292 MISCELLANEOUS 



scribed it, full of inconsistencies and full of incongruities and con- 

 structions placed upon it which have led to constant strife and 

 irritation, that I for one hail with delight the period when it shall 

 pass away forever. 



******* 



Hon. Mr. HOWLAN. * * * If the Treaty of 1818 is, as I believe 

 it to be, an unwise treaty, if the Treaty, as I believe it to be, is a 

 treaty that does not do us credit ; if the Treaty is such a treaty, as I 

 believe in the advancement of that comity which has been prevalent 

 amongst nations for so many years, it should have been abrogated 

 long ago. Why should we seek the advantage, while removing that 

 which is wrong to secure that which is good ? 



Hon. Mr. POIRIER. * * * The hon. gentleman from Halifax, 

 in his remarkable speech said that if we had had three Commis- 

 sioners like Sir Charles Tupper we would now have a different 

 treaty. I would like to ask my*hon. friend what sort of a treaty he 

 would desire to have. We would have a different treaty: How? 

 More stringent against the United States? More liberal? More 

 protective of our fisheries? Or one that would give them away? 

 But what was Sir Charles Tupper to do in the United States? Was 

 he and his colleagues to take 65 millions of people and hand them 

 over to us, hand and feet bound, with their president for us to de- 

 stroy on the altar of our country? That was not their commission. 

 They went there to arrange a treaty, and that treaty was to be noth- 

 ing else but the treaty of 1818 applied to the present state of civiliza- 

 tion and to our mutual present requirements. They did not go there 

 to give every thing away nor to take in every thing; they went there 

 simply to meet this cry of barbarity which does not in reality exist. 

 Did they succeed? How was the treaty of 1818 to be modified in 

 order to apply to the state of civilization that now exists? Suppos- 

 ing the Commissioners of 1818 were to sit now, how would they frame 

 their treaty in order to protect us? I believe that the treaty as pro- 

 posed to us here is just the treaty of 1818, but applied to our present 

 status of civilization. 



******* 



(April 30th.) 



Hon. Mr. POIRIER. Even in the face of treatment of that kind, 

 which is unwarranted on the part of the Americans, we should re- 

 spond by an act of generosity, and allow American fishermen to 

 transship crews. I say they grant us their being restricted from 

 entering any of our bays ten miles wide at the mouth. They hold 

 heretofore to the right of entering all our bays wider than six miles, 

 that is they adhered to the three miles limit, strictly, according to 

 the indentures and sinuosities of the shore. This the minister of 

 England had practically conceded, not only in their despatches to 

 Admiral Wellesley in 1870, but from the time the Americans were 

 allowed the privilege of entering the Bay of Fundy, in 1845, when 

 the limits were narrowed down to six miles. This was not a preten- 

 tion, it was a privilege actually enjoyed. After 1845, the instruc- 

 tions from the British Government were positively that no American 

 vessel should be seized or interfered with further out than three 

 miles of the shore, nor outside of any bays six miles wide at the 

 mouth. What does this treaty do? It takes away from them that 

 privilege, and all our bays under ten miles in width are protected to 



