the broadest grounds of equity. The result of the controversy was that Winslow was not extradited and was never brought to trial for his crimes. The United States for some months declined to invoke the extradition of criminals under the treaty, and that instrument was practically suspended. Then Great Britain weakly yielded the point, and the treaty became operative again. But it is to be observed that the United States soon adopted the very principle which Great Britain had at first insisted upon and then abandoned, and has ever since strenuously maintained, that extradited criminals must be tried for only the offenses for which they are extradited.

The ancient controversy between the United States and Great Britain over naturalization was finally composed in 1870, when a convention was made providing that each of the countries should give full recognition to naturalization when it was acquired in and under the laws of the other.

An unpleasant incident in Anglo-American intercourse, though happily without diplomatic significance, occurred in 1876. General Schenck, the American minister in London, indiscreetly permitted his name to be used in connection with the promotion of some mining enterprises. These latter were quite legitimate and in the end highly profitable. But for a time they fell under a cloud of suspicion, and factional attacks upon Schenck were numerous and savage. In consequence he abruptly tendered his resignation and hastened home.

Domestic distress and political agitation in the United Kingdom a few years later led to important developments in the unofficial relations between it and the United States. In 1879 and 1880 a disastrous famine occurred in Ireland, which called for the raising of relief funds wherever possible. Large funds were raised in the United States, and the Government in 1880 gave the use of the old frigate Constellation to carry a cargo of food from this country to the starving people of Ireland. The Constellation, it will be recalled, was one of the famous American frigates which in the War of 1812 inflicted great losses upon the British navy and British commerce; and the chartering of her for this finely contrasting errand of friendship and mercy was a noteworthy and most felicitous incident, which, together with the other American benefactions to the Irish famine suf

ferers, did much to promote sympathetic relations between the two countries.

At the very same time, however, there arose a formidable agrarian and political movement in Ireland under the name of the Land League. Ostensibly and directly this aimed at the amelioration of Irish distress by the abatement of extortionate rents, the correction of the gross abuses of the absentee landlord system, and the reform of the land laws of the island. Actually and ultimately its purpose was the secession and complete separation of Ireland from the British crown. The founder and leader of that movement, Charles Stewart Parnell, with several of his associates, came to the United States in the winter of 1879-80 and made a tour of the country, addressing many large public meetings, organizing American branches of the Irish Land League, and collecting large sums of money for the promotion of that cause. The utterances of these men were largely intensely hostile to the British government, denouncing it as the malevolent source of Ireland's woes and declaring that the Land League movement would not cease until it had severed the last link that bound Ireland to the British crown. This caused a certain revival of the violent Fenian spirit of former years, a widespread campaign of animosity toward Great Britain was begun in the United States, and for some years thereafter the question of Irish separation from England was almost as noisy and as conspicuous in American as in British politics. In order to "win the Irish vote," as they fondly supposed, American politicians, including some of the foremost rank, indulged in intemperate tirades against Great Britain, and "twisting the British lion's tail" was a frequent and favorite diversion of buncombe orators in Congress. This course of conduct caused some popular estrangement between the two countries for a time, though it did not affect their official relations.

A pleasant contrast to it occurred in 1881, when the centennial commemoration of the British surrender at Yorktown was held. On that occasion, by the President's order, the British flag was formally saluted, with all possible honor.

In a later year, in the heat of a particularly passionate political campaign in the United States, relations between this country and Great Britain were temporarily disturbed by a minor

