DESPATCHES, REPORTS, CORRESPONDENCE, ETC. 541 



For upwards of forty years, as has already been stated, Canada has 

 continued to evince her desire for a free exchange of the chief prod- 

 ucts of the two countries. She has repeatedly urged the desirability 

 of the fuller reciprocity of trade, which was established during the 

 period in which the Treaty of 1854 was in force. 



The laws of Canada, with regard to the registry of vessels, ton- 

 nage dues, and shipping generally, are more liberal than those of the 

 United States. The ports of Canada in inland waters are free to 

 vessels of the United States, which are admitted to the use of her 

 canals on equal terms with Canadian vessels. 



Canada allows free registry to ships built in the United States 

 and purchased by British citizens, charges no tonnage or light dues 

 on United States' shipping, and extends a standing invitation for a 

 large measure of reciprocity in trade by her tariff legislation. 



Whatever relevancy therefore the argument may have to the sub- 

 ject under consideration, the undersigned submits that the concessions 

 which Mr. Bayard refers to as " favours " granted by the United 

 States can hardly be said not to have been met by equivalent con- 

 cessions on the part of the Dominion, and inasmuch as the disposition 

 of Canada continues to be the same as was evinced in the friendly 

 legislation just referred to, it would seem that Mr. Bayard's charges 

 of showing " hostility to commerce under the guise of protection to 

 inshore fisheries," or of " interrupting ordinary commercial inter- 

 course by harsh measures and unfriendly administration," is hardly 

 justified. 



The questions which were in controversy between Great Britain 

 and the United States prior to 1818, related not to shipping and com- 

 merce, but to the claims of United States' Fishermen to fish in waters 

 adjacent to the British North American Provinces. 



Those questions were definitely settled by the Convention of that 

 year, and although the terms of that Convention have since been twice 

 suspended, first by the Treaty of 1854, and subsequently by that of 

 1871, and after the lapse of each of these two 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 co+ntention 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 renunciations of 

 that Treaty, which related solely to inshore fishing, within the three 

 mile limit, so as to affect the deep sea fisheries," and " to diminish 

 and practically destroy the privileges expressly secured to American 

 vessels to visit these inshore waters for the objects of shelter and 

 repair of damages, and purchasing wood and obtaining water," 

 appears to the undersigned to be unfounded. The legislation referred 

 to in no way affects these privileges, nor has the Government of 

 Canada taken any action toward their restriction. In the cases of 

 the recent seizures, which are the immediate subject of Mr. Bayard's 

 letters, the vessel seized had not resorted to Canadian waters for any 

 one of the purposes specified in the Convention of 1818 as lawful. 

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

 of the Convention had entered Canadian harbours. In doing so the 

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



