vincial laws within the local jurisdictions in 1818, has been abandoned by Great Britain. Outside of a limit of 3 miles from the headlands of such indentations of the sea-coast it was abandoned as early as 1815, in the case of the American fishing vessels that were warned off the coast by the British man-of-war Josseur.

Our claims could not be fairly predicated, diplomatically, on such an admission by Great Britain as to the base-line from which the 3-mile limit is to be measured.

That being still an open question, the claims of either side were a necessary feature in the negotiation of this treaty.

If our contention was indisputably just, a peremptory demand for its allowance was the only course we could adopt. Such a demand, we believe, has never been formally made by this Government. Congress certainly has never affirmed the indisputable justice of our claim. The United States have preferred to let this question, with all the others that have arisen under the treaty of 1818, continue in reach of discussion and negotiation.

In that situation the present administration found this controversy. Mr. Bayard proposed to the British Government that the 3-mile fishing limit should be measured, in the bays that were 10 miles or less in width, from that point nearest the entrance where the shores are 10 miles distant from each other. He found his support for that offer in the arrangement between Great Britain and other European nations for fishing in the bays and harbors of their respective coasts along the North Atlantic and the northern seas.

It being generally conceded that the limit of local jurisdiction extended 3 miles from the coast out into the sea, and that this distance was adopted because it measured the range of artillery in ancient times, it is obvious that when the range of artillery is extended to 5 miles it is due to the security of bays and harbors reaching far inland that treaty arrangements fixing a new measurement should have some reference to the increased limits for the protection of the people residing along such shores corresponding with the improved range of artillery.

This offer made no allusion to any headland theory that the British Government had ever asserted; still it was directly opposed to assertions of that theory which Great Britain had often made, and called forth the following" cbservation from the Marquis of Salisbury upon the proffer made by Mr. Bayard:

A reference to the action of the United States Government, and to the admission made by their statesmen in regard [to] bays on the American coasts, strengthens this view: and the case of the English ship Grange shows that the Government of the United States, in 1793, claimed Delaware Bay as being within territorial waters.

Mr. Bayard contends that the rule, which he asks to have set up, was adopted by the umpire of the commission, appointed under the convention of 1853, in the case of the United States fishing schooner Washington; that it was by him applied to the Bay of Fundy, and that it is for this reason applicable to other Canadian bays.

It is submitted, however, that as one of the headlands of the Bay of Fundy is in the territory of the United States, any rules of international law applicable to that bay are not therefore equally applicable to other bays the headlands of which are both within the territory of the same power.

This provision would involve a surrender of fishing rights which have always been regarded as the exclusive property of Canada, and would make common fishing-grounds of the territorial waters which, by the law of nations, have been invariably regarded both in Great Britain and the

473

United States as belonging to the adjacent country. In the case, for instance, of the Baie des Chaleurs, a peculiarly well-marked and almost land-locked indentation of the Canadian coast, the 10-mile limit would be drawn from points in the heart of Canadian territory, and almost 70 miles from the natural entrance or mouth of the bay. This would be done in spite of the fact that, both by imperial legislation and by judicial interpretation, this bay has been declared to form a part of the territory of Canada. (See Imperial Statute, 14 and 15 Vict., cap. 63; and Mouatt v. McPhee [Mowat v. McFee], 5 Sup. Court of Canada Reports, p. 66.)

From this statement of the British contention, it appears that the headland theory was still adhered to by that Government in March, 1887, but it was admitted that it had been relaxed as to the Bay of Fundy for special reasons.

Mr. Bayard's reply to the "observations" of the Marquis of Salisbury, which is set forth on pages 56 to 60, inclusive, of Senate Executive Document No. 113, first session of Fiftieth Congress, refutes the force of those "observations" by citing precedents furnished by the conduct of the British Government in this matter, and the decision of the umpire in the cases of the Washington and the Argus, in which he wholly discarded the headland theory and made an award in favor of the owner.

But these counter-statements only served to show that the headland theory, in its application to bays within the jurisdictional limits, was still in controversy between the two Governments, and that there was little disposition on the part of the British Government to yield. as there was on our part to admit, the justice of that construction of the treaty of 1818.

These contentions made it necessary that a better understanding should be reached; and if the two Governments could not accomplish this by negotiation, it was certain that increasing strife and broils between their people would seriously endanger the commerce of each, and would expose both countries to the peril of being driven into hostilities by the designs of vicious men, or through the angry contentions of well-meaning persons.

IX. THE CLOSE RELATIONS BETWEEN THE PEOPLE OF CANADA AND THE UNITED STATES IN THE USE OF THE COMMON RIGHT OF FISHERY MAKE IT IMPERATIVE TO REGULATE THEIR ASSOCIATION BY FRIENDLY AGREEMENT RATHER THAN BY RETALIATORY LAWS.

Mutual and amicable agreement between the two Governments, clearly understood and faithfully executed, is the only way in which the people of Newfoundland and Canada and of the United States can ever peacefully enjoy, in common, the valuable rights of fishery.

