-HSSXHE 
 
 Canadian •AlERiCM^ 
 
 FISH 
 
 ES. 
 
 BY 
 
 WILLIAM B, ELL.IS,0;j^J. 
 
 (Of tH«f KewVork HRr). 
 
 
 '> 
 
THE CANADIAN-AMERICAN FISHERIES. 
 
 Difficulties have arisen from time to time ever since the 
 bc}^innin<j; of this century, rehitive to the fisheries about 
 Britisli North America. The Government of the United 
 States has at all times appreciated the great value of those 
 fisheries and has endeavored from time to time to en- 
 large the rights and privileges of American fishermen in 
 the waters adjoining that country. The course pursued by 
 the United States in this matter furnishes another instance 
 of their efforts to secure new and valuable concessions from 
 other governments to the welfare and prosperity of the 
 American people. 
 
 The enormous value of a right to participate in tishiag 
 in the waters adjoining tho; Britisli Colonies has justifier. the 
 American Government in making every honorable effort to 
 secure that right. During the time when the population of 
 the United States was comparatively small, notably before 
 the revohition, the waters otf the Atlantic coast of that 
 country were amply sufficient to supply the demand; but, 
 with the great growth of the population and the decrease in 
 the supply, the American fishermen were compelled to seek 
 new fishing grounds, which they found in the waters adjoin- 
 ing what is now the Dominion of Canada. These grounds, 
 so long as they are att'ected, as they now are, by the currents 
 from the north, replete as at present with food suitable for 
 fish, must remain most prolific. Al)out six hundred Ameri- 
 can vessels aiDiually engage in the nuickerel fishing in 
 Canadian waters, and the nuniber of the vessels is rapidly 
 increasing. Each of those vessels takes on an average not 
 less than two hundred barrels of mackerel of the value of 
 about ten dollars per barrel. The importation of fish to the 
 New England States has assumed very large proportions and 
 is of immense value to New England tishermen who see loss 
 of occu])ati()n and livelihood in case Canada cannot be in- 
 duced to allow them, to ccHitinue hb they have hitherto done 
 under treaties, now exi)ired. 
 
2 
 
 On tho other hand, tlio \a\\u) of the lisherica in question 
 are of great importance to Canad.i, and there seems to be a 
 strong inclination in that country to protect what she may 
 deem her rights in the matter. She feels, it would appear, 
 that that source of wealth which nature has so lavishly 
 given her should be harvested for her benefit and not that 
 of another government. It is estimated that the value of 
 the fisheries to Canada in 1884 was about $15,000,000, em- 
 ploying about 60,000 men and 23,000 boats. These figures 
 are, of course, exclusive of Newfoundland, which is not a 
 part of the Dominion of Canada. 
 
 With some idea of the attractiveness of the fisheries off 
 the shores of the Dominion both to its own people and to 
 the people of the United States, it will be well to ascertain 
 if possible, what are the legal claims of each to the waters in 
 dispute. 
 
 When British North America and the United States were 
 colonies of Great Britain the rights to fish were common to 
 both. When Great Britain formally acknowledged the inde- 
 pendence of the colonies, the United States obtained " the 
 liberty " to take fish on the coasts of Newfoundland, but 
 not to dry or cure the same there. They were also granted 
 " the liberty " of taking and curing fish on the coasts and in 
 the bays and creeks of all British possessions in North 
 America as long as the same remained ansettled. Their 
 right " to enjoy unmolested the fisheries on the banks of 
 Newfoundland and at all other places on the deep sea where 
 the inhabitants of both countries used at any time previously 
 to fish " was explicitly acknov/ledged in the third article of 
 the same treaty, which was signed at Paris on September 3, 
 1783. During the years which elapsed between the signing 
 of this treaty and the breaking out of the war of 1812 the 
 British population increased along tho shores of the bays 
 and creeks of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, and theu* in- 
 terest in tho fisheries, enjoyed in common with the Americans, 
 became very much greater. When the war came to a close 
 the question of the fisheries was revived and Great Britain 
 considered that any " liberty " formerly extended to the United, 
 States had naturally terminated, and refused to grant to the 
 Americans " gratuitously" the privileges they formerly en- 
 joyed of ^\fshin(j imtldn the limits of British territory or of 
 using the shoi'es of the Jxritish territories for purposes connected 
 with the fisheries," At tho same time they refused to con- 
 aider the claim sot up by tho United States Goveniment, of 
 " a)i immemorial and prescriptii^e right to the fisheries " claim- 
 ing t/iat any rights enjoyed hy the people of the old colonies in 
 common with other liritish suhjects ceased in those countries or 
 waters which loere still British possessioi\s when the former 
 became independent. When no undtsratanding could be 
 
