DESPATCHES, EEPOETS, CORRESPONDENCE, ETC. 777 



the Queen of Great Britain, either by treaty or by laws mutually acknowl- 

 466 edged and accepted by the President of the United States, by and with 



the consent of the Semite, and by Her Majesty the Queen of Great Britain. 

 Pending a different arrangement on the subject, the United States Government 

 engages to give all proper orders to officers in its employment; and Her Britan- 

 nic Majesty's Government engages to instruct the proper colonial or other 

 British olliccrs to abstain from hostile acts against British and United States 

 fishermen respectively. 



This protocol was offered by Mr. Seward, as a modus vivendi r 

 after the termination of the treaty of 1854 had thrown us back upon 

 that of 1818, as to our fishery rights. He offered it, also, for accept- 

 ance by Great Britain as the basis of a new treaty of interpretation 

 and regulation of those rights. 



Mr. Seward's recommendation of a mixed commission, (1) "to 

 agree upon and define by a series of lines " the fishing limits, in con- 

 formity with the first article of the convention of 1818; (2) " to agree 

 upon and establish such regulations as may be necessary and proper 

 to secure the fishermen of the United States the privilege of entering 

 bays and harbours" under the proviso to the treaty; and (3) "to 

 agree upon and recommend the penalties to be adjudged, and such 

 proceedings and jurisdiction as may be necessary to secure a speedy 

 trial," etc., " for violations of rights and transgressions of limits ana 

 restrictions" etc., indicates an earnest apprehension on his part that 

 no settlement could be reached by ordinary negotiations; that the 

 treaty could not be amicably kept unless it was amended; and that 

 the amendments he proposed would cure the defects of the indefinite 

 description of tlie rights and restrictions and -fishing limits that were 

 too generally stated in the treaty of 1818. 



He saw the increasing danger of the situation, and came boldly 

 forward to provide against its results. 



The cordial manner in which these three propositions were then 

 received by the British Government, as a basis of agreement, inspired 

 the efforts of the present administration to renew the negotiation on 

 this plan as the basis of a new treaty. 



IV. MEASURES OF HOSTILITY, EITHER COMMERCIAL OF ACTUAL, ARE NOT 



PREFERABLE TO THE TREATY BEFORE THE SENATE. 



The undersigned have found no opinion expressed by any of our 

 diplomatists in their official correspondence that the proper interpre- 

 tation of article 1 of the treaty of 1818 could be otherwise secured 

 than by a further agreement, as to its meaning, between the treaty 

 Powers. 



If we demand a still more favorable agreement than that presented 

 in this convention now under consideration, we shall probably 

 encounter many more years of controversy and negotiation before a 

 better result can be reached. 



If, laying aside all treaty agreements, we attempt to coerce a better 

 understanding and less grievous practices than we have already 

 suffered through commercial retaliation, we shall find that the cost to 

 our own people is far greater than the entire value of the fisheries. 



If we resort to war, or to measures that may lead to hostilities, upon 

 what precise definition of our rights and grievances will we justify 

 such grave proceedings, either to our own people, or before the nations 

 of the earth ? We believe that no man can safely venture to formu- 

 late such a declaration. 



