DESPATCHES, REPORTS, CORRESPONDENCE, ETC. 563 



out foreign fishing vessels, excepting in cases of dire necessity, no 

 matter under what pretext they might desire to come in. The fish- 

 eries could not be preserved to our people if every one of the United 

 States' fishing vessels that were accustomed to swarm along our 

 coasts could claim the right to enter our harbours, " to post a letter, 

 or send a telegram, or buy a newspaper, to obtain a physician in case 

 of illness, or a surgeon in case of accident, to land or bring off a 

 passenger, or even to lend assistance to the inhabitants in fire, flood 

 or pestilence," or to " buy medicine " or to " purchase a new rope." 

 The slightest acquaintance with the negotiations which led to the 

 Treaty of 1818, and with the state of the Fishery Question preceding 

 it, induces the belief that if the United States' negotiators had 

 suggested these, as purposes for which their vessels should be allowed 

 to enter our waters the proposal would have been rejected as " pre- 

 posterous," to quote Mr. Phelps' own words. But Mr. Phelps ap- 

 pears to have over-looked an important part of the case, when he 

 suggested that it is a " preposterous " construction of the Treaty 

 which would lead to the purchase of bait being prohibited. So far 

 from such a construction being against " its spirit and plain intent," 

 no other meaning would accord with that spirit and intent. If we 

 adopt one of the methods, contended for by Mr. Phelps, of arriving 

 at the true meaning of the Treaty, namely, having reference to the 

 " attending circumstances," &c., we find that so far from its being 

 considered by the framers of the Treaty that a prohibition of the 

 right to obtain bait would be a " preposterous " and an " extreme 

 instance," a proposition was made by the United States' negotiators 

 that the proviso should read thus: Provided "however, that Ameri- 

 ca?! fishermen shall be permitted to enter such bays and harbours, for 

 the purposes only of obtaining shelter, wood, water and bait," and 

 the insertion of the word " bait " was resisted by the British negotia- 

 tors and struck out. After this how can it be contended that any 

 rule of interpretation ivould be sound which would give to United 

 States' 1 fishermen the very permission which was sought for on their 

 behalf during the negotiations, successfully resisted by the British 

 representatives and deliberately rejected by the framers of the Con- 

 vention? 



It is a well known fact that the negotiations preceding the Treaty 

 had reference very largely to the deep sea fisheries, and that the right 

 to purchase bait in the harbours of the British possessions, for the 

 deep sea fishing was one which the United States' fishermen were 

 intentionally excluded from. Referring to the difficulties which 

 subsequently arose from an enforcement of the Treaty, an American 

 author says : " It will be seen that most of those difficulties arose 

 from a change in the character of the fisheries. Cod being caught on 

 the banks were seldom pursued within the three mile limit, and yet 

 it was to cod, and perhaps halibut, that all the early negotiations 

 had reference. 



The mackerel fishing had now sprung up in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and 

 had proved extremely profitable. This was at that time an inshore fishery. 

 (Schuyler's American Diplomacy, page 411.) 



In further amplification of this argument the undersigned would 

 refer to the views set forth in the memorandum, before mentioned, 

 in the letters of Mr. Bayard, in May last, and to those presented in 



