IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) V ^ /. / <^ C<'. s \. '^° C/u y. 1.0 s^.' llllM I.I JfrilM iiiiM " ' = Ilia 1.8 1.25 1.4 1.6 -4 6" — ► p /i /^ V^ c>^ %.. v* -r^.V o /. / /A Photographic Sciences Corporation V S ^^

May Mr. Enm lO.VTIH': T lililTALV OF ()VT( WHICH, ' SCJUKUT IN CONFJ I fk Comim i)f the Pi iniftiiiff a mwernin >ii(jn€(l at That it Ij fiiiisi(lerati( "III tor iu fi'solution o As prt'Iiiii i various a It' of the 'tilt' intent I"* of XortL [Before the Aineri 'flit' coasts pw,|)res(!rii pluliou an ^'•etweenti i'''''"! that, til I" '» tak(! /ish r'liKllfin.I ; n r""^'"lial»ii 50TH Congress, Id Session. SENATE. Mis. Doo. No. 109. IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES. May to, 1888.— Injunction of secrecy removed and ordered to be printed. May 7, 1H88. Mr. Kdmttnds, from the (Jommittoo on Foroijjn Ueliitions, siilunittwl the following REPORT (Executive No. 3) ONTIIK TREATY (EX. M.) HETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND GREAT liKITAIN, CONCERNING THE INTERI'RKTATION OK TIFE CONVKNTION OF OCTOBER 20, 1818, SIGNED AT WASHINGTON FKHRUAUY l.'., IHHH; WHICH, TOGETHER WITH THE VIEWS OF THE MINORITY ON THiC SAME •^lliJEUT, SUBMITTED BY MR. MORGAN, WAS ORDERED TO BE I'JilNTED IX CONFIDENCE FOR THE USE OF THE SENATE. \Ue Committee on Foreign Relations, to which teas referred the mexsnye »/ the President of the United Htates of the Wth Fehrtiury last, trans- muting a proposed treaty between the United States and (heat Britain mcerning the interpretation of the convention of the 20th October, 1818, mjned at Washington February iry, 1888, respectfully reports : That it hao had the said pro[)08ed treaty under careful and deliberate iisideration and that it returns heiewitli a resolution in the ordinary |)iiii for its ratification, with the expression of its opinion that said I'solntion ought not to be adopted. As preliiriinary to a consideration of the text of the treaty itself in i Viirious aspects, the committee thinks it proper to give a brief rd- w of the history of the fisheries question and o( her matters relating I the intercourse between the United States and the British domin- i)f Xorth America having more or less relation thereto. [Before the Revolution the inhabitant^ of all the British colonies in joitli America possessed, as a common right, the right of fishing on itlio coasts of British North America, and these rights were, in a broad |iise,i)n',scriptiveand accustomed rights of property. At the end of the ptliUion and by the treaty of peace of 1783, which adjusted the bounda- flii'tween the dominions of the two powers, it was (Article 111) — boi'd that the people of the United States shall continue to enjoy unmolested the |t to take lish of every kind on the Grand Bank and on all th»^ other banks of r'niiidland ; al.so in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and at all other places in the sea If'tlie inliabitanta of both countries used at any time heretofore to fish, and also ii:.^ :, THE FISHERIES TREATY. that the inhabitaiitH of the United States shall have liberty to take fish of every kiinl on sucli part of the coa«t of Newfoundland as British fishermen shall use (lint 'mt to dry or cure tlie same on that island), and also on the coasts, bays, and crocks ni n\\ otluir of His Britannic Majesty's dominions iu America. This was a grant or recognition of a property right agreed iiixm on,., consideration, viz, the adjustment of the boundaries and the otlici {% giigenients into which the United States by that treaty entereliall have forever, in common with the subjects of Ilis Uritannic Majesty, the liberty til take iish of every kind on that part of the southern coast of Newfoundland which cxtenils from Capo Kay to the Kanieau Islands; on tlie western and northern coast of Xcwfoniidland from the said Cape Ray to the Qnir])on Isla^nds, on the shores of the Ma^ilalen Islands, and also on the coasts, bays, harbors, and creeks, from Mount Joly, on the southern coast of Labrador, to and through the Straits of Belle Isle, and thence northwardly indednitely along the coast, withont iirejudice, however, to any of the exclusive rights of the Hudson Bay Company : And that the American (ish- einiea shall also have liberty forever to dry and euro fish in any of the unsettled h;iys, harbors, and creeks, of the southern ))art of the coast of Newfonndland, above described, and of the coast of Labrador ; but so soon as the same, or any portion there- of, shall be settled, it shall not be lawful for the said tishermen to dry or cure fish at such portion so settled withont previous agreement for snch purpose with the inhabitants, liroiirictors, or possessors of the ground. And the United States hereby renounce for- ever any liberty heretofore enjoyed or claimed by the inhabitants thereof to take, dry, or cure iish on or within three marine miles of any of the coasts, b.-^ys, creeks, or liiiibois of His Britannic Majesty's dominions in America not included within the ahovo-meutioned limits: Vvovided, however, That the American fishermen shall be ad- mitted to enter such bays or harbors for the purpose of shelter and of repairing dam- I ages therein, of purchasing wood, and of obtaining water, and for no other purpose whatever. But they shall be under such restrictions as may be necessary to prevent their taking, drying, or curing fish therein, or in any other manner whatever abusing tlie jirvileges hereby reserved to them. I 1/ ¥■'■ '■*l:' MM iirJi ■: i;i.!i,f| ^'M'l i lUiii ; n i ; J ' H -J- m THE FISHKKIES TKKATY. This arrangement divided, and limited in territorial extent, tin* fislijnir rights of the jjeople of the United States, that had existed while they were British subjects and had been recognized and existetl under the treaty of peace of 1783 until the Avar of 1.S12, and it provided for a con. tinuance of the ancient rights of fishing on certain named parts (•!' tlie coasts of British North America, and its islands, and in their bays, Imi. bors, and creeks, etc. It also provided for a renunciation by the I iiittMl States of pre existing rights to take tlsh, etc., "within 3 marine miles of any of the coasts, bays, creeks, or harbors" of His ^Majesty's do. minions in British North America, not included within the previously- mentioned limits, but with a proviso, as a reservation ni>on the romui- elation of the right to fish, that the — American tisheniien nhall be admitted to enter sneli liays or harbors for the [im-. poses of shelter and of repairnig damageH tlien-in, of inin.liasin^r wood, jiihI (if ob- taining water, and for no other pnriwaes whatever. I5iit they shall be nudir siicli restrictions as may be necessary to i)revent their taking, drying, or coring lisli there- in, or in any other manner whatever abnsing the privileges hereby reserved to tlii'iu. It will be observed that the ancient right continued in all its force in every bay, harbor, and creek of a described territory, aiul that the w- •nunciatioii of the right to fish on other coasts, bays, harbors, and creeks is in the same language, aiul is perfectly correlative to the tirst, and that the line of British municipal dominion was recognized and staled to be a line 3 marine miles from these British coasts, bays, creeks, and harbors, and that this renunciation was, both in substance and form, a renunciation only of a right to fish and to exercise the incidents ot'tliej fishing, as drying, etc., and that the proviso to that renunciation admitted the American fishermen to enter such wafers, bays, and harbors fori the si)ecific i)urposes necessary to them in their character as fisherineiij only, and not having the slightest reference, either expressly or l)y iiu| l)lication, to auy fishim/ or other vessel of the United States and sailiii;' under their flag, entering any port of His Majesty's dominions anywhorej for any commercial or trading purpose. And these entries into exdi sively^British fishing waters fishing vessels (the only ones entitled ti^ be there at all) were to be under such restrictions, and such oiiIy,d should be necessary- to prevent their exercising the fishing rights tliii| had been renounced and abusing the privileges of such entry soi served; that is, by doing the renounced thing, viz, the taking aiiiUiirJ ing of fish, or violating the British laws excluding all American trading vessels. THE FISHKUIES TREATY, )V the \mv- i\u\ of ol)- \w\vv Sllfll r fish tliHie- od t(i them. its force in lat tliert'- aiul cveeks L> tirst, i\ih1 iiud staU'il •voeks, i\iul tiul fovm, '\ [eiits of tlie kn admitted Ihurlnns tut s lisliermeii \\y ov by ilU' ami »A\\wi lis auywlK-'«| L into i'xcln- ]s entitloil t( Ineli only.iii riyjlitstiw] |i eutvy so l-ingaiuUMl Iricau ti-uim It is to be kept clearly i" view tliat at the time of the conclusion of this treaty of 1S18, and for twelve years afterward, no American vessel liiul any right to enter any port of British North America, with the few exceptions named in the mutnal arrangements of 1820 and 1823. liercmafter stated. The treaty of 1815 and the Britisli laws and policy reserved the whole trade and intercourse with the ports of these colonies to lier own vessels, and, reciprocally, there was no law or treaty of the United States which authorized the entry into i)orts (with the excep- tions stated) of the United States of British vessels from Britisli North American ports. Thus it was that the treaty of 1818 omitted to make any mention of tlie ports in the British provinces in connection with the arrival or de- parture of American vessels, either lishing or other, and so it was a clear aud necessary construction of the treaty of 1818 that the arrangements, conditions, and renunciations therein provided had no relation, one way or the other, to the exercise of what nmy be called commercial rights by the American lishiug or other vessels in the waters or ports of British North America, for the .status of things was such, that it could not be done in the case oi any American vessel without regard to lier cliaracter as a vessel engaged in lishing upon the high seas or in the British teiTitorial waters, wherein, as was i)rovided, she might con- tinue to lish, or to her commercial character. The right (except in the cases before stated) of the British toexclude such vessels and all others of the United States from her ports in Brit- isli North America, as the matter stood until 1830, is fully conceded, ami it is also c(!nceded that during that time the only right of any ves- |.sel of the United States to enter the waters of British North America [depended upon the treaty of 1818 alone, and in order to obtain the leuetit of that treaty for such purposes, the American, vessel must lave been a fishing vessel, and must have resorted to those particular aters for some one of the i)urpose8 mentioned in the treaty, and no itliers. The foregoing statement is, of course, subject to the limitation ini- |lied in whatever rights might have existed by the geiieral law of na- ions ill respect of vessels under circumstances requiring the exercise humanity, etc. It must be also remarked that at the time of the inclusion of the treaty of 1818 the ports of British North America [ere very few aud far between, and that there could be very little mo- e for American vessels, either fishing or other, to resort to such ports f:yk,:t\ m 6 TiiK risiiKiiiKs Tin'wvrv for tlio piirposcN of \viu\o until tlu^ iSiitisli coloniiil ])()li(;,v should lim,. lu'cn sibniuloiMMl or very liirj;(>Iy inodilU'd. Tlic niattcr, then, uiidcr tlic trt'sity of ISIS was it very .simp''' "in niid can lie rcstatcil thus: (1) No Auicricaii vessel had any rij;ht to resort to IJritish Ndith Ainerieau ports lor any «;oinnu'reial or other purpose, and no r.iitish N«)rth Anieriean vessel had any ri-^dit to resort to any port of tlic United States for sneli purpost's. (L') IJnt American tishiii};- vessels had ari^jht to resort to certain of tlic coasts, bays, harhors, ami creeksof tinit part of IJritish North Aniciicii described in the treaty of ISIS for all purposes of tishinj:: whicli tin y had anciently enjoyed. {'i) I»ut American llsliin^ vessels, and lisliinj;' vessels onli/, had also a riyiit to resort to all other Uritish North American waters for tlic special i)urposcs named in the treaty. (4). The general result of this was, as to American fishing vessels, that they had, on all the Uritish North American coasts and in all her liiiys and harbors, the right to shelter, to repair damages, and to obtain wood and water, but on certain named parts of the same coasts, cti'. they had not the right to take or cure lish ; and (r)) As a consequence of the situation ejubraced in the British laws and in that treaty, ihe matter of resorting to Uritish North Anioricii ports either by American lishing or other vessels was entirely outside of and unalfected either way bv that treatv. From 181 S forward, until after the reciprocal arrangements of ISoOl concerning commerce, it is not known tlmt any serious ditticnltios oc- curred iu respect of the rights of American fishermen pursuing tlioirj calling in those regions of the sea. Two or three instances only of seizure appear to have occurred until after 1830 and none of those touched or raised the bay or headland: question. In 1835 the British Government brought to the notice of oiiij own the complaints of the Canadian authorities coucerning alleged iuj fractious of the treaty of 1818 by our fishermen. These complaints diJ uot involve the bay or headlands question or nuy commercial (iiR'stiouj and the complaints were immediately attended to by our Goveniuieil to the satisfaction of that of Great Britain (Ex. Doc. 100, Thirty sistl Congress, first session, pp. oG and 58). Tin; FisiiKuir.s Ti:i;.\iv. 7 III ls;{S-';5!) tlH'ii' were ;i few more sci/.iin's, but iioiio of tliciii iippcar til liiivi' i;iis»'(l tlic l>iiy or liciulliinds (iiu'.stioii. One \v;is sci/rd ;d tliti . Iv'Oj. I'lU'siiaiit to this a(!t I'lcsidoiit Jaeksoii, on the 5th of October, iMii. in neeortlaiKie witJi a iiiiitiial uiideistaiKliiij? upon the subject with ilic (Joveniineiit ot'CJreat JJritaiii, issued liis luochiination, luittiu;.;" tliis iut of l.SoO into eH'ect (Stats, V. 4, p. 817). And on tlie ISth of November. 18.'J0, a JJritish oitU'i- in eouneil was issued, deidaiin^ anion <;' otiici thin^^s — That the Hhips of, and l)i'ioni;in;;' to, tiio I'nited Stati's orAinerica may iniport fniii; the United States albtesaidinto tlio iJritish possess ions abroad jfoods witii iirodiiLoni tlioso Hlates, and may export j;oods from tlie Jiritisli possessions a'lroad to be eanin! to any foreij^n country wliatevcr (liritisli I'oniun and State I'apeis, \. 17, p. ",M!. It is clear that under this act of Con;jress all British vessels, witliout regard to their octnipation, wlietherli.shin;;'or other, coining from Ihitish North America, were entitled to admission into our i)orts lor all pur- poses of trade and commerce. Canadian Hshing vessels had the saiiif rights as any other, for they fell within the general description stated in the statute. Ho, too, recii)rocally, our tishing vessels fell within the general (lescrii)tion of "shijis of and belonging to tlie United States," Before this time all American vessels were excluded frouj JJritish North American ports with the then recent exception before stated; then. under this arrangement (dl ships of the United States were to be ad- mitted into British Nortli American ports. The former almost univeisiil exclusion was abolished without reserve. If any literal reading oftlii> British order in council can be suggested as of a narrower construction, it would destroy the mutuality of the action of the two govern iuciit> and be unworthy of a government. Surely no nation not in a state of vassalage would consent that its citizens or subjects should for a moment be treated in or b^* anotber nation in a less favorable way than it treated the citizens and subjects j of the same class and occupation of such other nation. From the conclusion of the treaty of ISIS down to nearly 1S40, as we j have seen, the incidents of collision or difiieulty in respect of the rigbtsj of the purely American fishing vessels under that treaty were com- TllK FISIIKUIKS TKKATV. 9 Ct (If- the nil ivinn-, lorlli M , ISlll, ith llu' his ;k1 ■oinhi'i. f OtllC! [lort I'l I !i, 1)1' cni-rii-i! without 11 r.i'itisli all pin- the siuiii' )5i stati'tl thin tlif States." Ish North (1; then. to bo luV uuiveisal !<;■ ot'tln> tnictioii. ernnieut> it that its y auotlier [\ subjects UO, as \ve ItUe I'iglit^ re re com- ]iiirativt'ly low; ami, .so far as the f(»imiiitt«'(i i.s ailvincd, .such incidents (if (liniculty a.s (KUMiircd y the treaty of iSlS, by iiiniiiji" within 3 miles of the shore; and so far as it is known, it was lint until the lUth May, 1S4.'{, that any American vessel was seized for isliing more than 3 miles from the shore in a bay indenting the Uriti.sh North American coast. lUit in the diplonnUic corresi)ondence of that, i)eriod the ]»retension [was asserted by tne J'ritish Ciovernment that bays more than miles wide, ami of indelinite width, if bays indenting;' JJriti.sh shores, were wjiliiii the exclusion of the treaty of 1818, and under this i)retension [the American lishinj; vessel The Washiiu/ton was .seized for lishiny- in [tlieDay of Fundy, but more than 3 miles from the shore. This preten- Hoii of the British Government was denied by our own, but no agreeineii t [upon the subject was come to. This state of things, with more or less of collision and harassment to Diirlishing vessels, continued, but without veiy serious difliculty, until, 111 1852, an attempt was made by the British Government to induce [lie United States to conclude a reciprocity treaty, whic'. ^ailing, the British Government sent a strong force of war steamers and sailing ^essels to these waters for the alleged purpose of enforcing the provis- Misof the treaty of 1818, but, as was believed by the people and Gov- Iniment of the United States, intended not only for that, but as an Sveiawing enterprise, which should frighten the American fishermen fom resorting to British waters for any of the purposes mentioned in lie treaty, and to so much disturb American fishing interests as to '"«il! 10 THE FISHERIES TREATY. seriously cripple or destroy them, and tlius lead the United States to enter into reciprocity ^^ith British Xortli Ainericiin provinces. Docnnientary i)npers and discnssions in the Senate at the time will show how full}' this matter was nnderstood, and how it was regarded by the people and Government of the United States. Mr. Wehster. then Secretary of State, therenpon issned a circnlar notice to American fishermen, in which he states what the rigid and strict construction o! the treaty of 1818 would be, as claimed by the ]>ritish, as it respected the entrance of fishing vessels into the bays or harbors indentin.i;' tlic British provinces. He stated the British pretension in res[)ect of draw- ing lines from headland to headland and their asserted j)retensi()n of a right to capture all American fishermen who should follow their i)iu- suits in bays inside of sucli lines. But he distinctly also stated, in tlu' same circular, that he did not agree to the construction thus put by the British upon the treaty, or that it was conformable to the intention of the contracting parties; but he informed the public of the liritisli pretension, "to the end that those concerned in American fisheries may perceive how the case at present stands and be on their guard." (II, R. iMis. Doc. No. 32, Forty-second Congress, second session.) This circular of Mr. Webster was of July, 1852, and on the I'iid August of The same year, twenty-two years after the laws of ISoO, tlio provincial secretary of Nova Scotia issued a notice that "no xVmerica; fishing vessels are entitled to commercial privileges in provincial ports." j etc. (Memorandum respecting North American fisheries, prepared for the information of the American commissioners who negotiated tin' treaty of 1871). Following these operations, the claims convention of the Sth of Feb- ruary, 18.j3, between the United States and Great Britain, was con- cluded, and under that convention the case of the WaNhington, seizeilj for fishing in the Bay of Fundy, as before mentioned, was heard, ami the umpire decided that the true meaning of the trt-aty of 1818 niadeitj lawful for the Wash I in/ton to fish more than three miles from the shore in j the Bay of Fuiuly, (ind in respect of the headland pretension he says; Tliat the J3iiy of Fiindy is not :i Jhiti.sli bay, noi- a bay within tlie nicanini; ci il' Avord as used in t!;o treatios of 178:5 and Isl'?. Jle refers to the convention of 1831) between France and Great lUitaiiil in respect of reciprocal fisjhing by the subjects of each country aloii^tlnj shoresof the other, providing that their conventional arrangements slnilj exclude the fishermen of each from bays which do not exceed l'> Jiiiki THE FISHERIES TREATY. n ^i in width within the shores of the other as a proper limit of the doctrine of headhinds. ]^nt upon this point (immaterial to the ([Uestion before him) It is to be observed that the lO-mile headland arrangement between Franee and Great Britain was a mutual one, applying- to the shores and bays of both countries along which the fisliermen of each were accustomed to ply their calling, and if, therefore, that convention had agreed upon a distance of 10 miles from shore, and 20 miles for the width of the waters between headlands, it would have furnished no argument in respipct of the principle of public law applicable to such (luestions or in respect of the ancient rights of the citizens of the Tnited States in regard to the fisheries in northeastern waters, for the lisliermen of each country were put upon a jtrecisely equal footing in respect of the waters and ports of the other, which, on the rrit- i^li theory, strangely enough, has not existed between British and Anieiican fishermen since the act of Congress of 1830, and will lujt exist if the treaty under consideration should go into effect. In 1854, however, the objects of British and Canadian desire were at last accomplished by the conc^lusion of the treaty of the .jth of June of that year, by which an extensive reciprocity, so called, of trade was agreed upon, and the right granted to the Americans to fisli within the limits prohibited by the treaty of 1818 under a variety of restrictions and limitations, and a similar right granted to JUitish fishermen in the waters of the United States north of latitude 'MP. In the same treaty were various other provisions respecting naviga- tion of the St. Lawrence, Anierican and Caimdian canals, etc., and the treaty was terminable on notice after the expiration often years. The experience of the United States and their citizens under that treaty* led Congress to ternu'nate it in the winter of 18(}l-'05 by a vote of nearly 2 to 1 in the House of IJepresentatives and by a vote of nearly "ito 1 in the Senate. The Caiurdian Government then for a lew years resorted to a system of licensing American fishermen to fish in the waters from which they were excluded for fishing purposes by the treaty of 1818. l-'or the first year the number of licenses is reported to have been 354, at .jO cents per ton. The next year, 18G7, the license fee was made 81 per ton ; the number of licenses is reported to have been 281. The next year, 18(1S-'G!), the license lee was again donble8' only 5G licenses were taken out, ami in 1809 only 2."). ^i •;Im < " , . ■ ^ '.'■ ;|j; 'r h ' ■•m 12 THE FISHERIES TREATY, In ISGS the Dominion GoverniuLMit proceeded to euact the most harsh and stringent hiws on the snbject of American lishermen calculated and. it is thought, undoubtedly designed to so harass American fisheniR'u in the exercise of the rights reserved to them by the treaty of ISls as to cripple and destroy their oi)erati()ns. Analogous legislation by ZS^ew. foundhmd in 1830 had led the United States to remonstrate against it as a " violation of the well-established principles of the common law of England and of the principles of all just powers and of all civilized na- tions, and seemed to be expressly designed to enable Her Majesty's authorities, with perft^ct impunity', to seize and confiscate American vessels and embezzle almost indiscriminately the i)roperty of our citi- zens employed in the fisheries on the coasts of thellritish Possessions" (Ex. Doc. 100, Thirty-second Congress, iiist session). In 1870 the British Government informed our own that the Canadian Government would issue no more licenses to American lishermen; and. notwithstanding the decision of the umpire in the case of the Wash hif/ton in 1853, announced the British claim to the exclusion of tln' American lishing vessels from coming within British headlands, witli- out regard to the width of the bay between. (See lleport on Forcij;!! Ilelations, 1870). Then came the treaty of 1871, devoted primarily' to the Alabama claims, but which ])rovided that for the period of ten years fisherineu of the United States should have, in addition to their rights under tlif treaty of 1818, the ri.ght of British Xorth American in-shore fisluug under certain limitations, etc. ; and the United States agreed to the free admission of British North American lishery products into our country, and it was also provided that the British lishermen might fish in certain American waters, and that the balance of alleged advan- tage to the United States in these respects should be settled by a com- mission. This commission, as is well known, by the vote of the British com- missioner and the Belgian umpire, and against the vote of the Ameri- can commissioner, fixed the sum to be paid by the United States at 85,500,000. The gioss injustice of this, as believed by the United States, led the Semite, on the 27th February, 1879, six years before tlie fisheries provision could expire by the terms of the treaty, to unaiii- niousl.y pass a resolution declaring that steps ought to be taken topic- A'ide for the earliest possible termination of these lishery arrangements by negotiations with tlie British Government to that end. It is under- THE FISHERIES TREATY. 13 abaina UTineu u'lor tliL' to the iito ouv u wW I iulViUl- y II com- isU cow- Ameri- )tates lit >t'ore tlK' to uiiaui- |u to i)i'0- loo meats lis uiuler- stood that the Piesifleiit of the United States, ii) i)iir.suance of this ivc- oininendatioii, endeavored to obtain the agreement ot (rreat IJritain to an immediate termination of these clauses in the treaty, but without success. In February, 1SS3, however, as the period was approacliiug when tliese provisions eonhl be terminated on notice, both liouses of Con- oress unanimously (or certainly without any division) passed resolutions • terminating Articles XVIII, XIX, XX, XXI, XXII, XXIII, XXIV, XX\', XXX, and XXXII of said treaty, which articles covered the whole fishery subject as well as certain matters of navigation, etc. This termination took effect on July 1, 18S5. By the tweilty-ninth article of the same treaty, which is still in force, the United States engaged that all goods, wares, and merchandise ar- riving at certain ports named and destined for the British i)ossessions ill North America, should have entry and transit without the payment of dutj', and it was recii>rocally agreed on the part of (rreat Britain that all goods, wares, and merchandise arriving at any of the ports of Britisii North America and destined for the United States, should also luive the right of free entry and transit to the United States, etc. That the foregoing mentioned article of the treaty of 1871 covered iiucl included the transmission of tlsh from American tishing vessels as well as other goods is evident, not only from the plain and comprehen- sive language of the article, but from the statements of the formal British case laid before the Halifax Commission in 1877, wherein the right of the transshii)ment of tish frt)m Cainidian ports to the United ^States free of duty, covered by that article, was made tlie ground of claim for compensation. lUit it will be seen on inspection of the treaty of 1871 that the tish- L'ries articles of that treaty contained no provision either in respect of any commercial rights in Canadian i)orts ov in respect of transship- iiuMits, and that the recii)rocal transshipment article of the treaty was entirely separate and distinct from any (pu?stion of iisheries or fish as such; but the proceedings before that commission distinctly demon- [strated that under article LM) the right to transship tish was understood by the British to be included and without any conditions depending upon tlie force of any other of the articles of the treaty, and it is also jtc be observed that the tisheries articles, in respect of their duration [iiml termination, are treated of separately and by themselves in article |33, which provided that they, as a group by themselves, might be ter- I) ! ■• tl ' r' i 14 THE FISITERIES TREATY. luinated after ten yeais, on two years' notice, while the reciprocal traiiis. sbipiiient article 20 was left to stand independently by itself. It inevitably follows : (1) That the rif;lit of American fishing vessels to transship tjieir li.sh from Canadian i)orts to those of the United States Avas not derived from the fisheries articles and did not dei)end npon them. (2) That such right clearly existed by force of article 20 and did not depend npon any other article, and (3) That article 20, not liaviiifj been terminated, the rightof xVmerican fishing vessels to enter Canadian ports for the purj)ose of transsliip. })ing their cargoes is as clear and unquestionable as that of any otliui American vessels. IJjider the treaty of 1871, with all the privileges granted to Americans in respect of fishing in British waters, the practical result was tlio diminution of American fishing interests and a corresponding large in crease of the Canadian fishiug interests, owing to the superior facilities of the Canadians in fishing near their own homes and their right giiai- antied bj' that treaty to dispose of their fish in American ports free from all duties and impositions. It was this, doubtless, that led the Briti.sii Government to refuse to terminate the fisheries article of 1871 when ir had already obtained 8."5,oOO,000 as the established recomi)ense for tlie superior (alleged) advantages obtained by xVmerican fishermen under that treaty. After the final termination of the fisheries articles of the treaty di 1871, it being apparent that the United States could not be persuadcil or beguiled into a renewal of the so-called reciprocit}" with Canada, the former methods of unfriendly coercion and harassment were again re- sorted to and with grea*" -'ggeration. New Canadian laws, sanctioned by the homo governn • ..ere enacted, calculated and evidently de- signed to ettectually frustrate and destroy all the substantial riglits that American fish-rmen were entitled to enjoy under the treaty' of 1818. and to destroy V m mutuality of the act of 1830 and the benefits ul' article 20 of the treaty of 1871. Our Government remonstrated, at first mildly, and later on with sonie- thing of the vigor that should belong to those intrusted with the de- fense of clear American rights. IJut these remonstrances, unacconiiiii- nied or followed by any further steps, were unavailing. The President, in his annual message of- December, 1885, in viewut these circninstances, recommended to Congress the making provision! i.VACT toiiiil fiin fishiiif,' vos '"'■ other puip, I'C it enacted "' Coiiyreffs ana i>iii'il tliat Am "■"fi'»i(irat ail ''"•'1.V l!;iv(.'bo( "■Mlyorliiw, ( '"t'lltofNllchii ""■"f-'< ill rcsjK., '"rs, ports or p "lilt iiiiy fsiK,.], ruitcd .Stiitcs f ['!oiiiii:i(,!,H of N •"'"''•ills Mieli 1, "Wl.'itioii.^s jis THE FISHERIES TREATY. 15 for a coinnii.ssiou to adjust and settle the difliculties and disputes tluis arisen, but Congress did not see lit to do it, and the Senate, on tlie VM\ of April, 1S8(), adojited a resolution by a nntjority of 25 deelaring- that, in its judgment, no sueli coninii.ssion ought to bo established; and by a resolution of the -Uh uf July, 1880, i)roceeded to order an investigation by its committee on foreign relations into the fishery (]uestion and into the unjust treatment of our iishermen and the circum- stances connected therewith, with a view, as it may be jjresnmed, to taking snch measures on the report of its committee as the interests and honor of the United States should re(iuire. That committee made an exiiaustive investigation, and without any dissent from any of its members reported to the Senate, on the lOtli of January, 1887, npon the subject, stating the history of these dillicnlties and the clear rights that it was thought belonged to the United States and to their citi/.ens, and recommended the eiuictment of a law for the protection of American rights. Snch a law was enacted, the bill ])assing the Senate by a vote of 40 in the athrmative to 1 in the negative, and passing the llonse of Kep- leseutatives with an en' ^ng amendment by a vote of -50 in the atllrm- ative to 1 in the neg. .»e. Oa the ])assage of this law the oidy difference between the two Imu.ses was that concerning the extent to which these defensive meas- nres should go. This act of Congress was approved by the President m the od of ^larch, 1887, and is in the following words: AX ACT to iiiillioiizo tlio I'loaident of tho Uliitud St.1te.^ lo protect and dcloiid tlio lis'its of Amei i- liatevor \vas taken liyj the President to put this law into execution, but negotiations were in itiateil and continued, to the apparent end of accomplishing, whatCuii gress had thought it unlit to undertake in such way, an adjustment (ifj these dilliculties by the diplomatic course of securing a'part of Anier- can rights at the expense of yielding other and the most fundameiital and important of them. These negotiations culminated in the ai)pointment by the PresideutJ during the recess of the Senate, ou the 22d of November, 18S7, only teiij days before the meeting of Congress, of three "plenipotentiaries," THE FISHERIES TREATV. 