3 
 
 reached cluiing the negotiations which ended with the Treaty 
 of Ghent in 1814, Great Britain instructed the officers of her 
 tieet stationed in British American waters not to interfere 
 with American vessels on the Newfoundhmd banks, oi in the 
 Gulf of St. Lawrence, or on the high seas, but to exclude 
 them from the harboi-s, bays and creeks of all His Majesty's 
 l)ossessions. Several American vessels were subsequently 
 captured for trespassing in British waters, and the Govern- 
 ment of the United States at last came to an amicable ar- 
 rangement on a question which might at any moment lead 
 to a serious international difficulty. The issue was the 
 treaty signed by England and the United States on 
 October 20, 1818, in which the rights of these two nations 
 were clearly defined. By the Jird article of that treaty it 
 was agreed that the inhabitants of the United Stjites should 
 have forcer, in common with British subjects, the liberty to 
 take and cure fish on certain, parts of Newfinmdland and 
 Lahnidur, and on the coasts of the Magdalen Islands, under a 
 few restrictions, on which it is not necessary to dwell, since 
 no serious differences have arisen on the subject. In the 
 same article the United States " renounce forever any liherty 
 hereto foi'e enjoyed or claimed by the inhahitants thereof to take, 
 dry, or cure fish on or loithin three marine miles of any of the 
 coasts, hays, creeks or harbors " of the British dominions in 
 America not included within the limits just mentioned. At 
 the same time American fishermen were to be permitted " to 
 enter such hays and harbors for the purpose of shelter and of 
 repairing damages therein, of purchasing wood, of obtaining 
 ivatcr, and for no other purpose whatever. 
 
 The whole controversy in past years between Great Britain 
 (representing the Dominion of Canada and Newfoundland) 
 and the United States has turned upon the true effect of the 
 renunciation on the part of the latter " of any liberty here- 
 tofore enjoyed to take, dry and cure fish on or within three 
 marine miles of any of the coasts, bays, creeks or harbors " 
 of British North America. In order to understand the im- 
 portance of this point — which is in effect the fishery ques- 
 tion constantly crojjpiug up when all temporary arrange- 
 ments like the Washington Treaty of 1871 cease between 
 Canada and the United States — it is necessary to study the 
 natural configuration of the eastern or maritime provinces 
 of British North America. Looking at the map, we find 
 first of all the large island of Newfoundland standing at the 
 approaches of the Gulf of St. Lawrence. The French and 
 Americans have free access, as a matter of right, to the 
 Grand and other banks, and certain privileges of catching 
 and curing fish on the coasts. American fishermen fre(juent 
 the Grand Banks and come at times into the bays and 
 harbors for repairs and bait ; and the only important ques- 
 
tion that has arisen with respect to Newfoiiiulhind is the 
 vahie of these privileges withiu her territorial limits. Leav- 
 ing Newfouiidlaucl, we come to the lishiiig groiinils much 
 frequented by the Americans for the mackerel, herring and 
 other fisheries. We see the island of Capo Breton, separ- 
 ated from the mainland of Nova Scotia by a narrow strait 
 known as the Gut of Canseau. This passage, whose average 
 l)readth does not exceed two and a half miles, takes us into 
 the Straits of Northumberland, which lie between Nova 
 Scotia and Prince Edward Island. We are now in the (lulf 
 of St. Lawrence ; in the michllc of this gulf are the Magdalen 
 Islands, the home of Canadian fishermen. The coast of New 
 Brunswick, which forms the western boundary of the gulf, is 
 indented by several bays, one of which — the Bay des Cha- 
 leurs, is one of the most prolific fishing grounds of the con- 
 tinent. In this bay, and on the coasts of Cape Breton and 
 Prince Edward Island, the American fishermen during this 
 century have dragged up fish to an enormous value. But 
 leaving the Gulf of St. Lawrence and passing around the 
 southern coast of Nova Scotia we come to the Bay of Fundy, 
 bounded on the north by the province of New Brunswick, 
 and having a small portion of the United States territory 
 opposite to its southern headland. All the valuable fish to 
 be caught in North America frequent this bay and the 
 waters of the Gulf of St. Lawrence. These are the great 
 fishing grounds so long envied by the fishermen of New 
 England. 
 
 Now, it is admitted that the largest quantities of fish are 
 found within three marine miles from the coasts and bays 
 of the maritime provinces. Great Britain has always main- 
 tained that the three rn<irine miles from the coasts, bays and 
 creeks of her possessions 7nnst be meamir'ed from the head- 
 hinds or entrance of such dassex of indents. But this asser- 
 tion of the territorial and maritime jurisdiction of the 
 Dominion of Canada, as a section of the British Empire, is 
 not admitted by the United States, and they have heretofore 
 raised the issue, that the line of demarcation between exclu- 
 sive and common water should not be measured from the 
 headlands of bays, but should tV)llow the shores of those in- 
 dents as if they were sinuosities of the coasts. If their con- 
 tention is founded on some principles of international law, 
 or sustained by authority, then it would be difficult to ex- 
 clude them from the most important fishing grounds of 
 America. Wheaton states the rule as follows: "The mari- 
 time territory of every State extends to the ports, harbors, 
 bays, mouth of rivtu's and adjacent parts of the sea inclos(Ml 
 by headlands belonging to the same State." Chancellor 
 Kent admits that bays like Delaware Bay, which nniy bo 
 compared in many respects to Bay des Chaleurs, is wholly 
 
within tho teiritoiiiil juiisilictioii of the Unitcil Status, iind 
 thut this jurisdiction extouds for three miles seaward from 
 its h(!adlaiids, Capes May and Heidopeii. The same rule 
 applies to Chesapeake and Massachusetts Bays, which are 
 also inlets of large size. 
 
 Daniel Webster admitted, when the question came under 
 his notice in 1852, that the claim of England to draw a line 
 from headland to lieadlaial, and to capture all American 
 fishermen who might follow their pursuits inside of that line, 
 was well founded, and that " it was undoubtedly an over- 
 sight in the Convention of 1818 to make so large a conces- 
 sion to England. If we look at the tirst article t)f this Con-' 
 vention, we find that tlie United States hereby renounce for- 
 ever any liberty Iteretoforc enjoyed or claimed" hy their jyeople 
 in /iritish vatera. In the Franconian case, whicJi came be- 
 fore the British Courts in 187G, the question involved was 
 whether or not a foreigner commanding a foreign vessel 
 could legally be convicted of manslaughter connuitted whilst 
 sailing by the external coast of England, within three miles 
 from the sliore, in the prosecution of a vo3age from one 
 foreign port to another. The Court, by a majority of seven 
 judges to six, held the conviction bad on the ground that 
 the jurisdicti(^n of the Common Law Courts extended oul}^ 
 to ofi'enses conmiitted within the realm, and that at common 
 law such realm did not extend on the external coasts beyond 
 low water mark. None of the Judges, however, doubted 
 that Parliament had power to extend the laws of the realm 
 to a Z(me of three miles around the outer coast, if it saw tit 
 to do so. The Lord Chief Justice of En<»land, bv whose 
 castuig judgment the conviction was quashed, stated, " If an 
 otl'ense was comndtted " he said, "in a bay, gulf or estuary, 
 inter fauces terra', the common law would deal with it l)e- 
 cause tlu! parts of the sea so circumstanced were held to be 
 within the body of the adjacent county or counties." In 
 another case, which was decided by the Judicial Comnuttee 
 of the Privy Council, in 1877, the cpiestion arose between 
 two telegraph companies, whether Conce])tion Bay in New- 
 foundland (which is rather more than twenty miles wide at 
 iis mouth and runs inland between forty and fifty miles) was 
 within British waters or a part of the high seas. One of the 
 conq>anies laid a cable and buoys within the bay at a dis- 
 tance of more than three miles from the shore, and the rival 
 conq3any contended that the former had iidringed rights 
 granted to them by the Legislature of Newfoundland. The 
 Judicial Committee held that Conception Bay was within 
 territorial dominion of Great Britain. The Canadians claim 
 that all bodies of water or inlets inter fauces terne, being 
 then within the territorial jurisdiction of England and her 
 dependencies, it follows that when the Americans, by the 
 
6 
 
 Convention of 1818, cxplicJily renounc&l all liherft/ prevlouslt/ 
 enjoyed tojisli "on or wiih'ni three inarine 7inl.es of any of the 
 coads, oays, creehs or harhors of his Britannic Majesty's do- 
 nmiions,'' they gave up any claims they may previously have 
 had, and confined themselves to the waters a league distant 
 from those indents measured from headland to headland. 
 The British Government, however, as alleged by Canadians, 
 in its desire to afford every facility to the United States con- 
 sistent with their sovereign rights and the interests of the 
 people of British North America, have since 1845 thought it 
 expedient to relax, in the case of the Bay of Fundy, the ap- 
 plication of the rule to which they have generally adhered. 
 They have permitted American fishermen to pursue their 
 calling in any part of the bay, provided they should, not ap- 
 proach, except in cases specif ed by the treaty of ISIS, loithin 
 three miles of the entrance of any hay on the coast of Nova 
 Scotia or New Bransvjick. While maintaining, as a matter of 
 strict construction, that this large bay is rightfully claimed 
 by Great Britain as a body of Avater within the meaning of 
 the Convention of 1818, they have considered that in one 
 respect this inlet could be treated exceptionally, inasmuch 
 as there was some plausibility in the reasoning of the United 
 States, that the headlands were not only sixty miles apart, 
 but one of them was not British ; and that, as pointed out 
 by Mr. Everett to Lord Aberdeen in 1844 : " Owing to the 
 peculiar confguration of the coasts of this arm of the sea, there 
 is a succession of hays indenting the shoreshoth of Nova Scotia 
 and New Brunswick, within any distance not less than three 
 miles, from which Ataerican -fishermen were, necessarily ex- 
 cluded by holding the vjhole body <f water to be i?i the British 
 ter7'ifo7'ial limits.'' The same argument could not be used 
 in the case of the Bay of Ohaleurs or other important indents 
 of the coasts. 
 
 The imperial aiithorities have on many occasions strictly 
 maintained the rights they possess under tl)e law of nations. 
 From 1818 to 1854 the British cruisers detailed by the Im- 
 perial and Colonial Government for the protection of their 
 fisheries captured and confiscated several American vessels 
 that were found ranging at points varying from quite near 
 the shore to a distance of upwards of ten miles from land, 
 on the ground that they were within the headlands of bays. 
 In 1854, after considerable negotiation for years, the two 
 Governments arranged a Reciprocity Treaty, which tempo- 
 rarily settled the increasing difficulties on the question. By 
 this treaty the United States obtained free access to the 
 fishing grounds on the east coast of British North America, 
 and certain natural products of these two countries, like 
 fish, coal, flour, meal, lumber and salt, were allowed to enter 
 into each free of duty. This arrangement was of undoubted 
 
lulvantuge to both countries tVoiii a purely coiiiinercial point 
 of view. Not only tlid it settle for the mouieut au ever- 
 present cause of irritation, but it t)pened a lar^e and increas- 
 ing market to the export trade of British North America, 
 while the Americans were able fco prosecute one of their 
 great industries at a decided advantage, and at the same 
 time obtain additional buyers for their tlour, corn, meal and 
 manufactured goods. The Americans, by their great(^r en- 
 t(!rprise and the superiority of their vessels, practically beat 
 the British American fishermen in theii* own waters, and 
 derived advantages, it was claimed, beyond any granted by 
 the United States. In those days the provinces were isola- 
 ted from each other, and a commercial or political union be- 
 tween them seemed still far off. In the absence of such a 
 union, the people were not animated by a national feeling, 
 but some of them began to consider whether a closer con- 
 nection with the United States was not among the i)robabil- 
 ities of the future. Manufactures were brought in large 
 quantities from the United States in return for the natural 
 products sent them by the provinces, and there was no pros- 
 pect of the growth of a native manufacturing industry to add 
 to the wealth and give additional employment to the peo- 
 ple, large numbers of whom were aimually leaving the 
 country for the manufacturing districts of New England. 
 Whilst the treaty lasted the balance of trade with respect to 
 manufactured goods, amounted to X18,000,000 sterling in 
 favor of the United States. The treatv came to an end in 
 1805 hi/ the action of the Washington Government. 
 
