The Alaskan Boundary Tribunal 



i i 



precedent is to be found in the Halifax 

 fisheries arbitration of 1877, when the 

 American member not only refused to 

 sign the award, but questioned its va- 

 lidity. A better practice was observed 

 in the Fur Seal arbitration at Paris 

 in 1893. 'The two American members, 

 Justice Harlan and Senator Morgan, 

 were outvoted on almost every one of 

 the six points submitted to the Tribunal; 

 but, without withdrawing their votes, 

 they cheerfully united with their col- 

 leagues in signing the award. 



The two Canadian members of the 

 London Tribunal did, however, incur 

 more deserved criticism in their action 

 in giving to the press, on the same day 

 the decision was announced, a carefully 

 prepared interview, in which they de- 

 clared that the decision was not judicial 

 in its character, the plain inference 

 from which was that the majority mem- 

 bers of the court had been influenced 

 by improper motives, as the treaty re- 

 quired that they should determine " ju- 

 dicially ' ' the questions submitted to 

 them. They further gave it to be un- 

 derstood that their British colleague, 

 after agreeing with them in their posi- 

 tion as to Portland Channel, changed 

 his attitude and voted with the Ameri- 

 can members ; and they added that there 

 is ' ' no process of reasoning whereby 

 the line thus decided upon by the Tri- 

 bunal can be justified." It is hardly 

 necessary for me to accentuate the im- 

 propriety of judges arraigning in the 

 public press their colleagues on the 

 bench for improper motives and incon- 

 sistent conduct. Lord Alverstone has 

 said, referring to this matter, that he 

 declined to justify or explain his con- 

 duct, because such a course would be a 

 death blow to the confidence reposed in 



words had died on the ear, Sir Alexander Cock- 

 burn snatched up his hat, and, without partici- 

 pating in the exchange of leave-takings around 

 him, without a word orsignof courteous recog- 

 nition for any of his colleagues, rushed to the 

 door and disappeared, in the manner of a crimi- 

 nal escaping from the dock, rather than a judge 



the British bench. He needs no vindi- 

 cation. No living man has had greater 

 experience in international adjudica- 

 tions, and no one has done more to pre- 

 serve peace and good will between the 

 two English-speaking nations. 



In view of the substantial failure to 

 sustain the British contention as to the 

 boundary, it is not strange that there 

 have been angry criticism and bitter dis- 

 appointment expressed in Canada. Sim- 

 ilar feelings were manifested in England 

 over the Geneva award. The people of 

 the United States were very angry at 

 the Halifax award, and were by no 

 means pleased with the result of the 

 Fur Seal arbitration at Paris ; but the 

 sober second thought of these Anglo- 

 Saxon peoples has been that, however 

 disappointing the outcome, this process 

 of adjusting international disputes is 

 better than to continue the controver- 

 sies, and infinitely better than a resort 

 to war. The British agent, Hon. Clif- 

 ford Sifton, immediately after the an- 

 nouncement of the decision in London, 

 said publicly in the most kindly spirit : 

 ' ' I have to say that the agent and coun- 

 sel of the United States have acted 

 with perfect courtesy and good faith 

 throughout." And since his return to 

 Ottawa and the resumption of his place 

 in the Dominion cabinet he has an- 

 nounced that the decision will be ac- 

 cepted and carried into effect in good 

 faith. 



President Roosevelt has been credited 

 by the public press with the statement 

 that the result at London was "the 

 greatest diplomatic victory of the United 

 States during the present generation." 

 It is not becoming in one who was a 

 participant in the proceedings so char- 

 acterized to discuss this declaration. I 



separating, and that forever, from his col- 

 leagues of the bench. It was one of those acts 

 of discourtesy which shock so much when they 

 occur that we feel relieved by the disappear- 

 ance of the perpetrator." 



The Treaty of Washington, by Caleb Cush- 

 iug. New York, 1873, p. 128. 



