758 APPENDIX TO BKITISH CASE. 



ment of positive treaty rights was as certain in 1818 as seventy years' 

 experience has proven it to be, in an unfortunate history. 



It was probably expected in 1818 that the good sense of the people 

 and the good will of their Governments would enable them to ar- 

 range these indefinite " restrictions " by precedent and acquiescence, 

 and thus adopt a series of regulations, the justice and propriety of 

 which all would admit. But such hopes, if they were entertained, 

 have been disappointed, and the eager rivalry that a very lucrative 

 employment has stimulated has involved the people and their Govern- 

 ments in dangerous controversies as to the " restrictions " that were 

 left without accurate definition in the proviso to the first article of 

 the treaty of 1818. 



Efforts have been made, that were for a time successful, to compose 

 these and other troublesome questions growing out of article 1 of 

 the treaty of 1818, by new treaty arrangements relating to the fish- 

 eries in British waters on the northeastern coasts. 



In the treaty of 1854 the repose of these questions was secured for 

 a time for the consideration of a liberal reciprocity extending to a 

 variety of subjects. The right of the free navigation of the St. 

 Lawrence River was included in that reciprocal agreement, and was 

 made perpetual by the reciprocity treaty of 1871. 



In the treaty of 1871 we again put these questions to rest for a 

 time by the promise of enough money to equalise the possible ad- 

 vantages of the Canadian and other fisheries over those on our coast 

 north of 39 north latitude. 



Neither of these arrangements proved satisfactory to us as to the 

 fisheries, and they were terminated by the United States. 



In addition to these efforts, our diplomatists have employed every 

 argument that seemed possible, through many years of laborious cor- 

 respondence and conference, to find a ground of mutual understand- 

 ing and consent as to the true interpretation of the treaty of 1818. 



Without attempting to state all the cases of warnings, seizures, 

 fines, and confiscations, of searches and captures and other rigorous 

 applications of " restrictions " that have been visited upon our fisher- 

 men, it is painfully true that they have been very numerous,, fre- 

 quently very aggravated, and have caused our fishermen great ex- 

 pense and serious losses. 



Every fishing season, when the reciprocity treaties were not in 

 force, has added to these complications and rendered their solution 

 more difficult. 



That very little progress has been made in reaching a common basis 

 of agreement in the solution of these contentions and conflicting con- 

 structions of the proviso in article 1 of the treaty of 1818, or in respect 

 of the headland theory (which is based, as we understand, upon the 

 language of that proviso and the preceding parts of that section, and 

 not upon the principles of international law), is apparent from the 

 citations of cases that have arisen since 1818, presently to be made. 



Instead of a nearer approach to such an understanding as to a true 

 and mutually acceptable construction of the first article of the treaty, 

 a wider divergence of opinion and a more determined contention have 

 characterised the diplomacy o'f both the treaty Powers. 



We seem now to have reached a point where we must seek to allay 

 the growing bitterness of these differences by a friendly, sincere, and 

 mutually respectful consideration of the positions assumed by each 



