18 



ermen liave no more riglit to-day to enter a provincial port, 

 except under that rigid j^roviso of the treaty of 1818, than 

 they had before the " Washington Treaty " was made, (unless 

 they can yet claim the right under the treaty of 1783). British 

 cruisers or officials can seize a vessel now, as they have before, 

 for merely purchasing bait in their ports, and the treaty of 

 Washington cannot prevent it. 



There cannot be any reciprocity in fish. Great Britain now 

 cannot deliver what she has sold. When she sells the bread 

 from her fishermen's mouths, they will prevent its delivery, as 

 they have at Newfoundland, where the poor natives depended, 

 to keep them from starving, mainly upon the purchases by 

 American vessels of herring, squid and caplin, for food or 

 bait. 



You ask, what proof have you of these statements? My 

 reply is, that I have them from the most reliable sources, too 

 lengthy and too dry for this occasion. One of much impoi- 

 tance in relation to the decrease of vessels of 20 tons burthen 

 and upwards, in tliis county, and in other custom districts of 

 the State, between 1873 and 1879, engaged in catching fish for 

 food is too important to be left out, and I here give it : 



Washington treaty took effect, including 1879, has heen 136, their total catch of 

 mackerel, outside and inside the treaty limits, averaged 32,633 barrels yearly, the 

 average total value of which vrhen landed in the United States was $2o0,8'ty; 

 value of vessels and outfits, $716,000. Total value of vessels, outfits and catch, 

 S96(),849, showing that the yearly average amount of the fishery award with the 

 remitted duties on Canadian fish added (upwards of $350,000), which our Govern- 

 ment is paying annually for the pvhnlege of trying to catch fish swimming in the 

 sea within three miles of the shore is equal or more, yearly, than the value of all 

 the American vessels, with all their outfits and catch, that fished in British 

 waters anywhere. 



Does any one wonder that such treaties excite indignation, when made directly 

 against the protests of American fishermen, and ostensibly for tlieir interest, 

 when it is their destruction. 



