Studies in American History 
197 
on the table was lost by a vote of 113 nays against 8 yeas — 
62 not voting. A motion of Mr. Ancona to refer the resolu- 
tions to the committee on foreign affairs was carried by a 
vote of 87 yeas against 35 nays — 61 not voting.^® Six weeks 
later, Banks, reporting on the resolutions, recommended a 
revision of statutes affecting our neutral relations, claim- 
ing that we had been too strict in enforcing provisions as 
to the fitting out of vessels and the sale of munitions of war. 
He stated that by stopping the recent Fenian raid the United 
States preserved to England possessions whose loss would be 
the precursor of calamities that would reduce her to a sub- 
ordinate power.^® A bill modifying our neutrality laws so 
as to permit war ships and military expeditions to be fitted 
out against friendly powers received the unanimous vote of 
the House (123 yeas and 63 not voting), but in the Senate 
it was referred to the committee on foreign relations, which 
failed to report it.^^ 
In July, 1866, both the House and the Senate continued to 
request further information with the purpose of reaching a 
conclusion concerning the best policy to apply in relations 
with Canada. On July 27, after the publication of Taylor’s 
reports and plans, the Senate requested the Department of 
State to furnish information in regard to relations with Can- 
ada. Six months later, Seward sent to the Senate a new re- 
port prepared by E. H. Derby, special agent to Canada. 
Derby had already furnished a report to the secretary of the 
Treasury, in which he advocated a new treaty of reciprocity, 
on the ground that the United States could seek annexation 
to better advantage after she had paid her debts and England 
had paid the claims for damage done by the Confederate 
cruisers. Favoring a policy of conciliation instead of retalia- 
tion, he said: 
If Great Britain desires to propitiate this country after all that has 
occurred, would it not be her true policy to cede to us a portion of her 
remote territories, valuable to us, but of little value to her? Were she 
to cede us Vancouver’s Island and British Columbia, so important to our 
Pacific coasts, and so remote from England, and settled in a great part 
by our own citizens, might she not easily bring our claims to a peaceful 
solution, and would not this be preferable to a specie payment or re- 
prisals for the ravages of cruisers 
3* Congressional Globe, June 11, 1866, p. 3085. 
lo/birf., July 26, 1866; House Reports, No. 100, 39-1, Vol. I, July 25, 1866 (12 pp.). 
Congressional Globe, 39-1, pp. 4193-4197. 
42 E. H. Derby, Preliminary Report on a Treaty of Reciprocity with Great Britain 
(Treasury Department, Washington, 1866), 20. 
14—34488 
