#. «- *^'^;; v'.^ -^^'.o. IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-S) & b^ /^^4>^ 1.0 I.! 1.25 lit ■ 56 |3^ 2.5 SB.»S U! 14 2.0 liiiS 1.8 U i 1.6 -%n vj V] e c^J ^^• '/ /A Hiotographic Sciences Corporation x^:w 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 (716) 872-4503 CiHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. \ CIHM/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical i.iicroreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historeques k Technical end Bibliographic Notas/Notas tachrJquas at bibliographiques The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliographically unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checlted below. n/ Coloured covers/ Couverture de coulour I I Covers damaged/ n D □ D n Couvorture endommagde Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaurde et/ou pellicul6e I I Cover title missing/ Le tiire de couverture manque I I Coloured maps/ Cartes gdographiques en couleur Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encro de couleur (i.e. autre que bloue ou noire) I I Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material/ Relid avec d'autres documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La reliure serree peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge int6rieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajouties lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque cela dtait possible, ces pages n'ont pas 6td filmdes. Additional comments:/ Con-.mentaires suppl6mentaires: L'Institut a microfilm^ fe meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a 6ti possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exemp!aire qui jont peutAtre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvont mod-.fier une image reproouite, ou qui peuvent exig. :> une modification dans la m6thode normale de filmage sont indiqu6s ci-dessous. □ Coloured pages/ Pages de couleur n Pages damaged/ Pages endommag^es □ Pages restored and/or laminated/ Pages restaur^es et/ou pelliculdes ] VPages discoloured, stained or foxed/ Ljd Pages dicclor^es, tachetdes ou piqu6es □ Pages detached/ Pages d6tach6es rri^ Showthrough/ I — I Transparence n Quality of print varies/ Qualit^ indgale de I'impression supplementary materi: Comprend du materiel supplementaire Only edition available/ Seule Edition disponiblo I I Includes supplementary material/ I I Only edition available/ D Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refiimed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont 6t6 film^es d nouveau de fa^on & obtenir la meilleure image possible. This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est filmi au taux de reduction indiqui ci-dessous. 10X 14X 18X 22X 7\ 26X 30X 12X 16X 20X 24X ] 28X 32X The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks to the generosity of: Nationai Library of Canada L'exemplaire fiimA fut reproduit grfice k ia gtnArositi rie: Bibiiothdque nationale du Canada The images appearing here are the best quality possible considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and in keeping with the filming contract specifications. \ Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated Impres- sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All other original copies are filmed beginning on the first page with o printed or illustrated impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or iilustratsd impression. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol -^ (meaning "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever a|:plies. Les images suiwantes ont 6tA reproduites avec le plus grand soin, compte tenu de \r condition et de la netteti de l'exemplaire film6, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de filmage. Les exemplaires orlglnaux dont la couverture en papier est imprimte sont film6s en commen^ant par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la dernlire page qui comporte une empreinte d'impressfon ou d'illustration, soit par le second plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres sxempiairos orlglnaux sont filmAs en commenpant par la premiere page qui comporte une empreinte d'Impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par la derniftre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. Un des symboles suivants apparaftra sur la dernidra image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbole — »> signlfie "A SUIVRE", le symbole V signlfie "FIN". Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, IcJt to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre filmte d des taux de reduction diffirents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre reproduit en un seul cliche, 11 est filmi d partir de Tangle sup6rleur gauche, de gauche h droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images n^cessaire. Les diagrammes sjivants illustrent la m^thode. 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 m -",;>■ .J / •^J^' ^J>X-^ t. /2 jf^fc'-^'-^*''^ ^ / ; ,(k ^ I" .c^ "■; ■'*'•« a?*' / IIEVIEW OF i'llESIDENT GRAirr S RECENT MESSAGE ro THK U N ITE ]J> S TyVT ES' C O NG RES S, UI'.t.AnV?" TO THF. CANADIAN VISHERIES AND TFIE NAVIGATION OF THH ST. LAWRENCE IITVER. SH 223 R4 C.2 f . 1^ National Library Bibliotheque naiionale of Canada du Canada REVIEW or PRESIDENT GRANT'S RECENT MESSAGE TO THI UNITED STATES' CONGRESS, RBLATIVB TO TUB CANADIAN FISHERIES AND THE NAVIGATION OP THE ST. LAWRENCE RIVER. f y That portion of the last Message of the President of the United States, to the Senate and House of Reproseutatives, which animadverts on the conduct of the CanatUan Government, with regard to the protection of the British Fisheries and the navigation of River St. Lawrence, has been severely criticised by all the leading organs of public opinion in C.inada. That fact alone ought to convince the citizens of the United States tliat the action of Canada cannot have bt^eii so indefensible as the President has roi)rosented it to be. While perfect unanimity prevails in Canada regarding the (question in controversy with the United States it is gratifying to find that many influential American journals are indisposed to concur either in the policy of non-intercourse which has been threatened by the President, or admit the existence of the wrong to which ho refers. It may be hoped that a dispassionate review of the points in dispute between Great Britain and the United States, with regard to the interpretation of the Treaty of 1818, will strengthen the hands of those who desire their amicable solution, and the continuance and extension of these friendly relations whicli have hithertvj existed between the people of the United States and Canada. A It is iidt tu bo supposed tluiL nny considoraljle iminlxsr of people in the United States would demand the abrogation of a solemn Treaty which was -the result of protracted negotiiitious, tluring wiiich both nations conceded extreme pretensions for the sake of peace ; much less can we believe that Treaty rights would be disregarded, such as would clearly be the 'laso if the measures of non- intercourse, indicated in the Message, were carried out. If the measures, to which wo have referred, are aimed at as a means of retaliation upon Canadians for either real or fanciful wrongs, it becomes doubly the duty of all dispassionate and right-thinking men, of all real lovera of their country, whethe^' on this side of the border or the other, to examine the grounds upon Avhich such grievances are sui»})0sed to exist ; and if such do exist, then to adopt such peaceful means as will secure their i-emoval. It may be safely affirmed that neither the Imperial, nor the Dominion Government, desire to strain the Treaty beyond the i)lain ard obvious meaning of its text. If its language should be deemed ambiguous, or susceptible of more than one interpre- tation, then the obvious mode of solving the difficulty is by arbitration, and not by hostile threats or retaliatory legislation, wliicli, if realized, cannot be otherwise than injurious to both peoples. doubtle Alabar of "siiJ «' consil ; refer t(| affects] Tl ''tows 'beer citizeij and Conv There are, unfortunately, individuals in the United Stats, who do not hesitate to recomm(;nd the adoption of a menacing attitude towards Great Britain. We have no apprehension that their counsels will prevail, but it is quite probable, that acting on imaginary grievances — on premises which have no foundation in fact — or referring to imaginary wrongs on the part of Canadians towards their fishermen, by the raising of an anti-British ciy, that the people of the United States may endeavour to bring pressure to bear on Canada by a so- called retaliatory policy, which, xuost assuredly, will injure its own citizens even more than the Canadians. In the message referred to there arc many subjects dealt with which possess but little interest for our people. It need concern us but little as to what may be the opinions of President Grant about the Franco- Prussian war — the recog- nition of the French Republic — the negotiations with Spain, or the action of the Cuban insurgents, — but, while referring to those and other subjects of general impoitance, he reiterates the celebrated " Munro doctrine," with which former Presidential messages and the sentiments of many American statesmen have made us familia., and states that, " The time is most probably not far distant ' when, in the natural course of events, the European political connection with " this continent will cease," and advises that the policy of the United States tliould be shaped so as to accord -mth that coveted event. Such a cohtingeQcy, \. r« in the was the extreme f*y rights of non- 'neans of '« doubly of their grounds then to •e safely 'esire to If its nterpre- '•nd not lerwise do not Great It it is 1 have adians people ^ a so- even >8sess may cog- n of era! ner ave int ith ilea doubtlesfl, has inspired the policy of the Unite^l States in their treatment o( the Alabama claims, and wo cannot find in the Pi-csidont's statements any evidence of "sincerity" when he expresses hia desire for a settlement of that question " consistent with the honor and dignity of both nations." We would, however, refer to that portion of this extraordinary document which still more immediately affects ouraelves. The President states, " That the course pursued by the Canadian authoritiei ^' towards the fishermen of the United States, drn-ing the past season, has not 'been marked by a friendly feeling." He refers to the rights that United States citizens have in common with British subjects under the Treaty of 1818, — and also to those in the waters not included in the limits named in the Convention within three miles of the coast. He also states, " That it has been the custom for many years, to give "intending fishermen of the United States a reasonable warning of their " violation of the technical rights of Great Britain." He further adds, " That " the Imperial Government is understood to have delegated the whole, or a share 'of its jurisdiction or control of its inshore fisheries to the Colonial authority " known as the Dominion of Canada, and that this Kcmi-independent, but " inrMponmble agent has exercised its delegated powers in an unfriendly way ; " vessels have been seized without notice or warning, in violation of the custom " previously i)re\'ailing, and have been taken into the Colonial Ports, their "voyages broken up, and the vessels condemned." He further states, "That " there is reason to believe, that this unfriendly and vexatious treatment was ' de.jigned to bear harshly upon the hardy fishenuen of the United States, with " a view to political effect upon this Government." " That the Statutes of the " Dominion of Canada, assume a still broader and more untenable jurisdiction " over the vessels of the United States," by preventing them from " hovering " within three mar'ne milec of the coasts, bays, creeks, or harbours of Canada," and by inflicting a penalty, if, on examination of masters, true answers are not given, or if such vessel " is found preparing to lish within three marine miles of "any of the coasts, bays, creeks, or harbours, without a licence, or after the " expiration of the period named in the last license gi'anted to it," and that they provide forfeiture of the vessel. The President intimates, that .should the authorities of Canada attempt to enforce this Act, it will become his duty to take such .steps as may be necessary to protect the n^^hts of the citizens of the United States. He fuither alleges that: — " It has been claimed by Her ^MJe.^ty's OHieers " that the fishing vessels of the United States have no right to enter the o])en ll *' ports of the British Posflessions in North America, except for the purpose* " of shelter and repairing damages, of purchasing wood, and obtaining water ! " that they have no right to enter at the British Custom Houses, or to trade, " except for the purchase of wood and water, and that they must depart after " twenty-four houi-a' notice to leave." He further states that : — " So far as the claim is founded on alleged " construction of the Convention of 1818, it cannot be acquieiced in by the " United States ;" and that " It is hoped that it will not be insisted upon by " Her Majesty's Government." He maintains that that principle was contended for at the conferences prccodiiig tlic. Convention of 1818, by the British Commissioners, and, on its rejection by the American Commissioners, was abandoned by the British ; and that Article I., as it stands iu the Convention, was substituted. He further observer? that, " If this claim is founded on Provincial or Colonial '' Statutes, and not upon the Convention, this Government cannot but regai'd " them as unfriendly, and in contra\'ention of the spirit if not the letter of the " Treaty, for the faithful execution of which the Imperial Government is alone " responsible." Such are the statements of President Grant ; and if he believes that ne has truly stated the case, in relation to the fisheries, then he is much mistaken. Now what are the facts ? To ascertain them, we must go back to a period anterior to the Treaty of 1783, when as British subjects, the inhabitants of the old American Colonies, after Canada and Nova Scotia were wrested from the Kingdom of France, enjoyed, with the inhabitants of the other British Colonies, a connuon use of the fisheries o.long t^e whole North American Atlantic Coast, with certain exceptions on the coast of Labrador and a portion of the Gulf of St. Law^rence, and the coast of what is now known as New Brunswick, In the discussions and negociations which preceded the peace of 1783, an effort was made by the American Commissioners to claim a right to the fisheries on the coasts on which they had prosecuted them while still British sulijects. They claimed that, at the time they were British svibjects, they had assisted to wrest Nova Scotia and Cape Broton from France, and that, by right of conquest, they should participate and enjoy, in common with British subjects, the privileg-^s of these fisheries. The British Commissioners, on the other hand, contended that the conquest was achieved by Great Britain, and that though the subjects of Her Majesty in the old Colonies had aided as they were bound, as part of the Einpire, to do, in securing victory to the British arms, that the acquisition of Nova Scotia' and the other Territories wrested from France, with all the benefij the fisj ceaser loyal subjed their and, 1 State! of 17 |ho purposea '">g water; ^'" to trade, ^"part after "n alleged in by the J uj)on by contended British "ers, was tJnvention, f" Colonia] ut regard ior of the t is alone ''t nt" has aistaken. ^ period aHtants ^d from British Ulantic he Gulf 1 effort I'ies on They had right 'jects, fiand, ough <1, as the vith i all their privileges and the fithories in thi? vicinity of their coasts, inured to the benefit of the Empire, and that the old Colonies in seceding (though entitled to the fisheries off their own coaHts, as a territorial incident of their country)i ceased to have a right in fisheries off the coasts of Provinces which remained loyal to the Empire, and which incident inured to the benefit of British subjects alone. The American commissioners felt it to be of vital interest to their young nation to obtain some recognized status on these fis'ing grounds, and, by pevseveronco and persistence, succeeded, through the temU i icy of British Statesmen to give way for peace sake, in securing the third Article in the Treaty of 1783, which is as follows : — " Akt. III. — It is agreed, tliat tlie people of tlie United States shall continue to " enjoy unmolested the liglit to take fisli of every kind on the Grand Bank and on all " the otlier l)ank.s of Newfoundland : also in the Gulf of St. Lawrei^ce, and at all other " places in tlie aca, wlieio the iulialiitants of both countrieH used a', r v time heretofoi to " tish. And also (hat the inhabitants of the United States shall have lilx'rty to take fish " of every kind on wudi pnil of the coast (»f Newfoundland, as llritisli (ishcrnien shall use '* (but not to dry or turc the same on that I.sland) and also on the eoasts, hays, and creeks " of all other of His lliitannic Majesty's dominions in America ; and that the American " tishermen shall have liherty to dry and cure tish in any of tiie unsettled hays, liarhors, " and creeks of Nova Scotia, Magdalen Islands, and Labrador, so long as the same shall " remain unsettled ; but so so(jn as the same, or either of them, sliall le settled, it shall " not be lawful for the said fishermen to dry or ere fish at suc'.i settlement, without a " previous agreemerit