Reciprocity, in some form, is an element in every treaty made for the settlement of questions that are sincerely in dispute between independent powers. In all of our treaties with Great Britain, relating to the extra-territorial rights, liberties, or privileges of each in the other's country or jurisdiction, reciprocity has been conspicuously stated as a leading motive and purpose. The provisional treaty of peace of November 30, 1782, sets out with this declaration:

Whereas reciprocal advantages and mutual convenience are found by experience to form the only permanent foundation of peace and friendship between States, it is agreed to form the articles of the proposed treaty on such prin

ciples of liberal equity and reciprocity as that, partial advantages (those seeds of discord) being excluded, such a beneficial and satisfactory intercourse between the two countries may be established as to promise and secure to both perpetual peace and harmony.

This declaration was repeated, in substance, in the definitive treaty of peace of September 3, 1783.

In both these treaties the right of fishery was defined as between the people of both countries, the United States expressly yielding some of the liberties they had enjoyed in common with the colonies that remained subject to the British Crown on the coasts of Newfoundland as to curing and drying fish on that island.

The treaty of October 20, 1818, was made "to cement the good understanding which happily exists between " the two Governments. In that treaty we renounced our right of fishery on certain coasts, etc., but regained the right to cure and dry fish on a part of the southern coasts of Newfoundland.

Under that treaty, which was reciprocal, misunderstanding arose as to its meaning, and the reciprocity treaty of 1854 was made, in part, "to avoid further misunderstanding between their respective citizens and subjects in regard to the extent of the right of fishing on the coasts of British North America secured by Article I of the Convention" of 1818, and "to regulate the commerce and navigation. between their respective territories and people."

The extensive reciprocity of this treaty continued for twelve years. At its termination by the United States the "misunderstandings under the treaty of 1818 again arose, when that convention became then, as it is now, the measure of our treaty rights.

The treaty of 1871 was made so as " to provide for an amicable settlement of causes of difference between the two countries," and arbitration and reciprocity pervaded every one of its forty-three articles.

474 In all the wide range of our treaty engagements with the treaty powers of the world there is scarcely one that does not contain some mutual advantage or reciprocal concession, and they cover every subject that has been suggested, in the experience of mankind, as being fit or convenient to be settled by international agreement rather than to be left under the control or security that might be afforded by the laws enacted by the respective countries, which they could alter or repeal at pleasure.

Now we are again remitted to the field of "misunderstanding," "in regard to the extent of the right of fishing on the coasts of British North America," with an increased number of cases of seizures and interferences with our fishermen growing out of those disputes, and the question is, whether we shall abandon all efforts to remove these misunderstandings by further agreements, or shall we treat every claim we make as a sine qua non, and its refusal an ultimatum, and resort, as the first expedient, to retaliatory legislation to enforce it. That failing, shall we stop and abandon the claim, or prepare for its support by coercive measures?

Retaliation may secure just dealing between nations whose interests are entirely distinct and separate; but that is not our situation toward the people or the governments of Canada or Newfoundland.

X. THE CHARACTER AND VALUE OF THE FISHERIES ON THE COAST OF LABRADOR AND THE BANKS OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND THE INCREASING DEMAND FOR FOOD-FISHES TO SUPPLY THE WANTS OF THE PEOPLE.

The inshore fishing along the coast of Labrador are the best we have in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, while that along the southern and western shores of Newfoundland is far better than any along the coasts of Novia Scotia or New Brunswick.

Our plenipotentiaries who negotiated the treaty of 1818 mention these facts to show that we lost nothing of value when we gave up the inshore fisheries of Nova Scotia, and gained much advantage by having access to the shores of Labrador, as will hereafter appear in this report.

Mr. Sabine, in his report to the Secretary of the Treasury, in 1852, gives a very interesting account of the fisheries on the northeastern coast, from which we make the following extracts, found in Senate Ex. Doc. 22, second session Thirty-second Congress:

An account of the fishing-grounds has been reserved for the conclusion. Of those near our cities, and visited for the purpose of supplying our markets with fish to be consumed fresh, it is unnecessary to speak. Those within the limits of British America, and secured to us by treaty, as well as those on the eastern coasts of Maine, are less generally known and may properly claim attention. Of the distant, Newfoundland is the oldest. That vessels from Boston fished there as early as the year 1645 is a fact preserved in the journal of Governor Winthrop. The "great bank," which has been so long resorted to, is said to be about 200 miles broad and nearly 600 miles long. In gales the sea is very high, and dense fogs are prevalent. The water is from 25 to 95 fathoms deep. The edges of the bank are abrupt and composed of rough rocks. The best fishing-grounds are between the latitudes of 42° and 46° north. The "bankers." as the vessels employed there are called, anchor in the open sea, at a great distance from the land, and pursue their hazardous and lonely employment, exposed to perils hardly known elsewhere. The fish are caught with hooks and lines, and (the operations of splitting and dressing performed) are salted in bulk in the hold, from day to day, until the cargo is completed. The bank fish are larger than those taken on the shores of Newfoundland, but are not often so well cured. The first American vessel which was fitted for the Labrador fishery sailed from Newburyport toward the close of the last century. The business, once undertaken, was pursued with great energy, and several hundred vessels were engaged in it annually previous to the war of 1812. A voyage to Labrador, unlike a trip to the Banks of Newfoundland, is not without pleasant incidents, even to landsmen. The coast is frequented for a distance of 10 or 12 degrees of latitude. It has been preferred to any other on account of its security and a general certainty of affording a supply of fish. Arriving in some harbour early in June, an American vessel is moored and remains quietly at anchor until a full fare" has been obtained, or until the departure of the fish requires the master to seek another inlet.

