Ai 
 
 %. 
 
 •.'*' 
 
 *:*%♦ 
 
 ,%. 
 
 o^\^^ 
 
 V] 
 
 <^ 
 
 /}. 
 
 /a 
 
 m. 
 
 e: 
 
 
 »•> 
 
 7 
 
 y^ 
 
 IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT-3) 
 
 1.0 
 
 I.I 
 
 "^ IIIM ||]||M 
 2.0 
 
 
 1.8 
 
 Photographic 
 
 Sciences 
 Corporation 
 
 
 1.25 
 
 1.4 
 
 1.6 
 
 
 ^ 6" _ 
 
 
 ► 
 
 n WEST MAIN STREET 
 
 WEBSTER, N.Y. 14S80 
 
 (716) 872-4503 
 
CiHM/ICMH 
 
 Microfiche 
 
 Series. 
 
 CIHM/ICMH 
 Collection de 
 microfiches. 
 
 Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut canadien de microreproductions historiques 
 
Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibllographiques 
 
 The Institute has attempted to obtain the best 
 original copy available for filming. Features of this 
 copy which may be bibliographically unique, 
 which may alter any of the images in the 
 reproduction, or which may significantly change 
 the usual method of filming, are checked below. 
 
 D 
 
 D 
 
 D 
 D 
 D 
 D 
 
 D 
 
 Coloured covers/ 
 Couverture de couleur 
 
 I I Covers damaged/ 
 
 Couverture endommagde 
 
 Covers restored and/or laminated/ 
 Couverture restaur6e et/ou pelliculie 
 
 □ Cover title missing/ 
 Le titre de couverture manque 
 
 I I Coloured maps/ 
 
 D 
 
 Cartes giographiques en couleur 
 
 Coloured ink (I.e. other than blue or black)/ 
 Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) 
 
 Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ 
 Plarches et/ou illustrations en couleur 
 
 Bound with other material/ 
 Reli6 avec d'autres documents 
 
 Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion 
 along interior margin/ 
 
 La reliure serr6e peut causer de I'ombre ou de la 
 distortion le long de la marge intdrieure 
 
 Blank leaves added during restoration may 
 appear within the text. Whenever possible, these 
 have been omitted from filming/ 
 II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajoutdes 
 lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, 
 mais, lorsque cela 6tait possible, ces pages n'ont 
 pas 6t6 film^es. 
 
 Additional comments:/ 
 Commentaires suppl6mentaires; 
 
 T 
 t< 
 
 L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire 
 qu'il lui a it6 possible de se procurer. Les details 
 de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du 
 point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier 
 une image reprodulte, ou qui peuvent exiger une 
 modification dans la methods normale de filmage 
 sont indiqu^s ci-dessous. 
 
 I I Coloured pages/ 
 
 I I Pages damaged/ 
 
 I I Pages restored and/or laminated/ 
 
 D 
 D 
 
 piqudes 
 
 Pages de couleur 
 
 Pages damaged/ 
 Pages endommagdes 
 
 Pages restored and/oi 
 
 Pages restaur^es et/ou pelliculdes 
 
 Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ 
 Pages ddcolordes, tachetdes ou piqud 
 
 Pages detached/ 
 Pages ddtachdes 
 
 Showthrough/ 
 Transparence 
 
 Quality of prir 
 
 Quality indgale de I'impression 
 
 Includes supplementary materi£ 
 Comprend du materiel supplementaire 
 
 T 
 
 P 
 o 
 fi 
 
 
 b 
 tl 
 
 s 
 o 
 fi 
 
 s 
 o 
 
 I I Pages detached/ 
 
 I ~1 Showthrough/ 
 
 I I Quality of print varies/ 
 
 I I Includes supplementary material/ 
 
 T 
 
 s 
 T 
 
 Vk 
 
 N 
 di 
 ei 
 b< 
 ri{ 
 re 
 m 
 
 Only edition available/ 
 Seule Edition disponible 
 
 Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata 
 slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to 
 ensure the best possible image/ 
 Les pages totalement c ' partiellement 
 obscurcies par un feuiilet d'errata, une pelure, 
 etc., ont dt^ filmdes A nouveau de faqon d 
 obtenir la meilleure image possible. 
 
 This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ 
 
 Ce document est fllm6 au taux de reduction indiqud ci-dessous 
 
 10X 14X 18X 22X 
 
 
 
 
 26X 
 
 
 
 
 30X 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 J 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 12X 
 
 
 
 
 16X 
 
 
 
 
 20X 
 
 
 
 
 24X 
 
 
 
 
 28X 
 
 
 
 
 32X 
 
The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks 
 to the generosity of: 
 
 ^latrona! Library of Canada 
 
 L'exemplaire film6 fut reproduit grAce d la 
 g6n6ro8it6 de: 
 
 Bibiioi^hdque nationaie du Canada 
 
 The images appearing here are the best quality 
 possible considering the condition and legibility 
 of the original copy and in keeping with the 
 filming contract specifications. 
 
 Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed 
 beginning with the front cover and ending on 
 the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- 
 sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All 
 other original copies are filmed beginning on the 
 first page with a printed or illustrated impres- 
 sion, and ending on the last page with a printed 
 or illustrated impression. 
 
 The last recorded frame on each microfiche 
 shall contain the symbol ^^- (meaning "CON- 
 TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), 
 whichever applies. 
 
 Les images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec le 
 plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et 
 de la nettetd de l'exemplaire 1i\m6, et en 
 conformity avec les conditions du contrat de 
 filmage. 
 
 Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en 
 papier est imprimie sont film6s en commenpant 
 par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la 
 dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte 
 d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second 
 plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires 
 originaux sont film4s en commenpant par la 
 premidre page qui comporte une empreinte 
 d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par 
 la dernidre page qui comporte une telle 
 empreinte. 
 
 Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la 
 dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le 
 cas: le symbole ^♦^ signifie "A ^^UIVRE". le 
 symbols V signifie "FIN". 
 
 Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at 
 different reduction ratios. Those too large to be 
 entirely included in one exposure are filmed 
 beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to 
 right and top to bottom, as many frames as 
 required. The following diagrams illustrate the 
 method: 
 
 Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre 
 filmds d des taux de reduction diffdrents. 
 Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre 
 reproduit en un seul clichd, il est filmd d partir 
 de Tangle sup6rieur gauche, de gauche d droite, 
 et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre 
 d'images ndcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants 
 illustrent la mdthode. 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 

 Hav 
 
 lengl 
 men 
 allov 
 
 MON 
 
/ 
 
 f- 
 
 / 
 
 V 
 
 \J 
 
 
 Young Men's Association of St. Pawn's CnuROH, Montreal, 
 
 Having found that Mr. Ramsay's paper, read before our Association, was reported at 
 length in the Legal News, it has seemed advisable to secure its circulation among our 
 members and thair friends, and the Editor and Publishers of that journal have kindly 
 allowed thoir report to be printed off in pamphlet form for that purpose. 
 
 W. Geo. Beers, Prandcnt. 
 
 Alex. McFeb, /Stwctary. 
 Montreal, 26<ft Jtfarcft, 1885. 
 
 f 
 
.'■<<i> •:' 
 
 I 
 
 *(■ ,>iv 
 
TREATIES 
 
 AFFROTINO 
 
 THE BOUNDARIES AND THE FISHEKIES OF CANADA. 
 
 (From The Lenal Newt, Montreal.) 
 
 At II recent meetinjr of tlie Young Men's 
 Association of St. Paul's Church, a i)ai)or witli 
 this title was read by Mr. R. A. Ramsay, 
 advocate. While it was prepare<l for delivery 
 to a popular audience and for illustration by 
 mai)s as it proceeds, we have thought that 
 the information contained will be of interest 
 to our readers, and we give it in tha form in 
 which it was delivered. The pai)er, we think, 
 will be the more acceptable, es])ecially to our 
 Junior Bar, as no narrative of the events 
 alluded to is available in a short comprehen- 
 sive form. 
 
 After some introductory remarks, the paper 
 proceeds as follows : — 
 
 As a preliminary I will ask you to glance 
 at the list of treaties ;hich affect Canada, 
 first, that with France when Canada was 
 ceded, then those with the United States, 
 and then from out of the many sulyecta with 
 which those treaties deal, we will consider 
 certain of them to which we must limit our 
 attention for to-night Here then is our list. 
 In it I have placed as Nos. 2 and 3 docu- 
 ments which, while not really treaties, l.dve 
 much to do with one of the subjects for our 
 consideration. 
 
