788 APPENDIX TO BRITISH CASE. 



United States as belonging to the adjacent country. In the case, for instance, 

 of the Baie des Chaleurs, a peculiarly well-marked and almost land-locked 

 indentation of the Canadian coast, the 10-mile limit would be drawn from points 

 in the heart of Canadian territory, and almost 70 miles from the natural en- 

 trance or mouth of the bay. This would be done in spite of the fact that, 

 both by imperial legislation and by judicial interpretation, this bay has been 

 declared to form a part of the territory of Canada. (See Imperial Statute, 14 

 and 15 Viet., cap. 63; and Mouatt v. McPhee [Mowat v. McFee], 5 Sup. Court 

 of Canada Reports, p. 66.) 



From this statement of the British contention, it appears that the 

 headland theory was still adhered to by that Government in March, 

 1887, but it was admitted that it had been relaxed as to the Bay of 

 Fundy for special reasons. 



Mr. Baj^ard's reply to the " observations " of the Marquis of Salis- 

 bury, which is set forth on pages 56 to 60, inclusive, of Senate Execu- 

 tive Document No. 113, first session of Fiftieth Congress, refutes the 

 force of those " observations " by citing precedents furnished by the 

 conduct of the British Government in this matter, and the decision 

 of the umpire in the cases of the Washington and the Argus, in which 

 he wholly discarded the headland theory and made an award in favor 

 of the owner. 



But these counter-statements only served to show that the headland 

 theory, in its application to bays within the jurisdictional limits, was 

 still in controversy between the two Governments, and that there was 

 little disposition on the part of the British Government to yield, as 

 there was on our part to admit, the justice of that construction of the 

 treaty of 1818. 



These contentions made it necessary that a better understanding 

 should be reached ; and if the two Governments could not accomplish 

 this by negotiation, it was certain that increasing strife and broils 

 between their people would seriously endanger the commerce of each, 

 and would expose both countries to the peril of being driven into 

 hostilities by the designs of vicious men, or through the angry con- 

 tentions of well-meaning persons. 



IX. THE CLOSE RELATIONS BETWEEN THE PEOPLE or CANADA AND THE 



UNITED STATES IN THE USE OF THE COMMON RIGHT OF FISHERY MAKE 

 IT IMPERATIVE TO REGULATE THEIR ASSOCIATION BY FRIENDLY AGREE- 

 MENT RATHER THAN BY RETALIATORY LAWS. 



Mutual and amicable agreement between the two Governments, 

 clearly understood and faithfully executed, is the only way in which 

 the people of Newfoundland and Canada and of the United States 

 can ever peacefully enjoy, in common, the valuable rights of fishery. 



Eeciprocity, in some form, is an element in every treaty made for 

 the settlement of questions that are sincerely in dispute between inde- 

 pendent powers. In all of our treaties with Great Britain, relating 

 to the extra-territorial rights, liberties, or privileges of each in the 

 other's country or jurisdiction, reciprocity has been conspicuously 

 stated as a leading motive and purpose. The provisional treaty of 

 peace of November 30, 1782, sets out with this declaration : 



Whereas reciprocal advantages and mutual convenience are found by experi- 

 ence to form the only permanent foundation of peace and friendship between 

 States, it is agreed to form the articles of the proposed treaty on such prin- 



