296 MISCELLANEOUS 



Extracts from the Debates of. the House of Commons of the Domin- 

 ion of Canada, 18S9. 



DEBATE ON THE INTERPRETATION OF TREATY OF 1818. 



February 26, 1889. 

 ******* 



Mr. MILLS (Bothwell.). There are many rules to be considered in 

 the interpretation of a treaty. I do not say that hon. gentlemen oppo- 

 site have put an improper legal construction on it so far as the mere 

 bare interpretation of the words of the Treaty of 1818 are concerned, 

 but we must read a treaty, not wholly by the light of events of 1818 

 but by the surrounding circumstances as they at this moment exist. 

 The world has changed, society has progressed, there have been many 

 inventions and many discoveries which have necessitated a change 

 in the relations among independent states, and the Treaty of 1818 can- 

 not be construed in every respect now as it was construed at the time 

 it was entered into. Many or the provisions that the hon. gentleman 

 has acted upon are justified solely as police regulations. They are not 

 provisions of the treaty, but they are provisions which the construc- 

 tion of the treaty might authorize, if it can be shown they are neces- 

 sary for the protection of those rights that were secured by the treaty. 

 Under the Convention of 1818, the United States abandoned their 

 pretensions to fish in certain British North American waters, but 

 they retained the right to enter these ports for certain purposes 

 specified, and agreed that they would not enter them for any other 

 purpose whatever. The reasons for that provision, when we look at 

 the protocols and at the correspondence that took place at the time, 

 are easily seen. It was asserted on the part of the British negotiators 

 that this interdiction was necessary for the protection of the fisheries, 

 because if the Americans were permitted to enter for any other pur- 

 pose except to obtain wood and water, or to escape stress of weather, 

 they might fish on their way. It was therefore deemed necessary to 

 have the power of excluding them for every other purpose. It is true 

 that we have the power, but the question is whether we are justified in 

 using it or not. That depends on whether it is necessary for the 

 purpose for which it was given. If you can show it is no longer neces- 

 sary this power should be exercised for the purpose of protecting the 

 fisheries, then your right to exercise the power so far as the vexed 

 question is concerned, i gone. I think the hon. gentleman will find 

 at this time of the day it is pretty difficult to contend for a strict con- 

 struction of the law. The hon. gentleman knows that the Minister 

 of Customs and the Minister of Marine, who are largely responsible 

 for the state of irritation that existed in consequence of what wad 

 done during the past three or four years, made these regulations, not 

 for the purpose of preventing the Americans fishing in our waters, 

 but as a matter of commercial policy, thinking that by imposing such 

 restriction upon the American fishermen, the American Government, 

 to secure the relaxation of those restrictions, would be disposed to 

 enter into more favorable trade relations with us in respect of our 

 fisheries than at that time existed. So hon. gentlemen will see that 

 the object of the Government in making these regulations was alto- 

 gether outside the Treaty of 1818. The Treaty of 1818 had nothing 

 whatever to do with our trade with the United States, it had nothing 

 whatever to do with securing us more extended trade relations with 



