PERIOD FROM 1811 TO 1905. 819 



reference to the proceedings alluded to will show that the proposition 

 mentioned related only to United States vessels visiting those portions 

 of the coast of Labrador and Newfoundland on which the United 

 States fishermen had been granted the right to fish, and to land for 

 drying and curing fish, and the rejection of the proposal can, at the 

 utmost, be supposed only to indicate that the liberty to carry mer- 

 chandise might exist without objection in relation to those coasts, and 

 is no ground for supposing that the right extends to the regular ports 

 of entry, against the express words of the treaty. 



The proposition of the British negotiators was to append to Article 

 I the following words : " It is, therefore, well understood that the 

 liberty of taking, drying, and curing fish, granted in the preceding 

 part of this article, shall not be construed to extend to any privilege 

 of carrying on trade with any of his Britannic Majesty's subjects 

 residing within the limits hereinbefore assigned for the use of the 

 fishermen of the United States." 



It was also proposed to limit them to having on board such goods 

 as might " be necessary for the prosecution of the fishery or the sup- 

 port of the fishermen while engaged therein, or in the prosecution of 

 their voyages to and from the fishing grounds." 



To this the American negotiators objected, on the ground that the 

 search for contraband goods, and the liability to seizure for having 

 them in possession, would expose the fishermen to endless vexation, 

 and, in consequence, the proposal was abandoned. It is apparent, 

 therefore, that this proviso in no way referred to the bays or harbor? 

 outside of the limits assigned to the American fishermen, from which 

 bays and harbors it was agreed, both before and after this proposition 

 was discussed, that United States fishing vessels were to be excluded 

 for all purposes other than for shelter and repairs, and purchasing 

 wood and obtaining water. 



If, however, weight is to be given to Mr. Bayard's argument that 

 the rejection of a proposition advanced by either side during the 

 course of the negotiations should be held to necessitate an interpreta- 

 tion adverse to the tenor of such proposition, that argument may cer- 

 tainly be used to prove that American fishing vessels were not in- 

 tended to have the right to enter Canadian waters for bait to be used 

 even in the prosecution of the deep-sea fisheries. The United States 

 negotiators in 1818 made the proposition that words " and bait " be 

 added to the enumeration of the objects for which these fishermen 

 might be allowed to enter, and the proviso as first submitted had 

 read " provided, however, that American fishermen shall be per- 

 mitted to enter such bays and harbors for the purpose only of obtain- 

 ing shelter, wood, water, and bait." The addition of the two last 

 words was, however, resisted by the British plenipotentiaries, and 

 their omission acquiesced in by their American colleagues. It is, 

 moreover, to be observed that this proposition could only have had 

 reference to the deep-sea fishing, because the inshore fisheries had 

 already been specifically renounced by the representatives of the 

 United States. 



In addition to this evidence, it must be remembered that the United 

 States Government admitted, in the case submitted by them before 

 the Halifax commission in 1877, that neither the convention of 1818 

 nor the treaty of Washington conferred any right or privilege of 

 trading on American fishermen. The British case claimed compensa- 