The fishing is done entirely in boats, and the number usually employed is one for about 30 tons of the vessel's register. Here, under the management of an experienced and skilful master, everything may be rendered systematic and regular. As soon as the vessel has been secured by the necessary anchors, her sails and light rigging are stowed away, her decks cleared, her boats fitted, and a day or two spent in fowling and sailing, under color of exploring the surrounding waters and fixing upon proper stations for the boats, and the master announces to his crew that they must try their luck with the hook and line. Each boat has now assigned to it a skipper or master, and one man. At the time designated, the master departs with his boats. to test the qualities of his men, and to mark out for them a course for their future procedure.

Nothing could be more injurious to men, who are brought into such intimate association by their common right of fishing on those distant shores, than a policy of their governments which would cause them to make reprisals, the stronger against the weaker.

475

Hon. Robert J. Walker, whose ability as a statesman is nowhere seriously questioned, in a letter to Mr. Seward, Secretary of State, dated April 24, 1868, thus describes the value of the fisheries as sources of food supply. He says:

But there are other most important considerations connected with extended coasts and great fisheries. The fisheries are capable of furnishing more and cheaper food than the land.

The reasons are

(1) The ocean surface is nearly four times that of the land, the area being 145,000,000 square miles of ocean surface to 52,000,000 of land.

(2) The ocean everywhere produces fish, from the equator to the pole, the profusion of submarine animals increasing as you go north up to a point but 433 miles from the pole and believed to extend there, whereas, in consequence of mountains, deserts, and the temperature of the surface of the earth in very high latitudes, less than half its surface can be cultivated so as to produce food in any appreciable quantities.

(3) The temperature of the ocean, in high latitudes, being much warmer than that of the land surface, there is increased profusion of submarine animal life, especially in the Arctic and Atlantic Seas, where, on account of extreme cold, the land surface produces no food. In warm latitudes the deep-sea temperature diminishes with the depth, until a certain point, below which it maintains an equable temperature of 40° Fahrenheit. The temperature of the ocean in latitude 70° (many degrees warmer than the land surface) is the same in all depths. There are wonderful provisions for the multiplication of animal life in the ocean, and it moderates both heat and cold. These are additional reasons in favor of the existence of a Polar Sea, filled with a far greater profusion of submarine animal life than any other seas, and, as a consequence, possessing far the best fisheries. Indeed, as fish progress northward, on account of the better ocean temperature there, as also, because the marine food there is more abundant, there can be little doubt that the open Polar Sea will furnish fisheries of incredible value.

(4) The ocean produces food in all latitudes for the support of animal submarine life. These are squid (the principal food of the whale), also abundance of nutritious sea-grasses, etc., upon which the fish feed. Besides, as the earth is more and more cultivated, and farms, as well as towns and cities, drained by creeks and rivers to the seas, the submarine food is correspondingly augmented. Even in mid-ocean the phosphorescence observed there is produced by the presence in the water of myriads of living animals.

(5) Whilst the earth produces food by plowing its surface only a few inches deep, the ocean supples myriads of fish, tier on tier, thousands of fathoms deep. Thus, the registered take of herrings in the Scotch fisheries, in 1861, was 900,000,000, whilst that of Norway, in the latitude of Iceland and Greenland, was far greater.

Perhaps, however, the main reason why the ocean produces so much more food for man than the land is, that whilst land animals only give birth to one or two of their young at a time, some fish produce millions of ova, to be matured into life. Thus, a female cod has been found to contain 3.400.000 ova; and other fish ova varying from several millions to 36,000. Hence, the vast success attending the increased production of fish by transfer, by sowing the spawn, and other methods known to ichthyology.

Nothing could more certainly lessen the food supply of the people, which, after all, is the basis of all human progress, than to promote strife amongst fishermen visiting the same waters. A policy that leads to such a result is an injustice to the human family.

No wealth, national or personal, can be justly earned when it comes from diminishing the supply of human food.

With all our vast excess of cereals and of animal food we still need all the fish we can gather from the oceans and seas for the comfort and economy of living, especially among the industrial classes of our rapidly increasing population. The Atlantic and Pacific fisheries rank in importance along with the production of beef, mutton, and pork as a source of food supply, and as a competitive element in the food markets even of this abundant country.