ments to the west of them. It was on this area only, as well as on Great Britain, that the recognitions and guarantees of the treaty were at first to operate. Yet comparatively small as this field may now seem, it was to the preservation over it of certain reciprocal rights that the attention of the negotiators was mainly given. And the chief of these rights were: (1) the fisheries, a common enjoyment in which by both parties took nothing from the property of either; and (2) the preservation to the citizens or subjects of each country of title to property in the other.

Since Lord Shelburne's premiership this system of reciprocity and mutual convenience has progressed under the treaties of 1842 and 1846, so as to give to Her Majesty's subjects, as well as to citizens of the United States, the free use of the River Detroit, on both sides of the island Bois Blanc, and between that island and the American and Canadian shores, and all the several channels and passages between the various islands lying near the junction of the River St. Clair with the lake of that name. By the treaty of 1846 the principle of common border privileges was extended to the Pacific Ocean. The still existing commercial articles of the treaty of 1871 further amplified those mutual benefits, by embracing the use of the inland waterways of either country, and defining enlarged privileges of bonded transit by land and water through the United States for the benefit of the inhabitants of the Dominion. And not only by treaties has the development of Her Majesty's American dominion, especially to the westward, been aided by the United States, but the vigorous contemporaneous growth under the enterprise and energy of citizens of the Northwestern States and Territories of the United States has been productive of almost equal advantages to the adjacent possessions of the British Crown, and the favoring legislation by Congress has created benefits in the way of railway facilities which under the sanction of State laws have been and are freely and beneficially enjoyed by the inhabitants of the Dominion and their Government.

Under this system of energetic and co-operative development the Coast of the Pacific has been reached by the transcontinental lines of railway within the territorial limits of the respective countries, and, as I have stated, the United States being the pioneers in this remarkable progress, have been happily able to anticipate and incidentally to promote the subsequent success of their neighbors in British America.

It will be scarcely necessary for you to say to Lord Iddesleigh that the United States, in thus aiding in the promotion of the prosperity, and in establishing the security of Her Majesty's Canadian dominions, claims no particular credit. It was prompted, in thus opening its territory to Canadian use, and incidentally for Canadian growth, in large measure by the consciousness that such good offices are part of a system of mutual convenience and advantage growing up under the treaties of peace and assisted by the natural forces of friendly contiguity. Therefore it is that we witness with surprise and painful apprehension the United States fishermen hampered in their enjoyment of their undoubted rights in the fisheries.

The hospitalities of Canadian coasts and harbors, which are ours by ancient right, and which these treaties confirm, cost Canada nothing and are productive of advantage to her people. Yet, in defiance of the most solemn obligations, in utter disregard of the facilities and

assistances granted by the United States, and in a way especially irritating, a deliberate plan of annoyances and aggressions has been instituted and plainly exhibited during the last fishing season-a plan calculated to drive these fishermen from shores where, without injury to others, they prosecute their own legitimate and useful industry.

It is impossible not to see that if the unfriendly and unjust system. of which the cases now presented are part, is sustained by Her Majesty's Government, serious results will almost necessarily ensue, great as is the desire of this Government to maintain the relations of good neighborhood. Unless Her Majesty's Government shall effectually check these aggressions a general conviction on the part of the people of the United States may naturally be apprehended that, as treaty stipulations in behalf of our fishermen, based on their ancient rights, cease to be respected, the maintenance of the comprehensive system of mutual commercial accommodation between Canada and the United States could not reasonably be expected.

357

In contemplation of so unhappy and undesirable a condition of affairs I express the earnest hope that Her Majesty's Government will take immediate measures to avert its possibility. With no other purpose than the preservation of peace and good will and the promotion of international amity, I ask you to represent to the statesmen charged with the administration of Her Majesty's Government the necessity of putting an end to the action of Canadian officials in excluding American fishermen from the enjoyment of their treaty rights in the harbors and waters of the maritime provinces of British North America.

