Canadians Object to Commission’s Decision

Canada entered a strong but dignified protest against the personnel of the United States side of the Tribunal.

Continuing The Alaskan Boundary Settlement,
Today is our final installment from John W. Foster and then we begin the second part of the series with F. C. Wade. The selections are presented in eight easy 5 minute installments. For works benefiting from the latest research see the “More information” section at the bottom of these pages.

Previously in The Alaskan Boundary Settlement.

Time: 1903
Place: Border Between Alaska and Canada

In view of the substantial failure to sustain the British contention as to the boundary, it is not strange that there have been angry criticism and bitter disappointment expressed in Canada. Similar feelings were manifested in England over the Geneva award. 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; but the sober second thought of these Anglo-Saxon peoples has been that, however disappointing the outcome, this process of adjusting international disputes is better than to continue the controversies, and infinitely better than a resort to war. The British agent, Hon. Clifford Sifton, immediately after the announcement of the decision in London, said publicly in the most kindly spirit: “I have to say that the agent and counsel of the United States have acted with perfect courtesy and good faith throughout.” And since his return to Ottawa and the resumption of his place in the Dominion cabinet, he has announced that the decision will be accepted and carried into effect in good faith.

President Roosevelt has been credited by the public press with the statement that the result at London was “the greatest diplomatic victory of the United States during the present generation.” It is not becoming in one who was a participant in the proceedings so characterized to discuss this declaration. I may say, however, without impropriety that the greatest value of the decision is not in the detailed terms of the award, but in the fact that it brought to a conclusion an irritating controversy, that it removed a serious obstacle to better relations between these two neighboring countries.

The chief credit on the American side for this result is due to the President and the Secretary of State, who had the courage, in spite of the prevailing sentiment that it would be a use less proceeding and against many protests, to submit the question to a judicial tribunal. Still greater credit is due the Prime Minister of Canada, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who, in the face of stronger opposition, consented to such a reference. While the outcome is not such as he desired, it must be a relief to him to know that this dangerous subject has been removed from the arena of controversy, and I feel sure that in time his people will recognize that he acted wisely and for the best interests of his country.

F. C. Wade

Now we begin the second the second part of our series with our selection from Great Events by Famous Historians, Volume 20 by F. C. Wade. The selection is presented in 1.5 easy 5 minute installments.

The Treaty of 1903 for the adjustment of the Alaskan boundary provided that the members of the Tribunal should be “impartial jurists of repute.” The members appointed by the United States were Secretary Root, a member of a Government which was one of the parties to the dispute; Senator Lodge, who had long and often declared against Canada’s contention, and Senator Turner, who was appointed as a guaranty to the Pacific Coast commercial centers that their interests would be preserved. I have no comment to make on this, except the obvious one that a more gross breach of faith on the part of any nation, great or small, could not be imagined, and that we seem to have traveled a long way since the days of Washington, or even Lincoln.

Canada entered a strong but dignified protest against the personnel of the United States side of the Tribunal. Lord Onslow cabled that His Majesty’s Government had been as much surprised as Lord Minto’s Ministers, but that arguments relative to the fitness of the three American representatives, however convincing, could have no result. He suggested that the British should appoint “representatives who will meet the altered circumstances of the case,” in other words, “impartial jurists of repute” of the style of Secretary Root and Senators Lodge and Turner. The cable concluded by asking that these considerations be carefully weighed by Canada, and also that Lord Minto’s Ministers would favor His Majesty’s Government. On March 6th Canada emphasized her protest, and on March 7th Lord Minto was advised from London that the treaty had been ratified on March 3rd previous. Canada refused even then to disregard the terms of the treaty by agreeing to the appointment of prejudiced politicians instead of “impartial jurists of repute,” and thereby, as an English journalist has said, saved the credit of the Empire. Nothing remained but to proceed with the work of the Tribunal, since, as Sir Wilfrid Laurier has well said: “Had Canada refused to proceed after the treaty had been signed by the King, the result would have been that the American flag would have flown over all the disputed territory, or we would have had to fight for our rights.”

Although Canada was in this way forced into a treaty not of her own making, it was confidently hoped by many that a great deal of good might come out of it. True, owing to the composition of the United States wing, nothing better than a deadlock could be hoped for — unless, of course, that disinterested friendship which England had so long and sedulously sought after should suddenly have burst into being. But even a deadlock would mean that all the evidence bearing on the case would be laid before the world, and there could be little doubt that in the end the verdict of three prejudiced politicians could not stand against that of three really “impartial jurists of repute,” and the United States would be forced to The Hague. Deadlock, it was hoped, would result in arbitration, and with any fair arbitral tribunal Canada had nothing to anticipate but a favorable result.

The Alaska Boundary Tribunal, however, was in no sense an arbitral tribunal. The first article of the Treaty, of 1903 under which it was constituted, provided:

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, and will decide thereupon according to his true judgment.”

It is important to remember this clear exposition of the powers of the commissioners in view of what followed.

John W. Foster begins here. F. C. Wade begins here.

More information here and here, and below.

We want to take this site to the next level but we need money to do that. Please contribute directly by signing up at https://www.patreon.com/history