BRITISH, COLONIAL, AND OTHER CORRESPONDENCE, ETC. 295 



a despatch of Mr. Everett in which an expression was used slightly 

 favoring the English doctrine as to the headland question. 



Mr. DA VIES (P. E. I.). Mr. Webster, not Everett. 



Mr. THOMPSON. Yes, Mr. Webster. The hon. gentleman cited that 

 from memory to the House in words which I was careful to note. 



Mr. DAVIES (P. E. I.). I read the quotation. 



Mr. THOMPSON. The hon. gentleman did read it, but afterwards, 

 in making his argument upon it, he cited it in these words : He said 

 that " Mr. Webster had admitted that to be the proper construction 

 of the treaty." Now, what Mr. Webster says was that " by a strict 

 and rigid construction of this article that result might follow," but 

 he declared in the concluding paragraph that the construction thus 

 put on the treaty " is not conformable to the intention of the contract- 

 ing parties." 



Mr. DAVIES (P. E. I.). I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon, I read 

 that. The hon. gentleman will permit me to say that the quotation 

 he now makes appears in the first part, that it did not coincide with the 

 intention of the parties and that the intentions of the parties are not 

 expressed as they are intended in that treaty. 



Mr. THOMPSON. I shall not say whether the hon. gentleman read it 

 or not. I do not pretend to remember that, but I am glad to know 

 that he is aware that those words, strongly qualifying the opinion, 

 are in the despatch, and I am sure that after what I have said, if the 

 honorable gentleman undertook to repeat it from memory again, he 

 would not make the statement that Mr. Webster admitted that that 

 was the proper construction of the treaty. 



Mr. DAVIES (P. E. I.). Certainly I would. 



Mr. THOMPSON. If the hon. gentleman says he would I shall not 

 further attempt to argue with him. I said that with regard to this 

 question of the headlands it was one of the cases in which there was a 

 fair concession upon both sides. We gave up the extreme English 

 contention ; correct as I believe it to be, acquiesced in as it is by some 

 eminent American authorities, and we need not quarrel about what 

 Mr. Webster said, for the doctrine is supported by abler jurists than he 

 is, such as Chancellor Kent, Judge Story and other men of that 

 calibre. We need not quarrel about that. The question is how far 

 the English doctrine was carried out in practice. When the hon. 

 member from Northumberland (Mr. Mitchell) was at the head of the 

 Fishery Department he issued instructions which did not go beyond 

 the ten mile rule, nor was it necessary. Ther,e is no necessity in the 

 protection of the fisheries of Canada that our cruisers should sail 

 far out at sea molesting American vessels in places where mackerel 

 are not caught or rarely if at all. The hon. gentleman defined his 

 restriction to bays not more than ten miles wide, and the instructions, 

 moderate as they were, had subsequently to be modified, and we were 

 instructed only to enforce the exclusion as to bays six miles wide. Now 

 the result of this treaty is that the construction which Canada asked, 

 the construction which Canada proposed to put upon the Treaty of 

 1818, by the instructions which she desired to have issued but was not 

 able to have enforced under the administration of the hon. member 

 for Northumberland (Mr. Mitchell) is the construction adopted by 

 the plenipotentiaries, only that they have enlarged it so as to give 

 us some bays which are a great deal more than ten miles wide. 



