160 CASE OF THE UNITED STATES. 



ences. This proposal was, however, declined, the United States Com- 

 missioners stating "that they could hold out no hope that the Con- 

 gress of the United States would give its consent to such a tariff ar- 

 rangement as was proposed, or to any extended plan of reciprocal free 

 admission of the products of the two countries." The United States 

 Commissioners did indeed propose that coal, salt and fish, should be 

 reciprocally admitted free, and lumber after the 1st of July 1874; 

 but it is evident that looked at as a tariff arrangement this was a most 

 inadequate offer, as will be seen at once when it is compared with the 

 long list of articles admitted free under the Reciprocity Treaty. 

 Moreover, it is obvious from the frank avowal of the United States 

 Commissioners, that they only made this offer because one branch of 

 Congress had recently more than once expressed itself in favor of 

 the abolition of duties on coal and salt, and because Congress had par- 

 tially removed the duty from lumber, and the tendency of legislation 

 in the United States was towards the reduction of taxation and of 

 duties, so that to have ceded the Fishery rights in return for these 

 concessions would have been to exchange them for commercial ar- 

 rangements, which there is reason to believe may before long be made 

 without any such cession, to the mutual advantage of both the 

 Dominion and the United States; and Her Majesty's Government are 

 bound to add that whilst in deference to the strong v/ishes of the 

 Dominion Government they used their best efforts to obtain a renewal 

 in principle of the Reciprocity Treaty, they are convinced that the 

 establishment of free trade between the Dominion and the United 

 States is not likely to be promoted by making admission to the fish- 

 eries dependent upon the conclusion of such a Treaty; and that the 

 repeal by Congress of duties upon Canadian produce on the ground 

 that a Protective Tariff is injurious to the country which imposes it, 

 would place the commercial relations of the two countries on a far 

 more secure and lasting basis than the stipulations of a Convention 

 framed upon a system of reciprocity. Looldng, therefore, to all the 

 circumstances. Her Majesty's Government found it their duty to deal 

 separately with the Fisheries, and to endeavor to find some other 

 equivalent; and the reciprocal concession of free fishery with free 

 import of fish and fish oil, together with the payment of such a sum 

 of money as may fairly represent the excess of value of the Colonial 

 over the American concessions, seems to them to be an equitable solu- 

 tion of the difiiculty. It is perfectly true that the right of fishery on 

 the United States coasts, conceded under Article XIX, is far less 

 valuable than the right of fishery in Colonial waters, conceded under 

 Article XVIII, to the United States, but on the other hand, it cannot 

 be denied that it is most important to the Colonial fishermen to 

 obtain free access to the American market for their fish and for fish 

 oil, and the balance of advantage on the side of the United States 

 will be duly redressed by the Arbitrators under Article XXII. In 

 some respects a direct money payment is perhaps a more distinct 

 recognition of the rights of the Colonies than a tariff concession, and 

 there does not seem to be any difference in principle between the ad- 

 mission of American fishermen for a term of years in consideration 

 of the payment of a sum of money in gross, and their admission under 

 the system of Licenses, calculated at so many dollars per ton, which 

 was adopted by the Colonial Government for several years after the 

 termination of the Reciprocity Treaty. In the latter case, it must 