fur that purpose with the inhabitants, proprietors, or poisessore of " the ground." In the text of this article we have two principles clearly laid down — the continuing and concui'ront right, by which it was agreed that the people of the United States should continue to enjoy certain fisheries, and also, the liberty of a transitory cliaractcr, which, under ccrtfiin cii'cumstances, was conceded to them '• in the one case their continuing right was admitted to t navigate the Mississippi from its mouth to its source was by that Treaty gianted to British subjects, and was terminated })y the war» so also with the hsheries clause, and that both subjects were open to be con- sidered and dealt with — the British, while conceding the ri/y/i^ of fishing, to which they considered Americans entitled, refused to renew the liberties winch they conceded to them in the Treaty of 17uriuned limits ; provided, lioweTer, tha'i " the American tishevmeu shall he, admittt'd to enter such oavs or harbors, for the purpos( : " of shelter, and of repairing damages therein, of purchasing wood, and of obtaining water, " and for no otlier purpose whatever, l^ut they shall be undei such restrictions as maj " be necessary to prevent tlieir talcing;, drying, or curing fish therein, or in any other " manner whatever abusing the privileges hereby reserved to them." Here then was the adjustiuent of the fishery question. The Americans were secured by the Treaty in th» rights s])ecially mentioniid in the first article | of that Convention, and under the limitations therein contained; and further, tliey distinctly renounced all privileges they liad theretofore exercised or claimed,,! which were not contained in tliat Treaty. Witli regard to " fishing in the sea," it left the i-ights of Americans just as they had existed under tlie Treaty of 1783, though it curtailed their geographical limits for taking fish, while it gave new facilities for curing the same. Under the former Treaty they could not U3e the shores of Newfoundland, although they might catch and cure fish on the coasts, bays and creeks of the Magdalen litlands and the mainland, on condition that when settled, the consent of the inhabitants should be obtained for landing and curing. By the Treaty of 1818, they could both take and cure fish on the coastvS of certain parts of Newiouuul.iud, and a limited extent of Labrador, subject only to permission for drying and curing when the settlers permitted it on inhabited coasts, but the liberty of fishing and curing fish on the coasts, bays, and harbors yf Nova Scotia, and that part of Labrador south-west of Mount Joly, near Natashquan River, and almost opposite to the east end of the Island of Anticosti, was altogether withheld. But further, by this Treaty the Ameiicans admitted the rightful act of G -eat Britain in withholdmg so much of th'3 libei*ty for fishing formerly conceded to them as had given rise to " dilFerences," and the United States voluntarily rtnounced for ever any freedom, before "enjoyed or claimed, " to take, dry, or cure fish on or within three marine miles of any other poriions of the coast*, bays, creeks, or harbours of Brit Ui xlracrica. And, further, they stipulated that their fishing vessels shall haA'e the privilege of enteruig such bays or harbours for the purpose of "shelter," and of " repairing damages therein," of "purchasing wood," and " of obtaining water " and while stipulating for such privileges they distinctly agree that they shall go in "for no other purpose whatever." "But *• th'3y 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." The British Government, on the 14th June, 181!), passed tlie Imperial Act, 59 Geo. III., cap. JJ8, in the Appendix annexed marked B, wliich provided the authority of law for enlbroing reapect to the Treaty within British jurisdiction. II ThuB mattex-s stood in 1819. [eJ, jiowerer, tha-. r,^°''.th« purpose : ft obtaining water ^ pstnctions as may o*- in any other [ Tiie Americans "^^i« first article fl'fld further ised or c] • ^ J Trespasses would, liov/ovcr, occur as oft -^n as American fishermen thought American fishermen, folloAvin,<^ out the policy which has ever characterized lem, in relation to the Britifsh fi.sherie.s, at once commenced a practice of [•espassing upon our limits, and the Eiitish Government promptly sent a tleet the fishing grounds to maintain the rights of her people, and American shermen were compelled to respect those rights. I "S: in the sea," 'reatyofI783^ ^Iiile it gave' I'ley could not "re fish on the on condition «d for landing fish on the ^rador, subject emitted it on asfcs, bays, and -^iount Joly^ the Island of venture with impunity, and between the years 1817 and 1854, leveral United States fishing vessels were seized by Imperial and Colonial mcera for infractions of the Treaty, and violation of the local Statutes [•egulating the same, which are hereinafter refen-ed to. Many of them were Bondemned. Among the specific offences, for which numerous seizures and confiscations took place during this period, American fishing vessels were josted and detained for the foUowino- reasons : — 1. Fishing within the prescribed limits ; 2. Anchoring or hovering inshore during calm weather without any '^ ostensible cause, having aboard ample supplies of wood and \'rater ; 3. Lying at anchor and remaining inside of the bays to clean and pack fish ; 4. Purchasing and bartering bait and preparing to fish ; act of G -eat ' conceded to 'Voluntarily (^kc, dry, or / ihe coasts, •uJated that larbours for '^ii-rchasing ileges they '^'" "But 'ent their '■^abusing erial Act, ided tJie Miction. 5. Selling goods and buying supplies ; 6. Landing and transhipping cargoes of fish. Reference may be here made to the Imperial Instructions under which, antecedent to the Convention of 1818, American fishing vessels were excluded i from British bays and harbors in North America, conlbrmable to the Treaty of 1783. The following Admiralty order, for the governance of officers command- ', ing vessels engaged in the protection of the fisheries and the prevention of ?' illicit trade, signed by Rear- Admiral Milne, bears date the 12th May, 1817, which ' clearly shows the construction of their rights by the British authorities, and theii" active enforcement of *uch rights : — " On your meeting with any foreign vessel, fishing, or at anchor, in any of " the harbors or creeks in His Malo;;ty's North American Provincfs, or within our " maritime jurisdiction, you will seize and send such vessel so trespassing to " Halifax, for adjudication, unless it should clearly appear that they have been " obliged to put in there in consequence of distress, aci|uain+iiig lue with the " cjiuse of such seizui'c, and every other particular, to enable mu to give all " information to the Lords Commissioners of the Vdmii'alty." i-iJ P"viouV» JerilXgJ tl^^ °f American fehing vaseb w.^ ,«;«<, ,' they Pretended to have sSght^er";^''"'"'' "" «"' »' J"-. ISl^.^L' "ProvincialportsT,* ^ J""^'''^ »'« a>titM in ■• Colonial CoU;ctol,«'^''™''J"'°''° f»rf«i tare tf fr!™?™'"^ Privileges i„ ;; vessels, vhS, tnfeT " """'""'y to permi? Whtt'K' '" traific^Th^ •Peoified therein, Z t no'S?"' »■ ""-^ -'»- Po*t*ttX'^* ----ario. Places l^^IVZX^:;;::,^-- ^ -- - ■LJuring the same vear V,-„„ * i . ' «pecid iastructiom as to I ""''"^ ^^^^^^^^ • , United States fishW ^ ^"'"'^"^ ^^ "^^«I ofHcersT 7 *^^^^^^^^ty ^ox " -™- -. ,.ono.eed ^^e -^^TZT^ :^ ^ p were seiaed a; J"»e. 1817. when P^ to on behal, vessels entered J^' found that, ]'* 0^ occupying ' »ny legitimate | F'^ed in 1818 ^ [settled British! detained and I cleaning fi^j, ' ere seized and •^'vincial ports, 'St before the ^^■«^ bays and ^ «f 1818, to ^^s right was ^^od to 1852, r fish cargoes ^n command entofKova ^^eight, or "bed in the of August, h Howe; •^Vs in j/"e- The nom such ' purposes 5ssarj to 'rts and ^ty fox '6 With an the e Law ' Were Id ipowered, under their instmctiona, to " seize '' American fishing vessels otily for le offence of fishing within the prescribed limits ; but the vessels might be earned oif, and compelled to depart, and could be seized by such ofiicers or Ithers, if so authorized by Order in Council, — the penalties or mode of pro- sedure depending- upon the local laws and regulations of each Colony. The legal opinion recited, adds that " independently of the express provisions oi' tlie itatute," vessels infringing these laws, by resorting to ports or harbors for other ;han the purposes specified by the treaty, might be warned and compelled to !depart by whatever force is reasonably necesf.aiy by persons authorized by the Colonial Governors, or the British Admiral ; and the American Government tacitly assented to this construction of the Treaty, The Imperial and Colonial Statutes now in force, provide for regulations in pursuance of the treaty to enforce the terms of the Convention ; and instructions to Commanders of Marine Police Vessels, approved by Orders in Council, are such existing "Regulations" provided for by the Statutes as are deemed "necessary to prevent" foreign fishermen from abusing "in any other /< ,iner whatever" the ^jrivileges leserved to them by the Convention. The foreojoinij references should suffice to establish that the restriction in question, and the construction of the Treaty of which the President is now com- plaining, is one justified by thirty-five years practice, up to the Treaty of Reciprocity. In 184<1 the Legislature of Nova Scotia submitted certain questions to the Law Officers of the Crown, in England, in connection with this question, as appears by appendix C annexed, and received in reply the opinion of the legal advisers of Her Majesty, given in appendix D annexed. The perusal of which appendices will explain in detail the substance thereof, and the conclusions which were arrived at. Thus mattei-s stood in 184;1, up to which period the British construction of the Treaty of 1818, including their view of the headland lines, was enforced and acquiesced in, though reluctantly, by Americans. ,It may be well here to state summarily what were the relative claims and rights of each party, as enforced by Her Majesty's Government. They may be stated as : — 1st. ConcuiTent liberty of fishing Avithin certain specified limitf., between the subjects of Her Majesty and those of the United States, subject to certain specified reservations, stated in the Treaty. lil t, I 2nd. The pri\'ile0-p ♦« a . I -'hin bound. „fa „,a..i„o lea ^iL^;:''^"': "f ««' «»>%. an.. e„„p™,, peculiar clatfl;,,'"'';*''™ "' ^^'- 3. the American 0„ the n.outhro7 r ""'"*"' "^ "-hich is 2: .'^°™"""ent advances l^-ited Stat ., ;„; f„f """■?^'™ hetwe™ 3X01™!^"'"™"™°" These are in briVf fi,^ _ • Fishery Question " and tt • " ^''^^'^ ^'^"^^^'^'^ ^^ the dispute ^. from 1841 and Iff ^"^^ °^*^^^«« Points by th.l """ ^ '"^^^ *^, and after upwards of 9*} -^ ^"^ -Americans datf^n ««i «tTuctionof the Convention n^f ^'^'" acquiescence in th. R ft ^ appears by the President'. '"*'°^^^«-^ •• -^^"o^- to the present , .' ""^^ Ti^„ " "'^'^"5' purposes as I..t T„at the ..- '»"■■— 1-tsi.t.oMd:- lished by Intern accepted detin'ii ational Law tiiroug] "" of bays, harb. ors ^out the civilized and creeks, is th, at estab- ^vorld, which distinctly ^ cure flsh iu Mificati ions, and 4 -^ty, viz : — Foj. h^d comprised ■iJ creeks— the '^ Jast above ^leadland to pritish NoHh ^rent right b^ ^d ever had ' stated that, >xist. nt advances 'irement on sion on our ^ater, the Tee marine ine of the ^^^y deny headland i^ee up to 'Ciprocity a«"The *es onjy sh con- itary to >e oniy ^en, as > their 31 iopts a lieadland line, irrespective of ^,he configuration of any pai't of the coast, the formation or extent of it,s indentations. 2ad. That the territorial and maritime jui'isdiction of all nations, and Particularly of the United States, is so cle;i:iy laid down as not to admit of any Ixceptional application, such as that claimed in connection witli these fishing )rivilege3 in British America, in derogation of national rights. 3rd. That by the Treaty of 1818, Americans agreed n', only not to [fish within three miles of the coast, but further, they agreed not to fish within Ithrecmiles of hays, creeks or harbors, — I.e., three miles outside a line drawn from • the headlands which form the entrance of a bay, creek, or harbor. The legal authorities on this view are cited at length in a special Report by Mr. Whitcher, of the Marine; and Fisheries Department, published in LS68, in reference to the Fisheries. Moreover, Great Britain maintains that in the Article of the Convention of 1818, Americans expressly relinquished wt« liberty, before " enjoyed " or " claimed," to pursue their calling anywhere el86 within BHiish jurisdiction, than in the limits d-sucribed in the Treaty. The text thereof being as follows : — " And the United States hereby renounce for ever ? v. y liberty heretofore en- " joyed or claimed by the inhabitants tlicieof, 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 within the above mentioned " limits," thus adding by their own voluntary debiration — if that were necessary — to the legal defirition of exclusive fishing ; besides solemnly withdrawing all pretensions of the kind theretofore advanced. The Americans shortly before the making of the Reciprocity Treaty , claimed an exceptional appli^ntion of the Law of Nations, as regar^^s bodies of water, such as the Bays of Fundy and Chaleurs, and other indents along the seacoast of the British North American Colonics, in which the United States fishermen were formerly wont to pursue and capture the fishes of the sea, or to which they still resort to take bait. Yet, wliile they desired exceptional construction of Treaties, and more especially as applied to the Bays of Fundy and Chaleum, their statesmen had to admit that the right of exclusion as claimed by us existed. Secretary Webster, 6th July, 1852, \y^rites thus : — " It would appear that, by a strict and rigid oonstrui'tion of this article, " fishing vessels of the United States are precluded from entering into the bays " or harbors of the British Provinces, except for the purposes of shelter, "repairing damages, and obtaining w>)od and A'-ater. A bay, as is usually " understood, is an arm or recess of the sea, entering from the ocean between #1 ,!■ f If " capes and headlands, and the torm ia applied equally to small and large tracts " of water thus situated ; it is common tc spiiak of Hudsou's Bay, or the Bay of " Biscay, although they are very large tracts of water." " The Britisli Authorities insist that EiKjland has a r'ujld to draw a line, "from hcadldtnl to headland, ami to capture all American iishermen who may ■ " follow their pursuits inside of that line. It was undoubtedly an oversight in "the Convention of 1818, to make so large a concession to England, since the " United States had usually considered that those vast inlets or recesses of the " ocean ought to be open to American lishennen as freely as the sea itself, to " within three marine miles of the shore." Thus speaks Daniel Webster, an authority which patriotic Americana will scarcely dispute, and whose sound Judgment compelled him to recognize the legal force of the British claims to the only point then in dis[)ute, > iz. : — The Headland Line. Again, Chancellor Kent, in his able commentaries lays down, as a rule, that Bays, such as Delaware Bay — (resembling in its characteristics and extent the Bay of Chaleurs) is wholly within the " ten-itorial jurisdiction " of the United States, while the States of New Jersey and Delaware each exercises jurisdiction to its centre, and for three miles seaward, from Capes May and Henlopen. The same rule applies to Chesapeake Bay, and the State of Maryland exercises jurisdiction over that tract of water, which is more than double the extent of Bay des Chaleurs. The same rule is applied to Massachusetts Bay, with an entrance fifty miles wide between Cn|)e Ann and Cape Cod ; indeed, the principle is applied in the United States universally, and however much American statesmen may regi-et the apjilication of the rule on the brys of this Dominion, they cannot with reason deny its strict justice, nor their own renuncia- tion of all claim to admission by the 1st article of the Treaty of 1818. Yet, from that time, up to 1854, the fishermen of the United States accepted the fact reluc- tn^ntly, and frequently infringed withinour limits when they thought they could do so with impunity. Several vessels were seized during the twenty years preceding 1854?, outside the three mile limit from land, as construed by Americans, but within Jceadlands and hays ; and thus, by the British construction, violating the Treaty — the British Government enforced our Treaty rights, including the heftdlaud claims, up to 1854, with the exception of the Bay of Fundy, in reference to which they made certain exceptions of a temporary character, in 1845, upon the ground that it was not wholly a British bay, inasmuch as part of one side of it was bounded by American tenitory, and, to that extent, was an exception. The qiTestion arose thus : — The American schooner " Washington" was seized while fishing in the Bay of Fundy, ten miles from land, on the ground that she ^^ hrge tracts or the Bay of JO draw a, H^g l'"en Avho may I" oversiglit in P»d, since the pcesses of the sea itself, to fii-' Americans to recognize Jpute, liz, ;__ 3 a rule, that d extent the ^ the United jurisdiction Jopen. The ad exercises he extent of 'ay, with an indeed, the ^ever much 5"ys of this n renuncia- Yet, from fact rehic- y could do precedinff • ® "leans, but ating the ding the undy, in racter, in ' as part '> Was an * seized hat she 17 iras fishing within a