DESPATCHES, REPORTS, CORRESPONDENCE, ETC. 513 



The correspondence preceding the Washington Treaty (1871) 

 shows that while the United States insisted that the limit of the three 

 marine miles should follow the sinuosities of the coast, the repre- 

 sentatives of Great Britain distinctly claimed that the limit should 

 be three marine miles from the coast line, or from a line drawn across 

 the mouths of bays, harbours, and inlets from headland to headland. 

 A friendly and conciliatory spirit induced the Government 

 307 of Great Britain to allow the right in that respect to remain in 

 abeyance, and to refrain from the strict enforcement thereof; 

 but no agreement was come to by which the right to have the line of 

 demarcation drawn from headland to headland was given up on the 

 part of Great Britain, and that right is now insisted upon by the 

 Government of Canada as firmly as it is within the province of a 

 Government subordinate to Imperial authority to do. 



Mr. Bayard further observes that since the Treaty of 1818 " a 

 series of laws and regulations affecting the trade between the North 

 American Provinces and the United States, have been respectively 

 adopted by the two countries, and have led to amicable and mutually 

 beneficial relations between their respective inhabitants,'' and that 

 " the independent and yet concurrent action of the two Governments 

 has effected a gradual extension from time to time of the provisions 

 of Article I. of the Convention of July 3rd, 1815, providing for 

 reciprocal liberty of commerce between the United States and the 

 territories of Great Britain in Europe, so as gradually to include 

 the Colonial possessions of Great Britain in North America and the 

 West Indies within the limits of that Treaty." In reference to this 

 statement the undersigned has to observe that Mr. Bayard's letter 

 proceeds to state certain instances in which it appears to be con- 

 tended that the Laws and regulations so adopted have effected the 

 provisions of the Convention, and the undersigned is obliged to as- 

 sume that the argument is derived only from those instances, as he 

 is unable to find any Law or Regulation which has been in the least 

 degree infringed by the action of the Dominion Authorities in pro- 

 tecting their Fisheries. 



He has referred to the Proclamation of President Jackson in 1830, 

 creating " reciprocal commercial intercourse on terms of perfect 

 equality of flag " between the United States and the British Ameri- 

 can De'pendencies, and has suggested that those " commercial privi- 

 leges have since received a large extension, and that in some cases 

 favours have been granted by the United States without equivalent 

 concession," such as " the exemption granted by the Shipping Act 

 of June 26th, 1884, amounting to one half of the regular tonnage dues 

 on all vessels from British North American and West Indies entering 

 ports of the United States." 



He has also mentioned under this head, " the arrangements for the 

 transit of goods, and the remission by proclamation as to certain 

 British Ports and places of the remainder of the tonnage tax on the 

 evidence of equal treatment being shown " to United States Vessels. 



The Proclamation of President Jackson in 1830, had no relation to 

 the subject of the fisheries, and merely had the effect of opening 

 United States Ports to British vessels on terms like those which pre- 

 vailed in British Ports to vessels of the United States. 



The undersigned, while insisting that such legislation can in no 

 way afford a reason for treating the Convention of 1818 as in any 

 92909 S. Doc. 870, 61-3, vol 4 43 



