difficulties arose, and the public mind turned towards Ottawa for relief, and relief was found there. In addition to the benefits vouchsafed to the island on entering the Dominion it was provided that the railroad of two hundred miles in length, which the local government had undertaken to construct, at a cost of three million five hundred thousand dollars, should become the property of the Dominion; and further advantage was conferred in the form of aid to steamboat and telegraphic communication with the main land.

12. The Hon. Alexander Mackenzie, in taking the reins of government, thus addressed his constituents in reference to the great railway difficulty: "We must meet the difficulty imposed on Canada by the reckless arrangements of the late government with reference to the Pacific

Railway under which they pledged the honor and resources of this country to the commencement of that gigantic work, in July, 1873, and to its completion by July, 1881. That compact has already been broken. Over a million has now been spent in surveys, but no part of the line has yet been located, and the bargain is, as we always said it was, incapable of literal fulfilment. With a view to obtain a speedy means ⚫ of communication across the continent, and to facilitate the construction of the railway itself, it will be our policy to

utilize the enormous stretches of magnificent water communication which lie between a point not far from the Rocky Mountains and Fort Garry, and between Lake Superior and French river on the Georgian Bay, thus avoiding, for the present, the construction of about one thousand three hundred miles of railway, estimated to cost from sixty million to eighty million dollars." The new ministry started out with the cry of retrenchment, and well have they, with one or two important exceptions, carried out the policy. The ministry of Mr. Mackenzie has thus far wisely administered the government.

CHAPTER XLIII.

THE DOMINION OF CANADA-(continued).

CENTENNIAL"-THE HALIFAX FISHERY COMMISSION -THE
AWARD ST. JOHN FIRE, ETC.

1. THE administration of Lord Dufferin was made brilliant by the splendid display of Canadian exhibits at the Philadelphia Centennial Exposition in 1876, and through this method the Dominion of Canada was advantageously presented, through the achievements of her industries, to the nations of the world. Canada made a very large and comprehensive exhibit. Among the prominent classes of products shown were cotton and woollen cloths, hosiery, hardware, earthenware, marbles, and made-up garments. The models of ships and specimens of ores, petro

leum, plumbago, and buildingstones, were also exhibited. The display of firs was prominent and fine; the exhibit of agricultural products and machinery, snow-plows, and other novelties.

2. The administration of Lord Dufferin is also distinguished by the decision of the Halifax Fishery Commission, by which the sum of five million five hundred thousand dollars, in gold, was awarded to the government of the queen. Mr. C. H. Mackintosh, the able editor of the "Canadian Parliamentary Companion," fitly remarks that "when the Halifax Fishery Commission concluded its labors and rendered its award, on the 23d Nov., 1877, one of the great modern international treaties became historical. The Treaty of Washington, of 1871, dealt with interests far greater and in a manner far more conformable to the higher principles of

the law of nations than its almost trivial discussion in the press of England and Canada would lead an impartial inquirer to suppose. Now that it is a portion of a chapter of history, the treaty will become at once more interesting and important." By no means the least important "question," the settlement of which was provided for in the Treaty of Washington, was the vexed question of the fisheries. No great dispute, involving territorial and commercial questions of the first importance, had ever been so little understood by the general public. It is equally safe to say that with no great public question were public men in Canada less acquainted. And yet the official correspondence was of enormous bulk and of constant occurrence; the blue books contained many summaries of the merits of the dispute; and for several years one of the most important departments of the public service (the Marine and Fisheries) had been almost fully occupied with the business of discussing, formulating, and protecting by armed force the claims of Canada over the fisheries. Perhaps no other official in the public service has had a longer

and more intimate acquaintance with this question than Commissioner Whitcher, and certainly none has taken a more earnest and patriotic interest in it on behalf of Canada. The principal events connected with it have transpired during the ministry of the Hon. P. Mitchell and the Hon. A. J. Smith, and of course their official ability and power have given force and effect to the policy adopted and to all measures carried out in this behalf. Till the completion of the rebellion of the colonies by the recognition of their independence, there was of course no "question" at all with regard to the fisheries. British subjects on both sides of the St. Lawrence, and all over the northern continent, had perfect freedom of the fishing-grounds. The New England fishermen were the most active in following the avocation of fishermen, and they had embarked much capital and engaged many ships

and men in the business. When they had renounced their allegiance to the British crown, of course they forfeited their rights to share in the profits of the British fisheries. This they could not be got to understand, till it was brought home to them by armed vessels and shots across their bows, by confiscation and condemnation in the courts. This disagreeable state of things preceded the treaty of 1783, in which it was provided (Art. III.),

