500 MISCELLANEOUS 



the Halifax Commission can affect the interpretation of the Treaty of 

 1818. The lawyers engaged on that case were doing their best in the 

 interests of their respective clients, and it is not improper or difficult 

 to conclude that the respective counsel would have argued right oppo- 

 site to what they did if retained by the opposite side. The Treatv 

 of 1818 was one which gave foreigners certain rights on British soil, 

 rights which should be strictly construed, and no admission, or state- 

 ment, or argument used by counsel on the Halifax arbitration could, 

 I submit, have the smallest bearing on the interpretation of the treaty. 

 The Treaty of 1818 defines four territorial privileges given by 

 Great Britain to American citizens, viz : 



(1) The liberty to take fish of every kind on that part of the 

 southern coast of Newfoundland which extends from Cape Ray to 

 Rameau Islands. 



(2) To take fish on the western and northern coast of Newfound- 

 land from Cape Ray to Quirpon Islands. 



(3) To take fish of all kinds on the coasts, bays, harbours, and 

 creeks from Mount Joly on the southern coast of Labrador to and 

 through the Straits of Belle Isle, and thence northwardly and indefi- 

 nitely along the coast. 



(4) The liberty forever to dry and cure fish in any of the unsettled 

 bays, harbours, and creeks on the southern part of the coast on New- 

 foundland above described, and on the coast of Labrador. 



These words can not be twisted or turned into giving Americans the 

 right to ship men, buy bait fishes, or trade in our waters. Such 

 privileges were not included in the treaty and therefore expressly 

 prohibited. 



However, this question did not come into the recent dispute, and I 

 only refer to it at this time to express the hope that when the ques- 

 tion of the rights of American fishermen under the Treaty of 1818 

 is being determined, due consideration may be given by His Majesty's 

 Government to the point that I have raised. 



The Treaty of 1818, we may suppose, was made in the interests of 

 the Empire. It certainly was not made in the interests of this colony. 

 History records the severe criticism with which its terms were re- 

 ceived at the time of its ratification. It was assailed with great force 

 by the leading press of England, which declared that the imperial 

 maritime interests of the' British Empire had been sacrificed to 

 America greed. Remonstrances and denunciations poured in from all 

 the colonies concerned. A full account of the reception that attended 

 its publication can be seen in Rush's work, entitled " Residence at the 

 Court of London." It will be remembered that Richard Rush was 

 at that time American minister to the Court of St. James, London, 

 and consequently an eye-witness of all that happened in relation to 

 the treaty, and therefore his account of its condemnation is all the 

 more interesting. This colony could only protest when its rights were 

 sacrificed in 1818. It can only protest to-day, when, added to that 

 sacrifice, is the humiliation of the modus viuendi that has arisen out 

 of it. 



Are our protests to be in vain? Is British justice only extended to 

 those whose numerical strength gives force to their appeal? These 

 questions are suggested by the declaration of certain influential Eng- 

 lish journals, which, while supporting the attitude of this government 

 in relation to the modus vivendi, declare that " federation with the 



