286 MISCELLANEOUS 



whole subject matter of the relations of the two countries has, I am 

 happy to say, undergone an absolute revolution. The Treaty of 1818, 

 as the historian when free from prejudice will picture it, was a vic- 

 tory of a strong power over a comparatively weak one. It is just such 

 a treaty as Germany would have made with France after the capture 

 of Sedan. It was a treaty of a great power made with a weak power. 

 I say it was a treaty unworthy of the great power that dictated it, 

 and wholly unworthy of being looked upon as forming the basis of a 

 negotiation of 1888. Some hon. gentlemen smile. I dare say it is a 

 very radical doctrine, and it offends the sensibilities of a great many 

 hon. Senators; but I am speaking substantial truth truth that will 

 be admited as sound doctrine before another quarter century goes 

 over. It is a doctrine which may be unpalatable just now, because 

 we are living under unwholesome conditions; but I ask any man to 

 take up the trade relations which exist now between us and the United 

 States, and the relations which existed then, and say, if a new treaty 

 were made today with no knowledge of the past, would it be possible 

 to form a treaty such as the treaty of 1818? 



Hon. Mr. ALMON. That is an argument in favor of the adoption of 

 the new treaty. 



Hon. Mr. SCOTT. Yes, and I support the new treaty most heartily. 



Hon. GENTLEMEN. Hear! Hear! 



Hon. Mr. SCOTT. My only objection is that it was not made part 

 of our constitution long ago, wholly irrespective of the action of the 

 United States; and I say that even should the Senate of the United 

 States throw out that treaty, I trust that the Government of this coun- 

 try will put it on record as part of our law, and as our interpretation 

 of the Treaty of 1818 until a better day shall dawn. I say, speaking 

 in the interests of the people of this country, that is the true principle 

 today, wholly irrespective of what is done on the other side of the 

 line, that we should, at all events for the present, attach that inter- 

 pretation to the treaty of 1818. Would it have been possible for the 

 two countries to have lived under a strict enforcement of the pro- 

 visions of the treaty of 1818 to the present time? I say emphatically 

 no; it would have been an utter impossibility. Down to 1830 there 

 were no trade relations of any kind between the Provinces and the 

 United States. There were, all along our frontier, on both sides, 

 armed forts. People did not cross. There were no such things as 

 ferries in those days; we had no intercourse with our neighbors. 

 They were a strange people whom we hated, and they hated us. A 

 most anti-national feeling prevailed between the two countries, and 

 it continued down to 1830. President Johnson's Proclamation, of 

 the 5th of October created a partial reciprocal commercial intercourse 

 between the two countries. 



Hon. Mr. MILLER. Does my hon. friend cite this as an authority 

 for the statement that fell from him just now that before that procla- 

 mation British vessels had not the right to enter American ports? 



Hon. Mr. SCOTT. I say that provincial vessels were liable to confis- 

 cation on entering ports of the United States. 



Hon. Mr. ALMON. I presume it would be the same with any vessel 

 coming from a British possession. 



Hon. Mr. SCOTT. The relations between the two countries were so 

 strained that is the modern term that trade between the Provinces 



