716 APPENDIX TO BRITISH CASE. 



(2) Whether and this was a broader question, though not per- 

 haps wholly distinct Great Britain could lawfully run a line from 

 headland to headland, so as to shut in great bends like that of Prince 

 Edward Island and that on the east coast of Cape Breton. 



(3) Whether the provincial officers could drive out our vox-els 

 from provincial bays and harbors when, in the judgment of the 

 authorities, they did not in fact need shelter or repairs; and 



(4) The legislation already referred to. 



These questions were not in all respects analogous to those which 



arose between A. D. 1866 and A. D. 1870, and which have again 



arisen in the last two years; but whatever they were, none 



429 of them were settled and all were postponed, and for the time 



being submerged in the reciprocity treaty of 1854. In A. D. 



1866, at the expiration by notice from the United States of the treaty 



of 1854, the difficulties touching the fisheries were renewed, and they 



continued until suspended by the treaty of Washington of 1871. 



During this period substantially every question arose which has 

 been in dispute w r ithin the last two years; yet not one of them was 

 permanently settled by Congress, the Executive of the United States^ 

 or by the Treaty of Washington. The Consular correspondence in 

 the summer of A. D. 1870 shows that our vessels were then forbidden 

 obtaining bait and all other supplies in Canada, and were excluded 

 from Dominion ports except when putting in for the purposes ex- 

 pressly named in the Convention of 1818. Numerous seizures were 

 made at that time, followed by forfeitures, one of which was the well 

 known case of the J . II. Nickerson, a vessel proceeded against at 

 Halifax for purchasing bait, while the United States took no action 

 whatever concerning her and made no reclamation, so that she became 

 a total loss to her owners. This period ended in the treaty of 1871, 

 as did that which closed in A. D. 1854, without the United States 

 securing favorable interpretation of any right in dispute. 



The references to the treaties of 1854 and 1871 are merely for the 

 necessary purpose of showing their bearing on the present status. 

 Those negotiations were on a much broader scale, and may be said 

 to have involved larger questions than those now under considera- 

 tion ; although everything which endangers in the least the harmony 

 of nations must be regarded as touching the possibilities of great 

 consequences. The nation would not brook that the high motives and 

 great skill and experience of the gentlemen concerned in the forma- 

 tion of those treaties should not be at all times declared. The treaty 

 of 1854 was a beneficent production of broad statesmanship, a bless- 

 ing to the country, and its good results have come down to this date 

 in the enlargement of commercial relations with Canada, which is 

 among its legitimate issue, and has already long survived its own 

 existence. 



The negotiations of 1871. as well as the consequent proceedings at 

 Geneva, were in the hands of practiced statesmen and jurists, led by 

 a Secretary of State eminent alike for his private and public virtues. 

 These citizens had been honored by the people with many trusts; 

 but for their diplomatic accomplishments at Washington and the 

 verdict at Geneva they will also be honored by history. While the 

 purely accidental result of the Halifax commission must, in compari- 

 son, be regarded as the spluttering and flickering of a farthing candle, 

 the exact cost of which is known but will soon be forgotten, the moral 