17 m m I were iu- lluit Con Aiui'V anient; , only toll laries." t' consider, with like, plenipotentiaries appointed by Tier ]\raje.sty, tlie wliolo snbject, with ii view of eoniins to a solntion tliereof. TJjese plenipotentiaries, thus created, began their real work at Wash- ington while both houses of Congress were sittin','', and without any coinnuinieation by the President in his annual message on the meeting- of Congress, or otherwise, of the fact that such important and extra- ordinary operations were in progress, or that very grave interests of the United States had been placed in the custodj' of gentlemen wiiose names had not even been communicated to it. These " plenipotentiaries" came to a conclusion of their labors on the 15th of February, 1888, and the otlices of "plenipotentiaries'' termi- nated, and the result was reached without the advice and consent of the Senate having been asked or taken concerning the selection of these public ministers, and without any communication to either house of Congress concerning this most important subject. It is not dillicult to see that, in evil times, when the President of the United States may be under influence of foreign and adverse interests, such a course of procedure might result in great disaster to the interests ■m\ even the safety of our Government and peoi)le. It is no answer to this suggestion to say that an arrangement thus L'oncluded can not be valid or effectual without the advice and consent of the Senate, for the rights and interests of the people of the United States might be so neglected, misunderstood, abandoned, or sold by President's "plenipotentiaries" as to greatly embarrass, if not defeat, their ultimate re-assertion in better times and under better administra- itious, though it is hoped that such will not be the case in respect of liese negotiations. The document submitted to the Senate by the President us the out- onie of these negotiations nmy, it is thought, well illustrate the dangers fsuch methods. But holding in reserve, for the time being, these grave questions wicliiiig usurpations of unconstittitional powers, or the abuse of those at may be thought to exist on the part of the Executive, the commit- tliinks it suihcient for the present occasion to deal with the docu- n'ut itself. The subject with wh^ch, according to the message of the President iuisuiitting it, this document professes to deal, is " the settlement of the estions growing out of the rights claimed by American fishermen in itish North American waters." And the document opens with the S. :Mis. 109 2 It' 1 m i^i. lliiiiji;'].''! h « 18 Tin: n.siiKinivS tkkatv. stateinent that it lias to deal with "diireronces # # # eoiiccri'lui; Llie iiitc'i'iiretatioii of Article I of the i'onvcntioii of October LM), ISl ,." 'The article referred to ai)pears in an earlier part of this report. Tlie language of this article is, as has olteii been stated in lon;^- (li>. cussions upon the subject, jterfectly dear. And as it respects the ter- ritorial limits wherein American fishermen should no longer have tiicii -ancient right of fishing, there has not been and can not be any question capable of discussion, other than that uhich may arise from the use of the words " bays," etc., of Her Majesty's dominons. The article itself, in clear and unmistakable language, recognized and adopted ;» miles from the shore as the extreme limit of municii>al du minion and exclusion, but it also used the words "bays," etc. — Britisli bayti — as included within the i)rohil)ited territory. For many years after the conclusion of this treaty, of 181S there does not ajjpear to have been any ditliculty in respect of the exercise of tlie rights of American fishermen in bays along the IJritish North Aniericaiij coast that were more than G miles wide at their entrance, thus followiiijj the description embraced in the .'J-mile designation of munici])al bdiuid ary. But when the Canadians found that they could not have the same ;ii vantages enjoyed by American citizens," fishermen, in introducing tbeii; tish and other products into the United States on the same tonus ;i^ our own citizens, a system of restrictive claim was adopted, and tli^ pretension was set up that any bay, no matter how wide, iiidciitiii^ British North America, was a British bay, and that the American lis ermen were by the treaty of ISbS forbidden to fish therein, and in Ui\ the first seizure under tliat claim occurre- he tev- e theii uestioii > use of zed and iipal dn- -Bvitisli ane dot sc of the Anu'ricnu I'oWowin;; >i\\ bountl- fie e same ii< iuu; tbi'iii terms ;i , aud til' uuhMUiii tied in li'-'l measurod seaward from a straight lino drawn across the bay, creek, or harbor, iu the |iart ut'iirest the entrance at the first point where the width does not exceed len brine niih's. le atU'iitinl i seizai-es the claim lericau t\: By this simple British process the 3 miles mentioned in the treaty of 1818 is nearly doubled and extendeB'"^"t' entirely different dimensions and entirely iu the interest of Iler ve the ii'M , ..i.^Jt^sty s Government. tiou tbatlj Ibetwet-'i'l the quest! ajesty' [But this is not all. Tlie "plenipotentiaries" went still further (not «ppiiig at nearly doubling the area of British municipal dominion ■I ■M m mw iM m M 20 TMK FISHEKIES TKEATY. iiiciisiired by tlie treaty of 181.S), ami ajiictMl tliat^iiiaiiy of (and pcrhaiis all the valuable) {iieat bays, mneli more than 10 iiiilo.s in width, sjioiild be foreveriiioie included in Hritish municipal dominion, and tliiu lor. everinore no American fisherni.iu shoidd have the ri}j;ht to drop n lin,. or cast a seine therein. Tliese j;reat bodies of water, thus •/wen uj) to the Uritish, are ikiiikmI in the treaty as follows; (1) Tlu^ Jiaie des (.'haleurs; (2) U;iy (it| Miramichi; (IJ) Eymont Jiay; (1) St. Ann's J?ay; (")) Fortune Bay; ((5) Sir (3harles Ilamilton Sound ; (7) l5arrin{jton Jiay ; (8) ('hedaltiictoj Bay; (0) Mira Bay; (10) Plaeentia JJay ; (11) St. Mary's Bay. These agreements contained in article i of the treaty, as has been sniil, I really cede (so far as the United States are concerned) to Great Ihitain forever tlie eom[)lete dominion over these numerous and, for tlsliin^ imi-j poses, the most valuable of the bays alouyt British Government. If the Bale de Chaleurs is a now British bay, so also must be tlioit of Fundy and all the rest. But if it be suggested that the "pleiiiiioti tiaries" renounced the right of fishing in these bays as public WiittBj,(,,, ^.^ (for which no hint appears in the treaty) in consideration of ^"I'P^'Mcimjition advantages gained to the United States by other provisions ot t^yj^.j. ""',etc.,insi(lo| •^Pective i,ow( ons not settlec 'f 'ler own eouiji Such regulatil •lent for comi rs'it Britain ; 'stj'ig over baj S and for a ''"'"ff vessels tc Tin: Fisur.uiE* tui:atv. 21 treaty, it is, the committt'o thinks, ecinally objectionublo ; and this en- tirely without regard to any present praiitieal vahio or want of value of ilu' llsheries therein. Jt is not thouj;ht by the committee to be suitable to the (lij;nity or interests of tiie United States to renounce the right of its citizens to pursue business in any i)art of the i)ublic waters of the world. Such rights, the (iomniittee thinks, should neither be the sub- jects of ])urchase, sale, barter, nor gitt. The question of the extent of territorial (b)minion, as it resi)ects the t'xcrcise of fishing rights in bays niore than mihjs wide indenting the slioios of a country, uiust of course be determined by tiie law and prac- tice of nations as they existed in the year 1818, at which time, as the lonunittee thinks, the 3-miles limit: from shores was recognized without rt';::utl to large iiulenting bays, except under very peculiar circum- stances, such as the ])res(!riptive exercise of dominion, etc. ^Vhetller, ill view of recent inventions in the implements of warfare, it may not be politic; for maritime nations to agree upon an enlargement of the lioimdaries of their territorial donnniou seaward is a question well worthy of consideration, but it has no place in respect of the matters now ill hand. Tlie sui)i)osed precedent for such agreements as are set up in this treaty, of the convention of 1882 (Ex. Doc. 113, p. 18), between Great Britain, Gernn\ny, Ijelgium, Denmark, France, and the Netherlands, is by tliBvery far indeed from being such. That was for the 2>oUce regulation of f Gvei»Wtlie lisheries in the North Sea, and on the coasts of all the contracting >'()VtlB|iaities. It was limited to live years, and not i)erpetual, as this treaty is. citi/A'ii^t neither granted nor renounced any right. The freedom of naviga- lioii, etc., inside the 3-mile limit was reserved. The naval vessels of the ijie)ifii»iieBesi)ective powers were to enforce the regulation. For serious infrac- eu uioiBions not settled at sea the offending vessel was to be taken to a port i wi(U',Bflier own country for trial. alH'iyH Such regulations as these just cited might well have formed a pre- L.meiieiiiBe(lent for composing the differences between the Uiuted States and ut V^ytl^reat Britain; for, first, they did not admit territorial dominion as isting over hays more than G miles wide, but conferred it for the time )e the b»iiig and for a limited purpose ; second, they recognized the rights of Iknni'ottWliiiig vessels to bo considered as vessels entitled to the rights of all ,\ic wattBlier vessels bearing the flag of their country, without regard to their sui'P^^Bcupation, so far as it respected every thing else than fishing ; third, us of 'Beyphiced the administration of these fishing affairs in the commanders ,«! \l ■Mil ^ ;'4i |-:::r' ■it''' 22 tfm: fisiikuikh tukaty, of national vessels; nnd, fomtli, they in'ovided tliat an accused vessel sliouhl be taken to her own eoniitry for trial. The contraHt between thia North Hea fisheries treaty, to whicli (iivar Uritain was a party, and the one now before the Senate is vivid. TIkv are substantially the opposites of each other in nearly every paiticiilar. Xor does the treaty now before the Senate bear any material rcscin. blance to the protocol proposecl by Mr. Seward in ISIKJ (Ex. I)o(!. 1|.'{, p. 17), nor to the schenn? sent by Mr. liayard to Mr. Phelps in yovcinhci. 1880 (lOx. Doe. 113, Fiftieth Coufj^ress, first session, p. 17). Tiie fifth article of the tnnity, declarin*; that the treaty shall not he construed to include within 1 and l.Sl."> purposely left all tliese ports and all tra«le between jlritisli North America and the llniteil States to bi^ re;(nlated according' to the particular i)()llcy of each nation. Such is still the (jonditio'i of tilings so far as any treaty obli<,'ation iseoncorned, exceptiii^jai'ticleL'!) Ill' the treaty of 1S71. In 181S, then, no Aintiiean lishin^'" vessel or any other American vessel could entei'a port onany of the (;oastsof IJritish North America, even where the full rij-ht of hshiuf; inshore existed. And the treaty of 1818, formed on that basis, was not intended to, and it did not in any way, touch the (piestion (jf any trade or commercial riyht whatever, and iif course made no distinction in those rcsjjccts \)otweon lishinj;' and other American vessels. It looke< : I transmit hcnnvitli n lettor fioiii tlic Secretary of State, Avliich is accoiiiiianicd Ky iho corrcspondoiicc in relation to tlu' rij;ht8 of American lisliernien in the liritisJ! Xorth American waters, and comnicnd to your ^avorable consideration the sug<;estinii that a commission he antliorizod hy law to take perpctuatinj^ i)toofs of the losses siiv taiued during the past year by American iishormen, owin;jj to their unfriendly ami unwarranted treatment by the local authorities of the maritime provinces of tin' Dominion of Cjinada. I may have occasion hereaftia' to make further recommendations during the prosem session for such remedial h,'v t(i ectod to ,f British any liiiv- s, iuul (Ui n' reiiH'ii- n the ritish Government for tlio injuries that had thus far been committed. Ill view of this state of affairs, thus brictly ineiitioni'd, we coitii' to consider wliat the pro])osed treaty undertakes to i)rovi(le in regard to American vessels engaged in fishing. •! 'if ^;!i it 5. ■. ,ji m |im)iuru.it ''y Ic losses su'!- iriendly and Jnces of tli'> Irotectioii nt li-tli Atlaiit:' ,i.:vi;lani>. [tate of •'>'■ l3 evi*^^'"'-''-' ' The lirst clause of Article X provides that American lishing vessels tnitering the bays or harbors referred to in Article I shall conform to harbor regulations common to them and Canadian lishing vessids. This, by necessarj' implication, concedes the right on the part of the Canadians to subject Uiiited States lishing vessels resorting to a Brit- ish North American bay for shelter from a tempest, to the municipal laws of Canada, no matter how far different those regulations may be iVom the provision in the treaty of 1818 giving to the liritisli the right [only to make such restrictions as should be necessary in prevent an \abuse of the irrivilege of entry for the i)urpose stated. This clause adopts the princi[»le of the IJritish contention in the For- [tune Bay affair, which contention was that American vessels in Cana- [tliaii waters, under either the treaty of 1818 or 1871, were subjected to all jtlie municipal laws of that country. This British contention was suc- pssfiilly resisted by Mr. Evarts, then our Secretary of State, and the 26 THE FISIIEKIES TREATY, II ' British Goveiiiment paid an indcnuiity for an interference with our fi.sh. ing vessels in respect of their being engaged in fishing in those Avater.s contrary to the ninnicipal statutes of Kewfonndhind. This clause, then, gives away important American rights, and adonis the principle tliat nnder the treaty of 1818 American fishing vessels are subject to the full force of foreign municipal law. Dnt this clause is. in part only, (jualifled by the next, which excuses them from reporting, en- tering, or clearing when putting into such bays for shelter or repairing; damages, and when putting into the same ontskle theUniifs of csfahlishcd ports of entry, for the purpose of purchasing wood or obtaining water, with certain exceptions even in respect of that excuse. Hut we tliink it nmy be safely assumed to be true that there are very few, if iuiy, British Xorth American bays or harbors that are not within the limits of established ports of entry, for doubtless (which is tiie case in tlie United States) the Dominion custon)S laws bring every part of the sea- shore, and all its bays and harbors, within the customs Hunts of soiiu- port of entry. This modification, then, "of tlie sweeping ie(iuirement of the lirsr clause really amounts to nothing, and, indeed, can (if it does not already) by .1 simple legislative or administrative act of the Dominion govern- ment bring every bay and harbor and every part of the coast witliiii the limits of established ports of entry, and thus again completely snr- render the fishing vessels of the United States to every commercial regulation of the Dominion government which operates against them. while it gives them almost none of the benefits of commercial inter- course. The next clause, also, further provides that American fishing vessels, when in these bays and harbors for shelter, etc., under thetreaty of 1818, shall not be liable for harbor dues, etc. This is a mere statement ot what results from the treaty of 1818, for it has no application to these vessels other than in their ])urely fishing character, and in that cliar-] acter they Avere not subjected by the treaty of 1818 to any such ii position, and could not be, for none of them were necessary to prevent] their fishing or to prevent their smuggling. Article X, then, taken as a whole, is a diminution L.otead of an largement of the rights of American fishing vessels under the treaty oil 1818, and its modilying and limiting clauses would be only valuable ml any case as a renunciation by (4reat Britain of a totally unfounded [ue'l tension. THE FISIIERIKS TREATY, 27 I- M\- raters e\s \\v(t ieis, ill ny;, en- paii'lny; thiishcd i; water, re think , it' any, \e limits ic iu tlie L tlie sea- i of some the iirst t already) m govoru- ast within letely sur- loaunerciiil inst tlioui. cial inter- Ill ;j; vessels. iatyoflSlS, ■ateme.nt of Ion to these that chill- hy such iiii- to prevent i [nl of an en- the treaty oil valuahUMii Ifouudeil i>vej Article XI provides, first, that Aniericaii fishiii*;' vessels enterin^i;' the ports, etc., of British North America under stress of weather or other (■((siiaUi/ may niiload, reload, transship, or sell, subject to customs laws, all lish on board, when such unloading', transshipment, or sale is made necesccssary as incidental to r(2)airs, and niay replenish outfits, provis- ions, or supplies damaged or lo.st by disaster, and iu ease of death or sickness, shall be allowed all needful facilities, including the shi[)ping of a crew. The most of these ])rovisions are already clearly covered by the treaty of 1818, and all of them are covered by the real substance ami spirit of the arrangement of 1830 ; ami in respect of transshipment, by article 29 of the treaty of 1871. They are much nu)re than covered by article 29 of the treaty of 1871, and are, iu fact and etfecr, a voluntary abandonment ou the part of the United States of the rights secured in respect of the transshipment of all American goods and merchandise luiiving at any British North American port. That article uses lau- gaage of the most comprehensive character, and it can not be doubted that under it a Canadian fishing vessel bringing a cargo of lish from the fishing-grounds to the south of Nantucket, or from any other place on the high seas or any British waters, to the ports of New York, Bos- ton, or Portland, would be entitled' to land them and transshi[) them to Canada without the payment of any duty, and it is, of course, ecpially clear that a cargo of tisli on board a fishing vessel of the United States, when brought from the fishing-grounds of the high seas or else- where to any British North American port, may, in like manner, be en- tered and transshipped to the United States without the payment of duty. It would seem, then, that in respect of the clause of Article Xt, now under consideration, as well as with respect of the clauses hereinbefore considered, that the Executive in negotiating this treaty had failed to remember, or had left out of view, what the present rights of citizens of the United States already* clearly are under treaties now in force, and had i)roceeded upon the idea that every right that the United States is to obtain by force of this treaty is a new one, and is granted by ller Majesty's Government in consideration of the reiumciation to her of the great bodies of water mentioned in the earlier articles of this treaty and of all commercial rights not mentioned in this treaty. The next paragraph of Article XI jn'ovides that UcenscH in British Xorth American ports shall be granted to United States fishing vessels itn the homeward voyage only, to purchase such provisions and sup[)lies \ Iff ^fi.; * ■!; :"■!' ■,i r 1! A I ^ 't 28 THE FISlIEKfES TREATY. as are ordinarily fsold to trading vessels, but sucli provisions shall not be obtained by barter nor pnrcliased for resale or trailie. A Canadinn tisliing vessel, on whatever voyage, either ontward or inward, may now lawfnlly pnrchase anything in a port of the United States that any cit- izen of the United States can purchase, and on the same terms, witliout any license whatever, and may dis])ose of any such purchase without any restriction. Ilow does it hap])en that the United States are to buy, or to accept as an act of generosity, the privilege for our fishing vos. sels only when they are on the way home, sufficient food to i)reserve them from starvation, and under the restriction that, being without money, they must not obtain it by the exchnnge either of lish-hooks or wearing api)arel ? If all vessels of the United States, including those engaged in tin.' occupation of catching fish on the high seas, are now, under the ar- rangements of 1830, entitled as of right to trade in British Xortli American ports, this clause of Article XI surrenders nearly the whole of such right; but if, under the arrangements of 1830 or otherwise, American vessels engaged in fishing on the high seas have no right of entry into British North American ports and no right to trade therein, and their enjoyment of such privileges depends upon the legislative policy of the British Dominioii government, can the United States, with the least sentiment of self-respect or with the least regard to Ameri(;aii honor, accept such a i)rivilege, so limited, without on the other hanil limiting the privileges of similar Dominion vessels in the ports of the United States'? . The United States is under no treaty obligation whatever in res]^ect of Dominion fishing or any other vessels, other than those contained in the treaty of 1871 and all those, whatever they may be, are strictly mutual. The committee thinks that such an arrangement as is here proposed, and which necessarily' implies that there can be no other or greater rights of American vessels than those here described, is utterly inadmissible unless it be conceded that the business of Amerieuii citizens carried on on the high seas, hundreds of miles, in many in- stances, from British North American coasts, is and ought to be sul)- jected in British North American ports to the free will and pleasure ot the government of that country and they are to have few of the rights that, by the common intercourse of nations, are accorded to the vessels of all counti'ies as acts of hospitality and humanity, and which hy treaty or legislative arrangements of nearly all nations are accorded to THK FISHERIES TKEATV. 29 the citizous of each in the jiorts of the other ni)oii i)eifc*cl]y nuiliml ami equal tenii!*, and never otherwise. If we are to buy hosi)itality why should we not sell it ' If we are to submit to British regulations of any oceu[)ation on the higii seas why should luit Britisli subjects in like manner submit to a simihir control or exclusion of their vessels by the (United States :' The last paragraph of Article XI ai)pears to be thought by the Presi- dent in his message connunnicating the treaty to give to our lishing vessels, whether on the homeward voyage or not, the right of purchas- ing provisions and supplies that ordinarily belongs to trading vessels. In this the committee thinks the Tresident is much mistaken. Tlie lust clause of the paragraph provides for licenses to purchase supplies for "the homeward voyage." Jt then says that such vessels, having obtained the relies, u[»on the iSiune footing that British fishing vessels occupy in the United States and that American trading vessels do in the British provinces — it cer- tainly should, and probably would, have been stated in language inca- pable of sincere misunderstanding. What the committee thinks it means is that an American lishing ves- sel, having obtained a license to purchase provisions on and for the home- ward voyage, which is all that tlie tirst clause says or describes, viz, the mere act of obtaining the license upon ap])lication, such vessel, having obtained such license, shall, upon all occasions to which the lieoiise, viz, ui)on all occasions of the homeward voyage, be accorded facilities for doing what the license says she may. This, the committee thinks, is the literal and grammatical construction of the paragraph, and all that can be extracted from it by the orosed to be nearly universal anioii^^ nations calling themselves civilized, unless, urdmppily, they should bo compelled to do so in order to induce just and hospitable treatment to the vessels of our own country. THE FISIIKRIES TREATY, 31 The tliirtet'iith article provides that the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States shall make rejiulatioiis for the conspicuous exhibition by every United States tishins; vessel of its ollicial number on its bows, and that no vessel shall be entitled to the licenses provided in the treaty which shall fail to comply with su(!li regulations. This provision on its face and taken literally applies to every fishinji,' vessel of the United States, whether it is ever to enter Canadian waters or not, and it is a law to the Secretary of the Treasury of perpetual application. But assuming^, however mistaken the lanj^uage may have l)een for this purpose, that it is only to apply to United States lishing vessels entering Canadian ports or waters, it is bad enough, for it proceeds upon the idea that vessels of the United States engaged in the ot^cupa- tion of fishing are to be put nnder a ban of specilic apparel and ai)- pearanee that is not imposed upon any other vessel. By the article next i)receding, ami already commented upon, all Canadian tishing vessels are entitled in our waters to all the privileges that American tishing vessels are entitled to have in Canadian waters so far as it regards fishing, at least; but they are not required to be thus numbered and marked. A hundred Canadian fishing vessels may anchor in the harbor of Gloucester, the great tishing port of the United States, and be entitled to every right and every hospitality only ui)Oii tlie evidence of their jiapers, which show their nationality and that they are not pirates ; but if a single American lisliing vessel appears in the liarbor ot Ualifax, and under the guns of Iler Majesty's forts, she can not obtain any siipi)lies, and her crew may starve at anchor unless upon each bow there is the number aOixed by order of the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States. Certainly, American fishermen and, we .sliould hope, every other American citizen would not be proud of such a distinction. The fourteenth article of the treaty deals with the subject of penal- ties for fishing contrary to the treaty of 1818 and the first article of this treaty, and thereby the United States are to agree that such penalty may extend to forfeiture, etc. This is a singular provision (and probably unique) to be found in a treaty between two civilized nations, the general tenor of whose laws and the general social nature of whose institutions are very nearly homogeneous. The article also provides for a limitation or an exception, as the case may be, of the legal penalties for other violations of fishery rights, three tlollars a ton. 11 t'l -m ' .fVy 32 THE FISIIKRIES TrtKATY. It also provides that the procecdinj^'s shall be siuninury and as inex- pensive as practiciible and that the trial shall be at the place of duten. tion — the i)lace of detention boinj^ left to the discretion of the scizin};' anthorities, for without special provision the seized vessel could be tidcoii to an}" i)ort in tli(5 Dominion. It then provides that security for costs shall not be re(|uired of tlic defense except when bail is oliered; tliat is to say, that when a vessel, with all its furniture, tackh,', api)arel, and car^o, and its captain iiiid all its crew are seized and arrested and taken to a i)lace of detention, security for costs shall not be re<|uired until the arrested citizen of the United States shall desire to release his vessel or get out of prison. This certainly must be only what every just {government would pro- vide of itself. The same may be said of all the other provisions of this article. They are all identical with ov analo<;ous to the practice of civilized governments, and rest ni)on connnon principles of good ad- ministration of justice. Surely they should need no treaty contract to bring them into practice. The fifteenth article of the treaty is open and coiulitional, and i»ro- vides that when the United States shall admit British North American tish oil, whale oil, seal oil, and tish of all kimls except lish preserved in oil, free of customs duties, the like i>roducts of the United States shall be admitted free into liritish Xorth America, and it is also provided that in that case United States fishing vessels nniy bo entitled — not to fish in-shore as the treaty of 1871 provided but — to annual licenses for the following purposes in IJritish North America: (1) The i)urchase of provisions, bait, ice, seins, supplies, etc. (2) The transshipment of catch. (3) The shipping of crews, but that supplies shall not be obtained by barter. (4) And that the like privileges sliall be continued or given to fishiiif;' vessels of British Xorth America on the Atlantic coast of the United States. This is a much worse " reciprocity " than existed under the treaty of 1871, for while the treaty of 1871 was silent in respect of coinnierciii rights in either country and left the matter of the commercial ri^ditsj standing upon mutual legislative regulations of th/i} two countries, tin's treaty limits the rights of the fishing vessels to certain specified foriiisj and descriptions of commercial privileges, though it does seem toreco;;] nize the truth tliat would otherwise appear to have been forgotten THE FISHERIES TREATY. 33 the negotiations, that Canadian tinhing vessels now have coniniercial ri<>ht8 and i)rivilege8 in the ])OTts of the United States. The iini)olicy of the general provisions of article 15 have already been twice fnlly demonstrated, and, on the last occasion of the kind, were unanimously abrogated by Congress. It is thought needless to now go into a discussion of that subject. "We have thus briefly reviewed all the substantial articles of the treaty of positive obligation excei)ting Article IX, which declares that nothing in the treaty shall aifect the free navigation of the Strait of Canso. This article was evidently inserted on account of the renunci- ation by the United States of its rights in Cliedabucto Bay — this bay being at the southern entrance of that strait. It is almost unnecessary to say that the committee is tully sensible that in many nuitters of fair ditt'erence and of doubtful consideration between two governments, in order to arrive at an amicable coinposition thereof tliere must be mutual concessions, and that the sanu; is true in respect of entering into uewengagemetits for commercial and other intercourse between nations, in order that, in the last-named case, perfect mutuality ot" right and ])rivilege may be had in respect of the same matters; but tbe committee does not think that the ]iroposed treaty can be justifled in this way. This idea of concession was doubtless the ground and guide upon which the treaty of 1818 was founded. At the time of tluit treaty the United States claimed (and justly fis the committee thinks) that the lishing rights recognized by the treaty of ^783 on all the shores of Brit- ish iforth America were property rights and that they were not lost by the war of 1812, and that after the treaty of peace of 1814, which made no mention of the subject, those rights existed with all their original force. The British Government insisted upon the contrary and that the lie Unitod ■riffht of citizens of the United States to ftsh in any British North American waters had been entirely lost. This led to a partition of the the ticivty ■disputed territory — whether wise or unwise is immaterial to the present onuuorcialBquostion — but in making this settlement the contracting parties had cial vi^'htsBeviiU'utly in view the then understood law of nations, that territorial ntvies, tliisBwiiters only extended to three miles from the shore; and they also had in view the then existing state of treaty and legal relations between reat Britain and the Uiuted States in respect of intercourse between e British North American Provinces and this countrj^, and the treaty S. Mis. 109 3 nox- L'ten- izlnp; aUt'u )1" tht- ressfl, in aui\ "Utiou, of the «i0U. lid pvo- , of this ictice oi ;o()d ud- itract to and pvo Vmevicau served in Lites shiill U'ovUled — not to emcfi I'ov e ice )V;\inodhy 1 to lishius; titled fovnisl im to veco?j lorgottou ill] r^'t- 34 TTfE FISHKRIES TKKATY. provitlcil' ill (tlear terms when', in Biitish wattMs, Ciiilcd Stiifcs lislu-i iiKMi lui^lit fisli jiiid wliere tliey nii<;lit not. The only iK)Hsil)lo quostion tlisit could fuiily arise mulcr the treiity ol l.SLS WHS tlie was the seizure of the ]Vashinf}foH, in 1.S4.'), and in that (!ase, as has hccn belore state»l, the international unii»ire decided the seizure to have been an illegal and unjust one. What American tishernien standiiij;" in all other respects on the footing- of other Americans eiijuaged in business on the sea, nii},dit do in their cliaia(!t"r ((s JiKli<'rmi'n in the territorial waters and harbors of iJritish North Aineiica was clearly stated, and in lanf,'naj?e that would seem to have been incapable of sincere misunderstan«liiij>;. The whole of the substance of the present state of the ditliculty and discord has arisen from the course of the British and Caiuulian legisla- tion and administration, directed against the vessels and fishermen of the United States in respect of their coming: into British North Amcii- can ports or harl)ors or within three miles of their shores, either under treaty rijjhts or commercial rights. In view of the plain history of these transactions and of the matters hereinbefoie stated, it does not seem to the committee that the existiiij; matters of dithcuUy are subjects for treaty negotiation; and sueli ap- pears to have been the ojiinioii of the Senate by its action and by the remarks of many of its members of both political parties and by the action of the House of Representatives upon and in the passage of the act of March 3, 1887, and its approval by the President. No new event or situation of aifairs has aiisen since that time, and the only real questions subsisting between the two countries in respect of the subject were those of reclamations by the United States for out rages upon its citizens, for which this treaty makes no provision, ami j the question of whether the mutual arrangements of 1830 and thej mutual rights of transit under the treaty of 1871 shall continue. This treaty makes no provision for an indemnity. It does make pro- vision for establishing forever the full measure and limit of rights amlj privileges to be enjoyed by fishing vessels of the United States, what- ever other character they may also have and appear in, in the ports! and waters of British North America, and it thus surrenders rights THE FISHERIKS TIIKATY. ;J5 ity of I, lis a ' only ■ isliiiiif ■ lo was I s been ■ » luivc ■ on the ijilit do rlioi's of t woiild ilty ami I U'fl'islii- 'Ttnou of li Amoii- ler nndoi' inattevs existiiisi sucli a|i- 1(1 by ilu' il by tlu' m'eof tlic time, iuul n respect >s for out isioii, ami | ami tliel lie. lake pro- 1 kglitsand [tes, what- the ports lers rights! niid jtriviK'^ioa that the coinmittoo thinks aro (ih-arly and iMlly ostah- lishod under the arran^'onH'nt.s of IS.'JO, and tlio treaty of ISTl, or, if such riyiits and priviU'j^ea can bo chiiini'd not to exist in these re- spects, tliat it provi«les, as of original and perpetual cn^'au'enient, for the exehision of tiio Anieriean vessels enji!ij;ed in a par{ie,nlar occupation on the high seas from the ordinary hninanities and hos- pitalities ami e(pialities enjoyed in tlie British Nortii American ports l»y all other vessels of the United States, ami, so far as is known, all the vessels of every character of every other country, while at the same time British North American vessels en;4'ai same occupation and in the same seas have, without restraint, every riyht and facility of commerce, hospitality, and immunity in all rln.' ports of the United States. To enter into such an eiifiaycmenf, liitally ami per- petually, as this, the committee thinks contrary to thedij;iuty and just interests of the United States. The committee rejjrets that these conitlusions do not meet the ap- proval of all its members. It had hoped, as has been the case <;'cnerally hitherto, that no influences or divisictns of a nature coincident with the lines of political parties would enter into a matter of this character, and that, as was the case only a little more than a year a<>'o, all Senators of all political parties would unite in standing lirndy in the artitmie taken ill the winter of l.SS0-'87 and culminating in the act of March :'>, 1887, and in decdining, at whatever cost, to enter into any new engagements with the British Government that should leave any American cit.' ,en, enuaged in whatever occupation or business, deprived of any right or privilege, other than tisiiing, in any British Xnrth American or other waters, that is or may be granted to citizens of the United States en- ifaged in any other occupation, and that have been and are fully and freely gi-anted by the United States to every British subject, v.iiatever may be his occupation. . The committee thinks it due to the Senate to state that, ct)ntrary (as it believes) to the universal previous practice of the Executive in con- nection with the consideration of treaties when the Senate has asked for all the papers and information in detail concerning the progress of the negotiations, theExecutive-has not thought it for the " public interest," j in this instance, to communicate all such papers and such detailed infor- mation to the Senate, although the Senate requested it; and it was stated [in reply to the resolution of request that the deliberations of the pleni- '4 ( 1)1 •'. '1,1 i % , '■ ■■■:!