DESPATCHES, EEPOBTS, CORRESPONDENCE, ETC. 759 



Government, or else we must enforce our views by vigorous measures 

 of retaliation. 



It seems to have become necessary to make such modifications of 

 that treaty as are suggested by our changed commercial relations since 

 1818, and also by our methods of fishing with purse seines and of 

 preserving fish in ice and snow, which have grown up into almost 

 entirely new systems, with new attending wants, in the past thirty 

 years. 



The gradual abridgment of our right to land and cure fish on the 

 shores of the British possessions, as the country along the shores 

 should become populated, was provided for in the treaties of 1783, 

 1818, 1854, and 1871. This feature in a treaty is thought to be 

 entirely novel. It relates to a future expected change in the condi- 

 tion of the then uninhabited coasts of British America. It certainly 

 suggests in a forcible way that it was contemplated that future 

 454 modifications of the treaties would be necessary to meet these 

 changed conditions when they should occur. 



The progress of civilisation on the North American continent, with 

 the necessary increase of commerce and of improvement in every 

 industry, has wrought changes in the condition of the people which 

 have demanded, from time to time, changes in the treaty relations of 

 the adjoining countries that were indispensable. 



The right of navigating the Mississippi and St. Lawrence Rivers, 

 as now agreed upon, is a most forcible illustration of this necessity 

 for an international policy, modified by international agreement, 

 that will provide for the mutual wants and advantage of these adjoin- 

 ing countries as the occasion demands. 



An inflexible adherence to the literal construction of ancient agree- 

 ments that have become too narrow for the convenience of either 

 country, whether it results from national jealousy or commercial 

 rivalry, creates an incubus upon the progress of the communities 

 concerned that, is derogatory to those who refuse to yield their 

 prejudices. 



Mr. Bayard, in presenting to the consideration of the British Gov- 

 ernment the reasons for a more liberal interpretation of the treaty 

 of 1818, and for an enlargement of the privileges of our fishermen in 

 the colonial ports, strongly urged the necessity for this relaxation 

 of the strict and literal construction placed by that Government on 

 that treaty, because of the growth of the commerce of both countries, 

 the building of vast lines of railways, the increase of population, the 

 enlarged demand for the products of the fisheries, and the more 

 intimate commercial and social relations of the people. 



Such considerations demand careful attention, and are, of them- 

 selves, sufficient reasons to induce both Governments to lay aside 

 prejudices and resentments, and to induce their people to cultivate 

 friendly relations, rather than to put their welfare at hazard by 

 fostering ill-will towards each other, resulting in continual strife. 



To show the very serious results of a different policy, the under- 

 signed present the following statement of cases that have arisen out 

 of the conflicting views as to the meaning of the first article of the 

 treaty of 1818. It is probably far short of the full list of cases that 

 have actually occurred, but it is large enough to disclose the fact 

 that wide and serious differences have existed since 1819 in the inter- 



