466

the Queen of Great Britain, either by treaty or by laws mutually acknowledged and accepted by the President of the United States, by and with the consent of the Senate, and by Her Majesty the Queen of Great Britain. Pending a different arrangement on the subject, the United States Government engages to give all proper orders to officers in its employment; and Her Britannic Majesty's Government engages to instruct the proper colonial or other British officers to abstain from hostile acts against British and United States fishermen respectively.

This protocol was offered by Mr. Seward, as a modus vivendi, after the termination of the treaty of 1854 had thrown us back upon that of 1818, as to our fishery rights. He offered it, also, for acceptance by Great Britain as the basis of a new treaty of interpretation and regulation of those rights.

Mr. Seward's recommendation of a mixed commission, (1) "to agree upon and define by a series of lines" the fishing limits, in conformity with the first article of the convention of 1818; (2) "to agree upon and establish such regulations as may be necessary and proper to secure the fishermen of the United States the privilege of entering bays and harbours" under the proviso to the treaty; and (3) "to agree upon and recommend the penalties to be adjudged, and such proceedings and jurisdiction as may be necessary to secure a speedy trial," etc.," for violations of rights and transgressions of limits and restrictions," etc., indicates an earnest apprehension on his part that no settlement could be reached by ordinary negotiations; that the treaty could not be amicably kept unless it was amended; and that the amendments he proposed would cure the defects of the indefinite description of the rights and restrictions and fishing limits that were too generally stated in the treaty of 1818. .

He saw the increasing danger of the situation, and came boldly forward to provide against its results.

The cordial manner in which these three propositions were then received by the British Government, as a basis of agreement, inspired the efforts of the present administration to renew the negotiation on this plan as the basis of a new treaty.

IV. MEASURES OF HOSTILITY, EITHER COMMERCIAL OF ACTUAL, ARE NOT

PREFERABLE TO THE TREATY BEFORE THE SENATE.

The undersigned have found no opinion expressed by any of our diplomatists in their official correspondence that the proper interpretation of article 1 of the treaty of 1818 could be otherwise secured than by a further agreement, as to its meaning, between the treaty Powers.

If we demand a still more favorable agreement than that presented in this convention now under consideration, we shall probably encounter many more years of controversy and negotiation before a better result can be reached.

If, laying aside all treaty agreements, we attempt to coerce a better understanding and less grievous practices than we have already suffered through commercial retaliation, we shall find that the cost to our own people is far greater than the entire value of the fisheries.

If we resort to war, or to measures that may lead to hostilities, upon what precise definition of our rights and grievances will we justify such grave proceedings, either to our own people, or before the nations of the earth? We believe that no man can safely venture to formulate such a declaration.

Unless we can clearly state the causes that justify a war for the redress of grievances, or the clear definition of the right we seek to assert or defend, we have no right to subject the country to the perils, or even the apprehensions, of hostilities.

It has never been stated by any administration, or diplomatist, or by Congress that any one case, or that all the cases that have grown out of our disputes with Great Britain about the treaty of 1818, gave a just ground for retaliation, reprisals, or war.

The undersigned think it can not be safely denied that in articles 10, 12, 13, and 14 of this treaty we have gained advantages and privileges of a very important character. In them is found the full concession of every claim to fishing rights we have ever made, as being within the letter or the spirit of the treaty of 1818 that is now of any practical value; and the methods provided for their administration are quite as satisfactory as any we have ever claimed under our interpretation of that treaty. For convenience of reference we insert those articles in this paper, as follows:

ARTICLE X.

United States fishing vessels entering the bays or harbors referred to in article 1 of this treaty shall conform to harbor regulations common to them and to fishing vessels of Canada or of Newfoundland.

They need not report, enter, or clear when putting into such bays or harbors for shelter or repairing damages, nor when putting into the same, outside the limits of established ports of entry, for the purpose of purchasing wood or of obtaining water; except that any such vessel remaining more than twenty-four hours, exclusive of Sundays and legal holidays, within any such port, or communicating with the shore therein, may be required to report, enter, or clear; and no vessel shall be excused hereby from giving due information to boarding officers. They shall not be liable in any such bays or harbors for compulsory pilotage; nor, when therein for the purpose of shelter, of repairing damages, of purchasing wood, or of obtaining water, shall they be liable for harbor dues, tonnage dues, buoy dues, light dues, or other similar dues; but this enumeration shall not permit other charges inconsistent with the enjoyment of the liberties reserved or secured by the Convention of October 20, 1818.

