DESPATCHES, REPOKTS, CORRESPONDENCE, ETC. 775 



The undersigned believe that the interpretation of that treaty, 

 which has led to its reformation in the treaty now before the Senate, 

 is far in advance of anything that any American diplomat has offi- 

 cially demanded of the British Government, and will lead to a full 

 and amicable adjustment of all troubles of the sort that have here- 

 tofore arisen; and that it will open the way for a liberal and 

 neighborly agreement as to such differences as may hereafter arise, 

 both on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. 



In this interpretation and reformation of our existing treaty, the 

 United States make no committals as to the exclusive rights of fish- 

 ing under the laws of nations that may affect our interests in the 

 Pacific and the Gulf of Mexico in the future; nor do they place the 

 delimitations of the fishing-grounds, or the alleged commercial 

 rights of our fishermen, upon any principle of the international law 

 that may be quoted against us at Victoria (within a very short dis- 

 tance of our northern border) , or along the extensive sea-coast be- 

 tween Puget Sound and Alaska, our great Pacific fishery. 



The undersigned prefer the certainty which this treaty has secured 

 as to our specific rights in the fisheries of the Atlantic coasts of North 

 America to the uncertainty of the international law as to all those 

 questions, which will leave in bitter dispute our rights and liberties 

 both on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, bays, harbors, and creeks, and 

 in Behring's Sea and Straits. 



The undersigned believe that the treaty now under consideration 

 affords a better foundation for both our fishing and commercial 

 rights than any that can be stated as resting alone upon international 

 law, or upon comity secured by retaliatory laws and maintained by 

 the fluctuating interests of commerce, that are very unstable. 



Those who assert that it is not the duty, and is scarcely the right, 

 of the President to resort to negotiations, in preference to the retalia- 

 tion provided for in existing laws, in order to secure commercial 

 rights to fishermen in Canadian ports, are not willing that their 

 privileges shall be enlarged and converted into rights secured by 

 treaty. They prefer the chances of greater success through legisla- 

 tion that will intimidate the British Government or greatly embar- 

 rass British commerce. This seems to indicate that they rely for 

 success more upon British cupidit}' and the fear that Government has 

 of the consequences of war, than upon its sense of justice, or its 

 good faith in keeping treaty obligations. 



Whether or not this may be true, it is very obvious, as the 

 465 undersigned believe, that the advantages we are supposed to 

 enjoy under such circumstances would be quite as available for 

 the increase of our commercial privileges by retaliatory laws, after 

 this treaty is ratified, as they are at present. Our good faith is no 

 more pledged in this treaty than it is in the treaty of 1818. 



This treaty does not bind us to advance no claim hereafter to in- 

 creased commercial privileges in favour of our fishermen. The spirit 

 in which it is framed is one of conformity, in our treaty relations, to 

 the progressive interests and necessities of the country, so that a 

 further increase of commercial privileges would naturally result 

 from the policy of both countries; as is shown by the fact of the 

 negotiation of this treaty, when such increase should appear to be, 

 as it will be, mutually advantageous. 



