DESPATCHES, REPORTS, CORRESPONDENCE, ETC. 685 



a technical sense a treaty from the engagements of which neither 

 party can withdraw without the consent of the other amicably ob- 

 tained, but it was to be a rule for two powerful States. It was a 

 pact representing the will and opinions of each. It was a deliberate 

 international act. It was a bargain, in which one Government bought 

 a privilege at the price of an equivalent given to the other. It was 

 a contract, solemnized, and attested, by the law-making, instead of 

 the treaty-making, power of the two nations. 



What we are confronted by is the royal assent, given by the Queen 

 in council on November 26, 1886, to the Canadian act, entitled "An 

 act further to amend the act respecting fisheries by foreign vessels." 

 It begins by reciting that it is "expedient for the more effectual 

 protection of the inshore fisheries of Canada against intrusion by 

 foreigners." The offensive significance of that law is io the fact 

 that, by (what I assume is law) the statute establishing the Cana- 

 dian union, the governor-general must, according to his discretion, 

 but subject to the Queen's instructions, either declare that he assents 

 in the Queen's name to a bill passed by the houses of the Canadian 

 Parliament, or that he withholds the Queen's assent, " or that he 

 reserves the bill for the signification of the Queen's pleasure." The 

 last-named alternative phrase was adopted in dealing with the 

 Canadian law of 1886, which peremptorily closes Canadian ports 

 to our fishing vessels seeking to trade. It empowers any of the 

 therein designated officials to bring to, and search, any American 

 vessel being within any Canadian harbor, or "hovering" in British 

 waters. This is a revival in Canada of the theory of the ancient 

 British "hovering act," long ago repealed in the mother country. 

 If the search prescribed and authorized be of a fishing vessel loiter- 

 ing in a prohibited place, and fairly suspected of preparing there to 

 fish in violation of law, such search, if fairly and reasonably made, 

 may be tolerated. 



Our own customs law prescribes and authorizes a similar search 

 of foreign vessels even four leagues from our coasts. The third 

 chapter of the thirty-fourth Title of the Revised Statutes empowers 

 a revenue-cutter, having displayed her pennant and ensign, after a 

 signal gun, to fire into, and bring to, any vessel liable to examination 

 that refuses to stop and be visited and searched. But the Canadian 

 act, thus having the royal approval, was intended, as has been openly 

 avowed, to forfeit any American fishing vessel which is found hav- 

 ing entered Canadian waters, or the port of Halifax, to buy ice, 

 bait, or other articles, or for any purpose other than shelter, repairs, 

 wood, or water. The plea is that the treaty of 1818 permits and 

 stipulates for such legislation. That we deny, and reply that such 

 legislation is a repeal and annulment by England of the arrange* 

 ment made in 1830, and to that repeal we are entitled to respond by 

 a similar repeal of our own law, and by a refusal hereafter, and 

 while debate or negotiation goes on, to confer hospitality, or any 

 privileges whatever in our ports, on Canadian vessels or boats of any 

 sort. A violation of comity may be looked upon as an unfriendly 

 act, but not a cause for a just war. England may judge for herself 

 of the nature and extent of the comity and courtesy she will show 

 to us. In the present case we do not propose retaliation; we simply 

 respond. We, too, suspend comity and hospitalit}'. 



