announced. And three, four or five days before Lord Alverstone had given his decision, the finding of this commission was announced accurately and in wonderful detail in the press of the United States. I intend to investigate this question. I intend to follow it ' secundum artem.' Three, four or five days before the decision, as soon as the argument was closed, announcements were made in the United States as to what the decision would be. How did the facts gets out of Lord Alverstone's head and into the heads of the Yankee newspaper men and the Yankee commissioners ? Tell me that, if you can, There is only one conclusion-this was a triumph of the diplomacy of England over the government of Canada. The government of Canada had the matter in their own hands; and, if the interests of Canada have been sacrificed, they must bear the responsibility. They had full power to negotiate, and now that the interests of Canada have been sacrificed, the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) is put up, to charge that upon the British government, and the Prime Minister follows him, virtually in support of the same idea.
There is just one other remark of the Prime Minister to which I wish to refer. He said that the United States was a populous and powerful country, and that Canada was a small colony. If the government of England had attempted to thrust upon us a treaty that was not in accordance with Canada's rights the Prime Minister could have summoned this parliament and there would have been such an expression of public indignation that the government in England would have backed down. All he had to do was to summon this faithful Commons and we would soon teach the English government that they could not thrust upon this country any treaty made to suit the diplomacy of the United States. If this colony is treated in that way, let not the Prime Minister say that it is because it is a weak colony. England would have stuck to us, if we had asserted our rights and demanded the protection of the imperial parliament. We are not a weak colony. Six milions of free people would beat the United States single-handed in the contest. If we fought them as the Swiss people fought the power of Austria, we should beat them to a stand-still. We are a powerful

people, and occupy the best strategic position on this continent.


Samuel Hughes: We beat them in 1812, when they were relatively forty times as populous as they are now.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: Of course. And we could do it again. It is not right for the Frime Minister to seek to weaken the great public sentiment of Canada by saying that we are not able to cope with the invader.
"If we had shown that we were prepared to fight for ourselves, England would have been at our back with her forces and the United States would never have dared to attempt to capture our territory. Therefore, notwithstanding all that has been said, I claim that the government of Canada alone are responsible in this matter. Sir. Chamberlain, in writing, made suggestions. He had a right, as a British statesman, to give his private opinion. Just as I might advise a client that it would be better to compromise rather than fight for his rights. But it would be the right of the client to refuse to compromise. Sir. Chamberlain had a right to make suggestions to the government, but the government were independent men and representatives of Canada, and they should have at once replied : We cannot stand for any sacrifice of the rights of Canada.
As to the Bulwer-Clayton treaty, I think my leader (Sir. Borden) put that matter in the right light. We had the opportunity to get the help of England and to have our rights maintained. But the right bon. Premier of this country took the unexampled course of saying that we had no interest in that treaty. That is a treaty affecting this continent; and, on whatever continent there Is a British colony, any treaty affecting that continent affects that part of the British empire, and the colony should assert its rights as part of the British empire. And, when we told the English government that we had no interest in this matter, it sho-wed that we had not the high appreciation of our rights that we ought to have.
I am glad of this debate. It would have been unfortunate if the people of England had been led to fancy that a decision like this could be given, and the people of Canada not resent it. I am glad that the press of Canada have shown to the world that our spirit is not daunted, that we are not weaklings, but that we are of a proud race, that we possess the daring qualities of that race in the highest degree, and that our strength is not sapped by luxury or decay. I am glad to see that the press of England are speaking out for Canada. And, in view of the temper of the people of England, as exhibited through their press, it would be a most unfortunate spectacle for the world had Canada remained silent. When this debate is reported in England to-morrow the press of England will assist, as far as possible, in educating the people of Eng-Mr. GOURLEY.
land with reference to the position we occupy in the British empire. I thank the House for the consideration they have given ray remarks.