 1. Treaty of Versailles 10 Foby. I7a3 
 
 2. King's Proclamation 7 Oct . ITfU 
 
 3. Quebec Act 22 Juno 1774 
 
 4. Treaty of Paris 3 Sept. 1783 
 
 -5. Jay's Treaty 19 Nov- 1794 
 
 6. Treaty of Ghent ...24 Dec 1814 
 
 , Convention, London 20 Oct- 1818 
 
 8. Ashburton Treaty 9 Augt. 1842 
 
 9. Oregon Treaty 16 June 1846 
 
 10. Reciprocity Treaty 5 June 1854 'i^Y 
 
 J ^ 11. Treaty of Washington 8 May 1871 
 
 In these treaties, as may be imagined, a 
 great variety of matters have been discussed 
 
 and settled, or thought to be settled, — lliore 
 have been jHiace, slave trade, boundaries, I 
 reciprocity, extradition for crime, the fish- [ 
 cries, claims on each side and of all sorts, ; 
 the best known, the most recent, being tlio , 
 celebrated Alabama claims, which were paid : 
 for by England on such a liberal scale, and 
 the Canadian Fenian claim, which was tossed 
 aside so lightly at Wa.shington in 1S71. The 
 field is very wide, and for your patience I pro- 
 jxjse that the limits to which we restiict our- 
 selves be these two branches, — (luestions of 
 boundary and those of the fisheries. 
 
 As to the first set of questions, the bound- 
 aries, they are finally settled, — all that could 
 on any pretence have been givei wiway by 
 England on Canada' s behal f, to satisfy our 
 grasping neighbours, has been given. There 
 are no ojien questions, no riddles for solution 
 in doubtful description, the boundary is ' 
 marked from Atlantic to Pacific, wherever it 
 is a land boundary, by iron pasts at short 
 intervals. 
 
 As to the fishery questions on the other 
 hand, they are unfortunately not finally set- 
 tletl, there are several difficult ones which 
 are only sleeping now, they all awake under 
 the termination of the Treaty of Washington, 
 which occurs on 1st July next, by notice from 
 the United States. 
 
 The boundary (|uestions were very lively / 
 ((uestions in their day. They are dead now. 
 Those of the fisheries are alive and. as sta- 
 ted, only sleeping. Let this decide our order 
 and let us consider firstly tiie dead issues of 
 the boundaries, and secondly those of the 
 

 f 
 
 fisheries of which we will all hear much 
 very h<mui, when they (^ome up for new and 
 praciticiil consideration. 
 
 I 1. — Tlie Boundarief, 
 
 By tlio first treaty on the list, made with 
 Kruncc after the conquest of Canada by 
 F.nj^land — to which of course at that time all 
 Lho present United States, then the American 
 C( lonies, bolonjjed — France cedeilall Canudn, 
 lis then known, to England. Nova St^otia, 
 which then included New Hrunswick, was 
 already possessed by ICnj^lund, as was New- 
 foundland. Cnnada was considered to moan 
 all the country occupied by France, and in 
 addition to what is now Quebec and Ontario, 
 included all the countries south of Lake Erie 
 down to the Ohio and followinj? that river to 
 the Mississippi, then up that river to its 
 source. All the land west of the Mississippi 
 waTfhen called Louisiana, and was not ceded 
 to England, but by a secret treaty was given 
 by France to Spain. 
 
 Several months after the peace the procla- 
 mation of 7 Oct. 1764 was issued by the King 
 of England. By it, out of the ceded country, 
 the Province of Quebec was carved. Its 
 boundaries were, roughly stated these, — from 
 itho head of the Bale des Chaleurs along the 
 ihaight of laiid between the Atlantic and St 
 'Lawrence, to the Richelieu and then along 
 ;the lino of 45" to the St. Lawrence, thence by 
 a direct line to Lake Nipissing, from it to 
 ;Lake St. John at the head of the Saguenay, 
 jthon to the Stulohn River, which falls into 
 the St. Lawrence on its north shore opposite 
 the west end of AnticosU^and then a line 
 i across tlie St. Lawrence round the Gasp6 
 ; coast and up the Baie des Chaleurs- 
 \ These limits, it will be noticed, left all the 
 • countries up the St. Lawrence and the Lakes, 
 as well as those of the Ohio and Mississippi, 
 ; without provision, and apparently treated 
 ; them as wild fur-bearing territory only with- 
 I out need of control. 
 
 I Then came the Quebec Act of 1774. This 
 ^ went to the other extreme, and gave the Pro- 
 I vince of Quebec a territory more extensive 
 I than could be fairly governed, for, in addition 
 I to the province just described, it included all 
 I Ontario, the Lakes, the Ohio country and 
 : western lands. Its western limit was de- 
 
 fined in a way which has caused much dis- 
 pute. It was, after the junction of the Ohio 
 and Mississijipi, " thence northward to the 
 limits of the Hudson Bay." Northtmrd was 
 the riddle. The dispute was whether north- 
 imrd meant diw north from tlie junction, or 
 vrn'thmird-lih' up the Mississippi in its course 
 to its source and thence north. In those 
 days the source was thought to be much fur- 
 ther north than in reality. From this word 
 northward many disputes have grown ; the 
 most recent has been the boundary disputes 
 between Ontario and Manitoba, recently selr 
 tied, or supjx)8od to be. 
 
 In 1818 tiioro was a trial at (Juebec of one 
 DeReinhard for a murder committed near 
 Lake of the Woods, and it was then decided 
 for the due-north line, which we have gene- 
 rally seen appearing so curiously on our inai* 
 running north, apparently without reason, 
 on the north shore of Lake Superior between 
 the Nepigon River and Fort William. The 
 recent judgment of the Privy Council ap- 
 pears to decide the other way, and yet some 
 think it a decision of Delphi. 
 
 It may be stated that in 1772-3-4, prior to 
 the revolution, by an arrangement between 
 Canada and New York, both then British -^ 
 colonies, the boundary from St. Lawrence to 
 the Connecticut was laid out by two sur- 
 veyors named Valentine and Collins. Their |^ 
 line was to be the parallel of 45°, but they had 
 apparently imperfect instruments or ability, 
 for they ran the line sometimes north and 
 sometimes south of the true parallel. If the 
 map of this province be looked at, this will 
 be noticed. It was not for many years that 
 the error was discovered, but, being ascer- 
 tained, the defective line has been very pro- 
 perly adhered to, because private rights had 
 been acquired along that line. In Lord 
 Ashburton's Treaty it is referred to not as 
 the line 45°, but the line laid out to represent 
 45°. By this error and acceptance of it, bow- 
 ever, the United States have their important"" 
 p ost Fort Montgomery on the Ric bgl ieu, 
 near Rouse's Point, some ■. hat north of 45° on 
 what shoulJ have been British ground. /, » 
 In 1783, the treaty of peace, after the Amer- 
 ican Revolution, was executed at Paris. It 
 was negotiated on the side of the United 
 States by the astute Franklin, Adams and 
 
 C 
 
 (' 
 
 t 
 
 X 
 
 V ■ 
 
 1 
 
 ^ 
 
 Y- 
 
 I 
 
 ►. 
 
 J 
 
 V 
 
 < 
 
 fi 
 
 t-i 
 
f 
 
 I- 
 
 h diH- 
 Ohio 
 
 the 
 (1 was 
 north- 
 ion, or 
 3onrse 
 
 thoso 
 !h fnr- 
 
 1 word 
 i; tho 
 lisputci 
 ly sei^ 
 
 of one 
 I near 
 ecided 
 I gene- 
 r maps 
 -eason, 
 3tween 
 . The 
 cil ap- 
 t some 
 
 prior to 
 
 jtween 
 
 British' 
 
 nee to 
 
 snr- 
 
 C 
 
 V 
 
 V 
 
 I 
 
 ^ 
 
 o 
 
 Their ^ «X 
 [>y had ^ 
 ibility, 
 
 ts 
 
 h and 
 If the 
 is will 
 that 
 ascer- 
 y pro- 
 had 
 
 Lord 
 not as 
 )resent 
 
 ,how- 
 
 ortant" 
 
 lelieu, 
 
 45° on 
 
 I. /. : 
 
 Amer- 
 is. It 
 Jnited 
 s and 
 
 2i 
 
 I 
 
 'huU. %^ .VjwWiV'i <^ '^ ^ 
 
 
 Jay, and on the side of England hy a Mr. 
 Oswald, apparently a man of no merit in 
 English p<ilitic8. ^ Tiiis treaty was the first 
 and great surrender of valuable territory 
 made from inability to appreciate it, and 
 from want of a projier view into the future of 
 America, and, as to boundaries, it gave rise to 
 many troubles. After recoj^nizing the inde- 
 pendence of the I'nited States, it proceeded 
 to give the limits of their territories, and 
 gave them boundaries far beyond what they 
 pretended to occupy — far beyond what any 
 colonistof the ordinary ty{X3 had ever dreamed 
 of. But Franklin was no ordinary man ; he 
 saw in tliose wes^ra lands the future states 
 which have since appeared. 
 
