766 CORRESPONDENCE, ETC. 



the same customary and reasonable rights and privileges of trade in 

 the ports of the British colonies as are freely allowed to British vessels 

 in all the ports of the United States under the laws and regulations to 

 which I have adverted. 



Among these customary rights and privileges may be enumerated 

 the purchase of ship-supplies of every nature, making repairs, the 

 shipment of crews in whole or part, and the purchase of ice and bait 

 for use in deep-sea fishing. 



Concurrently, these usual rational and convenient privileges are 

 freely extended to and are fully enjoyed by the Canadian merchant 

 marine of all occupations, including fishermen in the ports of the 

 United States. 



The question therefore arises whether such a construction is admis- 

 sible as would convert the treaty of 1818 from being an instrumen- 

 tality for the protection of the inshore fisheries along the described 

 parts of the British American coast into a pretext or means of ob- 

 structing the business of deep-sea fishing by citizens of the United 

 States, and of interrupting and destroying the commercial intercourse 

 that since the treaty of 1818, and independent of any treaty what- 

 ever, has grown up and now exists under the concurrent and friendly 

 laws and mercantile regulations of the respective countries. 



I may recall to your attention the fact that a proposition to exclude 

 the vessels of the United States engaged in fishing from carrying also 

 merchandise was made by the British negotiators of the treaty of 

 1818, but being resisted by the American negotiators was abandoned. 

 This fact would seem clearly to indicate that the business of fishing 

 did not then, and does not now, disqualify a vessel from also trading 

 in the regular ports of entry. 



I have been led to offer these considerations by the recent seizures of 

 American vessels to which I have adverted and by indications of a 

 local spirit of interpretation in the Provinces, affecting friendly in- 

 tercourse, which is, I firmly believe, not warranted by the terms of the 

 stipulations on which it professes to rest. It is not my purpose to 

 prejudge the facts of the cases, nor have I any desire to shield any 

 American vessel from the consequences of violation of international 

 obligation. The views I advance may prove not to be applicable in 

 every feature to those particular cases, and I should be glad if no 

 case whatever were to arise calling in question the good understand- 

 ing of the two countries in this regard in order to be free from the 

 grave apprehensions which otherwise I am unable to dismiss. 



It would be most unfortunate, and, I cannot refrain from saying, 

 most unworthy, if the two nations who contracted the treaty of 1818 

 should permit any questions of mutual right and duty under that con- 

 vention to become obscured by partisan advocacy or distorted by the 

 heat of local interests. It cannot but be the common aim to conduct 

 all discussion in this regard with dignity and in a self-respecting 

 spirit, that will show itself intent upon securing equal justice rather 

 than unequal advantage. Comity, courtesy, and justice cannot, I am 

 sure, fail to be the ruling motives and objects of discussion. 



I shall be most happy to come to a distinct and friendly understand- 

 ing with you, as the representative of Her Britannic Majesty's Gov- 

 ernment, which will result in such a definition of the rights of Ameri- 