PROROGATION.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. SPEAKER informed the House that tie had received a communication from the secretary of His Excellency the Governor General, as follows :
Office of the
Governor General's Secretary,
Ottawa, October 23, 1903.
Sir.-I have the honour to inform you that His Excellency the Governor General will proceed to the Senate Chamber, on Saturday, the 24-th instant, at 11 o'clock a.m., for the purpose of proroguing the session of the parliament of Canada.
I have the honour to be, Sir,
Your obedient servant,
P. S. MAUDE, Major, Governor General's Secretary.
The Honourable
The Speaker of the House of Commons.
RAILWAY ACT,	1903-CO NF(ER E XC E

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick).: On behalf of the managers appointed to confer with the Senate, a free conference was held last night, and I beg leave to offer the following report:
The Senate Committee Room, No. 8.
Friday, October 23, 1903.
The managers, on the part of the House of Commons have the honour to report that they met the managers, on the part of the Senate, at the free conference, which on their part was managed by the Hon. Sir Mackenzie Bowell and others, for the purpose of further considering the amendments to the Bill No. 21, intituled ;
' An Act to amend and consolidate the law respecting Railways.'
The managers on the part of the House of Commons withdrew their objections to the Senate amendments Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 70 to sections 5. 6, 7 and 310 of the said Bill.
The managers on the part of the Senate agreed that the following be added to section 5, as 5-A in the reprinted Bill : -
5-A. All the provisions of this Act relating to railway crossing and junctions, through-traffic, offences, penalties and statistics, shall apply to all persons, companies and railways, whether otherwise within the legislative authority of parliament or not.
The managers on the part of the Senate did not insist on the Senate amendment No. 11, to section 44 of the said Bill.
As a result of this conference, I beg leave to move concurrence in the Senate section 7, instead of the Commons sections 5, 6 and 7.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I beg leave to move that we dispense with the proposed clause 5a, because that clause is covered by the Senate clause 7, and by the Commons clause 302.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I move to strike out from Commons clause 310 the words ' section 306.'


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Some doubts have been expressed as to whether amendments 31 and 40 of the Senate have been adopted. In view of that doubt, I move that amendment 31 to section 195 be formally concurred in, as well as amendments 40 and 210.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: I move that the amendments of the Senate to Bill (No. 257) to amend the Civil Service Act be concurred in. The effect of these amendments is to confirm the right of the Auditor General to make promotions in his own department. Motion agreed to.


ADJOURNMENT-PETITIONS AGAINST NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY.
Mr. O. E. TALBOT (Bellechasse).: As the House is about to adjourn, I would crave permission to draw attention to an article which appears in to-day's Montreal ' Star ' and which reads as follows :
One of the privileges of a member of the House of Commons is that of saying anything he pleases on the floor of the House without being held to account for what he says before the courts of law.
He may say that which is grossly untrue and slanderous. He may be animated by envy, hatred, malice and all uncharitableness. He may be actuated by a d'esire for personal or party .advantage, or simply by a desire for notoriety He may say just what he pleases without fear [DOT]of the law.
Such a privilege would in itself serve as a restraint upon the tongue of a high principled man.
Unfortunately, all members of parliament are not high principled, and slanders are frequently uttered on the floor of the House with a recklessness. which is born of immunity from legal consequence.	,
Three weeks ago that eminent jurist, Mr. Talbot, of Bellechasse, declared on the floor of the House that two of the petitions against the Grand Trunk Pacific scheme were forged. Sir Wilfrid Laurie# promptly followed this up by a declaration that the same charge would apply to most of the petitions. Mr. Talbot moved that two of tho petitions should be referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections for investigation, and Mr. Borden suggested in amendment that all the petitions should be referred to the Committee. Sir Wilfrid, in a moment of weakness, accepted the amendment. There the matter rests. The Committee met once ; formally passed a resolution asking permission to sit while the House was in session, and has never met again.
The whole thing was a bluff ; the charges were .a bluff ; the reference to the committee was a
bluff. The ' Star,' at the time, denounced the whole business as a bluff and expressed the opinion that the government would never dare to have the charges investigated.
The privileges of parliament were never intended to cover such infamous cowardice ; and if used for such purposes the sooner they are abolished the better. The genuineness of the petitions is beyond question, beyond suspicion. If any names at all were forged, they were probably forged ^ by friends of the government anxious to diminish the influence of the vast mass of genuine signatures sent in to parliament. The important and all-significent fact is that the government dared not allow an investigation of the charges it made with such reckless and splendid courage.
Now, Mr. Speaker, it may be that when I made that motion I made a mistake.


Mr. SPEAKER.: Does the hon. gentleman intend to make a motion ?


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: I intend to move tho adjournment of the House. It may be said at this late stage of the session I was wrong in bringlnig that matter up, but I could not have made it any sooner, for you know as well as I do that these petitions were brought into the House at the very tail end of the discussion of the Transcontinental Railway. On the very day these petitions were read in the House, I drew attention to their character, expressing my doubt as to the authenticity of the signatures. Now, I have in my possession documents to prove that I was perfectly justified in making my motion, although it was so late in the session. I have now in my possession nine affidavits


Robert Laird Borden: I object to my hon. friend going into a matter that is before a Committee of the House. I have not the slightest objection to the investigation going on before the committee, but to read affidavits in the House about a matter that has been referred to a committee, is I submit, out of order.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The question is quite new to me. I know there are some authorities upon it.


Robert Laird Borden: It cannot be a matter that would require very much authority. A question respecting petitions presented to this House which has been raised as a question of privilege surely cannot be considered by this House while it is subject to the jurisdiction of a committee or until that committee has reported. Otherwise it would be competent for every hon. member in this House to bring in affidavits on one side or the other and to contest in this House the question which has been referred to the committee for the purpose of report. That would be a very elementary principle upon which to act.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: I think the hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden, Halifax) should be the last man in the world to rise in this House and attempt to prevent a member who, in one of

the most important papers in Canada, is called a coward and a slanderer from availing himself of the only opportunity he has of defending himself. I think I should be allowed that privilege.


Robert Laird Borden: I am not preventing my hon. friend from defending himself in any way. As soon as he made his motion in the House, I rose in my place and said, that, in view of the statements he made, I would unqualifiedly support a reference to the committee. The hon. gentleman has had the matter referred to the committee. It is now under the control of the committee. It has not been proceeded with. What I am objecting to is that my hon. friend should undertake to proceed to deal by means of affidavits with a matter which has been referred to a committee of the House for investigation and report.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: Mr. Speaker, if you will permit me


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order, order.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: Perhaps we may settle this question which has been raised by the hon. leader of the opposition. I will not read the affidavits but I will give a personal explanation if I am allowed to do so. ^ I have in my possession thirteen affidavits, nine of them proving that the signatures on these petitions were not authorized in any way by the persons whose names appear upon them.


Robert Laird Borden: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: And I have four of them showing that signatures were on the petitions of men who are living in the United States at the present time.
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax. I do not think it is a very worthy course on the part of my hon. friend, when a point of order has been raised, to evade it by stating the substance of the affidavits instead of reading them. It seems to me a very plain point of order that when the matter raised by my hon. friend has been referred to a committee lie should not endeavour by affidavits to deal with the very same question in the House, because to permit that, would be to permit every member of the House to bring in affidavits pro and con which would take away from the committee the functions which it was designed they should exercise under the reference thereto, and it is as much out of order to state the substance of the affidavits as to read them. To rise for the ostensible purpose of speaking on a point of order and then to endeavour to evade the point of order is not a worthy thing for a member of the House to do, and it is not respectful to Mr. Speaker.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I find that the principle generally laid down is that when a question is referred to a committee, the House


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: has no right to deal with the matter itself, but the hon. member (Mr. Talbot)-perhaps the hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden, Halifax) was not in when lie read the statement-has read a statement from a paper reflecting upon his character and upon his reputation as a member of this House. I suppose, if the hon. gentleman wants simply to state the reasons why he brought this question up without entering into the merits of the petitions which have been referred to the committee, he may do so.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: That is my iutention. I merely want to state that when I brought this matter before the House, I was justified in doing so, because I have in my possession documents sworn to which justify me as a member of this House in stating that the privilege of this Plouse was grossly abused, probably without the knowledge of hon. members at the time, and which go to prove the statement which I made at the time that half the names were forged. I have documents to prove it, and consequently I say that there is no foundation for the statements which the 'Star has made, and that the position I took at the time was perfectly correct, according to the facts as disclosed in the documents.
I beg to move the adjournment of the House.


Mr. S. BARKER (Hamilton).: As a member of the committee to which this matter was referred, I beg to inform you, Mr. Speaker, and the House, that the committee was called together many days ago, immediately after the reference. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Talbot) had the opportunity of bringing that matter up, but from the time the committee met to the present hour we have never heard one word in support of the charge. The hon. gentleman has made no effort to bring the matter forward. He has made no effort to have the committee take action upon it, and we have never heard a word from the hon. gentleman as to the evidence in support of these charges.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: The article was only printed to-day.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I hope the hon. gentleman (Mr. Talbot) will withdraw his motion, because we may have a motion to adjourn when there is nothing before the House.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: I will withdraw the motion.