 The boundary began at the St. Croix, so- 
 called, no river of that name being really 
 then known on the New Brunswick coast — 
 all had "tidian names — and when the time 
 came for Settlement of the point, there were 
 three or four rivers which disputed the dis- 
 tinction. Then the line was to follow that 
 river to its source, and then due north, it 
 read, to the lugliTands which separate the 
 rivers flowing into the St. Lawrence from 
 those flowing into the Atlantic (this descrii> 
 tion we will return to, for from it the long 
 continued Maine boundary dispute arose) ; 
 then along those highlands to the Connecti- 
 cut, then along the line 45° to the St. Law- 
 rence, then by the river and lakes to Lake 
 Sui^erior, and tlien (aiiother disputed part) 
 by aTake which the treaty called Long Lake., 
 but which no one in the country had^ever 
 heard of, to the Lake of the Woods and its 
 N.W. angle, and then (another error) duo 
 west until the line should strike the Missis- 
 sippi, and then down the Mississii)pi to the 
 soa. West of the Mississipiw was Louisiana, 
 then, and until 1800, Spanish territory. This 
 last line to the Mississippi was soon found 
 to be an impossible one, for no line west 
 from the Lake of the Woods could strike 
 the Mississippi, which was much to the south. 
 
 Now consider this treaty, and what by it 
 England threw away. The old limit of Can- 
 ada was down to the Ohio- There was little 
 settlement on that river at this time, but the 
 colonists of Virginia claimed it as theirs. It 
 might have been right to cede the Ohio coun- 
 try, but why the west? And why carry the 
 
 line up to the north at the Lake of the' 
 Woods? All that western country was occu-' 
 pied by the posts of th(» ('anadian fur traders.' 
 and royal military forts were at Sandusky, 
 Detroit, Michilimakiiiac and other points.' 
 These had never Ixion captured, or attempted' 
 by tlie revolutionary forces. Th(! boumlary,' 
 if given at the latitude of the head of Lak^ 
 Erie, would have l)eon extremely lilieral.p 
 Where it was placied was without reason, un-! 
 just to the Canadian traders, ami entirely* 
 duo to apathy and ignorance on the Britishr 
 side. While we find long discussions onf 
 other parts of the treaty, some trivial, t\m 
 books do not give a trace of eflbrt to retain! 
 these lands, which now form so many fertile 
 states. The boundary aroused mucli indig-j 
 nation in Canada, and partly on this account^ 
 the western posts were not given up to the 5 
 United States for several years. I 
 
 Next, in 1794, came Jay's treaty of amity" 
 and com.merce. By it the boundary in the|; 
 north-west was to a certain extent settled.|i 
 By this time the fact that the Mississii)pii_ 
 could never be reached by a line west from) 
 the Lake of the Woods had been ascertained,! 
 and it was settled that the line of 49°, which; 
 was known to be about the latitude of Lake< 
 of the Woods, should, whether nortli or south t 
 of its N. W. angle, be the boundary ; and 
 Great Britain gave up all the posts whicii 
 her Canadian authorities had held (of course 
 without right, but as a sort of protest) since 
 the peace of I'aris. 
 
 Jay's treaty also provided for the unfortu- 
 nate St. Croix River competition. Commis- 
 sioners were appointed to deci<le wliich of 
 the claimants was the one meant, and to i)lace 
 a monument at its source. In 179S they did 
 this in a i)eculiar way. 'Jfliey decided wliicli 
 was the St. Croix, but where it braucihed at 
 some distance, Ijet^ause the brancli wliich 
 they admitted was the main stream pro- 
 vokingly (for American interests) turned 
 wrttt, they (or the majority) decided tliat the 
 minor stream should be the boundary, be- 
 cau se its dir ection was more northorl^V- The 
 CoinmissioneraTiad^TiSro overstepi^ed their 
 duty, but Great Britain co mplacentl y decided 
 to accept the illegal_decision, and yielded a 
 line which proved later of s yious eff ect on 
 tlve Maine question. It was a lever placed in 
 
 
Qj^^ 
 
 f 
 
 the liandH of tho Unitud Stutoo «lii)loiuutiBtH, 
 ^which they UHod on ovory occasion. 
 * TheJi cttino tho war of 1M12-14, with its 
 
 varying hikhh^hh, in tho id»b and How of war. 
 
 In Homo ways Engliind was (inHuccessfid, but 
 
 in tlio ond slio hold Niagara, Detroit, Maclii- 
 
 naw again, ami all tho Wostorn Country. 
 Kho had (tarriod on tho war us it woro with 
 
 ,hor loft hand, for hor right was at tho time 
 
 ^engaged in tho IVninsula. Now that war 
 wjis victoriously ended. NajHileon was at 
 P^lba, and naturally the Americans were 
 
 -anxious for i)oa<!0, and accordingly they got 
 it hy the treaty of Ghent of 1814. But by 
 this treaty England, ready for victory, again 
 
 t treating American territory, however exten- 
 sive, as valueless, agreed to restore all the 
 captured i)08ts, and to revert to tho old boun- 
 daries of 1783. lOngland knew of many of 
 the disputed lines. She might have avoided 
 all the troublas of the Maine boundary had 
 
 1 
 
 she retained hor contpiosts, for she had taken 
 C'astino and other posts in Maine down to 
 
 1. 
 
 the Penobscot, and should have then settled 
 in a practical manner the Maine boundary 
 
 at thutriveT; but no, back she went to the 
 
 old unsettled and disjjuted and unfair lines. 
 Tho boundaries were to be as before the war. 
 
 The great North-Wost, again retaken, was 
 ■ again to bosurrondored as a thing of nothing. 
 K In an olibrt to settle the Maine dispute on 
 the old flosiTiption, (iommissionors were ap- 
 IKjinted to proceed to the country and en- 
 ' deavor to find and lay out a boundary. What 
 .happened might have been foreseen: they 
 .could not agree. The American commis- 
 sioner cluimod a line which went close up to 
 ' ; the St. Lawrence. Tiie British commissioner 
 
 ji 
 
 claimed one from the source of the St. ('roix 
 luToss to tho head-waters of the Chaudiere 
 kind Kennebec as being tho highlands men- 
 ; tioned in tho old treaty of 1783. No decision 
 j coukl be arrived at, and the question was then 
 referred, in terms of Jay's troatyn,o the King 
 of Holland as arbitrator, to find, if he could, 
 the true lino meant by tho wording of the 
 treaty. He sjwnt much time over maps and 
 old documents, anu decided that the descrip- 
 tion of the treaty was not reconcilable with 
 the state of the countrylTKatTaS he said, it 
 was " inexplicable and impracticable," and he 
 recommended^ the parties toadopt some com- 
 
 J' 
 
 promise Ixtundary to settle the (piostion. 
 Englan<.l agreed to actcept a line drawn by 
 him ; the Uiutod States refused. 
 
 Horo, to illustrate the force of tho argu- 
 ments on each side, resort must 1)0 had to the 
 maps, which show the rivers, and tho wator- 
 shods or heights which divide the lands 
 which drain into tho Atlantic, the Bay of 
 Fundy, tho Gulf of St. Lawrence, tho Baio 
 des C'halours and the St Lawrence River 
 respectively. 
 
 The difficulty was worse than be ore. By \' 
 
 this time the troubles at tho dispnUul frontier 
 had become very serious. The Now Bruns- 
 wickors and Maine i)6oi)le came in compe- 
 tition and collision in the up[)or valleys of tho 
 St. John anil Aroostook. Both governments 
 issued timber licenses in the disputed terri- 
 tory. The danger became more pressing 
 each season. 
 
 Attempts at settlement by negotiation 
 were resumed and then occurred to England 
 one of those instances of a neglected opportu- 
 nity, which, once lost, never returns. ^ 
 
 In 1833, when Lord Palmerston was For- 
 eign Secretary, a proposition was submitted 
 on tho part of the United States by General 
 Jackson, then President. It admitted, as tho 
 King of Holland had decided, that a due 
 north line from the St. Croix was not recon. /u ,'/ 
 cilable with the other words of the descrip- 
 tion and proposed that tho line should be 
 drawn from St Croix to the highlands at the 
 sources of the Kennebec and Chaudiere, re- . 
 gardlessof the point of the compass. It did K 
 not use these words, but this would have been /^ 
 the effect The actual terms of the proposal 
 are too lengthy for repetition here. The result 
 of survey by the American proposal would 
 certainly have given the line as now stated. '\ 
 Tho proposition was later denounceJby^ the 
 hotter Am(?ricans as too liberal, but that only 
 proved that it should have been accepted at 
 once. On the contrary. Lord Palmerston / 
 pigeon-holed the dispatch for many months A 
 and then rejected it, bec ause it did not pro- .^, 
 fess to be made with the consent of Maine. ' 
 This was not his affair, for had England and 
 the United States come to terms, England 
 could have allowed them to settle the ques- 
 tion with the energetic Maine people. The 
 proposition was naturally never renewedj'^jji 
 
 r^ die 
 
 ,/ 
 
 }^ 
 
 [l±^ 
 
 [fUff 
 
 
\\^\ ,i ''X^\^ 
 
 
 
 T 
 
 ill 
 
 Btion. 
 m by 
 
 iirgu- 
 tothe 
 tvator- 
 lundK 
 lay of 
 ) Bsie 
 Uiver 
 
 i. By 
 •ontier 
 Bruns- 
 
 } of the 
 iments 
 I terri- 
 ressing 
 
 ititition 
 iigland 
 pportu- 
 
 ivs For- 
 ^mitted 
 leneral 
 
 as the 
 due 
 
 rec'on. f^ 
 
 oscnp- 
 
 juld be 
 at the 
 
 ere, re- . 
 
