both countries, including those of the sea. Peace was preserved on our waters, and the volume of international trade steadily increased during the existence of this treaty, and until it was terminated in 1866, not by Great Britain, but by the United States.

"In the following year Canada (then become a dominion and united to Nova Scotia and New Brunswick) was thrown back on the convention of 1818, and obliged to fit out a marine police to enforce the laws and defend her rights, still desiring, however, to cultivate friendly relations with her great neighbor, and not too suddenly to deprive the American fishermen of their accustomed fishing grounds and means of livelihood. She readily acquiesced in the proposal of Her Majesty's Government for the temporary issue of annual licenses to fish on payment of a moderate fee. Your excellency is aware of the failure of that scheme. A few licenses were issued at first, but the applications for them soon ceased, and the American fishermen persisted in forcing themselves into our waters without leave or license.'

"Then came the recurrence, in an aggravated form, of all the troubles which had occurred anterior to the reciprocity treaty. There were invasions of our waters, personal conflicts between our fishermen and American crews, the destruction of nets, the seizure and condemnation of vessels, and intense consequent irritation on both sides. "This was happily put an end to by the Washington treaty of 1871. In the interval between the termination of the first treaty and the ratification of that by which it was eventually replaced, Canada on several occasions pressed, without success, through the British minister at Washington, for a renewal of the reciprocity treaty or for the negotiation of another on a still wider basis.

"When in 1874 Sir Edward Thornton, then British minister at Washington, and the late Hon. George Brown, of Toronto, were appointed joint plenipotentiaries for the purpose of negotiating and concluding a treaty relating to fisheries, commerce, and navigation, a provisional treaty was arranged by them with the United States Government, but the Senate decided that it was not expedient to ratify it, and the negotiation fell to the ground.

"The treaty of Washington, while it failed to restore the provisions of the treaty of 1851, for reciprocal free trade (except in fish), at least kept the peace, and there was tranquillity along our shores until July, 1885, when it was terminated again by the United States Government and not by Great Britain.

"With a desire to show that she wished to be a good neighbor, and in order to prevent loss and disappointment on the part of the United States fishermen by their sudden exclusion from her waters in the middle of the fishing season, Canada continued to allow them, for six months, all the advantages which the rescinded fishery clauses

had previously given them, although her people received from the United States none of the corresponding advantages which the treaty of 1871 had declared to be an equivalent for the benefits secured thereby to the American fishermen.

"The President, in return for this courtesy, promised to recommend to Congress the appointment of a joint commission of the two Governments of the United Kingdom and the United States to consider the fishery question, with permission also to consider the whole state of trade relations between the United States and Canada.

"This promise was fulfilled by the President, but the Senate rejected his recommendation and refused to sanction the commission. "Under these circumstances Canada, having exhausted every effort to procure an amicable arrangement, has been driven again to fall back upon the convention of 1818, the provisions of which she is now enforcing and will enforce, in no punitive or hostile spirit as Mr. Bayard supposes, but solely in protection of her fisheries, and in vindication of the right secured to her by treaty.

"Mr. Bayard suggests that the treaty of 1818 was between two nations the United States of America and Great Britain-who, as the contracting parties, can alone apply authoritative interpretation thereto, and enforce its provisions by appropriate legislation.'

"As it may be inferred from this statement that the right of the Parliament of Canada to make enactments for the protection of the fisheries of the Dominion, and the power of the Canadian officers to protect those fisheries, are questioned, it may be well to state at the outset the grounds upon which it is conceived by the undersigned that the jurisdiction in question is clear beyond a doubt.

"1. In the first place the undersigned would ask it to be remembered that the extent of the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada is not limited (nor was that of the provinces before the union) to the seacoast, but extends for three marine miles from the shore as to all matters over which any legislative authority can in any country be exercised within that space. The legislation which has been adopted on this subject by the Parliament of Canada (and previously to confederation by the provinces) does not reach beyond that limit. It may be assumed that, in the absence of any treaty stipulation to the contrary, this right is so well recognized and established by both British and American law that the grounds on which it is supported need not be stated here at large. The undersigned will merely add, therefore, to this statement of the position, that so far from the right being limited by the convention of 1818 that convention expressly recognizes it.

6

"After renouncing the liberty to take, cure, or dry fish on or within three marine miles of any of the coasts, bays, creeks, or harbors of His Majesty's dominions in America,' there is a stipulation

that while American fishing vessels shall be admitted to enter such bays, &c., for the purpose of shelter and of repairing damages therein, of purchasing wood, and of obtaining water, they shall be under such restrictions as may be necessary to prevent their taking, curing, or drying fish therein, or in any other manner whatever abusing the privileges reserved to them.'

"2. Appropriate legislation on this subject was, in the first instance, adopted by the Parliament of the United Kingdom. The imperial statute 59 Geo. III., cap. 38, was enacted in the year following the convention, in order to give that convention force and effect. That statute declared that, except for the purposes before specified, it should not be lawful for any person or persons, not being a naturalborn subject of His Majesty, in any foreign ship, vessel, or boat, nor for any person in any ship, vessel, or boat, other than such as shall be navigated according to the laws of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, to fish for, or to take, dry, or cure any fish of any kind whatever within three marine miles of any coasts, bays, creeks, or harbors whatever, in any part of His Majesty's dominions in America, not included within the limits specified and described in the first article of the said convention, and that if such foreign ship, vessel, or boat, or any person or persons on board thereof shall be found fishing, or to have been fishing, or preparing to fish within such distance of such coasts, bays, creeks, or harbors within such parts of His Majesty's dominions in America, out of the said limits. as aforesaid, all such ships, vessels, and boats, together with their cargoes, and all guns, ammunition, tackel, apparel, furniture, and stores, shall be forfeited, and shall and may be seized, taken, sued for, prosecuted, recovered, and condemned by such and the like ways, means, and methods, and in the same courts as ships, vessels, or boats may be forfeited, seized, prosecuted, and condemned for any offense against any laws relating to the revenue of customs, or the laws of trade and navigation, under any act or acts of the Parliament of Great Britain or the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, provided that nothing contained in this act shall apply or be construed to apply to the ships or subjects of any prince, power, or state in amity with His Majesty who are entitled by treaty with His Majesty to any privileges of taking, drying, or curing fish on the coasts, bays, creeks, or harbors or within the limits in this act described. Provided always, that it shall and may be lawful for any fishermen of the said United States to enter into any such bays or harbors of His Britannic Majesty's dominions in America as are last mentioned, for the purpose of shelter and repairing damages therein, of purchasing wood, and of obtaining water, and for no other purpose whatever, subject nevertheless to such restrictions as may be necessary to prevent such fishermen of the said United States from taking, drying, or curing

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. And 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 describd 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.

"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