Page images
PDF
EPUB

And

fish in the said bays or harbors, or in any other manner whatever, abusing the said privileges by the said treaty and this act reserved to them, and as shall, for that purpose, be imposed by any order or orders to be from time to time made by His Majesty in council under the authority of this act, and by any regulations which shall be issued by the governor or person exercising the office of governor in any such parts of His Majesty's dominions in America, under or in pursuance of any such order in council as aforesaid. that if any person or persons upon requisition made by the governor of Newfoundland, or the person exercising the office of governor, or by any governor in person exercising the office of governor in any other parts of His Majesty's dominions in America, as aforesaid, or by any officer or officers acting under such governor or person exercising the office of governor, in the execution of any orders or instructions from His Majesty in council, shall refuse to depart from such bays or harbors, or if any person or persons shall refuse, or neglect, to conform to any regulations or directions which shall be made or given for the execution of any of the purposes of this act, every such person so refusing or otherwise offending against this act shall forfeit the sum of two hundred pounds, to be recovered in the superior court of judicature of the island of Newfoundland, or in the superior court of judicature of the colony or settlement within or near to which such offense shall be committed, or by bill, plaint, or information in any of His Majesty's courts of record at Westminster, one moiety of such penalty to belong to His Majesty, his heirs, and successors, and the other moiety to such person or persons as shall sue or prosecute for the same.'

"The acts passed by the provinces now forming Canada, and also by the Parliament of Canada (now noted in the margin)" are to the same effect, and may be said to be merely declaratory of the law as established by the imperial statute.

"3. The authority of the legislatures of the provinces, and, after confederation, the authority of the Parliament of Canada, to make enactments to enforce the provisions of the convention, as well as the authority of Canadian officers to enforce those acts, rests on wellknown constitutional principles.

"Those legislatures existed, and the Parliament of Canada now exists, by the authority of the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, which is one of the nations referred to by Mr. Bayard as the contracting parties.' The colonial statutes have received the sanction of the British sovereign, who, and not the a Dominion acts, 31 Vict., cap. 6; 33 Vict., cap. 16; now incorporated in Revised Statutes of 1886, cap. 90. Nova Scotia acts, Revised Statutes, 3d series, cap. 94, 29 Vict. (1866), cap. 35. New Brunswick acts, 16 Vict. (1853), cap. 69. Prince Edward Island acts, 6 Vict. (1843), cap. 14.

nation, is actually the party with whom the United States made the convention. The officers who are engaged in enforcing the acts of Canada or the laws of the Empire, are Her Majesty's officers, whether their authority emanates directly from the Queen, or from her representative, the governor-general. The jurisdiction thus exercised cannot, therefore, be properly described in the language used by Mr. Bayard as a supposed and therefore questionable delegation of jurisdiction by the Imperial Government of Great Britain. Her Majesty governs in Canada as well as in Great Britain; the officers of Canada are her officers; the statutes of Canada are her statutes, passed on the advice of her Parliament sitting in Canada.

"It is, therefore, an error to conceive that because the United States and Great Britain were, in the first instance, the contracting parties to the treaty of 1818, no question arising under that treaty can be responsibly dealt with,' either by the Parliament or by the authorities of the Dominion.

[ocr errors]

"The raising of this objection now is the more remarkable, as the Government of the United States has long been aware of the necessity of reference to the colonial legislatures in matters affecting their interests.

"The treaties of 1854 and 1871 expressly provide that, so far as they concerned the fisheries or trade relations with the provinces, they should be subject to ratification by their several legislatures; and seizures of American vessels and goods, followed by condemnation for breach of the provincial customs laws, have been made for forty years without protest or objection on the part of the United States Government.

"The undersigned, with regard to this contention of Mr. Bayard, has further to observe that in the proceedings which have recently been taken for the protection of the fisheries, no attempt has been made to put any special or novel interpretation on the convention of 1818. The seizures of the fishing vessels have been made in order to enforce the explicit provisions of that treaty, the clear and long established provisions of the imperial statute and of the statutes of Canada expressed in almost the same language.

"The proceedings which have been taken to carry out the law of the Empire in the present case are the same as those which have been taken from time to time during the period in which the convention has been in force, and the seizures of vessels have been made under process of the imperial court of vice-admiralty established in the provinces of Canada.

"Mr. Bayard further observes that since the treaty of 1818, a series of laws and regulations affecting the trade between the North

H. Doc. 551- -53

American provinces and the United States have been respectively adopted by the two countries, and have led to amicable and mutually beneficial relations between their respective inhabitants,' and that 'the independent and yet concurrent action of the two Governments has effected a gradual extension from time to time of the provisions of article 1 of the convention of e 3d of July, 1815, providing for reciprocal liberty of commerce between the United States and the territories of Great Britain in Europe, so as gradually to include the colonial possessions of Great Britain in North America and the West Indies within the limits of that treaty."