It is agreed that the people of the United States shall continue to enjoy unmolested the RIGHT to take fish of every kind on the Grand Bank, and on all the other banks of Newfoundland; also on the Gulf of St. Lawrence; and at all other places in the sea, where the inhabitants of both countries used at any time heretofore to fish. And also that the inhabitants of the United States shall have LIBERTY to take fish of every kind on such ports of the coast of Newfoundland as British fishermen shall use (but not to dry or cure the same on that island), and also on the coasts, bays and creeks, of all other of His Britannic Majesty's Dominions in America; and that the American fishermen shall have liberty to dry and cure fish in any of the unsettled bays, harbors, and creeks of Nova Scotia, Magdalen Islands and Labrador, so long as the same shall remain unsettled, but so soon as the same or either of them shall be settled, it shall not be lawful for the said fishermen to dry or cure fish at such settlement, without a previous agreement for that purpose with the inhabitants, proprietors or possessors of the ground.

९९

32. The language of the treaty was guarded.' It gave a "right" to fish on the banks and in the sea. It conceded a "liberty" to fish on the shores and in the territorial waters. The difference between these two concessions will plainly be seen when we come to consider the next point in dispute. This arose out of the war of 1812. When this war had ended, the British and colonial authorities claimed that the war had put an end to the "liberty" given to the American fishermen in the treaty of 1783. The Treaty of Peace (1814) contained no mention of the fishery question. The British and colonial authorities proceeded to act on this view, that the "liberty" of 1783 had been abrogated by the war of 1812. The Americans claimed that the "liberty" thus conceded was as much an irremovable gift as the concession or recognition of independence, and was not therefore abrogated by war. But the British view was maintained with strictness. It is supported by the strongest legal authority (see Wheaton, page 463; Kent, vol. 1, page 178; Upton's "Maritime Warfare," page 16; Woolsey's "International Law," page 257, and other authorities to which these

1 Mackintosh's Canadian Parliamentary Companion.

refer). Things could not remain long in this condition. Twenty United States vessels had been seized for trespassing on the territorial waters. And in 1818 a convention was held, at which the following article was signed:

ARTICLE I. Whereas differences have arisen respecting the liberty claimed by the United States for the inhabitants thereof to take, dry, and cure fish on certain coasts, bays, harbors and creeks of His Britannic Majesty's Dominions in America; it is agreed between the high contracting parties that the inhabitants of the said United States shall have forever in common with the subjects of His Britannic Majesty, the liberty to take fish of every kind on that part of the southern coast of Newfoundland which extends from Cape Bay to the Rameau Islands, on the western and northern coast of Newfoundland, from the said Cape Bay to the Tuirpon Islands, on the shores of the Magalen Islands, and also on the coasts, bays, harbors, and creeks from Mount Joly, on the southern coast of Labrador, to and through the Straits of Belleisle; and thence northwardly indefinitely along the coast, without prejudice, however, to any of the exclusive rights of the Hudson Bay Company; and that the American fishermen shall also have liberty forever to dry and cure fish in any of the unsettled bays, harbors, and creeks of the southern part of the coast of Newfoundland here abovedescribed, and of the coast of Labrador; but so soon as the same or any portion thereof shall be settled it shall not be lawful for the said fishermen to dry or cure fish at such portions so settled without previous agreement for such purposes with the inhabitants, proprietors or possessors of the ground. And the United States hereby RENOUNCE FOREVER any liberty heretofore enjoyed or claimed by the inhabitants thereof, to take, dry, or cure fish on or within three marine miles of any of the coasts, bays, creeks or harbors of His Britannic Majesty's Dominions in America, not included in the above-mentioned limits; provided, however, that the American fishermen shall be admitted to enter such bays or harbors for the purpose of shelter and of repairing damages therein, of purchasing wood and of obtaining water, and for no other 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.

4. The language of this treaty, specific as it was, did not settle the question. The Americans proceeded to interpret it their own way. 1st. Thus having specially renounced the liberty of taking or curing fish within three miles of the British coasts, bays, creeks, or harbors, they proceeded to interpret that to mean three miles from the shore line throughout all its sinuosities, and not as, according to the well-defined law of nations, three miles from a line drawn from headland to headland. The dispute over this point is called the "Headland Question." The merits of it need not be set down here. The case is fully set out in the Annual Report of the Department of Marine and Fisheries, 1871; in a "Report on the Fishery Articles of Treaties between Great Britain and the