Imy, wliich, under tlie tonna of the Treaty, as construed by tcr Majesty's Government, \va.s ille^iil. Mr. Stevenson, the then American inister at London, brouglit tlio subject under the notice of Her Majesty's ;'ovemment, presenting, in an exhaustive manner, the American view of Ihe case. The correspondence contiimed over a lengthened period. During the time, the Earl of Aberdeen, as well as the late Eai'l of Derby, then Lord Stanley, who succeeded him, presented the views wliich Her Majesty's [Government entertained, and, in an able manner, replied to Mr. Stevenson, [contending for the right to exclude — neither party succeeded in convincing the i other ; but the Earl of Aberdeen, in the usual spirit of conciliation which has marked the conduct of Her Majesty's Government on this question, while denying the rir/ht, consented to leave the question in abeyance, at the same time refen'ing die particular case, viz. : The seizure of the " Washington,," to arbitration ; and the arbitrators decided that the Bay of Fundy, being partially bounded by -4.merican territory at its mouth, was not, so far as the limits of that t^erritoiy formed its bounds, a British bay. For further particulars upon this matter see "Sabine's Report on the Fisheiy Question," and "American State Papers," 1852 and 1853. In July, 1853, when the question arose in reference to the rights of Americans to fish in the Bay of Fundy, Mr. Secretary Marcy called upon Mr. Rush, the then only surviving American Commissioner who took part in making the Treaty, to state what were his intentions at the making of the Treaty, and his views in reference thereto. Mi\ Rush's attention was more especially directed to its application to the Bay of Fundy, being the locality in which the seizure took place which raised the question ; and while stating his opinion that Americans had a right to fish in the Bay of Fundy, being, as he terms it, an arm of the sea, he uses the following language in speaking of the Fisheiy clause of the Treaty refen-ed to : — " They meant no more than that ouv fishermen, whilst fishing in the waters «' of the Bay of Fundy, should noo go nearer than three miles to any of those ' small inner hays, creeks, or harbors, which are known to indent the coasts of .' Nova Scotia and New Biujjswick." It will thus be perceived that while Mr. Rush coincided in the American view with regard to the right to fish in the Bay of Fundy, on the ground that it was an " arm of the sea," he clearly admits their exclusion from the smaller bays, creeks and harbors, and practically disavows the claim of a line three miles from the sinuosities of the coast now put forward by Ariericans, and thus far sustains the British construction in all but the larger gulfi or bays, which he claims to be " amis of the sea." Sec Rush's occasional prouuctions, p.p. 289, 290. c ^1 i :l.S 18 He further shows in »„•« „ , ' enforced her view of 'th! T ^P''^^^^^'^' ^^tter. written i„ U54 .1, . ^ '•How it ever became „ 'y^^''^ '^"^J pressing of anv th '4 mainfo- ^ , P''" *^'' Treaty of isiS i . ? '"'"' ^^'-^'n^t the cc. was seized off +i. * '^^'"^ season tJ.P A, • o ^n a Jiritish LX"^'7i «=-- ^r35? ~ - thsLttulf "7 Ml. Stevenson. Thp a^ • ^"'^ °^ Aberdeen, the con Mat the framers of f K„ T- j. . American Cnmm-. • ^" were excluded . ^''^'^^'' ^° ''^'^'^-'^^g to /...,« I^ ?^'?''"^''"' contended uanns the then American view off) • , "'*^^' 'i»fl this affi-ees x^iih , Stevenson, in refezrin. to the bI fr "^'^'^' ^ ^^ated by Mr ^ f T^ "T \cquU fft'enc (lief ly o^ !ceiv .. ith lintell [(iove Utltvd from I any] ^ cases f any " exc class i|. stru( by 1 may Brii duri ranj but hea vio in at ei-< ^^*' that Briu ^'^^n. it may ^» this Fish "^«« pendin, .'^^^'^ to sj.o; r^'f 'nstrucfi,. j/ie [who negotiate,! f«ty was not %, who was '"'^ ^he con- '^^'•d Stanlej. 'itches to the ^^ter such the Baj, ,,^. '" « Britisi, ^ ^^'thin Che ceeded Jfr. ^' tJie con. contended fishermen ^inied wan *^ which ^iih and ish. Jif^. em, and unfairly •eaks of deluded ^ncan •m the 852-3. out a rersy, 19 " The declaration of Lord Stanley, in 1842, tliat our Oovonnnent pmdically ^quiesced in the new construction of the ( 'onvontion, and tlio capture of *he '^ashiwjton, in 1843, for an infringement of that construction, and for no other Iflence whatever, were all calculated to inipresa them (Americans) with the 3lief thai, the contest was at an end. Such, I confess, was the inclination of iiy own mind." And he speaks of the despatch " which has recently been ■eceived at the Department of State fiom Mr. Everett, our Minister at London, rith which he transmits a note from Lord Aberdeen, containing the satisfactory itelligence that, alter a reconsideration of the subject, although the Queen h [Government adhere to the cos itruction of the Convention vhi^h they have \akvayH maintained, they have still coino to the deterniination of relaxing I from it, so far as to allow American fisliermen to pursue their avocations in 'any part of the Bay of Fundy, provided they do not ay)proaeh — except in the cases specified in the Treaty of 1818 — within three miles of the entrance of any bay on the coast of Nova Scotia or New Brunswick." Lord Aberdeen thus put the case clearly that he upheld the right of total |exclusion, but was willing, under the terras named, to relax that right. In his rreply, Mr. Everett refused to accept what the Earl of Ab(irdeen conceded as a Iconceaaion, and still claimed it as a right, while he admitted the exclusion of the ■mailer bays. In reply to Lord Aberdeen's suggestion that a corresponding concession might be gracefully made by the United States to British fishermen by admitting their fish in duty free, — he gives as a reason against it that the British had advantages, inasmuch as they were " able to use the net and the seine " to greater advantage in the small bays ami inlets along the coast, from which " the fishermen of the United States, under any construction of the Treaty, are " easchided." See American Senate State Papers, 1852-3. It will thus be seen that, with the exception of the larger bays such as they class as " arms of the sea," the Americans practically admitted the British con- struction of the Treaty up to the making of the Reciprocity Treaty. Then, as to the practice and the construction put upon the Treaty as well by the two contracting parties as by the British Colonies affected thereby, it may be here also stated that the Province of Nova Scotia supplemented the British squadron by several vessels during the years preceding 1845, and that during that time many seizures of American vessels were made, at points ranging from near the shore to a distance of upwards of ten miles from land, but within the headland three-mile line, on the ground that they were within headlands, many of which vessels were condemned and confiscated for such violation of our rights. In the American Senate State Documents, published in 1842-3, is found the following fact reported by the United States Consul at Pictou, viz. : — " The seizures in the course of the year were numerous. " The Java, Battille, May-flower, Oharles, F'Aza, Sietland, Hyder AH, Indepen- so " <^^nce, nurt, Ocoan. Dlroctor i// ^, ! "woit,amon^,tho„,„nl,er." ' ^^^"tJnoUa, Amazon, a.ul Three Brothn^ Thus mattera .stoo.l wh(>n tJ,n t? • • Amoricaa, tI»o use, under II ^^^'i^^'^'^'tj Treaty- ,.f LS54 .avo to *>, • -an,e.nent. 7,,, ^,4";^^ ^^ -- --vocl compensation ^.y ^,J^ ["^-,os than their own. Do bdeVs 1^ •^'^ '''^ ^'-^tage of th •'•'je^^cutl to hoth ..ountrioH I„.t it 1^1 '^ .^^f >' ^^'^S it« continuance was ;;/ .-eivea the equivalent LtlL^^r.f::,'-^^^ '''^'-^' "-'t% M^^^\ 1864, a.s follows :^ '^""'^^ "^ ^^"^'^ii of th.t Provinct of L, t:^\ il Umted .State, 2] """'"« "P '»"'^<^" 'ho .,evejpj ' '"''': *''° • '•'uoes, and promoted fli« . . -"'t.verai iTovmcoH and tho '^'•"»'»""- "f eleven y„„„x^!/''7r'y of Wth couatriea du,l "•" 'n the United State Jtl,e^,.«7>'l'""; ^' ""= '™»'»'"'' «"' war b^ ;«'«-, a„J A,„eriea„, a,e b j t „ ' '"'^ """ ^■'"' *» ^'<.W«" United States Government TO l.i ? ''""'^"' had been riven b.T' -ven., e„nfe,.nee, with the Com^ittf „T W ™"'"='^'"- ^l"^ I>*«atTon h y he,r proeeeding, p„ve„ that ZTCZZr" *'™"'' ""^ "■' ~ Canada, not,f,-i.„.Amerionnfishe.^!nriT"!l ^^ '^^ ^'^^^^•"o^- General of ■« ^ ^''"•^^ Jivothcy \\ ^'*^« to th< ^ ^e^'tiin trade , *« end to of F'nuance. ^^ J''"'' "'at they I f l^'^J^'wated a.s ^ ^inco of 20th li^^ take thfs /' ' ^der the ] n *»<^ the I ^r bi-oJco J '"« compii. ' determined -^e pJeased ^'n March, '» by the t^tia, an-^ ^^^egates continu. leet the on held 'Cord of renev ig the •itless, th of f&l of min- they SI oryoyed under the said Treaty, ami warning them of the legal penalties jicli they would incur by tresj)a.ssin^ \ip()n the inshore fiMhories of British lerica, belonging excluHively to Ht>r Mnjesty's Hubjects. Htr MajeHty's Oovem- ►nt felt disposed to allow the freedom of fishing that had prcvnilpd sintie 185 i [continue for the season of 1800, on the distinct understanding that, uvh'm mnae lisfactory arrangement behveen the two countries should be mude in the coursa the year, such privileges would cease, and all concessions made in the Treat}-, just mt to expire, l)e liable to withdrawal. The press of both countries luring the year 18GG referred to the noiir ))robability of some concessions or* the ibject of the tarift being made through a Kill then under the consideration of yongress ; the jjrospect of a satisfactory anangemont appearing to ua to be an n additional reason for deierring the matter to another season. I The Colonial authorities, whilst acting in concert with Her Majesty's Oovem- fment, who recommended for that year a temporary arrangement, in the hope of a renewal of the Treaty, were actuated by a sincere desire to deal with the actual situation in a spirit of conciliation and liberality towards their neighbour, irrespective of whatever inconveniences and injuiies might attend deferment of the just and valued rights of Colonial subjects, but they experienced much difficulty in accepting the conclusion to which their assent was invited. A Miruito of Council was adopted by the Canadian Executive, on the £3rd of March, IbOG, setting forth the grounds upon which they believed that the proposed policy could neither be carried out so as to avoid serious and lasting injury to the interests of the country, nor attain the purpose it was designed to effect. The intrinsic worth of the fisheries was pointed out, and also their value to the Confedoration of the British North American Provinces (then in prospective), as a staple of extensive trade with foreign countries, — a nursery for hardy seamen — and an inexhaustible resource for the industrial energies of our maritime population. The gi-eat and peculiar advantages which their exclusive working by British colonists would afford to the United Provinces was likewise dwelt upon. The Memorandum in question proceeds to say that : — " The Canadian Government receive this expression of the opinion of Her " Majes>,y's Government with the utmost respect ; but they doubt whe^-her its " adoption would not in the end produce most serious evils. They fear there is " no reasonable hope of satisfactory commercial relations being restored with the " United States within the year. They think the prospect of attaining this " result in the future will be gi-eatly diminished if tlie T'nitod States fishermen " continue to exercise the rights given by the l?.te Treaty. The withdrawal of "their pri«dleges a year hence, will create m jro irritation then than now, as "having the character of retaliation. The stap, if taken now, is plainly and I! K H It '«1 quite ZZ , "* ""' '867, t° the influence it "''''°'''™*«™«. and e'L?"'' '" ™l'ect „,• ~„ta„d.:;::-«j^ ■•- - -::;::r---.ee3 inn J' ^«"^ f% of the pi, .3 ■ ^''^^" estimate \7l ?''^^"^- I7 "ffiifc will J«oi-e«erio„s ^ I"- irom ^itjj Kic Ti^ords of f' »o^ put r"'««'^ thus » p« views of I ^^'^Sr season * ^'^^> so a« ^^y serious "sr to fish ^' ^ere to ",'9 I '^'ct gave » that it essed bjr mity to ect 01 egard tates of a ^ii] ich i In 1866 there were 354 licenses. „ 1867 „ 281 ,. « 1868 „ 56 „ „ 1869 „ 26 „ In order to illustrate the complete failure of the license system, it is iflicient to note the simple fact, tliat during these four seasons, not a single lerican vessel was detained, although it was notorious th«,c great numbers rere continually invading our limits, even after repeated warnings, a large ffoportion of which vessels, when afterwards boarded, were found to be still inlumished with licenses. It will be perceived that in 1866, the first year of its adoption, the vigorous I policy indicated by Her Majesty's Government, and a lively recollection of the numerous seizures and confiscations made by Her Majesty's cruisers, and the officei's of the Nova Scotian Government, prior to 1854, for violation of 01' r fishery rights, induced a large number of the American fisher- men who resorted to the Gulf tliat f-easou to take out licenses, notwithstanding that they were indulged in having three warnings given to them by our cruisers before seizure shovdd be effected. The following year only about two- thirds of these took licen.ses, while in 1868, when it came to be imderstood that the effect of the instructions issued requiring three warnings, was practically to nuUifv the whole system, the number taking licences dropped, in 1868, to 56 and 1869, tv7 25. This sort of protection was of no avail in promoting the interests of Colonial fishermen, but simply ensured Americans in the practical enjoyment of the same privileges which they had enjoyed under the Reciprocity Treaty, and it saved the United States' Government fiom all trouble and expense of maintaining a naval force in the Gulf. It was, moreover, a manifest departure from the very terms on which the yystem was so originated, namely : " That any vessels attempting to fish without " licenses, will either be required to procure the license from the cruising officer, " or will be removed from the fifshing grounds," {I'ide. Minute of the Executive Council of Canada, dated 23rd March, 1866.) It also relieved Ameiicans of jmy pressure such as might influence their GovernuKiit to desire concessions of ours, as recognised up to 18o4 ; and while it injured the business of Canadian fishermen, by affording facilities to foreigners, such as, together with a pro- hibitory duty on Britisli cauglit fish, enabled them to compete with our fishermen on unequal conditions, it also nullifiei whatever inducements to enter IIU ■l< into a ney^ on 1 ^ue effect of om^a^ ■ ^' = r.'is? =":i;r;:» -«'• -- -.» .^"fdale^ W„d,* duriS '""■'■ '" ''">■ ""•' "'* rS^r ; ""^ =™« ' » M.y tat ' ""°« '"^ P«'»' *.»<.u, a, «p„, " n ,r '""■'»■• ''■■« . vn ^^<^ ^-tS J b me outrageous conduct •^ • -^ ^ *^^ subject of the «» 7W- In 1868, the™ t^ ° '^'""''="" ^«* »« the ilT" """"'"'y t^, ;- imn.e..u«U, ';,: 1'/ --- «re to, be m'aae ^r^;, "^T '"» yew only 25 t„„j^ ™" 'o foreign flshei-men- A ' ""> dwiger ""taWofves.eCnou; T*'' "' ■"=-' °ne I' « f f" ''""'"'^g '■ Prince Edward wL , .."""'' *'"'=». had arrived o,"™'*'' "' «»W"g "'""ntheAfcof;'^;:';^ '?"^*="-"»dutroJo' "'?» ''^"""'d^'l by tf . 25 by ^ason of' ^^e«tj^ of isi, ''Applies, creatk hni-bor dui ies, *avoi( Under such circuinfitunco.s th'j system of licences could not prove other a most lamentable failure, and there Avas really no " substantial protection." Another ill-effect attending this continued indulgence towards Americans is Sarked by the same authority above refeiTcd to, that — Very few Colonial vessels are engaged in fishing, owing to the inter- srence of Americans and the almost prohibitory Tariff im.posed in the United States, on fish imported in Colonial vessels, and the Golonvd fishermen, there- fore, in considerable numhers, man the American vessels." laiso says : — f /^'^ system, '''•^^«fc of the '^ system of ^"^tnent by ^^® Pi-esent ^^^ in the ''-'^y then ^^^ seasoii Earning, e danger '^^'mated "i y^ith ^hing lore of ed hy fej-red 'ssion ires; ^'cro It will thus bo jjcrceived that the Government of Canada, as well as Her [ritannic Majesty's Goverimicnt, had exercised a groat degree of lil)erality and irbearancc in dealing witii the iishormen of the United States. They permitted a ere temporary arrangement, made in 186(), for one year only, to continue in c interests of the Americans for four, and until they found that they were Tactically setting our laws and regulations at defiance, and refusing to pay the icence fee on which they v re admitted, while on their pai-t we saw no prospect 1 that relaxation of their almost prohibitive duties on our fish and other articles of trade, which was the foundation of such polic}'. During the year 1869, the American Executive announced that negociations would be opened with Canada, .^negociations were nominally opened during that year on the invitation of the I President, but it became evident at a very early stage that there was no real \ intention to submit any proposition that Canada could accept, and this was [ thoroughly verified, when, in December last (4th December, 1869), President Grant issued his annual message, in which the following appeared : — " The (question of renewing a Treaty for Reciprocity of Trade witli the United " States and the British Province on this continent, has not been favorably con- " sidered by the Administration. The advantages of such a Treaty would bo " wholly in favor of the British Provinces, except possibly a few engaged in the " trade between the two sections. No citizen of the United States woidd be " benefitted by Reciprocity ; our internal taxation would prove a protection to " the British producer, almost to the protection which our manufacturers now " receive from the tariff. Some arrangement, however, for the regulation of " commercial intercourse between th.