The action of Captain Quigley in hauling down the flag of the United States from the Marion Grimes has naturally aroused much resentment in this country; and has been made the subject of somewhat excited popular comment; and it is wholly impossible to account for so extraordinary and unwarranted an exhibition of hostility and disrespect by that official. I must suppose that only his want of knowledge of what is due to international comity and propriety and overheated zeal as an officer of police could have permitted such action; but I am confident that, upon the facts being made known by you to Her Majesty's Government, it will at once be disavowed, a fitting rebuke be administered, and the possibility of a repetition of Captain Quigley's offence be prevented.

It seems hardly necessary to say that it is not until after condemnation by a prize court that the national flag of a vessel seized as a prize of war is hauled down by her captor. Under the fourteenth section of the twentieth chapter of the Navy Regulations of the United States the rule in such cases is laid down as follows:

A neutral vessel, seized, is to wear the flag of her own country until she is adjudged to be a lawful prize by a competent court.

But, a fortiori, is this principle to apply in cases of customs seizures, where fines only are imposed and where no belligerency whatever exists. In the port of New York, and other of the countless harbors of the United States, are merchant vessels to-day flying the British flag which from time to time are liable to penalties for violation of customs laws and regulations. But I have yet to learn that any official, assuming, directly or indirectly, to represent the Government

of the United States, would under such circumstances order down or forcibly haul down the British flag from a vessel charged with such irregularity; and I now assert that if such act were committed, this Government, after being informed of it, would not wait for a complaint from Great Britain, but would at once promptly reprimand the parties concerned in such misconduct and would cause proper expression of regret to be made.

A scrupulous regard for international respect and courtesy should mark the intercourse of the officials of these two great and friendly nations, and anything savoring of the contrary should be unhesitatingly and emphatically rebuked. I cannot doubt that these views will find ready acquiescence from those charged with the administration of the Government of Great Britain.

You are at liberty to make Lord Iddesleigh acquainted with the contents of this letter, and, if desired, leave with him a copy.

I am, Sir, your obedient servant,

EDWARD J. PHELPS, Esq.,

T. F. BAYARD.

&c.

&c.

&c.

No. 220.-1886, November 15: Letter from Mr. Bayard to Mr.

[No. 459.]

Phelps.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, 15th November, 1886. SIR,-The season for taking mackerel has now closed, and I understand the marine police force of the territorial waters in British North America has been withdrawn, so that no further occasion for the administration of a strained and vexatious construction of the Convention of 1818 between the United States and Great Britain, is likely for several months at least.

During this period of comparative serenity, I earnestly hope that such measures will be adopted by those charged with the administration of the respective Governments as will prevent the renewal of the proceeding witnessed during the past fishing season in the ports and harbors of Nova Scotia, and at other points in the maritime Provinces of the Dominion, by which citizens of the United States engaged in open-sea fishing were subjected to much unjust and unfriendly treatment by the local authorities in those regions, and thereby not only suffered serious loss in their legitimate pursuit, but, by the fear of annoyance, which was conveyed to others likewise employed, the general business of open-sea fishing by citizens of the United States was importantly injured.

My instructions to you during the period of these occurrences have from time to time set forth their regrettable character, and they have also been brought promptly to the notice of the representative of Her Majesty's Government at this Capital.

358

These representations, candidly and fully made, have not produced those results of checking the unwarranted interference (frequently accompanied by rudeness and an unnecessary

demonstration of force) with the rights of our fishermen guaranteed by express treaty stipulations, and secured to them-as I confidently believe-by the public commercial laws and regulations of the two countries, and which are demanded by the laws of hospitality to which all friendly civilised nations owe allegiance. Again I beg that you will invite Her Majesty's Counsellors gravely to consider the necessity of preventing the repetition of conduct on the part of the Canadian officials which may endanger the peace of two kindred and friendly nations.

To this end, and to ensure to the inhabitants of the Dominion the efficient protection of the exclusive rights to their inshore fisheries, as provided by the Convention of 1818, as well as to prevent any abuse of the privileges reserved and guaranteed by that instrument for ever to the citizens of the United States engaging in fishing.and responding to the suggestion made to you by the Earl of Iddesleigh in the month of September last that a modus vivendi should be agreed upon between the two countries to prevent encroachment by American fishermen upon the Canadian inshore fisheries, and equally to secure them from all molestation when exercising only their just and ancient rights,-I now enclose the draft of a memorandum which you may propose to Lord Iddesleigh, and which, I trust, will be found to contain a satisfactory basis for the solution of existing difficulties and assist in securing an assured, just, honorable, and, therefore, mutually satisfactory settlement of the long vexed question of the North Atlantic fisheries.