 It did n 
 
 e been 
 oposal 
 result 
 would 
 stated. 
 "5y'the 
 kt only 
 ted at 
 erston / 
 nonthsA 
 it pro- .^ 
 aine. ' 
 d and 
 gland 
 ques- 
 The 
 
 \ 
 
 / 
 
 U 
 
 \ 
 
 On the dlspntwl frontier there was some- 
 tiling very near to war. This waH liappily 
 averted by an American nlFu^er, who in later 
 years was miu^h sneere<l as "Old Fuss and 
 Feathers," hut who was a gcxxl soldier in his 
 day — General Winlil^ld !S<;ott. He arranged 
 with the British authorities for joint occupa- 
 tion and a funding of the revenues of the 
 disputed territory until some settlement 
 should be made. 
 
 At last in 1842 Enjjlanddeterminocl appar- 
 ently that the matternufst bo settled at 
 whatever cost, and Lord Ashburton was sent 
 out wifli the fullest powers to conclude a 
 treaty upon this and many other matters. 
 We will, however, limit ourselves to the 
 matters of boundary. 
 
 He was selected partly because of his con- 
 nection in business with America, — he was 
 of the banking house of Barings, — he had 
 married in America, and knew uiany leading 
 peojjle in the States. He was an honourable 
 man, but further was unfitted for his mission. 
 He had had no diplomatic training or ex- 
 jierience. He was a good natured but weak 
 man. He whom ho had to meet was the 
 astute Daniel Webster, of vigorous and over- 
 bearing mind, — a man of great experience in 
 legal ways and diplomatic matters. 
 
 Lord Ashburton was fitted for some weeks 
 before he oi)enod his negotiations and reached 
 a state which feems to have made him ready 
 to yield every \K>mi to his hospitable en- 
 tertainers, which his friend Mr- Webster 
 should press; for when the result of the 
 Ashburton Treaty was published it was 
 found that Lord Ashburton had on every 
 point yielded to the overpowering will 
 of his adversary, and that the treaty well 
 merited the term "Ashburton Capitulation 'jA' 
 which Lord Palmers t on app lied to it. From 
 him, however, the expression came "with bad 
 grace when it was remembered how he had 
 passed a golden chance a few years before. 
 
 By the treaty Lord Ashburton had settled 
 the Maine (piestion. But how ? By an aban- 
 donment of the greater and best part of the 
 disputed territory. It was called a compro- 
 mise, but, Mr. Dent has said, it bore a striking: 
 resemblance to the immortal Irishman's 
 reciprocity, which was all on one side. 
 True the United States took 5000 square 
 
 miles less than then (tlaimod by Maine, ])U' 
 the relinquishe«l part was for most partHterili 
 waste. Lord Ashburton gave up a territor) 
 of much greater area, in great part fertile an( 
 well timbered. It included the valley oftht 
 Aroost<K)k and half <jf that of the Hi. Join 
 which had alrea<ly l)ecome and has since 
 proved itself a district unsurpassed as a lum 
 ber country ; and with further obligingnes 
 he granted the free navigatjon_of_the StJt)hi 
 t o the sfl a to the lumbermen of Maine wit! 
 their timl)er which should have remainei 
 British. And yet what writes Ix)r(PAsh- 
 burEoii in one of his letters to Mr. Croke; 
 recently published :— " I darecay your littk 
 farm is worth the whole pine-swamp I havt 
 been discussing." 
 
 The boundary now gives a line which 
 makes Maine look like a mouthful bitten out* 
 of Canada's cake by a greedy l)oy. Look at 
 it on the map. Seetheetlbct, all plana for the 
 Intercolonial K. li. then in i)rogro3s across 
 what now became Maine hail to be abandon- 
 ed, the enteri)ri8e delayed for years, and the 
 length of the road when built nearly doubled.! 
 The insertion of Maine, wedge-like between^ 
 the provinces, is again coming prominently 
 into notice in connection with the recent pro-| 
 posals for the "Short Line" railway from; 
 Montreal to Halifax and St John. 
 
 The signatures to his treaty were barely | 
 dry, — Ijord Ashburton's fetes in the U. K. overj 
 — and he safely away — when a curious matter] 
 came to light, which to most minds, not 
 American, has tinged that treaty with dis- 
 grace for the American negotiator who ob- 
 tained it, and for the American iKJOple who, 
 when the facts were known, adhered to it 
 
 It turned out that while Daniel Webster 
 was professing his own belief and that of 
 the U. S., for a line far north, and taking 
 credit for yielding for tlie sake of i)eace, some- 
 what in his demands — he knew that the U. 
 S. were not entitled to the line for which he 
 pledged their honour and his own — and he 
 knew that he surrendered nothing (or peflCP, 
 but gained, from a facile negotiator, that to 
 which the United States were not entitled. 
 The story of the red line map may be known 
 to many here, but^^I may recall the leading ! 
 facts. j 
 
 Several months before the negotiation i 
 
(f tlio tronty coinnioncod, Mr. 8i)ark.-, tho 
 
 vio^^raplior of WuMiiiitKtoii, wliilo uiij^u^imI in 
 
 |(Uir 'liin^' tlio I'Vciuili nrchivoH at I'liris for 
 
 luitoriiils for hiajvork, madu au iin|M>rlant 
 
 liscovcry. Ho found a lottor fi uin lU^iij. 
 
 ''niiiUlin to tli(» ("onitti do Voi^'Iuuih, writloii 
 
 Ivitliiii a HiW dayH a 0oj tjic Higiu'turo of tlio 
 
 Ijiijiiniil ti^nty of 1783 tit I'uriH lH»tW(fOn 
 
 tiOn^ltunrand lior rovolt(Hl colonioH. In tliiu 
 
 U will 1)0 ronu'nib(^rod, Vranklin was a (;liii'f 
 
 iict'jr. No nian know Ijotlor than ho tho 
 
 V)ro(;iH(» intontioiiH of tho partioH. It had 
 
 <)oon for tliin roason that, as a|i|H>arH, tho 
 
 (Dointo dc! Vor^iciiiU'H, thcui rrinio Minis- 
 
 lA!r of l'"ran(;o, had writt^^ui to 1'>anklin, on- 
 
 rlo^ig a tua]) of Auiuric^a, and ankud him to 
 
 i uark ujion it tlu! uoiindnry lino as juHt sottlod 
 
 <()r tho IT. S. The KHtor found by Mr. Si)ark8 
 
 l.vaH Franklin's roply, roturninj; tho map, 
 
 svith tho romark that ho had marked with a 
 
 ' Ui'iiiu/ T'd linr tho lindtM of tho U. S. as 
 
 1<otn(f(l.* INIr. Sparks at onco Haw how ini- 
 
 IjMjrtant this nuip would bo on tho Maino 
 
 Boundary Question, if it could bo found. It 
 
 ivvas not with th(» letter. He instituted 
 
 (Search further hoi)inj? to obtain proof con- 
 
 1;'Iusive of tho American claim. He found 
 
 Ithe map at last, but instead of supjxjrting tho 
 
 lAmeri(;an claim, a.s Sparks had hoixjd, to his 
 
 piorror, it had on it, marked with a atrong 
 
 I'Xed line a boundary which exactly agreed 
 
 Iwitb the British claim. Sparks hastened, 
 
 iihowover, to communicate his uni)lea8ant dis- 
 
 ,'covery to the authorities at Washington, 
 
 [[remarking: "In short, it is exactly the line 
 
 j^' now contended for by Great Britain, except 
 
 1^' that it concedes more than is claimed by 
 
 " her. It is evident that the line from the 
 
 " St. Croix to the Canadian highlands is in- 
 
 " tended to exclude all the waters running 
 
 " into the St. John." (U/wwoac /^<MJJt ^. 
 
