The Fishery Question. 8i 



their sufferings would begin at once and 

 would be out of proportion to ours. 



If their wishes are considered by the 

 United States it will be in spite of, rather 

 than because of, some recent performances. 

 This is perhaps the reason why, after all the 

 reiteration of the fact that an adjustment 

 belongs to representatives of the United 

 States and the home governments, the 

 Dominion is recoo^nized and selected to bear 

 the brunt of non-intercourse. The voices 

 that have cried war, if they were serious, have 

 not been taken seriously. Granted that the 

 United States have the right to abrogate the 

 Convention of 1818, the proposition that the 

 Fishery of 1 783 would thus revive, whatever 

 force there may be in the theory, is practically 

 as improbable as that England might abro- 

 gate the latter treaty and claim us as subjects 

 of George III. An abrogation, in the light 

 of experience, would place our fishermen 

 where they were in 181 7, worse off than 

 they are to-day, for our negotiators at that 

 time secured an extensive acknowledgment 

 of our rights to the in-shore cod fishery. 

 Another ad i7ite7^ivi arrangement is under- 

 stood to be contemplated. It can hardly be 

 6 



