634 APPENDIX TO BRITISH CASE. 



378 Unless English words were in 1818 used in that article in an 



unusual sense, there is not a sentence or word therein that has 

 reference to anything else than taking, drying, or curing fish, by 

 American fishermen, on or within certain coasts, bays, creeks, or 

 harbours therein described. No word or phrase mentioned alludes or 

 refers to deep-sea fishing, or ordinary commercial privileges. The 

 restrictions refer only to fishing, or drying, or curing, ordinary com- 

 mercial privileges. The restrictions refer only to fishing, or drying, 

 or curing " in such bays or harbours." 



It is to be assumed that when this treaty of 1818 was signed, the 

 British statutes of Charles II, in restraint of navigation, the rudiments 

 of which are to be seen in 1650, and were aimed at Dutch trade with 

 British sugar colonies, were, on the English side, rigorously enforced, 

 so that no merchandise could be lawfully imported into Canadian 

 ports excepting in English bottoms. The treaty of 1818 was con- 

 cluded on 20th October, of that year, but ratifications were not ex- 

 changed till 30th January, 1819. Certainly on our side there was 

 then in force legislative restriction on navigation almost as severe 

 as was the English enactment after the restoration of Charles II. 

 America had not then emerged from the era of the embargo, Berlin 

 and Milan decrees, and the influences of the war of 1812. On 18th 

 April, 1818, the President approved a law closing our ports after 

 30th September, 1818, against British vessels coming from a colony 

 which, by the ordinary laws, is closed against American vessels. 

 Touching at a port open to American vessels could not modify the 

 restriction. Vessels and cargoes entering, or attempting to enter, in 

 violation of the law were forfeitable. And any English vessel that 

 could lawfully enter our ports was compelled to give a bond, if 

 laden outward with American products, not to land them in a British 

 colony or territory from which American vessels were excluded. The 

 presumption is that, quite independently of fishing rights and liber- 

 ties, no American vessel was for long before and after 1818 per- 

 mitted by English law to touch and trade in Canadian ports. How 

 that system of exclusion was gradually broken down, not by treaty, 

 but by concerted legislation, the Secretary of State and the Secretary 

 of the Treasury have clearly exhibited in the communications referred 

 to your committee. 



Not till 1822 were American wheat and lumber permitted to go 

 directly from American ports to the British West Indies and be 

 entered there. In 1843 Canada was allowed to import American 

 wheat, and then send it through the Saint Lawrence to the English 

 market as native produce an indirect open blow at the English 

 corn laws. Canadian trade entered upon another stage of prosperity 

 in 1846, when the restrictive navigation laws of England were again 

 relaxed for her benefit, and in 1850, when Canada was quite relieved 

 from the injurious influences of those laws; but yet Canada, at this 

 late date, endeavours to return to those obsolete and condemned re- 

 straints on trade by excluding deep-sea American fishermen from her 

 ports. 



That a sovereign State has exclusive jurisdiction in its own terri- 

 tory, and over its own vessels on the high seas, is nowhere denied. 

 Mr. Fish announced, as Secretary of State, in 18T5, " we have always 

 understood and asserted that, pursuant to public law, no nation can 

 rightfully claim jurisdiction at sea beyond a marine league from the 



