DESPATCHES, REPORTS, CORRESPONDENCE, ETC. 735 



can fishermen in the exercise of the rights reserved to them by the 

 treaty of 1818 as to cripple and destroy their operations. Analogous 

 legislation by Newfoundland in 1836 had led the United States to 

 remonstrate against it as a " violation of the well-established prin- 

 ciples of the common law of England and of the principles of all 

 just powers and of all civilized nations, and seemed to be expressly 

 designed to enable Her Majesty's authorities, with perfect impunity, 

 to seize and confiscate American vessels and embezzle almost indis- 

 criminately the property of our citizens employed in the fisheries on 

 the coasts of the British possessions." (Ex. Doc. 100, Thirty-second 

 Congress, first session.) 



In 1870 the British Government informed our own that the Cana- 

 dian Government would issue no more licences to American fisher- 

 men ; and, notwithstanding the decision of the umpire in the case of 

 the Washington in 1853, announced the British claim to the exclu- 

 sion of the American fishing vessels from coming within British 

 headlands, without regard to the width of the bay between. (See 

 Report on Foreign Relations, 1870). 



Then came the treaty of 1871, devoted primarily to the Alabama 

 claims, but which provided that for the period of ten years fishermen 

 of the United States should have, in addition to their rights under 

 the treaty of 1818, the right of British North American in-shore 

 fishing under certain limitations, etc. ; and the United States agreed 

 to the free admission of British North American fishery products 

 into our country, and it was also provided that the British fishermen 

 might fish in certain American waters, and that the balance of 

 alleged advantage to the United States in these respects should be 

 settled by a commission. 



This commission, as is well known, by the vote of the British com- 

 missioner and the Belgian umpire, and against the vote of the Amer- 

 ican commissioner, fixed the sum to be paid by the United States at 

 $5,500,000. The gross injustice of this, as believed by the United 

 States, led the Senate, on the 27th February, 1879, six years before 

 the fisheries provision could expire by the terms of the treaty, to 

 unanimously pass a resolution declaring that steps ought to be 

 taken to provide for the earliest possible termination of these fishery 

 arrangements by negotiations with the British Government to that 

 end. It is understood that the President of the United States, in 

 pursuance of this recommendation, endeavoured to obtain the agree- 

 ment of Great Britain to an immediate termination of these clauses 

 in the treaty, but without success. 



In February, 1883, however, as the period was approaching when 

 these provisions could be terminated on notice, both Houses of Con- 

 gress unanimouslv (or certainly without anv division) passed reso- 

 lutions terminating articles XVII, XIX, XX, XXI, XXII, XXIII y 

 XXIV, XXV, XXX, and XXXII of said treaty, which articles 

 covered the whole fishery subject as well as certain matters of navi- 

 gation, etc. This termination took effect on July 1, 1885. 



By the twenty-ninth article of the same treaty, which is still in 

 force, the United States engaged that all goods, wares, and merchan- 

 dise arriving at certain ports named and destined for the British 

 possessions in North America, should have entry and transit without 

 the payment of duty, and it was reciprocally agreed on the part of 

 Great Britain that all goods, wares, and merchandise arriving at any 



