1154 ADMINISTRATION AND LEGISLATION [PART V
tiaries, and they avoided the necessity of any formal
treaty by arranging for concurrent legislation. But they
had already negotiated with representatives of America at
Ottawa, and it is significant that in the Canadian House of
Commons, challenged on a question of the precedence of
consuls, Sir W. Laurier expressed the view that though
the position of consuls was anomalous it was nevertheless
semi-diplomatic, and that it would be desirable that prece-
dence should be accorded to them, but he did not raise this
issue at the Conference.
It is clear, indeed, that the recent negotiations have
raised in a new form the old view which was held by the
Liberal party in Canada, that the Dominion Government
should have the treaty power. Mr. Blake spoke in favour of
this view on October 3, 1874.2 and in 1882, and Sir W. Laurier
re-echoed the matter in his speech on the Alaskan debate on
October 23, 1903.2 With this view may be compared that of
the Royal Commission appointed by the Governor of Victoria
to consider federal union, which recommended that the
! See Debates, 1910-1, pp. 973 seq. See also his answer in the House of
Commons on December 2, 1909, pp. 853-5 ; Canadian Annual Review, 1909,
p. 162. On the other hand, on December 15, 1909 (ibid., 1582-5), he
emphatically declined to adopt the proposal of a Canadian attaché to the
Embassy at Washington on the ground that Mr. Bryce’s services were
quite adequate, and in January 1911 he publicly eulogized the services
of the Ambassador in negotiating treaties for Canada. The praise was
deserved : Mr. Bryce’s term of office saw not merely the Fisheries Arbi-
tration Treaty of 1909, but also a Pecuniary Claims Treaty (1911), a Pelagic
Sealing Treaty (1911), Arbitration Treaties (1908 and 1911), and treaties for
the Passamaquoddy boundary (1910), the regulation of boundary waters,
including a general provision for an arbitration tribunal for Canadian
questions (1909), which may solve informally many difficulties as to diplo-
matic intercourse, transit of prisoners, wrecking privileges, &ec.
* See Willison, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, i. 206 seq. Cf. Goldwin Smith,
Canada, p. 187 ; House of Commons Debates, 1882, p. 1075; 1887, p. 376;
1889, pp. 171-94 (Cartwright) ; 1892, p. 1123 (Mills).
* See Canadian Annual Review, 1903, pp. 328-330, where Mr. Borden’s
and Sir C. Tupper’s views were both given. Cf. also Sir W. Laurier in
Debates, 1907-8, p. 1260 ; 1909, p. 1980 (on External Affairs Department,
Act 8 & 9 Edw. VIL ec. 13). But see Mr. Asquith’s reply in House of
Commons. March 3. 1909 (i. 1421, 1422).
