Articles 18 to 25, both inclusive, of the treaty of 1871, covered the whole subject of the fishing rights and liberties between the United States and the British North American colonies, "in addition" to those secured by the treaty of 1818. No other articles in the treaty of 1871 related to the fisheries, or the rights of fishermen. When the United States abrogated these articles, that completely ended the influence of that treaty over our fishing rights. Article 29 was not terminated, but it never had the least reference to the fisheries treaty of 1818, to enlarge its scope, change its meeting, or in any way to affect any right to which that treaty related. Yet, if that is not the true meaning of the 29th article of the treaty of 1871, this present treaty in no way affects that article, and it stands for all that it was ever worth in favour of our fishermen.

I. GENERAL STATEMENT OF THE SITUATION WHICH HAS RESULTED FROM

THE MISUNDERSTANDING AS TO THE TRUE MEANING OF THE TREATY OF 1818.

During seventy years the people of the United States and of the British North American provinces in the northeast have been frequently engaged in contention and dispute, in controversy and conflict, about the true interpretation of the fisheries treaty of 1818.

The most frequent and serious disagreements have arisen under the proviso to the first article, which is as follows:

Provided, however, that the American fishermen shall be admitted to enter such bays or harbours for the purpose of shelter and of repairing damages therein, and of purchasing wood, and of obtaining water, and for no other 453 purpose whatever. But they shall be under such restrictions as may be necessary to prevent their taking, drying, or curing fish therein, or in any other manner whatever abusing the privileges hereby reserved to them.

This proviso, as it was proposed by our negotiators, contained the words and bait" after the word "water." These words were stricken out, with the consent of our commissioners. The right to obtain bait was thus finally disposed of as a treaty right.

In this proviso the four distinct "privileges hereby reserved to " American fishermen are stated definitely, while "such restrictions. as may be necessary to prevent " them in any manner from "abusing the privileges" reserved to them are not defined, except in the most general terms.

American fishermen are placed "under such restrictions" with no guaranty as to the jurisdiction, whether provincial or imperial, that shall promulgate and enforce them; or whether they shall be declared by legislative authority, or administered by executive authority or by the judiciary.

It was contemplated in this treaty that further definitions on these delicate questions should be settled, either by the future agreement of the treaty powers, or that Great Britain should choose the tribunals that would declare and enforce these "restrictions" against American fishermen, subject only to the requirement that they should be "such restrictions as may be necessary to prevent their taking, drying, or curing fish therein, or in any other manner whatever abusing the privileges hereby reserved to them.”

That controversies would arise under this uncertain definition of the power to prescribe restrictions to our fishermen in the enjoy

ment of positive treaty rights was as certain in 1818 as seventy years' experience has proven it to be, in an unfortunate history.

It was probably expected in 1818 that the good sense of the people and the good will of their Governments would enable them to arrange these indefinite "restrictions" by precedent and acquiescence, and thus adopt a series of regulations, the justice and propriety of which all would admit. But such hopes, if they were entertained, have been disappointed, and the eager rivalry that a very lucrative employment has stimulated has involved the people and their Governments in dangerous controversies as to the restrictions" that were left without accurate definition in the proviso to the first article of the treaty of 1818.

Efforts have been made, that were for a time successful, to compose these and other troublesome questions growing out of article 1 of the treaty of 1818, by new treaty arrangements relating to the fisheries in British waters on the northeastern coasts.

In the treaty of 1854 the repose of these questions was secured for a time for the consideration of a liberal reciprocity extending to a variety of subjects. The right of the free navigation of the St. Lawrence River was included in that reciprocal agreement, and was made perpetual by the reciprocity treaty of 1871.

In the treaty of 1871 we again put these questions to rest for a time by the promise of enough money to equalise the possible advantages of the Canadian and other fisheries over those on our coast north of 39° north latitude.

Neither of these arrangements proved satisfactory to us as to the fisheries, and they were terminated by the United States.

In addition to these efforts, our diplomatists have employed every argument that seemed possible, through many years of laborious correspondence and conference, to find a ground of mutual understanding and consent as to the true interpretation of the treaty of 1818.

Without attempting to state all the cases of warnings, seizures, fines, and confiscations, of searches and captures and other rigorous applications of "restrictions" that have been visited upon our fishermen, it is painfully true that they have been very numerous, frequently very aggravated, and have caused our fishermen great expense and serious losses.

Every fishing season, when the reciprocity treaties were not in force, has added to these complications and rendered their solution more difficult.

