In the meantime, new conditions on the Pacific and west of Lake Superior threatened to complicate Anglo-American relations and finally induced the British government and Upper Canada to take steps to secure confedera tion and consolidation of the British-American provinces in order to counteract the danger of American annexation of the West. The later American acquisition of Alaska, which was re garded as a counter movement against British American consolidation, contributed much to stimulate a determined Anglo-Canadian policy to complete the scheme of confederation by including British Columbia and the northwest territory of the Hudson Bay Company, and by opening a trans-Canadian railway to the Pacific. The latter was conceived as a Canadian counter movement to frustrate American influence in British Columbia. In 1869-70, Irish Fenians threatened to complicate international relations by plans to invade Canada. In spite of the proclamation of the President, they persisted until their collections of money were exhausted and their intoxicated sentiment was sobered by a dawning consciousness of the seriousness of their project. At the same time Senator Sumner, influenced by Cobden's views of 1849 in regard to closer relations between the United States and Canada and especially stimulated by the question of the Alabama claims and by the danger of Fenian disturbances which were ex cited by the proximity of the British flag, pro posed to remove all causes of international dis pute with Great Britain by the withdrawal of the British flag from all British America, but his views were not sustained by Secretary Fish and the Grant administration. The Treaty of Washington, negotiated after the United States dropped her flag-withdrawal proposal, was a great landmark in the adjustment of interna tional questions. It submitted to arbitration three disputed questions: Alabama claims, the San Juan boundary and the Northeastern fish eries. It also contained several clauses which directly affected subsequent relations between Canada and the United States. It established agreements in regard to bonded transit, certain features of the coasting trade, the navigation of certain rivers and canals (including the Wel land and Saint Clair flats canals) as roads of commerce, and the use of the Saint John River by American lumbermen. It recognized the Saint Lawrence as forever free, and gave to Canada the right to navigate Alaskan waters. It failed, however, to renew the principle of the reciprocity treaty, which was requested by the British-Canadians and declined by the Amer icans. Although there was a marked improve ment of international feeling, various contro versies continued to arise at different times. Canadians complained because they did not get free use of certain State canals which they supposed they had secured by the treaty of 1871. When Canadian authorities protested, the United States government replied that it had no control .over State canals and could not compel States to act in the matter. Because in 1885 the United States refused to pass through the Sault Saint Marie Canal a Canadian vessel loaded with troops on their way to sup press the Riel rebellion, and because in 1892 President Harrison in order to retaliate for dis criminating tolls on freights passed through this canal bound for Canadian ports, the Ca nadians were led to build a canal of their own on the other side of the river. Tariffs often ruffled the temper of the people on the border. Canada by various pilgrimages to Washington made persistent efforts to secure a renewal of the reciprocity treaty; but to these friendly advances the American government declined to respond with equal ardor, probably influenced largely in this policy of reserve by the fact that Canada possessed no treaty-making powers except through the British government. After 1873 the demand for protective duties became general among large classes of Canadian people. In the fall election of 1878 the protectionists were successful in Canada; and at the next session of the Dominion Parliament, a tariff was enacted. Since that time, both countries have found occasion to complain of new tariff bills. The American Congress placed duties on coal, lobsters, eggs, etc.; Canadian legislation excluded American cattle, and laid a retaliatory tax on lobster cans. Americans responded to Canadian retaliation by threatening to stop the transmission of goods in bond, and by new tariff provisions. New tariffs thereafter continued to be a source of more or less irritation. In cidentally, it may be stated that complications of threatening relations have often been largely the result of the necessity of indirect negotia tions through the mother country, thus taking the feeling of responsibility from Canada who complains that her interests have been sacri ficed by British diplomacy. A former Canadian
official, summarizing the history of treaties af fecting Canada, once said: LLike animals doomed to vivisection for the good of science, Canada has been unsparingly operated upon for the good of the Empire." In 1887, the right of Canada to negotiate her own commercial treaties with foreign powers was conceded by Great Britain by a provision that negotiation of such treaties should be conducted by the British Minister and the Canadian envoy act ing together and with equal powers. In 1890, the Canadian Dominion government, by its protest to the British Colonial office, prevented the execution' of the Blaine-Bond reciprocity treaty between the United States and New foundland, and proceeded first through the British Minister at Washington and later through Secretaries Foster and Blaine, to re new previous efforts to secure commercial reciprocity.
Some more recent questions may here be sketched very briefly. The Bering Sea con troversy, arising in 1886, finally found a way for settlement by arbitration in 1893. There still remained several questions for interna tional negotiations, including protection of fur seals, the fisheries, the Alaskan boundary, re ciprocity, transit questions, alien labor laws, mining rights and naval armaments on the lakes. An attempt to settle these questions was made in 1898-99 through a joint high commis sion, of which Lord Herschell was chairman, consisting of six members from each country. Although it practically reached an agreement on several subjects it made little progress on others(including reciprocity) and finally split and suffered shipwreck on the Alaskan bound ary on which the Canadian commissioners de manded a settlement before they would enter into any agreement on other questions. Some one, perhaps with facetiqutinterit, has explained the failure of this comminion in contrast with the success of that of 1871 by stating that the latter contained only one Canadian and four English statesmen, while the former contained only one English and four Canadian statesmen. But the action of the Dominion members con cerning Alaska does not seem strange to one familiar with the history of American-Canadian relations in regard to boundaries—a source of almost constant discussion, punctuated by bitter contentions, for over a century. For tunately, in the case of the Alaskan boundary a temporary adjustment was secured by a modiss vivendi effected in 1899; and after long negotia tions, the question was in 1903 submitted to the arbitration of a joint commission of six ''im partial jurists of repute° (three Americans, one Englishman and two Canadians) who settled it by a decision which perhaps may be regarded as a reasonable compromise.
For several years, the North Atlantic Coast fisheries threatened to disturb friendly com mercial relations. The fishery agreement of the Treaty of Washington was terminated in 1885 by the required notice given by the United States in 1883, thus restoring the conditions existing under the treaty of 1818, and soon resulting in Canadian enforcement of irritating restrictions on the fishing grounds. In 1:•:: a modus vivendi was reached by an international commission (of three Englishmen and three Americans). This vivendi was continued both by Canada and by Newfoundland until the question was settled by The Hague tribunal in 1910, although Premier Bond of Newfoundland proposed to i abrogate it after the failure of the Hay-Bond treaty n 1905. The chief remaining obstacles to friendly relations between •Canada and the United States have recently been re moved. Additional security for the future was made by the negotiation and ratification of an arbitration treaty in 1908, 11 years after the Senate had refused to approve a similar treaty. This treaty provides, with some restrictions, that differences of legal character, or relating to treaty differences which cannot be settled by diplomacy, shall be referred to the permanent court of arbitration established at The Hague in 1899. The settlement of the various points at issue had a fortunate culmina tion in the recent settlement of the fishery dis pute by The Hague award. In conformity with the provisions of the treaty of arbitration,. a special agreement of 1909 was arranged with the concurrence of the governments of Canada and Newfoundland, submitting to The Hague court of arbitration any question to the fisheries of the North Atlantic coast ansing under the Treaty of 181& The board appointed to consider the case contained six members, of which one was the chief justice of Canada and another a justice of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals, acting with an Austrian, a Hollander and an Argentine. The result seemed to satisfy both Canada and the United States, each of whom appeared to have won a victory.