CONGRESS. (Tn E FISHERIES TREATY.) 



225 



allowing them to spend the time upon the fishing- 

 grounds, which would otherwise be aevoted to a voy- 

 .-ae with their catch, and doubling their oppor- 

 tunities tor profitably prosecuting their vocation. In 

 forbidding the transit of the catch of pur fishermen 

 over their territory in bond and tree of duty the Ca- 

 nadian authorities deprived us of the only tacilitv de- 

 pendent upon their concession, and for which we 

 could supply no substitute. 



The value to the Dominion of Canada of the privi- 

 lege of transit for their exports and imports across 

 our territory and to and from our ports, though great 

 in every aspect, will be better appreciated when it is 

 remembered that for a considerable portion of each 

 year the St. Lawrence river, which constitutes the di- 

 rect avenue of foreign commeice leading to Canada, 

 is closed by ice. 



During the last six years the imports and exports 

 of British Canadian provinces carried across our ter- 

 ritory, under the privileges granted by our laws, 

 amounted in value to about $270,000,000, nearlv all 

 of which were goods dutiable under our tariff laws. 

 by tar the larger part of this traffic consisting of ex- 

 changes of goods between Great Britain and her 

 American provinces brought to and carried from our 

 ports in their own vessels. 



The treaty stipulation entered into by our Govern- 

 ment was in harmony with laws which were then on 

 our statute-book, an<3 are still in force. 



I recommend immediate legislative action conferr- 

 ing upon the Executive the power to suspend by proc- 

 lamation the operation of all laws and regulations 

 permitting the transit of goods, wares, and merchan- 

 dise in bond across or over the territory of the United 

 States to or from Canada. 



There need be no hesitation in suspending these 

 laws arising from the supposition that their continua- 

 tion is secured by treatv obligations, for it seems 

 quite plain that Article XXIX of the treaty of 1^71, 

 which was the only article incorporating such laws, 

 terminated on the 1st day of July : 1885. 



The article itself decla'res that its provisions shall 

 be in force " for the term of years mentioned in .Arti- 

 cle XXXIII of this treaty'." Turning to Article 

 XXXIII we find no mention of the twenty-ninth ar- 

 ticle, but only a provision that Articles" XVI11 to 

 XXV. inclusive, and Article XXX shall take effect 

 as soon as the laws required to carry them into opera- 

 tion shall be passed by the legislative bodies of the 

 different countries concerned, and that " they shall 

 remain in force for the period of ten years from the 

 date at which they may come into operation, and fur- 

 ther until the expiration of two vears after either of 

 the high contracting parties shall have given notice 

 to the other of its wish to terminate the same.'' 



I am of the opinion that the ik term of years men- 

 tioned in Article XXXIII." referred to "in Article 

 XXIX as the limit of its duration, means the period 

 during which Articles XVIII t" XXV, inclusive, and 

 Article XXX, commonly called the " fishery articles." 

 should continue in force under the language of said 

 Article XXXIII. 



That the joint high commissioners -who negotiated 

 the treaty so understood and intended the phrase is 

 certain, for in a statement containing an account of 

 their negotiations, prepared under their supervision 

 and approved by them, we find the following entry 

 on the subject : " The transit question was discussed, 

 and it was aarreed that any settlement that might be 

 made should include a reciprocal arrangement in that 

 respect for the period for which the fishery articles 

 should be in force." 



In addition to this very satisfactory evidence sup- 

 porting this construction of the language of Article 

 XXIX. it will be found that the law passed by 

 gress to carry the treaty into effect furnishes conclu- 

 sive proof of the correctness of such construction. 



This law was passed March 1, 1873, and is entitled 

 ''An act to carry into effect the provisions of the 

 treaty between the United States and Great Britain, 

 VOL. XXVIH. 15 A 



siamcd in the city of Washington the 8th day of May, 

 1>71. rrlutinir t<> the fisheries." After providing, in 

 its first and t'./i putting in 01 



Articles XV111 to XXV. inclusive, and Article XXX 

 of the treatv. tht_- third .-tctiun is devoted to Article 

 XXIX, as 'follows : SEC. 3. That from the date of 

 the President's proclamation authorized by the first 

 section of this act, and so long as the Articles XVIII 

 to XXV, inclu>ive, and Article XXX of said treaty 

 shall remain in force according to the terms and con- 

 ditions of Article XXXIII of' said treaty, all goods, 

 wares, and merchandise arriving," etc.,"etc., follow- 

 ing in the remainder or the section the precise words 

 of the stipulation on the part of the United States as 

 contained in Article XXIX, which I have already 

 fullv quoted. 



llere, then, is a distinct enactment of the Congress 

 limiting the duration of this article of the treaty to 

 the time that Articles XVIII to XXV, inclusive, "and 

 Article XXX should continue in force. That in 

 fixing such limitations it but gave the meaning of the 

 treaty itself, is indicated by the fact that its purpose 

 is declared to be to carry into effect the provisions of 

 the treaty, and by the further fact that this law ap- 

 peal's to have been submitted before the promulga- 

 tion of the treaty, to certain members of the Joint 

 High Commission, representing both countries, and 

 met with no objections or dissent. 



There appearing to be no conflict or inconsistency 

 between the treaty and the act of the Congress last 

 cited, it is not necessary to invoke the well-settled 

 principle that in case of such conflict the statute gov- 

 erns the question. 



In any event, and whether the law of 1873 con- 

 strues the treaty or governs it, section 29 of such 

 treaty, I have no doubt, terminated with the pro- 

 ceedings taken bv our Government to terminate 

 Articles XVIII to XXV, inclusive, and Article XXX 

 of the treaty. These proceedings had their inception 

 in a joint resolution of Congress passed May 3, 1883, 

 declaring that in the judgment of Congress these 

 articles ought to be terminated, and directing the 

 President to give the notice to the Government of "Great 

 Britain provided for in Article XXXIII of the treaty. 

 Such notice having been given two years prior to tne 

 1st day of July, 1S>5, the articles mentioned were 

 absolutely terminated on the last-named day, and 

 with them Article XXIX was also terminated." 



If by anv language used in the joint resolution it 

 was intended to relieve section 3 of the act of 1873 

 embodying Article XXIX of the treatv from its own 

 limitations, or to save the article itself, I am entirely 

 satisfied that the intention miscarried. 



But statutes granting to the people of Canada the 

 valuable privileges of tran.^it for their goods from our 

 ports and over our soil, which had been passed prior 

 to the making of the treaty of 1871 and independently 

 of it. remained in force; and ever since the abroga- 

 tion of the treaty, and notwithstanding the refusal of 

 Canada to permit our fishermen to send their fish to 

 their home market through her territory in bond, the 

 people of that Dominion nave enjoyed without dimi- 

 nution the advantages of our liberal and generous 

 laws. 



Without basing our complaint upon a violation of 

 treaty obligations, it is nevertheless true that such a 

 refusal of transit and the other injurious acts which 

 have been recited constitute a provoking insistence 

 upon rights neither mitigated by the amenities of 

 national intercourse nor modified" by the recognition 

 of our liberality and generous considerations. The 

 history of events connected with this subject makes 

 it manifest that the Canadian Government can if so 

 I administer its laws and protect the interests- 

 of its people without manifestation of unfriendliness 

 and without the unneighborly treatment of our fish- 

 iiiLT-Yi^sels of which we have justly complained ; and 

 whatever is dope on our part should be done in the 

 hope that the disposition of the Canadian Government 

 may remove the occasion of a resort to the additional 