I am encouraged in the expectation that the propositions embodied in the memorandum referred to 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 sent to you, as you will see by reference to Vol. 1 of the United States' Diplomatic Correspondence for 1866, page 98 et seq.

I find that, in a published instruction to Sir F. Bruce, then Her Majesty's Minister in the United States, under date of May 11th, 1866, the Earl of Clarendon, at that time Her Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, approved them, but declined to accept the final proposition of Mr. Seward's protocol, which is not contained in the memorandum now forwarded.

Your attention is drawn to the great value of these three propositions, as containing a well-defined and practical interpretation of Article I of the Convention of 1818, the enforcement of which cooperatively by the two Governments, it may reasonably be hoped, will efficiently remove those causes of irritation of which variant constructions hitherto have been so unhappily fruitful.

In proposing the adoption of a width of ten miles at the mouth as a proper definition of the bays in which, except on certain specified coasts, the fishermen of the United States are not to take fish, I have followed the example furnished by France and Great Britain in their Convention signed at Paris on the 2nd of August, 1839. This definition was referred to and approved by Mr. Bates, the Umpire of the Commission under the Treaty of 1853, in the case of the United States' fishing schooner "Washington," and has since been notably approved and adopted in the Convention signed at the Hague in

1882, and subsequently ratified in relation to fishing in the North Sea, between Germany, Belgium, Denmark, France, Great Britain, and the Netherlands.

The present memorandum also contains provisions for the usual commercial facilities allowed everywhere for the promotion of legitimate trade, and nowhere more fully than in British ports and under the commercial policies of that nation. Such facilities cannot with any show of reason be denied to American fishing vessels when plying their vocations in deep-sea fishing grounds in the localities open to them equally with other nationalities. The Convention of 1818 inhibits the "taking, drying or curing fish" by American fishermen in certain waters and on certain coasts, and when these objects are effected, the inhibitory features are exhausted. Everything that may presumably guard against an infraction of these provisions will be recognised and obeyed by the Government of the United States, but should not be pressed beyond its natural force.

By its very terms and necessary intendment, the same treaty recognises the continuance permanently of the accustomed rights of American fishermen, in those places not embraced in the renunciation of the treaty, to prosecute the business as freely as did their forefathers.

No construction of the Convention of 1818 that strikes at or impedes the open-sea fishing by citizens of the United States, can be accepted, nor should a treaty of friendship be tortured into a means of such offence, nor should such an end be accomplished by indirection. Therefore, by causing the same port regulations and commercial rights to be applied to vessels engaged therein as are enforced relative to other trading craft, we propose to prevent a ban from being put upon the lawful and regular business of open-sea fishing. Arrangements now exist between the Governments of Great Britain and France, and Great Britain and Germany, for the submission in the first instance of all cases of seizure to the joint examination and decision of two discreet and able commanding officers of the Navy of the respective countries, whose vessels are to be sent on duty to cruise in the waters to be guarded against encroachment. Copies of these agreements are herewith enclosed for reference. The additional feature of an Umpire in case of a difference of opinion, is borrowed from the terms of Article 1, of the Treaty of June 5, 1854, between the United States and Great Britain.

This same Treaty of 1854 contains in its first article provision for a joint Commission for marking the fishing limits, and is therefore a precedent for the present proposition.

The season of 1886 for inshore fishing on the Canadian coasts has come to an end,-and assuredly no lack of viligance or promptitude in making seizures can be ascribed to the vessels of the Marine Police of the Dominion. The record of their operations discloses but a single American vessel found violating the inhibitions of the Convention of 1818, by fishing within three marine miles of the coast. The numerous seizures made have been of vessels quietly at anchor in the established ports of entry, under charges. which, up to this day, have not been particularized sufficiently to allow of an intelligent defence. Not one has been condemned after

359

This Memorandum is printed under date of July 12, 1887, at p. 416 of Appendix.