"The undersigned has not been able to discover, in the instances given by Mr. Bayard, any evidence that the laws and regulations affecting the trade between the British North American Provinces and the United States, or that 'the independent and yet concurrent action of the two Governments' have either extended or restricted the terms of the convention of 1818, or affected in any way the right to enforce its provisions according to the plain meaning of the articles of the treaty; on the contrary, a reference to the eighteenth article. of the Washington treaty will show that the contracting parties made the convention the basis of the further privileges granted by the treaty, and it does not allege that its provisions are in any way extended or affected by subsequent legislation or acts of administration. "Mr. Bayard has referred to the proclamation of President Jackson in 1830, creating reciprocal commercial intercourse on terms of perfect equality of flag' between the United States and the British American dependencies, and has suggested that these commercial privileges have since received a large extension, and that in some cases "favors" have been granted by the United States without equivalent "concession," such as the exemption granted by the shipping act of the 26th June, 1884, amounting to one-half of the regular tonnage dues on all vessels from British North America and West Indies entering ports of the United States.'

[ocr errors]

"He has also mentioned under this head the arrangement for the transit of goods, and the remission by proclamation as to certain British ports and places of the remainder of the tonnage tax on evidence of equal treatment being shown' to United States vessels.

"The proclamation of President Jackson in 1830 had no relation to the subject of the fisheries, and merely had the effect of opening United States ports to British vessels on terms similar to those which had already been granted in British ports to vessels of the United States. The object of these laws and regulations' mentioned by Mr. Bayard was purely of a commercial character, while the sole purpose of the convention of 1818 was to establish and define the rights of the citizens of the two countries in relation to the fisheries on the British North American coast.

"Bearing this distinction in mind, however, it may be conceded that substantial assistance has been given to the development of commercial intercourse between the two countries.

"But legislation in that direction has not been confined to the Government of the United States, as indeed Mr. Bayard has admitted in referring to the case of the imperial shipping and navigation act of

1849.

"For upwards of forty years, as has already been stated,-Canada has continued to evince her desire for a free exchange of the chief products of the two countries. She has repeatedly urged the desirability of the fuller reciprocity of trade which was established during the period in which the treaty of 1854 was in force.

"The laws of Canada with regard to the registry of vessels, tonnage dues, and shipping generally, are more liberal than those of the United States. The ports of Canada in inland waters are free to vessels of the United States, which are admitted to the use of her canals on equal terms with Canadian vessels.

"Canada allows free registry to ships built in the United States and purchased by British citizens, charges no tonnage or light dues on United States shipping, and extends a standing invitation for a large measure of reciprocity in trade by her tariff legislation.

66

Whatever relevancy, therefore, the argument may have to the subject under consideration, the undersigned submits that the concessions which Mr. Bayard refers to as favors' granted by the United States can hardly be said not to have been met by equivalent concessions on the part of the Dominion, and inasmuch as the disposition of Canada continues to be the same, as was evinced in the friendly legislation just referred to, it would seem that Mr. Bayard's charges of showing hostility to commerce under the guise of protection to inshore fisheries, or of interrupting ordinary commercial intercourse by harsh measures and unfriendly administration, is hardly justified.

"The questions which were in controversy between Great Britain and the United States prior to 1818 related not to shipping and commerce, but to the claims of United States fishermen to fish 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 subsequently by that of 1871, after the lapse of each of these two 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 vigor.

"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 the inshore fishing within the three-mile limit, so as to affect the deep-sea fisheries,' and '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 restriction. 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 specified in the convention of 1818 as lawful. They were United States fishing vessels, and, against the plain terms of the convention, had entered Canadian harbors. 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.

"The undersigned is of opinion that while, for the reasons which he has advanced, there is no evidence to show that the Government of Canada has sought to expand the scope of the convention of 1818 or to increase the extent of its restrictions, it would not be difficult to prove that the construction which the United States seeks to place on that convention would have the effect of extending very largely the privileges which their citizens enjoy under its terms. The contention that the changes which may from time to time occur 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 terms of the treaty, or a new interpretation of its provisions, cannot be acceded to. Such changes may from time to time render the conditions of the contract 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 operation of its provisions can be shown to have become manifestly inequitable. the utmost that good will and fair dealing can suggest is that the terms should be reconsidered and a new arrangement 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

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »