New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1873-05-03
GENERAL FOREIGN NEWS.
THE SAN JUAN BOUNDARY QUESTION

| THE SAN JUAN BOUNDARY QUESTION,
DEBATE IN THE PARLIAMENT OF GREAT BRITAIN
! CRITICISMS OF THE TREATY OF WASHINGTON
REPLY OF MR.. GLADSTONE.
! LONDON Friday, May ., 1873.
In the House of Commons tonight Lord George
| Hamilton, member for Middlesex, called attention
to the nature the reference to the Treaty of 1916
which, under the Treaty of Washington, was sub
mitted together with the Northwestern Boundary
question, to the decision Of the German Emperor.
He regretted that the English Government had
allowed upon that part of the Oregon Treaty
an Interpretation fatal to the just claims
of England. Rosario Strait, long after 1876
was the only known navgable channel between
Oregon and landowners Island and hence was
doubtedly the channel indicated in the treaty of
1916. Yet the Government, with unhappy ingenuity,
excluded the arbitration from the consideration of
this particular channel. He found fault with the
Emperor William. He thought the Geneva Arbi-
traitors would have acted more wisely had they an
ticipated his method and confined themselves to
rendering their decision without giving their rea-
sons therefor. Lord Hamilton said he would make
no motion, and only desired to obtain from the
House such an expression of opinion would dis
courage the making of treaties hereafter on the
I" give all, take nothing" principle.
Capt. Ballie-COchrane, member for the Isle of
Wight said Earl Granyille's foreign policy had
always been the of that of Aberdeen, Palmer
ston Russell and Stanley. 1t had recently gwen TO
Russia 500 miles of frontier in Asia. The negotiations
with the United States had been pursued in accord
ance with the same policy of Cancellation and humi
iatiOn.
VIscount Enfield, Under-Secretary for the For
eicn Department, defended Earl Granville and vim
dIcated the course he had taken. The North
Western Boundary question was an intricate one,
and none was better adapted for arbitration He
traced the history of the boundary dispute the sue
cessive negotiations and final settlement. As an
Engishman he regretted the decision, but he cheer
fully and ungrudgingly accepted it,
The Hon. Percy Wyndham, member for West
Cumberland, regarded the Emperors decision as a
natural one, because the concessions in the Wash
ington Treaty excluded evidence which might have
led to a different result
Mr.. Eastwick, Member for Penrhyn, thought the
! Government should have insisted strict adj
herence to the OF the Treaty of 1885, in which
the word "mid-channel" was plainly used.
Viseount Bury. Member for Berwick on-Tweed,
could not but feel that the Emperors decision was
serious blow but it would be a waste of time to re-
open the negotiation. Probably arbitration would
soon be required again to settle the boundary line
between Alaska and British Columbia
Lord John Manners, member for North Leicester
shire said the Government unwise in consent
ing to restricted instead of open arbitration.
Mr.. Gladstone commended that restricted arbitra-
ton was better than none While the English had
been defeated he showed that arbitration had re-
moved the causes of irritation and restored friend
illness between two great nations.
| The subject was then dropped.