( lllp^ mm 36 THE FISIIKKIKS TKKATY. i l)otoiitinri(»R woj'o in coiilUU'iK'o, and "tliat only rpsnltH .should he ;iii. nuunc.cd and su(;li otluT nuittcrH as tlicjoint protocolistH Mlionid .si;;ii m,. der tlio direction of tlun plcnipotcntiarii's." It is, however, stated that every jioint snbniitled toeonfereneo is (cov- ered by i)apers already in possession of the Senate, exeeptiiij,' thciiucs. tion of danni^es sustained by onr lislierinen, and which, it is siiifod. was met by a connterositions and aroiiments pro and con aiisin<>- in tlie iicji'otiation of a treaty. The committee feels it to be their duty to pro- test against any such assumption. It believes that such a claim is (!oii. trary to the essential nature of the constitutional relations between tlio President and the Senate on such subjects, and that it is the reverse of the continuous i)ractice in such nujtters from the commencement of tLo Government to this time. The principal points of the treaty, etc., that have been considered by the committee in the foregoing statement an;ii government, that he sends to the Senate for ct/Usideration, and may waive any informality attending its negotiation. In accepting the paper sent to the Senate by the President as a treaty, and by referring the same to its committee, the Senate have virtually waived any informality, if there is any, in the negotiation and signing of the instrunuMit, and th(>i undersigned coucpive that the whole duty of the committee was to consider and n'port ui)on the merits of the treaty. . , The undersigiM'-d will, therefore, present their views upon the sub- stance of the treaty, first, and will then state the reasons tliat force them to the conclusion that there can be no just ground for the rejec- tion of the treaty, growing out of the manner of its m^gotiation. If it is better for the country that the treaty should be ratified, tliej rejection of it for matters that are merely fornud or technical, in sol grave an emergency as is now presented in connection with this old| and hara*ising (iontroversy, would be a serious injury to the country. The undersigned believe that it is better for our country that tliej treaty should be ratified, and they are equally convinced that the entirej class of our people who are actively engaged in our North Atl;iiitic| lishing industry will be benefited by its ratification. THE FISHERIES TREATY. 41 il The first article of tlie treaty of 1818 is as follows: Whereas (IKforeticos liavc iiriseMi respoctiiiji; tli(^ liherty claiiiHMl liy tlio United States, for the inliabitaiits thereof, to take, dry, and cure tish on certain coasts, bays, harborM, and (jr'eeks of Hi.s liritannic Majesty'.s dnniinions in America, it is ay,rccd be- tween the hi;4h coiitractin Mount Joly, on the sontlnn'n coast of Labrador, to and thronjih tlie Straits of Belle Lsle, and thencuMiorthwardiy, indelinilel\-, ahmjj; the coast, without pr«piilie<', how - over, to any of the exclasivo rights of tJKi Hudson ISay Company. And that the American tishoruitm shall also have liherty Ibrever to out the true interpretation of the fisheries treaty of lbl8. The most fre(pient and serious disagreements have arisen under tlio provisa to tlie first article, which is as follows: Provided, hmvcvir, That tlio Ani('ri(!aii fislit'iinon shall ho adinittcd to entor .siitli bays or harhois for the purpose of sht4tr;r and of repairing daiua<;es tlierciii, and of purchasing wood, and of obtaining water, and for no other purpose whatever, lint they shall be nnder sncli restrictions as may be necessary to prevent their takiiiir, drying, or curing fish therein, or iu any other manner whatever abusing the privileges hereby reserved to them. This proviso, aa it wns proposed by our negotiators, contained the words " and bait " after the word " water." These words were stricken out, with the consent of our Commissioners. The right to obtain bait was thus finally disposed of as a treaty right. In this proviso the four distinct "privileges hereby reserved to" Anierican fishermen are stated definitely, while "such restrictions us may be necessary to prevent" them iu any manner from "abusing tbe privileges" reserved to them are not defined, excei)t in the most general terms. American fishermen are placed " under sudi restrictions" with no guaranty as to the jurisdiction, whether provincial or imperial, that shall promulgate and enfoicr them ; or whether they shall be declared by h^gislative authority, or administered by executive authority or by the judiciary. It was coutemplated in this treaty that further defiaitious on these delicate questions should be settled, either by the future agreement of the treaty powers, or that Great Britain should choose the tribunals that would declare and enforce these "restrictions" against American fishermen, subject only to the requirement that they should be " such restrictions as may be necessary to prevent their taking, drying, or curing fish therein, or in any other manner whatever abusing the privi- leges hereby reserved to them." That controversies would arise under this uncertain definition of the power to prescribe restrictions to our fishermen iu the eiyoymeutof positi ence J i( [has added Ifictilt. THE FISHERIES TREATY. 43 tUe l>rivi- )a of tbe lyineut of positive treaty rights was as certain in 1818 as seventy years' ex[)t>ri- ence has proven it to be, in an nn fortunate history. It was ])rol)al)ly expected in 1818 that tlie jiood sense of the p(H)i)le and the good will of their Governments would enable them to arrange these indefinite "restrictions" by i)recedent and a(;quiescen«',e, and thus ii(loi)t a series of regulations, the justice and propriety of which all would admit. But such hopes, if they were entertained, have been disappointed, and the eajjer rivalry that a very lucrative employment lias stinudated has involved the iteople ami their (Tovernnu^nts in dan- (jerous controversies as to the "restrictions" that were left without ac- curate definition in the proviso to the first article of the treaty of 1818. Efforts have been made, that were for a time successful, to compose these and other troublesome questions growing out of article 1 of the treaty of 1818, by new treaty arrangements relating to the lisheries iu British waters on the novtheastern coasts. In the treaty of 1854 the repose of these questions was secured for a time for the consideration of a liberal reciprocity extending to a variety of snbjects. Tiie right of the free navigation of the St. Lawrence Kiver was included in that reciprocal agreement, and was made per- petual by the recii)rocity treaty ol' 1871. Iu the treaty of 1871 we again |)ut these questions to rest for a time by the promise of enough money to equalize the i)ossible an. It se'^ms to ha e ''<^oome necessary to make such moditieations of tiiai treat.y at< ar- '.n^j. i ' -i by our changed comnu^rcial relations since ISls, and also by our mi tin s ,;" fi filing with purse seines and of preserving fish in ice and snow, which have grown ui> into almost entirely new systems, jvith new attending wants, iu the past thirty years. The gradual abridgment of our right to land and cure lish on tlie shores of the British possessions, as the country along the shores should become i)opulated, was provided for in the treaties of 1783, 1818, 1851. and 1871. This feature in a treaty is thought to be entirely novel. It relates to a future expected change in the condition of the then miiii- babited coasts of British America. It certainly suggests in a forcible way that it was contemi)lated that future mod.tieatious of the treaties would be necessary to meet these changed conditions when they should occur. The progress of civilization on the Xortli American continent, with the necessary increase of commerce and of improvement in every in- dustry, has wrought changes m the condition of the people which have demanded, from time to time, changes in the treaty relations of the m joining countries that were indispensable. The right of navigating the Mississippi and St. Lawrence Rivers, iisj now agreed upon, is a most forcible illustration of this necessity for an international policy, modified by interinitional agreement, that will piO' vide for the mutual wants ami advantage of these adjoining countii'sj as the occasion demands. An aients try, w creates tJjat is Mr. J ornmen ISIS, ai wlonial sti'ict aij liccause of vast ] iiiand foi cial and Such c( ■iinicient and resell tions, rati fowai'd« e To sJiow prosejit tl t'onllicting 1318. Iti, occuried, oils di/l'ere featy, attt lowed by d ' est conseqi Ju all tin I lliafc of Th l^^i'i, has a^ ( "iKler the I^)aratioi '• Jinie y(i, 1) IS22. '-'• in 1823, Ch ■^"'y 18, 18; Y' J'lJy 18, 18-1 October?, if THE FISHERIES TREATY. 45 isis ion- ic- ipoii :iou, I tlie Ic. \ty. i» I allay UGov- lUVS ot of tllilt serving ely Ht'w on tlie sluuilA |18, IS.")!. iVtM. ll 1(M\ miiii- iV)i't'il)U' [> ireatu'^ \ shoultl Lat, with jevt'vy ill- inch liiW' )f tUc iiil- [livers, as I lity I'oi'^ui It will iivo- countii's An inflexiblo adlieieiico to the literal construction of ancient agree- ments that have become too narrow for the convenience of either conn- try, whethei it results from national Jealousy or commercial rivalry, creates an incubus upon tlu^ progress of the communities concerned that is derogatory to those wlio refuse to yield rheir prejudices. Mr. Bayard, in presenting to the consideration of the British Gov- ernment the reasons for a more liberal interpretation of the treaty' of 1818, and for an enlargement of the privileges of our tisherinen in the colonial ports, strongly urged the necessity for this relaxation of the strict and literal construction idiiced by that Government on that treaty, because of the growth t)f the commerce of both countries, the building of vast lines of railways, the increase of population, the enlarged de- mimd for the prodiuits of the fisheries, and the more intimate (;omnier- oial and so(!ial relations of the i)eople. Such considerations demand careful attention, and are. of themselves, siinicient reasons to induce both Governn)ents to lay aside i)rejudices iiiul resentments, and to induce their i)eople to cultivate friendly rela- tions, rather than to ymt tlielr welfare at hazard by fostering ill-will to\var, l>^.',\). 11. June 4, 18:V.), SliclUuid sei/.ed, taken to Halifax, and eondonined Jnly 8, l'^X!>. 12. May 20, 18:il.', Inikptmknw «fl/,i;d, taken to Halifax, and condemned Au;;ii.st .'), I8;w. 13. May 25, 1839, MaijuoUa wizeil, taken to Halifax, .and condemned Au<;nst .'», 183ii. 14. May — , lH:5i), Ilarl seized, taken to Halifax, and condemned Anji;nst .">, 18:i',», I.'). June — , lHr?'J, BatiUe tit'.\y,i'A\, taken to Halifax, and condemned Jnly 8, 18:')',). 10. Juno 14, 1839, Ilyder Alhi seized, taken lo Halifax, and condemned Jnly 8, 1*59. 17. June 14, 1839, A7i>« seized, taken to Halifax, and condemned Jnly 8, 1839. 18. June — , 1839, May Flower seized, taken to Halifax, and restored to its owners. 19. June 2, 1840, I'aphieaa seized, taken to Halifax, and condemned Jnly 10, 1840. 20. Juno 2, 1840, Mary seized, taken to Halifax, and condemned July 10, 1840, 21. September 11, 1810, J/;(ii< seized, taken to Halifax, and condemned December rf, 1840. 22. September 18, 1840, Dirertor seized, taken to Halifax, and condemned December 8, 1840. 23. October 1, 1840, Ocean seized, taken to Halifax, and condemned December 8, 1840. 24. May 6, 1841, Pionvtr seized, taken to Halifax, and condemned August 18, 1841. 25. May 20, 1841, Two Friendx seized, taken to Halifax, and restored. 20. September 20, 1841, Mara seized, taken to Halifax, and condemned November ',', 1841. 27. September 20, 1841, Egret seized, taken to Halifax, and condemned November ,', 1841. 28. October 1:5, 1841, ll'urrhr s(.-ized, taken to Halifax, and condemned Novciuber ',i, 1841. 29. October V.\. 1841, //o/^e seized, taken to Halifax, and restored. 30. October 13, 1841, Mtu/ Flower seized, taken to Halifax, and condemned December 7, 1841. 31. May 7, 184:5, Washington .seized, taken to Halifax, and condemned August 1, 1843. 32. In 1844, Argus seized by the S>ilpli, otf the coast of Cape Breton, when "fifteen miles from any land," "This was the second seizure under the ue\V construc- tion of the treaty of 1816," 33. In 1845, "an American fisherman » * * was seized in the Bay of Fumly, at| anchor inside the light-honse at the entrance of Digby Gut," 34. In 1840, "the seizure and total loss of several American vessels," not named, isj noted in S, Doc. 22, 2d sess,, ;{2d Congress. 35. May 10, 1848, Hyadea seized, taken to Halifax, and condenmed September 5, 184^ | 36. May 11, 1849, Leonidas seized, taken to Halifax, and condemned June 29, 1849. 37. September 14, 1850, Hari) seized, taken to Halifiix, and condemned January 3?, j 1851. THE FISHERIES TRERTY. 47 ■iiiU.'i' r.VJ. iry -i^, lit. ;W. c.v.). ;«». I, 1810. !40. eember v^, December ber 8, 1840. 18, 1841. OVfUlbfV ■■.', ovoinber ;', Dvi' labor ',l, Id Di>cei"'"^'' Lust l.lStt. lu'u "t\ftee!i| [\\- construe- Lf Fmidy, at lot named, is I Iniber &, 1^4^ 29, 1849. January 2?, 38. October "iO, 1H.")1, Ti7*er nei/.i'il, but thcro is no inlormntion iih to tlic disposition made of it. ;?'.). .Jiiiitr 1(5, 18.')2, C(»n// ,s(flzc(l, takcu to St. .loiiii, and cdiidi'iiiiicd .Inly '28, iH'i'i. 411 .July 20. IHiVi, ('»/(>« .sci/.^d. taken to Cliariottotowii, ;nid conilcinncd Sciitciiiber '^4, lr-:V>. 41. An^jjiist f), l>^r)'2, Floriila ,sei/.(>d, taken to L'h.irlnttetown, and (•nn(b'Min"d S'-ptein- ber 7. 18.VJ. 4"2. September 11, lr>'rl, CaroHiu: Knhjlit .seizcid, taken to (Miarlottetown, and con- demned. 4!!. In 18r)2, Golden //»/e detained and taken to (Uiarlottetown. .ind liberated on tho owner ackno\vledgin, Vice-Adiniral Wellesley reported that dnrinir the |>aHt season IG'i vessels had been boarded by the British ('rnisers, of \vhi(!li llU within tho tliree-Tuile limit had been warned oncuj, and 19 had been warned twice. Ill 1870 the tbllowiiijf elevon (U) vessels were seized and taken into tlie i>rovincial ports, .souie of which were condemned, wliile others, ])er- luips, were liberated: June 27, Wampatack (condemned); .June 30, ./. H. Nickerson (talvcii to Halifax) ; August 27, Lizzie A. Tarr (con- demned) ; September 30, A. H. W'onson (taken to Halifax) ; October 15, A. J. FranM'm {t'Ak^w to Halifax); November 8, iiowj? ; November 25, White Fawn (taken to St. John); and 8. G. MarHhall. Albert, and Clara F. Friend. lu January, 1878, the Fred. P. Frye, Mary M., Lizzie and Namari^ Edward E. Webster, William E. McDonald, Crest of the Wave, F. A. Smith, Hereward, Moses Adams, Charles E. Warren. Moro Castle, Wild- fire. Maud and Fjjfie, Isaac Rich, Bunker Hill, Bonanza, Moses Knowlton, H, M. Rogers, John W. Bray, Maud B. Wefherell, Neui Enf/land, and Ontario were driven from Long Harbor in Fortune Ba^^ by the violence of a mob, which destroyed some of their seines, and did not again that season return to their fishing-grounds. Twenty-two vessels were in- cliuled in this list, the interference with which was made the occasion of a separate and important correspondence, conducted, on our side, chiefly by Mr. Evarts, Secretary of State. The following lists are taken from the subjoined correspondence of Secretary Bayard and Professor Baird with Mr. Edmunds, chairman of I the Committee on Foreign Relations : Revised Hat of vesBcIa involved in the controversy with the Canadian authorities. Department of State, Washington, January 26, 1887. Sir ; Responding to your reqnest, dated the 17th and received at this Department Ion the 18th instant, on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Relations, for a revision *':.i i' * I; '■ Ml m ill 48 THE FISHKRIES TREATY. of tho list, liorotofore fiiruislioil by ilii.s l)i!|)iirtiiu'iit to tbo coimiiittiu!, of nil Ameri- can vnssols seized, wfiniod, tiiiod, or dotuiiiod by tiio Caiiiidlan aiitboiitios during ijm year IHrtCJ, I now incloso tbo sanio. Every snt-h instanco is tboreiu cbronolt)j;i»-'ally onnnieratod, with a stateintMitof the genoral facts att»Midinit. Vory respoctfiilly, yours, T. F. IUyaui.. Hon. Gkougk F. Edmunds, United Slates Senate. List of Jmericnn veai^eh seized, detained, or teamed off/rom Canadian ports diirin;/ thr la^t year, 1. Sarah li. J'ntuam. Beverly, Mnss.; Cbarles Randolph, master. Driven from Iiailioi of Pulinico ill storm Maroli 'Z'2, 1H'^(5. 2. Joseph Slor//. (Jlouccslcr, Mass. Detained hy cnstoiiis ofliciu's at Baddeck, N, S. in April, 18H(), for alleged violation of the customs laws. Released after tweiity- fonr hours' detention. 3. Seth Stockhridgc. Gloucester, Mass.; Antoiie Olson, master. Warned oil' from fjt. Andrews, N. B., about April 30, 1886. 4. Annie Af. Jordan. Gloucester, Mass.; Alexander Haiue, master. Warned otV at St. Andrews, N. B., about May 4, 188G. 5. David J. Adams. Gloucester, Ma.ss. ; Alden Kinney, master. Seized at Di»by, Nuva Scotia, May 7, 188G, for alleged violation of treaty of 1818, act of 59, George III, and act of 1883. Two suits brought in vice-admiraltj' court at Halifax for iieii- alties. Protest tiled May 1*2. Suits ponding still, and vessel uot yet releasoil apparently. G. Snsie Cooper. (Hooper?) Gloucester?, Mass. Boarded and searched, and crew rudely treated, by Canadian officials in Caiiso Bay, Nova Scotia, May, IHrii;. 7. Ella M. Doufihty. Portland, Me. ; Warren A. Doughty, master. Seizedat St. Ann's, Cape Breton, May 17, 1886, for alleged violation of the customs laws. Suit was instituted in vice-admiralty court at Halifax, Nova Scotia, but was subse- qu(!!itly abandoned, and vessel was released June 21), 188G. 8. Jennie and Jniia. Eastport, Mo. : W. H. Travis, nuister. Warned off at Digby, Nova Scotia, by customs officers. May IS, 188G. 9. Lucy Ann. Gloucester, Mass. ; Joseph H. Smith, master. Warned off at Yar- mouth, Nova Scotia, May 29, 1886. 10. Matthew Keany. Gloucester, Mass. Detained at Souris, Prince Edward Islam!, one daj' for alleged violation of customs laws, about May 31, 1886. 31. James A. Garfield. Gloucester, Mass. Tbreate.ied, about June 1, 1880, wit seizure for having purchased bait in a Canadian harbor. 12. Martha IF. Bradly. Gloucester, Mass.; J. F. Ventier, master. Warned off at | Canso, Nova Scotia, between Juno 1 and 8, 1886. 13. Eliza Boynton. Gloucester, Mass.; George E. Martin, master. Warned offiitj Canso, Nova Scotia, between June 1 and 9, 1880. Then afterwards detainedj in manner not reported, and released October 25, 1886. l>ebiac -('. Shilofi. Gi Scotia, -'• Julia Elle, Angiiat ''-• Ereddie II . ^'ov.i St *• Ifowurd Ji August oil depo,- a m. THK FISHEIIIKS THKATY, 41) u. 1.'). n;. 17. Id. •iO. 21. -a. u. •1-) MdHrnt. rtl()uc<>.stt»r, MiiSM. ; Aloxiimlor McHnchcni, iimstor. Warned dlV .it Port Anihi-rst, Miij-tljilni IsI.iihIh, June 10, IH-d. Tltoiiinn /•'. IUti;uid. (iloiici'stcr, Miiss. ; Jiiiiu^.s McDonald, nia.ilir. Warned oil' at lloniic Hay, N'cwI'oundlaiid, Jmm \'i, l^Hii. .hiiinH a. ('lu'iij. I'lirtland, Mi'.; Wi-liln'i', master. Ci'«\v rofiisod privilo^jt) ot'laiid- inj; for iicdi'ssiiricH .it Brooklyn, Xova S(!otia, Jiiue 1.') or l(i, IH-'O. C\t>i I'lthit. Portland, Me. ; Koi'uc, in.istfr. Detaiiii'd at Slitdburno, Nova Scotiii, .Fnly -i, If^Hi), for all('.sited. under protest, .July I'J; §l'.iO costs dejiosited .July 14; refunded July 21, and vessel released. IfeirivariL Gloucpsti'r, Mass.; McDoiuild. master. Detained two days at Canso, Nova Scotia, about .July :!, l-^St!, tor sliippinj; seamen contrary to jiort laws. (I. Jr. CiiHlihifi. Portland, Me.; .lewctt, master. Detained .July (i)y another re- port. .June) :'., 1>."^(!, at Shelliurne, Nova Scotia, for altencMl violation of tlio cusi- tomslaws; lined $400; money dei>osited witli collector at Halifax altout .July 12 or 14, anht ami released on the 4tli. ('urolhie I'oiKjhl. Booth Bay, Mo,; Charles S. Reed, master. Warned otF at Pas- l)ebiac. New Brunswick, and refused water, Auj^ust 4, l.-^HO. Sliiloh. Gloucester, Mass. ; Charles Nevit, nuister. Boarded at Liverpool, Nova Scotia, August l), and subjected to rude surveillance. JiiUa Ellen. liooth Bay, Me. ; Burnes, master. Boarded at Liverpool, Nova Scotia, Augtiat S), 188(i, and subjected to rude surveillance. Freddie 11'. Allton. Provincetown, Mass. ; AUton, master. Boarded at Liverpool, Nova Scotia, August S), 18811, and subjected to rude surveillance. Howard Holbrook. Gloucester, Mass. Detained at Hawkesburg, Capo Breton, August 17, 1880, for alleged violation of the customs laws. Released Augu.st 20 on deposit of $400. Question of remission of flue .still pending. S. m<. 109 4 '4 \i M ' Sf i'ii i; il< no - THE FISlIKlilKS TUKATV. :{u, 31 av. an, 34. 3r,. 31). 37. 38. 33. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. A. I{. Critlniihu, (JloncfMtpr, Miihn. ; Main, iiiiiHttT. DctuiiH'd af Hiivvkt-jHlmrv Ncivii Si'otia, August "i?, lH,-<(), for «llc;r(tl violntioii ofciiNloiim lawH. I'dur lum. (Ir«'(l (lollaiM jKiiialty depo ited AiiKust 'If* witliout pmttjHf, aiul vphkcI rclfiiMil, 'I'liri'i- lunnli'cil and scvt'iity-liv*' dolluTM rrmittcd, and ii mutiiiial line nf's'.':, j,„. jinMt'd. Mollir .idiiDiH, frlouccsttT, MuHf*. ; Soloiniiii .lacidi.s, iiiaMltT. Wariifd otV im,, Mtoiiii (roiii Straits ol'C.'aiiso, Nova Scotia, Aiijfiisl 31, IHHd. HiijhlutHl l.iijhl. Wciillft't, .MasH. ; .). II. Kydcr, iiiastei'. St'izi'd o|J' KasI I'liini, I'rincc Kdwai'd Island, S(4|>ttMiil)t>r 1, 188(S, wliilo HhIuiik witiiin proliibiti'd llm.. Suit lor f'oi Icitin*) ln-jriiii in vl(;«)-adiniralty imiit at Chailotlutowri. lit'ariuir net lor Sciitfinbor 20, Imt po.stponrd to Scptcinlu'r 30. MaMt«*r 'tii'd ii,,, tdiaif',0 and coiilVuscd jinl^inciit. Vfswtd condi-nnii'd and sold .iiiImt II. PnrclniHed Ity Canadian (Jovcinnu'nt. I'cail jV, \m>. Krcntl .S7<.r/, (JliMKcster, .MasH. ; ('liarl<'«H. ForbeH, niaHtcr. Detained at Slid- bnriii^, Nova Scotia, September 10, IHHC), for alleytMl viobition of ciiBtoinn laws. Released by order from Ottawa, September 11, 1881). Moro CaHtle, Gloneestir, Mass. ; Edwin M. Joyce, nuister. Petained at Hawks. bury, Nova Scotia, September 11, 18H(i, on clinrgo of liaving sniuj^ifled j^ooils into Chester, Nova Scotia, in 1HH4, and also of violatinfj; cnston 'aws. A dc- jKisit of Sl.CiOO demanded. Vessel discharged November 'iO, 1 -i jtayMicut, by agreement, of ?i!l,0(.'0 to Canadian Government. li'iUiam /). Daislei/, Gloneester, Mass. ; J. E. Gornnin, master. P'>*!iiued at Souiis, Prince Edward Island, October 4, I88li, for alleged violation of customs law, Fined !?4oO, iind ndeased on payment; $'M^i of the fine remittrd. Laura Sniiuuird, (Gloucester, Mass.; Medeo Rose, master. Refused privilege of lauding to buy provisions at Sludbnrno, Nova Scotia,, 0(!tob(>r .'), 18HI). Marion (irimes, Gloucester, Mass. Detained at Shelbnrne, Nova Scotia, October '.>. for violation of port laws in failing to report at custom-house on eutciiiif;, Fiiu'd .'rilOO. Moi\ey paid under ])rotest and vessel reh.'ased. Fine reunited December 4, 1?^H(5. Ji'iiiiie Seareriis, Ghmcesicr, Mass.; .Joseph Tupper, nuister. Refused privilege of landing, and vessel placed under guard at Liverpool, Nova Scoti.n, Ocfolicr'Jii, Ir^-^G. FhjiiKj Scud, Ghmcester, Mass. Detained for alleged violation of customs Jawsiu Halifax, November 1, or about that time. Rclt'ased NovtMuber !(!, HHO. Sarah II. I'rior, IJoston, Mass. Refu,sed the restoration of a lost seinti, wliicli was found by a Canadian schooner, December lr8(i. Zio(/7 (name uukuowu). Stephen R. Balcom, master, Eastport, Me. Warned off atj St. Audrews, New Brunswick, July 1>, 1880, with others. Two small boata (unnamed); Charles Smith, Pembroke, Me., master. Seized atj East Quaddy, New IJniuswlck, September 1, lH8t), for alleged violation of ciis-j toms laws. I'.UfUt, \WiH' of OctdWv Vfunlt»'*'»»W (fortMKii Itnilt). (JlonccHtor, MiiHM, Sni/od, wariicl ull, ur iiinicstcil «>fhir- wisr at Hoiiir tiiiio prior t<» St-ptfinlMT (i, H'<(i. K!. Alihii/ .1. SiiDir. Iiijiii'v to tliis vcmmcI lias not Ikm-ii rt'itoilcd to ilm 1)i-|ini'tiiii>iit of Slato. 17. /'.'//.••(( .1. lliDiiiitK, Injury to this vcf^sfl has not lii'iii rt'portcd to tlio Dt pai tint-nt of State. I-^. il'itlc-Attiikr, KaKtjMirt, Mc ; William Foley, nni-4er. I'incd at I/Ktanjj, Now Mrnnswic'k, If/.') for tiiUinjj iiway llsli without <;<'ftinK ii clearanc" : atjaio No. venilier \'.\, ls8(), at St. (Jeor^fe, N(uv UrnnHwiek, lined S'viO lor Mimilar olVense. Ill lioth rases h(! was proeei'dinj^ to obtain cleariineeM, r. S. (.'oMMissiox OK Fish and FisiiKinK,K, U'iinhiiiiiton, I). C, Ffhniari/ .'>, 1HH7. Siu: I forward lierewitli, lor your inforniation, a eopy of a coininiinieation from Mr. K. Edward Far!!, in fiiarH;e of th« Division of FiHlieries of tliis ('onimission, ac- ('iini))anied liy a iiatof Neon.Iannary '^!i by tlio Seeretnry of Statt^ Tlie, paiiers containinjj the Htatenionts wore received from the own(>r,s, masters, or iij,'rnta of the vessels coucerned, and, though not iceonipaiiieil hy alHdavits, are lie- lifved to lie corrtict. V(.'ry respectfully, yours, Si'i;nci.ii F. Haiud, Ca.il missioner, lion. Gkokgk F. Fo.MiiNDS, ('haintiaii Commiltev on Furvii/n lielutioiis, Untied Slattn Stiiate. IS hnvsiU I'lu'il oil at I Sei/.wl atj Ion of tiisH U. 8. (Ju.M.Missiox or Fi.sii and Fishimues, H'ashiii'jloii, 1). C, February 5, 1887. Sin: SoniL'time since., at your nniuest, I mailed circulars to ownvrs or a<;ents of all X'W l",M;^land vessels eniployod in the food-lish lishories. Tliose called tor full statistics i)f the vessels" o[»erations dnrinj; the year Irfsfti, and, in atldition, for blatemiuitscf any i inconveniences to which the vessels had l)cen .subjected by the recent action of the i'liiiuilian (ioveniment in denying; to American lisliing v(issels the rij;h! to buy bajt, ici', or other suppli^^s in its ports, or in placin^• unusual restriclioiis oa the use of its lliarhors for shelter. A very largo percentage of the rei»lies to these circulars have already been received, jaiiilau exannuation of sane shows that, in addition to the vessels mentioned in- [the revised list transmitted by the Secretary of State to the Committee on P'oreign iHeliitions of tlie United States Smiate on January '2(5, 1887, sixty-eight (ither New lEn^jliuul fishing vessels have been subjected to treatment which neither the treaty |(|f 1S18 nor the principles of international law ■vonld seem to warrant. ; 1 \'% I''-' ;--li| 52 THE FI8IIE-RIES TKKATY. I inclose for your con.sidoriition a list of these vnssols, to{j;cther with a hiicf ai,. str.act of tlio stati'iiieiits of the owners or masters rci^ardiii.t; the troatiiieiit riM-clvcd The statetueiits were not iiccoinpanied by Jitlidiivits, l)iit are believed to Ix' eiilir.'lv reliable. The name and address of the infoiniant are given in each instance. Very respectfully, yours, . K. Edwaiu> EAiii.i, In charge JJivinion of luxlurivif. Trof. HPKNfKU F. Haiui), U. S, ComiitianioHvr of Fish and Fiaheriex r-VRTIAL LIST OI'' VKSSKLS INVOr.VKD I.V TiriO I'lSH I'.ISIKS (OX TltOV'KRSY WITH THE CANADIAN' AUTIIOHITIKS, FKOM IXFOH.MATIO.V FUltMSIIKI) TO TIIK UXITK.I) STATKS COMMISSIOXKR Ol- KISir AND I'IPIIEHIKS. [SupplciiR'iitiiig a lint triinsiiiittml to the Conuulttco on l'\)rei;iu Kclations, United Stiitis Sinati', Ijv tlio Seciotary of State, January 'M, 18^7.] 1. Eliza A. Thome-i (schooner). Portland, Me. ; E. .S. I5ihl)s, master. Wiciki'il ^m Nova Sootia shore, and unable to obtain assisvance. Crew not permitted to land or to save anything' until iiermission was received from captain of ciitttf. Canadian officials placed {{iiard ovei- lish saved, and everythinj;- saved from ■wi'eck narrowly escaped conliscatioii. (From statements of C. 1). 'fliomc owner, Fori laud, Me.) *2. Chrifitiiia EUmvortli (schooner). Eastport, Me. ; James Ellswortii, master. Kn- tered Port Ha.stinn's, Cajjo JJrotou, for wood ; anchored at U) o'clotdv, and w ported at custom-house. At 2 o'clock was boarded ))y captain of cutUn' Hcttdf and ordered to sei, being forced to leave without wood. In every liaibor en- tered was refused privilege of buying anything. Anchored uiuler lee of laiiilj in no harbor, but was compelled to enter at custom-house. In no two barbmsj were the fees alike, (l-'rom stiitemeuts of James Ell-iworth, owner ami inastLT,] Eastport, Me.) 3, Mary E, JF/io;/ (schooner). Welllleet, Mass.; Simon IJerrio, master. In July, I';';!'',! lost seine off North Cape, Prince Jvhvjird Ishmd, ami not tiUowed to make any] nqtiiirs on shore, causing a broken voyage and a long delay. Kan short of pm visions, and being denied privilege of buying any on lainl, had to obtain fii»iJ another American vessel. (From b tatements of Freeman A. Snow, owucij Welllieet, Mass.) 4. Stoicell Sherman (schooner). Provincetown, Mass.; S. F. Hatch, master. Xm allowed 'o purchase necessary supplies, and obliged to report at custom-hoiisei| situated at distant and incouveuient places; ordered out of harl)ors in stresst weather, namely, out of Cascuuipec harbor, Prince Edward Island, uiiicti'ii hours after entry, and out of Malpe(iue harbor, Prince Edward Island, lit'tii'J hours after enlry, wind then blowing too hard to admit of lishing. Kitiiiiiii Lome with broken trip. (From statoments of Samuel T. Hatch, owin r aiij master, Provincetown, Mass.) THE FISHERIES TREATY, 53 ab- ved. Ill's, TU nil'. >r.\.vi'.s Si;ii;it''. liy ;i;cki'.(l on •inittfil M of cnltiv. iwi-d tVtiin ), Thi'iii''^- istfV, V- - k, and IV- ItlfV lk'ti"i' \,.o of i;»''i>U NVl) llllvllllVSJ Uld llKl^'''''tl I July, l"""ii |() uKike auyj Luort of pvoJ iobliiin fv.Hiij liuw, "wui'ij IlilHtlT. N.»1 stoiii-li'""''^^' L in stress Ind, uinetw' [sliiud, lift^'"! Ki-tunii I owufi' ui .'). ll'allLT L. Jiicli (Hchooiwr). WellHi^et. Mii,s,s. : Ohadiiili Ricli, iiKistcu'. < 'rdiTcdout of MalpiMiiio, P. E. I., ill unsuitablo weather for lisliinn, bavin;; bi-i'ii in barbor only t\v(!lvo hours. Denied ri^jlit to jmrchaHe prox i.'^ions. Forced to enter at ciis- tmn lumso at I'ort l[;i,\vkeshury, C. H., on Sunday, collector ftMrinu; tliat vessel would leave bidoro Monday and be would thereby lose his fet!. (From state- ments of 01>adiab Rich, owner and master, Welllieet, Mass.) {]. Ikriha D. Nickeraon (schooner). Booth iiay, Me. ; N. E. Nickorson, master. Occa- sioned considerable expense iiy bein;,; denied Canadian ii.irliors to procuro crew, and detained in sprin;^ while waitinj? for men to come from Nova Sco- tia. (From statements of S, Nickerson it. Sons, fiwuers, liootii Hay, Me.) T, .\Vi('<'?/ />'. /7a/ct'>* (schooner). Welllieet, Mass. ; Thomas C. K'-nnedy, master. Re- fused privile^je of buyin<; provisions in jxirts on Hay Saint Lawrence, and in cousequenco obliged to lea\( for home with half a carijo. Made harbor at Shelburiui, Nova Scotia, in face of storm, at 5 p. m., and master immediately started for cn.stom-house, ,'> iml<-s distant, meeting i!ai»tain of cutter Terror ou way, to whom he explained errand. On returning, found two armed men from cutter oil bis vessel. At 7 o'clock next morning was ordercid to sea, but re- fused to go in the heavy fog. At 1) o'clock the fog lifted .slightly, and, tiiough the barometer was very low and a storm imminent, vessel \v%* forced to leave. Sjoii met tlu! lauivy gale, which split sails, causing considerable damage. Cap- tain of Terror denied claim to right of remaining in harbor twenty-four hours. (From statements of T. C. Kennedy, part owuia- and master, Wi-lltleet, Mass.) ?. Hehti F. 7Vw^c/,' (schooner), Cape rorjioise, Me.; R. .1. iVuiiaii, master. July "JO l^SiS, entered Port Latonr, N, ,S., for shelter and water. Was unleriMl imme- diately to sea. (From statements of K. .1. Xiuiaii, owner and mashr. Cape Por- poise, M(^) !'. NeUie M. Snow (schooner), Welllieet, Mass,; A. E. Snow, master. Was not allowed to imrelia.se [irovisions in any Canadian jiorts, or to retit or land and ship tisli, conseiiuently obliged to le.ive for home with broken trip. Not permitted to remain in ports longer than local Canadian otiicials saw fit. (From statements of .1. C, Young, owner, Welllieet, Mass.) 10. Gertrude SiinniKrs (schooner), Welllieet, Mass.; \. S. Snow, master. Refused privilege of purchasing provisions, which resulted in injury to voyage. Found harbor regulatierinitted .ro Iniy, left for home witli a broken vovii<;f, Customs otlieer at Poi't Mulgra\'e, No\a Seoiia, woiihl allow piireiiase of jiro- visions for homewaid jiassage, liiit nut to continue lishiug. (From siittenii'iits of Parker E. Hickman, owner and master, WolUleet, Mass.) 19. Frank a. Nidi (sehooncM'). W'elltieet, Mass. ; Clmrles A. (Jorham, imisiiM'. Not jierl mitted to buy provisions or to hiy in (.'iinailian ports over t wenly-four lioiir.>. (l'"i'om statements of Charles A. Uoriiani, owner ami master, Welillect, Miiis.) 20. Emma (J. Cnrtin (sidiooiHi). J'id\ incetow n, Mass. ; Kiisha Uich, imister. Xntj allov.i'd to iPiireiiasi inovision.-, and tuerelbre obliged to return home. (Fioiii| statements of Elisha liich, owner and masicr, Pro\ incetown, Mass.) 21. /'/e(«f/r« (schooner). Welillect, Mass. ; F. W. Snow, mnster. Driven from haiimrl within tweiity-i'onr lumrs after entering. Not allowed to ship or dis(;liar;;(j nu'U under jieiialty (d' .'ii!4(l(J. (From statements ""''' [icet. Muss. I master. N"tj Lnie. (l-"''""'l ti from luivli" Iv, owner 'M lister. C:i\itaij lit of f'>'»* H lid \Hit bimi shore for \ Iws, owner si •2;?. •24, ',';). •20. •2f^. •29. 