704 



APPENDIX TO BRITISH CASE. 



but clothed with supreme 

 authority to decide on 

 most important rights of 

 the Canadian people. 



It would submit such 

 rights to the adjudication 

 of two naval officers, one 

 of them belonging to a 

 foreign country, who, if 

 they should disagree and 

 be unable to choose an 

 Umpire, must refer the 

 final decision of the great 

 interests which might be 

 at stake to some person 

 chosen by lot. 



If a vessel charged 

 with infraction of Cana- 

 dian fishing rights should 

 be thought worthy of be- 

 ing subjected to a " judi- 

 cial examination," she 

 would be sent to the Vice- 

 Admiralty Court at Hali- 

 fax, but there would be 

 no redress, no appeal, 

 and no refereace to any 

 tribunal if the naval offi- 

 cers should think propel 

 to release her. 



It should, however, be 

 observed that the limita- 

 tion in the second sen- 

 tence of this Article of 

 the violations of the Con- 

 vention which are to ren- 

 der a vessel liable to 

 seizure could not be ac- 

 cepted by Her Majesty's 

 Government. 



For these reasons, the 

 Article in the form pro- 

 posed is inadmissible, but 

 Pier Majesty's Govern- 

 ment are not indisposed 

 to agree to the principle 

 of a joint enquiry by the 

 naval officers of the two 

 countries in the first in- 

 stance, the vessel to be 

 sent for trial at Halifax 

 if the naval officers do not 

 agree that she should be 

 released. 



They fear, however, 

 that there would be seri- 

 ous practical difficulties 

 in giving effect to this ar- 

 rangement, owing to the 

 great length of coast, 

 and the delays, which 

 must in consequence be 

 frequent, in securing the 

 presence at the same 

 time and place of the 

 naval officers of both 

 powers. 



Observations on Mr. Bay- cles II and VI the criti- 

 ard's Memorandum. cism would be fullv met. 



This Article is also 

 open to grave objection. 

 It proposes to give the 

 United States fishing ves- 

 sels the same commer- 

 cial privileges as those to 

 which other vessels of 

 the United States are en- 

 titled, although such 

 privileges are expressly 

 renounced by the Con- 

 vention of 1818 on behalf 

 of fishing vessels, which 

 were thereafter to be de- 

 nied the right of access 

 to Canadian waters for 

 any purpose whatever, 

 except those of shelter, 

 repairs, and the purchase 

 of wood and water. It 

 has frequently been 

 pointed out that an at- 

 tempt was made, during 

 the negotiations which 

 preceded the Convention 

 of 1818, to obtain for the 

 fishermen of the United 

 States the right of ob- 

 taining bait in Canadian 

 waters, and that this at- 

 tempt was successfully 

 resisted. In spite of this 

 fact, it is proposed, un- 

 der this Article, to de- 

 clare that the Conven- 

 tion of 1818 gave that 

 privilege, as well as the 

 privilege of purchasing 

 other supplies in the har- 

 bours of the Dominion. 



Reply to "Observations " 

 on Proposal. 



ARTICLE II. 



The objections to this 

 Article will, it is be- 

 lieved, be removed by a 

 reference to Article VI, 

 in which " the United 

 States agrees to admon- 

 ish its fishermen to com- 

 ply " with Canadian Cus- 

 toms Regulations and to 

 cooperate in securing 

 their enforcement. Obe- 

 dience by American fish- 

 ing vessels to Canadian 

 laws was believed, and 

 certainly was intended to 

 be secured hy this Ar- 

 ticle. By the consolida- 

 tion, however, of Arti- 



Reply to ".Observations " 

 on Proposal. 



ARTICLE III. 



As the chief object of 

 this Article is not unac- 

 ceptable to Her Majesty's 

 Government i.e., the es- 

 tablishment of a joint 

 system of enquiry by 

 naval officers of the two 

 countries in the first in- 

 stance it is believed 

 that the objections sug- 

 gested may be removed 

 by an enlargement of the 

 list of enumerated of- 

 fenses so as to include 

 infractions of the Regu- 

 lations which may be es- 

 tablished by the Com- 

 mission. And the treat- 

 ment to be awarded to 

 such infractions should 

 also be considered by the 

 same body. 



Reply to " Observations " 

 on Proposal. 



ARTICLE IV. 



The Treaty of 1818 re- 

 lated solely to fisheries. 

 It was not a Commercial 

 Convention, and no com- 

 mercial privileges were 

 renounced by it. It con- 

 tains no reference to 

 " ports," of which, it is be- 

 lieved, the only ones then 

 existing were Halifax, in 

 Nova Scotia, and possibly 

 one or two more in the 

 other provinces ; and 

 these ports were not until 

 long afterwards opened 

 by reciprocal commercial 

 regulations to vessels of 

 the United States en- 

 gaged in trading, 



The right to " obtain " 

 (i. e., take, or fish for) 

 bait, was not insisted 

 upon by the American 

 negotiators, and was 

 doubtless omitted from 

 the Treaty because, as it 

 would have permitted 

 fishing for that purpose, 

 it was a partial reasser- 

 tion of the right to fish 

 within the limits as '.^ 