 This letter and a copy of the map were 
 communicated to Mr. Webster, who entered 
 upon his negotiations with Lord Ash burton 
 with a full knowledge of Mr. Spark's discov- 
 ery, while it was kept a profound secret, until 
 
 * Passy, December G, 1782. 
 Sir,— I have the honour of returning herewith the 
 iiiiip your Excellency sent me yestertlay. I hnve 
 miirked with a strong rec^^jfi, according to your Ex- 
 cellency's desire, the linnTsoT the United States, as 
 settled by tho |)reliminarie8 between the British and 
 American plenipotentiaries. With great respect, I 
 uu>, &c., B. Fbanklin. 
 
 aftor tho oxocution of tho treaty, an<l then for 
 very ahumo might have Ikmui kept a secret 
 for years, but that neccwsity l)ronght it out. 
 This was how it had to come into day light 
 from its hiding. After the g«Miial British en- 
 voy had yi(\Med nearly all that granping 
 Maino had demanded, the Siinato at Wash- 
 ington hesitated to give its coiillrmation to 
 the trimty, as tim c(j|j Htituti on nti iuireil. Tho 
 Stinato was urg(\d bylhe dissatished men of 
 Maine to reject it. The op|H)sition was very 
 strong, and while WobstersupiMirtod his treaty 
 with all his force, he found that the weight 
 of numlHjrs ran against him--" more nuiy 
 yet be gained fr<»m England," was tlie argu- 
 ment for rejection. Tho division approached 
 and Webster saw the Senate's veto of his 
 treaty at hand. No time was to be lost. The 
 Senate must bo " whipi)ed into lino," as was 
 said, and in secret session, the letter and the 
 map of Franklin wore produced, and Web- 
 ster's argument was this : "'. ■ • nwt ratify 
 ujy treaty, for wo have got by it more tlu n 
 we were entitled to. i :.jfu8o my treaty, and 
 with this map, which will soon be known to 
 England, you will never got a boundary so 
 favourable." The Senators looked at tho map 
 ui)on their table, resumed in silence thoir 
 seats, the opposition in great part evaporated, 
 and in haste the treaty was confirmed. 
 
 As to England, what could she do? She 
 had given to Lord Ashburton tho fullest pow- 
 ers, he had ueed them and signed for her. Re- 
 pudiation even under the circumstances of 
 his deception seemed dishonour and England 
 ratified. It was a wo efully b ad Jbargain, but 
 England never dreamed of discrediting her 
 accredited envoy. 
 
 Such in brief is the story of the red line 
 map and of the disgraceful success of Daniel 
 Webster When all that has been said in his 
 defence is read one fails to find that he came 
 from that negotiation with any honour left 
 The efforts made to relieve him by explana- 
 tions only serve to indicate the weight of 
 odmm which the transaction placed upon 
 him. 
 
 To some one the importance of that red 
 line map seemed so great as to justify its 
 disappearance in some extraordinary way 
 between the time at which Mr. Sparks saw, 
 copied and reported on it, and that at . hich 
 
 \ 
 
 
 ^ 
 

 for 
 crot 1 
 
 inht ^ 
 I nn- 
 
 ush- \ 
 
 )I1 to 
 
 Thw 
 m of 
 vtiry 
 Mity 
 M({ht 
 nuiy 
 iirnu- 
 wrhod 
 )f his ( 
 Tl»e r 
 
 s wiw ": 
 
 d the i 
 Web- 
 ratify 
 > thi n 
 ', tvnd 
 iwn to 
 iry so 
 e map 
 thoir 
 rated, 
 
 She 
 t pow- 
 
 Re- 
 ces of 
 igland 
 n, but 
 ig her 
 
 ;d line 
 
 )aniel 
 
 I in his 
 
 came 
 
 left 
 
 plana- 
 
 ?ht of 
 
 upon 
 
 lat red 
 
 |ify its 
 way 
 saw, 
 hich 
 
 now HOiirrh wa« made for it a]W tho treaty 
 by un ofllcial wwit by the Britinh (ntvorn- 
 ineiit. Whoii ho tufiio<l to i\u^ pro|H>r placo 
 anothor map hiul, jih wo road in Mr. Ookor'w 
 IvHtkN, Imhiu HuhHtitutod for it, and tliin 
 Hhowod no daii^nrouH rod lino, Hiich as Mr. 
 SpuritH ha<l copiivl with caro and Horrow, 
 l)nt, on t\w contrary, a Haf«> on(» to Hiipintrt 
 wh.'it had \nwu t]w .Vmori(;an chiirn. It waH 
 a myHtoriouH matU^r. Tho (juoHti(»n which at 
 onco occtirred wan this— Whoso intorcst was 
 it that Spark's map sliould (Usapixiar ? What 
 tlioniotivo? And yot was tho onttnprino a 
 judicious one, when Mr. Sparks' copy was on 
 record in Wasliin«ton ? Was not tlio mani- 
 pulator of tho inpJiH indiscreet in ids zoal? 
 
 Anotiior matter < i oundary was settled, of 
 less confleipionce at 'iiat time, for there were 
 no troubles there t'aen, and ye^ It wps again 
 one where ' ,d Ashburtoi yielded every 
 mile of c* untry in 'ipputo. By tho treaty 
 of Ghent in 1814 con. laiiisioners were to trace 
 tho boundary ad dijcribed in the treaty of 
 Paris of 1783 Irom Ljdi-T Superior to the Luke 
 of the Woods. Thoy met; th > " disagreed. 
 The British claimed that the line should 
 start from the extreme west end of Lake 
 Superior, at Fond du Lac. now Duluth,and so 
 up to the Lake of the Woods. The Americans 
 claimed the lina by the linages. From 1820, 
 when the commissioners were on the ground, 
 until Lord Ashburton came to Washington, 
 the matter was unsettled. He settled it. 
 He gave away the whole, and there is the 
 boundary on the map, following the through 
 portage route to the North West, and not far 
 from our Pacific Railway. Such was his 
 treaty. 
 
 Yet Lord Ashburton was, tb judge by his 
 letters in Croker'e books, ratlior pleased with 
 his own exploits and charmed with Webster. 
 He had no resentment towards the man wlio 
 had deceived him. He was too good-natured. 
 On the contrary, he sent him his portrait, and 
 was pleased to have Mr. Webster name one 
 of his children after him. 
 
 Before leaving the Ashburton treaty we 
 must note that the line of 49°, which, as we 
 have seen, was under Jay's treaty the bound- 
 ary from Lake of the Woods to the Mississ- 
 ippi was now continued as the boundary to 
 the Rocky Mountains. 
 
 The Ashburton tn>aty w«w Homowhat en- 
 couraging for further <lonian<lrt l)y tiio Tnitod 
 Statos, and without delay Ihoy came. From 
 Maine tho iliMpiito was trunHfcri-cd (4> Orog'.'i- 
 As ulroady Htattul tho line had h)'on dotlni^l 
 at tho lino of 49" to tlii^ Rocky Mountains. 
 Beyond it was not dolhuvl. Tho country wjis 
 in gnMt part wildornitHH. Thoro woro Hritish 
 sottlonuMitH at V'ancouvor iHland. All d<nvn 
 tho < 'ohirnhia and through Northern Orc^gon 
 woro jKists of tho HudHon's Hay Co. Hut not 
 long iMtforo this time, tho United Ktatos had 
 bought from Spain, Oalifornia, an<l then 
 claimed tho whole of the W(»st coiist of Amer- 
 ica as under this Spanish purchiiso n^ngardloss 
 of British (M;cupation. Eniboldonod by pre- 
 vious success they claimed it londly. Russijin 
 America came by Troatyof 1825 down thocoast ' 
 to 54°-40, and immediately tho demand of the 
 Calilomianh was msuhi in allitorMtivo form, j 
 "54. 40 orjiffht." The Ainoricaiis hail no occu- 
 pation in Northern Oregon, — while Knirland 
 had— hut that was of no consetpieoce. The 
 (Ty was "54. 40 ur fight." England projost- i Ut 
 divide and to take tho lino of t'l o C'ohnnbia ' 
 tothesea, but tho American answer was "No. 
 54. 40 >,r fight." 
 
 After much corresponden** Mr. '*a(;ken- 
 ham, the British embassador at Washington, 
 was authorised to treat, and he did so on the 
 plan (jf Lord Ashburton, — to give all avay. 
 He tlrst took tho pains to uacertain — for ho 
 was a sportsman — that while the Columbia 
 was full of 3almoi', those fish of tho west were 
 so absurd in Iheir habits as to decline to be 
 cauglit in the true si^rtsmaidike way — they 
 absolutely refused to rise to the gaudy lly. 
 Ergo, tl.ii salmon were worth little, the river 
 nothing, and the whole ridiculous country less, 
 and the sooner given away the better. The 
 Americans offered, as in Maine, to yield some- 
 thing. "We will take the line of 4.)" from tho 
 mountains to tho sea, and, to show our good 
 nature, we will not mind about the tip of 
 Vancouver Island, which that line would cut 
 ofi". You may have that." With profound 
 thanks Mr. Pack^nham accepted the conces- 
 sion and concluded the Oregon treaty of 1840. 
 
