the same as was evinced in the friendly legislation just referred to, it would seem that Mr. Bayard's charge of "showing hostility 308 to commerce under the guise of protection to inshore fisheries,

or "interrupting ordinary commercial intercourse by harsh measures and unfriendly administration," is hardly justified.

But even if the Convention of 1818 had been a Treaty of Commerce the undersigned suggests that the adoption by either country of domestic laws extending commercial relations could not be held to abrogate the terms of agreement between the two countries. The questions, however, as has already been suggested, which are in controversy between Great Britain and the United States prior to 1818 related, not to shipping and commerce, but to the liberties of United States fishermen in waters adjacent to the British North American provinces. Those questions were definitely settled by the Convention of that year, and although the terms of that Convention have since been twice suspended, first by the Treaty of 1854, and afterwards by the Treaty of 1871, after the lapse of these two latter Treaties, the provisions made in 1818 came again into operation, and were carried out by the Imperial and Colonial Authorities without the slightest doubt being raised as to their being in full force and vigour.

Mr. Bayard's contention that the effect of the legislation which has taken place under the Convention of 1818, and of executive action thereunder would be "to expand the restrictions and renunciations of that Treaty which related solely to inshore fishing within the three-mile limit, so as to affect the deep sea fisheries," and so as "to diminish and practically destroy the privileges expressly secured to American fishing vessels to visit these inshore waters for the objects of shelter, and repair of damages and purchasing wood and obtaining water," appears to the undersigned to be unfounded. The legislation referred to in no way affects those privileges, nor has the Government of Canada taken any action towards their restrictions. In the cases of the recent seizures, which are the immediate subject of Mr. Bayard's letter, the vessels seized had not resorted to Canadian waters for any one of the purposes allowed. They were United States fishing vessels, and, against the plain terms of the Convention of 1818, had entered harbours of Canada for purposes other than those enumerated as lawful. In doing so the David J. Adams" was not even possessed of a permit "to touch and trade," even if such a document could be supposed to divest her of the character of a fishing vessel. While the Government of Canada has no desire to expand the restrictions of the Convention of 1818, the undersigned believes that the fair inference to be drawn. from Mr. Bayard's contention is that the desire of the United States Government is to extend very largely the privileges which their citizens enjoy under its terms. The contention that the changes which may from time to time take place in the habits of the fish taken off our coasts, or in the methods of taking them, should be regarded as justifying a periodical revision of the provisions of the Treaty cannot be acceded to. Such changes may from time to time render the provisions of the compact inconvenient to one party or the other, but the validity of the agreement can hardly be said to depend on the convenience or inconvenience which it imposes from time to time on one or other of the contracting parties. When the opera

tion of its provisions can be shown to have become manifestly inequitable and unfair, the utmost that goodwill and fair dealing can suggest is that the terms should be reconsidered, and a new compact entered into; but this the Government of the United States does not appear to have considered desirable.

It is not, however, the case that the Convention of 1818 affected only the inshore fisheries of the British Provinces; it was framed with the object of affording a complete and exclusive definition of the rights and liberties which the fishermen of the United States were thenceforward to enjoy in following their vocation, so far as those rights could be affected by facilities for access to the shores or waters of the British Provinces, or for intercourse with their people. It is, therefore, no undue expansion of the scope of that Convention to interpret strictly those of its provisions by which such access is denied, except to vessels requiring it for the purposes specifically described. An undue expansion of the scope of the Convention would, upon the other hand, certainly take place, if under cover of its provisions, or of any agreements relating to general commercial intercourse which may have since been made, permission were accorded to United States fishermen to resort habitually to the harbours of the Dominion, not for the sake of seeking safety for their vessels, or of avoiding risk to human life, but in order to use those harbours as a general base of operations from which to prosecute and organize, with greater advantage to themselves, the industry in which they are engaged. The undersigned, therefore, cannot concur in Mr. Bayard's contention, that "to prevent the purchase of bait, or any other supply needed for deep sea fishing," "would be to expand the Convention to objects wholly beyond the purview, scope, and intent" of the Treaty, and to "give to it an effect never contemplated."

