dent were criticised, both in Canada and the United States, as not being according to the Treaty which called for "impartial jurists of repute." The editor of Hall's International Law (ed. 1904) spoke of the choice of the American members as a "serious blot on the proceedings." But the British government did not officially make any complaint. They named as members, Baron Alverstone, Lord Chief Justice of England, Louis A. Jetté, Lieutenant-Governor of Quebec, and A. B. Aylesworth of the Toronto bar.1 London was selected as the place for the sitting of the Tribunal.

After the appointment of the Tribunal and before its decision, the President wrote to Justice Holmes a letter [July 25, 1903], which he might show "privately and unofficially" to Joseph Chamberlain, the Colonial Secretary. He also wrote one of similar import to Henry White which as desired was shown to Arthur Balfour, Prime Minister. In the letter to Justice Holmes the President said: "Nothing but my very earnest desire to get on well with England and my reluctance to a break made me consent to this appointment of a Joint Commission [officially a Tribunal] in this case; for I regard the attitude of Canada which England has backed, as having the scantest possible warrant in justice. However, there were but two alternatives. Either I could appoint a commission and give a chance for agreement; or I could do as I shall of course do in case this Commission fails and request Congress to make an appropriation which will enable me to run the boundary on my own hook. The claim of the Canadians for access to deep

1

1 Diplomatic Memoirs, J. W. Foster, ii. 198.

water along any part of the Canadian [Alaskan] coast is just exactly as indefensible as if they should now suddenly claim the island of Nantucket. There is not a man fit to go on the Commission in all the United States, who would treat this claim any more respectfully than he would treat a claim to Nantucket. . . . But there are points which the Commission can genuinely consider. There is room for argument about the islands in the mouth of the Portland Channel. . . . The objection raised by certain Canadian authorities to Lodge, Root and Turner, and especially to Lodge and Root, was that they had committed themselves on the general proposition. No man in public life in any position of prominence could have possibly avoided committing himself on the proposition. . Let me add that I earnestly hope that the English understand my purpose. I wish to make one last effort to bring about an agreement through the Commission which will enable the people of both countries to say that the result represents the feeling of the representatives of both countries. But if there is a disagreement I wish it distinctly understood, not only that there will be no arbitration of the matter, but that in my Message to Congress I shall take a position which will prevent any possibility of arbitration hereafter; a position, I am inclined to believe, which will render it necessary for Congress to give me the authority to run the line as we claim it, by our own people without any further regard to the attitude of England and Canada." 1 And Hay wrote to Foster on September 20, 1903: "I hear the usual pessimistic forecasts — some

1 Bishop, i. 259; Thayer, Life of Roosevelt, 176.

from London some from this side. But I shall not believe, until I am forced to, that Lord Alverstone can so shut his eyes to law and evidence as to give a verdict against us, especially as he must know that this is the last chance for an honorable and graceful retreat from an absolutely untenable position. I am sincerely sorry they have got themselves into such a fix; but it is their own fault and they will make a fatal mistake if they refuse to avail themselves of the opportunity we have given them to get out." 1

The decision of the Tribunal was made October 20, 1903, and fixed the land boundary well back of all the inlets, as was the chief contention of the United States. This was done by a vote of four to two, Lord Alverstone siding with the Americans and the two Canadian members dissenting. The Tribunal was unanimous in giving to Canada two of the four uninhabited islands.2 The two Canadian members not only did not sign the award but gave to the press "a carefully prepared interview in which they declared that the decision was not judicial in its character." John W. Foster, who criticised the appeal to the press by the Canadian members, did not share the censure meted out to them for their failure to sign the award. He wrote with the impartiality which distinguishes his work: "A similar precedent is to be found in the Halifax Fisheries Arbitration of 1877, when the American member not only refused to sign the award but questioned its validity. A better practice was observed in the Fur-Seal Arbitration at Paris in 1893. The two American members, Justice Harlan and Senator Morgan, were outvoted on almost every one of the six

1 Diplomatic Memoirs, John W. Foster, ii. 206.

Foreign Relations, 1903, 543; Foster, Diplomatic Memoirs, ii. 203.

points submitted to the Tribunal; but, without withdrawing their votes they cheerfully united with their colleagues in signing the award." Foster went on to say, "The people of the United States were very angry at the Halifax award and were by no means pleased with the result of the Fur-Seal Arbitration at Paris."1

On June 8, 1911, Roosevelt wrote to Admiral Mahan: "The settlement of the Alaskan boundary settled the last serious trouble between the British Empire and ourselves as everything else could be arbitrated. . . . I feel very differently towards England from the way I feel towards Germany." 2

Roosevelt, shortly before his death [January 6, 1919], wrote to Mahan a letter that may be taken as his legacy to his countrymen: "I regard the British Navy as probably the most potent instrumentality for peace in the world. I do not believe we should try to build a navy in rivalry to it but I do believe we should have the second navy in the world. Moreover I am prepared to say what five years ago I would not have said, I think the time has come when the United States and the British Empire can agree to a universal arbitration treaty. In other words I believe the time has come when we should say that under no circumstances shall there ever be a resort to war between the United States and the British Empire, and that no question can arise between them that cannot be settled in judicial fashion." 3

1 Diplomatic Memoirs, ii. 204. 2 Life of Mahan, Taylor, 203.

3 Life of Mahan, Taylor, 224. In this account I have also consulted J. W. Foster's Article on the Alaskan Boundary, National Geographic Magazine, Nov. 1899, printed as Doc. No. 2, 58th Cong., Special Session; The Case of the U. S.; The Argument of the U. S., both of which are printed by the Gov't Printing Office.

CHAPTER X

"By far the most important action I took in foreign affairs during the time I was President," wrote Roosevelt, "relates to the Panama Canal." At the time Hay became Secretary of State there was a feeling in the country decidedly in favor of joining the two oceans by a canal. Long existent, the feeling had been fostered by the events of the Spanish-American War and especially by the voyage of the Oregon around Cape Horn. As she was desired to reinforce the Atlantic fleet, it could not be ignored how much sooner she would have made the junction had there been a canal from the Pacific to the Atlantic. The Clayton-Bulwer Treaty with England, made in 1850, stood in the way. Hay set to work to supersede this and negotiated a Treaty which was signed by him and Lord Pauncefote, the British Ambassador, on February 5, 1900. Roosevelt, who was then Governor of New York, in a friendly letter to Hay criticised severely two points in the Treaty: the first was the prohibition of fortifying the canal, and the second was a virtual invitation to foreign powers to a joint guarantee that in his view would tend to invalidate the Monroe Doctrine.

Hay was irritated that the Senate did not ratify the Treaty; he deemed it an "irreparable mistake of our Constitution" which put it into "the power of one-third +1 of the Senate to meet with a categorical veto any treaty negotiated by the President." He spoke against

1 Autobiography, 553.

3 Life of Hay, Thayer, ii. 339.

4

2 Vol. i. 199.

4 To Choate, ibid., 219.

261