467

ARTICLE XI.

United States fishing vessels entering the ports, bays, and harbors of the Eastern and Northeastern coasts of Canada or of the coasts of Newfoundland under stress of weather or other casualty may unload, reload, tranship, or sell, subject to customs laws and regulations, all fish on board, when such unloading transhipment, or sale is made necessary as incidental to repairs, and may replenish outfits, provisions, and supplies damaged or lost by disaster; and in case of death or sickness shall be allowed all needful facilities, including the shipping of crews.

Licenses to purchase in established ports of entry of the aforesaid coasts of Canada or of Newfoundland, for the homeward voyage, such provisions and supplies as are ordinarily sold to trading vessels, shall be granted to United States fishing vessels in such ports, promptly upon application and without charge; and such vessels having obtained licenses in the manner aforesaid shall also be accorded upon all occasions such facilities for the purchase of casual or needful provisions and supplies as are ordinarily granted to the trading vessels; but such provisions or supplies shall not be obtained by barter, nor purchaed for resale or traffic.

ARTICLE XIII.

The Secretary of the Treasury of the United States shall make regulations providing for the conspicuous exhibition, by every United States fishing

vessel, of its official number on each bow; and any such vessel, required by law to have an official number, and failing to comply with such regulations, shall not be entitled to the licenses provided for in this treaty.

Such regulations shall be communicated to Her Majesty's Government previously to their taking effect.

ARTICLE XIV.

The penalties for unlawfully fishing in the waters, bays, creeks, and harbours, referred to in Article I of this treaty, may extend to forfeiture of the boat or vessel, and appurtenances, and also of the supplies and cargo aboards when the offence was committed; and for preparing in such waters to unlawfully fish therein, penalties shall be fixed by the court, not to exceed those for unlawfully fishing; and for any other violation of the laws of Great Britain, Canada, or Newfoundland relating to the rights of fishery in such waters, bays, creeks, or harbours, penalties shall be fixed by the court, not exceeding in all three dollars for every ton of the boat or vessel concerned. The boat or vessel may be holden for such penalties and forfeitures.

The proceedings shall be summary and as inexpensive as practicable. The trial (except on appeal) shall be at the place of detention, unless the judge shall, on request of the defence, order it to be held at some other place adjudged by him more convenient. Security for costs shall not be required of the defence, except when bail is offered. Reasonable bail shall be accepted. There shall be proper appeals available to the defence only; and the evidence at the trial may be used on appeal.

Judgments of forfeiture shall be reviewed by the Governor-General of Canada in council, or the governor in council of Newfoundland, before the same are executed.

We accord (in Article 12) to the fishing vessels of Canada and Newfoundland the same privileges on the Atlantic coasts of the United States that are secured to our fishing vessels by this treaty, without admitting them to fish within 3 miles of the coasts of the bays, harbours, or creeks along that sea-coast.

This treaty secures to our fishermen the free navigation of the Strait of Canso.

Article 15 secures to us the option to acquire very important commercial privileges to our fishermen whenever Congress shall conclude that they are worth the money that we may otherwise collect in duties on fish.

Congress may never make this concession; but the power to acquire these privileges, as permanent treaty rights, may become very valuable to us when the diminishing products of the fisheries in the waters adjacent to the eastern coasts of the United States and of Canada and Newfoundland increase in value, because they will be required to supply the needs of 100,000,000 of people in the United States and 30,000,000 of people in the Dominion of Canada.

This article is suggested by a wise forecast of the future necessities of our fishermen, as well as those of the people of the United States, when our population is greatly increased, and the supply of food is to be distributed to such a vast multitude of people that the allowance, per capita, will be, accordingly, diminished.

The treaty now before the Senate is one of reciprocal concessions. The unconditional concessions to the fishermen are not strictly commercial, but they give them great assistance in their business and in the means of relieving any distress which may befall them.

468

Can we ever hope to engraft on the treaty of 1818 any new agreement for commercial privileges to our fishermen without giving an equivalent in some liberty or privilege that Great Britain will claim for her fishermen?

This question is answered by the fact that we renounced in 1818 the best part of the fisheries that were of the fruits of the war for independence in order to make the residue a permanent right; and in 1854 and 1871 we agreed to pay heavily for a temporary suspension of the restrictions and limitations of the treaty of 1818.

