36@ 



it would not be necessary for this legislature to put any restrictions 

 upon their use of the passage in question ; but. as the onus has been 

 thrown upon this legislature, it is clearly its duty to adopt the most 

 efficient and least expensive means of protection. If the privilege of 

 passage is exercised through the Gut of Canso and the bay in question, 

 it is next to impossible to prevent encroachments and trespasses upon 

 our fishing grounds by American citizens, as it would require an ex- 

 pensive coast-guard by night and day to effect that object, and then 

 only partial success would result. It would be unreasonable to tax 

 the people of this country to protect a right which should not be in- 

 vaded by foreigners, and which can only be invaded and encroached 

 upon by our permitting foreigners to use a passage to which they are 

 not entitled. Without, therefore, any desire unnecessarily to Ijainper 

 American citizens in the enjoyment of that to which they are justly 

 entitled, your committee consider it their imperative duty to recom- 

 mend such measures for the adoption of the House as wUl in the most 

 effectual way protect the true interests of this country. The outlay 

 necessarily required to watch properly the operations of foreign fishing 

 vessels in the Bay of St. George, so as to prevent encroachments, 

 amounts to a prohibition of its being accomplished ; and it therefore 

 becomes indispensable that such vessels be prohibited from passage 

 through the Gut of Canso. The strait will always be, to vessels of 

 all classes, a place of refiige in a storm, and American fishing vessels 

 wiU be entitled to the use of il as a harbor for the several purposes 

 mentioned in the treaty. It can be visited for aU those purposes with- 

 out a passage through being permitted; and your committee therefore 

 recommend tliat an act be passed authorizing the governor, by and with 

 the advice of his executive council, by proclamation, either to impose 

 a tax upon foreign fishing vessels for such amount as may be provided 

 in the act, or to prohibit the use of such passage altogether." 



It is of consequence to remark, that, as far as there is evidence be- 

 fore the public, the fisheries were not once mentioned by Mr. McLane, 

 (who succeeded Mr. Everett,) in his correspondence with the British 

 government, during his mission. Nothing, in fact, seems to have passed 

 between the two cabinets relative to the subject for more than six 

 years, though England retraced no step after opening the Bay of Fun- 

 dy. Our pubhc documents do show, however, that, between the years 

 1847 and 1851, overtures were made to our government for " a free 

 interchange of aU natural productions " of the United States and 

 of the British American colonies with each other, either by treaty 

 stipulations or by legislation. In the first-mentioned year, Canada 

 passed an act embracing this object, which was to become operative 

 whenever the United States should adopt a similar measure. A bill to 

 meet the act of Canada was introduced into Congress, and pressed 

 by its friends, for three successive sessions, but failed to become a law. 

 That the people of Canada were " disappointed," is a fact officially 

 communicated to Mr. Webster, Secretary of State, by Sir Henry Bul- 

 wer, the British minister.. It is not impossible that the existence oi 

 this feeling will sufficiently explain why the Canadian government be- 

 came a party to the following agreement, which was signed at Toronto, 

 on the 21st of June, 1851, at apieeting, of colonial delegates, by the 



