Page images
PDF
EPUB

neighbors, who alone could compete with us in advantage of position, are so heavily handicapped in the race by youth and undeveloped resources as to be negligible quantities. America will be not only without a competitor but where she has been handicapped by distance she will be she will be

placed at once on an equal footing and where she is now equal will obtain a lead of from three to four thousand miles in almost every case. New York and Liverpool are today practically equidistant, via Cape Horn, from the west coast of South America and Liverpool, through the Suez has the advantage of distance to Yokohama, Shanghai and other Eastern ports. Panama will place New York over 4,000 miles nearer Valparaiso and practically equidistant with Liverpool from Yokohama, the Orient and even Australia. Where this means a colossal advantage to New York and the North Atlantic ports its means even more to the South for while the canal brings the rich markets of the west coast of South America nearer to New York it brings them to the very doorway of the South Atlantic and Gulf States. The raw and cheap cotton goods and hardware manufactures of the Southern States will enter the markets of western South America and the Orient with the enormous advantage that a short traffic haul gives; properly handled they can monopolize the entire field. With the steamships of the entire world pass

ing through the canal the market of the century for the soft coal of the South lies at Panama; for the world will send its steamships through Panama as there is hardly a voyage of greater length than 5,000 miles which will not use the canal en route. A deep-water channel the length of the Mississippi would give Chicago advantage of position over London in the East Indies. Possession of the canal may come to mean the naval dominance of the world and prove the balance of power whereby the peace of the world is maintained. It is certain to strengthen the United States against future attack by completing her interior line of defense and permitting the cordon of her battleships to be drawn closely about her. Great opportunities for good and for evil lie in the canal; it rests with America as to how they shall be used. For four hundred years this work has struggled toward completion and that completion is now close at hand; through its narrow channel there is to come an era of expansion and development as mighty as that which followed after the day Columbus landed upon the beach of San Salvador.

The question of Cuba again became acute during the early months. of 1903. This arose with regard to a reciprocity treaty, which had been ratified by the Cuban Congress on March 11. The Sugar Trust as usual made its influence felt and the result was an endeavor to prevent the rati

fication by the United States Senate, but public demand was so emphatically in favor of the treaty that it was ratified March 19, with an amendment to the effect that "This treaty shall not take effect until the same shall have been approved by the Congress." This unprecedented action called up a storm of criticism in the daily press. The New York Evening Post called it ratification by burial, and the New York Times, more emphatic still, characterized it as "a shameful chapter of pure selfishness

and greed." President Roosevelt was determined that this treaty should be ratified, and accordingly called an extra session of Congress to convene November 9, for the purpose of considering the same He thus checkmated the plans of the enemies of the treaty, whose intentions were to defeat it by indirect methods. As it was, the usual wail of the infant beet sugar industry was so loud that the legislation failed of passage during the extraordinary session, and it was not until after the convening of the regular session of the Fifty-eighth Congress that the treaty was finally ratified (December 16, 1903). This agreement gave Cuban commodities imported into the United States an average reduction of 25 per cent. on the rates of the Dingley law.

When the United States purchased Alaska from Russia in 1867, a controversy with Great Britain was also acquired that had remained unsettled since the Anglo-Russian treaty defin

ing the boundary line between British and Russian territory was ratified in 1825. This treaty was somewhat obscure in its wording, the French term, sinuosités (windings) used in defining the line being variously translated by the two powers. The contention of Russia, and later of the United States, was that the word signified that the boundary line comprehended a parallel with the true indentations with the coast, ten marine leagues inland. This, of course would carry the line ten leagues from the headwaters of every bay and estuary. The Canadian authorities, on the contrary, claimed that the term referred to the general contour of the coast, thereby placing points at the headwaters of these inlets in British territory.

As long as Alaska was looked upon as a barren waste, valuable only for its furs and fisheries, the question was allowed to remain unsettled, although President Grant, foreseeing the possibilities of international misunderstanding in the situation, strongly advised in his message to Congress, December 2, 1872, that the line be surveyed and the

[blocks in formation]

entirely new complexion on the affair. Alaska and upper British Columia assumed new and immense importance, and the boundary question rapidly approached a crisis. The overland trails leading into the gold fields of the upper Yukon started at two settlements, Dyea and Skagway, on the headwaters of the long estuary known as Lynn Canal. Acting upon their theory of the position of the line, the Canadian authorities advanced their outposts to these points, which had long been considered within United States territory. Conflicts of jurisdiction arose which tended to become so serious that the necessity for an immediate settlement of the question became imperative. It was therefore referred to the Joint High Commission composed of representatives of the two powers which met in 1898 for the settlement of all differences between Canada and the United States.* The

* Commissioners appointed by the governments of the United States and Great Britain, respectively, were as follows:

On the Part of the United States.- Senator Charles W. Fairbanks, of Indiana, chairman; Senator George Gray, of Delaware; Representative Nelson Dingley, of Maine; John W. Foster, former Secretary of State; John A. Kasson, of Iowa, and T. Jefferson Coolidge, of Massachusetts.

On the Part of Great Britain and Canada.-Lord Herschell, ex-Lord Chancellor of England, chairman; Sir Wilfred Laurier, Premier of Canada; Sir Richard J. Cartwright, Minister of Trade and Commerce; Sir Louis H. Davies, Minister of Marine and Fisheries; John Charlton, M. P., and Sir James T. Winter, Premier of Newfoundland.

Senator Gray resigned in September, 1898, to accept the appointment of member of the Span

point at issue was the proposal on the part of the British authorities to submit the matter to a disinterested arbitrator after the precedent set by the Venezuela case. The American members, however, asserted that the

ish-American Peace Commission, and Senator Charles J. Faulkner, of West Virginia, was ap pointed by the President to fill the vacancy.

