BRITISH, COLONIAL AND OTHER CORRESPONDENCE, ETC. 423 



United States. I was again successful in my negotiations, and a con- 

 vention was concluded which has become familiar as the Hay-Bond 

 Treaty. That treaty was upon the lines of that of 1890. With its 

 merits I do not propose to deal at this time, as it does not enter into 

 the question before us ; suffice it to say that that treaty has been before 

 the United States Senate for the last three years, and is still before 

 that Senate, and that it has been blocked in its passage by the imme- 

 diate action of the fishing interests of Gloucester through their repre- 

 sentative in the Senate, and it is the present condition of things as 

 regards that treaty that in part has necessitated the bill that I have 

 introduced before the House. Since 1890, when our first convention 

 was negotiated, American fishermen have been admitted to one of 

 the principal privileges that it was intended should be conveyed under 

 that convention, viz, that of free access to the waters and harbors of 

 this colony for a supply of bait fishes. That privilege has been con- 

 tinued during the last fifteen years, because this colony had reason to 

 believe that, when His Majesty's Government set aside the objections 

 of the Canadian Dominion and signified its willingness to assent to 

 a trade convention that would be satisfactory to this colony, that then 

 the United States Senate would readily give its approval to a measure 

 of reciprocal trade that has been made with the endorsations of J. G. 

 Blaine and Col. John Hay, two of the most eminent and patriotic 

 men that have ever held positions of power in a great Republic. 



As I observed a day or two ago, the position as regards the nego- 

 tiations of treaties in the United States is entirely different from that 

 which appertains in any other part of the world. The practice of 

 other countries when a treaty is negotiated by the government is that 

 it is not open to amendment, and it it is rejected by the legislature it 

 would necessarily result in the resignation of the government and a 

 change of administration. In the United States of America the case 

 is entirely different, for when its Government makes a treaty it is 

 recognized that such treaty is liable to be thrown out or entirely 

 altered by the Senate. The law of the United States that is to 

 say, the tariff act of 1897 authorizes the President of the United 

 States to negotiate reciprocity treaties, provided that the reduction of 

 duties made in same shall not exceed 20 per cent. Under and by 

 virtue of that mandative law the Adminstration of the United States 

 has negotiated treaties with a number of countries ; for instance, since 

 1899, with Barbados, British Guiana, Turks or Caicos Islands, Ja- 

 maica, Bermuda, Argentina, the French Republic, and this colony, all 

 of which are in exactly the same position, viz, are hung up in the 

 United States Senate ; in other words, the Senate has pigeonholed the 

 entire list, thereby setting aside the policy asserted in the national 

 platform and embodied in the tariff law. 



From the movement that is taking place in the commercial centers 

 of the United States it is evident that it is being recognized that a 

 procedure which brings about such results is defective, and exhibits 

 the Government of the United States as powerless to give expression 

 to the nation's policy and intention. 



I have said that the present action in respect to our relations with 

 the United States has been brought about in part by the action of the 

 fishery interests of Gloucester, through the medium of those who, 

 while prepared to accept the privileges freely and generously ex- 

 tended to them during the last fifteen years, are not prepared to 