^ Ur'tcd States and the Dominion of Canada " may be desirable." This brings the history of the question down to the present year. The people of Canada felt that they had exhausted every reasonable means of conciliation and forbearance, and they viewed with very sei'ious concern the baneful effect on our maritime popiUation of the toleration granted to American fishermen. The prohibitive tariffs on British-ca\ ght fish in the United States as against the free admission of fish caught under the American flag, offered a D (i d! 26 Hepubl.«n po^e,. and cifaons of « f '"''^P'" "^ »"** „ at *. ve^ a<,o„, „., i„ r:;^.; ^-^ »^^. pr«cuti„g thti.- ' J . «« themselves shut „„t „f the I Ss rf !h" ' ^''J^* » Ca^-h. « i t»n^ adopted in the inte«,t of « ■, j' *'' ™»""y ''^ a p^hibili, *T ""W wmolested thoir own ,„! '"'«'™™. whilst oura oan., .»flu«ce of these .i.e„n,stan:es::„::;::r"'r •'°"''' *° '-^- the independent employment Afc J" ""a"' P»P"lation? It also dism„™ ft^mp^d on, ^>^is:tl'::tr:nzrr' '^^'-w^^-: UiutedStates,fre,ofduty asjimJ , '"'»'".* market tho„, i„ „ eounlnes, and othe,. of the Brti h Lt« "° " "■'«'« ««- fore .„ shipping and fishing indnstri., „f I ,"°"'' ""'^ "'Weby develoninl? ^■cUful class Of fishe^en atr; .fye:^ r- »" ™^«n« I soiI'LT ,' : -- e^tenee, and at.hed CflL'^^Cr ^-^ -f^eLr^X:; ^^^^^ -tand^pomt of ^ ^,„,,, «/«' P.o^tr^:™::'"'"' ''""■"*'■■ "-' «■- ".0 o» o»?°oitr^i°;t: sr' *"' p^^--^-- -> ^ted a «„„, tc, ,„„„ -pected and trespasser eS j ^ P":^™-^ -™S that our law h Jw Dominion fe^k^r't","'™ '"" P°*™^- hi hi thTr^'f °" tion and forbeal^t^.rSwT ^"' ^■'"'=™»'- »d -i^l ^If;: "' from Commander E P L.ll f !u ""« "P™ "»P«' for Britisir , "" *l •t 1 subjects of ; fS their caj;;,' ^» Canada, „,) F «- pi-ohfbitii r ""'•« oan,„ '^ Val attae], '°^^ *o XJnit,: them in tj, '« ^'emoraJi;,,,; .j''^" ""^ om,' ^'.^ residents Viol-.!. _ no r^^^ account r^^ate'i also Moping t/„ ^-^■e^iant anri '''« ^ifch our ' ^-^ British i'-g * aitoi getiicr '• <^« ]>/aco ■sJiouId bo ''ei-nnieiit ct of our '■'al and nodei-a- eJicited ''se, as 3 lias three 27 Umit has caused those principal feeding grounds of the mackerel, which are ly inshore, to bo reserved for our own people, and the result has been most [jeficial to Canadian fishermen. President Grant states tint we have excluded Americans from our fishing ounda, and that the action of the Canadian authorities towards them during the st season has not been marked by a friendly feeling, — that we have legialated a hostile spirit, — that we have not given their fishermen warning, — that 'aiiada has arbitrarily seized American vessels without cause, — that we have fused to let them trade in our ports. Let as now take up these charges and see what grounds exist on which to make them. In reply to the fii-st charge it may be admitted that we have not allowed Ai))erican liahei'inen to come in and fish within the three mile limit, as he states has been the practice for many years past, nor were we in anyway required to give thorn any warning ; but we did notify their Government, and the result thereof was a circular from Mr. Secretary Boutwell, a copy of which is in the appendix E annexed, which gives ample waminfr to their fishermen of the consequences which will attend their disregard of our rights and privileges. And in consequence of such notice, three vessels of war were sent by the American Government, under the direction of Commander Lull, to look after American interests, and to notify their fishermen, and that duty was ably performed by that officer ; their fishermen were notified, and it has not been alleged that a single case has occurred in which American fishermen acted in ignorance of our policy, or in which hardship has O'jcurred for want of notification. See Appendix F. Now, to make this matter intelligently understood, we may state, that up to 1845, when the Reciprocity Treaty was entered into, the righa and claims, as interpreted from the English point of view, were enforced, — this gave American fishermen no right to fish either witliin three miles outside of headland lines, or in bays, creeks, or harbors, nor in any place within three miles of the shores. Tlie Reciprocity Treaty suspended that right of excluplon, and Americans were entitled to fish in all but our River and Lake Fisheries in common with oursel ves. They, iiot we, gave notice and repealed the Reciprocity Treaty, which alone granted them these [)rivileges, and they placed themselves, so far as Treaty rights were concerned, exactly where they were before it wat made, — but out of forbearance towards their fishermen, we agreed that for one season, we would let them come in and fish by taking licenses, at a merely nominal rate, and that vessels found fishing without license, should be entitled to three wanaings, as it m IS , 2s Was supposed that fi h • I "hioh they failed t„ do W " "°"" '^™»'''^^'- ^oir policy iCtl!""' -»nm,g. to one. «s the pie! /°"*'°''''' '«^ ^y^'-"' ^^Lr yea^ fT"?™''''-, held out hv +).„ u , '^ -^ "^"e" ftshermen ^nr? r,^^ -xi. ""'^' a«er thro | «* "ui; Dy tho Resolution nf n^ "' "^o^^^ithstandincr +i.« i, 1 I»««t"un,.eighbo„rly-? What i, .1 ^« We property i„ " """*"'''^ ''^»' " ' continue to 1;* /"■' "'"'«'i?'''««rf„ ,„<, » T ^""" """"S^-' "» with -ludet. SrSnTr 'Vf "™ f-Ch «::-;;" -^e. the™ fishermen fro,r. ...''''^ ^^^'^t doe^ not disnufn n, , ^^ '""^'^^ *hey -ae„ or ,w,i..h ho e„,„pw'::''^"" '■'" ■■ "-* I'i^ people in',:;::,.:":, tt — . ...i;: S!;;'"::-/::- -V .;-:; rtx 2d NoftheTi 'eat; Cipi-ocit '•educing tj ^ after thre ^ P°5 the ho,x «^ "'0 Unite, eomnieici tof '^ a policy of '^^^ ^^W^not P^'wr to the a-s> the iiinjt "^ *fte samo' «t in 1854, Pato in the ^ terminate 3thor. The ■^ainate the •^ "s with •'^^etthem 'hich they ^"Jerican ^ffru"i.es as 'i'tion of 'lafc Jine, ^ conse- ation to 't« iirsfc ghhour ^0 has to the "jont leaty uJiar ships to the smaller country. Under the Treaty exiatenco of eleven years, trade been largely influenced towards the United States. Our agi-iculturists found ire a market for our coarse grains, and other productions of both the dairy and farm ; our lumbermen and milling interests, had made connections, and created iblishments, baaed upon its continuance ; our infant manufactories, slowly wing into existence prior to 1854, had then to come into competition in a ner with those of the United States, and many of them, in consequence, were led up, and the business and trade of our country were largely directed into new aimels, while the productions of our vast fisheries, which had previously found 'her foreign markets, were gradually drawn to Boston, as the centre of that e. It need scarcely be said, that a policy Avhich would seriously intarfere ith the continuance of such operations, must, for a time, at least, impede the Tosperity of our countrj'. Was it then nfriencUy or neighbourly act to repeal e Treaty, against our earnest wishes, and with the strictest limitation of time hich it entitled Americans to give us, and thus cause serious losses to the nterests referred to; but they did more than that — they at the same time increased ,^|tho duties on our principal articles of production, varying from 25 to 80 per |cent., and in the case of coal, to 100 per cent., so as to almost exclude them from Itheir markets. They allowed their feelings of hostility to us, because of our , connection with England, and our imputed sympathy with the South, to induce them to aim, by adopting retaliatory measures, at punishing us. Yet their chief magistrate complains, because of our exclusion of their fishermen from our Inshore Fisheries, our rights to which have never been disputed. President Grant also states that avc have failed in the perfonnance of our neighbourly and friendly duty, because we did not give, as ho states, American fishermen notice. In reply, it is observed, that by the act of their own Covernment, in repealing the Treaty, the position of Aujcrican fishermen in our waters was changed from one of right to ono of svfarance, and it Avas no part of the duty of the Governn^^nt of Canada to notify thorn. Our Goverimient, through the British Minister at Washington, notified tlie United States Government, and it M'as the duty of their executive (not of ours) to notify the American people, and they pcrfonncd that duty. Sec Sccretaiy BoutweU's circiilars, dated respcciivoly IGth May, and 9th June, in appendices E and G. The earliest of these circulars, by the United States Treasury Dcjiartment, liaving stated that tres})asscrs would be seized after 21 hours warning, while the statutes liad abolished such warning, an amended one was issued after the error had been pointed out by tno Canadian authorities, in order to prevent American fishennen from l)eing misled and surprised by an oversight of President Grant's advisers. Thus the very ipill II 30 \ iff laws were acknowlodgcd and the restrictions acquiesced in of which the Presidt^j now complains. Again, it may be observed that, in addition to the notices thus given of tli policy which the Govenmient of Canada had decided upon, with the concii' reuce of the Imperial Government, it is evident that President Gi-ant va informed of the instructions which were given to our officera, as would appoa from the circulars roferred to ; and the people of Canada have yet to learn tha the American Government ever took exception to the policy of exclusion whicl we adopted, or the instructions under which such exclusion was carried out, am, yet though the President acted ui)on it in May last, he now for the fii-st time dis- covers that our acts in relation thereto arc " unfriendly " and " unneighbourly" In Mr. Secretary Boutwell's circular, he distinctly tells American fishermen that ihoy are excluded from the inshore fisheries, and that they are bound U respect " the British laws and regulations for the regulation and preservation of " the fisheries." He also informs them that vessels were being fitted out by the Government of Canada for the protection of those fisheries " ajainst illegal encroachments by foreigners," and used these words : — " It will be observed that the warning formerly given is not ro(piired under " tlie amended Act, but that vessels trespassing are liable to seizure without sufli " warning." There is no protest or allegation against either the right or the justice or the neighborly character of the act, and if the President is now light in his assumptions of the spirit of the policy refeiTed to, it was his duty in May last, in the interests of American fishermen, to have taken such steps as would have brought the '' un- neighbourly" or ."unfriendly" acts under the notice of the Government of Canada, in order that tha cause of complaint might have been, if possible, removed. That President Grant did not do so is evidence that his present con- struction is an afterthought, probably inspired by the recent, visit of General Butler to Washington. He then refers to — " The Statutes of the Dominion of Canada," as " assumin'j a still broader " and more untenable jurisdiction over the vessels of the United States," and creating the impression that the Legislation of the Dominion, in relation to the fisheries, is of a novel character. "Itl itutl f dxj| Itizci i)uW,| len tj He also says- 81 I'ch the Prej,;,/ H " ^*^' ^•'* ''"'' 1^'"^^^'" t,]uit any r()nuld, in a prominent state paper, exhibit such ignorance as is here displayed on refen-ing to the logislatiou affecting this subject. r to ham th phmon wj„v; im-ied out, an. '^''^ bound L ''•enervation oi h^ ««t hy the ""''^"i illegal ^vithout ,su(.j, Jstice or the ^■^"niiJiion.s interests of '""nenfc of ^ PosHihle, osent con- ^ .Gfeneral broader ■'^y" and to the What are the facts i After the Treaty of 1818 was concluded, it became necessary for the British )V(?rnment to enact a law of the Imperial Parliament to enforce, on the coasts of li'itish America, respect to the provisions of that Treaty. Such a law was iHsed by the Parliament of CJreat Britain on the 14th of June, 1819, and \&H been in force ever since that time. Under it the Treaty rights have been pforced, seizures of foreign vessels have been repeatedly made, and the same i)roceeded with to trial, and, in many cases, to condemnation. The Parliament of Nova Scotia, in 1836, passed an Act, biised upon the mpcrlal Act of 1819, which received the sanction of the Imperial Govem- fment, under which that Province provided the legal machinery for enforcing I re.spect to their territorial juimlictlon of three miles from the coasts, bays and { harbors of that Province; and subsequently, in 1840, adopted an amended law, I which is still in force. Under these laws, the first of which was in active operation for twenty-eight years, numerous seizures of American vessels were made for encroaching and violating Treaty rights, and our rights of exclusion were repeatedly enforced up to the peiiod of the passage of the Reciprocity Treaty. A similar law was passero oiijoyod n " claimed by tlm iiiliahitjints tln-n'of, to talu', dry, or euro linh »»» or within thn> " marine miles of any of' tlio eoasts, bayii, harl»orM and ereeks of His Britanni •' Majesty's Doininion.s in North America, not inelmled within the above nuii. " tioned limits — nrovidcil however, tliat the Anieriean lisliennen shall bo admitti " to enter sm-h l>.'iysaiid harbors for the purpose only of obtainin;^ shelter, wood " water, and hail, but iinder sueh restrictions as may bu found nocossary ti " prevent their takinj,', dryin;^, or curin,:^ Hsh therein, or in any other manner " abuHing the j)rivileges hereby ve.'ervod to the:n." See British and Foreij,'ii State Papei-s, Vol 7, page 178. The British Comniissiimers submitted, on the fith October following,acounter- projet which contained several idauses to Avhich th<^ Americrans took exception, and amongst them two which uip.y seoiu to bjar upon this subject, and to wliieli we presume the President had reference, and of which the text is as follows: — " It is further well understood that the liberty of taking, drying, and curin^r " fish granted in the preceding part of this article, shall not be construed to " extend to any privilege of carrying on trade witli any of His Brittanic Majesty's "subjects rvHulDuj wltki)i the. I'.mifs Itereinbc/oi'e assigned for the use of thf *' HahcrDien of the United States," The next clause also proposed to limit them to having such goods onboai'das ' may be necessary for the prosecution of the iisheiy or the support of the fisher- " men whilst engaged therein, or in the prosecution of their vt>yages to and from " the fishing grounds." If the President had searched the State Papers within his reach rchiting to that subject, he would have found that no claim of rif/Jit or even of liberty to trade was ever put forward by tlie American Commissioners. There is no record of such a claim ever having even been discussed between themselves in connection with the fishermen of his country or their priveliges; on the cimtrary, such a pretension on their part would have been met with a refusal on the part of the British Government, as may be gathered from the correspondence between the two Governments, batween 1815 and 1819, upon the general subject of the navigation and trade generally, between the Colonies and the United States, and -n consequence of which, in a spirit of retaliation, the United States passed their c'dlebrated Navigation Laws. President Grant should have perceived that the first article above quoted, which the British Connnissioners submitted, was oxpres~!y confined in its operation to the " (imifn " thereinbefore " assifpied "for the use of the jisJcermen of the United States." — i.e., on that part of the " southern coast of Newfoundland, which extends from Cape Hay to the Rameau " Islands on the western and northern coast of Newfoundland, from the said Cape " Ray to the Quirpon Islands, on the shores of the Magdalen Islands, and also on " the coasts, bays, harbors, and creeks, from Mount Joly on the southern ocas I m ciijoyod i itliin thii < Bntuiiiii .1m)vo nil I adiiiittrr lk>r, wtioil JcosHary t. ir inaniii'i hI Foreiuii ,acounter. exception, 1 to wliidi Hows : — nd curiii;' strued to Majesty's use of till', I board its tie fishev- and from I'lting to ihevty to 10 record unectiou ", such a rt of the veeu the fc of the it'is, and ed their that the 3d, was 'ssifpied t of the Rameau id Cape also on Q coas tl.o coutvavy, m the gti ^^^ ^^^ail v hi^ .1 as the only P«n>o««" ^^^ l?" ami " oW^'^«^"!^ ''''''' " Z^ZX^^^^- "^^«"^'^^^'"^' ^ ■ ...cted to those dau... not ecause v'l^^j r. \,nevican vessna j I r „ of Iho tol>«»» *"» """ ,n. „.<.otiaUoi.» were eutered I trouble and anx«ly to tat ^^y,^,„,„t *<=« f "y .."^^^.^^.t ,„,„er.rroj«C - .oroprom*. »»*"';, ^„ American.,, and now «hichwa«aceeptodbyt ,„„^Vm" eta» ■^'^'*^ °' "''■ , ..Ui." .- omitted, and though 0,e n«gg^» ^ ^,,„ From thi- the «nl"W;-^^,, ,„„, cWariy l™^^*;^ ^,^^^, .„, ,..»l.o omitted -JT" Jthey eouM enter B»t.»h po rt^ ^^^ .^ ^,,^„ ,;« fouv objeet., '- «'"f ,'^„ha,i„g wood and wate. « ^We, and ft«l> ,e,airing damage,, » ''"C^^^^; agreement can th«, V« ^^^ ^^^^^. ^,. Jaaonbe clanued *-^ » ^;,„ „„t ouly ''^^^^^^^„ evidently put „cetensionBbe»etuv,atva Amencan Comm , ,,„,„tcon>- irreaty, more «;!-;;' J^ "port, for t°»' **:",• ntle. objectionabl. forward the lim*vUon 'o e J ^ __^^^^ ^^^ „t t !