 In the meantime, while the people of the provinces were 
 endeavoring to consolidate their Government and establish 
 a federation on a sound basis, they found themselves again 
 threatened with the fishery question. The Ct)Uvention of 
 1818 was again in force, and the fishermen of New England 
 were alleged to be once more ranging in their waters. The 
 efforts of the two governments to bring about a satisfactory 
 commercial arrangement were entirely unsuccessful. The 
 question then constantly pressed itself upon then) how best 
 to meet the difficulty of maintaining their rights without 
 bringing about any serious international complication. The 
 correspondence between England and Canada, as it ap])ears 
 in the Canadian Blue Books, from 18(17 to 1871, is not very 
 flattering to the national vanity of those Englishmen who 
 believe there are times when a little firmness is necessary 
 in the maintenance of undoubtid Imperial rights. All the 
 despatches of the British Government are in the (hrection 
 of c(mci'liating the United States in every way possible, until 
 at last it was pointed out in one Canadian Minute of Coun- 
 cil that " the course suggested (the freedom of the fisheries 
 for another year) would certainly be regarded by the Amer- 
 
8 
 
 icaii people as an evidence ol* weakness on the part of Great 
 Britain, and of an indisposition to raaintaii] the rights of the 
 colonies." The answers of the Canadian Government to the 
 despatches from the imperial authorities are distinguished 
 throughout by an assertion of the rights and interests of 
 Canada. Concession after concession was made to the 
 United States, until at one time it did look, as Mr. 
 Mitchell, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, pointed 
 out to his colleagues, there was every danger that " the 
 hesitation on the part of England to assert an undoubted 
 national right would be misconstrued and be made the 
 ground for othiu' and mores serious exactions, until such a 
 point is reached that neither country can recede from with 
 honor." However, the Canadian Government acquiesced in 
 the suggestion of Her Majesty's Ministers at the very outset, 
 and adopted the temporary expedient of issuing season 
 licenses to Americum tishing vessels, at a nominal tonnage 
 rate, " so as tV)rmally to preserve the light of sovereignty 
 without occasioning any dangerous complications, such as 
 were api)rehended by the imperial authorities." American 
 fishermen were restraintid at first to bays under ten giu)- 
 graphical miles, and subsequently to those only under six 
 miles in width — a concession entirely in accord with the de- 
 mands of the United States bi^fore and since 1854. During 
 tilts four years this system remained in force it was evaded, 
 and at last became practically worthless. In the first year 
 of its existence 354 licenses were taken out, but they dropptul 
 to '25 in 1869. Vice-Admiral Wellesley, then in com- 
 mand of the North American fleet, considered it his duty to 
 point out to tlu! Secretary of tlm Admiralty that, "as acon- 
 seipience of the continued indulgence towards the Ameri- 
 cans, very few colonial fishermen are engaged in fishing, 
 owing to the taritt* inq)t)sed by the United States on fish 
 imported in colonial vessels, and colonial fishermen, there- 
 fons, in consid(!rable numbers, man American vessels," The 
 government of Canada, led then, as now, by Sir John Mac- 
 (lonald, felt called upon to state that they viewed " with 
 iiery serious concern tJie ejf'cct upon our niaritinie population, 
 of such dependence upon American cntjiloyers. It creates syni- 
 p((t}iy vntJi forc'ujn sentiments amlinstitutions, and affords op- 
 portunities for instiUing into the minds of our people ideas 
 and expectati(ms altoijcther inimical to British connection. 
 Tlicrc is actualli) presenicd to theiu the exxunplc of subjects of 
 a repuhlican power and citizens of a ftreign State prosecutinxj 
 their call'imj at the very doors and in the exclusive li'mits of 
 lintish suttjects in Canada, who arc themselves shut oitt of 
 the Duirkets of th<d coiudri/ hij a prohUntive tariff] adopted in 
 the interest of their own. fshermcn, while ours cannot awn, 
 enjoy their own crclusive privileges. The injiucnce of these 
 
