DESPATCHES, KEPORTS, CORRESPONDENCE, ETC. 799 



of a period of common enjoyment of the fisheries without attention to any sea- 

 line of demarkation, but r-ith a certain distribution of industrial and economical 

 advantages in the prosecution and the product of this common enjoyment. 



Here is almost an exact repetition of Mr. Webster's declaration of 

 1852 as to the unsatisfactory and uncertain character of the conven- 

 tion of 1818, especially to the " sea-line of demarkation." 



As to the representations made by the Secretary of State to the 

 British minister in Washington in the cases of the Joseph Story and 

 Da rid J. Adams, in notes dated respectively the 10th and 20th of 

 May, 1886, the Earl of Rosebery communicated to Sir Lionel West 

 a report of the Canadian minister of marine and fisheries, copy of 

 which was communicated to Mr. Bayard by Mr. Harding, British 

 charge d'affaires, on August 2, 1886. From this report the follow- 

 ing in reply to Mr. Bayard's argument for commercial privileges 

 is here quoted : 



In addition to this evidence, it must be remembered that the United States 

 Government admitted, in the case submitted by them before the Halifax Com- 

 mission in 1877, that neither the Convention of 1818 nor the Treaty of Wash- 

 ington conferred any right- or privilege of trading on American fishermen. The 

 British case claimed compensation for the privilege which had been given since 

 the ratification of the latter treaty to United States fishing vessels " to transfer 

 cargoes, to outfit vessels, by [buy] supplies, obtain ice, engage sailors, procure 

 bait, and traffic generally in British ports and harbors. 



This claim was, however, successfully resisted, and in the United States case 

 It is maintained " that the various incidental and reciprocal advantages of the 

 treaty, such as the privileges of traffic, purchasing bait and other supplies, are 

 not the subject of compensation, because the Treaty of Washington confers no 

 such rights on the inhabitants of the United States, who now enjoy them merely 

 by sufferance, and who can at any time be deprived of them by the enforcement 

 of existing laws or the re-enactment of former oppressive statutes. Moreover, 

 the treaty does not provide for any possible compensation for such priviliges." 



Still later a reply to the representations made by Mr. Phelps, at 

 London, was written by tbe Canadian minister of justice. From his 

 reply we quote the following : 



But even at this barrier the difficulty In following Mr. Phelps's argument by 

 which he seeks to reach the interpretation he desires, does not end. After taking 

 a view of the treaty which all authorities thus forbid, he says: " Thus regarded, 

 it appears to me clear that the words ' for no other purpose whatever,' as 

 employed in the treaty, mean for no other purpose inconsistent with the pro- 

 visions of the treaty." Taken in that sense the words would have no meaning, 

 for no other purpose would be consistent with the treaty, excepting those men- 

 tioned. He proceeds, "or prejudicial to the interests of the provinces or their 

 inhabitants." If the United States authorities are the judges as to what is 

 prejudicial to those interests, the treaty will have very little value ; if the prov- 

 inces are to be the judges, it is most prejudicial to their interests that United 

 Stntes fishermen should be permitted to come into the harbors on any 

 481 pretext, and it is fatal to their fishery interests that these fishermen, 

 with whom they have to compete at such a disadvantage in the markets 

 of the United States, should be allowed to enter for supplies and bait, even for 

 the pursuit of the deep-sea fisheries. Before concluding his remarks on this 

 subject, the undersigned would refer to a passage in the answer on behalf of 

 the United States to the case of Her Majesty's Government as presented to the 

 Halifax Fisheries Commission in 1877 : " The various incidental and reciprocal 

 advantages of the treaty, such as the privileges of traffic, purchasing bait and 

 other supplies, are not the subject of compensation, because the treaty of 

 Washington confers no such rights on the inhabitants of the United States, 

 who now enjoy them merely by sufferance, and who can at an" time be de- 

 prived of them by the enforcement of existing laws or the re-enforcement of 

 former oppressive statutes. 1 ' 