incident which reflected little credit upon any one concerned in it, but which illustrated again the manner in which grave international interests may be sacrificed to the supposed exigencies of partizan strife. In 1888 Cleveland was a candidate for reëlection to the Presidency, and his opponents were eager to make it appear that, because of his alleged subserviency to Great Britain in the North Atlantic fisheries matter and his advocacy of free trade, he was being supported by British influences. Accordingly a trickster was found who was willing falsely to represent himself to be an Englishman naturalized in America, and as such to write to the British minister at Washington, asking his advice as to how to vote at the coming election. The minister, Sir Lionel Sackville-West, was deluded by the trick, and with amazing indiscretion replied to the bogus correspondent in terms which clearly indicated his preference for Cleveland, though he recognized that "any political party which openly favored the mother country at the present moment would lose popularity." This reply was at once made public by the political schemers who had secured it, and as a result the President was compelled to request the recall of the indiscreet minister. The offense was scarcely sufficient to warrant such punishment, but the Presidential election was close at hand and Cleveland as a candidate for reëlection could not afford to seem to condone even so slight a breach of international etiquette. To serve the ends of one party the minister was tricked into an indiscretion, and to serve the ends of the other he was sacrificed. It was a sorry business all around.

R

XXV

DEALINGS WITH BRITISH AMERICA

ELATIONS between the United States and the British

government increasingly related to the affairs of the extensive and important British possessions in America. In 1867 the creation of the Dominion of Canada was proclaimed, this new political organization comprising all British possessions on the North American continent, but not Newfoundland. The effect of this upon American relations with Canada and with Great Britain was potential and prospective, rather than actual. It soon began actual development, however; the dominion more and more exercising the privilege of transacting business directly with the United States, and more and more insisting upon the right to be consulted authoritatively in the making of all British treaties under which its interests would in any way be affected. In the course of a few years, indeed, disputed questions between the United States and Canada came to be discussed at Washington or at Ottawa almost as though Canada were an independent nation; though Great Britain of course retained the ultimate authority and all treaties had to be made by and in the name of the British crown. The completion of the first transcontinental railroad across the United States in 1869 had the effect of materially increasing commercial relations between the Atlantic and Pacific coasts and also between the United States and Canada. In 1875 efforts were made to establish a new reciprocity system between these two countries, in place of that which had formerly existed, and a convention to that end was negotiated, but failed to receive ratification. For many years thereafter discussions of reciprocity, of commercial union, and of political union between the United States and Canada were almost incessant. Unfortunately in both countries they were made matters of political partizanship, and as a result nothing was effected by them excepting to drive the two countries politically further apart. At one time a strong an

nexationist sentiment was perceptible on both sides of the boundary. But in Canada there arose an imperialist counter-movement, which soon made the other appear to resemble treason, and after a few years the two political parties of the dominion vied with each other in passionate devotion to the British crown; so that Canada was reputed to have become "more British than Great Britain itself.”

An important Anglo-American controversy the settlement of which was intended under the treaty of Washington was that relating to the North Atlantic fisheries, and the rights and privileges of Americans on the shores and in the territorial waters of Canada and Newfoundland. This was one of the oldest of our controversies. It had figured largely in the negotiations at the end of the Revolution, and again in the treaty of Ghent. It had been the subject of special treaties in 1818 and 1854, by each of which it was fondly but vainly hoped that a final settlement had been made. It had during almost every fishing season for nearly ninety years been a source of vexation and friction, and often of violence and injustice. The chief points at issue in 1871 were two in number: Whether the three-mile limit of territorial waters should be a line following the windings and irregularities of the coast, or one drawn boldly across from headland to headland; and whether American fishing vessels had a right to enter the British coast waters and harbors for purposes of trade, or only for refuge and necessary supplies. As a makeshift or stop-gap measure the joint high commission in 1871 made an agreement under which for the term of ten years the United States was to have the privilege of taking fish within the three-mile limit in the Gulf of Newfoundland; a special joint commission being meanwhile constituted to determine the amount of compensation which the United States should pay for that privilege and also to settle if possible all phases of the controversy.

This latter commission was constituted in 1875. It was to consist of three members, one appointed by the President of the United States, one by the Queen of England, and one by the President and queen jointly or, in case of their inability to agree upon him, by the Austro-Hungarian ambassador to Great Britain. Ensign H. Kellogg was accordingly appointed by