 After this treaty the boundary along the 
 line of 49°, from the Pacific to the summit of 
 the Rocky Mountains, was laid down by 
 boundaiy marks. 
 
10 
 
 if 
 . Now, one would have thought that all 
 
 ""^"■the boundaries were settled. But no, from 
 
 P J^^the Oregon treaty came the San Juan d's- 
 
 ni 
 
 lit 
 
 pute. The treaty declared that the boundary 
 after reaching the sea in 49° should go through 
 'the middle of the channel between main- 
 land and Vancouver Island out to sea. There 
 
 Ivi 
 
 .'Ms a group of islands in this arm of the sea, 
 1 Fuca's Straits, the main one San Juan. Be- 
 
 sides several minor channels it turned out 
 ■''^' there were two main channels, the Haro and 
 
 the Rosario. The Haro further out and thus 
 
 ( 
 
 giving the islands to the United States and 
 bringing the line near the British town of 
 '^' Victoria on Vancouver, — the Rosario nearer 
 . ^ mainland. The United States claimed the 
 Haro and the British the Rosario, as the true 
 **^' channel meant by the treaty. While corres- 
 \ pondence was going on, a fire-eating general 
 of the Ui-ited States, Harney by name, took 
 possession of the island of San Juan. British 
 war ships were sent out to attend to the mat- 
 ter which had at once a dark look. Again 
 General Scott, for a second time a iieace- 
 niaker, appeared and arranged pending the 
 settlement for a joint occupation of the island 
 by troops of each side. This continued 
 until tl'=o dispute was, with many others, 
 settled by the treaty of Washington of 1871, 
 and within our own time. It was referred to 
 the Emperor of Germany as arbitrator. He 
 deiiided for tlie Haro channel and for the 
 United States, and again the United States 
 got the better of England and has a boundary 
 within sight of Victoria. None can, however, 
 find fault with the decision of the Emperor. 
 England agreed to accoi)t his decision, and he 
 gave it, and at once England withdrew her 
 giirrisdu. Where the British envoys at 
 Washington erred— but then tiiey followed 
 the previous disputes— was in allow.' nj^ the 
 question to turn on this: whether the Haro 
 or Rosario was the true channel ; for then^ 
 was a third, intermediate, the Douglas, which 
 more than either had claim to be most fair 
 to both sides and to suit the reciuirements of 
 the Oregon treaty. 
 
 By the treaty of Washington it was provi- 
 ded that the boundary from the Lake of the 
 Woods to the Rocky Mountains should be 
 marked out by a joint commission, and this 
 was soon after done along the line of 49°, and 
 
 i^vi 
 
 « 
 
 He 
 )(j 
 
 :NVi 
 
 HO 
 i;-li 
 It] I 
 
 ilA: 
 •Ik 
 
 Vc'i 
 
 'W: 
 
 f 
 
 Ire 
 
 r 
 JjW 
 
 brought into prominent notice on the maps 
 the curious notch in British territory which 
 the possession of the United States to the 
 N.W. angle of the Lake of Woods, as defined 
 by former surveys, gives them. 
 
 Thus ends our hasty review of the bound- 
 ary questions under the various treaties. The 
 retrospect is not a i)leasant one. With regard 
 to each treaty the Canadian feeling has been 
 that on each England was too yielding ; the 
 value of the territory was not appreciated; 
 and her diplomatists were outmanoeuvred on 
 every occasion. But all is past and the situa- 
 tion must be accepted. The boundary from 
 Atlantic to Pacific is conclusively settled and 
 at least no source of trouble can now arise 
 on that ground. 
 
 Let us pass to what is still an oi)en ques- 
 don, and to the other branch of our subject 
 for to-night. 
 
 The Fisheries. 
 
 Before discussing the Canadian fisheries 
 in relation to the treaties, it will be proper to 
 take a glance at the nature of those fisheries 
 themselves. The main fishery of America is 
 of course the cod fishery of the banks of 
 Newfoundland. This, as well as all open 
 sea fishing, is free to all nations. It is not 
 our exclusive property, nor is the fishing 
 generally over the Gulf of St Lawrence, nor, 
 in fact, anywhere except within three miles 
 of shore, — which is, by the law of nations, 
 the territorial possession of each i)eople. 
 Within that distance no foreigner can come 
 to fish imless by treaty right or license from 
 the nation of the shore. This is universal 
 law. 
 
 Now for the deep sea fishing with any profit, 
 there are reciuired two things. TheJirM is the 
 ability to get fresh bait. The bait used consists 
 mainly of a small fish called caplin, of squid 
 and some others. It should bo fresh. Fishing 
 schooners from l? ranee or the United States 
 cannot bring bait with them which will be of 
 use. These bait fishes are in-shore fish, and 
 it may be said generally that they are only 
 found within the three-mile limit. Thus 
 fishing vessels coming to the banks must first 
 go in-shore to catch or buy a stock of fresh 
 bait, and this must be obtained not too far 
 from the bank fishing grounds. Without the 
 
11 
 
 ly profit, 
 rs< is tlie 
 consists 
 of squid 
 
 Fisliing 
 )d States 
 
 ill be of 
 [isli, and 
 
 re only 
 Thus 
 
 lUst first 
 
 of fresh 
 too far 
 
 ,hout the 
 
 right to got bait in-shoro, tho bank fishery, 
 which is, as stated, oi^en to all, is nearly 
 valueless. The second thing required for suc- 
 cessful bank fishing, is the liberty to cure the 
 fish on shore, and pack them for transport to 
 the vessel's homo. At sea, naturally, the 
 process of drying and curing cannot be carried 
 on. The fish are merely split and cleaned and 
 salted to preserve them. What is required is 
 that the vessel should go in-shore, land 
 her fish, which are spread upon frames to 
 dry. It has been found that the climate of 
 the coaats of Newfoundland and the Gulf is 
 more favorable than any other for the suc- 
 cessful open-air drying of fish. Thus, in 
 order to make her catch useful, a vessel 
 must have the privilege of going in-shore to 
 dry her fish on land, else she might almost 
 as well have remained at home. Again tho 
 bankers, as cod fishing vessels of the banks 
 are called, often require to run in-shore to 
 refit damages, get water, and buy stores, salt 
 and provisions. For these reasons the privi- 
 lege of coming within the three-mile limit 
 and of going ashore is invaluable to the 
 foreign cod fishers, and yet by our rights, wo 
 are entitled to exclude them and to preserve 
 these privileges for our own hardy fisher- 
 men. 
 
 In addition, it must be noted that tlu^ 
 waters of the tliree-mile limit teem with fish 
 which fretjuent, not the deej) waters, but 
 those shallower and warmer limits. Hero 
 are the halibut, and, oftene" than elsewhere, 
 the mackerel and liorring, and many others 
 in abundance. 
 
 Thi right to fish witliin the throe-mile limit 
 is thr 8 itself a valuable right belonging to the 
 people of tho shore. Now while all the world 
 has the right to fish upon tho banks andoix3n 
 sea, the use of tho three-mile limit is practi- 
 cally limited, outside our own i)eoplo, to the 
 tishermen of France and the United States, 
 because thess are the only nations with whom 
 wo have treati&s permitting tiie use of the 
 inshore fisheries and of the shore itself. A 
 large part of the fish catch goes to Spain 
 and Roman Catholic countries, and yet no 
 Spanish or other vessels come; for, while 
 they could use the open sea, they have not 
 the needed i)rivileges of the shore. 
 
 Although France and her rights are not 
 
 strictly within the limits of my subject, it 
 seems yet proper to say some words on 
 those rights, which were grant«.<d long ago, 
 and have an indirect connection with the 
 matter in hand. These rights resulted in 
 great troubles in Newfoundhuul. Besides 
 j)roducing constant quarrels between the 
 fishermen, they cause a large part of the 
 coast to be absolutely shut out from develoj)- 
 ment by British energy. This extout of 
 coast is that known as the " French Sliore." 
 The rights arose in the following way : — 
 The treaty of Utrecht was made in 1713. 
 France had been in jwssession of Newfound- 
 land, but some of her forts had been taken 
 by England during the recent war. By the 
 treaty France ceded the island to England, 
 but retained Canada. France pressed, in the 
 interests of her hardy fishermen, who had 
 frequented the banks for a century or more, 
 for a continuance of a share of the fishery 
 privileges of the island, and England con- 
 ceded them to this extent; the inshore 
 fishery in common with British fishermen 
 was granted on all the coast from Cape 
 Bonavista on the east, round the north of the 
 island to Cajie Riche on the west, and the 
 right to land and dry tish on that shore was 
 given euxhmreln to the French. Tho English, 
 to avoid quarrels, which were common, re- 
 stricting themselves to the other parts of the 
 coast- It must be remembered that at this 
 time, and until 17G3, Canada and Caiie 
 Breton still l)elouged to France. 
 
