294 MISCELLANEOUS 



these rights, there is no attempt to depart from the provisions con- 

 tained in the Treaty of 1818, there is no pettifogging attempt to 

 evade that treaty, -which, while it gave large territorial rights to the 

 United States fishermen, preserved the rights of the British American 

 people. Instead of denying our contentions on the points which I 

 stated viz, as to the right to purchase those articles, the right to tran- 

 ship cargo and the right to ship a crew, it has been conceded that those 

 rights are rights which are to be negotiated for and which are to be 

 purchased on fair and equitable terms hereafter by the authorities of 

 the United States. That surely is, if not a concession, at least an 

 adjustment, on terms which are distinctly honorable to the people 

 and the Government of Canada. Let me ask the hon. gentleman to 

 consider whether the principles contained in the delimitation clause 

 are not a fair concession on both sides. I meet his statement as to 

 what our rights in regard to the headlands were by admitting that 

 the doctrines which he referred to were the doctrines which were 

 found in the text books and in the despatches down to 25 years ago. 

 I admit that it was not contended then that we were limited in our 

 territorial rights as regards bays, to bays merely of the width of ten 

 miles. But the hon. gentleman knows that for upwards of thirty 

 years that prohibition has not been carried out; it was abandoned 

 by the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Mitchell), as well as 

 by his successors in that department, who stated in every instance, 

 that while asserting that they preserve and reserve the right, they in 

 practice could not enforce it. 



Mr. MITCHKT.T.. Tell me why ? 



Mr. THOMPSON. I will tell the hon. gentleman why. When my col- 

 league, the Minister of Finance, made the statement which I am doing 

 but little more than repeating, the hon. member for Northumberland 

 seemed to think that it was intended to cast some imputation on him 

 as to his administration of the Department. Such is not the case. 

 The reason why the hon. gentleman could not enforce the ten-mile 

 limit was that Her Majesty's Government would not permit the Gov- 

 ernment of Canada to do so. 



Mr. MITCHELL. Not denying our right, but State interests pre- 

 vented them doing so. 



Mr. THOMPSON. Declaring that they reserved the right and that it 

 might be pressed at another time, but at that time refusing to allow 

 it to be enforced. Why? The hon. gentleman says for State rea- 

 sons. The principal cause was that to enforce that doctrine strictly, 

 to the largest extent, would in all probability involve a collision 

 between either Her Majesty's vessels and the fishing vessels of the 

 United States or our revenue cutters and American fishing vessels. 

 When the British Government declined, and perhaps wisely de- 

 clined, to enforce that doctrine to its fullest extent in the interest 

 of peace and harmony, of course neither the hon. gentleman himself 

 nor any of his successors could venture to take the responsibility of 

 enforcing seizures outside of the three-mile limit and therefore the 

 statement did not impute blame upon the hon. gentleman nor did it 

 in the least degree derogate from the strength of the argument. This 

 right had not existed in practice for the last twenty-five years. Now, 

 Sir, the hon. member for Queen's, P. E. I. (Mr. Da vies) , referred to 



