Page images
PDF
EPUB

west from private sources to build up a university; yet there came ever stronger pressure from the boys and girls who wanted a university education. And a state university was the result, such as you have in Ontario. That has extended throughout the country, with the exception of two or three eastern states, where great endowed universities are performing substantially the same function.

In short, it has become our ideal not only to democratic primary and secondary education, but to democratize higher education. And if this can be accomplished on the North American continent, it will be a new thing in the world. We know that German universities, while state universities, are largely available only to the well-to-do classes. This same is true to a large extent of the ancient and honourable Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, which have done so much to make that great nation of such tremendous world power. But only recently has England, by the development of her municipal universities, realized this responsibility. I was asked a question by Lord Morley when in England two or three years ago, why it seemed that England was losing ground in comparison with Germany. I replied: "You will excuse my profession as a pedagogue, but we in America think it is because you do not recognize higher university education as a public function.”

If you in Ontario have good primary schools, and secondary schools equal to any, and a system of continuation schools where the boys and girls are obliged to go who are in shops, and a university covering all fields of knowledge for which there is sufficient demand, the Province of Ontario will move forward, materially, intellectually, and spiritually, with a speed vastly greater than even the amazing acceleration of the past.

LORD ALVERSTONE.

The announcement has been made that Lord Alverstone the Lord Chief Justice of England, who has for some time past been suffering from severe illness, has sent in his resignation of his high office, and Sir Rufus Isaacs has been appointed his successor. Lord Alverstone's reputation as a lawyer both at the Bar and on the Bench has been deservedly high, and he will carry with him the sincere respect and good wishes of a large circle of friends. For us in Canada his name will always be associated with the Alaska award, and he will no doubt be remembered by many as one who sacrificed the interests of this country in order to effect a settlement of a troublesome question; but we venture to think the verdict. of posterity will be quite the reverse, and that succeeding generations will find that he did nothing of the kind, but on the contrary, by his decision in that case, came to a reasonably just and proper conclusion. That his conclusion was perfectly right and in accordance both with international law and the evidence we think is reasonably certain, though perhaps his alleged failure to communicate to the Canadian Commissioners his change of view as to the proper course of the Portland Canal as an international boundary, may not unfairly be the subject of criticism. But those who have criticized the merits of the decision find it convenient to ignore a very important and indisputable fact, viz., that the only British plan purporting to shew the course of the Portland Canal in detail was one prepared by officers of the British Admiralty in 1868 and is numbered 23, and this plan shews the course of the canal to be exactly as Lord Alverstone determined it.

His decision was unfortunately the subject of misunderstanding. There was first the personal element arising from his alleged change of opinion without communicating the fact to the Canadian Commissioners-which aroused a feeling of resentment in the latter at having been slighted, and, as they thought, to some extent betrayed. But a little calm discussion would, we feel confident, have sufficed to convince any reasonable man, that the change of opinion was perfectly justified, and involved no unreasonable concession to

the claims of the United States Government, and was not in any sense a compromise.

Unfortunately the attitude assumed by the Canadian Commissioners precluded any calm discussion. They jumped to the conclusion that the rights of Canada had been sacrificed, and they were in no humour to listen to any explanations and in the circumstances, doubtless none were given.

But looking back at the matter at this distance of time, and with a sincere desire to understand the merits of the case, there seems to be really no difficulty in concluding that so far from Lord Alverstone having in any way acted capriciously, or sacrificed the interests of Canada, he really gave a perfectly just and reasonable judgment.