Mr. Bayard suggests that the possession by a fishing vessel of a permit to "touch and trade" should give her a right to enter Canadian ports for other than the purposes named in the Treaty, or, in other words, should give her perfect immunity from the provisions of the Treaty. This would amount to a practical repeal of the Treaty, because it would enable a United States Collector of Customs, by issuing a license, originally only intended for purposes of domestic Customs regulation, to give exemption from the Treaty to every United States fishing vessel. The observation that similar vessels under the British flag have the right to enter the ports of the United States for the purchase of supplies, loses its force when it is remembered that the Treaty of 1818 contained no restrictions on British vessels, and no renunciation of any privileges in regard to them.

Mr. Bayard states that in the proceedings prior to the Treaty of 1818, the British Commissioners proposed that United States fishing vessels should be excluded " from carrying also merchandise," but that this proposition "being resisted by the American negotiators was abandoned," and goes on to say, "This fact would seem clearly to indicate that the business of fishing did not then and does not now

disqualify vesesls from also trading in the regular 'ports 309 of entry."" A reference to the proceedings alluded to will show that the proposition mentioned had reference only to United States vessels visiting those portions of the coast of Labrador and Newfoundland on which the United States fishermen had been granted the right to fish, and to land for drying and curing fish, and

the rejection of the proposal can only, therefore, be used to indicate that the right to carry merchandise exists in relation to those coasts, and is no ground for supposing that the right extends to the regular ports of entry, against the express words of the Treaty.

The proposition of the British negotiators was to append to Article 1 the following words: "It is, therefore, well understood that the liberty of taking, drying, and curing fish, granted in the preceding part of this Article, shall not be construed to extend to any privilege of carrying on trade with any of His Britannic Majesty's subjects residing within the limits hereinbefore assigned for the use of the fishermen of the United States." It was also proposed to limit them to having on board such goods as might "be necessary for the prosecution of the fishery, or the support of the fishermen while engaged therein, or in the prosecution of their voyages to and from the fishing ground."

To this the American negotiators objected on the ground that the search for contraband goods, and the liability to seizure for having them in possession, would expose the fishermen to endless vexation, and in consequence the proposal was abandoned. It is apparent, therefore, that this proviso in no way referred to the bays or har bours outside the limits assigned to the American fishermen, from which bays and harbours, before and after this proposition was discussed, it was agreed that United States fishing vessels were to be excluded for all purposes other than for shelter and repairs and purchasing wood and obtaining water.

But Mr. Bayard's argument that the rejection of a proposition should lead to an interpretation adverse to the tenor of such proposition suggests strong evidence that United States fishing vessels were not intended to have the right to enter Canadian waters for bait, to be used even in the prosecution of the deep sea fisheries. The United States negotiators made the proposition that the words " and bait" be added to the enumeration of objects for which their fishermen might be allowed to enter, and the proposition was rejected. This could only have referred to the deep sea fishing, because the inshore fisheries had already been specifically renounced.

Mr. Bayard on more than one occasion intimates that the interpretation of the Treaty and its enforcement are dictated by local and hostile feelings, and that the main question is being "obscured by partizan advocacy and distorted by the heat of local interests," and that the administration of the laws is being "conducted in a punitive and hostile spirit which can only tend to induce steps of a retaliatory nature," and in conclusion expresses a hope that" ordinary commercial intercourse shall not be interrupted by harsh measures and unfriendly administration."

The undersigned observes that it is not the wish of the Government or the people of Canada to interrupt for a moment the most friendly commercial intercourse. The mercantile vessels and the commerce of the United States have at present exactly the same freedom that they have for years past enjoyed in Canada, and the disposition of the Canadian Government is to extend reciprocal trade with the United States beyond its present limits; nor can it be admitted that the charge of local prejudice or hostile feeling is justified by the calm enforcement, through the courts of the country, of the plain terms of a Treaty between Great Britain and the United States, and

the statutes which have been in operation for nearly seventy years, excepting in intervals during which (until put an end to by the United States Government) special and more liberal provisions existed in relation to the commerce and fisheries of the two countries. The undersigned has also to call attention to the letter of Mr. Bayard of the 20th instant, likewise addressed to Her Majesty's Minister at Washington, relating also to the seizure of the "David J. Adams" in the Port of Digby, Nova Scotia. That vessel was seized, as has been explained on a previous occasion, by the Commander of the Canadian steamer "Lansdowne," under the following circumstances. She was a United States fishing vessel, and entered the harbour of Digby for purposes other than those for which entry is permitted by the Treaty and by the Imperial and Canadian Statutes. As soon as practicable legal process was obtained from the Vive-Admiralty Court at Halifax, and the vessel was delivered to the officers of that Court. The paper referred to in Mr. Bayard's letter as having been nailed to her mast, was doubtless a copy of the warrant which commanded the marshal, or his deputy, to make the arrest. The undersigned is informed that there was no intention whatever of so adjusting the paper that its contents could not be read; but it is doubtless correct that the officer of the Court in.charge declined to allow the document to be removed. Both the United States Consul-General and the Captain of the "David J. Adams" were made acquainted with the reasons for the seizure, and the only ground for the statement, that a respectful application to ascertain the nature of the complaint was fruitless, was that the Commander of the "Lansdowne," after the nature of the complaint had been stated to those concerned and was published, and had become notorious to the people of both countries, declined to give the United States Consul-General a specific and precise statement of the charges upon. which the vessel would be proceeded against, but referred him to his superior.

