DESPATCHES, REPORTS, CORRESPONDENCE, ETC. 539 



same effect, and may be said to be merely declaratory of the law as 



established by the Imperial Statute. 



322 (3.) The authority of the Legislatures of the Provinces, and 



after confederation, the authority of the Parliament of Canada, 

 to make enactments to enforce the provisions of the Convention, as 

 AY ell as the authority of Canadian officers to enforce those Acts, rests 

 on well-known constitutional principles. 



Those Legislatures existed, and the Parliament of Canada now 

 exists, by the authority of the Parliament of the United Kingdom of 

 Great Britain and Ireland, which is one of the " nations " referred 

 to by Mr. Bayard as the " contracting parties." The Colonial statutes 

 have received the sanction of the British Sovereign, who and not the 

 nation is actually the party with whom the United States made the 

 Convention. The officers who are engaged in enforcing the Acts of 

 Canada or the laws of the Empire are Her Majesty's officers, whether 

 their authority emanates directly from the Queen or from her Repre- 

 sentative the Governor-General. 



The jurisdiction thus exercised cannot, therefore, be properly de- 

 scribed in the language used by Mr. Bayard as a supposed and there- 

 fore questionable delegation of jurisdiction by the Imperial Govern- 

 ment of Great Britain. Her Majesty governs in Canada as well as 

 in Great Britain ; the officers of Canada are Her officers, the statutes 

 of Canada are Her statutes, passed on the advice of Her Parliament 

 sitting in Canada. 



It is, therefore, an error to conceive that because the United States 

 and Great Britain were in the first instance the contracting parties 

 to the Treaty of 1818, no questions arising under that Treaty can be 

 " responsibly dealt with " either by the Parliament or by the authori- 

 ties of the Dominion. 



The raising of this objection now is the more remarkable as the 

 Government of the United States has long been aware of the necessity 

 of reference to the Colonial Legislatures in matters affecting their 

 interests. The Treaties of 1854 and 1871 expressly provide that so 

 far as they concerned the fisheries or trade relations of the Provinces, 

 they should be subject to ratification by their several Legislatures, 

 and seizures of American vessels and goods followed by condemnation 

 for breach of the Provincial Customs Laws, have been made for 

 forty years without protest or objection on the part of the United 

 States' Government. 



The undersigned with regard to this contention of Mr. Bayard has 

 further to observe that, in the proceedings which have recently been 

 taken for the protection of the fisheries, no attempt has been made to 

 put any special or novel interpretation on the Convention of 1818. 

 The seizures of the fishing vessels have been made in order to enforce 

 the explicit provisions of the Treaty, the clear and long established 

 provisions of the Imperial Statute and of the Statutes of Canada, 

 expressed in almost the same language. 



The proceedings which have been taken to carry out the law of 

 the Empire in the present case, are the same as those which have been 

 taken from time to time during the period in which the Convention 

 has been in force, and the seizures of vessels have been made under 

 process of the Imperial Court of Vice-Admiralty established in the 

 Provinces of Canada. 



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

 series of laws and regulations affecting the trade between the North 



