to the Englishman. He may not cope successfully with the former in the gathering up of gold, nor with the latter in the display of European culture and finesse, but, after all that, he has a distinct advantage over both in the essentials upon which success is built. His advantage over the Englishman is that, in addition to his knowledge of English institutions which, according to Mr. Gilbert Parker, he understands better than the Englishman himself, he is also in touch with colonial life, which, somehow or other, the average Englishman does not comprehend at all. He is in possession of all the best treasures of English civilization, just as much and just as sympathetically as the Englishman, and, in addition, he has what the Englishman has notthe irresistible vitality and fresh energy that come from his residence in a new land of rugged climate, of unsurpassed grandeur, of natural scenery and of illimitable resources. He is more versatile, has far more faculty for adapting himself to new conditions and to the most democratic ideals, is just as brainy and has much more heart.

On the other hand, his advantage over the American is equally marked. It has already been suggested. Loyalty is the word, so distasteful to some, that explains it. The American is, indeed, a better adventurer than the Canadian in the fields of commerce, has more of that audacious enterprise which has astonished the world with its marvellous results, but yet the very quality of mind which has made these results possible has bereft him of some of the most essential elements of any real human progress.

It therefore happens, as might be anticipated, that Canadians are very frequently, if not almost always, given a preference over men of other nationalties by United States employees, on account of their reputed honesty and reliability. There is no question that this reputation has got abroad in the American Republic, and it is equally certain that it has been acquired by the

genuine article alone. I will not stay to argue whether or not honesty is the best policy in affairs. Canadians, I think, are honest, not from policy, but because they think it is right, and I attribute their rapid success in the United States largely to that fact.

Finally, there is another point worthy of mention which is negative rather than positive in so far as it applies to Canadians' success in the United States, and that is, that Canadian blood is not contaminated by the influx of the poisonous dregs of Europe. It is obvious that the effect of an infusion of foreign bad blood is as disastrous in the change of breed as the infusion of foreign good blood is beneficial. But aside altogether from degeneracy in the physical pedigree which has been taking place in the United States, the moral and intellectual standards of Americans are bound to fall by reason of the immoral, illiterate, restless and degraded human importations from the eastern world. The Canadian race is favoured in that it is not corrupted in this mischievous way, and its chances for advancement in every respect are just that far augmented.

It has not been my purpose to magnify the character or attainment of this people. Indeed it has been pointed out wherein they do not cope with other English-speaking peoples, and how that many of their advantages are their inheritance rather than of their own making. But the careful student of Anglo-Saxon civilization will not fail to discern that on the northern borders of the American union of States there exists a robust young offspring of the mother land, that bids fair to eclipse its older kinsmen, both in this hemisphere and across the sea, in producing a vigorous and healthy manhood and womanhood, potent for the upbuilding of a strong nation and, by example, for illuminating the dark paths trodden in confusion by the less fortunate of other lands.

F. Clement Brown.

HE treaty provisions recently entered into between the United States and Great Britain, providing for the settlement by arbitration of the long-standing boundary dispute between the Spanish American Republic of Venezuela and the British colony of Guiana, is subjected in the December number of THE CANADIAN MAGAZINE to adverse criticism and general denunciation by George Tate Blackstock, Q.C. That gentleman characterizes the provision made for the settlement of this longstanding difficulty as a national infamy and disaster, and asserts that, while the United States emerges from the dispute with everything gained, England has, at the same time, sustained an ignominious defeat. The assertion is made that England has no such jealous and persistent foe as the United States, and deep disappointment is expressed because the Venezuelan matter is placed upon a basis which obviates the necessity of securing the settlement of the question by the arbitrament of arms. Mr. Blackstock laments the gullibility of the English public, who are most anxious to believe that Americans reciprocate their aspirations for harmony and union, and asserts that the consent to arbitrate upon the impudent assertion that the Behring Sea is a mare clausum was a fitting prelude to the still more preposterous claim that Great Britain cannot deal with a boundary dispute upon this continent except in a manner prescribed by the United States.

of affairs, and that these concessions may proceed from the highest motives, and may be not only not dishonourable, but in the highest degree creditable to the public men or the parties who make them. Cordiality and friendliness of feeling, it is quite certain, are not likely to be promoted by the statement of sentiments such as Mr. Blackstock gives to the world in his recent article. The article is pervaded by a spirit of bitterness and of hostility which, under the circumstances of the case, are entirely unwarranted. It is alleged that the United States, by the terms of this treaty, is made the paramount power on this Continent, and a sentimental allusion is also made to the feelings of Britons in America upon the discovery that England is really not able to stand up against the United States, and is ready to yield to the arrogant demands of that power rather than face the consequences of a collision.

The truth with regard to the preliminary arrangement for the settlement of the Venezuelan boundary dispute is, that this matter has been a subject for discussion between the Governments of Great Britain and the United States for many years; that diplomatic correspondence upon the question dates back as far as 1876; that the United States has chosen to exercise a friendly interest in the affairs of Venezuela to the extent of asking that the dispute relating to the boundary between that Republic and British Guiana should be referred to an impartial board of arbitration for settlement. It is true that this proposal at the outset was declined by Lord Salisbury, but it can scarcely be asserted that if in the progress of the discussion Lord Salisbury found it expedient to modify his views upon this point, that he thereby rendered himself liable to the charge of infamous

desertion of British interests. The truth is that, as a result of the progress of negotiations, the Venezuelan question became merged with the general question of the settlement of all disputes between the United States and Great Britain by a court of arbitration, and it certainly seems that no good reason could be advanced by English statesmen for refusing to include this solitary case in the general arrangement for settling disputes that might arise between these two great powers.

