1914] Settlement of International Disputes 207 



the submission of the matter to "six impartial jurists of repute." Britain 

 appointed Lord Alverstone, Lord Chief Justice of England; Sir Louis 

 A. Jett6, Lieutenant-Governor of Quebec (formerly Chief Justice in that 

 Province), and John Douglas Armour, Justice of the Supreme Court of 

 Canada (previously Chief Justice of Ontario). Mr. Armour dying, 

 Allen Bristol Aylesworth, K.C. (afterwards Sir Allen Aylesworth, 

 Minister of Justice of the Dominion) was appointed in his stead. Elihu 

 Root, Senator Henry Cabot Lodge of Massachusetts, and Senator George 

 Turner of Washington were appointed on the other side. They met in 

 London in 1903, and on the 20th October of that year made an award 

 (the Canadian representatives dissenting, but Lord Alverstone joining 

 in the award.) 



This award created much dissatisfaction in Canada; few believed that 

 Alverstone's action was judicial, most thought he acted as he did against 

 his judgment, but diplomatically, so that there might be an award made. 

 But Canadians resented still more — and chiefly — the constitution of the 

 Board. Promised impartial jurists of repute, it was thought that 

 two of the American Commissioners had expressed themselves in advance 

 of their appointment in no uncertain terms upon the merits of the contro- 

 versy — of one this was certainly true. This was not thought the 

 "square deal " on the part of its most prominent and strenuous advocate.* 

 The award, however, was submitted to without hesitation. 



21. The Treaty of 181 8, giving privileges to American citizens in 

 respect of fishing in the Atlantic waters, drying and curing fish, etc., was 

 not very definite; and constant friction showed itself between the two 

 peoples. After many fruitless attempts at settlement, an agreement was 

 entered into at London, April 4th, 1908, to refer the whole matter to a 



* Hon. John W. Foster, once Secretary of State at Washington, who was the agent 

 of the United States on this occasion, has the following in his "Diplomatic Memoirs" 

 (1910) Vol. II, pp. 197, 198: "The Canadian Government complained to the British 

 Colonial Office that the members nom.inated by the President of the United States were 

 not such persons as were contemplated by the Treaty, to wit, ' impartial j urists of repute ' ; 

 but the British Government did not regard this complaint of such a serious character 

 as to bring it to the attention of the President. It was alleged that one of the American 

 members had expressed himself publicly, some tirre previous to his appointment, as 

 strongly convinced of the justice of the claim of his Government. It was also objected 

 that no one of the three was taken from judicial life, and that they all might be con- 

 sidered as political rather than legal representatives of their country. The editor of 

 Hall's 'International Law' (ed. 1904) refers to the selection of the American members 

 as a 'serious blot on the proceedings'". Mr. Foster does not deny the charges made 

 by the Canadian Government, nor does he attempt to justify or excuse the appoint- 

 ments, contenting himself with saying: "Whatever appropriateness there may have 

 been in the objections urged by Canada, the sequel showed that the selection of the 

 President was judicious"; adding a eulogy on the capacity and conduct of the American 

 appointees. It is not without interest to note that Mr. Foster says nothing of the 

 appointment of Mr. Justice Armour as a British representative. 



I have never heard the conduct of President Roosevelt in this matter justified by an 

 American; it has been explained (I cannot say how truly) by the alleged fact that it was 

 only on the understanding that such appointments should be made that the Senate's 

 approval of the Treaty could be obtained. 