While it is to be regretted that this should seem to be discourteous, the officer of the "Lansdowne " can hardly be said to have been pursuing an "extraordinary" course. The legal proceedings had at that time been commenced in the Court of Vice-Admiralty at Halifax, where the United States Consul-General resides, and the officer at Digby could not state with precision, as he was called on to do, the grounds on which the intervention of the Court had been claimed

in the proceedings therein. There was not in this instance 310 the slightest difficulty in the United States Consul-General,

and those interested in the vessel, obtaining the fullest information; and no information which could have been given by those to whom they applied was withheld. Apart from the general knowledge of the offences which it was claimed the master had committed, and which was furnished at the time of the seizure, the most technical and precise details were readily obtainable at the Registry of the Court, and from the Solicitor for the Crown, and would have been furnished immediately on application to the authority to whom the Commander of the "Lansdowne" requested the United States Consul-General to apply. No such information could have been obtained from the paper attached to the vessel's mast. Instructions have, however, been given to the Commander of the "Lansdowne" and

other officers of the Marine Police, that in the event of any further seizures, a statement in writing shall be given to the master of the seized vessel of the offences charged, and that a copy thereof shall be sent to the United States Consul-General at Halifax, and to the nearest United States Consular Agent. There can be no objection to the Solicitor for the Crown being instructed likewise to furnish the Consul-General with a copy of the legal process in each case, if it can be supposed that any fuller information will thereby be given. Mr. Bayard is correct in his statement of the reasons for which the "David J. Adams" was seized and is now held. It is claimed that the vessel violated the Treaty of 1818, and consequently the statutes which exist for the enforcement of that Treaty, and it is also claimed that she violated the Customs Laws of Canada of 1883. The undersigned recommends that copies of these statutes be furnished for the information of Mr. Bayard.

Mr. Bayard has in the same despatch recalled the attention of Her Majesty's Minister to the correspondence and action which took place in the year 1870, when the Fishery question was under consideration, and especially to the instructions of the Royal Admiralty to Vice-Admiral Wellesley, in which that officer was directed to observe great caution in the arrest of American fishermen, and to confine his action to one class of offences against the Treaty. Mr. Bayard, however, appears to have attached unwarranted importance to the correspondence and instructions of 1870, when he refers to them as implying an "understanding between the two Governments." An understanding which should, in his opinion, at other times, and under other circumstances, govern the conduct of the authorities, whether Imperial or Colonial, to whom, under the laws of the Empire, is committed the duty of enforcing the Treaty in question. When, therefore, Mr. Bayard points out the "absolute and instant necessity that now exists for a restriction of the seizure of American vessels charged with violations of the Treaty of 1818," to "the conditions specified under those instructions," it is necessary to recall the fact that in the year 1870 the action of the Imperial Government was probably influenced very largely by the prospect which then existed of an arrangement such as was accomplished in the following year by the Treaty of Washington, and that it may be inferred, in view of the disposition made apparent on both sides to arrive at such an understanding, that the Imperial Authorities, without any surrender of Imperial or Colonial rights, and without acquiescing in any limited construction of the Treaty, instructed their Vice-Admiral in British North America to confine his seizures to the more open and injurious class of offences, which were especially likely to be brought within the cognizance of the Naval Officers of the Imperial service. The condition of affairs at the present time is entirely different. No circumstances exist which would seem to call for any such restrictive instructions. The Canadian Government, as has been already stated, for six months left its fishing grounds open to American fishermen without any corresponding advantage in return, in order to afford time for the action of Congress in regard to the President's suggestion that a commission should be appointed to consider the subjects involved in the Fishery clauses of the Treaty of Washington. Congress has evinced no desire to carry out that recommendation,