.!<!>i>.<i/I<.i;.;!|||u.,.iij<,4I|«;m><<^^^^ 



3C2 



Kimborley hy your Excellency, hi his di'spatcli vi liiitli June, nckuowloclRing the receipt of that 

 report, the Ivirl of Kiinlnnlcy rcfi^rs tn liis ili'^iuitcli cil" llic ITtli ol' lluit uu.iilh, niu) 'trust.-i tlial. the 

 Canailiiiii (.'.uvuiinicm will, on miitinv coiisiiiinutioii, ;irco(ii' to thi; jurpiwiil of the I'liited ^^tat('s' 

 Goveiiiniciu on this subjeit " The Cnniinitlce of \,\w I'livy Council in c>ypv("=piii;: their ndhcnMue to 

 their vi'iorl nf the Vth .liino, iiiiisl, aiM, tlmt the iu!i]ipliciibility of tiio jivccctlcnt of IHH-I, unilcr which 

 the !Uli(Mi of the riii;;iilinn rmlinnient was iinlicipatrti hy the (iov<'rnment, tn the circunisliincos now 

 existing iipi'tuvs to tlunn nianifcpt. The Trciily of lyT.-l wn^ nct^otiiitcd wito the concnncnre nl' the 

 Proviiiiial lloviiiiiiuuls rcprchentcd at 'Wnshiuglon, and n.ct with tiie i;cnerul npprolation ol' the 

 people ; wlh'ic;:-: the lislieiy clauses of the late Treaty were adopted against the advice of the Canadian 

 Governnunt, and iiavo been generally disapjiwved ol in all jiarlp of the Dominion. 



"Tluii: lau hardly he a doubt that any action on the part (>f the Canadian (jovernment in antici- 

 pation of the decision of rarliaincnt wonld increase the disecMitcnl which now exists. The Committee 

 of the Privy Council request that your Excellency will coniniunicato to the Earl of Kimberley the 

 views which they entertain on the subject of the Treaty of Washington, in so far as it afiects the 

 interests of the Dominion. 



(Signed) WM. H. LEE, 



Clerk, Privy Cou >ci]. Canada." 



Now, liero is a statement made by the Privy Councillors, onoiith asPn v Councillors 

 to give tlie best advice to the Governor-Gencrnl ; mi(i tlicy stale tinit the opinu n they are 

 about to p,\\c is in accordance with public opinion in all parts of the l)onuiii4 n. There 

 was no new election alter that opinion was given, and before the debate it which the 

 speeches weic made that have been cjuoted. There was no chanpe in public opinion, as 

 evidenced by a new election, and the return of other persons to the House ot ("omnions 

 to represent tiiat change. It was the same House. The same members were present, and 

 the same Privy Councillcrs heard and participated in that debate. That is, those of them 

 that were members of the House of Commons. Now, here is the authoritative declaration 

 of the opinion of the niembeis of tlie Frivy Council, and that opinion is expressed, not 

 simply as the private individual opinion of these councillors, but as a reflection of the 

 public opinion of the whole Dominion, that this Treaty did gross injustice to British North 

 American interests. And, in that opinion. Sir John A. McDonald, whose speeches are 

 quoted here against us, a>ireed. Mr. Trescot, in citing that Minute of Council, to my mind 

 cited the best evidence that could be adduced in favour of the British claim. 



I admit you have nothing to do with the question whether or not this Treaty satisfies 

 the countries intero^ted in it, whether it satisfies the Dominion, or whether it is unsatis- 

 factory to the United Stales. 1 hat is not the question. That is all over and past, and 

 ycu are hero (or the purpose of determining the diHercnce in value between the advantages 

 conceded to the United States and those conceded to the Dominion of Canada by the 

 Fishery Aiticks of the Treaty of Washington. I only make these observations for the 

 purpose of saving that it is wholly impo.«sible for the United States to show, as they have 

 attempted to do in their Answer, by the speeches of Canadian statesmen, that all the 

 advantages of the Treaty are in favour of the Dominion. I will therefore pass to anriher 

 blanch of the subjcc;, but before doing so I wish to revert for a moment to the question 

 as to the Ba\ of Fundy, to which 1 referred a few moments ago. I desire to cite a letter 

 addressed on the Glh July, 1853, by the then Secretary of State of the United States, 

 Mr. Marey, to the Hon. Richard Rush, one of the negotiators of the Convention of 

 1818. It is as follows : — 



"DePAUTMKNT of StATK, WASinNGTON, 



"Sir. "J«/yG, 1853. 



"Yon are probably aware that within a few years past, a t(Uisiion has arisen between the United 

 States and tiri.ut P.rilain, as to the coustriiction to bi- given In ihi 1st Article of the Cnnveulioii of 

 1818, relative to the tisheries on the coast of the British North American ProvinccH. For mom than 

 twenty years after tli(! eonehision of thai Convention, there was no serious attempt to exclude our 

 fishermen from the large bays^ on that coast ; but about ten years ago, at the instance of the provineial 

 authoiitieri, liie luinu: gdvcinini'iit gave a construction to the 1st Article, which closes all bays, what- 

 ever be thuir extent, against our eitizens ior fishing purposes. It is true that they have been 

 permitted to lish in the Hay of Fundy. This permission is conceded to them by the Ihitish Govern- 

 ment as a matter of favour, but denied as a right. That Ciovernmcnt excludes them from all the other 

 larye bays. 



" Our construction of the Convention is that American fishermen have a right to resort to any 

 bay, and take fish in it: provided they are not within u marine) league of the shoro. As you 

 negotiated Uie Couveution referred to, I should be much pleased to U' favoured with your views ou the 

 subject. 



" I have the honour to be, etc., etc., etc., 



■• (Signed) W. L MAKCY 



'• To the Honourable Riciiakd Itusii, 



" Sydenham, near Philadelphia.'' 



This ell arly proves that the American Government understood the matter thoroughly. 

 Official correspondence is the best authority on the subject. 



