PERIOD FROM 1871 TO 1905. 817 



sions on the part of the Dominion, and inasmuch as the disposition 

 of Canada continues to be the same, as was evinced in the friendly 

 legislation just referred to, it would seem that Mr. Bayard's charges 

 of showing " hostility to commerce under the guise of protection to 

 inshore fisheries," or of interrupting ordinary commercial intercourse 

 by harsh measures and unfriendly administration, is hardly justified. 



The questions which were in controversy between Great Britain 

 and the United States prior to 1818 related not to shipping and com- 

 merce, but to the claims of United States fishermen to fish in waters 

 adjacent to the British North American Provinces. 



Those questions were definitely settled by the convention of that 

 year, and although the terms of that convention have since been twice 

 suspended, first Try the treaty of 1854, and subsequently by that of 

 1871, after the lapse of each of these two treaties the provisions made 

 in 1818 came again into operation, and were carried out by the Im- 

 perial and colonial authorities without the slightest doubt being 

 raised as to their being in full force and vigor. 



Mr. Bayard's contention that the effect of the legislation which has 

 taken place under the convention of 1818, and of executive action 

 thereunder, would be " to expand the restrictions and renunciations 

 of that treaty which related solely to the inshore fishing within the 

 three-mile limit, so as to affect the deep-sea fisheries," and " to di- 

 minish and practically destroy the privilege expressly secured to 

 American fishing vessels to visit these inshore waters for the objects 

 of shelter and repair of damages, and purchasing wood and obtain- 

 ing water," appears to the undersigned to be unfounded. The legisla- 

 tion referred to in no way affects those privileges, nor has the Govern- 

 ment of Canada taken any action towards their restriction. In the 

 cases of the recent seizures, which are the immediate subject of Mr. 

 Bayard's letter, the vessels seized had not resorted to Canadian waters 

 for any one of the purposes specified in the convention of 1818 as 

 lawful. They were United States fishing vessels, and, against the 

 plain terms of the convention, had entered Canadian harbors. In 

 doing so the David J. Adams was not even possessed of a permit " to 

 touch and trade," even if such a document could be supposed to divest 

 her of the character of a fishing vessel. 



The undersigned is of opinion that while, for the reasons which he 

 has advanced, there is no evidence to show that the Government of 

 Canada has sought to expand the scope of the convention of 1818 or 

 to increase the extent of its restrictions, it would not be difficult to 

 prove that the construction which the United States seeks to place 

 on that convention would have the effect of extending very largely the 

 privileges which their citizens enjoy under its terms. The contention 

 that the changes which may from time to time occur in the habits of 

 the fish taken off our coasts, or in the methods of taking them, should 

 be regarded as justifying a periodical revision of the terms of the 

 treaty, or a new interpretation of its provisions, cannot be acceded to. 

 Such changes may from time to time render the conditions of the 

 contract inconvenient to one party or the other, but the validity of 

 the agreement can hardly be said to depend on the convenience or 

 inconvenience which it imposes from time to time on one or other of 

 the contracting parties. When the operation of its provisions can be 

 shown to have become manifestly inequitable, the utmost that good- 

 92909 S. Doc. 870, 61-3, vol 3 13 



