614 APPENDIX TO BEITISH CASE. 



Courts. It is to be observed that this article might, in the event of 

 the failure of the two Governments to arrive at a definite arrange- 

 ment, a contingency which, considering the relations of the United 

 States' Senate and the President, cannot be dismissed from our con- 

 templation, remain in the operation for an indefinite time, greatly 

 to the disadvantage of the people of this country. 



10. The procedure suggested in Article III, for the investigation 

 on the spot of all cases of trespass by United States' fishing vessels, 

 appears to be open to criticism as capable of being used for the 

 purpose of frustrating the ends of justice. I would submit that no 

 case has yet been made out for depriving of their jurisdiction par- 

 ticularly in those cases where the offence must ex hypothesi have 

 been committed within the territorial waters of the Dominion, the 

 properly constituted and trustworthy tribunals of this country, and 

 substituting for them an irregularly composed Court of First In- 

 stance, such as that which would come into exiitence if this article 

 were to be adopted. 



11. Article IV prejudges in favour of the United States the impor- 

 tant question which has arisen as to the commercial privileges to 

 which United States' fishing vessels are entitled while in Canadian 

 waters. My Government will, I have no doubt, insist upon the neces- 

 sity of maintaining the distinction made by the Convention of 1818 

 between fishing vessels endeavouring to use Canadian bays and har- 

 bours as a basis of operation from which to prosecute their industry 

 in competition with Canadian fishermen, and trading vessels resort- 

 ing to such bays and harbours in the ordinary course of business. 



12. The history of the negotiations which preceded the Convention 

 of 1818 makes it perfectly clear that the purchase of bait was not one 

 of the purposes for which it was intended that United States' fishing 

 vessels should have a right of entering Canadian waters. It is, I 

 observe, proposed by Mr. Bayard in the Article under consideration, 

 that this point also should be decided in anticipation against the 

 Dominion without further discussion. 



13. Under Article V it is assumed that the seizures and detentions 

 which have taken place during the past season in consequence of non- 

 compliance by United States' fishermen with the Customs Laws of 

 Canada have in all cases involved the violation of the Treaty of 1818 

 by the Canadian authorities, and we are accordingly invited before 

 submitting our case to examination by the proposed mixed Commis- 

 sion, to release all United States' fishing vessels now under seizure for 

 a breach of our Customs Laws, and to refund all fines exacted for 

 such illegality. We are, in other words, before going into Court, to 

 plead guilty to all the counts contained in this part of the indictment 

 against us. 



14. Indeed, if Mr. Bayard's proposal be considered as a whole it 

 amounts to this that the Government of the Dominion is to submit 

 its conduct in the past and its rights in the future to the arbitrament 

 of a Commission, without any assurance whatever that the recom- 

 mendations of that Commission are likely to be accepted by Comgress 

 and that before the enquiry commences it is to place upon record the 

 admission that it has been in the wrong upon all the most important 

 points in the controversy. Such an admission would involve the pub- 

 lic renunciation of substantial and valuable rights and privileges for 