It is not a truthful presentation of facts to assert directly, or by insinuation, that Great Britain in the past has not been true to Canada and her interests. Her treatment of the Dominion has been generous and paternal. She has left us to take our own course, and has given us complete control over our own internal affairs, reserving only a constitutional power of checking our legislative action, which has never been wantonly exercised and, in fact, has scarcely been exercised at all. It is unreasonable to expect the motherland to make Canadian interests the paramount consideration in her policy. The Empire is world wide, and British diplomacy has to do with multitudes of important interests. Jealous and unfriendly continental powers are ever on the watch for a false move, and with an Eastern question on hand, and interests of magnitude in India, Egypt and South Africa to guard, the need for a Canadian statesman at the elbow of Lord Salisbury to direct his course in American' matters is not as apparent as Mr. Blackstock imagines.

The forbearance exercised by Great Britain and the United States towards each other in the settlement of their difficulties, for years past, furnishes an object lesson to the world.

It is need

less to say that a war between these nations would be a measureless disaster, that it would be a blow to civilization and human progress, a blow to human liberty, a crime black and direful. The spirit which has actuated Lord Salisbury in the recent negotiations, has heretofore averted the precipitation of such a calamity. The Ala

bama claims, the San Juan boundary dispute, the Fisheries question and the Behring Sea trouble have all been amicably settled in this way, and now we have the blessed assurance of provisions that will render war between these two powers entirely improbable in the future. Why should Mr. Blackstock send up his plaint because war has been averted, and 125,000,000 of English-speaking people have declined to take one another by the throat over a miserable dispute about some swamp lands in the tropical regions of South America?

When President Cleveland's message was issued in December, 1895, the attitude of the better class in both England and America upon this question was above all praise, and Lord Salisbury, in taking the step he has done, has yielded to the pressure of British public sentiment; a pressure which has been met by a corresponding pressure in the United States for the securing of a settlement of this matter upon the basis which has been decided upon.

Mr. Blackstock evidently believes that the interference of the United States in this case is purely a piece of impertinence, and his references to the Monroe doctrine are not of a complimentary character. We may not approve of the Monroe doctrine, but we should at least give its character fair and impartial investigation. In 1822 the United States recognized the independence of Mexico, which had recently revolted and thrown off the Spanish yoke. Other Spanish-American provinces had thrown off the Spanish yoke, and joined the family of Republics upon the American Continent. Whether it was proper or not, it certainly was natural that the United States should take an interest in these movements, and should be prepared to act as sponsor, to some extent at least, for these young nations who were founding their institutions upon the model of her own. This feeling found expression in the promulgation of the Monroe doctrine, by President Monroe in his message of December 2nd, 1823. This message

declared the United States would avoid

entangling itself in the political complications of Europe, and that any attempt on the part of European powers to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere would be regarded by the United States as dangerous to their peace and safety and would accordingly be opposed. Upon this doctrine, as a part of its American policy, the United States have rested from that time; they have not attempted to make acquisition in the Eastern Hemisphere, have not been participants in the partitions of Africa among the powers, and have simply held that further territorial acquisitions in America by European powers would be discountenanced. Possibly this attitude may have spared Central and South America from partition among the powers of Europe. Whether this be the case or not, the United States has simply stood as guardian of the rights of the infant Republics of America, who have formed their institutions upon American models and looked to the United States as their example and guide, a position which carried with it, to a certain extent, responsibility for their good conduct and their relations with European powers. Certainly it would seem a difficult matter to assign any reason for opposing the arbitration of a dispute between Venezuela and Great Britain, that could not be assigned as a reason for opposing the settlement of any question that might arise between the United States and Great Britain.

Mr. Blackstock asserts that we are face to face with the greatest crisis in many a day in American colonial history.

Why this should be the case is not apparent. We have arrived at a point where provision has been made for the possible settlement by arbitration of all cases of dispute likely to arise in the American Hemisphere. Future peace has apparently been secured. We have but to pursue a friendly policy to secure reciprocal treatment of the same character. Our future interests will be best promoted by friendly and intimate relations with the United States, so far as such relations can be put into operation with

out danger or prejudice to our own autonomy. Our own influence upon the future relations of the various Anglo-Saxon commonwealths of the world can be made very potent, for nearly all the collisions and frictions that arise between Great Britain and the United States are of Canadian origin, and their evil influence can be minimized, if not entirely removed, by the exercise of forbearance and friendliness of feeling upon our own part.

Mr. Blackstock deprecates the exercise by the United States of influence upon this Continent. It seems hardly reasonable to demand that a nation possessing seven-twelfths of the English speaking people of the world should be prohibited from exercising influence within the sphere of its own surroundings. Whether desirable or not, such a demand is preposterous, and we cannot expect to hold the wealthiest nation in the world in leading strings and compel it to confine its. operations, its sympathies and its influences strictly within its own boundary lines.

Mr. Blackstock asserts that a further result of the settlement of the Venezuelan question will be an augmentation of the navy of the United States which will make her still more defiant and unreasonable. Whether the refusal to settle the Venezuelan question by arbitration, and the imminent risk of war following as a consequence, would have had a tendency to deter the United States from taking measures to increase her navy, the intelligent reader will decide. It is presumably improbable that Mr. Blackstock would propose by convention, treaty, or otherwise to fix the limit beyond which naval development in the United States should be

permitted to go. The policy of creating a first-class navy was adopted by the United States Government some years since, and the nation has steadily pursued that policy by making liberal appropriations for naval construction. Unquestionably she will become a naval power of some consequence. It is unreasonable to expect that a nation of 70,000,000 English speaking people