CONGRESS. (Ins FISHERIES TREATY.) 



221 



of fishermen warned off from these hays were 

 numerous and of constant occurrence. 



" Mr. President, the majority report, and like- 

 wise the Senator from Maine, are so furious 

 and so illogical in their assaults on this treaty 

 that they even find fault with the ninth arti- 

 cle, which declares ' that nothing in this treaty 

 shall interrupt or affect the free navigation of 

 the Strait of Canso by fishing-vessels of the 

 United States.' And "yet it is a fact that 

 though this provision was meant among other 

 things to prevent any inference of exclusion 

 from the delimitation of Chedahueto Bay, it 

 does for the first time in our history absolutely 

 dispose of the pretensions of the colonial au- 

 thorities to control as against our vessels the 

 right of transit through this strait or gut of 

 Canso. 



" And now with reference to the privileges 

 in addition to those secured by Article X. Ar- 

 ticle XI provides for every facility that a fishing- 

 vessel may require in the ports of the Domin- 

 ion except the purchase of distinctively fishing 

 outfits. Thus commercial rights, so called, are 

 secured to fishing-vessels which practically are 

 the same as are secured to trading- vessels by 

 the arrangement of 1830 ; and the restriction 

 in the proviso to the first article of the con- 

 vention of 1818 of the right of entry into bays, 

 harbors, etc., to the four purposes of shelter, 

 repairing damages, purchasing wood, and ob- 

 taining water is almost abrogated, as all these 

 additional purposes for which entry may be 

 made into ports are made lawful. Let us ex- 

 amine this important article more closely, be- 

 cause the majority report of the committee 

 distinctly denies its efficiency to produce the 

 results claimed for it by the President. To 

 properly understand what this article means 

 and what we have secured by it, it is neces-ary 

 to consider just what the claim or contention 

 of Canada was and has always been as to 

 rights of our fishermen under the convention 

 of 1818. The first article of that convention, 

 after the clause in which the United States 

 renounce forever any liberty heretofore en- 

 joyed or claimed by the inhabitants thereof to 

 take, dry, or cure fish on or within three ma- 

 rine miles of any of the coasts, bays, creeks, 

 or harbors of His Britannic Majesty's domin- 

 ions in America not included within the con- 

 ceded limits, contains the following proviso, 

 which has been repeated so often, usque ad 

 nameam : 



Pi'firiJfiJ. That the American fishermen 



shall be permitted to enter such bays or harbors for 

 the purpose of shelter and of repairing damages there- 

 in, of purchasing wood, and of obtaining water, and 

 for no other purpose whatever. But they shall be 

 under such restrictions as may be necessary to pre- 

 vent their taking, drying, or 'curing fish th'erein, or 

 in any other manner whatever abusing the privileges 

 hereby reserved to them. 



' There has always been the claim on the 

 part of the provinces and Great Britain that 

 this language, plainly and literally interpreted, 

 excluded American fishermen from entering 



all colonial bays and harbors for any other pur- 

 pose than the four purposes mentioned in the 

 proviso, and that claim and contention has 

 never been successfully controverted by the 

 United States. This would give them the right 

 to exclude the visits of fishermen to colonial 

 ports for commercial purposes, so they have 

 always contended, though they have not at all 

 times exercised the right claimed. And so true it 

 is that American fishermen have for many years, 

 notably during the time the reciprocity treaties 

 of 1854 and 1871 were in force and during the 

 period of licenses from 1866 to 1870, in all a 

 period of thirty years, as well as imperfectly 

 and intermittently before 1854, enjoyed the 

 privilege of buying bait and supplies and of 

 transshipping their cargoes offish. But their 

 right to do these things was not admitted to 

 exist under the convention of 1818, nor do I 

 know that it was ever claimed as a right under 

 that convention by the United States. That 

 paragraph provides for and secures to the fish- 

 ing-vessels of the United States every right of 

 hospitality that they can reasonably demand. 

 I know the Senator from Maine and the Sen- 

 ator from Massachusetts think that rights of 

 hospitality ought not to be the subject of 

 treaty stipulation, but that is not the practice in 

 negotiations between countries, and I submit 

 to the Senate that where the extent to which 

 hospitality has been extended or ought to be 

 extended, has ever come into question or doubt, 

 it is a matter of the greatest importance and of 

 the greatest advantage to those who are affected 

 by it that that extent should be definitely fixed 

 by conventional obligation." 



Of the general scope and result of the treaty, 

 Mr. Gray said : u Now, what is the position of 

 Canada under this treaty? Is it a fair and just 

 one for her to assume, and one which it is right 

 and just for us to concede ? I declare that it is 

 both, and no fair man, it seems to me, can say 

 otherwise. She has conceded nearly all that 

 we have any right in fairness to ask. We 

 have no right to demand that while we shut 

 her out of our markets, she should give up 

 without reserve every advantage that she pos- 

 sesses by reason of her geographical position 

 and proximity to the great fishing- banks off 

 her coasts, and that we shall make her harbors 

 our basis of fishing operations while we refuse 

 to share with her any advantages that we pos- 

 sess. I repeat, she has given us nearly every- 

 thing we ask and more than we had the right 

 to demand/' 



August 8. Mr. Evarts. of New York, said of 

 the spirit in which the Canadians have acted: 

 '' I understand that the system of worrying 

 was always brought into play whenever we 

 asserted our right in fishing, and they asserted 

 their contravention of it, in order to bring us 

 to a departure from the fishing interests to the 

 trading and commercial interests. There never 

 has been a doubt of it. Whenever this irri- 

 tation and teasing in the interests of trade in- 

 duced the governments to try experiments of 



