AWA.RD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1783 



any necessary concession for so desirable an object, but they must remind the Earl of Klm- 

 berley that the original proposition of Sir Edward Thornton, as appears by his letter of tttth 

 January, was that "a friendly and complete understanding should be come to between the 

 two governments as to the extent of the rights which belong to the citizens of the United 

 States and Her Majesty's subjects respectively, with reference to the fisheries on the cowls 

 of Her Majesty's possessions in North America." 



In his reply, dated 30th January last, Mr. Secretary Fish informs Sir Edward Thornton 

 that the President instructs him to say that " he shares with Her Majesty's Government the 

 appreciation of the importance of a friendly and complete understanding between the two 

 governments with reference to the subjects specially suggested for (he consideration of the 

 proposed Joint High Commission." 



In accordance with the explicit understanding thus arrived at between the two govern- 

 ments, Earl Granville issued instructions to Her Majesty's High Commission, which, in the 

 opinion of the committee of the Privy Council, covered the whole ground of controversy. 



The United States had never pretended to claim a right on the part of their citizens to fish 

 within three marine miles of the coasts and bays, according to their limited definition of the 

 latter term ; and although the right to enjoy the use of the inshore fisheries might fairly 

 have been made the subject of negotiation, with the view of ascertaining whether any proper 

 equivalents could be found for such a concession, the United States was precluded by the 

 original correspondence for insisting on it as a condition of the treaty. The abandonment 

 of the exclusive right to the inshore fisheries, without adequate compensation, was not, there- 

 fore, necessary in order to come to a satisfactory understanding on the points really at issne. 



The committee of the Privy Council forbear from entering into a controversial discussion 

 as to the expediency of trying to influence the United States to adopt a more liberal com- 

 mercial policy. They must, however, disclaim most emphatically the imputation of desiring 

 to imperil the peace of the whole empire in order to force the American Government to 

 change its commercial policy. They have for a considerable time back ceased to urge the 

 United States to alter their commercial policy, but they are of opinion that when Canada is 

 asked to surrender her inshore fisheries to foreigners, she is fairly entitled to name the proper 

 equivalent. The committee of the Privy Council may observe that the opposition of the 

 Government of the United States to reciprocal free trade in the products of the two countries 

 was just as strong for some years prior to 1854 as it has been since the termination of the 

 Reciprocity Treaty, and that the Treaty of 1854 was obtained chiefly by the vigorous pro- 

 tection of the fisheries which preceded it ; and that but for the conciliatory policy on the 

 subject of the fisheries, which Her Majesty's Government induced Canada to adopt aftr the 

 abrogation of the Treaty of 1854 by the United States, it is not improbable that there would 

 have been no difficulty in obtaining its renewal. The committee of the Privy Council have 

 'adverted to the policy of Her Majesty's Government because the Earl of Kimberley baa 

 stated that there is no difference in principle between a money payment and " the system of 

 licenses calculated at so many dollars a ton, which was adopted by the colonial government 

 for several years after the termination of the Reciprocity Treaty." Reference to the corre- 

 spondence will prove that the license system WHS leluctantly adopted by the Canadian Gov- 

 ernment as a substitute for the still more objectionable policy pressed upon it by Her Majes- 

 ty's Government, it having been clearly understood that the arrangement was of a temporary 

 character. In his dispatch of the 3d March, 1866, Mr. Secretary Card well observed : 

 Majesty's Government do not feel disinclined to allow the United States for the season of 

 1866 the freedom of fishing granted to them in 1854, on the distinct undi-rsrndinp that un- 

 less some satisfactory arrangements between the two countries be made dm ing the COIIPW 

 of the year this privilege will cease, and all concessions made iu the Treaty of 1-54 will 

 liable to be withdrawn. 



The principle of a money payment for the concession of territorial rights has ever 

 most repugnant to the feelings of the Canadian people, and has only beeu entertained 

 deference to the wishes of the Imperial Government. What the Canadians were \ 

 under the circumstances to accept as an equivalent was the concession of certain coi 

 advantages, and it has therefore been most unsatisfactory to them that Her Majesty's 

 eminent should have consented to cede the use of the inshore fisheries to foreigners 

 siderations w hich are deemed wholly inadequate. The committee of the Privy O 

 not enlarge further on the objectionable features of the treaty as it bears 

 terests. These are admitted by many who think that Canudti should make 

 general interests of the empire. The people of Caiwla, on the other htind.se. 

 able to comprehend that there is any existing necessity for the cession off 

 their inshore fisheries without adequate compensation. Th y have failed 

 in the settlement of the so called Alabama claims, which was the mostimpor 

 dispute between the two nations, England gained such advantages as to bfl re,,.n. 

 further concessions at the expense of Canada, nor is there anything in the Larl . 

 dispatch to support such a view of the question. The other parts of the treat 

 if not more, advantageous to the United States than to Canada, and the r 



red 110 reaso 



, 



must, consequently, be considered on its own merits ; and if so considered, 110 reaso 

 yet been advanced to induce Canada to cede her inshore fisheries for 

 Government have admitted to be an inadequate consideration. Having t 