*, f Commi^»ione» ; and » promi»e,f«mthe,rl.o^nto^ „ ,, ^^^^^^^ informed him of rro^cS-'-rrriir^^^ m 3fi obtain " halt " for which they trade their smugc,4od goods, and without which the prosecution of tlieir voyages is practically defeated. It thus appears clear, that so iar from this pretension having been discussed by the Oommission, and sub- se<^uently abandoned by the British Commissioners, on tlie grounds stated by President Grant, is not substantially correct ; true, the clause relating to the searching of Anicrican fishing vessels f(jr goods not necessary for the fisheries, or the illegality of their having them on Ijoard was abandoned, but not the chief object of that trade (bait), nor was any right given to enter our ports for trade, nor was even a claim to such effect set uj) by the American Commissioners. Yet President Grart states that it is ;i, construction of the Treaty ho cannot admit and if the right is exercised under the Statutes of the Dominion, he cannot but regard it as unfriendly, and in contravention of the spirit if not the letter of the Treaty. We might offer the Presideiit many other proofs of our practical friendliness, towards Americati fishermen, but confine oxirselves at present to two very notable aitd peculiar instances : — Under article 1, of the Convention, so strangely misquoted by President (!kant, United States citizens may take Jink on the shores of the Magdalen Jslands, but they cannot use the lantl for carrying on fishing operations. It so lukppens, therefore, that the privilege is practically inoperative. But rather thait spoil their voyages the Canadian Government ha'^e allowed them year after year to land their boats and haul their seines, and. in fact, enjoy every facility for prosecuting the in.shore fishing in common with Canadians. These privileges have been generously allowed to them at great itMonvenience and loss to our- selves. Their manner of fishing — the great t'xtent of their machinery — the numerous fleet of vessels crowding together into the bays and harboi's during the fishing seasons, the munbers of disorderly persons among their crews, — these things have every year caused serious damage to the pursuits of British fishermen, and have exposed the lives and properties of the ))eaceable inhabitants to violence. The Canadian Government have, for many years past, been obliged by sucli occurrences to maintain an armed force on the premises, and to incur considerable trouble and expense in upholding the Customs, Navigation and Fishery laws among these itinerants. True, the simple remedy of entire seclusion might have been adopted. Is it because we have done otherwise that our conduct is " unfriendly ?" Then, in the case of the settled parts of the Labrador coast. The Treaty allows American fishermen to dry and curejiah in certain " unsettled " places on tlie southern coast of Labrador, in Canada. The principal places frequented l)y United States fishermen have long been occupied by settlers and resident fishermen. Yet, Americans have never Jiich the |ar, that id sub- ited by to the fries, or chief trade, goners, admit it but of the been prevented fi-om diying and curing tlieir fish, and even erecting establish- ments on shore, the Canadian Government liaving always considerately pro- vided for this liberty by granting temi)orary occupation of the soil to British subjects with such reservation, instead of subjecUngUnited States citizens to the option of the "inhabitants, proprietors, or possessors of the ground," as specified in the Treaty. Is it because they have been thus liberal and considerate, that tlio American Goverinnent and United States fishermen and people, through their Chief Magistrate, accuse us of being " unfriendly " ? K such f<)rbearanee and lilierality in the case of the Magdalen Tslamls, and sucli amicable precautions in the case of the Labrador coast, are not worthly of being considered friendly and neighbourly, we might as well save ourselves the trouble and loss which attend tlicw. We shall thus gratify our own people who suffer from them, and also promote our own fishing interests. The American fishermen will, doubtless, be duly grateful to President Grant and their representative friend, General Butlei", for thus befriending them in a manner so nmch more practical and appreciable than we can ever expect to do I Thus much in reply to the statements of President Grant, in relation to our treatment of the Fishery Question. Reference may now be made to his statements affecting the "Navigation "of the St. Lawrence.'' President Grant states that " a like unfrieudl}'^ disposition has been mani- '' fested on the part of Canada, in the maintenance of a claim of right to " exclud« the citizens of the United States from the navigation of that " river." Let us ask President Grant when did evc-v the Canadians exhibit such a feeling as he ascrilws to them ? — or on what occasion did they ever refuse ? We know of none ; and it may be safely asserted that no refusal was ever at any time made by the Canadian Government to an}' application for liberty to use the St, Lawrence, either on the part of the American Government, or of any of its citizens. Nay, more than this — the Welland and St. Lawrence Canals, built at a coit, by us, of seventeen millions of dollars — to which even President Grant will not pretend to have any claim — have been as freely used by the tonnage of tiie United States as they have been by our own; and without them, the navigation of th« St. Lawrence could not be utilised. The following extvat t from two leading Canadian papers may be here referred to, to show to what extent Americans can use our canals : — " From a return just published.it appears that the total amount of American " shipping that enjoyed the " freedom of the St. Lawience " for the year ending 38 " 30tli June last, comprised :J,SS4 stoaiii aud sailing vessels, liaving'a total tonnage ■ " of 765,55? tons. This immense tieet passed the Welland Canal ; nor does it " appear tha . any ajjplied for passa;^o through that most useful of canals and " were retused The Americans already have the " freedom " that commerce " demands, upr^n paying tolls necessary for the maintenance of the public work, " the same as British vessels. Surely, they do not ask that Canadians should " constnict and maintain a work of such magnitude for their Itenefit, and " give ihem a gratis passage into the bargain." Tlic following is a comparative statemt^nt of tlio numl)t:'v and tonnage o vessels an'ived at the Port of Montreal during the years 18(i!) and 1870 : — insiand adducd of wh| canal Lawrel or Nej she is I Navic VESSELS AEIUVED FROM SiiA. No. Tons. 1870 ;.. 584 202,689 1869 480 251.557 Increase in 1870 104 41,142 VKS.SELS ARRIVED FROM THE UNITED STATUS TIIROUOH THE CANALS : — 1870 1869 Srilinj., " '(sels. i^' •■ ;.uns. 539 39,841 363 27,438 Steamers. No. Tons. 15 5,541 2 904 Increase 1870 176 12,403 13 4,639 Increase vessels from sea ,, „ United States 1870. 104 41,142 189 17,042 Tot»\l increase 293 58,184 Thus it will l)e soon that th-.' Americans have used our canals jn'etty extensively, and that during the year just closing they hnv? done so to a greater extent than ever before. Had it not been for the Cana lonst have adopted President (Grant's suggestion, and kept to the Lakes u.. i .er; a plan which, involving as it would, a plunge over the Falls of Niagara, migh., have been found inoonveniont. This use too has been available for the transit of war materials, as well m in the prosecution of all connnoroial objects. The obstruction met with by the (Janatlian Steamer " AJuov.vi " at thi- Sault St. Marie Canal last summer preserits a sti-iking contrast to our lihcrality. Is there a singl'> other canal in the IJnited States that the policy of his country will permit our '. ,ople to use ? A notable I tonnage, ^r does it inals and 'ommerce lie work, •should lefit, and d9 instance of the contrast between Anuaican policy and our own, may Ijo adduced in the carriage of lumber between Ottawa and New York — a portion of which is done T)y American vessels, and a part by Canadian. American canal boats, in competition with our own, navigate our Ottawa and St. Lawi-ence canals and rivers, and can go, without breaking bulk, to White Hall or New York ; but so soon as a British canal boat reaches the American frontier, she is stopped, and is not permitteest, and the}' are workeil more dieaply — we have lei-s taxes to pay, and fewer restrictions placed ujjon our vessels ; ami also, bi'cause jur geographical position inconnection with the great grain-growing States of the west makes our St. Lawrence route to the sea, ujjon Avhich our inland Acssels are mainly engaged, the more desirable and cheaper one. Th< President's reference to the " Misaifisippi" is unfortunate for his case. He avouM lia\e done well to have reatl up the 40 v hisooiy of that transaction before refen-ing to it. He would then have found that Mr. Rush, the American Minister at London, together with Mr. Gallatin, refused to renew the right to British subjects to navigate that river, except upon condition of receiving compensation in fishery concessions entirely beyond its value, and in the official letter the former to Mr. Adams, the American Foreign Secretary of that day, he took great credit to himself for having successfully got rid of what he alleged to be a very objectionable feature in the Treaty of 1783 and it was one of the points which the British Commissioners, for i)eace sake conceded. Still the President has tlu^ hiirdihoud to put thai case forward in thivS discussion, as a ground upon which to found their claim to a common right to navigate the St. Lawrence. The iUustrations given by President Grant of imstances of rivers such as the " Rhine," the " Danube," the " Douro," and others named in his message, as having been thrown oi)eii, are not appropriate, and have but little analogy to the case of the St. Lawrence. Some of these, as in the case of the Danube, were thrown 0[(en after the termination of a mighty struggle, and others were made the subject of mutual arrangement ft inter- national conventions on grounds of public necessity and interest ; while others were made the subject of international negotiations, based upon com2>ensations given by one and received by the other of tlie nations interested. But where is the compensation here ? Americans want the navigation of the St. Lawrence ; what do they otter for it ? They cannot use it without our canals ! Will they otfer us the use of tlioii- internal river navigaticm and canal systeni for it ? Will they otier us soiin- compensation in tratle arrangements ? Let ua hear what it is to be, for we must have a "quid pro quo!' A portion of the press of the United States would seem to indicate that it is sutlicient for them to take our coal, fish, lumber and salt free of daty, on condition that we take theirs, and give them up the free right t(j navigate our rivere and canals, with a condition that we rtuall deepen and enlarge the latter ; and allow them a common right in all our valuable lisherios. Tliis seems to be the measure of compensation which they otfer, but which we most respectfully decline. We tell them, in reply that our market in Ontario, for tlie coal of Ohio and Pennsylvania, is quite a com- pensation for the market which their New England and seaboard States otfer to our Nova Scotia coal miners, and free admission of coal cannot be lono- resisted in the latter States. As to lumber andfish tney iiiust havL; them both — the production is not more than can supply the demand — their own. forests are either too remote, or are comparatively exhausted to meet the home and foreign demand for lumber; and as for fish, their fishermen cannot supply the growing demand witliout either poaching on our preserves, or purchasing from our fishermen. As a jiroof of this, (mackerel), the tish thoy most prize, and the feeding groimds of which, are 41 ve found Ciallatin, 'I", except ^ beyond 1 Foreign dully got of 1783 ace sake J t pvaid ill on liglit Grant of li'o," and :n-<)])riate, tlieso, as mighty pt inter- lie others [ensatioiLs wh?re is wrence ; all they i for it ? ns, hear press of 1 to take theirs, with a common Jnsation in reply a coni- otfer to isted in luction •euiote, iniber; ithout foof of •Iij are mainly on our limits, liiive jidvauccd in price from tliirty to forty per cent. in five years,— and as to salt, tlio advaiiLjigc would be entirely on the aide of the Americans ; l,c'sides, any taxes placed ujjou either of these articles of priiiift necessity, simply enhance the price to their own people, who are the contumcra. Is it not, tlierefore, apparent that the admission of the articles they name will inure ({ulte as much, if not more, to tlic honefit of their people as of ours, and if that is so, then wliat has boau offered for the navigation of tho St. Lawrence ?— the riglit to use our canals ?— participation in our fisheries— our registry of shipping— and our coasting tr?,de i They say they are willing to make a reasonable arrangement ! L.^t theui state what it is, for we have heard nothing like reason from them yet in connection witli thes.? Bubjccts, since tlie repeal of the Reciprocity Treaty. President Grant states : "That there are eight States with 17,(i()l),<)()() people upon the.se waters " disiiharging into it," and he says : " The United States are ready to make any reasonable arrangement as to " the navigation of the St. Lawrence, Avhich may be suggested by Great Britain." If this wa.s really so, why was the Reciprocity . Treaty repealed ? If it is so now, why refuse last year to renow it, or offer some fair trcdc arrangement ? President Grant refused to do this, and yet pretends to be ready to make any reasonable arrangement. They want our fisheries, — they want the use of our canals, and the navigation of the St. Lawrence ; and yet, with such pro- i'ossions upon their lips, they refuse the oiJy thing that they have to offer that is of any value to us. The fact is that, ia repealing the Reciprocity Treaty, the Government of the United Spates aimed at punishing us, and starving us into annexation, as some fondl}'^ imagined they would do, and in which results prove they have been disappointed. Since 1867, our trade has steadily and largely increfxsed — manufactures have multiplied in our cities, towns and villages — our agi'iculturists never were more prosperous than at present; and, in sjjite of the enormous duties Avhich meet theui in the American markets, our lumbermen have grown wealthy, and our lishermeu are becoming more hopeful. Though United States laws preclude us from American i-egistry or enr^)loyment for our shijis in their coasting trade, our tonnage has enormously increased in the face of a large diminutic.i in theirs — our revenue is abundant, '■/ith moderate taxation — our country, it cannot be denied, is in a most prosperous condition — and all this, in the face of legislation in the United States, which was thought likely to work most injuriously to us — notwithstanding that Americans have been talei-ated in the enjoyment without any compensation of our valuable fisheries— I! 42 our canals — our river navigation — our registry of Kliijtping — and our coasting trade, — they now threaten us with retaliation, unless we give up everything that we still possess, and for what? Simply nothing. They threaten to '■Suspend the Bomling systera, and exclude tite Vesseln " of the Dominion from United States WatevN." They do this, too, without communicating with us, and upon the assump- tion that we have acted unfairly by their fishermen, and, iailucnced by the statement of political demagogues that we have refused to transmit their fish in bond from our ports. We have not done this. No application has ever baen made for such a concession that we arc aware of, though it is true that we contend that it is contrary to [the Treaty to have their fishing vessels frequenting our poi'ts for any other than for the four objects named therein^ What will the thousands of your own citizens, who ai-e interested in the transit trade across your country iro n the Atlantic to the Lakes, say to this ? What will the States of New York and Vermont say to loss of business on the Erie and Burlington Canals ? What will those interested in your great lines of railroad say ? And if experience teaches us anything of your institutions, they count for something where pai"ty tactics and political infiuence are concerned. More than all, what will the 17,000,000 people of the Western and North- western States, of whom you speak, say to it ? What will the Southern States Sixy to your thus paralyzing the trade in their great staple article of production — Cotton ? What will the great manufacturing interests of New England and the middle States oay when you an-est the immense trade which has grown up between us ? Will the people of Portland be benefitted by the removal of the winter terminus of those magnificent Canadian Ocean Steamers of the "Allan Line " to Halifax or St. John ? and, as soon as the Intercolonial Railway is completed, and w^e hope it will by another saason, this can bo closed without much inconvenience to our people. AVill it please the people of New Yoi:\i, Boston, Philadelphia, and your other leading seaboard cities, or will it promote the interests of the Public of the United States to shut out, by your non-intev- course system, all those established lines of Bi'itish steamers by which your coynmunication, your commerce, and your postal service is now carried on with Europe ? You now tax our merchants with oppressive charges and restrictions in the bonding system which do not exist in ours ; and, doubtless, if you cany ovit your threat, it will cause us such inconvenience as generally attends any consid'.