872 CORRESPONDENCE, ETC. 



In that report reference is made to the argument of Mr. Bayard, 

 drawn from the fact that the proposal of the British negotiators of 

 the convention of 1818, to the effect that American fishing vessels 

 should carry no merchandise, was rejected by the American negotia- 

 tors; and it is shown that the above proposal had no application to 

 American vessels resorting to the Canadian coasts, but only to those 

 exercising the right of inshore fishing and of landing for the drying 

 and curing of fish on parts of the coasts of Newfoundland and 

 Labrador. 



The report, on the other hand, shows that the United States nego- 

 tiators proposed that the right of " procuring bait " should be added 

 to the enumeration of the four objects for which the United States 

 fishing vessels might be allowed to enter Canadian waters; and that 

 such proposal was rejected by the British negotiators, thus showing 

 that there could be no doubt in the minds of either party at the 

 time that the " procuring of bait " was prohibited by the terms of the 

 article. The report, moreover, recalls the important fact that the 

 United States Government admitted, in the case submitted by them 

 before the Halifax Commission in 1877, that neither the conven- 

 tion of 1818 nor the treaty of Washington conferred any right or 

 privilege of trading on American fishermen; that the "various inci- 

 dental and reciprocal advantages of the treaty, such as the privileges 

 of traffic, purchasing bait and other supplies, are not the subject of 

 compensation, because the treaty of Washington confers no such 

 rights on the inhabitants of the United States, who now enjoy them 

 merely by sufferance, and who can at any time be deprived of them." 



This view was confirmed by the ruling of the commissioners. 

 Whilst I have felt myself bound to place the preceding observations 

 before you in reply to the arguments contained in your note, I beg 

 leave to say that Her Majesty's Government would willingly have left 

 such points of technical detail and construction for the consideration 

 of a commission properly constituted to examine them, as well as to 

 suggest a means for either modifying their application or substituting 

 for them some new arrangement of a mutually satisfactory nature. 



I gather, however, from your note that, in the opinion of your 

 Government, although a revision of treaty stipulations on the basis of 

 mutual concessions was desired by the United States before the 

 present disputes arose, yet the present time is inopportune for various 

 reasons, among which you mention the irritation created in the 

 United States by the belief that the action of the Canadian Govern- 

 ment has had for its object to force a new treaty on your Government. 



Her Majesty's Government learn with much regret that such an im- 

 pression should prevail, for every effort has been made by the Cana- 

 dian Government to promote a friendly negotiation and to obviate the 

 differences which have now arisen. Indeed, it is hardly necessary 

 to remind you that, for six months following the denunciation by 

 your Government or the fishery articles of the treaty of Washington, 

 the North American fisheries were thrown open to citizens of the 

 United States without any equivalent, in the expectation that the 

 American Government would show their willingness to treat the 

 question in a similar spirit of amity and good will. 



Her Majesty's Government can not but express a hope that the 

 whole correspondence may be laid immediately before Congress, as 

 they believe that its perusal would influence public opinion in the 