That very little progress has been made in reaching a common basis of agreement in the solution of these contentions and conflicting constructions of the proviso in article 1 of the treaty of 1818, or in respect of the headland theory (which is based, as we understand, upon the language of that proviso and the preceding parts of that section, and not upon the principles of international law), is apparent from the citations of cases that have arisen since 1818, presently to be made. Instead of a nearer approach to such an understanding as to a true and mutually acceptable construction of the first article of the treaty, a wider divergence of opinion and a more determined contention have characterised the diplomacy of both the treaty Powers.

We seem now to have reached a point where we must seek to allay the growing bitterness of these differences by a friendly, sincere, and mutually respectful consideration of the positions assumed by each

Government, or else we must enforce our views by vigorous measures of retaliation.

It seems to have become necessary to make such modifications of that treaty as are suggested by our changed commercial relations since 1818, and also by our methods of fishing with purse seines and of preserving fish in ice and snow, which have grown up into almost entirely new systems, with new attending wants, in the past thirty

years.

The gradual abridgment of our right to land and cure fish on the shores of the British possessions, as the country along the shores should become populated, was provided for in the treaties of 1783, 1818, 1854, and 1871. This feature in a treaty is thought to be entirely novel. It relates to a future expected change in the condition of the then uninhabited coasts of British America. It certainly

454

suggests in a forcible way that it was contemplated that future modifications of the treaties would be necessary to meet these changed conditions when they should occur.

The progress of civilisation on the North American continent, with the necessary increase of commerce and of improvement in every industry, has wrought changes in the condition of the people which have demanded, from time to time, changes in the treaty relations of the adjoining countries that were indispensable.

The right of navigating the Mississippi and St. Lawrence Rivers, as now agreed upon, is a most forcible illustration of this necessity for an international policy, modified by international agreement, that will provide for the mutual wants and advantage of these adjoining countries as the occasion demands.

An inflexible adherence to the literal construction of ancient agreements that have become too narrow for the convenience of either country, whether it results from national jealousy or commercial rivalry, creates an incubus upon the progress of the communities concerned that is derogatory to those who refuse to yield their prejudices.

Mr. Bayard, in presenting to the consideration of the British Government the reasons for a more liberal interpretation of the treaty of 1818, and for an enlargement of the privileges of our fishermen in the colonial ports, strongly urged the necessity for this relaxation of the strict and literal construction placed by that Government on that treaty, because of the growth of the commerce of both countries. the building of vast lines of railways, the increase of population, the enlarged demand for the products of the fisheries, and the more intimate commercial and social relations of the people.

Such considerations demand careful attention, and are, of themselves, sufficient reasons to induce both Governments to lay aside prejudices and resentments, and to induce their people to cultivate friendly relations, rather than to put their welfare at hazard by fostering ill-will towards each other, resulting in continual strife.

To show the very serious results of a different policy, the undersigned present the following statement of cases that have arisen out of the conflicting views as to the meaning of the first article of the treaty of 1818. It is probably far short of the full list of cases that have actually occurred, but it is large enough to disclose the fact that wide and serious differences have existed since 1819 in the inter

pretation of that treaty, attended with complaints and remonstrances and protests, followed by diplomatic correspondence, and at times threatening the gravest consequences to the peace of the two countries.

In all the long list of cases that are here referred to only in one case, that of The Washington, seized for fishing in the Bay of Fundy in 1843, has any reparation been made for any wrong done our fishermen under the treaty of 1818.

Reparation was not, indeed, demanded in any such case until 1886.

List of Cases above referred to.

1. June 26, 1822, L'Orient seized, taken to St. John, and condemned September 14, 1822.

2. In 1823, Charles of York, Maine, seized by the Argus and taken into port for trial.

3. July 18, 1824, Gallion seized, taken to St. John, and condemned August 16, 1824.

4. July 18, 1824, William seized, taken to St. John, and condemned August 16, 1824.

5. October 7, 1824, Escape seized, taken to St. John, and condemned November 18, 1824.

6. October 7, 1824, Rover seized, taken to St. John, and condemned November 18, 1824.

7. October 7, 1824, Sea Flower seized, taken to St. John, and condemned November 18, 1824.

8. June 1, 1838, Hero seized, taken to Halifax, and conde..red January 2 1839.

9. November 1, 1838, Combene seized, taken to Halifax, and condemned January 28, 1839.

10. May —, 1839, Java seized, taken to Halifax, and condemned August 5, 1839. 11. June 4, 1839, Shetland seized, taken to Halifax, and condemned July 8, 188 12. May 26, 1839, Independence seized, taken to Halifax, and condemned August 5, 1839.

13. May 25, 1839, Magnolia seized, taken to Halifax, and condemned August 5, 1839.

14. May -, 1839, Hart seized, taken to Halifax, and condemned August 5, 1839. 15. June 1839, Batelle seized, taken to Halifax, and condemned July 8, 1939 16. June 14, 1839, Hyder Ally seized, taken to Halifax, and condemned July & 1839.

