910 CORRESPONDENCE, ETC. 



far from being especially directed or enforced against citizens of the 

 United States, are obligatory upon all vessels (including those of 

 Canada herself) which resort to the harbors of the British North 

 American coast. 



I have thought it right, in justice to the Canadian Government, 

 to embody in this note almost in their own terms their refutation of 

 the charges brought against them by Mr. Bayard; but I would 

 prefer not to dwell on this part of the controversy, but to proceed at 

 once to the consideration of the six articles of Mr. Bayard's memo- 

 randum in which the proposals of your Government are embodied. 



Mr. Bayard states that he is " encouraged in the expectation that 

 the propositions embodied in the memorandum will be acceptable to 

 Her Majesty's Government, because, in the month of April, 1866, 

 Mr. Seward, then Secretary of State, sent forward to Mr. Adams, 

 at that time United States minister in London, the draft of a protocol 

 which, in substance, coincides with the first article of the proposal 

 now submitted." 



Article 1 of the memorandum no doubt to some extent resembles 

 the draft protocol submitted in 1866 by Mr. Adams to Lord Clarendon 

 (of which I inclose a copy for convenience of reference), but it con- 

 tains some important departures from its terms. 



Nevertheless, the article comprises the elements of a possible accord, 

 and if it stood alone I have little doubt that it might be so modeled, 

 with the concurrence of your Government, as to present an acceptable 

 basis of negotiation to both parties. But, unfortunately, it is fol- 

 lowed by other articles which, in the view of Her Majesty's Govern- 

 ment and that of Canada, would give rise to endless and unprofitable 

 discussion, and which, if retained, would be fatal to the prospect of 

 any satisfactory arrangement, inasmuch as they appear as a whole 

 to be based on the assumption that upon the most important points 

 in the controversy the views entertained by Pier Majesty's Govern- 

 ment and that of Canada are wrong, and those of the United States 

 Government are right, and to imply an admission by Her Majesty's 

 Government and that of Canada that such assumption is well 

 founded. 



I should extend the present note to an undue length were I to 

 attempt to discuss in it each of the articles of Mr. Bayard's memo- 

 randum, and to explain the grounds on which Her Majesty's Govern- 

 ment feel compelled to take exception to them. I have therefore 

 thought it more convenient to do so in the form of a counter-memo- 

 randum, which I have the honor to inclose, and in which will be 

 found, in parallel columns, the articles of Mr. Bayard's memorandum, 

 and the observations of Her Majesty's Government thereon. 



Although, as you will perceive on a perusal of those observations, 

 the proposal of your Government as it now stands is not one which 

 could be accepted by Her Majesty's Government, still Her Majesty's 

 Government are glad to think that the fact of such a proposal having 

 been made affords an opportunity which, up to the present time, had 

 not been offered for an amicable comparison of the views entertained 

 by the respective Governments. 



The main principle of that proposal is that a mixed commission 

 should be appointed for the purpose of determining the limits of those 

 territorial waters within which, subject to the stipulations of the con- 