The only point in which his conclusion has ever been seriously attacked was his delimitation of the Portland Canal. This is an arm or inlet of the sea about 100 miles long; it is not bounded on its southeasterly side by a continuous strip of land, but for a considerable part of its course and particularly on its southeasterly side, it is bounded by a series of islands; between these islands there are outlets from the canal to the ocean. The United States' counsel claimed that the canal should be treated as a river and that the widest of these outlets, which they claimed was the chief channel, should be selected as the course of the canal, as it was an international boundary. This, if acceded to, would have made the outlet north of two large islands, Wales and Pearse, which would thus have been ceded to be American territory. This was claimed as justified by what is called the doctrine of the Thalweg. This do trine as applied to rivers forming international boundaries, carries the boundary through the main in preference to shallower channels of the stream. This doctrine is a mere convention, but it is one that commends itself to common sense. To have applied it, however, as the Americans contended for, would have been unreasonable, as it would practically have almost entirely altered the course of what was known as "the Portland Canal." But though this doctrine was manifestly inapplicable north of Wales and Pearse Islands, as Lord Alverstone held, it seemed perfectly reasonable to apply it to the exit south of those two islands. There the choice was between a narrow exit, comparatively shallow and only about a quarter of a mile wide, and the deeper channel called the Tongass passage. The choice of the latter seems really irresistible, when the only map pro

duced purporting to shew the Portland Canal in any detail, exhibits it as having its exit to the ocean at the Tongass passage, the existence of the narrow exit being merely indicated by a dotted line.

If any lawyer were asked to adjudicate the claims of private persons in such circumstances, we think the fact that one of the litigants before any contention had arisen had mapped out his boundary line in a particular way, would be regarded as pretty strong evidence against his contention that that was not its true course. Here the Admiralty map may have had no legal binding force on Great Britain, but it certainly had a certain moral weight, and in the absence of any clear evidence to the contrary, a Judge could never be said to have disregarded his duty, who should say: "Your own officers have surveyed and delimited this boundary; what they have done I will assume in the absence of any overwhelming evidence to the contrary, is correct, and I settle your boundary as your own officers settled it." And that is exactly what Lord Alverstone appears to have done.

Those who are old enough to remember the arbitration respecting the British Columbia boundary, may recollect that the same principle was applied there, and the line carried through the deepest channel to the west instead of the east of S. Juan Island, and in the St. Lawrence and in the Great Lakes, the same principle has been applied in delimiting the international boundary. This being the case, where was there any injustice to Canada in applying such a generally recognized principle to this particular boundary?

A BAR ASSOCIATION.

THE ADVANTAGE IT WOULD OFFER TO THE LEGAL PROFESSION IN CANADA.

In the early part of the month of September of the present year, circumstances gave me an opportunity to have a conversation with Dr. Chas. Morse, registrar of the Exchequer Court of Canada. In the words of Lewis Carroll we "spoke about many things." If you should wish me to generalize I will say this much: The topic of our discussion was of an extensive range, and the "peaks" thereof were civics, idealism and upon legal efficiency! The present remarks concern the last of this trilogy-legal efficiency!

We had this "talk" in the registrar's office which as you are aware is situated in Canada's "famous palace of Justice" at Ottawa. (I wonder what Sir Gilbert Parker would say if he heard about my architectural criticism of the place! For Canada's sake I hope the Government will let the people of this country have a real Palace of Justice.) So you could see that the inspiration to speak about legal matters was all that could be expected.

However, I will not tell you that we considered the problems, and the "double examination" system of graduating law students, as for example, prevails in the province of Quebec, and other allied matters; but I will tell you that Dr. Morse at the time suggested a new feature in the corporate life of the lawyers and barristers of Canada, which I am glad to see is being advocated also by the former professor of Civil Law at McGill University-the Hon. Charles Doherty. This suggestion is that the legal fraternity of our Dominion, from far-off Yukon to Prince Edward Island (and possibly Newfoundland) should seek ways and means looking towards the formation of a "Canadian Bar Association."

This is a matter which must have been the dream of many past statesmen and advocates in our country, and one marvels that it was not consummated. Still one should not criticize such a state of affairs too severely, for ten years ago the need of a "Canadian Bar Association" was not so imminent and apparent as it is to-day. In the last decade the agricultural, industrial and especially the commercial progress of the Dominion have been so perceptibly rapid that it has placed the attorney-at-law in a relatively more su

« PreviousContinue »