ster's defence.

action thus: "I must confess that I did not think it a very urgent duty on my part to go to Lord Ashburton and tell him that I had found a bit of doubtful evidence Mr. Webin Paris, out of which he might perhaps make something to the prejudice of our claims; and from which he could set up higher claims for himself, or throw further uncertainty on the whole matter." *

Such was the evidence available in support of Great Britain's title to the disputed territory in Maine, had due diligence been exercised in procuring it.†

of Interna

Perhaps some of the international friction between Some causes the United States, Great Britain and Canada, is due to tional fricthe want of disciplined experience, and tact, in subordi- tion.

nate officers, especially in those of the outside public service of the United States. Their Civil Service- U. S. Civil owing to the frequent political changes, consequent upon their maxim, "to the victors belong the spoils," is unable to acquire the trained qualities, the diplomatic and departmental traditions, the permanent characteristics, and the political independence, of the British Civil British Civil Service. Had the American Civil Service similar traditions and characteristics, or were a non-political band of expert servants of the State, experienced in emergent foreign and colonial affairs, some unfortunate occasions of friction, for which the higher types of American Statesmen cannot be held responsible, would never

Canada's relations with U. S.

have occurred. Our international relations with the United States have suffered accordingly; and Great have suffered. Britain and Canada have been angrily and unjustly blamed on every occasion, when an American official's over-zealous interferences, and illegitimate incidents, have caused friction.

In 1839-40, a map and certain reports of surveys of the "highlands of Maine," said to have been previously made by United States surveyors, were sought to be Incident of a used as evidence before the Joint Commission on the and surveys in 1839.

spurious map Maine boundary. The British Commissioner, after

Falsified

investigation, was satisfied that the map was not genuine, and that the alleged surveys were "spurious surveys." He thereupon requested that the American surveyors should be examined on oath before the Joint Commission, offering that the British surveyors should also be examined on oath at the same time. Both request and offer were declined.*

During the Behring Sea Arbitration of 1893 some documents in falsified and interpolated translations of Russian docuBehring Sea Arbitration ments, the great majority of which "could only be

in 1893.

accounted for by some person having deliberately falsified the translations in a sense favourable to the contentions of the United States," were made by a faithless official of the Department of State, and furnished to the British Foreign Office. Just as the Foreign Office was about to notify the American

authorities, the latter voluntarily withdrew the falsified translations, and furnished corrected ones; * but Faithless the faithless official was never punished. In the same punished. Arbitration, numbers of affidavits were offered by the United States as evidence against the British claims, some of which were certified by the officer to have been sworn before him, on the same day, at Lynn Canal (Alaska), Victoria (British Columbia), and San Francisco (United States). Another set of affidavits were certified by another officer to have been sworn Affidavits put forward by before him, on the same day, at places 1,680 miles apart. U. S. Another officer who had taken twenty-three affidavits of certain Indians in Alaska, sent a police officer to them, who, in the presence of the British agent, used threatening language, and told them that the United U. S. officer States officer would send anyone to gaol who talked Indians givwith, or gave evidence to, the British agent. The ing evidence British printed argument further states that "in a agent. great number of cases deponents, giving evidence for the United States, have been seen with reference to their affidavits; and almost invariably it has been found that the statements made in their original deposition were capable of considerable modification and Contradicexplanation, not found in the original affidavit. Fresh ments in affidavits have been obtained from some of these depon-affidavits. ents. In many cases the witnesses directly contradict their former statements, and others even deny that they made them." The Blue Book gives the extracts showing the contradictory statements of the witnesses.

Canada's From the United States, Canada has received several "Baptisms of Blood" by "Baptisms of Blood" through filibustering raids organU. S. raiders. ized in that country, not from any international friction

Invasions of 1775, 1812, 1837.

or embittered relations between Canada and the Republic; but solely because of the colonial relation and faithful allegiance of Canada to Great Britain. The American invasions of 1775-76, 1812-14, 1837-38, as well as the Fenian Raids of 1866, 1870 and 1871, were undertaken by certain citizens of the United States in the hope of striking an effective blow at the British Fenian Raids Empire, in one of its most vulnerable parts. The Fenian of 1866, 1870, and 1871. Raids into Canada, -repulsed by the Canadian Militia, -were ostentatiously undertaken to avenge the alleged U. S. failure British misgovernment of the Irish people. The to prevent Fenian raids. Government of the United States, though fully cogni

zant that their Fenian citizens were arming for the declared invasion of Canada, never interfered until some of their filibustering hordes had crossed the boundary, and had slain Canadians who were in no way responsible for the British government of the

Irish people, and whose only crime was that of defendU. S. releases ing their families, their homes and country; and then, Fenian ring after arresting a few of the returned Fenian ring

leaders, who had been caught red-handed, the same Government, at the request of Congress, and with undue precipitancy, released and pardoned them, and restored their arms.*

from

Canadians.

A policy of discrimination against the trade of Discrimination against Canada with the United States, arose in 1806, when Canadian the Canadian merchants presented a memorial to the trade in 1806. British Government, complaining of (1) their exclusion Exclusion from Louisiana, with which they had traded while a Louisiana. colony of Spain, and subsequently a colony of France, the trade with which had amounted to from $200,000 to $250,000 yearly; (2) their being made to pay Extra duties higher duties on goods carried by them into the charged United States, than the duties payable by citizens of the United States on goods imported from other countries-charging Canadians 22 per cent. at inland ports, instead of 16 per cent., the duty at Atlantic ports. They also complained that, in violation of Jay's Treaty of 1794*, they were compelled to pay $6 for a license to trade with the Indians-not required License charge for of American citizens; and to dismiss their Canadian Indian voyageurs at the United States ports, and to employ trading. Americans "at great expense and inconvenience; " and that the United States revenue officers at Michili- Revenue officers

makanac, had "harrassed and impeded the trade of impeded British merchants, on pretences the most frivolous Canadian and unfounded, and in a manner equally vexatious and injurious." ↑ The Treaty of 1806 was intended Treaty of to remedy these complaints; but it was never ratified. ratified.