^) - able interruption to trade ; but we can survive it, as we did the loss of the Recipro- city Treaty. We are rather inchned to think that we will prosper quite as much under it as you will. Our tonnage can always find employment suifici ont and profitable, and if Mot employed in carrying grain from Chicago and your Western 48 [casein gvain-procluciiig States, the sea is open to them, and employment abundant ; but what about the crops of the West ? Can the Erie Canal, of whicli such great com- plaints are now made of its want of capacity, as well sis of the insufficiency of its water supply, if its capacity was otherwise increased, do your work ? — and it cannot do it now, how can it possibly meet the growing necessities of that fertile western region ? Now, suppose we really were to do what you charge us with, and not in an " uinieighbourly " manner. Suppose we closed our canals for a single s(;as(in against your trade, what would Western people say to you, if you were the cause of it ? Have you thought of that ? Will the States of Michigan and New Yoi-k, wliose use of our bonding system is so extensively used in connection with the business of their railroads, be benefitted if we should retaliate ? What, too, will the merchants of Now York, Boston, Portland, and other Atlantic cities, say for losing the Canada trade ? Our merchants now buy in bond, in those cities, foreign goods amounting to about $16,000,000 worth, and your merchants and the population of these cities, of course, have th i advantage of it, and no small one either. Carry out your threat, and this impor- tant trade is at once transferred to the route of the St. Lawreace. Again, your merchants buy from us, and cany over tnxr canals annually- over $15,000,000 worth of lumber alone, which they largely re-ship, out of bond, to the West Indies, Brazil, and other Southern mai'kets.. Do you want to stop that trade, and complete what the repeal of tha Treaty has already begun ? viz : The diversion of it to the St. liawroncc route ? Before the repeal of the Treaty, in 186G, we did not ship a single cargo to South America ; your merchants shipped our lumber to that market, and made the profit, while this year our own people, as the result of your high tariff policy, have shipped upwards of S3,000,000 worth of it. Obstructions to that trade, such as you yourself have indicated, would anniiiilato it, and it vrould be tlifficult for you to justify your policy to the lumber morchai.ts of New York City, White Hall, Boston, Portland, and other important centres of your foreign lumber trade. The same argument ai)plies to the foreign f.sh trade, in which you re-ship largely, in bond, to Southern markets. Look at the statistics of Boston, the great lish market of your country, and see how your policy has undennined, and is gradually destroying that traile, and forcing our people to doit direct with the consumers in the South, in place of doing it through Boston merchants, and giving them the profit. Again, you threat(!n — Non-intercourac ! ! ! Have you ever considered how it afiects your existing Treaties, by which British subjects are entitled to admission into your ports on the tei-ms of the most favored nations i \\'^ould you not be deliberately breaking 44 a national engagement, and without cause ? 13ut, what if Britain retaliated ? Do you think the suffering would be all on our side ? Wc rather think not ! You, will probably reflect on thifi raaltcv before adopUnrj an expedient so Of»tructive, of the true ivtcrests of your own people ! The records of the past will tell you that if you resort to non-interconrne, it will not be the fii-st time in the history of your country, and it is nuush to ho regretted that past lessons have been thrown away upon you. Your message tells UH that your " commerce is depressed." Instead of making it worse by ti-ying to punish Canadians, suppose you try what common sense and sound principles of policy would dictate, — offer to meet us halfway, — say to us, we find it to be for the interest of our country as it is that of yours, to have fewer restrictions upon trade, find a more free interchange of commodities, — we want the use of your Canals, and we will reciprocate, — wo want the use of your St. Lawrence, though 'tis true, that we have no corresponding compensation to offer, — we want to par- ticiimte in your lisherics, though wo cannot oPer you any fisheries in return that are worth anything to your peo])le, — A\'e will at least throw open our coasting trade and legistry of shipping to the Peo]ilc of the Dominion, us fair compen- sation for otir participation in their's, and we will enter into either a Reciprocity Treaty or an an-angement for trjide and commerce, just and equitable to both nations. This would restore some of the pi-osperity Avhich your country has lost — it would build up your commercial navy by giving you the advantage for your commerce of our cheap ships, at one half the expense which your own now cost you, and do much to enable you to regain your foreign trade, and especially that part of it emanating from Canada. Then it is a much easier and cheaper way of accomplishing what you profess to desire, viz : — tu obtain all the natural advantages which we possess, and to promote the welfare of "oiir country, than following the advice of reckless demagogues. If we are to judge by the utterances of those politicians who seem to have inspired your policy, you imagine that the restrictive nnd retaliatory policy will make us dissatisfied with our condition as British subjects, and advance the fulfillmeiit of your " Munroe doctrine." Let us say to you, if that at all influences j'ou, oi- the party with whom you act in your treatment of us, that you and they make a fatal mistake. It has already had quite a contrary effect. That there are some amongst us dissatisfied or dissapointed men, or some who may see in - change of .system something to be desired, is quite probable, Bueh you will also find in your own country, they are to be found in all lands and under all Governments ; but this we say, without fear of contradiction, that >s 45 lated ? ft! hf so I'w, it to bo tcJIs Ing to ties of 31- the upoji 'your your restrictive policy and retaliative measures have had the effect of attaching our people more to our own country and institutions. Whether your Munroe doctrine may hereafter prevail or not, is a matter for the future; but we do not believe it, and we certainly do not desire it ! And if we are only, — as you say,— the " semi-independent hut irresjiansible" Government known "as the Dominion of Canada ," wo etg contented with our position, "semi- independent " though it be, and much prefer its continuance to taking the position which would probably bo our fate, under the successful operation of your " Munroe doctrine." We will not pretend to deny but that our prosperity would be advanced, as we believe yours would also be, by a fair, liberal and just trade arrangement — either by Treaty or otherwise — and hence we desire that arrange- ment, and, to that extent, connection with you ; but there is a reason applicable to your " Munro doctrine" which should, in addition, influence you to secure some reciprocal trade arrangement, and it is this that the history of the past has taught us, that any of the disciples of that " doctrine " that we have amongst us v/ere mainly influenced thereto by the trade advantages of the former Treaty — business, not retaliation, yvill best promote your views in that direction. For our part, we are satisfied ••''^ith our political relations as they stand — we are connected with a country from whom we have, as you have yourselves inherited, free insti- tutions, which we have — as you have — develoj^ed to suit the wants of our respective countries. We do not envy you yours, nor your great progress, nor your wealth, nor your increasing population, — we are glad to see you prosper, and if your President so far forgets what is due to his position as the first magi- strate of a great nation, as to taunt us with our " semi-independence" and what he is pleased to tenn our " in'esponsible" character, we can only notice it with regret an being beneath the dignity of his position as the representative of a great and powerful people. This we may say to you, that we are to-day more populous than yourcountiy was Avhen it declared its indepen dence ; we certainly are not less wealthy, we have a greater extent of territory, a much larger amount of tonnage, a greater extent of trade, levenue, and commerce, with insti- tutions quite as free, and at least as acceptable to our population as your's ; and with a population increasing in numbei-s quite a.s fast as even the great progressive increase of your own country — nay move, we are contented, feeling secure in our alliance with a parent State, winch kr.ows not only how to make concessions to her people when they are entitled to them, but also how to defend their rights. Then why should we desire the rpplication of yotiv "Munroe doctrine V President Grant avows his disposition to punish Canada, if, during next season^ her laws affecting fishing by foreigners, shall be enforced against United 46 States citizens ; and ho nsks Congress to empowor him to 'suspend commercial iutei'course with Canadians. Since, as we have shown, the alleged " unfriendly and vexatious treatment" of American Hsheniieii, consists of excluding them from the free use of our inshore and exclusive fisheries, and as Canada ha« no idea of abandoning the privileges which of right and justice belong to her, and the use and enjoyment of which are essential to the industry and prosperity of lier own fishermen, although they will jus formerly be enforced with the same moderation and forbearance which always characterise the enforcement of British rights, It may lu; presumed that President Grant will exercise the ])ower which he moves Con- gress to confer on his executive. This being the futiu-e ])rospeet, we may as well at once accept and prepare for the foregone conclusion, if our neighbours are determined, through the sanction of their popular representatives, that we shall not protect our ov/n property, but allow a small class of their immense population, for their pecuniary gain, to trespass on oiu- rights and privileg(!s, and rob us of what belongs as wholly and clearly to ourselves, as the fish within three; miles of the American coast belong to subjects of the United States, without incurring the hostility of President Grant, his cabinet and outside advisers — if it really is a necessity of tlieir political system, that rank outrage of laws and treaties and fiagi-ant national injustice niust be done to peaceful and friendly neighbours for mere purfy 2>i(^'poscs — if the interests and aims of an election campaign necessarily super-add to this sacrifice of a great and powerful nation's honest dignity and self-respect, the further infliction of injury to the trade and. commerce of a much raorc numerous class,Sindfar mora extensive interests than General Butler's constituents re})resent — then we earnestly hope that Congr?ss will say so, by adopting the President's suggestion. We know precisely, and can tell them beforehand, just what it will ])roduce ajnong our peo])le. They will deeply regret the ])ersistent attitude of unfriendliness which Americans will have assumed and maintained toAvards them, simply because they are resolveil to remain British subjects. They will sincerely deplore the unjust and illiberal treatment they have received from neighbours towards whom they have always acted with justice and liberality. They will feel that their rights are as.sailed, their conciliation contemned, and their business endiarrased, not in reality because they have a desire to keej) and use their inshore fisheries for themselves, but because the United States Government entertain " unfriendlv" feelings towards the Empire, for want of sympathy in the late Civil War, and for unsettled claims to compensation and amends ; and that American politicians are madly bent on retaliatiiuf such fancied wrong.s, through the Imperial connection with Colonial affairs, and the national responsibility of Great Britain. We arc n(jt blind to the real object of President Grant's '' untuughbourly" acts and utterances. The true aim is at Her Majesty's Government. This is where an effect is 47 Imercial ►llyaml n from Mea of lie use <>r own >n and may ))(• Con- nay JIK liboiirs lat \vo nnonso 's, and I tlireo itiiout Jviser.s f Jaws iendly ofition atioii's f^' and, 'd than fksh-fcd to l>o I.roduccd. If lie can ;inly sucfTfid in making miHchiof botwt-en Great Britain and f!anada, and stirrinj^- uj) to ]ucjudico and Htrifo tlio ill- Hui>i»res.sod raiujour witli Mhidi n^rtain of tho American pooplo regard England, and everything British, whether in Europe or America, tho darling purpose of 8uch a manifesto as tliis message, for tlie year of graeo 1870, may be fulfilled. Lev, o year tl • attack was oa tlie ground of tho Alabama claims from Britain — this year it is Canada and the fisheries. The Alabama grievances have been Avorn threadbare, — they have lost their force as a 'p^^'fy cry — something fresh must bo tried, hence the reference to possible difficultiea that we may create about the fiHherica. What a high and noble purpose for any statesman to avow as the mouthpiece of a Christian nation ! We arc assured it will fail of its intent, so far as Great Britain is concerned — we cannot believe it will succeed with the enlightened pcoi)le of the United States. The course [jursued by Canada towards her next door neighbour, has been in complete accord with the views of tho Imperial Government, and has been marked throughout these fishery difficulties by (jxtremo liberality, — patient conciliation, — and a degree of moderation and forbearance, which has been acknowledged by the Empire as most exemplary. Wo have nothing to fear from President Grant's peculiar tactics. All we contend for is Himplo J!istico as British subjects. This Great Britain lias not yet cea.sed to ensure to her loyal and devoted colonists. The President's nnjust as[)ei',si()ns and menaces will knit us together in a firm determination to adhere to our rights in a l)(.'conung spirit, — a spirit of conscious right that can utFord to be temp(M-ate and conciliatory, while just and determined. It will put many of our minor and local differences into abeyance. It will prepai'o us to make some sacrifices, and endure some interruptions to our trade. We shall redouble our efforts to complete our canal and railway system from the North- Western Terri- tories to the Atlantic coast. These intenial communications have been already too long delayed. Wo may thank President Grant for bringing sharply to the ]ira(!tical appreciation of Canadians tlie urgent necessity for their completion, [n this respect his surly message will have rendered us an unexpected service. Above all, we shall become more than ever attached to our own country and to British Institutions. This policy, intended to discourage and emban-ass as, will really create a strong public sentiment and national feeling in oar midst, and serve to attach Canadians, if possible, more loyally than ever to those free and prosperous principles of sclf-dependcncc, free commerce, and enlightened poveim- mvnt, which have made it impo.ssible for the m)ther country to propose or perj)eti-ate such absurdities as soem necessary at Washington in the interests of bigoted and vindictive politicians. We shall endeavour to make our young country independent of siich caprices. Sipcerely as we would wish to preserve amicable relations with our neighbours, and we do sincerely desire it, and to I IN rfnew those intimate tiatle relations which have proved mutually heueficial, and we ai*e ready to do that, — greatly as wo bIiouUI regret the adoption of Hueli extitJino lueasiu-oH of nuH-called i-etaliation lus President Grant contemi)latc8, — wo will not Ije intimidated into any relinquishment of our just rights to avoid .either temporary inconvenience oi permanent loss, and we confidently rely upon the Qovonunent and Purliamcnt of our country to reflect th« independent spirit of our people in the presence of the unworthy menace contained in ihit Message. Ottawa, V2th December, IHIO. II il, and If Huch K — wo avoid upon bndent In thir APPENDIX A. Tmlnu'tlous from the Briliah Governvient to the Oovernor of Newfoxindland, rdatii'd io the PrivUene enjoijed hij CUlzcns of Ike, United Statea to Jish ivitkin British Jurisdicliou. London, ilth June, 1815. Downing Street, 17th June, 1816. Sir,— As the Tivaty of Peace lately (ioiicluded with tlie United States contains no provisions witli respect to the tisheries which the subjects of the United States enjoyed under the third articde ol" the Peace of 178.