We have made four fisheries treaties with Great Britain, in 1783, 1818, 1854, and 1871, and in none of them has any commercial privilege been secured to our fishermen. No serious effort has been made to secure such privileges prior to the negotiation now before the Senate. All that we have heretofore secured to our fishermen has been the privilege of inshore fishing, of curing and drying fish on certain parts of the British coasts, more or less restricted and changed in each successive treaty, and the right to buy wood, obtain water, make repairs, and find shelter.

Now, we find, according to the testimony of everybody concerned, and the thoroughly considered report of our Committee on Foreign Relations, made after a searching investigation conducted upon our coasts, and upon the testimony of experts laid before the Senate, that the inshore fisheries, for which we have paid and suffered so much, are of no value to us, and that the privilege of purchasing bait from the Canadians is an injury to our fishing interests rather than a benefit.

These declarations, which were true, show that many of the contentions and strifes we have had over this subject, for seventy years, have been about a claim of rights and privileges that are no longer of any advantage to us.

They prove that we need only such advantages, or privileges, for our fishermen on the Canadian coasts as are enjoyed by our merchant vessels, and that these are not very important to them.

Purse-seining has revolutionized the mackerel fishery almost entirely, and has largely affected the herring fishery, and has given to our fishermen great advantages in "the catch." But Canadian capital and energy will not long permit us to do all the purse or deepwater seining.

The freezing of fish on shipboard, so as to get them fresh to our markets, is of recent date, but is a very important change in the fishing business. In this the Canadians have no greater advantages than our fishermen.

These two improvements in the fishing business, with the added power of steam, which has been applied to sea navigation since 1818, have produced the revolution in these pursuits which renders it more convenient to have commercial rights for some of our fishing vessels, but has removed the necessity to have fishing privileges within three miles of any of the coasts or in the bays of the British possessions that are not classed as great arms of the sea.

The history of the controversies that have found a final solution in the treaty now before the Senate, and the explanation of the bearing of the treaty upon those questions, are so clearly and ably stated by Hon. W. L. Putnam, in a letter dated April 16, 1888, that we append it to this report (Appendix E).

Mr. Putnam being one of our plenipotentiaries who negotiated this treaty, his review of the diplomatic and legislative history is an important exposition of the merits of this subject.

V. THIS TREATY COMPARED WITH THE COMMERCIAL ARRANGEMENT STYLED THE RECIPROCITY OF 1830."

This treaty proposes liberal reciprocity to us, confined to fishing interests, and gives us all the time we may choose to claim in which to consider our best interests and determine whether we will accept or reject the overture.

The right of choosing between this proffered commercial reciprocity and the privileges accorded to us under what is termed "the reciprocity of 1830" is a decided advantage in favor of our fishermen.

The products of our fisheries in Canadian waters are not permitted to enter Canadian ports on any ships of the United States by the British proclamation of November 5, 1830. That proclamation declares "that the ships of and belonging to the said United States of America may import from the United States aforesaid into the BritIsh possessions abroad goods the produce of those States, and may export goods from the British possessions abroad to be carried to any foreign country whatever."

This cannot apply to fishery products taken or purchased in the Canadian waters or ports, and was not intended in any manner to add to the four purposes for which our fishermen may enter Canadian ports under the treaty of 1818, as we understand that proclamation, or to repeal that treaty.

This proclamation was a month later than that made by President Jackson, and was the British response to our proclamation, under which British vessels and their cargoes are admitted to an entry into the ports of the United States from the islands, provinces, and colonies of Great Britain, on or near the North American continent and north or east of the United States." The full text of these proclamations is hereto appended as Appendices A and B.

These proclamations set forth the entire concurrent action of the two Governments (which is called the reciprocity of 1830). There having been no change in the situation since that time, that is "the reciprocity" which still exists, as matter of law.

The broad liberality of our concession is in very striking contrast with that of great Britain; but we have lived under this inequality of rights for more than fifty years, without a serious protest until within three years, and the complaints we have made arose from the British construction of our fishing rights and not of our commercial rights under that reciprocity.

469

Our fishing vessels are equally barred (under the British contention) by the treaty of 1818, and by the British proclamation of November 5, 1830, from entering their ports with cargoes of fish taken in Canadian waters, without reference to the rights to touch and trade or to any other commercial character, that we may give them under our laws. To gain these rights for our fishermen, we have a choice of grave alternatives.

But the cost of the naval and military preparation that would be necessary to give confidence to our own people, in supporting any extreme demand or stringent measures connected with this subject, would be greater than the whole value of these fisheries for the next half century.