30. Gertie May (schooner). Porthind, Me. ; I. Douj^hty, master. Not allowed, thoiij^h provided with permit to touch and trade, to imrchaso fresh bait in Nova Scotia, and driven from harbors. (From statements of Charles F. Giiptill, owner, Portland, Me.) Margaret S. Smith (scliooner). Portland, Me.; Lincoln W. Jewett, master. Twice compelled to retnrn home from Bay of St. Lawrence with broken trip, not be- ing able to secure provisions to continue flsbinji;. Incurred many petty incon- veniences in regard to customs regulations. (From statements of A. M. Smith, ownei', Portland, Me.) I'jisie M. .Smi^/i (sehv)oner). Portland, Me, ; Enoch Buli^er, master. Came home with half fare, not being able to get provisions to continue fishing. Lost seine in a heavy gale rather than be annoyed by customs regulations when seeking shelter. (From statements of A. M. Smith, Portland, Me.) Fanniv A. SitiirVuKj {iichoonev). Portland, Me. ; Caleb Parris, luiister. Subject to many annoyances, and oldigiMl to return home with a lialf fare, not being able to procure provisions. (From statements of A. JL vSir.itli, owner, Port- laud, Me.) CarJeSon /)t7/ (schooner). Booth Bay, Me. ; .Set h W. Kid ridge, iiuisler. Occasioned considerable expense by being denied right to procure crew in Ciiiiadiau luir- bors, and detained in spring while waiting for men to come from Nova Scotia. (From statements of S. Nickersou Sl Sons, owners. Booth Bay, Me.) AMm M. DeeriiKj (schooner). Portland, Me. ; Emory (iott, master. Not being able to procure provisions, obliged to return home with a third of «/<; (schooner). North Haven, Me. ; R. G. Babbidge, nnister. Not ])ermitted to buy bait, ice, or to trade in any way. Diiven out ot harliors, and unreason- able restrictions whenever near the land. (From statements of K. G. Bai)bidge, owner and master. Pulpit Harbor, Me.) Charh'8 Haskell (wlinnnev). North H.-iven.Me.; Daniel Tlinrston, master. Obliged to leave Gn'if of St. Lawrence at c(Misi(leral)le loss, not beiiig allowed to buy provisions. (From statemenls of C. S. Stajdes. owner, North Haven, Me.) Jri7/iV Parkinan (schooner). North Haven, Me.: William H. Banks, master. Unable to get supplies wliile in (Julf of St. Lawrence, which ne(!essitated returning home at great loss, with a Inoken voyage. (From statements of Williaui H. Banks, owner and master. North Hav(!n, Mt>.) D. I). lUjin (schooner). Portland, Me.; Ji^liii K. Craig, master. Being refused privilege oi* touching at a Nova Scotia port to take ou resident crew already engaged, owner was obliged to jirovido passage for men to I'ortland, at con- siderable cost, causing great loss of time, (From statements of F. II. .Jordan, owner, Purlland, Me.) il^''!' i'l m m < rM W'^A 56 THE FISHERIES TREATY. 34. (rood Templar {Hdhoonav). Portland, Mo. ; Elias Tarlton, master. Touched at I,n Have, Nova Scotia, to take on crow already enj^aj^ed, l»iit was refii.Hod privili ;;( and ordered to proceed. The men beinj; indiMpensabh) to voyage, had them (h> livered on board outside of three-limit by a Nova Scotia boat. (From .state- ments of Henry Trefethen, owner, Peak's Island, Maine.) 3."). Eddie 7>ar/V?«oH (.scboonerV WellHeet, Mass.; .lolin D. Snow, master. .Jmn' 1}, 1886, touched at Capo Island, Nova Scotia, but was not permitted to take oii part of crew. Boarded by customs othcer and ordered to sail within twentv- four hours. Not allowed to buy food in jjorts on (Jiilfof Si. Lawrence. (!'r(]iii statements of John 1). Snow, owner and nuister, Welldeet, Mass.) 36. Alice P. IlUjijlns (.schooner). Weldleet, Mass.; Alvin W. Cobb, master. Driven from harbors twice in stress of weather. (From statements of Alvin \V. C'olib, master, WellHeet, Mass.) 37. Cynoaiire (schooner). Mooth Hay, Me.; L. Rush, master. Was ohlij>fd to rctiuii lionie before secnrinij a full carfjo, not beinjj pernutted to purchase provision.s in Nova Scotia. (From statements of S. Nickerson ».t Sons, owners, Rooth Bav. Me.) 38. Naiad (.schooner). Luliec, Me. ; Walter Kennedy, master. Presented frontier license (heretofore acceptable) on arriving at St. Georjie, N. B., but collector would not reeojiuize same : was compelled to return to Eastport and clear un- der register before being allowed to purchase herring, thus losing one trip. ''From statements of Walter Kennedy, master, liUbec, Me.) 39. Louisa J. (IroHt (schooner). Provincetown, Mass.; .Joseph Hatch, jr., master. Took ])ermit to touch and trade; arrived at St. Peter's, Cape lireton, in after- noon of May Id, lf-'H6; entered and cleared according to law; was obliged to take ini'xperienced men at their own prices to complete fishing crew, to get to sea before the arrival of a seizing officer who had started from Straits of Caii.so at 5 o'clock same afternoon in search of vessel, having been advistid b,\ tele- graph of the shipjiing of men. (From statements of .Jose])h Hateh, jr., owner and mnstiT, Provincetown, ilass.) 40. Lottie E. Hophns (schooner). Vinal Haven, Me. ; Emery .T. Hojikins, master. Refn.sed jiermission to buy any article of food in Canadian ])orts. Obtainoil shelter in iiarbors only by entering at custom-house. (From statement of Emery .T. Hopkins, owner and master. North Haven, Me.) 41. F/or/zx' 7". A'(>/i(".soH (schooner). Chatham, Mass.; Nathaniel E. Eldridge, master. Engaged fisliernien fi»r vessel at Liverpool, Nova Scotia, but action of Canadian Governui(>nt necessitated the paying of their transportation to the FnitKl States and loss of time to vessel while .awaiting their ariival ; otherwise would have called for them on way to tishing-grounds. Returning, touched at Liverpool, but innnediately on anchoring, Camidian officials came aboard ami refused i)ermission for men to go ashore. Captain at onec; signitied his inten- tion of immediately proceeding on passage, but officer prevented his di^iiart- ure until he had reported at custom-house, vessel being thereby detaini'i! two days. (.From statementot Kendrick A: Bourse, owners, South Harwieii Mass.) carji THE PI.S1IERIES TREATY. hi 1 (!(•■ Vali'- <■ \% kc on cnly- i)riv('U Colli., I rcinrn )visions itli Buy, frontier I'ollcrtor clear lui- one trip. iiiiisti'r. in after- iblim'. r>. Jl. (.iloop), Kiistport, Ml!.; Goor^^o w. Copii, niasti-r. Obligeil to iliscontiiniti business of bnyiiiu; sardine herrinj;' in New Urunswick ports for Eastport ean- neries, as local cnstoins regnliitions wt^re, durini;' the season of IdSl!, made so exacting that it was impossible to comidy with them witliont risk of tlie tish becoming stah< and si)oilcil by detention. (From statements of George ^^^ ('o])i>, master, East port, Me.) 4;i. Sir Kuight (scliooner). Sontliport, Me.; Mark Hand, master. Compelled to \tw\ transportal ion for crew from Nova Scotia to Maine, the vessel not being allowed to call at Nova Scotia j)orts for thenKMi her way to the lishing-gronnds. (From statennnits of William T. iladdocks, owner, Sontiiport, Me.) 44. I'uclt •Joe (schooiu'r), Sonthport, Mo.; J. W. Pierce, nnister. Comixdled to p.'iy transjjortation for crew I'rom NovaSciotia to Maine, the vessel not being allowed to call at Nova Scotia ports tor them on lier way to the tishing-gronnds. (From statenu-nts of William T. Maddox, owner, Soiithport, Me.) 4."), Wil'it G. (schooner). Sonthport, Me. ; Albert F. Orne, nnister. Conii)elled to ])ay transportation for crew from Nova Scotia to Maine, the vessel not being iil- Jowiy to the fishing-grounds. (Fr«)ni statements of William T. Maddocks, owner, Sonthport, Me.) 4f). Lady Ehjin (scliooner). Southjiort, Me. ; George W. Pierce, nnister. Compelled to pay transportation for crew from Nova Scotia to Maine, the vessel not being allowed to call at Nova Scotia ports for them on her way to the fishing grounds, (From statements of William T. Maddocks, owner, Sonthport, Me.) 47. John II. Kiuncdij (schooner). Poitland, Me. ; David IJonglnn'ty, nnister. Called at a Nova Scotia i>ort for bait, but left without obtaining same, fearing seizure and fine, returning home with a broken voyage. At a Newfoundland port was charged -Slti light-house dues, giving draft on owners for same, which, being ex^^cssive, they refused to pay (From statements of E. G. Willard, owiu>r, Portland, Me.) 4"i, Iiipli'U liopeti (schooner). Sonthport, Me. ; C. E. Hare, master. \'essel ready to sail when telegram from authorities at Ottawa refused permissi(ni to touch at Canadian |)ort8 to ship men; consequently oblig(,'d to pay for tlnnr trans|iorta- tion to Maine, iind vessel detained while await ini; their arrival. (From slate- mcnts of Freeman <^rne & Son, owners, Sonthport, Me.) 10. Jennie Afmntrotuj (schooner). Sonthjiort, Me.; A, O. Webber, nnister. Vessel reaily to sail when telegram from authorities at Ottawa refused permission to touch at Canadian ports to ship men; consequently obliged to jiay lor their transi)ortation to Maine, and vessel detaini^d while awaiting their arrival. (From statements of Freeman (^nio iV Smi, owners, Sonthport, Me.) Vuufinnrd {tichinnwv). Sonthiioit, Me.; C. C. Dyer, master. Vessel ready to sail when telegram from authorities refused i»ermission to touch at Canadian ports- to shi|) men; consei|ueutly obliged to pay for their transportation to Maiiu^, and vessel detained while awaiting their arrival. (From statennnits of Free- man Orne »fc Son, owners, Sonthiiort, Me.) Electric Flash (scliooner). North Haven, Me.; Aaron Smith, master. Unable to ob- tain suitplies in Canadian [xn'ts and obliged to return home before obtai'ung full cargo. (From statisments of Aanni Smith, master and agent. North Ha- ven, Me.) "i'l '■'P\ r ;n^;" \ l|!l tIfP Jillil' ^^^i 1i> ;: 1 .1 " i: 58 THE FISHERIE8 TREATY. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 5'J. 60. 61. >62. Daniel SimnwnH (sdhooner). Swan's Island, Mo,; .John .\. (rott, nnster. Ci)ni])olle(l to go without TiPccssiiry outfit while lishingiu (riilf of St. Lawrence. (Fiom statements of M. Stinii»son, owner, Swan's Island, Me.) Grorer Clevrlaiid (hvAhmw.t). Hostoti, Mass.: George I^akenian. master. ComitcUiMl to return home with only partial fare of n)acUerel, being refused supplies in Canadian ports. (From statements of U. F. De Hutts, owner, Boston, Mass.) jiiidrew liiiniliam (schooner). Boston, Mass.; Natlian F. Blake, master. Not uj. lowed to liny provisions or to land and ship lish to Boston, thereby losing vnl- uable time f(u- fishing. (From '.■statements of IJ. F. D^ Butts, owner, Boston, Mass. ) Harrtj (r. /'Vt'/ic/i (schooner). (Jloueester, Mass; J(diu (Jhisholm. master. Rctiisid permission to purchast; any provisions or to land caigr) for siiipuHint to tlic United States. (From statenKints of .John (Jhisholm. owner and master, Gioii- cester, Mass.) Col. J. H. French (schooner), (illoucester, Masn. ; William Harris, master. Was refused permission to purchase any supplies, or to forsvard fish to the lioiiio port by steamer, causing much loss of time .and money. (From sratemeiits of John Chisholm, owner, Gloucester, Mass.) TV. H. U'clli II gton (HchooMfT). Gloucester, Mass. ; D. S. Nickerson, master. Wns refused permission to purchase any sujtplies, or to forward tish to the home port by steamer, causing much loss of time and money. (From statements of John Chisholm, owner, Gloucester, Mass.) Ralph llodijdon (schooner). Gloucester, Mass. ; Thomas F. Hodgdon, master. Was refused pevmission to purchase any supplies, or to forward fish to tiie lionu' ])ort by steamer, causing much loss of time and money. (From statements of John Chisholm, owner, Gloucester, Mass.) Hiiltic lu-clyn (schooner). Gloucester, Mass. ; .James A. Cromwell, muster. Xdt allowed To l)ny any provisions in any provincial ports, ami thereby compelled to return home it on samo d.ty or b(i subject to lino. Piovonteil fnMu .shippin;^ niou at same plat.e. At Port Hawkesbiuy, Nova .Scotia, while on hoiuowanl passage, not allowod to take on board crew of seized Ainericau fishing 8cliooiier Moro Canfle, wiio ihssired to return liome. (From (Statements of C. H. .lackmaii, master, Olonciister, Mass.) o'.?. Ethel Hand {Hiihnowor). Grloucester, Mass. ; George H. Martin, master. Provided witli a United States permit to touch and trade, entered Tigiiisli, Prince Ed- ward Island, to purcljase salt and barrels. Was prohibited from buying any- thing. Collector was offered permit, but declared it to be worthless, and would not examine it. Vessel obliged to return home for articles mentioned. On second trip was not permitted to get any food. (From statements of George H. Martin, owner and master, East Giouce.«ter, Mass.) 04. John /r. 7)'rrt// (schooner). Gloucester, Mass.; George McLean, master. "On ac- count of extreme prohibitory measures of the Canadian Government in refusing shelttT, sn])itlii's, and other conveniences, was obliged to abandon her voyage and come home without lish." (From statements of John F. Wonsou A Co., owners. Gloucester, Mass.) ti'i. Henry JV. LoufeUm* (schooner). Gloucester, Mass. ; W. W. King, master. Obliged to leave the Gulf of St. Lawrence with only tili barrtds of mackerel, on account * of I'csirictioiis imposeil by Canadian Government in denying to captain the right to procure necessarv suf»[)lics to continue tishing. (From statements of .John F. Wonson &. Co., owners, Gloucester, Mass.) (W. .Ve/)onscf (schooner ). Hoston, Mass. ; E. S. Frye, nnistci'. AngustvJT, 1*8(;. anchored in Port Hawkesbiiry, C. B.,and immediately reported .it custiun house. Heing short of i)rovisions, master asked collector for permission to buy, but was twice refused. The master, exi)ressing his intention of seeing the United States consul at Port Hastings, C. B., 3 miles distant, (he customs ollicer forbade him land- ing at that port to see the consul. He did so, however, saw the consul, but could got no aid, the consul stating that if provisions wiM'e furnished the vesscfl svould be seized. Master l)eiug sick aud wishing to return home by rail, at the sug- gestion of the consul he landed st^crerly and traveltMl through the woods to the station, o miles distant. (From statements of H. S. Frye, owuer and master, Boston, Mass.) Ill 1880 700 vessels were boarded, and 1,302 in 1887, to investigate their conduct, of which 30 were bronglit to the attention of the British Government. ! 'I is; ■::!, I I ¥ 60 THE I'lHlIEKIKS IKEATY. Tlu'.so lists comprise, in all, iie.ii'ly KM) vessels tliar have been involved ill seizures and other iiiterfereiiees jjrowiii},^ out of disputed coiisti iic- tioiis of the treaty of 1818. That so many cases have arisen ont of this conflict of opinion is, in part, fairly attributable to an aggressive teiiii)er on the part of the Caii;i. dians, which has not been successfully restrained by the Govorinneiit of Great JJritain, and to an obstinate .adherence to the letter of the treaty. to the sacrifice of its spirit and to the i)rejudice of the "liberties" and "privileges" secured by its terms to American fishermen, as pur (lov- ernnient understands the matter. The treaty had reference to extensive lines of sea-coast npon wliicli the bays, harbors, and creeks were as well known by name and lociition in 181S as they are now, but they were not exactly described in tliat in- struraent. It can not be assnmed, at least in our diplomacy, that it is irrational or nncandid for the British Government to contend that the entraiioe of these places, so well known, was intended to designate a baseline from which to measure the .'i mile limit, within which we forever re- nonnced the right to take or cure or dry fish. Our construction has been that we did not renounce these "liberties" in the bays, harbors, and creeks, except within 3 miles of the coasts thereof, while the British contention has been that the word "coasts'" in the treaty relates only to the open sea-coasts, and not to the coasts of bays, harbors, and creeks that are claimed and controlled by the provincial governments as territorial waters. The British contention is also fortilied by the argument, as they in- sist, that, in the proviso to article 1 of the treaty, our right to enter for shelter, wood, water, and repairs, is limited to " bays or harbors" and does not extend to "creeks'' or to "coasts," and that these were not o[)ened to our right of entry, because of the diliic-ulty of enforcing the "restrictions" upon the use of these privileges, to which we gave our consent in the treaty, on the coasts and creeks, at places remote from their ports. It has been the duty of our diplomatists, forced upon them by tlif importance of our interests, to.endeavor to overcome these contention.s of the British Government, and to insist upon a more liberal con- struction of the treaty. The task has not been an e^isy one, and the progress we have made is scarcely discernible; lor no admitted change in British opinion seems THK FISHKRIES TREATY. Gl to have boon accomplisliiMl in resi)LM;t of the pxchision, from our ticaty riitrictions as may be necessary to prevent * * * abusing the i)rivileges * * * reserved to" AnuM'ican tisheinieii, the cases have been more numerous, the discussions nn)ro heated, the inter- ferences with our tishernieu and their vessels, and with other vessels, more ainu»ying and damaging, than those that have arisen under the liead land theory. In most of these cases the provincial courts, or the ])rivy council of tUe local governments, have made deciisions, or statements, expounding tiieir laws, both provincial and imperial, and insisting upon their right and jurisdiction, under the treaty, to do all that has been done by them to onr flshermen, except in the atiair of Fortune J>ay. What is sometimes termed the reciprocity of Ls.'iO, by which the in- terdict on commercial intercourse between the North American British Provinces and the United States was relieved, and commercial inter- course was established on a liberal footing, gave to our merchant ships extensive privileges that the treaty of 1818, under the British construc- tion, denied to our tishing vessels. This so-called reciprocity was not established by positive law in either country; but, uiuler the proclamation of President Jackson, authorized by law, and under the ordi rs of the Privy Council of Great Britain, the liberties of commerce were mutually accorded to the merchant ships of each country in the i)orts of the other. We will hereafter refer more particularly to that arrangement. Many of our tishing vessels being licensed, under our laws, to touch iiiid trade ia foreign ports, onr Government has since claimed fur them ill Canadian ports the hospitality accorded to our other merchant ves- sels and all the liberties that they enjoy. This reasonable claim was based upon the new conditions of our com- mercial intercourse with Canada as established by "the reciprocity of 1830." •'i " \ Vi\ Jfl'lS r.v':;": ill lit 3!'! 62 THE FISIIHRIKS TKKATY. Jt was mot with the (Iwilaiatioii that Aini'iicaii HsIumiiu'ii and tlicir vessels had only the riji'hts, in danadlaii waters and ports, that aic expressly reserved to them iiiiiler the treaty of l.Sl.S; and that all orlicr rights are anajie of tlio country wliose inde- jiendence we established, we can not, by any means short of a success- ful war, re-instate the United States, by our own acr, in the enjoyment of the lijjlit that was so renounced. We can free ourselves of any embarrassment arising- out of the treaty of I.SIS, as to our lisheimeu, licensed to touch ami trade, by repealing it, but nobody seems to desire such a course of action, or to court the situation in which it would ])lace both countries. The struggle, in such an event, would be at once renewed under retaliatory laws (if this treaty is rejected); but every movement in snch a policy would be very costly to the people of both countries, and, as a probable result, would eventuate in war. So, we must live under the treaty and be constantly embroiled with the British Government as to its proper interpretation ; or we must reform that interpretation by a fair and just agreement with that (lov- ernment; or we must repeal or abandon it, aiul then rely upon retalia- tion to redress our wrongs. The demand of our fishermen for au enlargement of their commensal l)rivileges, to corresi)ond with those of our merchant vessels, and for a more liberal hospitality in their bays, is the pith and essence of our demand for a more liberal interi)retation of the treaty of 1S18. This donumd has to a great degree grown out of the changed con- ditions, both of tishing ventures and commercial intercourse, with the British provinces since 1830. It was not considered in 1818, but it can not be denied consideration MOW, in view of these changed conditions. It is insisted by some that the treaty of 1818 gives no commercial rights to our tishing vessels; that it relates only to fishing rights and to «onie incidental privileges of hosi)itality accorded to our fishermen;. I .>! ilfPS III 4' ^1 h 04 TFrr, FISHKIIIKH TUKATY. that tliiMc is no ii««(l to iiiiicnd thci tnsity so iia to swjiuc thoiii coiiimci'- cijil iM;,'lits; and tliat tliesf slioiihl he s»'(!iir<'(l, and wonid be, tliroii<'|| our h'jufi.slativL" powers of retaliation upon tlie coniiueree of the lliitish possessions. If we infuse into that treaty tlie suhstan(MM)f this di'inand, it tinist be done by an affreenicnt, in tlie nafnreof jin aniendinent, that funiislics some reeiprocal eoiuu'ssicui to the people of the IJritish po^^ses.siotis coneerned in tin' lisherics; otherwise we will fail to yain their constMit to it. If we stand upon that treaty without aiuendinent, as a flshiny treaty, insistiufi' that it has nothing to do with the eoininerciial privile;;e8 of our lishinj; vessels, and that it leaves us free to demand for them the sainc comnieriiial privileH;es that we aceord to Canadian llsiiennen, we plaoo this demanl;ic« ii»',\iis in »('l\tS. hatcvcv" n", while 1 ports of and this It* (loiii)lo [ttoi»\\»t to \\ its rigid as being lot cluuigo Iby giving ;a papeis, claim tlie . ram e liarac , mueut lo- vessels, uiu'.er thii Is restricts [the linii' o the Gov cri\iu, and destined to become a more important tlshinj^-j;r()und than the Atlanti<; coasts, must be at!e(!ted by the princiiples of international law wliich the United States shall assert as defining the limits seaward from tlie (!oasts of our exclusive right to t'lah for seals and sea-otters, wliales, ami the many varieties of food- fishes tliat swarm along the coasta of JJehring Sea and Straits. We might find, in that quartei', II very inconvenient appli(!ation of the doctrine that, by the law of nations, the three-mile limit of th(^ exclusive right of fishery is to follow mid bo measured from the sinuosities of the coasts of the bays, creeks. ,111(1 harbors that exceed six miles in width at the entrance; and an erinally inconvenient application of our claim for full commercial privi- leges in Canadian i)orts for our fishermen, when applied to Dritish Columbian fishermen in our Pacific ports, which are nearer to them than to our fisheries in Alaska. Xo allusion is imide in the treaty of 18 IS to tlu^ laws of nations as furnishing canons for its interpretation ; and we infer that its meaning is to be gathered alone from its context and the circumstances that at- tended its adoption. The undersigned believe that the interpretation of that treaty, vvhich has led to its reformation in the treaty now before the Senate, is far in advance of anything that any American di[tlomat has oflicially demanded iif the Uritish Government, and will lead to a full and amicable adjust- iiiLMit of all troubles of the sort that have heretofore arisen ; and that it Till open the way for a liberal and neighborly agreement as to such dif- [feicnces as may hereafter arise, both on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. In this interpretation and relbrmation of our existing treaty, the Iriiitod States make no committals as to the exclusive rights of iishing luiRler the laws of nations that may atlect our interests in the Pacific il the (hilf of Mexico in the future; nor do they place the delimitations lie fishing-groundfe, or the alleged commercial rights of our fisher- upou any principle of the international law that may be quoted list us at Victoria (within a very short distance of our northern S. Mis. 109 5 f :v ^^1i m «6 THE FISHERIES TREATY. border), or along the extensive seacoast between Puyet Sound iiiul Alaska, our great Pacific fishery. The undersigned i)refer the certainty which this treaty has secuiod as to our specific rights in the fisheries of tlie Atlantic coasts of Xoitli America to the uncertainty of the international law as to all those questions, which will leave in bitter dispute our rights and liberties botli on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, bays, harbors, and creeks, and in Behring's Sea and Straits. The undersigned believe that the treaty now under consideration atibrds a better foundation for both our fishing and commercial risbts than any that can be stated as resting alone ui)on international law, or upon comity secured by retaliatory laws and maintained by the lluct- uating interests of commerce, that are very unstable. Those who assert that it is not the duty, and is scarcely the right, of the President to resort to negotiations, in preference to the retaliation provided for in existing laws, in order to secure commercial rights to fishermen in Canadian ports, are not willing that their privileges sbiill be enlarged and jonverted into righU secured by treaty. They prefer the chances of greater success through legislation that will intimidate the British Government or greatly embarrass British commerce. Tins seems to indicate that they rely for success more upon British cui)idit,v and the fear that Government has of the consequences of war, than upon its sense of justice, or its good faith iukeeping treaty obligations. Whether or not this may be true, it is very obvious, as the nndev-j signed believe, that the advantages we are supposed to enjoy under sneli i circumstances would be quite as available for the increase of our com- mercial privileges by retaliatory laws, after this treaty is ratified, as tliey are at present. Our good faith is no more pledged in this treaty tlui it is in the treaty of 1818. This treaty does not bind us to advance no claim hereafter to ii creased commercial privileges in favor of our fishermen. The spirit iiij which it is framed is one of conformity, in our treaty relations, to tlic l>rogressive interests and necessities of the country, so that a furtluii increase of commercial privileges would naturally result i'roni the policy of both countries ; as is shown by the fact of the negotiation this treaty, when such increase should appear to be, as it will be, mutiij ally advantageous. THE FISHERIES TKEATY. 67 III. AN IMPORTANT PRECEDENT FOR THIS TRKATV IN THE ARRANGEMENT OFFERED BY MR. SEWARD IN 1806 TO THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT. There is a very important precedent for the plan of this treaty, ami for some of its leading:,' features, in the protocol proposed in 18GG by Mr. Seward, then Secretary of State, through ISlr. Adams, our minister to Great Britain. The letter of Mr. Seward and the protocol are as follows : ^fl^. Seward to Mr. Adams. No. 1737.] Dkpartmkxt of Statk, WaiiMn agreed upon by the said conunission shall not be final, nor have any effect, until so • ointly confirmed and declared by tiic United States and Her Majesty the Queoi of Great Britain, either by treaty or by laws mutually acknowledged and accepted by the President of the United States, by and with the consent of the Senate, and bv Her Majesty the Queen of Great Britain. Pending a dilferent arrangement on the subject, the United States Governnu'iir engages to giv(! all juoper orders to officers in its employment ; and Her Britannic Majesty's Government engages to instruct the proper colonial o» other British officers to abstain from hostile acts against British and United States fishermen respectively. This protocol was offered by Mr. Seward, as a modus vivendl, after tlie teriiiiuatioii of the treaty of ISol had thrown us back upon that of 1818, as to onr tishery rights, lie ottered It, also, for acceptance by Great Britain as the basis of a new treaty of interpretation and regulation of those rights. ^ Mr. Seward's recommendation of a. mixed commission, (1) "toagroo upon and define by a series of lities" the fishing limits, in conforiiiiry with the first article of the convention of 1S18; ('J) "to agree upon and establish such regnlations as may be necessary and proper to secure the fishermen of the United vStates the privilege of entering bays and harbors" utidcr the proviso to the treaty; and (3) "to agree nixni and recommend tlie penalties to be adjudged, and such i)r(>ceedings and jurisdiction as may be necessary to secure a speedy trial," etc, '-fui' violations of rights and transgressions of limifs und rcsfrictlons,''\'ti:. indicates an earnest i»i»preliensiou on his part that no settlement conhl ik reached hy ordinary negotiations ,' that the treaty could not be amicalily kept unless it was aineiuled; and that the amendments he proiniscdj would cure the defects of the iiideliiiite descri[)ti()n of the rights (tml restrictions and Jishing Lmits that were too generally stated in the tixMivl of 1S18. THE FISHERIES TREATY. 69 il har- ons iiH ClltilHl He saw the increasing danger of the situation, and came boklly for- ward to provide against its results. The cordial manner in wliich these tliree propositions were then re- ceived by the British Government, as a basis of agreement, inspired the efforts of the present administration to renew tlie negotiation on this phin as tlie basis of a new treaty. ^i.;- ilj; incut, ssion of I miiy lio until HO Queen of '.epted l>y f. iunl l>y vevnnicnt ISritannie ish oflk'ovs ipectively. after tlie of 1S18, by Great atiou of 'toap'oe onfonuity ;vee uitoii to seciu'c bays ami upon Hinl iliug-^ Hud etc, '-I'l'i' (OH.S,'' et''" )it couhl'i" i amit'H'ily |j propi'>''*^ riiihU 'ill'' the tnniiyi MEASURES OF HOSTILITY. EITHER COMMERCIAL OR ACTUAL, ARE NOT PREFERAHLE TO TFTE TREATY BEFORE THE SENATE. Tlie undersigned have found no opinion expressed by any of our diplomatists in their ofiieial correspondence that the proper interpre- tation of article I of the treaty of 1818 could bo otherwise secured than by a farther agreement, as to its meaning, between the treaty powers. If we demand a still more favorable agreement than that presented in this convention now under consideration, we shall probably en- counter many more years of controver.sy and negotiation before a better result can be. reached. If, laying aside all treaty agreements, we attempt to coerce a better understanding and less grievous practices than we have already suf- fered through commercial retaliation, we shall find that the cost to our own people is far greater than the entire value of the fisheries. If we resoit to war, or to measures that may lead to hostilities, upon what precise definition of our rights and grievances will wejnscify such grave proceedings, either to our own people, or before the nations of the earth ! We believe that no man can safely venture to formulate such a declaration. Cnless'we can clearly state the causes that justify a war for the re- dress of grievances, or the clear definition of the right we seek to assert or defend, we have no right to subject the country to the perils, or even the api)rehensions, of hostilities. It has never been stated by any administration, or dii)lomatist, or by Congress that any one case, or that all the cases that have grown out of our disputes with Great Britian about the treaty of 1818, gave a just ground for retaliation, reprisals, or war. The undersigned think it can not be safely denied tlmt in articles 10, 12, 13, and 11 of this treaty we have gained advantages and i)rivi- 1-=^. d n* 'ft; i IL.t I- 70 THP] FISHERIES TREATY. leges of a very iinportiint diaracter. In tUeui is foiiiKl the full coucessioii of ever}- claim to lisliing rights we have ever made, as being within the letter or the spirit of the treaty of 1818 that is now of any practical value; and the methods provided for their admini.stni- tion are quite as satisfactory as auj' we have ever claimed under our in- teri>retation of that treat}'. For convenience of reference we insert those articles in this paper, as follows: Articlk X. Uuited States li.shinj; vessels entering the 1)a.v.s or liarlior.s referreil to in Article I df this treaty nhall conform to havhor regulatious common to them and to finhiiuj vcsseh of Canada or of Xewfomidfaiid. Then >'f<'">t report, enter, or dear when piittinjf into sncli bays or harl)or,s fur ulu'l- ter or repairing damages, nor when patting into the .same, outside the limits of eslahlinhed ports of entry, for the purpose of purchasing wood orofohlainiuy water; except that any such vessel remaining more than tioenty-four hours, exclusive of Sundays and legal hol- idays, within any such port, or communicating with the shore therein, mag he required in report, enter, or clear; and no vessel shall be excused hereby from giviug due informa- tion to boarding otHcei's. They shall not be liable in any sueh bays or harbors for compulsory pilotage; nor. when therein for the purpose of shelter, of repairing damages, of purchasing wood, or of obtaining water, sliaU theg be liable for harbor dues, tonnage dues, buoy dues, light dues, or other similar dues; but this enumeration shall not permit other charges inconsistent with the enjoyment of the liberties reserved or secured by the Convention of Oct(il)cr 20, 1S18. Al'.TICLK XI. United States llshing vessels entering the ports, bays, and ' arbors of tlie Eastern and Xortheastern coasts of Canada or of the coasts of Newfoundland under stress »• the h'^meward royage, swvh i>rovisions and supplies as are ordi- narily sold to trading vessel, ^hall be granted to United States fishing resseU in such ports, promptly upon application and without charge; and such vessels having obtained licenses iu the manner aforesaid .shall also be accorded upon all occasions such facil- ities for the i)urchase of casual or needful provisions and suppli(>s as are ordinarily granted to the trading vessels; but such provisions or supplies .shall not be obtained by barter, nor purchased for resale or traftic. Ahtici.e XIII. The Secretary of the Treasury of the United States shall make regulations provid- ing for the conspicuous exhibition, by every United States fishing vessel, of its ot1ici.il THE FISHERIES TRERTY. 71 EiiNtevu slri^^ "/ DlllS liiws u: is nadc i)Jks dam- I needful [f Canada are oi'di- |,s in suc'li (ibtiiiuoil iiieb facil- irdinai'ily olitainctl lis provul- jits official lUimber on e.acli bow ; and any sncli vessel, refinirod l)y liiw to have an ofiicial nnni- ber, and failing to comply with sucli regulations, shall not be entitled to the liceusea provided for in this treaty. Such regulations shall be coiiininnicated to Her Majesty's rJovernnient previonuly to their taking effect. AiMicr.K XIV. Tlio ;ienaItios for nnlawfalhi Jhh'inn in tiie waters, bays, creeks, and harbors, referred to in xVrtiele I of this treaty, may extend to forfeiture of the boat or vessel, and appurtenances, and also of the supplies and cargo aboard when the olfenso was committed ; and for preparing in such waters to util-iwfuJIjjfwh therein, i)enaUies shall lie iixed by the court, not to exceed tiiose f(n' unlawfully fishing; and for aci/ other lolation of the laim of (Ircat Britain, Canada, ov Newfoundland relating to the right of tishery in such waters, bays, creeks, or harbors, penalties shall be Iixed by the court, not exceeding in all three doVars for ccery ton of the hoat or vesxel concerned. The boat or vessel may be holden for such i)enalties ami forfeitures. Tiie jirocecdings shall be summary and as inex|)ensive as practicai)le. The trial except on appeal) shall be at the place of detention, unless the Judge shall, on re- I .