The Arbitration Treaty 171 



The first impression which one gets from read 

 ing the treaty is that it is strictly defined and lim 

 ited in its application. Yet, when duly considered, 

 it seems to cover all chances of controversy that 

 are likely to arise between the United States and 

 Great Britain. Under such a treaty as this, nearly 

 all the questions at issue between the two coun 

 tries since 1783 might have been satisfactorily ad 

 justed, the payment of private debts to British 

 creditors, the relinquishment of the frontier posts 

 by British garrisons, the northeastern boundary, 

 the partition of the Oregon territory, the questions 

 concerning the Newfoundland fisheries, the naviga 

 tion of the Great Lakes, the catching of seals in 

 Bering Sea, the difference of opinion over the 

 San Juan boundary, etc. Possibly some of the old 

 questions growing out of the African slave trade 

 might have been brought within its purview, but 

 that is now of small consequence, since no issues of 

 that sort are likely ever to rise again. Differences 

 attending the future construction of a Nicaragua 

 canal, regarded as an easement or a servitude 

 possibly affecting vested rights, might, under a lib 

 eral interpretation, be dealt with; and one may 

 suppose that the Venezuela question is meant to 

 be covered, since it relates to territorial claims in 

 which, though they may not obviously concern the 