Lord Herschell was chosen president of the Joint High Commission.

The principal questions submitted for the consideration of the Commission were as follows:

1. The questions in respect to the fur seals of Behring Sea and the waters of the North Pacific Ocean.

2. Provisions in respect to the fisheries off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts and in the waters of their common frontiers.

3. Provisions for the delimitation and establishment of the Alaska-Canadian boundary by legal and scientific experts if the commission shall so decide, or otherwise.

4. Provisions for the transit of merchandise in transportation to or from either country, across intermediate territory of the other, whether by land or water, including natural and artificial water-ways and intermediate transit by sea.

5. Provisions relating to the transit of merchandise from one country to be delivered at points in the other beyond the frontier.

6. The question of the alien labor laws, applicable to the subjects or citizens of the United States and of Canada.

7. Mining rights of the citizens or subjects of each country within the territory of the other.

8. Such readjustment and concessions as may be deemed mutually advantageous, of customs duties applicable in each country to the products of the soil or industry of the other, upon the basis of reciprocal equivalents.

9. A revision of the agreement of 1817 respecting naval vessels on the lakes.

10. Arrangements for the more complete definition and marking of any part of the frontier line, by land or water, where the same is now so insufficiently defined or marked as to be liable to dispute.

11. Provisions for the conveyance for trial or punishment of persons in the lawful custody of the officers of one country through the territory of the other.

12. Reciprocity in wrecking and salvage rights.

situation was different, and proposed British members consisting of Lord

to submit the question to a commission consisting of six eminent jurists from each contracting party, the existing settlements on the coast, in the meanwhile, to remain in the United States government. The British commissioners refused to agree to this, and the sessions adjourned

without action.

a

The need for some kind of settlement persisted, so it was determined to reach a temporary settlement, at least, through diplomatic agencies. As a result, after much negotiation, modus vivendi, or provisional agreement, was signed October 20, 1899. This convention was to remain in force at the pleasure of both parties, and, although certain concessions were made to Canada, the claims of the United States in the main were upheld.

But the principal question was as yet unsettled, and in order to reach a conclusive decision, the British Foreign Office decided to accept the proposal for a joint arbitration committee to consist of three British and three American members. Accordingly, a convention to this effect was signed January 24, 1903, by Secretary Hay and the British ambassador, Sir Michael Herbert. The commissioners were then appointed; President Roosevelt selecting Elihu Root, Secretary of War, Senator H. C. Lodge, and ex-Senator George Turner to represent the United States; the

Alverstone, Lord Chief Justice of England, Sir Louis A. Jette, Lieutenant-Governor of Quebec, and Allen B. Aylesworth of Toronto. John W. Foster presented the arguments for the United States, being assisted by J. M. Dickinson, D. T. Watson, Hannis Taylor and Chandler P. Anderson. The sessions of the commission commenced September 3, 1903, and lasted until October 20, when the decision was signed. The contentions of the United States were upheld in almost every detail, the final line as established, barring minor differences, agreeing with the old line. It is a testimony to the fair-mindedness of the British representative, Lord Alverstone, that he was able to rise above national considerations and vote for the American side of the question, thereby preventing a deadlock. The Canadian members refused to sign the decision.

The second session of the Fiftyeighth Congress was marked by a struggle between the President and the Senate which revealed in clearest light the affiliations of the latter body. It was able to block most effectually all of the legislation that indicated progressive tendencies, among which were bills for the protection of the forests in the Appalachian and the White Mountain regions, the reform of the consular service, pure food, and others of a similar nature.

The first-named bill was reported

favorably, and had public opinion strongly in its favor, but the forces opposing were too strong to permit its passage in spite of the fact that the forests of the country were rapidly being destroyed by the wasteful methods of the lumbermen and the paper mills. The nation had been listening so long to the cry that the natural resources of the United States were boundless and inexhaustible that evidence to the contrary came with a shock. For a number of years it had been evident to those

who had knowledge of the fate of fertile and populous regions which had been transformed into deserts by such spoliation that a continuation of the policy regarding the natural resources would be fatal. From time to time movements favoring regulation were inaugurated, but nothing more than an act favoring passed March 3, 1891, authorizing the President to make forest reserves of public lands, resulted from the same. The question, however, became acute in the early years of the new century, and a resulting investigation by the forestry officials proved that the fears were well grounded. The bills that were introduced, however, were opposed on the grounds of economy; the $15,000,000 appropriation that they carried being disproportionate, it was argued, to the good that would result. The real animus, however, of the opposition was a fear lest their enactment might lead towards a system of forest supervision and, in addition, a desire to place stumbling

blocks in the way of any legislation proposed by the President.

As the time for the national elections drew near it became more and more apparent that there was wellorganized plan on the part of certain elements within his party to defeat Mr. Roosevelt's nomination for a second term. The problem they had to solve was a difficult one, for in spite of his mistakes, the President had impressed the country with his ability and his patriotism. These very mistakes, even, tended to strengthen his hold on the people, for it was clear that they arose from a frank and impulsive nature, that dared to go to any extreme in favor of a thing he conceived to be right. There is no doubt but that the opposition to his renomination gave the President considerable uneasiness, and had it not been for the death of the one man, Mark Hanna, who was capable of organizing the forces against him, there would have arisen a grave question of the ability of his friends to throw the nomination his way. The forces that fought him. were powerful, politically and financially, and rumors were abroad of vast sums of money set aside for the purpose of insuring his downfall. The death of Mr. Hanna on February 15, 1904, however, was a blow to Mr. Roosevelt's enemies from which they never recovered, although there was still strong opposition to him by individuals who felt the repressing influence of his policies. They were, however, disorganized and without a

« PreviousContinue »