|iiest of the defense, order it to ho. held at some other place adjndged hy him more con- ■riient. Security for costs shall not be reiiuired of the defense, except when bail is Ml'ered. Reasonable bail shall be accepted. There shall be proper appeals nrni/aft/e I fii the defense only ; and the evidence at the triat may he nued on appeal. Judgments of forfeiture shall be reviewed by the Governor-General of Canada in fi- 2i!, or the governor in council of Newfoundland, before the same are executed. We accord (in Article 12) to the lisbiiig vessels of Ciiuada iuul New- ItoinuUaiul tiie same pricilegas on the Atlaiiti(i coasts of the United [States that are secured to our fishiuy' vessels by this treaty, without uhnitting" them to fish within 3 miles of the coasts of the bays, liarbors, or creeks along- that sea-coast. This treaty secures to our fishermen the free navigation of the Strait lot' Can so. Article 15 secures to us the option to ac([uire very imi)ortant com- |i«i'i'oial privileges to our lisherinen whenever Congress shall conclude iliat they are worth the money that we may otherwise collect in duties "11 tish. Congress may never make this concession ; but the power to acquire lliese privileges, as pernninent treaty rights, may become very valuable 10 118 when the diminishing products of the lisheries in the waters ad- liiceiit to the eastern coasts of the United States and of Canada and Newfoundland increase in \alue, because they will be required to ^upply the needs of 100,00l>,00() of peoi)le in the United States and 'UlOOjOOO of peoi)le in the Dominion of Canada. !i ;■ II 11 i - m f. , L'P ' SI' ml I I' 'I' '\ I I 72 THE FISHERIES TREATY. This article is su;>gested by a wise forecast of the future uece.ssitios of our lishernien, as well as those of the people of the United States, when our population is greatly increased, and the supply of food is to be distributed to such a vast multitude of people that the allowance. per capita, will be, accordingly, diminished. The treaty now before the Senate is one of reciprocal concessions. The unconditional concessions to the fishermen are not strictly com- mercial, but they give them great assistance in their business and in the means of relieving any distress which may befall them. Can we ever hope to engraft on the treaty of 1818 any new agree- ment for commercial privileges to our fishermen without giving an equivalent in some liberty or privilege that Great Britain will claim for her fishermen '. This question is answered by the fact that we renounced in 1818 the best part of the fisheries that were of the fruits of the war for indei)eii(l- euce in order to make the residue a permanent right; and in 18.") 1 and 1871 we agreed to pay heavily for a temporary suspension of the restric- tions and limitations of the treaty of 1818. We have made four fisheries treaties with Great Britain, in 1783, 1818. 1854, and 1871, and in none of them has any commercial privilege been secured to our fishermen. ;Xo serious effort has been made to seciuo such privileges prior to the negotiation now before the Senate. All that we have heretofore secured to our fishermen has been the iirivilege of inshore fishing, of curing and drying fish on certain parts of the British coasts, more or less restricted and changed in each successive I treaty, and the right to buy wood, obtain water, make repairs, and lindj shelter. Now, we find, according to the testimony of everybody concerned, and! the thoroughly considered report of our Committeeon Foreign llelationsj made after a searching investigation conducted upon our coasts, audi upon the testimony of experts laid before the Senate, that the inshoiol fisheries, for which we have i)aid and suffered so much, are of no valiiej to us, and that the privilege of purchasing bait from the Canadians is| an injury to our fishing interests rather than a benefit. These declarations, which were true, show that many of the conteu] tions and strifes we have had over this subject, for seventy years, liavd been about a ck'm of rights and privileges that are no longer of um| advantage to us. They prove that we need only such advantages, or privileges, for (h TJiis teres ts, cousidei reject tli The rij find the of 1830'^ The pr to enter ( THE FISHERIES TREATY. 73 sities tatL's, L is to ancc. ns. \- com- and ill agreo- ing ail laim Vuv L818 tlio tlepeuil- US.'ji and e restrie- 33,1816. oge been ate. All pi-ivilcgc IS of tlu' uccessivt' I . aiul liutl ! riK' d, ami lelations. )asts, aiull le insliovc If no valuii radians isj he conteuj jeavs, lii^va lo-er of ail}! ID ■ les, for m tishernicn on the Canadian coasts as are enjoyed by our merchant ves- sels, and that these are not very important to them. Purse-seining has revoUitioni/ed tlio mackerel fishery abuost entirely, iind has hirgely attccted the herring fishery, and lias given to our fisher- men great advantages in "the catch." But Canadian capital and energywill not long' permit us to do all the purse or deep-water seinifig. The freezing' of fish on shipboanl, so as to get them fresh to our markets, is of recent date, but is a very important change in the fish- ing business. In this the Canadians have no greater advantages than our fishermen. These two improvements in the fishing' business, with tiie added power of steam, which has been api)lied to sea navigation since 1818, have i)roduced the revolution in these pursuits wliich renders it more convenient to have commercial rights for some of our fishing vessels, but has removed the necessity to have fishing privileges within three miles of any of the coasts or in the bays of the British ])ossessions that are not classed as great arms of the sea. The history of the controversies that have found a final solution in the treaty now before the Senate, and tlie explanation of the bearing of the treaty upon those (luestions, are so clearly and ably stated by Hon. W. L. Putnam, in a letter dated April 10, 1S8S, that we apjiend it to this report (Appendix E). Mr. Putnam being one of our pleni[)Otentiarie:s who negotiated this treaty, his review of the diplomatic and legislative history is an impor- tant exposition of the merits of this subject. T. THIS TREATY COMPARED WITH THE COM.MEKCIAL ARRANGEMENT STYLED "THE RECIPROCITY OF 1,^30.'' This treaty proposes liberal reciprocity to us, confined to fishing in- terests, and gives ns all the time we may choose to claiiu in which to consider our best interests and determine whether we will accept or reject the overture. The right of choosing between this proffered commercial reciprocity and the privileges accorded to us under what is termed " the recii)rocity of 1830" is a decided advantage in favor of our fishermen. The products of our fisheries in Canadian waters are not permitteil to enter Canadian ports on any ships of the United States by the Brit- \i \1 m III :.'. .'if' L !'' »l •it I. 74 THE KISHERIKS TKKATY. isli proclamation of Xoveinber 5, IS'M). That i)roclanuitiou declares "that the ships of and belon^'iiij? to the said United States of America may import from the United States aforesaid into the liritisli posses- sions abroad goods the proihice of those States, and may export j^oods from tlio British ])ossessions abroad to be carried to any foreign conn- try "whatever." This cannot a[>ply to fishery i)rodacts taken or purchased in the Canadian waters or ports, and was not intended in any manner to add to the four purposes for whidi our fishermen may enter Canadian ports under the treaty of 1818, as we understand that prochunation, or to repeal that treaty. This proclamation was a month later tlian that made by President Jackson, and was the British response to our proclamation, under which "British vessels and their cari'oes are admitted to an entry into the ports of the United States from the islands, provinces, and colonies of Great Britain, on or near the JS^orth American continent and north or east of the United States." The full text of these proclamations is hereto appended as Appendices A and B. These proclamations set forth the entire concurrent action of the two Governments (which is called the reciprocity of ISoO), There iiaviug been no change in the situation since that time, that is " the reciprocity" which still exists, as matter of law. The broad liberality of our concession is in very striking contrast with that of Great Britain; but we have lived under this inequality of rights for more than fifty years, without a serious protest until within three years, and the complaints we have made arose from the Britisli construction of our fishing rights and not of our commercial rights • under that reciprocity. Our fishing vessels are equally barred (under tljc British contention) bj' the treaty of 1818, and by the Britisli proclamation of November 5, 1830, from entering their ports witli cargoes of fish taken in Canadian waters, without reference to the rights to touch and trade or to any other commercial character, that we may give them under our laws. To gain these rights for our fishermen, we have a choice of grave al- ternatives. But the cost of the naval and military prepa^'ation that would be necessary to give confidence to our own people, in supi^orting any ex- treme demand or stringent measures connected with this subject, would be greater than the whole value of these fisheries for the next half century. THE FISHERIES TREATY. 75 l)Ult^ |i»ny ox- would VI. THE PRESIDENT HAS ONLY PERFORMED A PLAIN DITY, IN THE INTER- ESTS OF ALL THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES, AND TO THE SEN- ATE IS LEFT THE RESPONSIP.ILITY. The undersigned do not And it necessary to answer in detail the various objections urged in committee by the Senators opposed to the ratification of tliis treaty, l)ecause no amendment was offered to indi- cate that the treaty coukl be so improved as to gain tlie support of any member of tlie majority of the committee. The undersigned understand that the dissent from this negotiation is directed to it as an entirety. Tliis dissent is based, in part, upon the opinion of some members of the majority that the President shouhl not liave entered upon any negotiation, in view of the resolution adopted by the Senate on the 3d day of February, 1880, and the oi)inion of Con- gress as it was expressed in the non-intereourse act approved 3Iarch 3, 1887. That resolution is as follows: Resolved, That in tlu>. opinion of the Soniito \\w apitoiiitnient of a coiiiiiiissioii, in which the Governments of the United States and Great Britain sliall l)e represented, ciiarj^ed with the consideration and si^fctleMii-nt of the fishiiig ri;[j;ht3 of tlie two Gov- t'lnments on the coasts of the United States and l>ritish Nortli America, onght not to he provided for by CongToss. This resolution related, as we umlerstand it, solely to the , loit ollict'v, ;ti't!lKi> DceiUnc stanlial 1 tVoni ;i I liiua'-> •assuit'Hi icvci' t'.u; lominit- luit was y Great topvo- ^l\d com- Hostility Britain motives jh would In reseut- Ito evade Irs of tbe Ivpou liiu> It of that lates tUat Is for tbe I Lstenedtol treaty re- THE FISIIKRIKS TKKATY. <7 liitions with Groat Uritaiii, and };sive him tlio disci'etioii to employ all necessary means to put his decision in force. This is the law that Con^^a'css enacted to meet tlnit ajj^j,'ravated state . of alVairs, as described in the lejiort of tlie Senate committee : AX AV/V til iiutlii)ii/e tlio rnsiilnit of the I'liitucl Htiitci to picitcol ami (Iffi'iiil llio rights of AtiiiTi- can ll.-iliiiiijv(mscl.i, Amci'icim llshcrincii, Aiiioiicaii Iraiiinn and ullici' ves^tols, In cmtiiii ciisc.-t, anil fur other iiiirii'im'.s. lUitciKiclcdbi/ tlie Senate and Ilimse of lleiivexentativeH uj'jhe United Slnlia of America in Con{iven,i ut niadu in pursnaiHc hereof, sliall be dcH'ined K"'Hy "' "- nii.sdenieanor, and, on conviction thereof, shall li,. punished by a line not exeeedinj; one thousand dollars, or by iinprisonineiit for a term not exceedinj? two years, r>r by lioth said punishments, in the discretion of the coni!. Ajtproved, Mardi:}, 1887. This Imv relates to past offenses as well as to those that may liereat'ier occur. As to i)ast offenses, Con;^ress abdicated its authority to dt^clare that they constituted just i-roimds for retaliation, and left that matter solely' to the discretion of the President or else Congress intended that the I'resident should have these powers to meet a case of emer- gency, and should also employ his constitutional power of making treaties (which Congress could not control) as a part of "his discre- tion" in providing a way through which the evils comjdained of should be remedied. The undersigned can not implite to Congress that its i)urpose, in de- volving upon the Presid(Mit these broad discretionary powers and con- tlitional duties, was to forbid, or to euibarrass, the free exercise by him of his constitutional power to make treaties, with the advice and con- sent of the Senate, or that these extraordinary- powers were given him to enable Congress to escape its just responsibility for measures tli;it were necessary for the protection of the honor of the country or tlic interests of the i«!ople. If the President had resorted to retaliatory measures against Cana. diau commerce, under this fict of March 3, 1887, without having at- tempted any negotiation with Great Jhitain, the open waj' that was in- dicated by Mr. Seward's proctocol in ISG'), to which wo have referred, and the favorable impression it made on the British Government, would have been pointed out by an indignant people as an .abandoned oppor- tunity for au amicable agreement with Great JJritaiu, and he would have been amenable to just censure. Put, aside from this, his duty to humanity, as well as to his couiitiy. forbade him from exposing the interests and prosperity of 0.'5,O0i),OU0 of people to danger, by hasty or extreme measures of retaliation, while it i was possible to reach a just settlement of our disputes with Great Britain over matters that concern only a few thousand people, who Tin: FI.SIIIOUIKS TKKATY. 79 tlio nine utii- I law imici' ill 1m. I term cimi!' r.il'lei' >c\'avi' iv.iltcr emev- ivaking iliscre- sUoulil i>, in tie- ,ml cou- ; by liini uiil cou- veu hiiu livos Uiiit y or the 1st, Caua. living ;^t- It was iii- ret'enxHl, [it, NVOllUl llie would countiy. )0i),000 of II, while it ! litli Great I lople, wliol would be luoro Ixnietttod by such an apfrooimeiit thnii thi-y ronld lie by reliiliatory laws. Tlio President has succeodi'd in niakinj? jjrovision for a st'ttU'incnt of thcsu lonf>-standin;^ disi)ntes on terms that arc Just anil leasonablo, as wc aro satislitid — a niucli better settlement tlian lias been even attem[)ted heretofore, and one that will increase, in the future, the lil)erality of commerce with Canada.- If the Senate shall dec line to ratify this tn'aty there will remain no doubt that it assumes all the responsibility for what may hereafter re- sult from the proper employment by the rresidurit of the retaliatory l)0wers that Congress has conferred upon him. Jf the pro[)er use of those powers is considered by Great IJritain as a viol) lion of the treaty of 1818, in demandinfjf for our fishermen fjreater liberties and privileges than that treaty si^cured to them, and that we are enforcinj;' that denuind through commercial duress, the Senate will also take whatever responsibility may belong: to that situation. Con;;ress declined to say in the act of March .'J, 1887, that the lights of American fishermen had been denied or abridged, but left it to the President to determine that question. If this treaty is rejected, it is be- yond disi)Ute that retaliatio:i is the only means, short t)f war, by which we can redress our wrongs, if we have sull'ered any. The Senate, in re- jecting this treaty, will alUrm that such wrongs exist, which Congress* did uot so assert, and, because thereof, will force the President to i)ro- daim non-intercourse. YII. THE PKOTOCOL TO Till-: TREATY IS AN HONOUAHLE AXU FRIEXDLY OVEU- TtJKE OF THE URITLSII GOVERNMENT, AND SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO DEVELOP, BY ACTUAL EXPERIENCE, WHETHER THIS TREATY WILL BE BENEFICIAL TO OUR FISHEIMES AND COMMERCE. In view of a possible disagreement between the Senate and Presi- dent as to the value of this treaty to our fishermen, the undersigned re- spectfully call the attention of the Senate to the importance of postpon- ing its consideration until the next December session of Congress. The i)rotocol to the treaty, suggested and otl'ered by the British pleni- potentiaries, tenders to our tishermcn very liberal commercial privileges in Canadian ports for two years. This overture is equivalent, almost, to a guaranty that during this period the British Govornauiut, in conjunction with the provincial gov- 1 i I 80 THE FISHERIES TREATY. oriimeiits, will prevent the recurrence of the interferences with onr tish- ernien that have given them such serious disquietude. It will also put into ijractice, substantially, all the provisions of the present treaty, ex- cept those relating" to the delimitation of fishing boundaries. A single fishing season, under such conditions, will demonstrate that this treaty is a failure, or else that it is of great value to the country. The advantage of such experience is manifest, and we sliould not rrtshly trust to our opinions, which nnist be largely conjectural, wlieu we can fortify them or disprove their sotuidness by a short delay in our action, wliich does not commit us, in the least degree, either for or against the treaty. The Jiritish Government has exerted a restraining intluence duriuf the vvlu)re period since 1818 over the provincial governments as to their deniaiuls and proceedings under that treaty. That G^ -ernment has encouraged liberality in the conduct of the fishermen ^i 1 in commer- cial interchange between the United States and the p' ".'inces ; seeing ;aat the i)rosperity of tliose countries greatly depended on such a policy. It has not been an easy task to restrain the people of the provinces to a course of moderation. Political reasons, not always favor- able to the Crown, and the jealousies of rival interests in fishing rights hehl in common by the people of two countries, and even the lingering hatreds engendered by our Ilevclutionary war, h ive been active in promoting discord in these colonies. Great Britain never before had so capital an interest in fostering the loyalty of the (Jaiia. dians. The Suez Canal is scarcely more important to the interests of that Empire than the Canadian Pacidc Railway. But other interests of the most important character insi)ire the British Government with an earnest purpose to cultivate the closest friendshi[) with the people of Canada. It is evidently the true policy of the Hritish Government to satisfy the peoi)le of these provinces that tlie treaty now before the Senat' will be of advantage to them, because of the additional liberty of commerci^ that it extends to our fishermen ; and this was doubtless a strong induct' ment to that Government to otter voluntarily to us tlie privileges stated in the protocol to the treaty. ^Ve have almost as great an interest in afi'ording to our i)eople the opportunity of a practical test of the atlvautage of these privilegi's offered in this protocol. In matters of such moment we can not justify a rejection of sucli :i THE FlSHEinES TREATY, 81 l)rop(jsitioii, iK)t roquiriiij;" our formal acceptance to make it availaltlo, on the ground that we could not, without dishonor, permit such a coarse, resulting;' in such possible advantages to us, even for one fishing season, and then reject the treaty. We have not in any way invited or suggested this offer of the P>ritisli CTOvernment, and we are not asked to accept it. It proposes, for a time, to liberalize the commercial privileges of our fishermen in the provincial ports, for reasons satisfactory to the British Govern.nent. If we should hasten our action on this treaty with the purpose of pre- venting an effort of that Government to satisfy Her ^Majesty's su >iects lliat a liberal policy towards us is tlie best, or even of convincing onr people by experience that such a policj" is also best for us, we would incur greater discredit by such action than could possibly attend our rejection of the treaty, after a fair trial of the British expedient pre- sented in this i)rotocol had satisfied our people that the treaty should not be ratified. M i\ I f [)W the [vilvii''^ s\ieU ;i VIII. THE HE.ADLAXD TIIEOPvY, AS ArPLICAHLE TO THE HAYS, IIAKIJ0R8, AND CREEKS THAT ARE CLAIMED AS TIK'RlTOIv'IAL WATERS, HAS NOT BEEN AHANDOXED I'.Y THE BRITISH GOVERXxMENT, EXCEPT IN THIS TREATY. TT WAS A VITAL QUESTlOX WHEX THIS NE(jlOTIATIOX WAS EXTERED UPOX. It is insisted by some that'ireat Britain had auandoned the head- huid theory, and that it was obsolete when this treaty was made. The undersigned do not understand that the British headland theory, ;i.s applied to the bays, harbors, and creeks that had geographical names iiiul limits, and were included by British or provincial laws within the I local jurisdictions in ISIS, has been abandoned b,v Great Britain. IDiitsido of a limit of 3 miles from the headlands of such indentations of the sea coast it was abandoned as early as LS15, in the case of the American fishing vessels that were warned otf the coast by the Biitisli |iuan-of war Josscnr. Our claims could not be fairly predicated, diplomati<;ally, on such an I'liliiiissiou by Great liritaiii as to the base-line from which the o-mile limit is to be measured. That being still an open mih's :r is , claimed IJehiwaro I5ay as l)einj; within teiritoiial watiis. Mr. IJayard contends that tiio rnlo, whicli ho asks to have srt up, was adniiteil 1>\ tlie, nnii)ire of the coinniission, ujipointed under ! he con\eMtion f)f It-.");!, in the case ni the United States lishing schooner Waahln'jUni ; that it was by hini ajudied tn ti. IJay of Fnndy, and that it is for this reason applicable to other Canadian bay>. It is snbniitted, however, that as one of tlie headlands of the IJay of Enndy i> in ll,' t<'rritoiy of the Enited States, any rules of international hiM' applicalile to that Iwyl are not lliercfore eiinally applicable to other bays the headlands of wliich aiv l>iiili| within 1h(! territory of the same power. This jirovision wonlil itivolve a siirreudei' of rishini; rij;lits whicli liave al wa\,--l"i:i| regarded Jis the exclusive ]M0])erty of (Janada, and would make eon>inon li>!iii ;- }i;rom;.is of the territ(nial waters wliich, by the law of nations, have l)een invaiialiil rogardc'i )ot]i in (ireat Britain and tl,ie United iStatos as be!oiigin>>; to the ailjaa'd ''\fiitnal ""' tliiit 4slou ' lisli OSS ]\\ AW 111 IVev in Up; tin' ion *'K- \istaiun' it timos. niiU's M viul \irai some n-f- . I'l'S'AVuiij; ivtillcry c r.iilisli to USsCV- Ll rA\W. L.vy uii'.iii |,;vlUi'iis t'ui^ lu.out 111; tlv [i the ciisi'i'i' :,l\vi>\>'"''''H moil lishii":« ,„ iuviniaW,5« the a>!.:^u'oii« coiiiilry. Ill liu." oii.s(!, for instance, of the IJiui dcs Clialcnrs, u in'cnlhiily wcU- maikod and almost laiid-locUt'd iiidi'iitation oi' the Canadian coasr, tlu> Id-niilc limit would be drawn Ironi iioints in tin* licait of Canadian tcriitory, and almost TO miles from tlie natural eiitnince or mouth of the hay. This would b(! done in s[iito of the fact that, both by imperial lej^islarioii and by judicial interpretation, this bay has been diiclaied to form a part of the territory of Canada. (See Inijierial Statute, 14 and 1.") Vict., ca)). (i:? ; and Mouatt v. Mcl'hee, ."> Sup. Court of Canada Reports, p. 6(j.) Fioin tbi.s statenieiit of tlie British coiiteiitioii, it appears that the headland theory was still adhered to by that Government in March, 1887, hnt it was admitted that it had been relaxed as to the Bay of Fiindy for special reasons. ]\Ir. Bayard's reply to the "observations" of the Maniuis of Salis- bury, which is set forth on pages ."iO to (>(>, inclusive, of Senate Execu- tive Document Xo. 113, first session of Fiftieth Congress, refutes the force of those "observations" by citing precedents furnished by the conduct ( f the British Government in this matter, and the decision of the umpire in the cases of the Washincjton and the A>'{iii,s. in wuich be wholly discarded the headland theory- and made an award in favor of the owner. But these counter-statements only served to show that the headland theory-, in its a[)plicat'on to biiys within the jurisdictional limits, was still in controversy between the two Goverumeuts, and that there was little disposition on the part of the British Government to yield, as there was on our [lart to admit, the Justice of that construction of tlie treaty of 1318. These contentions made it necessary that a better understanding should be reached ; and if the two Governments could not accomplish this by negotiation, it was certain that increasing strife and broils be- tween their people would seriously eiuhmger the commerce of each, and would expose both countries to the peril of being driven into hostilities by the designs of vicious men, or through the angry contentions of well- meaning ]>ersous. IX. Tin: CLOSE Ri LATIOXS ]5ET\VEEN THE PEOPEE OF CANADA AM) THE UNITED STATES IN THE USE OF THE COMMON RIGHT OF FISHERY MAKE IT IMPERATIVE TO REGUEATi: THEHJ ASSOCIA TION BY FRIENDLY AtiREEMENT RATHER THAN 1!V RI'.TALIATOK'V LAWS. .Alutual and amicable agreement between th-'two(rovernments, clearly understood ami faithfully exeDut<'d, is the only way in which the people ' '", \m 1 iV m : :i; 11 ' '■ n ill 1 |!-i 84 THE FISHERIES TREATY. of Xewtbuiidlancl and Caiiadii and of the United States can ever peacefully enjoy, in common, the valuable rij;lits of fisliery. lieciprocity, in some form, is an element in every treaty made for tlie settlementof questions that are sincerely in dispute between independent l)oweis. In all of our treaties with Great Britain, relating" to the extra- territorial rights, liberties, or i)rivileges of each in the other's count ly or jurisdiction, recipro(;ity has been conspicuously stated as a leading motive and purpose. The provisional treaty of peace of Xovember .'So, 17S2, sets out with this declaration: • Whereas rcciproual ;iilvaiitMj;i'.s ami iiiiitiial convciiiciicc are loiiiul by cNiii'i'ii'uci' ti> form llic only ixTiiiaiii'iit ioiiudalion of jicaci' aiul frieiulsliip between States, il is aj^reed to form the articlc^s of tbe jiroposed trciiity on wiich ])riiici|iles of liberal efiuity and reciprocity a,s that, partial iidvantaf;es (those seeds of discord) being excluded. Mich a benelicial and satisfactory interconrse between the two countries may lie established as to ])roiMise and secure to both peri)etiial ]ieace ami harmony. This declaration was repeated, in substance, in the deUnitive treaty of peace of Sei)tember .'», 1783. lu both these treaties the right of fishery was deiined as between tlie l)eople of both countries, the United ^States expressly yielding some of the liberties they had enjoyed in common with the colonies that re- nmined subject to the British Crown on the coasts of Xewfoundland as as to curing and drying lish on that island. The treaty of October 20, 1818, was made "to cement the good un- derstanding which happily exists between" the two Governments. In that treaty we renounced our right of fishery on certain coasts, etc., but regained the right to (uire and dr^- fish on a part of the southern coasts of I"'nvfouiulland. Under that treaty, which was reciprocal, misunderstanding arose as to its meaning, and the reciprocity treaty of 18.~>1 was made, in ])art, "to avoid furtiier misunderstanding between their respective citizon.s and subjects in regard to the extent of the right of fishing on the coasts of British North America secured by Article I of the Convention*' ot 1818, and "to regulate the commerce and navigation between tluir re- spective territories and people." The extensive reci[)rocity of this treaty continued for twelve yetus, At its terminiition by the United St.ites tlie "misunderstandings" under tlie treaty of 1S18 again iirose, when tlnit convention bei;aiiiL' then, as it is now, tlie measure of our treaty rights. Tile treaty of 1S71 was made so as "to provide for ai> aniicabh' set THE FISHERIES TREATY, 85 ever ideut iintry )oi' iU>, ■ii'uce to tos, it i;* \\ (Miuity Kcluilc'll- ; llKiy 1h' e tvoaty lis'eeu the ; some of , that re- ,\illnml as o;00tl UU- lents. In ^iists, etc., soutliei'u arose as |e, in l>ait. :e, citizens tbeeoasls leutioii"' of u their n'- li'lvc years, ^tiuuli":-^ )n became Lical.le st'i- tlenient of cinses of difference between the two countries," and arbi- tration and reciprocity pervaded every one of its forty-three articles. In all the wide range of our treaty engagements with the treaty ])ow- ers of the world there is scarcely one that does not contain some mu- tual advantage; or reciprocal concession, and they cover every subject that has been suggested, in the experience of mankind, as being fit or convenient to be settled by international agreement ratlier than to be left under the control or security that might be afforded by the laws enacted by the respective countries, \Yhich they could alter or repeal at pleasure. Xow we are again remitted to the field of "misunderstanding," "in regard to the extent of the right of fishing on the coasts of British North AnuM'ica,"' with an increased number of cases of seizures and in- terferences with our fishermen growing out of those disputes, aiul the (luestion is, whether we shall abandon all eltorts to remove these mis- understandings by further agreements, or shall we treat Cv'ery claim we umke as a si}w (pia nan, and its refusal an uUimatunif and resort, as the first expedient, to retaliatory legislation to enforce it. That failing, shall we stop and abandon tlie claim, or prepare for its support l>y coercive measures ? lletaliatiou may secure Just dealing between nations whose interests are entirely distinct and separate; but that is not our situation toward the people or the governments of Canada or Newfoundland. X. THE CHARACTER AND VALUE OF THE FISHERIES OX THE COAST OF LABRADOR AND THE BANKS OF NEWFOUNDLAND, AND THE INCREAS- ING DEMAND FOR FOOD-FISHES TO SUPPLY THE WANTS OF THE FEOPLE. The inshore fisliing along the coasts of Labrador are the best we have in the Clulf of !St. Lawrence, while that along the southern and western shores of Newfoundland is far better than any along the coasts of Nova Scotia or New iirunswick. Our plenii)otentiaries who uegotiated the treaty of 1818 mention these tacts to show that wo lost nothing of value when wo gave up the in- sliore fisheries of Nova Scotia, and gained much advantage by having access to the shores of Labrador, as will hereafter appear in this report. Mr. Sabiiu', in his report to the Secretary of the Treasury, in 1851*, ;,'ive,s a very interesting account of tiie fisheries on the nortlieasteru ■i.i mm llil 86 THJ': fisi[p:kii-:s tkeaty. coast, from which we make the followinj^ extracts, found in Senate lv\. Doc. 22, second session Tliirty-secoud Congress An account of the fishinj^-giouuda bas been reserveil for thti conchision. Of tlioso near our cities, and visited for the purpose of 8upi>lyiuj^ o\ir niarkotn with lisli to lie consnnied fresli, it is unncci.'ssary to spealc. I'iiose within the limits of IJritisli America, and secured to us by treaty, as well as thote on tlie eastern coasts of Maiiu>, are less generally known and may properly claim attention. Of the distant, New- foundland is the t)ldest. That vessels from ]5oston fished there as L-arly as tlic year 1645 is a fact jJiescrvcHl in tli(^ journal of Governor Winthro)). TIk; "great lianlc," which has been so long resorted to, is said to be aitout 200 miles broad and nearly tJDi) miles long. In gales the sea is very high, and dense fogs are i)revaleiit. The water is from So to 1)5 I'athoms deep. The edges of the bank aie iibrupt and composed of rough rocks. The best lishing-grounds are between the latitudes of 42° and 40^ north. The " bankers,"' as the vessels emi)loyed there are called, anchor in he open sea, at a great distance from the land, and pursue their lia/.ai'dous and lontdy employment, ex- posed to perils hardly known elsewhere. The fish are caught with hooks aiul lines, and (the operations of splitting and dressing performe^iii^ thut tlu'V 1,0(1 to it a ts witli his t for tlK'iv Into Slirli 10 t\i stall t L them to nowhere seriously (luo.stioiieil, in a lottcr to ^h\ Seward, Secretary ol" State, dated Ai>ril 2-1, 1808, thus describes the value of the fisheries as sources of food supply. lie says : Piiil tlicrc ail' otlicr most important considiM'ations connrctcd with extended c-oast.s and great fi.slieries. 'I'lie lislierie.s are caiiaMe of furnishing more and elieajier fund than the land, The reasons are — yl) Tho o(!ean surface is nearly lonr times that of t lie ! ami, the area being 1 h'.OOO.OUO siiuare miles of oeean surface to r>'J.flOtt,(J()0 of land. {•2) The oiM'an everywhere jirodiiees fish, from the ((|Uator to the ]pole, the pi Olll- ion of siihmarine animals increasin''' as von iio norll I up to a point hnt -l:;:) miles Irom the yiolo and believed to extemi there, whereas, in cousefpieiico of monntains, deserts, and the temperature of the surface of the earlli in very high latitudes, less than half its surface can Ije cultivated so as to produce fond in any appreciable qnai'.- tities. (li) The temper.'itiire of tiie ocean, in high latitmles, bidng nnudi wai'iaer than t'.iat of the land surface, there is increased profusion (d" sul)marine animal life, esjie- ciuUy in the Arctic and Atlantic 8cas, where, on account of extreme cold, the land siu'faco produces no foo 1. in warm latitudes tlui deep-st.