544 APPENDIX TO BRITISH CASE. 



If, however, weight is to be given to Mr. Bayard's argument that 

 the rejection of a proposition advanced by either side during the 

 course of the negotiations, should be held to necessitate an inter- 

 pretation adverse to the tenor of such proposition, that argument 

 may certainly be held to prove that American fishing vessels were 

 not intended to have the right to enter Canadian waters for bait to 

 be used even in the prosecution of the deep sea fisheries. The United 

 States' negotiators in 1818, made the proposition that the words, " and 

 bait " be added to the enumeration [enumeration] of the objects for 

 which their fishermen might be allowed to enter and the proviso as 

 first submitted had read : " provided, however, that American fisher- 

 men shall be permitted to enter such bays and harbours for the pur- 

 pose only of obtaining shelter, wood, water and bait." The addition 

 of the two last words was, however, resisted by the British Plenipo- 

 tentiaries and their omission acquiesced in by their American col- 

 leagues. It is moreover to be observed that this proposition could 

 only have had reference to the deep sea fishing, because the inshore 

 fisheries had already been specifically renounced by the representa- 

 tives of the United States. 



In addition to this evidence it must be remembered that the United 

 States" Government admitted in the case submitted by them before 

 the Halifax Commission in 1877, that neither the Convention of 1818 

 nor the Treaty of Washington conferred any right or privilege of 

 trading on American fishermen. The British case claimed compensa- 

 tion for the privilege which had been given since the ratification of 

 the latter treaty to United States' fishing vessels to transfer cargoes, 

 to outfit vessels, buy supplies, obtain ice, engage sailors, procure bait, 

 and traffic generally in British ports and harbours. 



This claim was however successfully resisted, and in the United 

 States case it is maintained: that the various incidental and recip- 

 rocal advantages of the Treaty, such as the privileges of traffic, pur- 

 chasing bait and other supplies, are not the subject of compensation, 

 because the Treaty of Washington confers no such rights on the 

 inhabitants of the United States, who now enjoy them merely by 

 sufferance, and who can at any time be deprived of them by the 

 enforcement of existing laws or the re-enactment of former 

 325 oppressive statutes. Moreover, the Treaty does not provide 

 for any possible compensation for such privileges. 



Now the existing laws referred to in this extract are the various 

 statutes passed by the Imperial and Colonial Legislatures to give 

 effect to the Treaty of 1818, which it is admitted in the said case 

 could at any time have been enforced (even during the existence of 

 the Washington Treaty) if the Canadian Authorities had chosen 

 to do so. 



Mr. Bayard on more than one occasion intimates that the interpre- 

 tation of the Treaty and its enforcement are dictated by local and 

 jhostile feelings, and that the main question is being obscured by 

 partizan advocacy and disturbed by the heat of local interests," and 

 in conclusion, expresses a hope that "ordinary commercial inter- 

 course shall not be interrupted by harsh measures and unfriendly 

 administration." 



The undersigned desires emphatically to state that it is not the 

 wish of the Government or the people of Canada to interrupt for a 



