264 THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF CANADA 



The objects agreed upon for discussion were:— 



1. The convention between Newfoundland and the United 

 States. 



2. The Bait question. 



3. The imposition of a tariff on Newfoundland fish by the Cana- 

 dian Government, and the tariff of Newfoundland on Canadian 

 produce. 



4. The boundary between Canadian Labrador and Newfoundland 

 and collection of duties at Labrador. 



5. Status of Newfoundland fishermen on coast of Canadian 

 Labrador and of Canadian fishermen on the coast of Newfoundland. 



6. The fees collected from the United States vessels under modiis 

 V'ivendi for licenses in 1898 and succeeding years. 



The most important and disturbing of these questions were the 

 first and second, and upon their discussion most time was occupied. 

 Sir John Thompson gave detailed reasons why Canada opposed the 

 Blaine-Bond convention, and Mr. Harvey gave reasons why the 

 adoption of this Treaty would work no injury to Canada. Sir William 

 Whiteway asked categorically if Canada failed to secure a reciprocal 

 arrangement with the United States, would she then persist in a refusal 

 to acquiesce in the Blaine-Bond convention ? Sir John Thompson 

 declined to make any pledge in this regard. 



Mr. Harvey offered to meet Canada's objections by the following 

 assurances : 



1. That no differential tariff against Canada will be enacted. 



2. That Canadian fishermen shall have the same privileges in 

 Newfoundland waters as Newfoundland fishermen. 



3. That a system of licenses will be adopted based on the system 

 in practice under the modus vivendi. 



After much discussion, proposals and counter-proposals were 

 submitted by the parties on the vital issues between the two countries, 

 but nothing was agreed to. The subject of the admission of New- 

 foundland to the Dominion was brought up by the Canadian represent- 

 atives and pressed, but the Newfoundland delegates were not disposed 

 to even give it serious consideration. The result of the conference was 

 extremely meagre so far as definite conclusions were concerned, but 

 it had the effect of bringing the parties together, and securing a frank 

 discussion of all matters in dispute, and to give each party a clearer 

 idea of the point of view of the other. In this respect the conference 

 was not in vain. It led to a better understanding, made impossible a 

 continuation of unseemly retaliation and destructive warfare, and 

 prepared the way two or three years later for the discussion of the 

 question of union on a practical basis. 