>ii tt^mpcrature diminishes with the depth, until a certain point, below which it maintains an erpiable tempera- tnro of 40° Fahrenheit. Tin; temperature of the(/cean in httirude 70- (many degrees warmer than the land surface) is the same in all (h'pths. There are woudeiful pro- visions for the multipliciition (d' animal life in the ocean, and it moderates both heat and cold. These are addLtionul reasons in favor of the existence of a Polar Sea, filled with a far greater profusion of snbnuuine animal life than any other seas, and, as a rouseciuence, possessing far the best lisheries. Indeed, as lish progress northward, on ;iecount of the better occiin temperature there, as also, because the marine food there i-i more Jibuiulant, there <.'an be litth» doubt that the open Polar Sea will fnrin'sh lish- >v'n'!i of incredihle value. (4) The ocean produce's iV)od in all latitudes for the support of animal submarino 'ife. These are squid (the principal food of the whale), also abumlauce of nutritious H'U-grasses, etc., upon which the lish feed. Pesides, as the earth is more and more ultivated, and farms, as well as towns and cities, drained by creeks and rivers to ilic seas, the submarim^ food is corresjiondingly angmentcil. Even in mid-ocean the iiliosphoresceni.'e observed there is jiroduce I by the presence in the water id" myriads if living aninuils. (5) Whilst the earth produces food by plowing its snrlace only a few inches deep, I ilu' ocean supplies myriails of lish, tier on tier, thonsands of fathoms dee]). Thus, ;hi.' registered take of herrings in the Scotcli fisheries, in I'^Cil, was 1)00,000,000, ■\hiUt that of Norway, in the latitude of Iceland and (Jreenland. was far gri'ater. Perhaps, however, the nuiin reason why tlu^ ocean produces so nuich m(U'e food for Mail than the land is, that whilst land animals only give birth to one or two of their ymnii; at a t n\e, some fish ])roduce millions of ova, to be matured into life. Tluis, ii |ii iiijile cod has been found to contain 1.5,400,000 ova ; and other tiMh ova vtivying front t'voral millions to ;}(],0U0. lleu'ce, tho vast success attending the increased i>rodnc- ioii of lish by transfer, bv sowiiu the soawn.and other methods know to ichthyology. a 88 THE FISHERIES TREATY. Nothinj? could more certiiiuly lessen the food supply of the people. Avliicli, after all, is the, basis of all human progress, than to promote strife amongst llshermen visiting the same waters, A i)olicy that leads to such a result is an inJuHtice to the human family. 'So wealth, national or personal, can bo justly earned when it eoiiiH,^ from diminishing the sujiply of human food. With all our vast excess of cereals and of animal food we still need all the fish we can gather fiom the oceans ami seas for tlie comfort and economy of living, esiiecially among the industrial classes of our ra[)- idly increasing poi)ulation. The Atlantic and Tacific fisheries rank in importance along with the produ(;tion of beef, mutton, and pork as a source of food sup[)ly, and as a competitive element in the food markets even of this abumlant country. Our fishing rights and liberties along the coasts of Labrador ami Newfoundland, as fixed by the treaty of 1818, are rights to be enjoyed in common with the British people, and are such as no other nation has. They are partnership rights, in the intimate character of the as- sociation, in their labors and privileges, of our fishermen with theirs, No two nations were ever drawn into a closer relationshi]), or one in which good-will and mutual forbearance were more essential to tlie profitable pursuit of a great ins of tlie i)ast wo have on both sides .sent Uoet.s to these water.s to protect our lisherinen again.st each other^ and against the unfriendly' conduct of the local governnients; fleets to enforce agreements that the governments concerned could not expound by a mutual understanding. If these (piestions are left (»pon, and commercial war is inaugurated through measures of retaliation, how many ships and guns is it sup- po.sed will bo needed to keep the peace between our lishormon on the coasts of Labrador ami Is^wfoundland '. The danger in this direction does not come from tlio desire of either Government to promote a war, but from their inability to prevent its initiation thri gh the personal hostilities of men associated in the use of common rights and privileges, and stimulated by rivalries whicli are encouraged by laws of retaliation enacted V>y their respective (iovern- inents. These are some of the dangers against which thi.s treaty wisely makes safe provision. XII. THE AREA VIELUEI) i;V THE DELIMITATIONS (»F THIS TREATY, As COM- PARED WITH THOSE YIELDED BY THE HKITISH GONERXMEXT OX THEIR CONSTRUCTION OF THE LIMITS OF OUR "REXUNCIATION " UN- DER THE TREATY OF 181rf. It is alleged by some that this treaty yields to the ih'itish Govern- ment 50,000 sipiare miles of exclusive fishing-grounds beyond what we yielded in the treaty of ISIS. Taking the contention of the United States that no headland theory i.s to be found in the treaty of ISIS, and that the exclusive fishing limit i.s a line 3 miles from the shore, at low water, that enters all harbors, bays, and creeks that are more than G miles wide at the entrance, and follows the sinuosities of the coast thereof, this estimate of the area .surrendered in this treaty is greatly exaggerated. This is the narrowest limit to which we have confined our renuncia- tion in the treaty of ISIS, of the common right of fishery, in our con- tentions with Great Britain. ire ■ M 90 TFIE FI.^HKKIES TKKATV. The total aivn as to wliicli wo renomicml the coiiiinoii ri{;ht of lisliin;;', acconliiif;' to tlii-s ('onstriK-'tiou of that tieiitv, is 10,424 niuitieal s(|ii;u(' iiiik's. Tlio additional area of rcMmnciatioii under the delimitations ol' the proposed treaty, now before the Senate, is 1,127 sqiuire miles, Ixmhh OjV per <;ent. addition lo the former area of exclusion. The total area of bays, creeks, and harbors not more than <» miles wide at their mouths is about (1,59!) Hy ll by ri'»- seems to The president of tho Ameiiciin Fishery Union, in 1SS7, broni^ht the sidtject of retuliiition to the attention of tlio President of the United Stiite.s, and insisted that it sliould be applied only to the exclusion of Britisli-Anierican lisliin;^' ])r<)diicts from tiie markets of the United States. To that demand the President of the United States replied a.s follows : • ExHcrnvH Man-iov, ir expression cf tho viuv.-s iiml wi.shos tlxireiii contiilia'd in I'.liition to tli(( existiiijj; tliffuf(Mico.s IxUwoon tlio Govcnmiciit of Grout Uritiiiii !iii(l tlio riiited States j:;fo\viiiijj out of tlui rcfiisiil to ir.vard lo oiir citi/oiis oiif'-fi<;ed in tisliiii};' I'literprist's tlic jprivilcucs to which they are entitled either under treaty stiiMilatiniiH 111' tho j^nfiranties of international comity luid neij^hborly eoncossion. I siiieerely irii.st tlio ai>)>rehension yon exju'ess of unjust and unfriendly treatun-nt of Anieriean lisliernien lawfully found in Canadian waters will not he realized; but if sneh ap- prehension should prove to be well founded, I earnestly lioiic that no fault or ineon- ^ilte^ato action of any of our citizens will in tlie least weak(ni the just position of our lidveriuneiit, al sympathy au'l sn;)|iort to which we should lie entitled. The action of this aduiinistration since June, l-''^.'(, whim the fishery articles of tho ii'caty of L-^Tl were terminated under the notitieatio'i which had two years before "ten given by our Government, has been fully disehised by tho eorrespondenee be- tween tho representatives aiul the ai)|tn)pri;\t(> ilcpartnieuts of the respective (Jov- iinments, with which I am ap]irised by your letter you ari' entirely familiar. An • xiuuiuation of this corresp #1 <> v from this, and to seek a living in other pursuits. vis . '" 'i;. XIV. THE QUESTION OF THE IJHITLSH HEADLAND THEORY, AS TO SMALLEli ]5AYS AND HARIiORS ALONG TIH-: COASTS, AND THE LLMITS OF OUR RENiJNCLVnON OF THE RKJHTS OF FISHING, AND THE NATURE OF THE RESTRICTIONS UPON TtlE RIGHTS OF OUR FISHERMEN TO ENTER THE IJAYS AND HARBORS OF 15HITISH NORTH AMERICA, ARE .MATTERS OF DISPUTED RIGHT. ADMISSIONS MADE HERETOFORE BY AMERICAN DIPLOMAITSTS, AS TO THE DIFFICULTY OF CONSTRUING, (JRAMMATICALLY, THE TEXT OF THE TREATY OF 1818, GIVE COLOR TO THE BRITISH CONSTRUCTION, AND PROVE, AT LEAST, ITS SINCERITY. It is boldly asserted, in opposition to this treaty, that there is no sort of equivalent for the 1,1-7 s(piare miles of fishing waters that we con- cede by the fixed lines of delimitation in this treaty. This assertion impeaches both the right of the Britisli Government and the sincerity of its claim of the hea«lland theory, as it applies to bays more than miles wide at the entrance. Nevertheless that assertion is much weak- cued by the olUcial opinions of eminent xVmerican publicists, communi- cated to the British Government. If the territorial claims of both Governments were sincerely asserted, as we believe they were, in reference to the fishing waters, the modifi- eation of them bv mutual consent has ahvavsbeen held in the conduct T 94 THE riSHEIJIES TREATY. ! of nations us a good equiviileut, moving from each to tlio other, for the ooneessioiis mutiuilly made. Tliis doctrine is also applied by the courts as between individuals to support agreements based on theconsidcratioii of yielding or settling disputed claims. In contrastwith the assertion of the utter want of reason in the chiiius of Great Britain, based on the headland theory, we lind many stroii'> declarations of our Government. ]\lr. ^lonroe, Secretary of State, on ])ecember 30, 1810, admitted that a discussion of riyhf.s should he avoided when mutual concessions iccre necessary to bring the trcatiipoicer.s to a mutual agreement. Ue said to JMr. Bagot : In providiii}; for tlio accoimnodation oftho citizeusof the United States enjjaijcd in the tiaheiies ou the coasts of His Britaunic Majesty's colouics on conditions advaiita- geons to both pai'ties, I concur in tbe sentiment that it is desirable to avoid a discus- sion of iheh' respective rights, and to jiroceed, in a sjjirit of conciliation, to exaiiiiiic what arrangement will he adequate to the object. The discussion which has already taken place between onr Governments lias, it is presumed, placed the claim of each jmrtg in a just light. Our claim then was that we had a common right of lishery, on all tlio coasts, with the people of the British Xorth Anierican Possessions. The British Government then claimed that the war of 1812-15 had destroyed all our claims in such fisheries. On the 28th July, 1818, 3Ir, Adams, Secretary of State, instructed Mr. Gallatin and Mv. l*ush iis follows: The President authorizes you to agree to an article whereby the United States will desist from the liberty of lishi!i!i;, and curing, and drying lisli xrilhin the Ihiti.'ih jiois- diction f/eneraJli/, ni)oii condition that it shall bo secure!:ii;;('(l ill s adviuit;i- d a discus- o cxaniiiii' ciidy taken fi partij hi a on all till' sious. .2-15 had 1818, Mr. lUxsli as States will hltitih jinis- tri;?bt, nut th, aud />'«"' uorih, ahiii'j isliing. ubjocts of Tie under it. |s, and tlio 11 tended to Innion ^vitll levations oi' In, that ill! the treaty [n this dis Itnent, tliat onri)leni])otentiarie.s oft'ered to Great Britain tlie .surrender of our rights to tiie extent they wei'e renounced in th<5 treaty of 1818. Our i)k'nii>otentiaries, in explaining the treaty to our Government, .say: It \Yill also Ito perceived tliat we insisted on tlio cianso l»y whicii Mie United .*^tates ronoiiMce tlielr rij^lit to tlie lislierics reliiuiiiislied by tl\e conventinn, that claus(> li'-ini; omitted in tlio lirst Brilisli ('oimlei'-innject. Wo insisted on it willi tlio view: (1) Of jireventiai; any imiilicutiou tliat the li.-ih- eriea secured to us were a new huin^" the iierniiiuenet! of tlie ri<^lils secured !iud of those reuoimced ]>recisely on the same footiiij^; (■^) of its heiui^' ex- ])ress]y stated that our rvninicititioii extendeil only to the distance of three ihil''s from the coasfH. The rea.son.s they a.s.signed for the importance of this [)oint bring into seriou.s doubt the question whether thi.s renunciation extended to the ocean coast.s, or the coa.sts of the bay.s. They are as follows: This last point was the more important, as, with the exception of the iisliery 'ni open boats within certain Iiarbor-i, it api)eared from the (Mininuinieations alcove luen- tioned, tliatthcfishing-tjronndon the n hole coa-it of Nova Scotia in more tlian three milcn from the nhores; whilst, on ttie contrary, it is almost nnircrmlli/ close to the shore on the coasts of Labrador. It ii in that point of rieir (Iiat the pririlciie of entering the ports for Khelter is useful, and it is hoped that, with that provision, a considerable portion of the actual fisheries o\ that COAST (of Nova Scotia) wiU, notuilhstandingthe rennnvialion, be prcserreil. In view of these declaration.s of our plenipotentiarie.s, who negotiated the treaty of 1818, no cen.sure can be due to Daniel Webster for having expressed the opinion, in what i.s termed his '•p*'^^^''i"i'^tion'' to oiu' fish- ermen, that ''it wouhl appear that, by a .strict and rigid construction of this article" (of the treaty of 1818), " tishing vessels of the United States are precluded from entering into the bays," etc., and that " it was un- doubtedly an oversight in the convention of 1818 to make so large a concession to England, since the United States had usually considered that these vast inlets or recesses of the ocean ought to be open to Amer- ican fishermen, as free as the .sea itself, to within tliree miles of the shore." It was not until March, 184.">, that the Bay of Fundy was declared open to our fisheries by the British Government, on condition "//trtf they do not approacli, except in caseft Hpccijieil hi the treaty of 1818, within three miles of the entrance of any hay on the coast of Nova Scotia, or iS'ew Brunswick." Gn the 17th September, 1815, the governor of Nova Scotia was in- ' Ii' 96 THE fisiierip:s treaty. stnicted by the Dritisli Govermnciit that tho i)enni.s.si()ii to fisli thut liatl been concedetl to us in tlio Jiay of Fundy did not oxteiid '-to the Day ot'Clialeur and other huge bays of similar character on the coast t)f Xova Scotia and Xew Brunswick," and that they ^'sfill (uUicrc to (Ik fitrict letter of the treaties,''^ of which i\rr. Webster afterwards spoke in his circidar letter in 1852. ^lany other disputations have occurred over the meaning- of tliis treaty, as to the extent of the renunciation of our fishing rights witliiu .i miles of tho coasts, bays, harbors, and creeks of the British Xortli American possessions, and wo aro not aware that any of them luive been definitively settled. Mr. Everett, minister to Clreat Britain, on the l25th jMarcli, 1845, replied to the letter of Lord Aberdeen, stating tlie action of the British (lovernment in relation to our right to fish in the Bay of Funday, in which Lord Aberdeen said: The iiiider.sisi'Ud will coiiCme liiiiisi'lf to stating that, after tho most deliberate re- consideration of tho subject, and with every desiro to do full justico to the I'niteil .Stfites, and to view tho claims jnit forward on behalf of tho United States citizens in the most favorable li^ht, Her Majesty's Government are nevertheless still constrained to deny the riglit of United States citizens, under tho treaty of 1818, to fisli in that part of tho Bay of Fundy which, from its geographical position, may properlj- bo con- sidered as Included within tho British possessions. ]Ier Majesty's Government still maintain— and in this they are fortitied by high legal authority — that the Bay of Fundy is rightfully claimed by Great Britain as a bay within the meaning of tho treaty of 1818, and they equally maintain the jKisition which was laid down in the note of tho undersigned, dated tho loth of April last, tliat with regard to tho other bays on tho British American coasts no United States iish- ermau has, under that convention, tho right (o fish within 3 miles of the entrance of such bays as designated by a lino drawn from headland to headlaiul at that entrance. That treaty was then 27 years old. It is now 70. But j\Ir. Edward Everett, instead of recommending war as tho means of meeting this tlat denial of our rights, that are now considered so , lear as to be indisputa- ble, rejilied to Lord Aberdeen, in the same spirit that subsequently poi- vadcd ^Ir. AVebster's circular (above quoted), as follows: Speaking of the attitude of tho United States as to the British con- striictiou of the treaty of 1818, ho says: While thej' have ever been prepared to admit, that in tho letter of one exiu'cssidii of that instrument there is some reason for ehiiniing a right to exclude United States tishei'men from the l^ay of Fundy (it being dil'licult to deny to tliat arm of the .sea tho name of " bay," Avhich long geographical usage has assigned to it), they Iiave ever strenuously maintained that it is only on their own construction of the entire article that its known design in reference to tho regulation of tho lisheries admits (jf being carried into eflect. 'TUK FISHERIES TRIIATY. !>7 Ui;iL » the ioast (> the ivCi ill : this - k'ithiu North havo on the ig the iu the oratt', re- B United tizens iu istraiiunl that piirt f bo cou- l)y liisli itiiiii as a pdsitioii last, tliat aics lisli- ntrance of trance. I Edward this Hat ldisi)iita- litly per- [ish eon- hxiivessiim jtcd States |)t' tlK- soa ihoy li.ivo Ithe eiitin' admits ol' Will Mr. Evorctt also In? censured for fiiulin^^: diniculties in the head- land theory of the IJritlsh Governtnent (ao clearly stated l>y Lord Aberdeen) that stafrgered Mr. Webster's honest mind in 1852 ? A still more conspicuous and «leliberate prescnitatiou of the dillicnlty of arriving at a satisfactory construction of the first articleof thetrr»aty of 1818, and of the i)ropriety and necessity of an agreement ^ith (h'eat Britain, as to its true meaning, is found in the letter of Mr. EvartS; Secretary of State, to JNIr. Welsh, our minister to England, of Septem- ber 27, 1878. Mr. Evarts says : If tlio boiKivolont nit'tliotl of urhitratidii Itetweon iiation.s is to coniiiuiKl itsolf as a discreet aiuT i)ractical dispositio?! of iiitcriiiitioiial disimtcs, it must Ix; l>y adtio main- tenance of the safety and into^jrity of the transaction, in the essential point of the award, observing the limits of the submission. Hut this Government is not at liberty to treat the fisheries award as of this limited intercHt and operation in the relations of the two countries to the important, perma- nent, and dilhcult contention on the Kiibjeet of the (isheries, wliich for sixty years lias, at intervals, preHsed itself upon the attention of the two (Jrovernmenrs .'ind dis- i|iiieted their people. The temporary arranf;emont of the lisheries by the treaty of Washinj^tou is toraunable, at the pleasure of either party, in less tlian seven years :Vom now. And he then proceeds to argue that if this Government acquiesced in the measure of damages assessed by the Commission, our rights might i be prejudiced after the twelve vears' period expired. Ileferring, further I oil in the dispatch, to the historical aspect of the matter, Mr. Evarts said : Our diplomatic intcrcourso has unfolded the views of successive British and Ameri- Ican cabinets upon the conllicting claims of mere rij^ht on the one side and the other, |;iiul at the same time ovinced on both sides an amicablo preference fur practical and liiaceful enjoyment of the fisheries, compatibly with a common interest, rather than III sacrifice of such common interest to a jjurpose of insisting upon extreme riglit I at a loss on both sides of what was to each the advantage sought by the contention. In this disposition the tiro countries have inclined more and more to retire fri)in irrecon- iikhle disputations as to the true intent covered by the somewhat careless and ccrtalnhj Vnmmplete, text of the eonviniion 0/I8I8, and to look at the true elements of jji-olits and Iniosperity in the iisiieiies themselvreseiitationa made by the Seoretary of State fo t\w l;iir. isli minister in \Va.sliin<»ton in the <;ases of the Joseph ISforj/ and DiiriA J. A(]amfi, in notes dated respectively' the 10th and 20th of -May, l,s,S(] the Eai"! of Koisebony commnnicated to Sir Lionel West a report of tin Canadian ministt r of marine and lislieries, copj' of wliicliwas coiniiini nicated to Mr. JJayard by ]\lr. IIardin<>', JJritish charrjc (Fa tja ins, oi August 2, 188(5. From this report tlie followinf;' in roi>ly to Tvlr. Jjay >ard's arf;nment for commercial privileges is here quoted : III addition ti) Miis I'vitlenco, it miihl 1)i) romembored that the United States (ujvl •orumeut udtnitlcd, in tln> case snhmitted by them before the iralif;ix Commission H 1877, that neitiier the Convention of 1818 nor the Treaty of Washington contViri"] v'luy right or jtrivih^j^e of trarivilop>s of tiiitlir, piirchasiiijj; bait and t»tliiM' sui»i)li<'s, arn not tlio subjuct of comiKMHation, bucanso tbn treaty of WaHhington confers no snch ri(> aln((;;iite(l or set aside. It is uinlonlttedly in the power orCon^iress seriously to all'cot tho a;;rienltiir;il umiI niannfaetnrin); interests of France liy tiie pa-saiiti of laws relatiuj; to lier trade witii tho United States. Her j>rodncts, nianufaeturos, and tonnaf^t* nuiy ho sulyeeted 1" hoavy duties in our ports, or allconiniercial intercourse witli lier may be suspcndid. But tliere Jire powerful and, to my mind, o(»ncluHivc objections to this mode of pin- eeedinf;;. We can not embarrass or cut olf tho trade of Franco witliont at tin; .sanie time, in some degree, embarrassing or cutting off" our own trade. Tiie injiu'y of such a warfi.re nnist fall, though uuei|ually, ujion our own citizens, and could not but ini- l)air tlio means of tlie Governnnint, and wcakport of the rights and honor of tho nation which must now pervade every bosom. Xor is it impossible that such ii course of legislation would introduce once mrjie into our national councils these disturbing questions in relation to the taritf of duties which have been so recently put to rest; besides, by every measure adopted by the Government of the United States, with the view of injuring Franco, the clear pcr- cei)tion of right which will induce our own people, and tho rulers and people of all other nations, even of France herself, to pronounce our qnarrel .just, will be ob- scured, and the support rendered to us, in a linal resort; to more decisive measures, will be more limited and equivocal. There is but one point in the controversy, and npon that the whole civilized world nuist pronounce France to be in tho wrong. We insist that she shall pay us a sinii of money which she has acknowledged to bo due, and of the justice of this dennuul there can be bnt one opinion among mankind. True policy would seem to dictate that tho question at issue should be kept thus disencumbered, and that not tiie slightest pretense should be given to Franco to persist in her refusal to make \y,\\- nieut by any act on our part affecting the interests of her people. The (piestioii should be left as it is now, in such an attitude that when France fulfills her treaty stipulations all controversy will bo at an end. XVI. BY THE DELIMITATIONS FIXED IN THIS TREATY WE YIELD XOTIIlNt; THAT IS OF ANY VALUE TO OUR FISHERMEN. WHAT WE YIELD 18 OF VALUE TO THE BRITISH PROVINCES AS A MEANS OF CONDUtmXii THEIR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS. THE TREATY IS A JUST AND FAIR SET- 1 TLEMENT. The treaty now before the Senate wisely and reasonably provides foij the settlement of all disputed questions that have been under discussion i by the two Governments, and adds greatly to the privileges ot (mrj flshermeu in the British-American ports. THK KISHERIKS TREATY. 101 lu.s 111 ;iU of tiwr 1- 111.' I'llSl-* •;\1 ;iiul l,> with rtf.l t" of ItVd- M SiUlU- of rtucli liut iiii- \\}\WYt of \ico luovc. of (lutii'S h1 by tlu! clear r«r- peoi>li! •'' rill 1)0 o1)- mciism'fs, lizoil wovld UH 11 sum is (\(>iiiaiul to (lictiUd iii\t not till' iiiake piiy- |)o (iiu'stion her iri'iity |^OTlU^'ti 1Y1EL1> 1^ [DUCTIN':- [■'AIU Sl-T- lovitles for lliscnssitm les of uui'j In a publislit'd letter ol" tne cliief eoniiscl of the "ontlUters" and owners of lisliinfj vessels — Mr. Wootlbiiry — ho says, that "the right to fish on the coast of Xova Scotiii, within the oinile liniit, onr lishernien (!onsider of no valne whatever." The report of the Senate ('oniniittee on Foreijin Kclationsof Jannary 19, 1887, on the value of inshore lishinj^ riohts, and the riyht to take • or bny bait, to which reference has been nnide, shows conclusively that they are of no valne to our lisherinen. In their report, the committee say : From the iiive.sti^atioiis made l»y the c ominlttt'i' duriDjj; tlio last Humnu'r and fall, and as flio result of tlio f^reat mass of testimony taken liy it and herewith letnrned, the eomivittee Itelieve it to he elear, beyond all disimte, that the rinS(M)f catching cod or halibut. "As regards the obtaining of bait for this class of fishing, the testimony taken by the committee in its inquiries clearly demonstrates that Iherc is uo iicirHailif whatever/or Jmericati JixlurmeH to nnort to Canadian waters for ihat piirjwsc. Clam bait is found in immense qnautities in onr own waters, and there have been instances, so frequent and continnous as to amount to a habit, of the Canadian thvinnelres rcHortin;/ to .imerican ivatirs or 2)ortn for the 2)i(ri)0!ie of obtaining it. The squid bait is fonnd on the reri/b(inkn irhcrc thefishin()(/ot:s on. Sothiit the instances would becxfrimely rare when any .Imerican fishini) vessel would wish to resort to a Dominion jiort for the purpose of buying bait for this kind of fishing " It was also proved before the committee that, with the rarest exceptions, it ivouhl be ah- soluteh/ injurious to thepecuniarji interests of all concerned for American vessels to resort to Dominion ports or waters, except in need or distress, for the time taken in such depart- ures from the cod and halibut grounds, or from direct sailing to and from them, is so (jreat that, with or without the difference of port expenses, time and money arc both lost in such visits. " In respect of the mackerel fishery the committee finds, as will be seen from the evidence referred to, that its course and methods hare of late years entirely chanyed. While it used to bo carried on by vessels fishing with hook and Uwc, and sometinua near the shores, it is now almost entirely carried on by the use of immense seines, calh d imrse-seines, of gi-eat length and descending many fathoms into the water. This gear is very expensive, and a fishing vessel does not usually carry more than one or two. The danger of fishing near the shore with such seines is so great, on account of strik- ing rocks and reefs, that it is regarded as extremely liazardous ever to undertake it. . Besides this, the large schools of mackerel, to the taking of which this great apparatus is hest adapted, are almost always found more than I? miles from land, either in great bays and yul/e or entirely out at sea. 102 TIIK FISIIERIKS TRKATV. Tliero will bo foiiiid accoinpaiiyiiij; tliis report (hoo Appoudix) HtiiteiiiontH hIiowjiih the total otitoh of nmckorcl during; certain yeiirH aiul the parlH of the Henn where they have been taken ; and it will also bo neon froni the ovidenee that in i/oural the mackertl fiilteriiM by AiiicilcauH in the (liilfof SI. Ldirrcncc und in the Hiii/ of ('halcnr hare not hem remnnentliir. In view of all thcHO fuctn, well known to the great body of the citizens of the I'nitcil States enjj;a};«'d in fislierios and onibraeinj? every variety of interest connected there- with, from tlio .wholodalo dealer, vessel owner, and oiittilter, to that portion of tlic crew who receive the snialleHt share of the ventnre, it ninst be considered as conelii- sivoly esfablislwMl that there wonld he no material value whatever in the (jrantbij the Urit- i»h (lovernmcnt to American fishermen of ahnohitehj free Jlnhimj ; and in thin vonchiHion it will he Keen, hi/ a reference to thetentinivni/, that all these tnlerentH fully conenr, Wlien we consider tluit the inwliore fisheries are of no viiliie and that the right to take bait, or to bny it, is worse tlian useless to our peoido, the alleged surrender of tishing territory to the liritish in this treaty is of far less consequence to us than the surrender we made in 1854, to get these privileges, b^- purchasing with recii)rocity the repose of the British contentions, restrictions, and exclusions, at a cost to our reve- nues of nearly $10,000,000; and in 1871, by a purchase with $5,500,000 in money, and a great sum in the loss of revenues on fish imported from Canada. We have paid for everything we have got from Great Britain, since 1783, in connection with the iisheries. That concession was the last thing we got under our Htriet demand for ihe rUjht. It is the last thing we will ever get, without (iompensation, until we go to war to regain our attitude of 1783. The extract from the report of the Senate committee, above copied, shows that in such a war we would be lighting over a subject that is utterly barren of any actual value to the American people — a war in which the principles involved would have no relation to rights secured by international laws, but would relate only to the meaning of words in a treaty, that were put there by the mutual consent of two enlightened Governments. This treaty closes the discussion on the subject of delimitation of fish- ing boundaries, a matter that was, in some sort, provided for in the treaty of 1854. It presents a fair and equitable settlement of questions that have been in dispute for seventy years. It gives our flshermeu, as an eipiivalent for the concessions we make, largely increased privileges, as navigators, bej'oud the narrow and in- hospitable provisions of the treaty of 1818. On the oth( l^een conduct iPiitnaiu and I pe rely upon |wm to concl The table h h all the app( loiiventious, Jriie whole nu lent, without lnthority of C freiities is foui Tin; KISIIEUIKS TliKATV. lUlJ And, for the llrst timo that such ii thiii<:t was ever atUMiipttid, thin I treaty proposes to op(M> th*^ door to wide ••-oiniiienrial privilcfjcs for our Itishcrnicn, based on (joiuu'ssions that (roiuHMii thiMu alone. The mo(h(H rircndl provided in the protocol enables our (Ishernu'n, iliirins; two llshinjif seasons, to compare the vabic of tliu very broad lOiiiniercial ]>rivile^es therein ac(!onled with tin; price of annual license lilt .'id.no per ton on their ships. A fisherman, outfitting' with all he liiccds to sustain his business in Canadian i)orts, and havin() nniny more voya.i(es that the annual license of ^l.oO a ton on his ship Iffould be reduced to 30 cents or 10 cents per ton on the voyajje. If the llmsiness will not bear such a tax in com|)ensation for such i)riviU\i,'es, lit is scarcely worth a war, or a serious disturbance of ;;ood will with our |iit'i;,dibors, to secure these conjinereial advantages to our tishermen. We venture to repeat the reconunendation that the Senate will lawait the developments that even one lishing season will make under Itliis protocol before taking- tinal action on the treaty. '^M XVIT. THERE IS NO FAULT 1\ THE MANNER OF NEGOLTATINU THIS TREATY, AND THE PKESIDENT HAS NOT IN ANY WAY EXCEEDED HIS CONSTI- TUTIONAL rO\VE[{S, OR WITHHELD ANY COURTESY DUE TO THE SEN- ATE IN KESPECT OF TJtE A(H:NTS SELECTED I?Y I DM TO CONDUCT THE NEGOTIATION, OR IN THE TIME OR I'LACE OF NEGOT[ATIN(} OR CONCLUDING THE TREATY. y On the other question, as to the form in which this negotiation has Ibeen conducted and the authority of the two ])lenipotentiaries, Mr. Il'iitnam and Mr. Angell, to act, without a contirmation l)y the Senate, lue rely upon the precedents cited in the annexed brief of cases that [seeiQ to conclude any question on this point. The table hereto appemUnl, marked C, will furnish k> easy reference Itoall the appointments of diplomatic agents to negotiate and conclude Iconventious, agreements, and treaties with foreign powers since 1792. Ilhe whole number of persons appointed or recognized bj' the Presi- Itent, without the concurrence or advice of the Senate, or the express lutliority of Congress, as agents to conduct negotiations and conclude Itreaties is four hundred and thirty-eight. Three have been appointeu 104 THE FISHERIES TREATY. bj' tlio Secretary of State uiul thirty-two have been appointed by tlio Presiilent witli tlie advice and consent of the Senate. It will be seen that an interval of lifty-threo years, between 1S27uml 1S80, occnrred dnrinf; which the Tresident did not ask the consent of the Senate to any snch aiipointinent. The following important appointments and nniny others were nnule when the Senate was in session : March '^f IT'JU.— Davitl IIiiiiii)liri('N. 15,v WasliiiiKtoii. CommiHsioned plonipotontiiuy to Irear, with AI. John Jamos Appk'ton, to treat with Naples. - 18H(). Gcorjie H. Hates, to treat with Ton-ja. Total iinnilier, 'A. Persons appointed hy tlio President : Total i!unil)L'r, 4'.'>f.. John T. IMoPtGAN, l^LI kSAULSBURV, .losEPii E. IJnowN, ir. P.. Pavne. i Appendix A. Uy TlIK PUKSIDEXT OK THE UNITED STATES OF AMEUICA. A PROCLAMATION. Whereas by an act of Congress of the United States, i)asse(l on the 2i)tli djiy of May, 1830, it is provided that whenever tlio President of the United States sliall re- ceive satisfiictorj' evidence that the Government of fJreat Britain will open the ports of its colonial possessions in the West Indies, on th» continent of Sonth America, the Bahama Islands, the Citicos, and the lierninda or Sonier Islands, to the vessels of the United States, for an indefinite or for a limited term; that the vessels of the United States, and their cargoes, on entering thecoronial ports aforesaid, shall not be subject to other or higher duties of tonnage or impost, or charges of any other de- scription, than would be imposed on British vessels or their cargoes, arriving in the said colonial jjossessions from the United States; that the vessels of the United States may import into the said colonial possessions from the United States any article or articles which could be imported in a British vessel into the said possessions from the the United States, and that the vessels of the United States may export from the British colonies aforementioned, to anji^ country whatever, other than the domin- ions or i)ossession8of Gieat Britain, any article or articles, that can be exported there- from in a British vessel, to any country other than the British dominions or posses- sions aforesaid — leaving the commercial intercourse of the United States with all other parts of the British dominions or possessions on a footing not less favorable to the United States than it now is— that then, and in such case, the President of the United States shall be authorized, at any time before the next session of Con- gress, to issue his proclamation declaring that he has received such evidence, and that thereupon, and from the datp of such proclamation, the ports of the United States shall be opened indelinitely, or for a term fixed, as the case may be, to British vessels coming from the said British colonial possessions, and their cargoes subject to no other or higher duty of tonnage or impost or charge of any description what- ever than would be levied on the vessels of the United States or their cargoes arriv- ing from the said British possessions, and that it shall be lawful for the said Briti.sli vessels to import into the United States, and to export therefrom, any article or articles which may be imported or exported in vessels of the United States, and that the act entitled "An act concerning navigation," passed on the IHth day of April, one thousand eight hundred and eighteen, an act supplementary thereto, passcil tlic tlfteonth day of May, one thousand eight hundred and twenty, and an act em id "An act to regulate the commercial intercourse between the United States and ccr- tiiin British ports," passed on the lirst day of March, one thousand eight hundred and twenty-three, shall, in such case, be suspended or absolutely repealed, as the case may re([uire : And whereas by the said act it is further provided that, whenever the ]torts of the United States shall have been opened under the authority thereby given, British ves- sels and their cargoes shall be admitted to an entry in the ports of the United States from the islands, provinces, or colonies of Great Britain, on or near the North Ameri- can continent, and north or east of the United States: And whereas satisfactory evidence has been received by the President of the United Stiites that whenever he shall give effect to the provisions of the act aforesaid, tiie lOU THE FISHERIES TREATY. 