 Thus matters stood till 1783, when by the 
 treaty of peace made then (about tho same 
 time as the treaty with the U.S.) the French 
 rights wore modified, but merely in this, the 
 limits were made from Cai)e St. John, on the 
 eastward, round by the north to Cape Ray on 
 the woot. That is the " French Shore " of to- 
 day. England, however, undertook to re- 
 move such settlements as had been made on 
 that coast and to prevent any new ones, and 
 to leave the shore to the exclusive use of the 
 French fishermen for drying fish, their nets 
 and other such uses. This right has been re- 
 tained in all sub8e<iuent treaties, and the 
 French hold and exercise it to-day, much to 
 the detriment of a large part of the New- 
 foundland coast. No mining can be done 
 there : no fishing hamlets dot the coast. II 
 
hi 
 
 m 
 
 '•is 
 
 ■'F 
 
 g 
 
 ' b 
 
 <(, 
 
 ^v 
 
 ^' 
 
 s 
 
 •'1 
 
 1^ , 
 
 r 
 
 ^ 
 
 ■ii 
 
 12 
 
 a vessel goes ashore there when the fisher- 
 men have returned to France, she goes upon 
 an uninhabited land- 
 
 Such are the French rights. Now let us 
 consider those of the Americans. 
 
 Before the war of independence all British 
 colonists enjoyed equal privileges i; fishing, 
 but at the close of that war, it became 'jues- 
 tion how far such privileges should be restored 
 to those who had separated from the British 
 Crown. The matter was very fully discussed 
 in the negotiations which preceded the treaty 
 of Paris of 1783, and though Great Britain 
 did not deny the right of Americans to fish on 
 the banks, or in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, or 
 elsewhere in the open sea, she denied their 
 right to fish in British waters, i. e., the three 
 miles from shore, or to land on British terri- 
 tory, for the purpose of drying or curing the 
 fish. A compromise was at length arrived 
 at, and it was agreed that United States' 
 fishermen should be at liberty to fish on 
 the coast of Newfoundland, but not to dry 
 or cure their fish on that island ; and they 
 were also to be allowed to fish on the coasts 
 of the other British possessions, and to dry 
 and euro their fish iji any of the unsettled 
 bays of Nova Scotia, the Ma4?dalen Islands, 
 and Labrador, so long as they should remain 
 unsettled ; bvi so soon as any of them should 
 become .settled, the Americans were not to use 
 them without agreement with the inhabi- 
 tants- 
 It will, however, be observed that the 
 rights conceded to the American fishermen, 
 under this treaty were by no means so great 
 as those which, as British subjects, they luid 
 enjoyed previous to the war of indejxjndence, 
 for they were not to be allowed to land to dry 
 and cure their fish on any part of Newfound- 
 land, and only in those parts of Nova Scotia, 
 the Magdalen Islands, and Labrador, where 
 no British settlements were found. 
 
 So matters stood until the war of 1812, 
 when, naturally, the right of Americans to 
 fish in British waters, and to dry and cure 
 their fish on British territory, terminated. In 
 the negotiations'which preceded the i^eace of 
 1814, at Ghent, this question was revived, and 
 an alleged right of Americans to fish and cure 
 fish within British jurisdiction was fully dis- 
 cussed. At that time, however, the circum- 
 
 stances had very considerably changed since 
 the treaty of 1783. The British possessions 
 had become more thickly populated, and there 
 were fewer unsettled bays in Nova Scotia 
 than formerly. There was, consequently, 
 greater risk of collision between British and 
 American interests; and the colonists and 
 English merchants engaged in the fisheries 
 petitioned strongly against a renewal of the 
 privileges granted by the treaty of 1783, to 
 the American fishermen. 
 
 At Ghent, the British Government stated 
 that " they did not intend to grant the United 
 States, gratuitoirnhj, the privileges formerly 
 conceded to them by treaty of fishing within 
 the limits of British territory, or of using the 
 shores of the British territories for purposes 
 connected with the fisheries." They contend- 
 ed that the claim advanced by the United 
 States of immemorial and prescriptive right, 
 was quite untenable, inasmuch as the 
 Americans had, until the revolution, been 
 British subjects, and that the rights which 
 they possessed formerly, as such, could not 
 be continued to them after they had become 
 citizens of an indeijendent state. Accordingly 
 it was agreed to omit all mention of this 
 question from the treaty. 
 
 Orders was now sent out that, while not in- 
 terfering with American fishermen engaged 
 in fishing on the banks, in tlio Gulf of Saint 
 Lawrence or on the high soas, they wore to be 
 prevented ^Vom using British territory for 
 pur]Joses connected with the fisheries, and to 
 be excluded from the bays and coasts of all 
 the colonies. The result was the capture of 
 several American fishing vessels for trespass- 
 ing within British waters. Then the L^nited 
 States in 1818 proiwsed that negotiations 
 should be opened for the purpose of .settling 
 the disimtod points which had arisen in con- 
 nection with the fisheries. Commissioners 
 were aci-ordingly ai)pointed by both parties 
 to meet in London, and the convention of 
 20th October, 1818, was eventually signed. 
 
 Article I of this convention is, witli slightly 
 curtailed expressions, as follows : — 
 
 Whireas^ dift'erencos have arisen resjiecting 
 the liberty claimed by the United States for 
 the iidiabitants thereof, to take, dry and cure 
 fish on certain coasts, bays, &c., of His 
 Majesty's dominions in Amerit. — /H is agreed 
 
13 
 
 ed since 
 sessions 
 nd there 
 a Scotia 
 quently , 
 tish and 
 ista and 
 fisheries 
 il of the 
 1783, to 
 
 it stated 
 e United 
 formerly 
 g within 
 ising the 
 purposes 
 contend- 
 ) United 
 ive right, 
 as the 
 ion, been 
 its whicli 
 ;ould not 
 d become 
 bordingly 
 11 of this 
 
 e not in- 
 engaged 
 of Saint 
 ore to be 
 ■itory for 
 es, and to 
 ists of all 
 ipture of 
 trespass- 
 le United 
 :;otiations 
 »f settling 
 in in con- 
 lissionors 
 1 i)arties 
 ention of 
 igned. 
 1 slightly 
 
 •esiiecting 
 States for 
 and cure 
 , of His 
 '( is agreed 
 
 
 that the inhabitants of the said United States, 
 shall have fwcver, in (Common witli the sub- 
 jects of His Majesty, the liberty to take lisli 
 of every kind on that part of the southern 
 coast of NeMfoundland, whi(!h extends from 
 Cape Ray to the Raraeau Islands ; on the 
 western and northern coast of Newfoundland, 
 from the said Capo Ray to thoC^uirpon IhIuikIs 
 (these are at the northern end) ; on the shores 
 of the Magdalen Islands, and also on Labrador 
 from Mount Joly, through the Straits of Belle 
 Isle, and thence nortlnvardly ; and that the 
 American fishermen shall also have liberty, 
 forever, to dry and cure fish in any of tho 
 unsettled bays, «&c., of the said southward 
 part of the coast of Newfoundland, i.e., Cape 
 Ray to Rameau Islands, and of the coast of 
 Labrador ; but, so soon as the same, &.c., shall 
 be settled, the right to cease. And the Uniied 
 States hereby renounce forever any liberty 
 heretofore enjoyed or claimed by the inhabi- 
 tants thereof, to take, dry or cure fish on or 
 within three marine miles of any of the 
 coasts, bays, &c., of any of His INIajosty's 
 dominions not included within the above- 
 mentioned limits. Provided, however, that 
 the American fishermen shall be admitted 
 to enter such bays, or harbours for the pur|)ose 
 of shelter, and of repairing damages therein, 
 of purchasing wood, and of obtaining water, 
 and for no other purpose whatever. But they 
 shall be under such restrictions as shall be 
 necessary to prevent their taking, drying, or 
 curing fish therein, or in any other manner 
 whatever, abusing the privileges hereby re- 
 served to them. 
 
 Under this convention arose what is known 
 as " the headland question," which has been 
 the subject of lengthy dispute. England, fol- 
 lowing the contentions of the United States, 
 insisted that, under the convention, the three 
 mile limit, in the case of large bays, extends 
 from " headland to headland," and does not 
 follow the sinuosities of the shore. England 
 claims thus that the whole Bayof Fundy,the 
 Bale des Chaleurs, and Miramichi Bay are 
 excluded from American rights. I must own 
 that, if the matter stood alone, I am not im- 
 pressed witli tho British view, which appears 
 to rest on very fine verbal criticism of the 
 convention, but it is fairly contended that tho 
 convention must be construed as regards 
 
 British bays, as the United States at the time 
 contended and still contend in respect to their 
 biiys. Now they have constantly contended 
 that the great bays of Maasachusett« (Cape 
 Cod to Ca|)e Anne) Delaware and Chesa- 
 Iieake are domeMic bays, as they call them, 
 and not open to foreign fishing. Our neigh- 
 bors cannot, while they hold this view, dis- 
 pute tlie British position on the NovaScotian 
 bays. 
 