9 
 
 coniskleratiunn cannot he utherunae than seductive of the loijat 
 attuchiiient and personal enterprise of our seaboard population. 
 It discourages the ind.ependent employment of Canadian Jish- 
 ing craft and provincial Jishernien. It tempts our Jishermen to 
 catch and sell their fish clandestinely to oivners of American 
 vessels, vjho can afterwards market them in thi United States, 
 free of duty, as Americati- caught fsh. This practice denwr- 
 alizes (yar population and accustoms them to violations of our 
 own laios. J 
 
 Filially, the imperial authorities arranged with the admin- 
 istration at Washington the appointment of a joint British 
 and American Commission, " to treat of and discuss the mode 
 of settlimj the different questions which have arisen out of the 
 fisheries, an loell as those loliich affect the relatione of the 
 United States toivurds Her Majesty's possessio.::-; in North 
 America.'' The history of this Commission is well known. 
 The American Commissioners refused to consider a new re- 
 ciprocity treaty, and it was at last decided to admit the 
 United States to the inshore sea fisheries of British North 
 America, on condition that Canadian tish and tish-oil were 
 admitted free of duty into the American market, and that 
 Commissioners be appointed to determine the amount of any 
 compensation which in their opinion ought to be paid by 
 the Government of the United States in return for the priv- 
 ileges accorded to their citizens under the treaty. The 
 Commission met at Halifax in the summer of 1877. The 
 three Commissioners, M. Maurice Delfosse, Belgian Minis- 
 ter at Washington, Mr. E. H. Kellogg and 8ir A. T. Gait, 
 gave a hearing to the claims of the parties to the issue, and 
 after considering all the evidence submitted to them, a ma- 
 jority decided to award the sum of $5,500,000 in gold, 
 to be paid by the Government of the United States to the 
 Government of Great Britain, in accordance Avitli the pro- 
 visions of the Washington Treaty. Mr. Kellogg, however, 
 on the part of the United States, dissented from the award. 
 
 However, the Americans luul no other alternative open to 
 them than to pay the money and carry out the provisions of 
 the Washington Treaty. The arrangement was advantage- 
 ous to both countries, since it set at rest a vexatious ques- 
 tion and stimulated commercial intercourse biitween them. 
 27ie American (jovernnient gave due notice of the repeal of 
 the treaty after it had been in existence for twelve years. 
 Consequently it e'xpired in July, 1885, and the treaty 
 of 1818 should have once more immediately govt^rned the 
 relations of the two nations. It was not thought advisable, 
 however, by either the Camulian or the Imperial Goveriimout 
 to exclude American tishermen at once from the tisheries, as 
 many of them vvt.'ie already in Canadian waters when the 
 treaty came to an end, uiiel had they been seized without 
 
10 
 
 full notice having l)een pieviouwly given them, a serious 
 feeling might have arisen between the countries immediately 
 interested. After considerable correspondence between the 
 respective Governments of London, Ottawa and Washing- 
 ton, it 'Was agreed that steps should he taken at the earliest 
 date possible for the appoi?itinent of a joint Comrnission 
 " chanjed 'with the consideration and settlement, upon ajiist, 
 equitable and honorable basis, of the entire question, of the fish- 
 ing rights of the two (rovernments and their respective citizeiis 
 on the coasts of the United States and of British No7'th Amer- 
 ica." Accordingly, during the past season American fisher- 
 men freely freimented the waters of the Dominion. How- 
 ever, Canada had no other course open to her in this per- 
 jilexing dilemma, involving such important international 
 considerations, than to agree to the temporary arrangement 
 in question, with the hope that the difficulty would be satis- 
 factorily settled in the way proposed. It is pleasant to tiud 
 that President Cleveland is evidently desirous of arriving at 
 a just and honorable solution of the question as soon as 
 possible. In his message to Congress in December last, he 
 exi)resses his opinion that " in the interest of good neigh- 
 borhood and of the conmiercial intercourse of adjacent com- 
 munities, the question of the North American fisheries is one 
 of large importance." After recommending that Congress 
 provide for the appointment of a Commission, he proceeds 
 to say : " The fishing interests being intimately related to 
 other general questions dependent upon contiguity, consid- 
 eration thereof, in all their equities, might also properly 
 come within the province of such a Commission, and the 
 fullest latitude of expression on both sides should be per- 
 mitted." 
 