17. June 14, 1839, Eliza seized, taken to Halifax, and condemned July 8, 1839. 18. June - 1839, May Flower seized, taken to Halifax, and restored to its

owners.

19. June 2, 1840, Papineau seized, taken to Halifax, and condemned July 10,

1840.

20. June 2, 1840, Mary seized, taken to Halifax, and condemned July 10, 1840 21. September 11, 1840, Alms seized, taken to Halifax, and condemned Decem ber 8, 1840.

22. September 18, 1840, Director seized, taken to Halifax, and condemned December 8, 1840.

23. October 1, 1840, Ocean seized, taken to Halifax, and condemned December 8, 1840.

24. May 6, 1841, Pioneer seized, taken to Halifax, and condemned August 18 1841.

25. May 20, 1841, Two Friends seized, taken to Halifax, and restored.

26. September 20, 1841, Mars seized, taken to Halifax, and condemned Novem ber 2, 1841.

27. September 20, 1841, Egret seized, taken to Halifax, and condemned Novem ber 2, 1841.

28. October 13, 1841, Warrior seized, taken to Halifax, and condemned Novem ber 9, 1841.

29. October 13, 1841, Hope seized, taken to Halifax, and restored.

30. October 13, 1841, May Flower seized, taken to Halifax, and condemned

December 7, 1841.

31. May 7, 1843, Washington seized, taken to Halifax, and condemned August 1, 1843.

32. In 1844, Argus seized by the Sylph, off the coast of Cape Breton, when "15 miles from any land." "This was the second seizure under the new construction of the treaty of 1818."

455

33. In 1845, "an American fisherman

was seized in the Bay

of Fundy at anchor inside the light-house at the entrance of Digby Gut."

34. In 1846, "the seizure and total loss of several American vessels," not named, is noted in S. Doc. 22, 2d sess., 32d Congress.

35. May 10, 1848, Hyades seized, taken to Halifax, and condemned September 5, 1848.

36. May 11, 1849, Leonidas seized, taken to Halifax, and condemned June 29, -1849.

37. September 14, 1850, Harp seized, taken to Halifax, and condemned January 28, 1851.

38. October 29, 1851, Tiber seized, but there is no. information as to the dispo

sition made of it.

39. June 16, 1872, Coral seized, taken to St. John, and condemned July 28, 1852. 40. July 20, 1852, Union seized, taken to Charlottetown, and condemned September 24, 1852.

41. August 5, 1852, Florida seized, taken to Charlottetown, and condemned September 7, 1852.

42. September 11, 1852, Caroline Knight seized, taken to Charlottetown, and condemned.

43. In 1852, Golden Rule detained and taken to Charlottetown, and liberated on the owner acknowledging violation of the treaty and that the liberation was an act of clemency.

44. November 16, 1869, Vice-Admiral Wellesley reported that during the past season 162 vessels had been boarded by the British cruisers, of which 131 within the three-mile limit had been warned once, and 19 had been warned twice.

In 1870 the following eleven (11) vessels were seized and taken into the provincial ports, some of which were condemned, while others, perhaps, were liberated: June 27, Wampatuck (condemned); June 30, J. H. Nickerson (taken to Halifax); August 27, Lizzie A. Tarr (condemned); September 30, A. H. Wonson (taken to Halifax); October 15, A. J. Franklin (taken to Halifax); November 8, Romp; November 25, White Fawn (taken to St. John); and S. G. Marshall, Albert, and Clara F. Friend.

In January, 1878, the Fred P. Frye, Mary M., Lizzie and Namari, Edward E. Webster, William E. McDonald, Crest of the Wave, F. A. Smith, Hereward, Moses Adams, Charles E. Warren, Moro Castle, Wildfire, Maud and Effie, Isaac Rich, Bunker Hill, Bonanza, Moses Knowlton, H. M. Rogers, John W. Bray, Maud B. Wetherell, New England, and Ontario were driven from Long Harbour in Fortune Bay by the violence of a mob, which destroyed some of their seines, and did not again that season return to their fishing-grounds. Twenty-two vessels were included in this list, the interference with which was made the occasion of a separate and important correspondence, conducted, on our side, chiefly by Mr. Evarts, Secretary of State. The following lists are taken from the subjoined correspondence of Secretary Bayard and Professor Baird with Mr. Edmunds, chairman. of the Committee on Foreign Relations:

Revised List of Vessels involved in the Controversy with Canadian Authorities.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, January 26, 1887.

SIR: Responding to your request, dated the 17th and received at this Department on the 18th instant, on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Relations, for