 During this {period American vessels were 
 occasionally captured for fishing in our large 
 bays, and much diplomatic correspondence 
 and international friction ensued on this 
 headland question. This was the state of 
 atfairs until 1847, when negotiations were 
 oi)ened between the two governments for 
 the establishment of reciprocal free trade be- 
 tween Canada and the United States, coupled 
 with the concession of some fishing privi- 
 leges to the United States' fishermen. Much 
 correspondence passed on the subject, but, 
 owing to ditficultiea connected with tho ques- 
 tion of tariff, the United States appeared 
 anxious to have the fisheries question dealt 
 with separately, but to this the British Gov- 
 ernment would not assent. 
 
 At last in 1854, Lord Elgin, when in Wash- 
 ington, negotiated a treaty. This is known as 
 the Reciprocity treaty of the 5tli June, 1854. 
 Its main provisions were as follows : — British 
 waters on the oast coast of North America 
 were thrown oj^en to United States' fisher- 
 men, and United States' waters north of the 
 36tli degree were thrown open to British 
 fishermen ; excepting always the salmon and 
 shad fisheries, (which were reserved to the 
 subjects of each country) ; — certain articles of 
 ])roduce of tho British colonics and of the 
 United States were admitted to each country, 
 respectively, free of duty. The treaty was to 
 remain in force for ten years, and further for 
 twelve months after either party should have 
 given notice to the other of its wish to termi- 
 nate the same. 
 
 l'>om 1854 until 1805 the Reciprocity treaty 
 continued in force, and no further difficulties 
 appear to have arisen on questions connected 
 with the fisheries ; but in that year, 1865, 
 the United States informed the British Gov- 
 ernment that at the expiration of 12 months 
 the Reciprocity treaty was to terminate. 
 
I] 
 
 jl 
 h 
 
 Si 
 
 ill 
 
 I 'li 
 
 1 
 
 H 
 
 Eflforts were made by England towards a 
 renewal of the treaty, but these, from various 
 reasons, proving unsuccessful.the treaty came 
 to an end ou the 17th of March, 1866 ; and as 
 a consequence the American privileges under 
 it lapsed, and reverted to those of the con- 
 vention of 1818. 
 
 In the meantime a notice had been issued 
 by the Canadian Government warning the 
 American fishermen that their right to fish 
 in British waters would cease on the above 
 date, and it became necessary to consider 
 what measures should be adopted for the pro- 
 taction of British rights. 
 
 Eventually it was decided that American 
 fishermen should be allowed during the year 
 1866, to fish in all Canadian waters upon 
 the payment of a nominal license fee, to be 
 exacted as a formal recognition of right. This 
 system, after being maintained for four years, 
 was discontinued, owing to the neglect of 
 American fishermen to provide themselves 
 with licenses, and in 1870 it became neces- 
 sary to take strict measures for the enforce- 
 ment of British rights. 
 
 The result of these measures was the 
 capture and forfeiture of several American 
 vessels for infringing the provisions of the 
 convention of 1818, both by fishing within 
 British waters, and by frequenting Canadian 
 ports for objects not permitted by the conven- 
 tion. 
 
 The difficulties caused by these events 
 subsequently led to the re-opening of negotia- 
 tions for the settlement of questions con- 
 nected with the fisheries, and they formed 
 part of the matters decided by the treaty of 
 Washington of 1871. 
 
 In that general settlement of disputes the 
 American fishermen obtained the use of the 
 inshore fisheries all along the British coasts 
 of Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, New Bruns- 
 wick, and Quebec, with right to land and cure 
 fish at any place so long as they did not 
 interfere with private rights. The English 
 fishermen obtained the right to fish on the 
 American coast down to the line 39°, i.e. the 
 Delaware, — a barren privilege — and recipro- 
 cal free trade in fish and fish oil was agreed 
 to. T/.e latter was a valuable privilege for 
 the Canadian fishermen, as it gave them the 
 American market for the results of their toils. 
 
 The treaty was for ten years, pltis two years, 
 from notice from either side of desire to can- 
 cel. It was, of course, known that the Cana- 
 dian fisheries, given up for ten years pto two, 
 as the minimum time under the treaty, were 
 much more valuable than the rights grant- 
 ed to Canadians, and, as we all remember, the 
 Halifax Commission was appointed to deter- 
 mine upon a sum to be paid by the United 
 States for the surj)lus value of privileges. 
 After a long examination the arbitrators 
 awarded to Canada the sum of $5,500,000, 
 which, after some shabby demur and shame- 
 ful charges against the distinguished Belgian 
 ambassador, M. Delfosse, who was the um- 
 pire, was ultimately paid. 
 
 The treaty, in its fishery clauses, went into 
 operation 1st July, 1873, and continues at pre- 
 sent in force. During these years there has 
 been rest. No seizures of interlopingAmerican 
 schooners, no disputes on the headland ques- 
 tion, and this might have continued, but that 
 the United States, acting on the dictation of 
 the American fishing interests, which desire 
 to keep Canadian fish and oil from their 
 market, have given the notice prescribed by 
 the treaty to terminate it, and it expires on 1st 
 July of this year. Then all the rights granted 
 by the treaty of Washington in 1871 end, and 
 the rights of the Americans go back to the re- 
 strictions of the convention of 1818, with all 
 its attendant difficulties. The Americans will 
 have no right to fish within the threo-mile 
 limit, except on the part of Newfoundland, 
 already described, viz., from the Rameau 
 Islands on the south coast to the Quirpon 
 Islaftds at the north end, part of Labrador 
 and the Magdalen Islands; and the only 
 place for landing to cure fish will be the small 
 part of Newfoundland coas< on the south 
 from Cape Hay to the Rameau Islands, and 
 a part of Labrador. Then revives, of course, 
 the great headland question, which slept dur- 
 ing the period of the Reciprocity treaty, as 
 well as that of Washington. 
 
 All this will be upon us very soon. July is 
 not far away. Yet it is difficult to prophesy 
 what will occur. A new treaty is in every way 
 desirable, and yet we must see to it that it is 
 not to be a treaty of sacrifice. It will doubtless 
 be found that our government and that in 
 England, are already in correspondence with 
 
 Waal 
 
 prem 
 
 tiie p 
 
 thing 
 
 view 
 
 been 
 
 arran 
 
 recipi 
 
 of tlK 
 
 trade. 
 
 In 
 treaty 
 been 
 preser 
 States 
 from f 
 beyon 
 term 
 that tl 
 by Ca 
 twelve 
 be cal 
 
15 
 
 July is 
 •ophesy 
 )ry way 
 lat it is 
 (ubtless 
 that in 
 cewith 
 
 Washington on the matter ; for though our 
 premier has recently spoken strongly against 
 tlie propriety and possibility of doing any- 
 thing towards a new reciiirocity treaty, in 
 view of tlie numerous n;fusals whi(^h have 
 been given, that does not preclude some 
 arrangement of the flsherios independent of 
 reciprocity in general, as well as inde|X)n(lent 
 of the present reciprocity in tlie fish and oil 
 trade. 
 
 In the opinion of many a new fishery 
 treaty is merely a matter of price. It lias 
 been said tbat the notice to terminate the 
 present treaty has been given by the United 
 States in order to prevent tlie Halifax award 
 from forming the basis for annual payments 
 beyond the twelve years provided as a fixed 
 term b^ the treaty. They feared, it is said, 
 that the award of $5,500,000 would be claimed 
 by Canada as the fixed basis of value of 
 twelve years' privileges, and that they would 
 be called upon to pay one-twelfth of that 
 
 sum per annum for the future. It is well 
 known tiiat the United States have always, 
 wrongly we confidently think, contended 
 that the pward was excessive, and in that 
 view a desire to obtain, if ixMsible, a new 
 measure of value, is not unreasonable. 
 
 While we cannot predict any particular 
 course, we can feel confident, I think, that the 
 times have greatly changed since the days of 
 Oswald in Paris, in 1783, of Lord Ashburton in 
 1842, and Mr. Packenham in 1840, at Wash- 
 ington, and that wo will hear of no more satTi- 
 fices in ignorance of the values of colonial 
 rights. We live in different days, and, within 
 recent years the point of view from which 
 Canada is regarded in England has changed, 
 information is more exact and general, and 
 full value will be had for those possessions, — 
 those valuable possessions, in connection 
 with our fisheries, in which our American 
 neighbours wish so much to share. 
 
' *?> 
 
 V. 
 
 I 
 
 I , 
 
 ^ \m 
 

 M'^yj^