107 Goveriiiuent of Great Britain nilloiieu for an indefinite period the ports in its colonial possessions in the West Indies, on the continent of Sontli America, tlie Habanui Islands, the Caioos, and the Bermnda or Sonier Islands, to the vessels of the I'nited states, and their cargoes, npon the terms and accordinj^ to the reqnisitions of the aforesaid act of Congress : Now, therefore, I, Andrew Jackson, President of the United States of America, do liereby declare and proclaim that snch evidence has heen received by me; and that» by the operation of the act of Congress passed on the 2'Jth day of May, 1830, the ports of the United States are, from the date of this prochimation, open to British vessels coming from the said Britisli possessions, .and tlieir cargoes, upon the terms set forth in the said act, the act entitled "An act concerning navigation," passed [ oil the 18th day of April, 1818, the act supplementary thereto, passed the loth day of May, IBiiO, and the act entitled "An act to regulate tlie commercial intercourse be- tween the United States and certain Britisli , ports," passed the first day of March, \S'l,l, are absolutely repealed, and British vessels and their cargoes are admitted toan entry iu the ports of the United States from the islands, provinces, and colonies of Great Britain on or near the N(n'lh American continent and north or east of the United I States. Given under my hand, at the city of Washington, the Tjth day of October, in the year of our Lord iH:?(), and the 53th of the Independence of the United States. AxDKKW Jackson. By the President : M. Vax Bukkx, Secretary of Slate. CmCUI.All TO THE COLLECTORS OF CUSTOMS. ■nay the lltl'S leii- [t.Ml TUKASL'RY DEI'AUTMKNT, Oc/o/xT ti, 18:>0. Sir: You will perceive by the proclamation of the President herewith transmitted I that from and after the date thereof the act entitled "An act concerning navigation,"' [passed on the lath of April, 1818; an act supplementary thereto, passed the l.'ith of JMay, ld:20 ; and an act entitled "An act to regulate the commercial intercourse be- lnveen the United States and certain British jiorts,'' passed on the Ist of March, 18215,. lure absolutely repealed ; and the ports of the United States are opened to British I vessels and their cargoes coming from the British colonial possessions in the West I Indies, ou the continent of South America, th.e Bahama Isluids, the Caieos, and the lierninda or Soiner Islands ; also from the islands, i)roviiices. or colonies of (ireat Britain on or near the North American continent and north or east of the United. I Mates. By virtue of the authority of this proclamation, and in conformity with the arrauge- Inieiit made between the United States and Great Britain, and under the sanction of lllie President, you are instructed to admit to entry snch vessels, being laden with the linodiictions of Great Britain, or her said colonies, subject to the same duties of toii- ImiSe and impost and other idiarges as are levied on the vessels of the United States lor their cargoes arriving from the said British colonies. You will also grant elear- ];iiices to British vessels for the several ports of the aforesaid (H)lonial possessions of liroat Britain, such vessels being laden with sucli aiticles as may bo exported from the- ll'iiited States in vessels of the United States; and British vessels coming from the laid British colonial possessions may also be cleared for foreign ports and places lotlier than those in the said British colonial possessions, being laden with such articles |ismay be exported from the United States in vessels of the United States. I am, sir, very respectf.illy, your obedient servant, S. D. iNtillAM, Simtarii o/'tlie Treasiiry. Appendix B. OKDER IN COUNCIL. At tiik CociiT at St. Jamks', November 5, 1S30. Prescut: The King's Most Excellent Majesty in Council. Whereas, By a certain net of Parliament, passed in tlio Utb year of the reij^n of his late Majesty Kinjj George the Fourth, entitled *'An act to regulate the trade of the British possessions abroad," after reciting that "by the law of navigation foreign ships are permitted to import into any of the British iwssessions abroad, from the countries to which they belong, goods the produce of those countries, and to export goods from such possessions to be carried to any foreign country whatever, and that it is expedient that such permission should be subject to certain conditions, it is there- fore enacted that the privileges thereby granted to foreign ships shall be limited to the ships of those countries which, having colonial possessions, shall grant the like privilege of trading with these possessions to British shii>s, or which, not having co- lonial possessions, shall place the commerce and navigation of this country and of its ])OS8essious abroad upon the footing of the most favored nation, unless his Majesty, by his order in council, shall in any case deem it expedient to grant the whole or any of such privileges to the ships of any foreign country, although the conditions afore- said shall not in all respects be fullilled by such foreign country. And whereas, by a certain order of his said late Majesty in council, bearing date the 27th July, 182(), after reciting that the conditions mentioned and referred to in the said act of Parliament had not in all respects been fulfilled by the Government of the United States of America, and that, therefore, the privileges so granted as aforesaid by the law of navigation to foreign ships could not lawfully be exercised or enjoyed by the ships of the United States aforesaid unless His Majesty, by his order in council, should grant the whole or any of such privileges to the sliips of the United States aforesaid, his said late Majesty did, in pursuance of the powers in him vested by the said act, grant the privileges aforesaid to the ships of the said United States, but did thereby i)rovi'' I declare that such privileges should absolutely cease and determine in His Maj . otscssions in the West Indies and South America, and in certain other of His Majesty's possessions abroad, ujjon and from certain days in the said order for that purpose appointed, and which are long since passed : And whereas, hy ^ certain other order of his said late Majesty in council, beariini; date the 16th of July, 1827, the said last mentioned order Avas continued; And whereas, in pursuance of the acts of Parliament in that behalf made and pro- Tided, Ilia said late Majesty, by a certain order in council bearing date the 21st day of July, 1823, and by the said order in council bearing date the 27th day of July, 182(J, wus pleased to order that there should be charged on all A'esselsof the said United States which should enter any of the ports of His Majesty's possessions in the West Indies or America, with articles of the growth, produce, or manufacture of the said States, certain duties of tonnage and of customs therein particularly specified ; And whereas, it hath been made to appear to His Majesty in council, that the re- strictions heretofore imposed by the laws of the United States aforesaid, upon I'rifisli 108 THE FISHERIES TREATY. 109 vessels iiiiviffatiiifj between the said States and His Majesty's possessions in the West Indies and America, have been repealed, and that the discriniinatinjjj dnties of ton- najje and of customs heretofore imposed by the laws of the said United States upon British vessels and their cargoes, entering the ports of the said States from His Majesty's said possessions, have also been repealed ; and that the ports of the United States are now open to British vessels and thejr' cargoes, coming from His Majesty's possessions aforesaid ; His JIajesty doth, therefore, with the advice of his ]irivy council, and in pursu- ance and exercise of the powers so vested in him, as aforesaid, by the said act so passed in the sixth year of the reign of bis said late Majesty, or by any other act or acts of Parliament, declare that the said recited orders in council of the "ilst day of July, 1823, and of the 27th day of July, 182(j, and the said order in council of the 16th day of July, 1827 (so far as the such last mentioned order relates to the said United States), shall be, and the same are hereby, respectively revoked : And His Majesty doth further, by the advice aforesaid, and in pursuance of the powers aforesaid, declare that the ships of and belonging to the United States of America may import from the United States aforesaid into the British possessions abroad goods the produce of t'uoso States, and may export goods from the British l)Osse8sions abroad to be carried to anj' foreign country whatever. And the right honorable the lords commissioners of His Majesty's treasury, and the Right Honorable Sir George Murray, one of His Majesty's principal secretaries of state, are to give the necessary directions herein, as to them may respectively ap- pertain. Jas. Bl'ller. . A true copy : Council Office, Whitehatj,, Xov. (Uh, 18:50. ! J I' 110 THE FISHERIES TREATY, •a o v. 3 ? a " rt'S *a a o Iz; .5 «=•> a = 1-.- ^ ea t i cut etit 3-2 ^. .1-2.2- '55 a 5 a ? "'3 §^-iJ "??2 " -3.5?- rs V ^ 0) ^ OJ '/: O a) B* .2?i.2 2.| c:^ j^'=5 = 3 a.« a * -^ a '-^. j^''a 5 ? ' a r »j IS 3a »i: 2 s o O to « a S ~ 2 a i- ^ 0^ SJ ^V3 -Si «'i -g ii C-. S tl : a t^ o — .o ©■I >< w ^ M 13 fl S ;z5 G W a f^ as & Ph <1 employ OD fS »i 9 •^ "fe* H* g .5> .- a c3 a s a a a o o tl o a, Ji -2 fl §•3 fl a i: o o .S % If CO en a ■->:>. a ^ Fl o s*^ = O y w a>.§ a 2 o ?r'5S =■ a.2 o .£* 'a o 3«^a«i-"S-s fl fl a 3 '« a 5 2 '« a a ■3 rt ^ i: — a 5 ^ r = S « =. X o: ^ a- .? ?.S 5 N S CIS .= « S 3 ■§ ^ o PM &4 0^ Pm a a in «y> O t( Ih fl — 1> •a Tl M »- a, Ch 00 Ol o Si a b a a ^ 3 '-5 1^ a o a a P- _- o e 3 ii = ?l >i a o ..a a. a a W '? -i CD fl a < u g a 1^ a '3 C fl ■20 >a SB Oaj-' a 3 ■Ha-iii) K «.S /: » ;. jS Ji.a I =->" Sr 3 THE FI.SIIERIES TREATY. Ill 2 b a-= "S .s 2 «■«•-. 2 s 5 * ° "3 a .B-'a -3 o « o « « « 2 'J t' •53 3|£^S'^ » M K xrn-V 9-3 a a a-3^.= r - * « 5.3 5— '"•' a r3 5- »; 4J > . ►^ " ■*• ** .-; ■^y T ^ '3 3 ~ S3 ■J a a 3 3 c t ' 3 C a :=- a a - ;; J- - r* S .^ w £ — ■= o ?1 s '.5 " i. 3 -2| a<.2 i «; tt o -3 « 2 - ? -; - -":?»; Hi 2 ; a 5 = J o S • 5 c'-r: Jg^Srt^ t-— t- C3k a i ® 3 — « C« - :-? "■ -rl:; ? S e ca S -r. cs J -= --i «x - ;=-£.= gs = fc= >> -i a =r ;.= j;5.2c3 e 3 ^,"3 .■'.-. -3 ■" -'A .^Tt S5.i:.--c-£ •^ !*-t ^ ''■ — c i:-3 o-r:— ^^ a " -' - 2^ o'3 take above c sine as p conclu explain 17U4,\vit couclii Article Britain, H H H H mH H ■-'•'a i* 2 ^^ «." *"'3 -3 'St -3 >,^ <" ^3 = ^ = ■= cs rasa r 3 o " c o _ s— -.a H H K r a *' s-q . o a; ■" rz ^ ^ - ^. 5 "ti 1 fc-'S to I =_='/: a fe 3 «'-3 «a5 „ a 3"^ ® 'a— cC I '' 2 — ^ 3 -« s a . .-zs n t; i' ^ ■" 1' r; ^- 2; « tS s a 2l-a'a-5 ^ a O y 3^ 4> - , f , i e. a -s = ■- tt E ® a a _ o uj tj 3 o c a-" i £■ — ja-r ® i.-5 ^^^ J:<„ =. " = 3 = - _ . art- >. - J. g £ 2 ^ _ to J O D '/. 3 . c, ■'« ^— ' s - ^ * .S§=.Sgi.3 |5|l'f-l - i; r rt - ■:; . J.= ? S 5 S. >.a fl a Ch &i 3 w '3 -^ !'a ;?5 t: ; 2 ^ .5 ?.a ^ •" . ;H 3, 3. y — 2 "H >. c-.a.|3|.| .ij a a 3 « c i- CJCl c; Ci " 3 -3 "S a V .-13' y >5 'S ^ ?? ~ c a 2 ^ •;^ ;^ ht ;^ ;:q .-a id 3 n < r a .a a n •■s ^ a a. A '^ a II .2 s C'5^ to "^ " c'' •Ja-.j'J^S' ..= .3 e.aO"^ — o «— . . 112 THE FISHERIES TREATY. s 3 13 V 3 _a '-3 s o Q -0 a P4 a,' 2«3 ft a,. 5.S O 0) ^5 «.2 «. a : o r - as la '=5 ^ ;s as;= =..S3 i. ~ a. s s a ij 3 2 ■- a I; a e -: O ? it. a *5S -a '"^ H H 05 .^ m ^3 a 30 a M o 3 c a ,, ^'^ — ^ a a ^00 «-i - r ^ c = -0" i "• c = ijo ° " " ; "-.a « t ♦- a .S H S ^ c ? e » ♦^ S '■' ** a ' V w n *< I •aO^ a .2 2 f£i » a-J' 'a o ' a o t. = V5 -"^ .«-» u a 2 o •S ;= .a. .a. s R w ^ Z O O :, fists', q. " H t« W a a o.S o,5 e >.s •^ r; ^- u ,:z ^=1 H O (C X ■ » .s =* a --' "c w .3 a a -^ ^2 s^ fc S J 2 o a a a -J • J5 O ; r»3 ;=.£■? £ i » ■" a X t- 3 >•— ♦J o'.S = i: a 3 » ■ ^ CJ « o :^ '3 Si ° ■— .a ~=-' :_« — «P ^ a ® i* o ^ > ^'TiS -"~ 1 S -^ *3 .a "" ; S a ^ 5 * ,t: a * 2 — ?> o - a. •s o ■5-?=.':.-.-~-I. ^V.^v.^-^'z .si es u •^ ?'^ 9 - 9 « a a o o 5 £ ■^ >« .U o « 3 3 *- _— ^ +i< O .- ^ -3 EC j- :.- :«-s5g« a p= « J 5 05 ■.-,'S ■" '^; ■ ■ a -S 2 a; ;gS§a"ogg52go •3 « o. I coo o I- »-*-r^ o a o o -3 -§ 3 o CO ;^ a C a o o w is E= a^o_^^ "T^ rr* 1-1 c. CI r-i CI C-1 •^ ti5 t. « « S. i\ li THE FISHERIES TREATY, 113 k a ^ a ^ .2 * .5 ^ .2 ii SSi; ^ i; O a = a S3 a ^-3 2 CS « -J S •- •« C i —^ t- —35 - •'- «.a 1^ li:- Wa »< r a >< ir -S 5- ' S5 w 2 =2 =2 a '^a C'3 - « *• 2 — •^ ■_ O a "^ 3 3'^'^ i5aS2SS3 . a ' i> o a. SB'S 9^ 5-1 i* *!^ «>. >•= = 'J C3 u a? a.>. ,§•9 E3 i a a — 41 a : S a w o >^ £? a o * t .-2 ? -r.'r. "Els'-; Ill 1^1 a. 2 i_a ~5 ai o a -- «-i aca 'a O a -^ a , i « a I- a 'a 9 ta '''3 -5 = a S-5 4J - — *- r -^ ,i'n » > ^^i — i"^ a i « a f 5 Sir-" a. s -. J ^ .-CJ *" ~ J s a S 3 i; • 2.3 ^ j«5 a 9 3 ^ a H 5?ift 2 5 -* a— 3 a o -«" ".i 2 s ■: o •^•- a o o.o § S X K D -aa ii III a ? "^ I K -V. >, a i„ i - = a a-' ° a *C -( i c; ■^ k"5 a 3 ^ ■r:5.2i3 a i: S a » d i 'S 3 O 5a?;-:-"^'3 « » 2 « y a-a I a u 2 3 a 2 71 3 a •, a a 2 A a T.i a s s, a o ^ a « J u 1. *J V - - o a-w o H H H « i'2 a a s = c — X • a 03 Si *- 1' a a a. u «W a ^= ia IS .a 9 a J c a . *j'a a :c «, a 3 X *^ :? -* .- "5 «• 3 o 5 S » a ; N 5 a o o s 13 o -a -s "3 ti a'- a.- a a a o N a .a a i a ^a a .2 4v -t a «■> .2 «■ c s ■t: a * ' C5 a a > a a a a n B^ f a. a •J "^ a 5-iS 4^ 'H ~ a : . a ■ - 3 ~S a.?£ <^ a *- C 5 a C'a.'; .i 2 a a a ■: I" J' "'•^.a a " 2t i #^ a - s a B ., . a- i, ^-.: a u_ a: "'. «■ a — _ is a a. I. »^ ^ a .3 3 a -r a. - i * S * a a 3 a - r a 'i:it! = a a' • ~ 'C "* '^ a 5 o " >" 3 £.= 3 a^-.x a.-r a a "a a : 5~ « t ^ V 3 a .S X a Jbx-3^S ;'i^;i ^ S ii~ a . a if - 2 . UD a i;2^:^ii.=-f ^ .2 a 3 a H a.t; ' *' a - a C _ og.2 9 a a*- a - a .S2 = a ^ T " ~ 15 ? o « a §?s-5aa a 3 a K •= £; -s >-.« ,: . a =*' a « a.?-^ a 3 a|2^« £ a a ^a S — — 3 * a f» w "^ a a « >ix a "tw « « a a '-3^3 .a » a o o -3 e ci &i n ?5 n n C" ■^ a o o Ift in lA a> cs « in ^ "t t~ »fi CI ^ t~ O f— f CI 3^1 Ti »-( s t-( r-i ^H 1^ -^ > • k. h t^ -W c >-, >; 1^1 o ^ Q< a 0. rt a P4 o a. a A ifl ;«i < ^ ^ < a 1:3 r^ 'A <1 >5 :3 ^ 3 ■3 tJ a .a a W3 « « a "53 S. Mis. 109 8 a :« j> p^ ^ ^ a l^ r— o -d c «! « » Pi 1 3 £ i2 00 a .a 03 a I-? ;^< •^ u 5 w "S '? K a .3 a P5 a "5. p. < a a i-s a o •-3 a o » a a •d 5 I I M W a CS a .a •3 . . a si 114 THE FISHKIilES TREATY. §1 s a : u ""a. • S = •/. a u = 0=55 — 3^ > - a jj-a a a - Ml "9 1 ; ■a a a •5 3. 2 .2 2.2|^SSaV as ill ," J" H ~ •- X "- a •3 -9 ::• ^it^'d^t? L' ct Z ^■aOt='~>v J J3 ti a=-aa-S^ U U uS C4 M aiS 2 ^ J3 3 = i. s X ■ = s' a ^ a ill 3 £ ' « S . aSa H .2 ^ - ^"1 ^i2 I -0 -a a a a '•S a o y I u M Q S -«5 I -H. 8 5 >> a a I * *" 5 i rt y a ^ s .X*- * o ♦- o u H ri Hi 2 - 'X .a - ^ a .;J' ?i a .. i' > ^ > "2 S a Si^" a a i_: 2'a*=5 ", a u (3 O u o H §§a U u 3 J2d3 . a = N i a a ^ C3 ® ^ 4; '3-r^'a J a 3.- a.s g§a9a a 3 w o 'S H H 3 3 a'« " 4; < 5j 'Era %- .^ I. Ci s _a n.t; a $ !i a . *' - a •>. a _ -3 o = o5 >-.ti >.'C * r 1* ■»-» , a ^ t. = *^ - "^ s<"5 '^ — "* a 5 ^ o a 3 i -.2 o a o« H H ]:■ = a « a i :s -s - - s . •r a IS rt t- r la . a -3 c a of £■3^'= -a .3 *" " ",3— a U U 4j a a I. o o a i) u 3 o o « 1- . a '-> Sin ^■a ^ *^ > ca a ■a a cs ^0 -a a « a a •s'5 *" -I i? a a a 3 U ti u Is t3 -, a „ 03 = 9 H H « i* a -( = a •a-a-r <; —5 ^r ^— ^a oa «# as a" a!=j a o — ".3 '^'' o'" o a a o g so ;:; .s* >* . fe «. _ >< K t. 2 a s»a ^••=•5 a 5'= o 5 C8 a a ■a o o 'S-3 000 ■a -3 -a o -a o o ■a -a o o •a -a a •a a w •^ a 00 00 S 53 ??l a a a > > 3 3 s s -J ^ O P a a a n a 3 o — a a 1-5 a d a A o a H 13 a o .2 3 3 o ,a a '-' I & M ►^ a ^ « g eg ;a w a ci a a -a a a >-) a o 3 m d d ■3 ■9 M S a THE FIftllKRIES TREATY. 115 v.«v '^ • 1 1 e e k E C ■ • 1 : ; S : s : '• S ' 3 * • = ; 5 ; i 5 ; -J 1 •0-3 -3 C o C O O 3 e O 3 3 C O o ■3 -3 - 13 S -3 ■s ■3 -3 -3 -3 - I s O — ' -- 00 JJ « CO !>£ oS 00 t» O ♦J ♦J »^ 3 O O !* ^ s 11 7) --1 •-^ 1 1 a 3 S 3 a • J: a 1 ^ a o J3 a S i1 S5 0) a, a s .■9 O >-5 a o A fe d a £ 3 .9 o s^ o -3 6^ >) > « ^ a o '3 3 tc :< .j^ ^ Es 3 P ■3 d h •P al is tc S? -3 J3 ;^ ■«) u 116 THK FISHERIES TREATY. v S .3 a o M M Hi THE FiyUKUIKiS TUEATY, 117 ".^ s.a 3.2 i? ^ t-= r:- = ^ -rf 2a. 1^ , * 3 , ^- ZS s - . * - li He . = = i, r- •= > a O > •e "s a 3 *» a B •^ .E:4 S ;S5. i i ?~ J3 54 3 2 C a ;-\2 >; . '' ^.3 55 ets-; 'a •: = 1^^ .;,<4: " r „ ^.■• = - -. e *.3 ta 't: 2 a. : '^— >. 2p.= - =23 i'S'^lix t i^i.2 i " t i i 2 3 >.-i^ a 1 O W I S T ;■ a S~ J^3-. '/ o a -J •ia Sc S s "t .« y § .« .1' ^ r s >. « ft 3 • 5 » R - a it- n a a Sx iT.J^Oi V- ^• s « Jr; -a a — J'>.= ^ .= .s s 5M- a^ a t; _ u s = i- « 9 a s III o j: t^" 2 - >.'r.i p a ct '-HsC'' a - o ■= - ts " a-/- 3 jf 5 ,. ; L- > ~ « r *" a .t: i ~ U 1- ** - -1 (?^ i:' ^.aijta-s 12!^ T W !• 3 '9 a 2 3 X Ji 3; uS a s. a 2 a o-= 2 - r i; i-S 3«» *.■ '' « t-J 5 a a -■ ?j i- 3 i. ■w 3 5 - !« M — z 3 .£ i" = iB,'i«S 2 !r.= « ?-- a C'^a t» i « -• flip's i-ij^-oSt; — ■5 « ^ 2 i;S ♦■- i'iTiCs *- is L I; ^ aX iS 3 i,'^ s-cj." e _ ■^ a Ji ' i-" 4§ ■^:: i=3 litj 1) 1, e u u : 'a-e n 3-^ " ic rr 'h^ T! 'iT T" — •^'ij'tt 7^ fc L.. rt "^ T* "T" V ,5 *i £|t |a=J|''.||^ * a f - a ^ c ' i'-r a S i - o 2 c « : -s- C 3- 3 : 3 - c a 3 a 3X - i;^ 3^^ - U^ H HHHHH r- H H a -^ - V Hri c do do do •5 -5 _3 ^ ,2.2.£ _3 _e do do . -_ ^ _a 3 US X a) X X X 00 * — CC X M Si' t.p' I ^ ^ ^ M M -ij<;S ^ I-, sa w R n .- «ja -a ^:s o o« 2 <) OS5^5 -ta SS J3 >-i"i" « "^ a-i . O a S °'Z^ 3 =5 ft rW .3 2 fc a >it^ 118 THE KIHIIKHIKH TRKATY. ^ .2 ^ " .i • ^ >.o rt « fl fl r. a •« t-. 31 ■s t- a^ IS. :9a e t M 3 .EE.! ;j. •-oil 2Ji 5J: 5 ™ ok-S v U 3 OW H M U U M rl 3^ •-a •'^ ** "2 ■»- "t- ijj o o ar: ^ a tp « - a Ji I. £ u i2 a a Ec: ga iM <« a Sv. S5Si: «! -O CS V * *-'. rt.S E? t-tt' • - * i - i-.Z s r,i^< 7,~." 5 « ■Sojfa ^.? ^.= = § « g H H ?S oa oca cao*"S"cis HH H H H ;.a* «i • ;;. a .y ~ - " ^ ■ 141 *^ ?y g? > ^ i i o /• a ^ d f I..C 3 « c« ~ « E— a-3« :£C3 30.03'= a- 9 ^ s s-s-- o g o u a a u o H HH « = 5 -^— '>'.~a ~ ■=■!:-? a 5 n Iri P. 2 £t! i -5' a-a S a's ? a 's .i; a 3 n I t; J^ >• ° ■U1-- ~ ~ o=. Q (t 'i^ ;.o o n , '^ I « * 3 S fx 00 aC 3 S 7 ** 3 * X « oC i a 0> ^H 1-t ^ « M M I- O t-. 1-1 — iri rf >2ia s S <9 j;. >i M it . 3 e o ^ 1) (5 s s ^ = S •<) O ^ S c •s — >cr" S « ■- p5 n ^ ^ ^00 I 2, a V a o £ a ^ M w ^ >, -fl § IS a w ,s S Es ^ £s w T 1 1 K 1' I H 1 1 !•; U I KM 'I' l{ i: A r Y . 119 i ?. '■ w * 'tj z- l« I. a -2 i' Tf^ 1- •n c a " I « '1, 1. e ; 2 u i ■£ 2 It £ c — ■^ ,1- iK ce o - IJ !.. .- » § 120 THE FISHERIES TREATY. « a _o -*- a o o I o X M cu cu -< 9 5.2 1 1 5 rt i 2-- ll) f ei c 1^ « -M SiJ ■*^ »«- c ^ ^ Pi ■" >m' «» tg ca a g* o -£ p-« V.O o t». a 1! ''a go 6 s s S 5 1 I'a a . 'Cxi K b a c r re t; 1'^ §■ ^2 <•- o f Jl r >< ' a c 1: =• afl .2 ~ _^ O S 1 t^ a* Other offi e pi c J ■r c et is K ■■'a<5 o ill O > I a ? S -" K O la c « c "- U a re o '-■ 'ill 3 tlst a .1 > = a C w re X a = c — 1 1 s _ a — 4 c c si ; a .9 re h tt 1/ 1 if s .= a '^ 5. < .a J 1 = "? re a *" re re a c^ 3 C5 rt *J re ^ 2 r +- - s o 2.5 a a e ti a <= Z 'SI .2 . 'if? ; 1 ■♦-' re 71 o :1 fe a a Ci'"" s k-'S ~ SO '^ 1^ i? s 1 > .^ "^ CJ Iw ti'-'i c -5 V c a, Is ~ * a W a i ET 3 e s ff3 c« •a a re 9. =1 ^1 it -• 3j •• Is ^-3 ill c c w *> ^ > c Oi ■«- e K £ ■^ i ^ s i 03'- 0! . Stir re ^ |re' p| sis'? S ■^ re re — s - n a a re L © © rt "^ •l" ^ e. i Ci^ e ** & ■^ o 00 . St 1 X a *-' 1 ^ S Jj ^ . '^ ^ ■-^ S Q'C t*-. ■5'? it 1 0. c^- a« f*"^ a ■I ■n a 'z^'o T r' v' 00 t a a S 3 re = 5 (» c 3 ^ w s 5 3 c £ J a 5 §1 ^ - a a 5 C c - a a oi = 5ao ^ ^t = a -, a a 9^3 c * c -S c« 5/^ c *- e c3 c ♦-) ; *« o c '- c -*-■ c *- o — * !j c S-: H ii H r- r H C" r r-r-i H ir t-l r- " B i MB ; .' c 3 "a : ! >J 0) 1 j a c 1 1 N b ! 1 & c; il "Zt c. ; 1 t£ u d 1 _c ^S_>j 3 "'■ r. /2 '5 ; ; S ^ .1^ (. S M 1 1 ^" i i. s : ; X ^> : • y ■ J J >«»-V^.i* 1 ; \ '• 1 pQ ' 1 1 1 ^ ■*i ; ; ; ; >> ' * ' pa ^ s 2 _c ; c ; c c o o * _o o s * £ 15 ~ 'C '^"^ "^ "3 "i -c \ ; : ; _x 3 CO O c tr t- l^ r- cc X X X X X 00 00 -B s 2 3 s s s a -xoo s 1 s 3 2 s C C •-H •— ^— •-• ».^ ^H £o cT QO' o" a b- cc a IC^" sf IT cc" e^ ri" t-' ^1 IM ro CJ c^ e- M r-t (25 IS H -< > r s ►; s ^ ^ J ; : i i /^A^ % 1 * ^ ■ • * c ; :-i ^ m 4) i a 1 s < C c 1 ; a ; a • re B.a i 'J o ^ S ? 1 3 B re ' 1 s a •J E 3 a a 1 a (2 '5 5 s < c i 1 a > ^ ^ 1 ■< ^ ^ i^ i re re S 1 P ► THE FISHERIES TREATY. .121 o a £ Z-:: az ^ '^ z, 3J« « IS • M >■ bt?; > q W 3 M b' J= ^^ ^U -J s " >. a >■. c » a ii-i =£ « .s'" =2 =5 5 e u it ! SB'S r"^ H^?"'5 _e r. J3 - ; 3 -' ^ r '^ -j: ^ a k; > 3. S s 1 ^i? -a «. 3 ee a .^ a _a CO I* t8 a c H^s « o a o u d H o a c a s V u o ■fl rS a a c; "3 2 i| o — - 58 £=■5 = ; =! ^ « "^ a *^ Z ^ B a — -S ' . n t- a '- S = j' a S i .S 5 -* a -^ a = i= = r a S 3 - a _ X c (. a c 5.^ j- a a (.H . ii « Si a a a v c a i = ■3 a ~ * ■- a"" a Z 9 ~ .? i C ° 5 s -■•• ~.9 'V— a ~ 3 — ''I a. 5r flo g Ca a = a ■ ^.; a -w OB C3 a, 1- -^ -'S G u— ■= a = -. ■- -S-r - ' ?- B :,■='=' >. 5= >• 9 r b-r?S -so So, .5 » u j B i- i, „ r. .• . U ■ « = -—=*=' "— i:=^ Tli'u^'o'u "err 'o'^-r^ ^-"^ *■ a . '^ T** a > ^ a ^ ••- ax ■= i: ^ = ' 3; a c X 5 - •= 'S J- _- ~-r. 2 K a = 53 .~o it; c aj= a c j5 S ^ - * ? 3^ -. fjaroo oa ^t^' 2: H H c-iH H H C - = "rt-c3a5 9il.S-> = = ? aSj«a»- « a a a - > o a. a _'a ■" a o c - = •- it's a*^=«5cs £ 2- a a © c r > ■~ -' a •3 O O a 1^50 F^cg— k— :;a» •— F*'*^^a*' 3 _ _ c - a e i - £ 5 >. » 2 is "3 " t o a 9 ■Jt3.a rt cs rt O £ O 11 u u o a a a o a o o a o o : o HHH t^ 3 Ji a a 5 tt — n a r a 5K il= " O — *■ p— ■♦-* s— s a £.- a. a c c a -a T3-3 a 2a it r ?:-a c o a o X 00 ■S a. m e> o>ei e» 5 « Xoo 5 — -^ n oo" « Ifi" ffl" V « a i'c 3 a jj 1-^ t-^ ^-; -<3 3 r/) S — -^ — -H 1-5 3. s a ^'X' a -a a =3«» i-ji ,3 a cs.3 " a aj a 1 .=.^5« .2 tj o a MS a •* a o ? *^ ^ a - ^ li ^ 00 — :^2^«a5 ^ s 0--.5 » o'^ » a ca ■S r J? =; 2 2 u ^ a — ~ .. i3 a sr a-- p o te.s og:ic«b«feuu a " a itgZ'S a "aSSag^S o !8 o S'3--^ a H H H a t a 5- y . t. = 5-5 " a. d * a *^ a a; -J H o o o ■d o _o -3 •« o ys s OS ->1 -11 CO (». bio * a o a XI a ■«- St '2 = '£- S5 if =s!a ♦* a< ^M a a "3 S a ,^ S a o in H 0. t- a S a a §B I '■■^ a 5>2 -3 «-a ;r: a 3 i: a" 3-2 ■3 15 S "" ■5 a ^P ■C S i^ p ■- a M IS c a =«_ 5 s- ^ « - 5 3 ♦^ ^ S.a? :C? a X -^ ■- a MX " e a— 5 h c-i = a 1 §P s a a p^ .. - a 2 o C3^ H -': a x_ Sir" .2 3 «4 a = o -g ii ® a— 9 o o o.a.sa o ■3 00 00 ■3 T5 •S'3 N s t-" ^ (N •^ U t^ 0, a :^ 00 lA a. a. e R -3 W tt pq £3 ii M a c a o a u 03 d t .a W ^ S CM o t-5 M a a O p 3 o O .0 a P C4 a M a u 2 -§■§ *;3 d3 t=> t % a 5 3 4J J ?! « a ^ W ^ , a a P a i i W P .a THE FISHERIES TREATY. 123 1^ a. 2 ■w -I •II ? 3 •2 2 a el X fl •=-■1 3 " V .3S.|5i..= i.Hi.HS ^ a.cQ a .2 "S,' a 3 as 11 1^ N «j t» -S - 3 ►■ 15 = .2 II ■'03 i "1 = ■- ZTi o± t-si •ay S-s'J V =-aO ?i ,aSti2«^H5i §.s 1 = ^ a - •" .5 SI. « ■Ea 2 £ p-c'-a ■" - u - ^- vz~^ •3 >1 i. it 11 es If « a ^ » a a 2a ' a (»M O O , '- -^ '© ?i '. * - S-aS ^i-^ 'j'a-ra a c ♦-'J N a = - £ o - ea.3 >^a t- a 3 •;; c ^ ■:: '■'5 rste pa 9 § -5 I £-^£j S3 •- a.555 3 a ?3 ^ o a « S 5 9 ** - i s« ^ a.* £ It =3 ij a » H H o Q J. =s o y £ <£) ^( 11 fl J3 h^ t; w f* »T> a e4 -4^ 03 5 ^: •e: !s u a s a c -w 2 ^ » &.«' = is" D o a ■fe oSce C c3 a> o *^ .2 a ■ a £.t ^|5 - - S •= _. « -£-1 f^ a * - I a 5 o a »■— "^ ;S 2 1< b'5 ~ — X a * ' OJ 4) ^ w a « s c * o if f= _ ■" ■*- C a -f a X a-r 3 .i o H a c c H •=~a6-S C - 3 V. a J >., s >."!; — o ;= > M .^ b: 'a "". .-: 5 a o— 5 c o o a a a a 5*- c " ^c ^-3 5 „ O'fl.S c - , •- &■ 2 = £ S :«=5 3 to e d - ■"• c» -'a - - _ 5 7. "^ i -a 5 S o^ ffl S_i i' a— -— =~ i* a = = H H H H » o 5 c o T3 II a'; o - O cc » 3 e 2 o o -r -r -3 -S in ir: ifi a, CIO CO 00 a s 1-5 ■» if^ » W — a "3 n >-i-ji iri 1-^ fH u ;J •^ t>1 zi c« o. c9 a s ■«J IS a :s S 3 d hi M B ^ = a w c (L o Ml ^ . 00 t«3 3 ^ a S e-gi ■3 a c« a c I ■a w n 41 a c« i-S Si a a .a o a ■e -§ es O 5 eg a si o a eS .a a e« l-s s eS r- a "^ 5 a a o a a 2 e« a ^ 124 THE FISHERIES FREATY. 2 * 5 E o a S _a P o O I a I » B o .£3 ® a ^ ft C3 "5 j:' rt 5.2 g « ^ .5 5^ S * -;= » a 'S >-. o O — :-^ «.3 5 i; = s ■= > .2 C.2 =/; > s >.s a * it — . 3 -; 2 o ; o. !•§ o a c c * _ Si. •= 5..3 a - !5| a. — J c «i - a>-2 •2 ti ;• = 1^ = 52 ---" '^ -'^^gP-t at, . -^ ;..-♦- t. « -w^^Is-Ij^" ■^ ^ i i »?,j ^'s i— 2 - - K fc. K S n -,.a T. ~ i 2 * wr.i »: C ^ - •J! ^-cf^ c- = - Z =? c'sii i 3 X =~ -a- D-'a-r a a a o =^5 TS 2 a f!^ O z a r © '* "^ .5 -a •>- iD ?■ mi N q K ^ cfl ;^ c-i - o "J = a c ^ ° t: a . ^2 P w H H « a a a a s i-5 2 « a « ;- T a ill a. a a o - a H H -3 a a i£ .as a .a a t- a . a ^ c a. c ?: .« - o u 3 -j^ 71 ,a >-; J- rt a II a - «-.a -«.» ,a ^ a 0£ t^ a s 7 %'Z tc •A "Hi; ■Z si-a — ■5 I." f '^ P. •5 ' - » '- a a o o '^ a .^ it S3 O J, •3 - 71 »- T 3 T -J? "o S ^^ a 00 o c "3 -c .* h; -«i -. 00 00 QC QC' e c a a H 2 -c -C ; ax 3 H r- H H 5-1 t-l a O a £ ^ OO 00 tc o a := w ir »r^ l!t 00 !2 o" l-^ ifT CO "" ^ Ji J= r-, £} i h^ u* b ^ ^ e, -, .2 "Iks ft s ^ fQ 14 O 1-3 » ^ M S. rt i r fe = 5:r o :- ? S a '- i - 3 3 r. 2 S (1. bS O Ec mi THE FISHERIES TREATY. 125 ■ sC- 5-'=-/. i W e 1 1- o 2 :'■ a •" . « 2 .; o-s = a- ■■' f'-SH .— ^^li m ^ •— < . sEi-' 3 J3 3 a. - 2 a. a v: = y -- •"1.1 .^ X "w rr^ -H i -_; i 2 » i; a ■^ z P I a — ;:=.» S f' U '^ 'a o a c4 ^ 2.3 z; .3 a c 3 'J ■- .i -.^ o . ■c a .= = a 3 "•- ol-r.- r. u » a i a i a ? .5 2 a = = 5 a 2 S ii %2. '^ Si = si » ^ « J ■'^ ^ fl M ^ 73 s = •3 « ^5 ■- 6 2 •" >. > T. --— * - 5= rs ^"^ ea o 3 ■— 5-. = O 3 z X s J: CSX _ a = 5 ■S o ^ a hi ^ 3} o =- 2 ^ =■ S '-^ " » 3 t! c "C a 0, ® c^ '^ ^ •-^^J^jlxi'.^r s a SIS O » 3 H H G i'-" a ' ^ 'S ^ a ii „ s ? 3 n =; 'j^ a B 3 C .1^ 3 a~- 5 2 ■- S:=j = ?c ? aPf^ 1 1. :i a w J - 3j "3 a " 3 ■ a"~ = • o a r^ -C V "t: 2 . ^ ^aa' — 'iJc -^ 3 5 rt "^ CS * t^ H H iC 3| 5 2 'S — .£•0 x S =" ^ a j3 .04;; a 3 •■J . ^ a ^'5 ^ >.£ •- a 3 B H 0-2' B ! ''a ra 3 ; s ^ ; ? ' i a i- ." . . "" — * .J^ - .' > s a ?,i .:i'" ! __ a J- w - ; 3 c _ a - .» 3 W ? 3 X ^ X ^ a M rt K 3 X a if 2'^ .■^ jr > .■;; — 3 — -'J — ;^ ..'J > rt I - - « = 4^ 5 = a it o » SD H 3 'A o o rS ri O 3 o •3 O O O ^ < s s _>) -s ift .ff m M IN Jl ■S . .J >) •^ o a ►? « 1-5 w ^^ *-" S <] tc o O ■£ 2 H ^ ^ a W .t: — rt t^ O « ^ <5 iJ l> H Sm 1-3 Z X a •= — M ►5 o o e .s .3 ft 5 ■? if (M pa 126 THE FISHERIES TREATY. as 2 •a .a D P-. S3 .3 -»^ o p o Q <3 40 a o Ss I 3 J- .S I. la 23. ill S52 ^ 3 « .a ?§ a > 2 n.5 • a ii.2 3 w a ii ■o a . 3 *r (^ ;j :- ♦r i-=:^^-- » a < 'A « 1, a .-8 a ■A b O h i 9 - ■JD 5 © 5 o a S "^ a s =< ti >. a 1 = - ^ 1.2 l-^a ; 3 a £ 3 >.- a > s a - ^ 3 ■ ^ ? a >" *^ a . fl i; 5 •7 - rt ca 2 X £ ?3 ^■a^t ^ a 2 ^ a a« ^ M 7: ^ ,S* « B* ^ ■** a T'": ?-r 5 « ? - -q t- a O * SO' 2'H.:i Sa '« , :!iu . a = .= o.a !- a » 1- a s« a o'a i 3 2.2 ^1 s a ■X3 a^ t._.3 SI'S a a iJ a-i"" ».a .:: » « ' a S: a 1 « X 4j .a^§ as a C/2- i *t£ a ■'■ ^ D i" a 3 a a>H 1 = - = a u M » " a - a H ® * a 5 J3 — "S 5 .♦-' an "-^ '* ■■;= = 2 = s 2 § "•9 -a :: a a _ •- a ,^ a a S a "^ v;3 3 o o o i' s o •- H H 9 # 2 a X 7^ " a -'■a a =-5 a a 3 -s S ^ a •i S S u <« X 3 "^:;: -1 ■3 1S« a=i i! y > ^ rt r) ■^ a « 1^ of* « 3 ^ it a ^ u bf a a 4) s 3 a 3 a a a 0.2 u 3 u « H H H H tta 'a C a it i — » _ a T S a - - " .a - ~ ii J-- "1^ ri a C^ a « 2-a s- a a e o » a 1 3 S ^11 ^30 •^•3 =2 «£ 2 a -"" J 1- '^ 'S li "3 3 e . ■a a 3 a 3 o IS 3 a '^ ■ ?- -.-a > 1^ « a C'r o X M i.2 a; 3 3 t- -. ^ = ::; *J X Ef i; a 3 13 3 a o a a o ■^?S-=.2 B -S -S.-S So« o -3 O a-oco aS H H a o u o H ■w a, D 3X3 a J a J a — «^.S '.' t. 3 if' H H H •3 £ o H H 3 ■3 3 O •3 -3 3 •3 o •3 •3 Si . ^1 00 as J2 00 1859 1860 1 tH ^ 2 i ■-a CO i ^1 ' 1 3 S 1 co" t-^ ro (O 0' o" ■S s aT gT !3 § CO ■* " 1 oT 0" 3 a » a 3 1 ^ 1 C A < 3 3 >» 3 -n 3 is 3 a. <1 ^ 1 y « 3 q ^ a S a .s a 2 3 3 a 3 X a .£) 3 T3 a •< a -<1 o W t^ 3 ■-5 cq a a E 3 a cS5 a >-3 3 3 ^H w cq 5 X 30 a 3 a a t a a a " H i? 3 P4 e8 a a M P 3 a m s g 33 "3 rt — 2 O THE FISHERIKS TREATY. 127 o a. a ; 3, I 3 9 r.'s t ■- i" fl * i. i'5 O .9-5 5i a a ^ £ .3 3 C « o - t- a s K a a •J ») a ^■5 3 ;^ a ;^ a o Pi . q 3 « ?i ;; <^ ;3 72 s a ' ■- I 59 = a i— t. C 3 S3 ^ 5 .5 ^ • V — ? 3 ■•: -■- C a 2 c^ a a "3 J .a a 9 .3 i S = 5 i^i •^ 7\ 3 J3 « a a 9 a C4 a a c o 5* .IS a ti i< — a -iii a 5 5 s g a d 5 a a. -a u >:0 t. <-« 3 01 ■r'-^ •a <- a. 0- 3 .2 3 "S ? u 1^ =; « ^ C3 Q t s •- a i-5-a it: 5« — -,1 — *; 2S *-> — 2| .2 2. So a u 0} a > -■ >i' Sa ■5 :S a, .2 .- O ., ci'-a S— • OS a u as o "=.«•> a a s . •" CO - — X <- o ♦- > » a 08-- rt -=.s- ? o Q , rt « fc- 3 StE=';:5''3-~*=-:t5 s>='irt s s s - ■- :: s ^ z C - ■'^ -^ ^ ~ ^'^ "- '~ - - V ^ S S 23SoS-i'2~a'* ■«aa:S" " S" ib~« S"^ 25" J: a s'"> ?t 8'^'^'= S Si's f- H H b* f^ r E- E- H H E- E- fr*'r^ H e c H H H H H be a .c *0 1 c o U s ) c o o c _s ; J ^ do do coo s c ^ -= c o •c J o » a s o n 1^ a j; -5 8 S rt .2 a'S _--'3 a 3 •2 bi a" a is e o « ft. la M CO CO 00 6b CO oo -JO a < N ^ O Q ^ ^ hS a^*^ < 125 'fl Q a CO »ft 00 ^ £* a.a .2 CO,® » a <1 a M H cc ^ "z » C3 a I Es •2 ^ '/I w td M 'W H feS P?. M o 5 :| a -s .S !» ^ <( hS W t^ pR 53 a fe s ^ W Hs a M :;: < m ^ o M U2 "l M ^ 128 THK FISHERIES TREATY, ■=a A M »5 M M n 0) a ^1 3.2 f(- J §1 ^ = is •5 M C8.2 H-'J a .3 3 u ^ - a = J - t; .5 5 1 = ■-- = I If I a. 3 £ .S 5 e r S 3 5 5 K ^" J ^ ./. CB "^ «- ,: — * >, i:^ H 33 27Ls it'-'' " * J ^ i, b, O V) 3 i ^ (tj ez ■-: 2 s s = ^1 , I ■9i S =i " f " B.2 Aiia .• «i ■» t '~ "^ 2-3 •iC-r' ~ ■.'■J S -S ? = S' --a S 2 53 's -i -^ g ,::57j3 •- ~ "^ .•ST s_: a •S ^i.O S'^.S"- 5 > e S'a =3 ^ .5-3 y -£4 f^ "■ r I " i w .*' 5 = tJ ^s-^-^^ u — — ^ - r a fc. * - •- 3 ^ " «^-. t i K t_ t- -■ .2 .S 3 .-sxr = s Sia.:3 i; "■ c "" "" 'I™ .2 *— • •'^ £ 4,— - ^r:0, a«!-'] ccOO ?S 00 <; : a ' an i< «.3 S3 a Q as a 5 ^.2 rt.2 a V 5 a k :^ w as a =.=■ " a a 3 ' a .3 2. ^- -*• O ~ — • L. U '—.S 1) a a : a a 3 a =•3 2 II a ^i II « . . 3 a-** 3 a"*^,^ 3 , > ' ' a •r; V a a* 5 a a a a --J : 5 is 01 a-H t'M 3 •- 5> ^ G3 a u a 3 5i 5 a5 5.2 a32S a 3 2-a £ 3-.3 5 ; 9 '. .3 I :; 1 3 u « -•a S.i .3 >.^ ^< 2I -a — ■!> a c a V - fr* « fc- 3 V a :34 5 .'. e>,5 Asa 3 25 2 3 ?.3^.s 11 3 a A^ > *3 3 a c9 W.-IJ5 a aw- E 'a^^.l?. a " .2 K"53 J: 2 a^ c-s S'J ;v>.= |£|3 ; -i'aa ^ t.1 « ^ . L. c 3 j: i -i "^ V ^ w x; '.f-' J • a 3 " "-S 3^ S ova S ^ = 5 .r a i f-:3 0-3 > a 2.3 -- "^ a .£ a - , >> 3 - - a i a J - . .a a-: ~-z a rS „ s rt — =5 . - .^ .» x «■::.=. a > c! 3 3 2 >::;=. -ji - a a a > !^ a eS u m S5 ^ .a rS 3 EC :"_5a-o=-a ^* -5 K-* — ;a-j:>3 •-■::: 33 l.- n^ .--- — w-y^a •'^'fi ^x*--- "*"' -■ r>:=3;:: Ta 33 ?:? i^ TU •< a::— o s^J^Ka-Ssj „» = ■: 1* >- Ml- tii-oaC'*,^ t:j= w ^i'- --3 =-z— s^-5 .— — go S s 2 So s.2=-= -".a'di- £:J5..i::s .= ^ ? u ■=;...■=.*- 5 = ^ « r- ^ ? = i: - ? - T r, .*" X .-J *- "j r i- * r. /, -: r « -- :3 r .-< i, ■! r. - - a y r** ^ r' :^ rS 'nn 9 o3 2 - = 3 t«i o« '^■- 2.-'-=I-~ H H oXaateov-oisBsaayi'So H H H H H O - 3-^ *' o ; -i o M c ■ • • • I • ■ ■ • I * I • ' I t t ) - w O r-i -- -s -r '3 •= -= -3 -5 r3 M < i tb fei) fl a ? 2 3 3 a « W O M « c4 Ph a S. Mis. 109 9 ^ M u o W o o :§ 3 ri" ?i ?> O W H = « 3 11 1^ O P^ 130 THE FISHERIES TUEAIY. » s a a o o 'A c ! a. « 5 S V 5 c . fl ■ O ^ 5 w " « ■« - -^ <,= «3 a i* ^ o O « 3 O H o -3 ^ iS o a a TIIK riSIIKRIKS TllF.ATY, 131 so C 0C003 OO 0= 2 S H -1 — — ri ri M M ~i r-5 p M ri -f K I Si hi is o a. -g O 5 •3 -3 S£ 3 3 1^ -S o o t5 S5 73 a c '-5 o l-l^- xao S 00 g ■n 5 cT ?f oo" ?q o 5 S" s P. 2 3 P3 CO a « ! ^ hi r' o s H W W 2 o ^ « S ■J ^ » S h? ^ § a 3 n I" •£ fe g 5!- o it il i s a Sa £ i 2 K 2 ::: := ^ 2 ~ g^ s s a 2 § K^ w a M a s) * 132 THE FISHERIES TREATY. ■as a i: r. t «•= CD , '« ;; 3 3 ■* c, a t« i^ "3 ^. a t. B « « a c ■t: r a = 1^-2 "5 £2 o 3 e M a a o 0^ c xr.Ji c s ■w u ^ ^ MW ^^ - S a — *^ =8 -a a 2.2 > = o S^ c^<^ ^ a 01 S a o o id a CO .'-a u « _. - t! Sag a '<* (o a > o a '-J 8i o ;.i a # "" ? 2 C 00 « e ^t - « tS-£a~>' '^ ». r 3 c« Vt -^ *^ • © « a • ^ (».S S • a C a ' ^ Zi X t^ p. a ,=".=> « a i^"" «. o .5: .2 5 I- •- ~ eS — i I -J iu 9 Z '«■, a C-. o a = la Si - n 2 2 •'. ? r:a c ^- r* « a- '— CO 5-. o -s a C5 K 5a a o O C3 5;^ oi >v.= * T, a :i; a a a F-SS^ S^ "" - a „ a 3.2^ a x 5-21; ^f a i - ■.- i J rt * a > i 1; ^ a '3'2 >- 3 a o u 9 5 =- V C- c o!< o '■ H 3 » - ;.-'^ X ^ a a a o Ol^ O O »" I* I J -3 "it? ?j « =« o-2o — X -* S ,■- O X '' a . a £ = « ?..a'?3 ' s' H £ a i = a o « ./ «- J is r; 2 S~ ' a e £•£?,§ a « ,• O S 1) o 01^ o a * HH H a 1^ •- a a. 2 > a a y O (- «» a 5S = £'3 . a X o a - c c u H ;2 i^, a >. =3 at; Hr a =: 3 t - S 3^ es— 3.3 5 .2 5 J i .3 X a a o -J Ms i*a ■^■§3 ^ w — H •^ . c in > a *— ,x aiafi- ® .3 >.S a ==.- s is =S a 5 i- 2 : M ^ • ® ^ ■ H H 2-^ . a 3 o "3 -3-3 -5 -^ O •a a-3 5 o 'a^ 2- ■SgH X £1^ fc- * < a : . — ^ ■ . c 'a >. 12 73 CO 3 c 3 5 o O .3 ^ ^3 as .2.2 w £ m 00 00 CD s oc 00 00 X s 00 s Its" > 1 >1 •3 1 8 a a OS 31 3> O 00 OC 00 00 00 00 M ,•» 00 00 00 00 a ;sa 9 a s a S 13 Cii; a a u ii •— X M I a 3 Sm ^ as - 9 =1 e aa c8 rt IS^ i-a ^ i 3 3 S3 « " s. 3 &= ^ 3 .a ■J CO •0 a n -^ a.3 a *■ *■ Si «j . oi: v-l — ( e I- e CO o o a w a THE FISHERIES TREATY. 133 = C-~ s « ~ > >.a z X ■•?•=■= 2^ £^- y^ 2 C..2 r-- . .2 * - « 3 s-.s -'t; a o B 2 §3 s O W (« r a r o o V («.g b-. a a ~; .9 - 5 S S 'c o'o-^ a • C/3 II 2ii a "••5, rt ?.= ^ J! a =w § .— r ; a "2 * « « O 5 = 3* S-r o| o 1* o a H H ^5 ^■'2 1 a — cS ars .2 « a ^ ■ V - Oca a,c £- tn. •ES « J! ?•= _ a I-) o 2 CO M a e . a ;i "=.a s a s >.^ ♦- T! •£ X ^ S a » a cs 3 il o — .2 X — ' 5 C' 2 a * a -" i^ ■- H a a'C .2"" !* 'is 5 c c5 a i a - V 4> ^ CT o H '? ? * a u >u II a ~ o a X ^a a® a - H5 'E :^ . ij a be S = g H en I -=3 «r a t- * ci 'Z C OS = a ^ -. -^i a a '-5.S it 0) ° a a o ua §3 8 0-" a-s If t s a c — 5 .0 .2§ la * a isi Sua •r a !5 « O t-.a-s cs a ^ J c = S ^■3 -a T r a ■* V — '^ *q "C """ «0) o St;?! •-•s^s^ ^3 : 0"" t-rr : 5» H «j o o ■ ' o « « ii ■J X o » H ,* X o 3 . M O « H ^ija'S 2: a ' S. •roar" H S — -a a c bcij IS « £ a ax — L ^ a ij ^ a ^ ^ a a s* c a o « -• o « ; o f< * o H H PS 4; "a 'S e-5 . Ii a *-'2 g ti - 3;s c < i V. 1. c c ■= ■c 4 c c c •3 '^. "^ "i ■5 X ^ s s S2 S (^ ^ ^ a >; % c «: b c CI a ;i5 •s; a ^ c^ •-: e 1-3 (z ^ ^ ; ; ; ; m^A.^ ; ; , * a a , ', a g V ? ii a: ' ji >i k. ki >•. >» 1 £ a a a . Q; 3 3 • b ,a ,n A ,:f5E ^ ^ ' H bl tc tc c tc tc ■3 & .5 3^ _a ^ n^' "? 1- . a '■v s n PK e « Hi Cn S U pq ■5 E .3 5 H H M •< e 5 e i >3 « fcj b Pi f^ •t Bjs? 1^ f^ M 1 a K W -a a a V o Ii I— HH 134 THE fisherip:s treaty. '3 a a o o a 3 5 s fe it c o a ■- J52 a o ■9 S3 o = •1^ ^li'i-o other .s ■/: r O.S-" - =2 ■ • ce ™ O'Z cS '" 1- M i;< '^* O S i beg H -r If • S '^S - > C1.S '* >. *" •~ ; '^ 'ij c: *^' OJ "^ ^ rt 'C rr ^ ^ i 00 o 11 p^ t ri ? r - .v! '^ h : =- ^ 5 •-• ^ J CS ■•" ~ c« t I' e e ^ z '^ T^ • — ' Tj ~ "o "S"' c|5 . c: ;: ~ r 5 c ? r: CC ■- "■J «' ii" - .