*J, Ilis Majesty's Government consider it not unnecessary that you should be infonned as to the extent to whicth those privile<,'os are affected, by the omission of any stipulation in the '))re8ent Treaty, and of the line of conduct which it is in consequence advisalde for you to adopt. You cannot but b(> aware that the third article of the Treaty of Peace of 1783, contained two distinct stipulations — the one reeognizin<^ the rights which the United States had to take llsh upon the higli seas, and the other granting to the United States thts ]iri\'ilogo of fishing within th<* British juri,sdictx. derived from the Treaty of 1788 alone, was, as to its duration, necessarily limited to the duration (»f the Treaty itself. On the declaration of war by the American (loveniment. and the consequent abrogation of tlie tlicu existing 'I'reaties, the United States forfeited, with respect to th" fisheries, those ))rivileges wluchare purely conventional ; and, as they have not !)een renewed by stipulntioii in the present Treaty, the sul»jects of the United States can havt,' no i)reti'nce to any right to fish within the British jurisdiction, or to use the British territoiy for i)urposes connected with the fishery. Such being the view taken of tiiL- question of the fisheries, as far as relates to the United States, I am commanded f)y His Royal Highness the Prince Regent to instnict you to abstain most carefully from any interference with the fishery, in which the subjects (^f t'ne United States may be engaged, eitlier on the Grand Bank of Newfbunf obtaining water, and for no other pui-pose whatever ; sulji'ot, in'V, theless, to such restrictions as may be necessary to jtrevent such fishernrni of the said United States from taking, drying or curing fish in the said bay; >>;• liarbors, or in any other manner whatever abusing the said privileges by the said Tnuity and thie Act reserved to them, and as shall for that pur]wse be imposed by any Older or Orders to be from time to time madt- by His Mnjesty in Co\nieiI tnider the 62 authority of this Act, and by any regulations which shall be issued by the Governor, or person exei'cisin<^ the office of Governor, in Jiny such parts of His Majesty's Dominions in America, under or in pursuance of any such Order in Council as aforesaid. IV. And be it further enacted, That if any person or persons, upon requi- sition made to the Governor of Newfoundland, or the person exercising the office of Govei-nor, or by any Governor or person exercising the office of Governor, in any other parts of His Majesty's Dominions in America as aforesaid, or by any officer or officers acting under such Governor, or person exercising the office of Governor, in the execution of any orders or instructions from His Majesty in Council, shall refuse to depait from .such baA's or harbors, or if any person or persons shall refuse or neglect to conform to any regulations or directions which shall be made or given for the execution of any of the purposes of this Act, every such person so refusing or otherwise oiiending against this Act, shall forfeit the sum of two hundred pounds, to V)e recovered in the Superioi- Court of Judicature of the Island of Newfoundland, or in the Superior Court of Judica- ture of the colony or settlement within or near to which such offencei shall be committed, or by bi)l, plaint, or mformation in any of His Majesty's Courts of Record at Westminster ; one moiety of such penalty to belong to His Majesty, his heirs, and successors, and the other moiety to such person or persons as shall sue or prosecute for the same; provided always that any such suit or prosecution, if the same be committed in Newfoundland, or in any other colony or settle- ment, shall be commenced within three calendar months ; and, if commenced in any of His Majesty's Courts at Westminster, within twelve calendar monthsfrom the time of the commission of such offence. APPENDIX C Questions proposed by tJie House of Assemlly of Nova Scotia, for consideration of Her Majesty's Legal Advisers ; 8th June, 1841 ; — I. Whether the Treaty of 1783 was annulled by the war of 1812, au(^ whether citizens of the United States possess any right of fishery in the AvafC'S of the lower Provinces other than coded to them by the Convention of 1818 ; and if so, what right ? IT. Have American citizens the right, under that Convention, to enter any of the bays of this Province to take fish, If, after they have so entered, t) ey prosecute the fishery more than thrt'c marine miles from the shores of suci* bays ; or should the prescribed distance of three marine milijs be measured from the headlands, at the entrance of such ))ays, so as to exclude them ? III. Is the distan(;e of three marine miles to be computed from the indents of the coasts of British America, or frjm the extreme headlands : and what is to be considered a headland ? IV. Have Amerii;an vessels, fitted out for a fisheiy, a right to pass through the Gut of (^aiiso, which they cannot do without cfmiing within the prescribed limits, or toanchor there or to fi.sh there ? and is casting bait to lure fish in the track of the vessel fishing, within the meaning of the Convention ? I by the of His |i"der in requi- ng tho vernor, l>y any ffice of |esty in son or which is Act, shall ourt of ^udica- liall b() uits of ajesty, shall cvition, sottlc- iiced in iisfrom V. Have Aiuerican citizens a v'l^hi to land on the Magdalen Islands, and conduct the fishery from tho shores fclieroof, Ijy using nets and seines ; or what nght of fishery do they possess on the shores of those islands : and what is meant by the term shore ? VI. Have American fishermen the right to enter the bays and harbours of this Province, for the pur})ose ol purchasing wood or obtaining water, having provided neither of these articles at the commencement of their voyages, in their own country ; or have they only the right of entering such bays and harbours in cases of distress, or to purchase wood and obtain water, aft(;r the usual stock of those articles for the voyage of such fishing craft has been exhausted or destroyed ? VII. Under existing treaties, what right of fishery are ceded to the citizens of the United States of America, and what reserved fur the exclusive enjoyment of British subjects ? APPENDIX D. " Opinion of the Qai'i'idH Adateate GfiierdJ, and Her Majcstif'.^ Atturnry Qenei'al of Eng'anl, upon a case suhmUted by the Assemhhj of Xora. >Sci>t'ui, as to the construction of the Convention of 1818, relative to the fisheries : — Doctors' Commons, 30th August, 1841. My Lord, — We are honored with Your Lordship's commands, signified in Mr. Backhouse's letter of the 26th March, stating that he was directed t transmit to us the a. lupanying letter from the Colonial Office, enclosing the copy of a despntch, fiom the Lii utenant Governor of Nova Scotia, enclosing an Address t l incil, general regulations for ho protection of the fishern-.s, a^'cording to the code annexed to tlic Addres". > Mr. Backhouse is pleas* i to requesi that we would take these papers into consideration, and report to Vour Lordship our opinion, wheth' r there is anything in the proposed regulations which would be 'onsistent with liie stipulations of the Convention of the 20th October KSIS, between Great Britain and the United States of America. We are also lionored with Mr. Jiackhouse's letter of the 19th April, stating that he was directed to transmit to us a further letter from the Colonial Office, dated the 16th instant, enclosing the uuj)\ of a desjiatco from the Lieutenant Governor of Nova Scotia, CO vevinu i jiy of an address from the Legislative Council of that Province, objecting ue of the above mentioned regulations proposed by the House of Assembly, in the Session of 1638, and to request that wo would take these matters into coiisiilcration, in addition to those referred to in his letter of the 26th March last, and that we would leport to Your Lordship, at our earliest convenience, our opinion thereon. 54 We are also honored with Mr. Backhouse's letter of the 8th .fune, stating that he was directed to transmit to us the accompanying letter from the Colonial Office, together with the cojiy of a despatch from the Lieutenant Governor ot Nova Scotia, encl(j«ing a copy of a report of the House of Assembly, on the subject of the fisheries of that Province, and also enclosing a case for opinion, as to what rights have been ceded to the citizens of the United States of America, and as to what rights have been exclusively reserved to Her Majesty's subjects, and to request that we would take the papers into consideration, and report to Your Lordship our opinion on the several questions stated in the case above mentioned. We are also honored with Mr. Backhouse's letter (jf the 6th ult., stating that he was directed to transmit to us a correspondence, as marked in the margin, which has passed between the Foreign Office and Mr. Stevenson, the American Minister at this Court, and the Colonial Department, on the subject of a remon- strance addressed by Mr. Stevenson, against the proceedings of the authorities in Nova Scotia, towards American fishing vessels, encroaching on the fisheries of that coast, and to request that we would take these papers into consideration, and to report to Your Lordship our opinion thereupon. 1st Query. — In obedience to Your Lordship's commands, we have taken these papers into consideration, and have the honor to report thhi we are of opinion that the Treaty of 1783 was ammlled by the war of 1812 , and we are also of opinion that the rights of fishery of the citizens of the United States, must now be considered as defined as regulated by the Convention of 1818 ; and with respect to the general question ' if so, what right ?' we can only refer to terms of the Convention, as explained and elucidated by the observations which will occur in answering the other specific queries. 2nd and ^rd Quei'ies. — Except within certain defined limits, to which the query put to us does not apply, we are of opinion that by the terms of the Conven- tion, American citizens are excluded from any right of fishing within three miles of the coast of British America ; and that the prescribed distance of three miles is to be measured frcjm the headlands, or extreme points of land next the sea, or the coast, or of the entrance of bays, or indents of the coast ; and, consequently, that no right exists on the part of American citizens to enter the bays of Nova Scotia, there to take fish, altliough the fishing V)eing within the bay may be at a greater distanci> than three miles from the shore of the bay ; as we are of opinion that the term " hefuUand " is used in the treaty to express tlie part of the land we have before mentioned, including the interiors of the bays, and the indents of the coast. 4th Query. — By the Convention of 1818, it is agreed that American citizens should have the liberty of fishing in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence, and within certain defined limits, in common with British subjects ; and such Convention does not contain ;iny words negativing the right to navigate the Passage or Strait of Canso, and therefore it may be conceded that such right of navigation is not taken away by that Convention ; bxit we have now attentively con- sidered the course of navigation to the Gulf by Cape Breton, and likewise the capacity and situation of the Passage of Canso, and of the British pos.sesRions on eitlur side ; and we are of opinion that, indepen- dently of treaty, no foreign countr}- ]ij,s the right to use or navigate the Passage of (^anso ; and, attending to the terms of the Convention relating to the liberty of fishing to bo enjoyed by the American citizens, we are also of opinion tiiat that Convention oints arising thereon, have been specifically answered in our replies to the preceding (^ueiies. We have, (iic, (Sigued,) J. DODBON, Thos. Wilde. Viscount Palmerston, K.B., &c., &c. APPENDIX E. CIRCUJ.AR RELATING TO CANADIAN IN-SH )R£ FISHERIES. Tkuasury Departliext, Washington, May 16, 1870. Sill, — In compliance with the request of the Secretary of Steite, you are hereby authorised and directed to mi form all masti-rs of fishing vessels, at the time of clearance from your port, that tb« authoritiea of the Dominion pf 56 Canada have terminated the system ui' granting fishing licences to foreign vessels under which they have heretofore been permitted to fish within the maritime jurisdiction of the said Dominion — that is to say, within three marine miles of the shores thereof; and that all fishermen of the United States are prohibited from the use t)f .j^K^h in-sliore fisheries, except so far as stipulated in the first article of the Treaty of Octolier 20, 1818, between the United States and Great Britain, in virtue of which the fishermen of the United States have, in common with the subjects of Hia- Britannic Majesty, the lil)ei"ty to take fish of every kind on that part of the southern coast of Newf»jundland which extends from Cape Ray to the Rauiean Islands, on the western and northern coast of Newfoundlanil, from the said Cape Ray to the Quirpon Islands, on the shores of the Magdalen Islands, and also on the coasts, bays, harbors, and creeks, from Mount Joly, which was, when the treaty was signed, on the southern coast of Labrador, to and through the straits of Belle Isle, and thence northwardly, indefinitely along the coast, without prejudice, however, to any exclusive rights of the Hudson's Bay Comj)any ; and have also liberty forever, to dry and cure fish in any of the unsettled bays, hai'bors, and creeks of the southern part of the coast of Newfoundland, above describeil, and of the coast of Labrador, unless the same, or any portion thereof, be settled, in which case it is not lawful for the said fishennen to dry or cure fish at such portion so settled, without previous agreement for such purpose with the inhabitants, proprietors, or possessors of the ground ; and also, are admitted to enter any other bays or harbors for the purpose of shelter and repairing damages therein, of purchasing wood, a)id of obtaining water, and for no other purpose whatever, subject to such restrictions as may be necessaiy to prevent tlieir taking, drying, or curing fish therein, or in any other manner whatever abusing the privileges leserved to them as above expressed. The Canadian Law of the 22nd of May, 18U8, 31 Victoria, Cap. 01, entitled "An Act respecting Fishing by Foreign Vessels," among other things, enacts that any commissioned otficer of Her Majesty's Navy, serving on board of any vessel of Her Majesty's Navy, cruising and being in the waters of Canada for purpose of affording protection to Her Majesty's subjects engaged in the fisheries ; or any commissioned ofiicer of Her Majesty's Navy, fishery officer, or stipendiary magistrate on board of any vessel belonging to or in the service of the Govern- ment of Canada, and employed in the service of protecting the fisheries, or any officer of the customs of Canada, sheriff", magistrate, or other person duly commissioned for that pui'pose, may go on board of any ship, vessel, or boat within any harbor in Canada, or hovering (in British waters) within three marine miles of any of the coasts, bays, creeks, or harbors in Canada, and staj' on board so long as she may remain within such place or distance. It also provides, that if such ship, vessel, or boat be bound elsewhere, and shall continue within such harbor, or so hovering for twenty-four hours after the master shall have been required to depart, any one of such officers or })ersons as are above mentioned may bring such ship, vessel, or boat into port, and search her cargo, and may also examine the master upon oath touching the cargo and voyage, and if the master or person in command shall not truly answer the questions put to him in such examination, he shall forfeit four hundred dollars ; and if such ship, vessel, or boat l>e fo'-clgn, or not navigated* according to the laws of the United Kingdom or of Canada, and iiave been found fishing, or preparing to lish, or to have been fishing (in British waters) within three marine miles of any of the coasts, bays, creeks, or harbors of Canada, not included within the above mentioned limits, without a licence, or after the expiration of the period named in the last licence granted to such ship, vessel, or boat under the ^rst sectioa of this Act, such ship. 57 vessel, or boat, and the tackle, ri,t(ging, ai)pfir(j], funiifcure, stores, and car{:fo thereof shall be forfeited. And that all /.roocls, ships, vessels, and boats, and the tackle, rigging, apparel, furniture, stores, and (.'argo liiible to forfeiture under this Act, may be seized and secured l)y any officers or persons mentioned in the second section of this Act ; and every })ersoii opposing any officer or person in the execution of his duty under tliis act, or aiding or abetting any other person in any opposition, shall forfeit eight hundred dollars, and shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction 1k' liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years. On the Hth of January, lfS70, the Governor General of the Dominion of Canada, in ('oun;il, ordered that suitable .sailing ve.ssels, similar to La Camidioinc, be chartered and equipped for the service of protecting the Canadian in-,shore fisheries against illegal enci'oaclnnenls by foreigners, these vessels to be connected with the police force of Canada, and to form a marine l)ranch of the same. It is understood that by a change of the bovmdaries between Canada and l^abrador, the Canadian territory now includes Mount Joly, and a portion of the shore to the east thereof, which in the Treaty of 1818 was described as the .southern coast of Labrador. This municipal change of boundaiy floes not, however, interfere with the rights of American fishermen, as defined l>y the treatj', on that portion of what was the southern coast of Labratlor, east of Mount Jolv. Very respectfully, Geo. S. Boutwell, Secretary. APPENDIX R ri Memorandum of Un iUd States Flsldncj Vi'ssds seized hy Imperial and Canadian. C'ruiner8 dxiviwj the season of 1870, /o/* tmlaivfal Haldng, etc : — " Wompatad:"— Seized 27th June, 1870, at Aspy Bay, Nova Scotia ; actively fishing close in shore. Captain of vessel admitted having caught fish within the prohibited limits during that day, and that he Avas aware he was fishing illegally. " J. H. Kickermn." — Seized 30th June, 1S70, at In.