Robert Laird Borden: Before the motion is withdrawn, I would like to say that my hon. friend (Mr. Talbot) made his statement on the 7th of October, that he has had some fifteen days in which to prove his charges and that up to the present time they have not been proved. My hon. friend will recollect that when he made his motion, I rose and said that I concurred heartily in it. The right hon. Prime Minister then rose in his place and said :

But as there is an impression growing very strong in the country, that in fact there has been an attempt at a conspiracy to impose upon this House. I am perfectly willing to excuse my hon. friend's language.
I had referred to the hon. gentleman's language in presenting the motion. Then the right hon. First Minister further said :
He has referred to only two hut I think he could refer to several and perhaps to all.
After my right hon. friend had made these remarks, I rose again and said :
Then I am perfectly willing to widen the motion and to enable an investigation to he made into every petition that has been presented.
They have stood there referred to the committee for fifteen days, and during that time no attempt has been made


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The hon. member has not the right to refer to what has been done in the committee. I do not know whether anything has been done or not.


Robert Laird Borden: I am referring to the fact that nothing has been done in committee, and I submit that it is perfectly competent for me to refer to nothing.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Robert Laird Borden: It will be difficult for Mr. Speaker to find any authority that contravenes that assertion. If there has been a conspiracy in the country to impose upon the House, I do think it a great pity that some proceedings have not been taken. Since the matter has been referred to the committee I have on two occasions at lehst pressed on the government to proceed with the investigation. I have done my whole duty in the matter.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: Order.


Robert Laird Borden: I am aware that my hon. friend (Mr. Beicourt) does not like to hear this. He is particularly disturbed in regard to it.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: My disturbance is because the hon. the leader of the opposition is breaking the rules of the House when he should set a good example. ,


Samuel Hughes: The hon. member for Ottawa is qualifying for a judgeship.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. member for Ottawa views with the utmost equanimity many breaches of the rules of the House, but he seems to be particularly sensitive with regard to this special subject. Perhaps the hon. gentleman will explain how it is that his feelings are so much pertrubed.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: I have regard for the rules of the House.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend's anxiety for the observance of the rules is particularly apparent on this occasion. I 465
will do my hon. friend the justice to think that he had very good reason for it. He is amply justified in calling * Order,' when any reference is made to these matters. I [DOT]do not blame him at all; if I were as unfortunately situated as he is, I would be tempted to take exactly the same course. My hon. friend from Beliechasse, is of course perfectly justified in repelling any attack made against him which he thinks is unfair. At the same time he must remember that when he makes a charge of this kind in parliament, and when after a lapse of fifteen days that charge has not been investigated, he must expect that there will be some reference made to it in the public press.
Motion to adjourn the House withdrawn.


PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
Samuel Hughes: I referred the other evening to Col. Denny who lias been appointed as head of the Survey Department of the Militia, and in looking over ' Hansard ' I find that it is reported that I mentioned the name of Gol. Denison. I can understand how the reporter fell into that error knowing that Col. Denison belongs to a well-known military family. It was Col. Denny to whom I referred. Ool. Denny is an imperial officer, whom the Minister of Militia has brought here, and I commend his action in that regard. Col, Denny has a wide experience in Asia and in Africa and he has been a most successful intelligence officer.
There is one oBier typographical error in ' Hansard ' which my Scotch friends in the House are most anxious that I should correct. I quoted recently Burns' well-known lines :
Glory is the soldier's prize.
And the proof-reader had it:
Glory is the soldier's price.
My Scotch friends have insisted that I should apologize.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

The PRIME MINISTER.: As there is nothing before the House I would suggest that the sitting be suspended for half an hour to await further business from the Senate.


Robert Laird Borden: I am informed that a Bill respecting the incorporation of mining companies has passed the Senate, and I would like to ask my right hon. friend if he knows whether it has been sent to this House or not.


The PRIME MINISTER.: 1 have been informed that the Bill has passed the Senate, but I do not know that it has come to the House.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The sitting of the House will be suspended for half an hour.



The sitting of the House was accordingly suspended.
The sitting of the House resumed.


The PRIME MINISTER moved :: That when the House adjourns this day it do stand adjourned until to-morrow at 10.30 a.m.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On motion of the Prime Minister, House adjourned at 11.05 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Saturday, October 24, 1903.