 It is obviously injurious to all sides that these interna- 
 tional issues should be of cimstant occurrence, when it has 
 always been possible to settle them for a long term of years, 
 if not for all time. The Canadians have always felt — and 
 President Cleveland ai)i)arently felt the same way — that the 
 fishery question is intimately connected with the commercial 
 rtilatious of the two countries, and that it should bo ar- 
 ranged in the shape of a new Reciprocity Treaty like that 
 of 1854. 
 
 It would therefore appear that the claim made by Canada 
 that the United States are now entitled to such rights as 
 wore given them under the treaty of 1818, and to no others, 
 is not without some foundation. It appears that every 
 treaty subsequent to that of 1818, has been rescinded bff the 
 United States. These different treaties were but fenipo7nry 
 relaxations or modifications of the treaty of 1818 and in- 
 tended so to be when agreed to, and with all of them annulled 
 tluuo must be a recurrence to that of 1818 where it is 
 
11 
 
 f 
 
 claimed by Canada all rigJds theretofore eiijoyed or claimed 
 hy the United States were renomiced, and it was then agreed 
 that the treaty of 1818 should and did specifically settle all 
 the rights and privileges which the United States were to 
 have in Canadian waters. In the first section of that treat}' 
 the United States " reiiomice forever any liberty heretofore 
 enjoyed or claimed by the inhabitants thereof to take, dry or 
 cure fish on or within three marine miles of any of the 
 coasts, bays, creeks or harbours " of the British dominions 
 in America. After the provision whereby the Americans 
 renounced all the rights and liberties aforesaid, it was pro- 
 vided that American fishermen were to be permitted " to 
 enter such bays and harbours for the purpose of shelter and 
 repairing damages therein, of purchasing wood, of obtaining 
 water, and for no other pvrjwses whatever.'" Applying the 
 nile as laid down by Wheaton and Kent, two American 
 jurists of great learning and repute, the United States 
 will be shut out from the most prolific fishing grounds in 
 the world. It must, however, be admitted that the legal 
 authorities cited are almost beyond question. They are quite 
 in accord with the English judicial decisions on the same 
 subject. 
 
 Under the provision relating to the circumstances under 
 which American fishermen may enter Canadian ports, those 
 fishing vessels which have entered for bait and have been 
 seized therefor, were not protected by the treaty, and it 
 would appear that the seizures were legally justifiable. It 
 may appear to manj'^ as a harsh proceeding, but was it unduly 
 so when it is considered that since July, 1885, when the 
 treaty then in existence expired, at the iTistigation of the 
 United States, the Canadian government has endeavored, 
 without success, to effect some new treaty, while the Ameri- 
 can people, though recommended so to do ])y President 
 Cleveland, have not evinced any desire to renew^ the old or 
 enter into a new one ? So long as matters remained as they 
 have been since July, 1885, the Americans have certainly had 
 all they desired. The Canadians felt undoubtedly that a 
 few^ seizures would bring their neighbors to a sense of their 
 position as a similar course did in 1877, when the United 
 States was called upon to pay and did pay $5,500,000. The 
 people of Canada are now, as in 1885, desirous of meeting 
 the people of America in some fair settlement of the exist- 
 ing diffitndties, and hav(* expressed themselv(>s to that effect, 
 and it is thought and hoped that therc^ is a similar desirc! 
 among the people of th(^ United States, lioth countries 
 have rights and both will maintain them, ntiither country 
 will be driven into sacrificing those rights however much 
 there may be of the rant of a lick-spittle class of ])oliticians 
 Avho feel that an occasional wrcMich of the lion's tail is a 
 
1'2 
 
 prolific moans of aecurin<j; votes. Witli the fuir-mindtHl men 
 who are at present at the head of the different governments, 
 both no doubt fully appreciating the desiral)ility of a settle- 
 ment, an amicable .and impartial arrangement becomes 
 feasibh^, and considering the two countries at difference, 
 almost inevitable. 
 
 Had President Cleveland's wise suggestions been fol- 
 lowed, there would have beim no cause for the trouble which 
 has occurred, and the press would not, as now, with a few 
 exceptions, been tilknl with the clamor of persons who hope 
 to ride into office upon the prejudices aroused by misrepre- 
 sentations of the facts involved.