^onish Island, Nova Scotia, actually fi.sliing inoide the Island, within a mile distant from shore. Had been ])rev'ously warned three thues, on the 25th, 2Hth, and 27th June, before fishing, with notice that vessel would be seized. Captain was personally informed that he had already violated the law by remaining in shore without cause, and was supplied with a coi)y of Mr. Boutwell's circular to American fishermen. " G. Marshall." — Seized 31st July, 1870, at Sandy Beach, inside Gaspe Bay, Quebec ; actually fishing, and drawing seine ashore. Previously boarded and warned. " ,. I /6e)-f."— Seized 20th August. 1870, at Charlotte Town, Prince Edward Island ; violation of Merchant Shipping Act. Owner, ma ster and crew, by their plea, own to knowledge of oftence. " Clara F. Friend." — Seized at Broad Cove, Cape Breton, Nova S«otia ; actually fishing within three miles of shore. Previously warned. Rescued bv crew and re-captured. Note. — Tfic three td'Aires last ((hove named, ivcre made hy Her Majcety'* cruisers. m 58 " Lettlc." — Suizcil 18th August, I .STD, insiilo Gasin^ Bay ; actually fishing, and having ilshed for seven days prcvioualy vltliin prohibited limits. Had been boarded and warned. " Lizzie A. Tarr." — Seized 27th August, 1.S70, at Seven Islands, Quebec, about 100 miles inside of the - louth of thePiiver St. l^awrence ; actively fishing one quarter of a mile frt)m shore. ]\Iastor was aAvare that the vessel wfus trespas.s- ing. Owni'r subsetjuently pleaded for release, on grouml that he had specially directed said master not to go and iisli at that jilace according to his expressed intention, because ho would thereby exjjosi.i said owner's property to seizure. Master and crew iishitig on shares with owner. •'^1. //. WoiiKoti." — Seized "rd Sejitendier, 1870, near Broad Cove, Sea Wolf Island, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia. Actively fishing IxstAveen island and main- land, distant al)out one mile and a half from either shore. Previously boarded and waiTied. "A. J. i^f(f )*/.•»■», "—Seized l')th October, l.S70, at Broad Cove, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia, having fished within prohibited limits. Previously warned on the 7th of October. Captain strongl}' denieil having fished, and although boarding officer felt satisfied that trespass had been cojiimitted, he desieted for the time lieing from seizing on such assurance. Afterwards, proof of actual and extensive fishing within the prohibited limits during lOth and 1 1th was i)btained, and the seizure effected on the loth October. " Granada." — Seized 2ath October, i;s70, at Port Hood, New Brunswick. Smuggling. "Iiomj>." — Seized (Sth November, 1870, at Back Bay, New Brunswick, having fished at Grand Manan Island, New Brunswick, within prohibited buiits. Master acknowledged being aware of the illej^alitv of such fishin;'. •' White Fawn." — Seized li-'Sth November, 1870, at Head Harbor, Campo Bello, New Brunswick ; preparing to fish. APPENDIX C;. CIRCULAR RELATING TO CANADIAN IN-SHORE FISHERIES. Treasuhv DeI'AHTMENT, Washin'otox, Juno 9, 1870. Sir, — In compliance with the request of the Secretary of State, you arc hereby authorized and directed to inform all masters of fishing vessels, at the time of clearance from your port, that the authorities (;f the Dominion of Canada have tenninated the syst'.'m of granting fishing licences to foreign vessels, under which tliey have heretofore licen i)erniitted to fish within the maritime juris- diction of the said Dominion, that is to say, within three marine miles of the shores thereof ; and that all fishermen of the United States are prohibited from the usv,' of such in-shoit; fisheries, except so far as stipidated in the first article of the Treaty of October I'O, 1818, between the United States and Great Britain, in virtue of which the fishermen of the United Stat s have, iu common with the sul>je(-ts of Her Britannic Majesty, the liberty to take fish of every kind on that j>art of the iiouthcrn wdnt of Newfoundland which extends from Cape Bay to the 50 g. ami il boon luobec, isliinof '.spasH- icially ressed jizure. Ranieau Islamls, on the wostern aiul norMiorn coast of Nowfoinnlltind, from the said Cape Ray to the Qairpori Islaiils, on the shores of tlie Magdah-n Ishuuls.aud also on the c >asts, hays, luirhors, and civeks, from Mount Joly,"wliioh was, \vhen the treaty was si<,nied, on tlie scjuthern coast of Labrador, to and througli tlie (Straits of Belle Isle, and thence norfclnvardly, indefinitely along the coast, without l)rejndice, however, to any exchrsive riglits of the Hudson's Bay Company ; and Jiave liberty feiever to dry and cure iish in any of the unsettled bays, harbon;, and creeks, of the southern part of the coast of Newfoundland, above described, and of the coast of Labrador, unless tlie same, or any portion thereof, be settlene of His Majesty's principal Secretaries of State, had tlie honour of receiving the letter of the Ministei- of the United States, dated the 2oth ultimo, containing the grounds upon which tlie United States conceive them- selves, at the ju-esent time, entitled to ])rosecute their fisheries within the limits of the British Sovereignty, and to use British tomtories for j)urposes connected with the fisheries. A pretension of this kind was certainly intimated on a former occasion, but in a manner so obscure that His Majesty's Government were not enabled even to conjecture the gi'ounds upon which it could be suppoited. His Majesty's Government have not failed to give to the argument contained in the letter of the 2;''th ultimo, a candid and deliberate consideration, and, although they are compelled to resist the claim of the United States, Avhen thus brought forward as a question of right, they foel every disposition to afford to tho citizens of those States all the liberties and privileges connected with tho fisheries which can consist with the just rights and interests of Great Britain, and secure His Majesty's subjects from those undue molestations in tlioir fisheries which they have formerly experienced from citizens of the United States. The Minister of the United States appeare, by his letter, to be Aveli aware that Great 61 Isliall |ii])on fn of Ln. lajia- fs«els ;Ii «)f !ia, because all the stipulations nnjfess to be fjimdcd reciprocal advantages and nnitual convenienco. If the United States Inmi that Treaty privileges from which oth;'r inde])endent nations, not admitted by Ti-eaty, were excluded, the dm-atiou of the ])rivileges nmst (lepend on the duration of the instrument by which they were gianted ; and if the war abro- gated the Treaty, it determined the pi-iviloges. ^It has been urged, indeed, on the pjivt of the United States, that the Treaty of I7m;3 ^yas of a peculiar character, and that, because it contained a recognition of American Independence, it could not be abnegated by a sul>se(pient war between the jjarties. To a positioji of this novid nature Cireat Britain cannot accede. She knows of no exception to the rule, that all Treaties are put an end to by a subsecpient war between the same parties. She cannot, therefore, con,sent to give to her diplomatic relations with one State a different degree of ])ernian- ency from that on which her connexion with all other States depends. Nor can she consider any one State at lilRH-ty to assign to a Treaty made with her such a ])eculiai-ity of character as shall mak(^ it, as to duration, an exception to all other Treaties, in order to found, on a ])0cularit3^ thus a.ssunie 1, an irrevocable title to all indulgences, which have all tlu; features of temporary concessions. The Treaty of (Jhent has been })rought forward by the American Minister as supporting, by its reference to the Itoundary line of tht^ United States, as fixed by the Treaty of 17S3, tin; o])inion that the IVeaty of \7S',i was not abrogated by the war. The undersigned, however, cannot observe in any one of its articles any express or imi)lied reference to the Treaty of 1783, as still in force. It will not lie denied that the main object of the Treaty of CJhent Avas the mutual restoration of all teri-itory taken by either })arty from the other during the war. As a necessary consecpience of such a stipulation, each party reverted to their boundaries as before the war, without reference to the title by which these j)os.sesaions were acquired, or to the mode in wiiich their boundaries had been previously fixed. In point of fact, the United States had before a-tquired, possession of ten-itories a-sserted to depend on other titles than those which Great Britain could confer. The Treaty of Ghent, indeed, adverted, as a fact of })08session, to certain boundaries of the United States which weie specified in the Treaty of 1783 ; but surely it will not be contended that therefore the Treaty of 1783 wa8 not considered tat an end. It is justly stated by the American Minister that the United States did not need a new grant of the boundary line. The war did not arise u'lt of a contested boundary; and Great Britain, therefore, by the act of treating with the United States, recognized that nation in its former dimensions, except' ng so far as the jus belli had interfered with them, and it Avas the object of the Treaty of Ghent to cede such rights to territory as the jus belli had conferred. Still less does the free navigation of the Mississi})pi, as demanded by the Briti.sh negotiators at Ghent, in any manner express or imply the non-abrogation of the Treaty of 6f 1783 l»y tlif! sultHLMpu-nt war. It wa-i l>r(»ii«,'htfi)nvarcl Ity thorn as (tiic of many advantages which they witc (U'sinms (>t'sfciuiti;f to Groat Britain ; and it", in tho first instance, < I hor dtuiiand to tlit> navigation of the Mississippi. If, then, tho demand on tin' part <»f (iituit Britain can lie Htippo.sed to have given any weight to the present ar'^ument of the United States, the abandonment of that domnnd mu'st hnve cft'ectujdlv removed it. It is by no means unusual tor Treaties eontainiiii; reco;^iiitions and acknow- ledgements of title, in the nature of ])erpetual obligation, to contain, likewise, grants of privileges liable to revocation. The Treaty of 17 by the war, therefore all tho other advantages wei'o intended to be e([ually permanent, it iniist first be shown that the ane advantage iccognizcd or conceded hy Treaty can have no coimectitm with the ehai-acter of another, though conceded by the same instrument, unless it arises out of a strict anrovisional articles executed in November, 17'S2. The ir.aependcnce might have been acknowledged, A\itho\it even tho Treaty or the provisional articles ; but, by •whatever mode acknowledged, the acknowledgment is, in its own nature, iiTcvo- cable. A power of revoking, or even of modifying it, would be destructive of the thing itself, and, therefore, all such jxiwer is necessarily renounced when the acknowledgment is made. The war «!ould not put art end to it, for the reason justly assigned by tho American Minister, because a nation could not forfeit its sovereignty by the act of exercising it, and for tho further reason, that Great Britain, when she declared war on her part against tho United States, gave them, by that very act, a new recognition of their independence. The nature of the lilierty to fish within British limits, or to use British ten-itory, is es.sentiall3' difierent from the right to independence, in all that may reasonably be sup])osed to regard its intended duration. The grant of this liberty has all the. aspeict of a policy tem|)orary and experimental, (lopending on the use that might be made of it, i' !onter- tliat 'V WtTO to tli»» {ritaiii Ignited is, Unit such (listiiictioii.s arise out of the proviHiouH theinsolves. uiitl mv t'oiiiKKitl on thc> vi'iy iintuns of tlie },'mnt.s. lint tU<' rij,'htM acknowl(Ml;:;((l hy tho Troaty of IT'S.'} ait) not only y herself, in her consent to enter into jirovisional articles, of November, ITH'J. In thi« tliird article, (Jreat Britain acknowledges the right of the United States to take fish on the Banks of Newfoundland and other places, from wliich (Jreat Britain has no right to exclude an independent nation ; but they are to have ihe liberty to eur»,' and dry th';ui in certain unsettled ])laces within His Majesty's icritory. If these liberties, thus granted, were to be >is perpetual and indefeasilile as vhe lights ]>reviously recognized, it is difficult to conceive that the ph-nipotentiaries of the United State's would have admitted a variation of language so ada])te(l to produce a different innu'ession, and, above all, that they slioidd have admitted so strange a restricticm of a perpetunl and indefeasilile right as that with which the article concludes, which leaves a right so practical and so luiueficial Jis this is admitted to be, dejHJudent on the will of British subjects, in their character of irdiabitants, ju'oprietors, or possessors of the soil — to itrohibit its exercise altogether. It is surely obvious that the word rli/hf, Is, throughout the Treaty, used as applicable to what tlu; United States wi're to enjoy in virtue of a recognized in(le])endeuce, and the word I'dmrfi/ to what they were to enjoy as concessions strictly de]>endeut on the Treaty itself. The right of th(( United States has l)een asserted u)»on other argunients, which apjtear to the imdersigned not altogether consistent with those that had been ]>reviou.sly Jidvanced. It has been argued by the Minister (»f the Uniteiequent wai". If, as stated by the American Minister, the time of the s(;ttlement of North America was the origin of the liberties of the United States in respect to the fisheries, and their independence, as recognised in 178.S, was, as furthur argued by liiui, the mere recognition of rights and liberties )»reviously existing, (which nmst have been in virtue of their independence,) it would seem to follow that their indej)endence was rcjcognised from the time of the settlement of North America, for no other period can be assigned. TIk^ undersigned is totally unable to collect when the American Minister considers the iude])endence of his country to have commenced, yet this is a point of no small importance, if other rights are to be represented as coi-val with it, oi- depeudeiit on it. As to the origin of these jaivileges, hi ])oint of fact, the undersigned is ready to admit that, so long as the United States constitute! a jjart of the Dominions of His Majesty, the inhabitants hail the enjoyment of them, as they had of other political and commercial advantages, in common with His Majesty's subjects. But they had, at the same time, in common with His Majesty's other subjects, duties to perfoim, and when the United States, by their scpaiutiou mmiF mm wm 64 from Gi'eat Britain, became released from the duties, they became excluded, also, from the advantages of British stibjects ;"they cannot, therefore, now claim, other- wise than by Treaty, the exercise of privileges belonging to them as British subjects, unless they are pi-epared to admit, on the part of Clreat Britain, the exercise of the j-ights which she enjt)yed previous to the separation. If it be contended, on the part of the United States, that, in consecpience of liaving been once a part of the British douiinious, they are now entitled, as of right, to all the privileges which they enjoyed as British subjects, in addition to those which they have as an indejiendent jteople, the undersigned cannot too strongly protest against such a doctrine ; and it must lieconie doubly necessary for Great Bntain to hesitate in conceding V.'v ])ri\ilegcs which aie now the subject of discussion, lest, liy such a .hh .essidii, she should be su))posed to counte- nance a principle not less no^ el than alarming. But, tliough (ireat Biitaiii can i.ever admit theclaini of the United States to enjoy those libei'ties, with res})ect to the fisheries, as matter of right, she is l>y no means insensi])le to some of those considerations with wliich the letter of the Amerieau Minister eonciudes. Although His Maje.sty's Government cannot admit that the claim of the American fishermen to fish Avithin British jurisdiction, and to use the British territory for purposes connected with their tishery, is analdgous to the indulgence wh'ch has bt. n granted to enemies' subjects engaged in fishing on the high eas, for the pvupose of conveying fresh fish to market; yet they do feel thaf the enjoyu.ent of the liberties fonnorly iised by the ixdiabitants of the United States may be very conducive to their national and indiviry might l>o most advantageously eon- ducted. They had, likewise, i-eason to complain «»f the clande: ine int'o(hiction of prohibited goods into the British Colonies by American vessels, ostensibly engaged in the fishing irade, to the gi'eat injuiy of the British revenue. The undersigned has felt it iucumbent on him thu;:i generally to notice these obsti actions, in the hoi)e that the attention of the Government of the United States will be directed to the subject ; and that they may be induce ' amicably and cordially to co-operate with His Majesty's Government in devising such regulations as shall prevent the recurrence of similar inc(Hivejiiences. His Majesty's (Jovernment are willing to enter into negotiations with the Government of the United States for the modified renewal of the liberties in question, and they dovibt not that an anangejnent may be made, satisfactory to both countries, and riding to confirm the amity now so hapjjily subsisting between them. The undersigned a\ails himself of this opportunity of renewing to Mr. Adams the assurances of his high consideration. (Signed.) Bathurst. ''►i*^^K-"'' also, ^thel•- I'itish Uie |ce of as of |on to too iNsary tho lunte- |t can ■*})ect [those f the litisli ,'eiico cas, the ■"tates tliey cibly . A\'ay their us to oduce on to ^orth on of eoii- [!tii>n sibly Jiesc iito