734 APPENDIX TO BKITISH CASE. 



heard, and the umpire decided that the true meaning of the treaty 

 of 1818 made it lawful for the Washington to fish more than three 

 miles from the shore in the Bay of Fundy, and in respect of the 

 headland pretension he says : 



That the Bay of Fundy is not a British bay, nor a bay within the mean- 

 ing of the word as used in the treaties of 1783 and 1818. 



He refers to the convention of 1839 between France and Great 

 Britain in respect of reciprocal fishing by the subjects of each coun- 

 try along the shores of the other, providing that their conventional 

 arrangements shall exclude the fishermen of each from bays which do 

 not exceed 10 miles in width within the shores of the other as a proper 

 limit of the doctrine of headlands. 



But yjDon this point (immaterial to the question before him) it is 

 to be observed that the 10-mile headland arrangement between France 

 and Great Britain was a mutual one, applying to the shores and bays 

 of both countries along which the fishermen of each were accustomed 

 to ply their calling, and if, therefore, that convention had agreed 

 upon a distance of 10 miles from shore, and 20 miles for the width of 

 the waters between the headlands, it would have furnished no argu- 

 ment in respect of the principle of public law applicable to such 

 questions or in respect of the ancient rights of the citizens of the 

 United States in regard to the fisheries in northeastern waters, for the 

 fishermen of each country were put upon a precisely equal footing in 

 respect of the waters and ports of the other, which, on the British 

 theory, strangely enough, has not existed between British and Ameri- 

 can fishermen since the Act of Congress of 1830, and will not exist 

 if the treaty under consideration should go into effect. 



In 1854, however, the objects of British and Canadian desire were 

 at last accomplished by the conclusion of the treaty of the 5th of 

 June of that year, by which an extensive reciprocity, so called, of 

 trade was agreed upon, and the right granted to the Americans to 

 fish within the limits prohibited by the treaty of 1818 under a variety 

 of restrictions and limitations, and a similar right granted to British 

 fishermen in the waters of the United States north of latitude 36. 



In the same treaty were various other provisions respecting naviga- 

 tion of the St. Law r rence, American and Canadian canals, etc., and 

 the treaty was terminable on notice after the expiration of ten years. 

 The experience of the United States and their citizens under that 

 treaty led Congress to terminate it in the winter of 1864'65 by a vote 

 of nearly 2 to 1 in the House of Representatives and by a vote of 

 nearly 5 to 1 in the Senate. 



The Canadian Government then for a few j^ars resorted to a sys- 

 tem of licensing American fishermen to fish in the waters from 

 440 which they were excluded for fishing purposes by the treaty of 

 1818. For the first year the number of licenses is reported to 

 have been 354, at 50 cents per ton. The next year, 1867, the license 

 fee was made $1 per ton ; the number of licenses is reported to have 

 been 281. The next year, 1868-'69, the license fee was again 

 doubled $2 per ton and in 1868 only 56 licenses were taken out, 

 and in 1869 only 25. 



In 1868 the Dominion Government proceeded to enact the most 

 harsh and stringent laws on the subject of American fishermen cal- 

 culated and, it is thought, undoubtedly designed to so harass Ameri- 



