74 



BRITISH NORTH AMERICA. 



hand, and of the British Provinces on the other, 

 as they might please. On the subject of fisher- 

 ies, Mr. Henry (representing Nova Scotia) said 

 that it was one upon which, above all others, 

 the population of Nova Scotia were divided in 

 opinion, as to whether they were not the losers 

 under the present condition of tilings. He con- 

 sidered, at all events, that to yield the right of 

 fishing within the prescribed limits is a very 

 large bounty given for the opening of the United 

 States market for the single article of mackerel. 

 Before the treaty, the duty on mackerel was 

 about $2 per barrel, and the United States now 

 proposed that on condition of giving up the ex- 

 clusive right of the fishing, mackerel should be 

 admitted with no higher rate of duty than the 

 pressure of the United States internal revenue 

 tax ; but this would amount to $1.50 in gold, 

 or about $2 in currency. The question was, 

 therefore, really on the same footing as before 

 the treaty. Under that treaty also a good deal 

 of cheese and butter were admitted into the 

 United States, free; but under the proposed 

 new tariff these would now be taxed. The 

 people of Nova Scotia would therefore feel on 

 all accounts that, in acceding to the proposal 

 of the committee, they would be giving up a 

 decided advantage without any equivalent what- 

 ever. Mr. Henry stated, as the opinion of him- 

 self and associates, that the object of the com- 

 mittee was apparently not merely to devise a 

 plan for collecting revenue from the Canadian 

 trade, but to put in force the principle of pro- 

 tection. 



Mr. Morrill replied that the rates on the part 

 of the United States were fixed with a view to 

 revenue only. 



After a further general conversation, the 

 conference broke up, and, on the next day, the 

 following memorandum, embodying the views 

 of the delegates, was presented by them to the 

 committee : 



WASHINGTON, February 6, 18C6. 



Memorandum. In reference to the memorandum 

 received from the Committee of Ways and Means, 

 the Provincial delegates regret to be obliged to state 

 that the proposition therein contained, in regard to 

 the commercial relations between the two countries, 

 is not such as they can recommend for the adoption 

 of their respective Legislatures. The imposts which 

 it is proposed to lay upon the productions of the 

 British Provinces on their entry into the markets of 

 the United States, are such as, in their opinion, will 

 be in some cases prohibitory, and will certainly se- 

 riously interfere with the natural course of trade. 

 The imposts are so much beyond what the delegates 

 conceive to be an equivalent for the internal taxa- 

 tion of the United States, that they are reluctantly 

 brought to the conclusion that th'e committee no 

 longer desire the trade between the two countries to 

 be carried on upon the principle of reciprocity. With 

 the concurrence of the British minister at Washing- 

 ton they are, therefore, obliged respectfully to decline 

 to enter into the engagements suggested in the mem- 

 orandum, but they trust the present views of the 

 United States may soon be so far modified as to per- 

 mit of the interchange of the productions of the two 

 countries upon a more liberal basis. 



The delegates also submitted the following re- 

 port to the British ambassador at "Washington : 



WASHINGTON, February 7, 1866. 

 To His Excellency Sir Frederick Bruce, K. U. B., etc. : 



SIR: We have the honor to inform your excel, 

 lency that the renewal of our negotiations for recip. 

 rocal trade with the United States have terminated 

 unsuccessfully. You have been informed from time 

 to time of our proceedings, but we propose briefly to 

 recapitulate them. 



On our arrival here, after consultation with your 

 excellency, we addressed ourselves, with your sanc- 

 tion, to the Secretary of the Treasury, and we were 

 by him put in communication with the Committee 

 of Ways and Means of the House of Eepresentativea. 

 After repeated interviews with them, and on ascer- 

 taining that no renewal or extension of the existing 

 treaty would be made by the American authorities, 

 but that whatever was done must be by legislation, we 

 submitted as the basis upon which we desired ar- 

 rangements to be made the enclosed paper (marked 



In reply, we received the memorandum from the 

 committee, of which a copy is enclosed (B). And 

 finding, after discussion, that no important modifi- 

 cations in their views could be obtained, and that 

 we were required to consider their proposition as a 

 whole, we ielt ourselves under the necessity of de- 

 clining it, which was done by the memorandum also 

 enclosed (C). 



It is proper to explain the grounds of our final 

 action : 



_ It will be observed that the most important provi- 

 sions of the expiring treaty relating to the free in- 

 terchange of the products of the two countries were 

 entirely set aside, and that the duties proposed to 

 be levied were almost prohibitory in their character. 

 The principal object for our entering into negotia- 

 tions was therefore unattainable, and we had only 

 to consider whether the minor points were such as 

 to make it desirable for us to enter into specific en- 

 gagements. 



These points are three in number. 



With regard to the first the proposed mutual use 

 of the waters of Lake Michigan and the St. Lawrence 

 we considered that the present arrangements were 

 sufficient, and that the common interests of both 

 countries would prevent their disturbance. We were 

 not prepared to yield the right of interference in the 

 imposition of tolls upon our canals. We believed, 

 moreover, that the privilege allowed the United 

 States of navigating the waters of the St. Lawrence 

 was very much more than an equivalent for our use 

 of Lake Michigan. 



Upon the second point providing for the free 

 transit of goods under bond between the two coun- 

 tries we believe that in this respect, as in the former 

 case, the interests of both countries would secure 

 the maintenance of existing regulations. Connected 

 with this point was the demand made for the aboli- 

 tion of the free ports existing in Canada, which we 

 were not disposed to concede, especially in view 

 of the extremely unsatisfactory position in which 

 it was proposed to place the trade between the two 

 countries. 



On both the above points we dp not desire to be 

 understood as stating that the existing agreements 

 should not be extended and placed on a more per- 

 manent basis, but only that, taken apart from the 

 more important interests involved, it did not appear 

 to us at this time necessary to deal with them excep- 

 tionally. 



With reference to the third and last point the 

 concession of the right of fishing in provincial waters 

 we considered the equivalent proposed for so very 

 valuable a right to be utterly inadequate. The ad- 

 mission of a few unimportant articles free, with the 

 establishment of a scale of high duties as proposed, 

 would not, in our opinion, have justified us in yield- 

 ing this point. 



While we regret this unfavorable termination of 

 the negotiations, we are not without hope that, a* no 



