as did the chairman, Lord Herschell, in March, as the
result of an accident, soon after the close of the sittings of the
commission. The Alaskan boundary, the Atlantic and inland fisheries, the
alien labour law, the bonding privilege, the seal fishery in the Bering
Sea and reciprocity of trade in certain products were among the subjects
considered by the commission. On several of these points much progress
was made towards a settlement, but a divergence of opinion as to the
methods by which the Alaskan boundary should be determined put an end
for the time to the negotiations.

In 1903 an agreement was reached by which the question of this boundary,
which depended on the interpretation put upon the treaty of 1825 between
Russia and England, should be submitted to a commission consisting of
"six impartial jurists of repute," three British and three American. The
British commissioners appointed were: Lord Alverstone, lord chief
justice of England; Sir Louis Jette, K.C., of Quebec; and A.B.
Aylesworth, K.C., of Toronto. On the American side were appointed: the
Hon. Henry C. Lodge, senator for Massachusetts; the Hon. Elihu Root,
secretary of war for the United States government; and Senator George
Turner. Canadians could not be persuaded that the American members
fulfilled the condition of being "impartial jurists," and protest was
made, but, though the imperial government also expressed surprise, no
change in the appointments was effected. The commission met in London,
and announced its decision in October. This was distinctly unfavourable
to Canada's claims, since it excluded Canadians from all ocean inlets as
far south as the Portland Channel, and in that channel gave to Canada
only two of the four islands claimed. A statement made by the Canadian
commissioners, who refused to sign the report, of an unexplained change
of opinion on the part of Lord Alverstone, produced a widespread
impression for a time that his decision in favour of American claims was
diplomatic rather than judicial. Later Canadian opinion, however, came
to regard the decision of the commission as a reasonable compromise. The
irritation caused by the decision gradually subsided, but at the moment
it led to strong expressions on the part of Sir Wilfrid Laurier and
others in favour of securing for Canada a fuller power of making her own
treaties. While the power of making treaties must rest ultimately in the
hands that can enforce them, the tendency to gi