-a-- H HH Ch — ^ s c. M I *^ OS ■4^ ) • o T. . . ja *^ I I f o 1 ! (- c «■ rj « .- - b ® o a. ; :^ CU : ■ w^T-",r ' f. "i 00 00 TO oS at aj 3g 9 ^ |- xi-r ■H<" •"^'C 1 w -< T'l ^a >s — >-. a a. "3 ^ S CS ^ s:^ e 99 CS ' S « S- M M • ^ W ^"o « Sa M S o ^ IJ .c CJ H U Tlie I ant Of th Ami c Tlie c] the TbeAr And in claim Fir Seco tn Appendix D. FISHING-GROUNDS. Uniler the ireaty of ISiH. . Marine sq. miles. The 3 niariuo mile limit, which is thechiiiiiof Ainerican fishenneii, is in bine, and equals 16, 424 Of this area there is in bays, cut off by the 3-miIe limit 6, 599 And outside oi" the 3-mile limit 9,825 Making a total, as stated, of •. 10, 424 The claims of Canadian li.shernien, from headland to headland, would add to the area claimed by American fishermen 6, 164 Makini? the Canadian claim 22,588 As against American claim of 16,424 Under the proposed treaty of 1888. The American fishermen's claim is conceded to Canada, and is equal to 16,424 And in lieu of the 6,164 marine square miles, from headland to headland, as claimed by the Canadians, the Americans concede to them as follows: First. At bays of 10 miles or less in width — In Newfonndlaiul, 8 bays of 200 In New Brunswick, 8 bays of 67 In Prince Edward Island, 3 bays of 18 In Cape Breton, 2 bays of 13 In Nova Scotia, 11 bays of 85 In all, 32 bays of (colored brown) 383 Second. At the bays named between lines 63 and 80, Article IV, proposed treaty, l.s~i8 (ccdored solid red) : At Bale Chaleur, New Brunswick 500 At Bay of Miramichi, New Brunswick 23 At Egmont's Bay, Prince Edward Island 20 At St. Anne's Bay, Nova Scotia 5 At Fortune Bay, Newfoundland 160 At Sir Charles Hamilton's Sound, Newfoundland 2 lu all, at 6 bays 710 135 ■MM 136 THE FISHERIES TREATY. ■Marino Sq. miles. Tliiixl. At Lays iininca botwcon lines 81 and fl:? in Article IV, of proposed treatj' of 18d8 (colored in parallel red lines): At Harrington Hay, Nova Scotia. '^ At Cliedelnicto and St. Peter's Bays, Nova Scotia li: At Mira Bay, Nova Scotia 7 At Placentia Bay, Newfoundland '^ In all, 4 bays •5*1 This gives a total concession h\ Americans under the proposed treaty of 1888 of '. 1.127 In lien of a total concession by the Canadians from their headland to head- land claim, of 5,0I?7 Appendix E. THE PENDING TKEATY. KKVIEW OK TIIK, I'lSTlKHIES NKOOTIATIONS IJY W. I,. ITTXAM — lllSTOIUCAI, AND KX- I'LAXATOUV — KHOM TriK ISKOIXNIXfl OF THK COXTIfOVKHSY TO THK PUKSENT TIME — WHAT THE TUKATY UXUEKTAKIvS TO DO — HOSTILE CllITICIS.M MET. Wo j^ive below a valuable review of "The Fishtsiies NeKotiatioiis — Historical and Explanatory," by tlic Hon. William L, Putnam, of the ooniniissionerK who framed the peudinfj; treaty. The paper was prepared for the Portland Frateinity Club and read at a recent uieetiny the other. From a time at least as eai'ly as A. U. ISM] to the present the claim of Nova Scotia, and afterwards of Canada, has betiu inllexible, that a fishing vessel iss/o' generis, ami, if foreign, has no privileges within Britisli bays and harbors, except those specifically authorized by some law of Great Uritain or of her dominions, or by treaty, or by the strictest rules of linnianity ; though at times this claim has lain dormant in part, and Great Britain herself has notciuite countenanced its practical exercise to its full extent. During all thin period this construction, al- though often complained of by the United States, never has been practically over- thrown by us in any particular. Very soon after the ratification of the convention of 1818 the British Parliament passed the statute, chapter H8, George III, which condemned to forfeiture vessels of the United Slates, and of all other nations foreign to Great Britain, fishing or " pre- ])aring to fish" within the proliiliited waters. These words "]»reparing to lish" found in this early act have been the cause of many troubles, and are susceptil)le of a variety of construction. They have been found in every ])rnvincial and Dominion statute relating to this matter jiassed at dilTerent ])erio(ls, four or five in all: and they have received the sanction of long practical ac(juiescence on the )>art of the Enited States, and, we may also add, the full and cordial approval of so distin- gnisheil an American law writer as Professor Potneroy. On the I'ith of Maieh, \6'M), nearly one year before President Jackson went out of office, thei-e was passed the act of Nova Scotia, the model of all the legislation since enacted, at which is aimed the thirteenth article of the treaty Just negotiated. This act was specially validated by royal orders in council, and provided that local olficers might 137 138 THE FISHERIES TREATY. soizo siiul l)riiiK into i)ort vessuLs lioviMing on tlio coasts of Xova Si'otia, and rej^nattHl the penalty of fbrfoitnro for tlioso tishin<; or " jjit'parinj!; to lish " within the jnesorilted waters. It also provided that no person sbonld he adniirted to claim the vessel seized withont Inst ' seenrity tor costs not fxcccdinjj; (>(• ponnds, It also threw on the owner the bnrdtii of proof in any snit tonchin<;- the illejrality of sciznre. It so ham- pered the right of action for un.jnstitiahle aricsts of vessels as to remler it substan- tially worthless; and it was so (jxtrenie in its provisions that the vessel conld not he bailed withont the consent, of tlie person seizinj;' her. All these provisions have heeu continued in every statute of the Donuni of Stii.e, reiterated the complaints of Mr. Forsyth. When Webster again beci m ;? ..rary of State, and not long before he died, he made the famous fipet'ch at Jiarshtiel'!, '-i 'vhich In* said: " it is r'lt t<* be e\, ■ > ■.' Ih' United Stat(>s would submit their rights to be adjndi- •cat' d in ti > ,/et' v tribi. . ui' the i»rovinces, or that wo shall allow our own vessels to be seized by c«jnHti;Vi^ e \ " i^tl.ar petty otticials, and condemned by the municipal courts of Qn(;bec, Nev> xoniHi;.. ..:, New Brunswick, or Canada." Notwithstanding ihis, from the time the statute was enacted in A. D. 18;V) till the ])resent negotiations, not only was its rejx.'al or modification not secured by the United States, and not only contrary to the phrases of Web.ster did the United States submit the rights of their vessels to be adjudicated in the tribunals of the ]trovince8an8hnr. Webster le famous he atljndi- !vn vessels mnnioipal m till the ;he United tes submit and allow ers, but in oni ns, rc- he con fined Itho British distinct— |nt in great Breton. Incial bays jed shelter between ,'ears ; but Lnd for tlie [hn expira- tonchins treaty of |iu dispute Congress, consular then for- bidden obtaining )»ait and all other supplies in Canada, and were excluded from Do- minion ports except when putting in for the purposes expressly named in the Ccmven- tion of 1818. Numerous seizures were made at that time, f(dlowed by forfeitunss, one of whi(;h was the well known case of the ,/. JI, jSickernon, a vessel proceeded against at Halifax for purchasing bait, while the United States took no action whati'ver con- cerning lu-r and made no reclamation, so that she i)ecame a totiil loss to her owners- This ]ieriod ended in the treaty of 1871, as did that which closed in A. D. 18ii4, with, out the United Stiites securing favorable interpretation of any light in dispute. The references to the treaties of 1854 and 1871 are merely for the necessary purpose of showing their liearing on the present status. Those negotiations were on a much broader scale, and may he said to have involved larger (inestions than those now under consideration ; altlu)ugh everything which enthingers in the least the harmony of nations must be regarded as tonchiui; the jiossibilities of great coiisequen(!es. The nation would not brook that the high motives anproaeli at once rhe settlement of the question on a comiMi'hensive basis." Our conmiisssioners selected the latter. The result was no issues in controversy concerning the iisheries were decided, and all were postitoned; and a ruh^ ot nego- tiation was adopted for that to])ic. which has since, justly or unjustly, given great dissiitisfaction to the interests involved. It thus appears tiiat this controversy connn(MU?ed nu)re than a half century since, and during that period nothing has been determined. After questions have continued so long unsettled and have been twice formally postixmed, it necessaiily remains that it is ditificnlt for either party to press its full rights to a eom[ilete conclusion in all particulars. Traditions become fixed on one side or the other, systeuis of legislation accumulate which become iiuixtricably involved with the general nniss, and the co- temporary facts and understandings are lost or assume new phases. Claims made by Great Britain, or by Nova Scotia or Canada in her iuinn>, have stood so long without definitive reversal that they gained such strength as to bo in some particulars quite > 140 THP: FISHEKIES TRi^ATY. !is (lifflcnlt ol'distiuh.ineo as thoiigli orijriimlly hasfd on skiiikI jtrinciples and corioct rules of t'oiiHtnictioii. This was tlio status of tliosu (incstioiiH whon the pri'Sfuit iit^^^otintioiis coinmeucod ; yet fornior adiniuistrations liad not failed to jrivo some indiciations of the snitiiblo molliods of meeting; them. In the disiiatcdi of Mr. Seward, then Seeretarv of State, to Mr. Adams, then our minister at London, of A]>ril 10, A. 1). IHtili, Mr. Seward sn<;- gestod a mixed commission for the folh)\vinon and define by a series of lines the limits which sliall si^parate the exelnsive from the common rijrht of lisjiin^; on the coasts, and in the seas adjacent, of the British North American c(donies, in confornuty with the lirsl artichi of tlie con- vention of 181y; the said lines to be reffularly numbered, duly described, and also clearly marked on cdnirts prepared in duplicate for the i)Mrpose. " (2) To agnse upon and establish such regulations as m.iy be necessary and jiroper to secnro to the fishermen of the United States the privilege of entering bays and harbors for the pnr))ose of shelter and of repairing damages therein, of purchasing "wood and of obtaining water, and to agree njion and establish such restrictions as uiay be necessary to prevent the abnse of the privilege reserved by said convention to the iiNhermen of the United States. "(3) To agree npon and recommend the penalties to be adjudged, and such pro- ceedings and jurisdiction as may be necessary to secure a speedy trial and judgment with as little expense as possible for the violators of rights and the transgressors of the limits and restrictions which may be hereby adopted." The "memorandum " prepared by the Department of State for the information of the commissioners who, on the part of the United States, assisted in negotiating the treaty of Washington of 1871, contained suggestions for adjustment in the following language : "(1) By agreeing npon the terms npon which the whole of the reserved (ishing- grotmds may be thrown open to American fishermen, which might be accompanied with a repeal of the obnoxious laws and the abrogation of the disputed reservation as to ports, liarbors, etc. ; or, failing that, "(2) By agreeing npon the construction of the dif^puted renunciation, upon the jtrinciples npon which a line should be run by a joint conunission to exhibit the ter- ritory from which the American lishernien are to be excluded, and by repealing the obnoxious hivvs, and agreeing upon the measures to be taken for enforcing the colo- nial rights, the penalties to be intlicted for a forfeiture of the same, and a mixetl tribunal to enforce the same. It nniy also be well to consider whether it should he further agreed that the fish taken in the waters oi)en to both nations shall be ad- mitted free of duty into the United Slates and the British North American colonies." It will be observed that the suggestions of Mr. Seward were substantially repeated in the instructions of A. D. 1871, and were also embraced almost in terms in the pro- posals accoujpanying the dis|)atch of Mr. Bayard to Mr. Phelps of November 15, 188i); and the treaty just negotiated, it is believed, accomi)lishes all which was coutein- plated by them. The words of delimitation of the convention of 1818 are as follows: "On or within 3 marine miles of any of the coasts, bays, cretdvs, or harbors of His Britannic; Maj- esty's dominions in America." The prohibition of 1818 covered in terms not only the coasts, but also the bays of the British dominion; so that a fair construction of the language could not be met by running a line which at all points followed the wind- ings of the shore. Such was apparently the theory of Edward Bates, the umpire, in his opinion given in the case of the Washington, decided niider the convention of 1853, wherein he used the following language: "The conclusion is therefore irresist- ible that the Bay of Finidy is not a British bay within the moaning of the word as used ill the treaties of 17b3 and 1818." So also Mr. Everett in his note of May •,'."), A. D. 1844. said: "The vessels of the United States have a general right to approach all the bays in Her Majesty's colonial dominions within any distance not less than THE FISHKRIKS TRHATV. 141 Kinoct enced ; 11 i til bio r st!it<', nl siij-- oiiaiato Ijiiceut, lie con- 111(1 also 1 pl'Dll'T lays and fcliasing ?,tioiis as ivention uicli Vi'o- iidifnit^iit I'esHors ot mat ion of ating tlie following- (1 fisliinji- ionipauied jservatiou , upon tlio it the tei- loaliiig the If the colo- (l a mixed should he liall he ad- colouies." • repeated |iu the pro- r 15, 18315; ,8 couteiu- or within luinic Maj- l)t only till' tion of the the wiud- lumpire. in Ivention of Ire irresist- Ihe woi'd as lot May -i-"', L> appi'oai'h It less than. '\ miles." It irt not. however, to he iinder.stooil by tliis sM;iij;i'stii>ii that the "licad- land" theory is at all aeeepted. That assumed to run a line sliiittiuj; in all sinuosi- ties of tlie coast, witiiout emisideriiiy whetlier or not partieiilar lieadlamls niiirived Jiirisdictidnai bays, or, in otiier words, bays wliicii weic properly parts of iIh' Hritisli doininioMs, and it is now ii])pi'oved. Tliat tln;r(^ may l»e no misunderstanding;, let us follow this disijiic'tion a little fur- ther. The U'dnliiinitoii was seized in the l$ay of Fiindy in A. D. IH4:{, and tliat raised a <|uestioii of the "bays," that is. whether (he whole of Fuinly was a jiart of the Hritisli dominions. The .iriiim was seized at nearly the same tinwi in tlu' yreat luuid of Cape Hretoii. As t he .il'iidavits on tile at Halifax show, she was (uiptiired less than •i miles within a line from Cape North to Cow 15ay ; and that capture marUeil the *' he.adland" disputes. The opiuion of the law ollicers ot the Cryiii/.ed the dislinetioii in his note to Lord Palmerston of March 27, A. D. 18;i9, where he said : "The provincial iinthorities assume a ri;;ht to exclude the vessels of the United States from all tiieir bays, ineliid- iu;; those ot Fiiiidy and Clialcur, and lik^^wise to [irohibit llieir approatdi within :{ miles of a line drawn from headland to headland," etc. So Mr. Lvereit, in his note to Earl Aberdeen of May 2;"), A. D. 184.4, admitted that it was " t^ie intent of the treaty, as it is in itself reasonable, to have ree;ard to the <>ciieral liin! of the coast, and to consider its bays, creeks, and harbors, that is, the indentations usually so ac- counted, as included within that line." Xow, the present treaty apparently holds to the rnh^ stated l)y Mr. Everett, except that it dclines what has lieretolbri' been undidined. Tliis, of course, is subject to the (pialification that, exci'pt iu siiecial cases, in A. D. IHH jniisdictiou hays were limited to those not exceeiliim- i; miles in width between their headlamls, or even to narrower ones; while the |)resent treaty has adopted the more moilern rule of ttie 10 miles opening as a practical ami not injurious solution of this whole disimte con- ceriiiiij); bays and headlands. Therefore, under the eoiiveiilion of I.-^IH the question arises in every ease: What is a jurisdictional bay, that is, a British l>ay, or, in otlier w(U'ds, a bay which was then a part "of His Rritannie Mnjosty's dominions in America?" This having been ascer- tained, another question avLses, whether any hay which was not jurisdictional iu A. D. 181s has since become so inclosed by the growth of po\)ulaiion tliat, on the principles by which we claim as our exclusive waters Chesapeake and Delaware bays and Long Island Sound, we may projierly concede it to Great Britain ai.'cording to its existing circumstances, as an indiicuinent to a suital)le and just arrangement of all questions of delimitation i? With refereuuo to this question, and indeed with reference to all this branch of the case, the United States, with its extensive coasts, its numerous bays, its raitidly increasing population and commercial interests can not wisely jiermit a narrow precedent. The bay of Clialeiir, the shores of which in A. D. 1818 were uninhabited, has by the advance of population becouie a part of the adjacent territory for all jurisdictional purposes ; and it has ceased to be of special value to our vessels except for shelter or sup- plies. The siime observations apply with greater force to the bay of Miraniichi. The bays of Egmont and St Ann's are hardly more than mt;re sinuosities of the coast ; but they and the excluded jiarts of the Newfoundland bays are of no value to our vessels for lisliing. It is not unniasonable to grant the release of all of them, in view of the fact that as to all other waters we remove long standing disputes. It is not to he over- looked that all these bays have long been claimed by Great Britain as of right. 142 THE FISHERIES TREATY. At thn iiioiiMm of all the hayn dcsifjiiati'd in tln^ tn^iity l).v iiaint', tin- roiirth aitiolo makes Hpccial lincH ofdeliniitatioii. Tlicni seems to Ut* an imi>ri's^,i()ii with sonic lluit the exclusion is ;{ iiiilfs Hcawiud tlicrflioin; hnt this Is plainly fironcoiis. Eaih of these lines is run from one powerful light to another, except one tenniuus lit Cape Smoke, whieh is a promontory over 700 feet in height. The external peripheries of visiliility of these liglits overlap t^ac.h othia* very eonsiderahly on each of these lines. HO that for our vessels danger is not whcrt* bays liave heen Hpeeilically rcdeased. This will be found at the H-niile limit from the open shore, where it always has lieen. There is, howevc^r, eonfusion about this, and some debit the treaty, jiisl negoiialed with the inevitalde hazards eonseiiucntial on the prinei])les of that of IHIH. If the coniinissiou of delimitation is appointed as the treaty i)rovidc8, this commission, of course, will, as Mr. Seward and Mr. l-'ish foresaw, diminish the danger on the open coast, by giving on the charts which it prepares bearings of lights and other marked points; ao that vessels by the aid of these bearings will be able to ])rotect themselves in some degree. Nevertheless, there are the nights anroposals made to Great Bi'itain in the autumn of A. D. \f*8ii, Mr. Bayard, after reciting substantially the suggestions made by Mr. Seward, and elaborating them, offered this rule; bvit the Marquis of Salisbury, in his reply of March 24, H87, com- mented that this " would involve a surrender of fishing rights, which have always been regarded as the exclusive property of Canada." The specific delimitations at several smaller bays will, on examination, be found to be in harmony with the views of the United States as to the proper results of the gen- eral rules of 18Id. On the whtde, by this part of the treaty a long and troublesome dispute affords promise of being ended without either party giving up anything of value. Next, the treaty touches the matters which have involved our fishing vessels in their most serious troubles, fully covering reports to custom-houses, fees, and other charges, cases of disaster and distress, and incidental supplies such as merchant ves- sels buy. It is of course impossible to anticipate all the questions which may arise as between coterunnous peoples, even with the most caieful phraseology; ai.d there are some matters w^ich can not be confined within fixed tenns without limiting the rights of one i)arty or the other to an extent to which neither could be expected to submit. Among these is that discretion which must be exercised on the one side by the "skipper" who runs in for shelter in deciding whether or not it is prudent to ])nt to sea, and on the other side by the revenue authorities in deternuning whether fir not the ves.sel is hovering or loitering unlawfully within the waters of Canada. Such matters must in the main be disposed of satisfactorily by the practical operation of THE FISH KK- IKS TREATY. 143 ic Unit iifh I'l' 1 Capii ipios of 3 liin's, This S lUM'll. ol iuii'il If the sioii, of lie ()|n'ii niurkcd nisolvt'R th(! con- md will ity. 1 Franco ays, the loi limit, vrtoptotl: Empire, lio Nortl) intoriia- 1^8 to aid ve coasts, tlon, this lorinsf the mo totish , perhaps () believe liada. In lird, after nj; them. |-:M7, eoiii- tiUviiys found to If the ^eii- lublesomo vtliing of Ivessel.s in Ind other •hant ves- liiiay arise liU.d there liitinif the tpectcd to 1)0 side by Jilt to put J-hetlier or Ibi. Such L>ration of what is expressed and bv (ho litnitiitioii imposed in this article which will iiuinedi- ately lie considered. The treaty next seeks to alleviate llii> hardsliips of the Ie;^,il proeeediii;^s whicili various statutes of the province and tlie l)oniiiiiiin liave iinpo>liernalia and fees of Im- perial c(nirts are iiict, and the progress of the trial ref tin- fiitiro trip toraii ollt'iisccomiiiittcd |i<'rlia|is at itn inci'iitiuii. Mnn-ovcr, the articlf pi'dvidt's tin' penalty uliall not bo onlori'ud nnlil rovimvi'd l»y the ^iivci'nor-;^t'M('ial in council, jjivinj" Hpa«'0 for tho pasHiii); away of toinporary oxcitornent and for a calm coiiHider- atiori of all niili>;aliii>; ciicninMtaiKics. Also, fiom the pansa^e of llie statnt*^ of 1"'11» the penalty thv illegally "prepaiinn' to lish " ha.s been forfeitnre. This has at times been construed to extend not only to prepariiiji- to tisli illegally, bnt also to a prepa- ration witliiii the Dominion waters for tishinj^ elsewhere. The ./. //. XicktrsnH, alrciidy referred to, was foiteited in A. D. If'TO on this principle, withont any s[)e(itic itrotcst from th(! Unit(Ml States or any snlisiMpieiit reclamation. If the ]tleiiipotentiaries had been workinj^ new Ki'»"iiid, in view of the i ite- ness of the words and of the fact that i>repaiatioii is ordinarily nccepteil as ..i lower grade than actnal aceoiriplishnient, it may lie that the penally of foifeit;iro nmler any circnmstanceH for this offense would have been Hurreiidered ; Imt a statute wliiidi has stood for nearly seventy years without sncccissfnl objection can not easily be wholly ov<',rthriiw'ii. The treaty, liowc^ver, clearly eliminates every priiicii)le on which were based the forfeiture of the./. //. Xivli'crson niul the itroceediiiffs aj;ainsb the ./;by basin T bait, if she had ibiind herself snarled in the iutricatiies of foroij^ti statutes and 1 i)ro- coodinjis, had the f)]ttion to pay $'.\ per ton, or less than •'!t>200 — in other won Uian tlie amounts heretofore rcipiired as security for costs and to pay expenses of defense ill the vic(!-admiralty court and go free — or she could have demanded a sninniary and inexpensive trial at the place of detention. It should be borne in mind that the statntea of Canada which we have been dis- cussing are not aimed particularly at vessels of the United States, but include all fjiuugn fishing vessels. While in all resiiecLs, even with the modifications which the thirteenth article imposes ou them, they are notour statutes, and therefore not what we would make tliein, yet several of these niodilications are concessions from prin- ciples and i(rovisions which are found in our own statutes, and cfuicessions which we onr>olves would not willingly make in behalf of foreign vessels. Ou the whole, a careful examiuation of this section, taken in the light of the ordinary methods of criminal proceedirigs wherever the common law exists, will show a present desire ou the ])art of (Ireat Britain and Canada to remove Just cause of offense, and to cultivate the friemlship of the United States; and take it by and large, the net result must bo a modicum of those evils and inisforrunes, through legal proceedings, whioh inevit- ably await strange A'essels in foreign ports. Cniicerning the (ifteenth article, further reference to the protocol of May 4, 1871, of the joint commissioners who negotiated the treaty of Washington will show, as al- ready explained, that the American commissioners preferred asittlement of the fishery questions ''on a com)»rehensive basis." After setting out other propositions, pro and con, which were not agreed to, the protocol i)roceeds as follows: "The subject of the fisheries was further discussed at the conferences held on the 20th, Siiid, and 25th of March. The American commissioners stated that, if the value of the inshore lisheries could be ascertained, the United States might prefer to pur- chase for a sum of money the right to enjoy in perpetuity the use of those inshore fisheries iu common with British fishermen." THK FISHKHIKS TUKATY. 145 the fiitin> ' provitloH II couMcil, 1 coMisidi'i'- ito of in lit IH lit tilllCH to il pit'l*"- III, iilri'iidy illc protost i iti'- iH «.t lower itiiro uiitler ; a statute I not oiisily rinciplf oM ii;i« iij;ainsb cr olt'iiifiitH I'ts thixt tlio that, if cir- II of all tlio iccniiii!:; tli« aximiiiu for ilci- tlif l>vo- j;ono free, iHiii '^rbait, 1(1 I l)i't»- hi Miau S of (loffllHO a Hiiinniiiry boon ilia- incliule all iH wliicli tlio )ro not what from prin- )nH which we the whole, a nethoUs of lit desire ou to cultivate Hult inuHt ho hioh inovit- [ay4, 1871, of 8lu)W, as al- of the tishery iione, pro and s hold on the , if the valne prefer to pur- those inshore >• >' Our conmii.ssioin'rM iiftorwiudM nniiu'd !5>l,nn().()(l() un tho niiiii they wcr«i iiropiircd to olVcr. 'I'jio Itiitish LoiiiiniHsiouers roplicd that lliis olVor was inii(l*'(|iiato, iiiid made Homo other ohjoot ions to it. Suhsc(|uent!y ourconimiHNioiierHprniioHedaHan eipiivalont for tilt! iiiHhore liHiierics lliat coal, nalt, and IIhIi should he recipioeally admitted free at once and liimlier after the 1st of .Inly, A. 1>. Ir-TI. <>n the ITth of April the IJritiNh coniniiHHionerH replied that they re;;ardetl this latter otler as inadequate. Thereupon our commiHsioners witlidiew it, and the equivalents were fiuully ncgotialed, as found in the treaty. In ftaminji the prehent (•oii\ention this principle of negotiation seenis to haveheeu held hy the I'nited States not admit»sihle, hut it ou>;ht not hi^ deniet, and if the con- vention is ratilied, C'on;,'ress may freely adopt its terms if it deenis it for the interest of thi» eoiinlry so to «lo. The ohjtietions lhat|,tlie treaty does not secure privilejjes for halt, shippin<; men and transshipping; tish are not considered here, as they have heen fully discussed elsewhere. Also discussion of the other ill-founded ohjection that the treaty j;ivcs us nothinj? worth purchasin;!; is (nnitterocal ar- rangement of \. D. 1H;{(); iind indeed some of them aiqiarently siipi)Ose a treaty with Great Hritain was then made. The most couveniei i way of understanding that ar- rangement is to turn to Jackson's ]iroclamatioii of May 'iU, A. 1). IH30, iiy which it was brought to its completion; and its entire practical ttfect is mmlo clear from the circular of the Secretary of the Treasury In tho collectors of customs of October G, A.D. 1^150, and hy the order in council of NovoiuIkt .') of the samti year. While this marked a long step forward i reciprocal arrangements with the neigh- boring provinces, so that it atVorded tho Sci ict.iry of State, Mr. IJayard, very just ami persuasive arguments in favor of the most liberal treatment by Canada of our tishing vessels, yet its very letter, as well as its spirit, related exclusively to vessels engaged in commerco and to merchandise carried from tho ports of one country to tho ])ort3 of another. Not only did it not contemplate the purchase of fishing supplies to be used on the ocean and other facilities for fishing vessels, but its jihraseology clearly excluded any such i)nrpose. Are we any more entitled to demand under it as a righ; reciprocity in matters of this sort than Great Britain or Qinada can demand under it reciprocity in the coasting trade or in the registering of vessels ? And is there any- thing either in this reciprocal arrangement or in any other between the United States and Great Britain or Canada which renders the refusal to our fishermen of the special benefits of the near locality of Nova Scotia to the fishing grounds more nnfriendly, in that sense which justifies retaliation, than our refusal to permit Brit- ish, including Canadian, vessels to enter our coasting trade, while ours freely engage iu the larger coasting trade of the British Empire; or than the refusal to permit the sale by the British, Including the Canadians, of their vessels to our citizens with reg- istration, while we may freely sell and register our vessels iu any part of the Britisli possessions? There is a wide gulf between this class of privileges which nations grant or refuse in accordance with their own broad or narrow views of their own in- terests and that class which affects the comfort of strangers and their property in foreign ports. All the latter tho treaty just negotiated secures and perpetuates. In the official pamphlet of the National Fishery Association of March 1, 1»88, there is given on the twelfth page the following alternative for this treaty : "It may be a.sked how shall we deal with this matter? What can be done to set- tle the tishery question between the British North American provinces and the United S. Mis. 109 10 146 THE FISHERIES TREATY. States? This can be clone, ami it has the sauctiou of the Forty-ninth Congress. Wipeont all legislative commercial arrangements and let us go back where we were, 80 far as commercial intercourse with the British provinces is concerned, wlien the treaty of IHld was made. In other words, declare non-intercourse! Put Canada in the same relation to the United States as she was seventy years ago ! Then our fish- ermen would have the same rights they have now under the treaty of 1818, and we should then be in a position to say to her; 'Are you willing this should continue, or do you prefer to deal with us on a fair basis and give to all our vessels, as we are willing to give to yours, full commercial I'ights in your ports?'"' It is not proposed here to dwell on tliis alternative nor to discuss the propriety of the assumption of a representative character by the National Fishery Association. But in the event the treaty is rejected, if the President heeds this demand, as perhaps •aider the law he may, neither the association, nor whomsoever it represeuts, if any- body, nor, more particularly, that part of the community which now fails to rise up against its pretensions, can justly complain. The fishing interests of New England welcomed with great expectations the expi- ration of the treaty of 1871, wliich came about in June, A. D. 1885; but the result has shown how little the prosperity of these interests can rely on political events. The seasons of IsSG and 1887, so far as the mackerel catch was coucerned, were disas- trous through natural causes, both for our own Heets and for those of Nova Scotia, though less for the latter than for the former. Although the catch for these tw^o seasons was only one-third of the catch for 1882 and 1883, yet the prices made no cor- responding advance ; so that the money aggregate for the two latter seasons, includ- ing all grades of mackerel, could not have been much in excess of one-third of that )c :• the two earlier seasons named. With reference to cod and other ground fish, there was a considerable diminution in the catch for the ses^ons oflSSG and 1887, with an extremely low market in 1886 and a somewhat improved market in 1887, the net money yield for each being comparatively small. In neither branch of the fisheries, how- ever, were these evils caused by Canadian complications. This is well understood with reference to mackerel, and becomes entirely plain as to cod when the fact is con- sidered that in A. D. 188:?, A. D. 1884, and A. D. 1885, the catch on the New England shores and George's Banks exceeded that on the Grand and Western Banks, while the reverse occurred in A. D. 1886 and A. D. 1887. Before the Senate Committee on For- eign Relations in A. D. 188(5, Sylvester Cunningham, of Gloucester, testified that — "The price of fish is so low now that, if we shftuld allow Canadian fish to come in free, our vessels would not sail. The price is very low." Mr. O. B. Whitten, vice-president of the Fishery Union, also testified before the same committee, October 6, 188G, as follows: "Q. Have you ever noticed that the duty has increased or that the absence of duty has decreased the price of fish to the consumer during the last fifteen years If '•A. I do not know that the duty has anything to do with it whatever. In fact, it is strange that salt fish were never so low as they are at the present time with the duly on." Mr. L. R. Campbell, deputy commissioner of labor for the State of Maine, in an in- terview with a reporter of the Kennebec Journal, on the 17th day of November last, said : "The fishermen are in a worse condition to-day than they have been for a number of years, for the reason that they had two bad seasons in succession." Indeed, the de^jressed condition of the fisheries for the last two years is too noto- rious to need evidencing, though the above explanation of its causes seem necess.'iry. In this state of financial losses and anxiety the fishing interests are, of course, not prone to welcome auythiu;! which Avill not, in their opinion, give them immediate financial relief; yet the writer speaks from a considerable personal knowledge when he says that whomsoever may have part in advancing the wholesome and beneficent treaty just negotiated can without trepidation trust himself in the hands of the fish- THE FISHERIES TREATY. \x Cougress. re we were, 1, wlicn tlio b Canada in len onr fisli- 818, and we jontinue, or , as we are )ropriety of Association, as perhaps ints, if any- s to rise up 38 the expi- t the result ical events, were disas- fova Scotia, : these two >s»de no cor- 3ns, includ- lird of that i fish, there 37, with an 3 net money eries, how- nnderstood fact is con- !w England s, while the itee on For- ed that — I to come in before the nee of duty ral In fact, it lull/ on." le, in an in- emher last, ir a number is too noto- 1 necess.ary. course, not immediate ledge when beneficent of the fish- 147 :^::^';^o r r^r"^"^ '- - '-'' -^ - *^« -^- aecond-thought ereuLl^l^oTeltiror^^^^^^ '''Z\T '^^ ^^^^^^^^ ^^ ^^^ -^ «-! --.- Lumor which would flow therefomL^^^^ ^"'^ *'- ««-^ past ill-will and its consequent miscbleft ' '''" recollections of the Portland, Me., jjiril 16, 1888. William L. Putxam. f