DESPATCHES, REPORTS, CORRESPONDENCE, ETC. 515 



the same as was evinced in the friendly legislation just referred to, 

 it would seem that Mr. Bayard's charge of " showing hostility 

 308 to commerce under the guise of protection to inshore fisheries, 

 or " interrupting ordinary commercial intercourse by harsh 

 measures and unfriendly administration," is hardly justified. 



But even if the Convention of 1818 had been a Treaty of Com- 

 merce the undersigned suggests that the adoption by either country 

 of domestic laws extending commercial relations could not be held 

 to abrogate the terms of agreement between the two countries. The 

 questions, however, as has already been suggested, which are in con- 

 troversy between Great Britain and the United States prior to 1818 

 related, not to shipping and commerce, but to the liberties of United 

 States fishermen in waters adjacent to the British North American 

 provinces. Those questions were definitely settled by the Conven- 

 tion of that year, and although the terms of that Convention have 

 since been twice suspended, first by the Treaty of 1854, and after- 

 wards by the Treaty. of 1871, after the lapse of these two latter 

 Treaties, the provisions made in 1818 came again into operation, and 

 were carried out by the Imperial and Colonial Authorities without 

 the slightest doubt being raised as to their being in full force and 

 vigour. 



Mr. Bayard's contention that the effect of the legislation which 

 has taken place under the Convention of 1818, and of executive 

 action thereunder would be " to expand the restrictions and re- 

 nunciations of that Treaty which related solely to inshore fishing 

 within the three-mile limit, so as to affect the deep sea fisheries, 

 and so as " to diminish and practically destroy the privileges ex- 

 pressly secured to American fishing vessels to visit these inshore 

 waters for the objects of shelter, and repair of damages and purchas- 

 ing wood and obtaining water," appears to the undersigned to be 

 unfounded. The legislation referred to in no way affects those privi- 

 leges, nor has the Government of Canada taken any action towards 

 their restrictions. In the cases of the recent seizures, which are 

 the immediate subject of Mr. Bayard's letter, the vessels seized had 

 not resorted to Canadian waters for any one of the purposes allowed. 

 They were United States fishing vessels, and, against the plain terms 

 of the Convention of 1818, had entered harbours of Canada for pur- 

 poses other than those enumerated as lawful. In doing so the 

 " David J. Adams " was not even possessed of a permit '"to touch 

 and trade." even if such a document could be supposed to divest her 

 of the character of a fishing vessel. While the Government of 

 Canada has no desire to expand the restrictions of the Convention 

 of 1818. the undersigned believes that the fair inference to be drawn 

 from Mr. Bayard's contention is that the desire of the United States 

 Government is to extend very largely the privileges which their citi- 

 zens enjoy under its terms. The contention that the changes which 

 may from time to time take place in the habits of the fish taken off 

 our coasts, or in the methods of taking them, should be regarded as 

 justifying a periodical revision of the provisions of the Treaty can- 

 not be acceded to. Such changes may from time to time render the 

 provisions of the compact inconvenient to one party or the other, 

 but the validity of the agreement can hardly be said to depend on 

 the convenience or inconvenience which it imposes from time to 

 time on one or other of the contracting parties. When the opera- 



