812 CORRESPONDENCE, ETC. 



several occasions pressed, without success, through the British min- 

 ister at Washington, for a renewal of the reciprocity treaty or for the 

 negotiation of another on a still wider basis. 



When in 1874 Sir Edward Thornton, then British minister at 

 Washington, and the late Hon. George Brown, of Toronto, were 

 appointed joint plenipotentiaries for the purpose of negotiating and 

 concluding a treaty relating to fisheries, commerce, and navigation, a 

 provisional treaty was arranged by them with the United States Gov- 

 ernment, but the Senate decided that it was not expedient to ratify it, 

 and the negotiation fell to the ground. 



The* treaty of Washington, while it failed to restore the provisions 

 of the treaty of 1854, for reciprocal free trade (except in fish), at 

 least kept the peace, and there was tranquillity along our shores until 

 July, 1885, when it was terminated again by the United States 

 Government and not by Great Britain. 



With a desire to show that she wished to be a good neighbor, and in 

 order to prevent loss and disappointment on the part of the United 

 States fishermen by their sudden exclusion from her waters in the 

 middle of the fishing season, Canada continued to allow them, for six 

 months, all the advantages which the rescinded fishery clauses had 

 previously given them, although her people received from the United 

 States none of the corresponding advantages which the treaty of 1871 

 had declared to be an equivalent for the benefits secured thereby to 

 the American fishermen. 



The President, in return for this courtesy, promised to recommend 

 to Congress the appointment of a joint commission of the two Govern- 

 ments of the United Kingdom and the United States to consider the 

 fishery question, with permission also to consider the whole state ol 

 trade relations between the United States and Canada. 



This promise was fulfilled by the President, but the Senate rejected 

 his recommendation and refused to sanction the commission. 



Under these circumstances Canada, having exhausted every effort 

 to procure an amicable arrangement, has been driven again to fall 

 back upon the convention of 1818, the provisions of which she is now 

 enforcing and will enforce, in ho punitive or hostile spirit as Mr. 

 Bayard supposes, but solely in protection of her fisheries, and in 

 vindication of the right secured to her by treaty. 



Mr. Bayard suggests that "the treaty of 1818 was between two 

 nations the United States of America and Great Britain who, as 

 the contracting parties, can alone apply authoritative interpretation 

 thereto, and enforce its provisions by appropriate legislation." 



As it may be inferred from this statement that the right of the 

 Parliament of Canada to make enactments for the protection of the 

 fisheries of the Dominion, and the power of the Canadian officers to 

 protect those fisheries, are questioned, it may be well to state at the 

 outset the grounds upon which it is conceived by the undersigned that 

 the jurisdiction in question is clear beyond a doubt. 



1. In the first place the undersigned would ask it to be remembered 

 that the extent of the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada is not 

 limited (nor was that of the Provinces before the union) to the sea- 

 coast, but extends for three marine miles from the shore as to all 

 matters over which any legislative authority can in any country be 

 exercised within that space. The legislation which has been adopted 

 on this subject by the Parliament of Canada (and previously to con- 



