of its money value, the latter, probably, being overestimated by the Canadians.

2. That the headland doctrine had no foundation in the convention of 1818, and had been decided against Great Britain in the case of the schooner Washington, under the claims convention of February 8, 1853.

3. That the assumption to prevent American fishermen from purchasing bait, supplies, ice, etc., and from transshipping their fish in bond, under color of the convention of 1818, was never acquiesced in by the United States, and was carrying out in practice provisions which the American plenipotentiaries declined to insert in that convention.1

4. That as the mackerel fishery, out of which the trouble mostly arose, had come into existence since 1818, it was a subject for consideration whether the convention was fairly applicable to it.

For the adjustment of these questions it was suggested that provision might be made, either

1. By agreeing on the terms upon which the whole of the reserved fishing grounds might be thrown open to American fishermen, all obnoxious laws to be repealed, and the disputed reservation as to ports, harbors, etc., to be abrogated; or,

This allusion to the action of the American plenipotentiaries is based on the exchange of certain propositions, leading up to the conclusion of the convention. In the article first proposed by the American plenipotentiaries on September 17, 1818, the renunciation of the right to fish within three marine miles of the coasts, bays, creeks, and harbors, was followed by the proviso that the American fishermen should be permitted to enter those places "for the purpose only of obtaining shelter, wood, water, and bait, but under such restrictions as may be necessary to prevent their drying or curing fish therein, or in any other manner abusing the privilege hereby reserved to them." The British plenipotentiaries on October 6 presented a counter project, in which, after stipulating that United States fishing vessels should have the liberty to enter bays and harbors "for the purpose of shelter or of repairing damages therein, and of purchasing wood and obtaining water, and for no other purpose," and that "all vessels so resorting to the said bays and harbors" should be "under such restrictions as may be necessary to prevent their taking, drying, and curing fish therein," they proposed to declare that it was "further well understood” that the "liberty of taking, drying, and curing fish” inshore, where it was granted by the article, should "not be construed to extend to any privilege of carrying on trade with any of His Britannic Majesty's subjects residing within the limits hereinbefore assigned to the use of the fishermen of the United States for any of the purposes aforesaid;" that, in order the more effectually to guard against smuggling, it should "not be lawful for the vessels of the United States engaged in the said fishery

2. By agreeing upon the construction of the disputed renunciation, and upon the principles on which a line should be run by a joint commission to mark the territory from which the American fishermen were to be excluded; and by repealing the obnoxious laws, and agreeing on the measures to be taken for the protection of the colonial rights, such measures to prescribe the penalties for the violation of those rights, and to provide for a mixed tribunal for their enforcement. It might also, said the American instructions, be well to consider whether it should be further agreed that the fish taken in the waters open to both nations should be admitted free of duty into the United States and the British North American colonies.'

The substance of the deliberations of the Deliberations of Joint High Commission on the subject of the the Joint High Com- fisheries is disclosed in the following passage from the protocol of its proceedings:

mission.

Refusal to Renew

"At the conference on the 6th of March the British Commissioners stated that they were prepared to discuss the question of the Fisheries, either in detail or generally, so as either to enter into an examination of Reciprocity Treaty. the respective rights of the two countries under the Treaty of 1818 and the general law of nations, or to

to have on board any goods, wares, or merchandise whatever, except such as may be necessary for the prosecution of their voyages to and from the said fishing-grounds," and that any United States vessel which contravened this regulation might be seized, condemned, and confiscated, together with her cargo. On the 7th day of October the American plenipotentiaries replied that, whatever extent of fishing ground might be secured to American fishermen, they were not prepared to accept it on a tenure or on conditions different from those on which the whole had previously been held, and that making vessels liable to confiscation, in case any articles not wanted for carrying on the fishery should be found on board, would expose the fishermen to endless vexations. The British plenipotentiaries, in turn, on October 13, presented a draft of an article which was accepted by the American plenipotentiaries, and which was textually embodied in the first article of the convention. It differs little, so far as the present discussion is concerned, from the article submitted by the American plenipotentiaries on the 17th of September, except in the omission of the word "bait." The United States subsequently contended that the "bait" referred to was bait for cod, which was then caught in the waters in question, and that it was not intended to prevent the purchase in British ports of bait for the mackerel fishery, which did not begin in those waters till several years afterward. (Papers relating to the Treaty of Washington, VI. 280-282.)

Papers relating to the Treaty of Washington, VI. 287-288.

approach at once the settlement of the question on a comprehensive basis.

"The American Commissioners said that with the view of avoiding the discussion of matters which subsequent negotiations might render it unnecessary to enter into, they thought it would be preferable to adopt the latter course, and inquired what, in that case, would be the basis which the British Commissioners desired to propose.

"The British Commissioners replied that they considered that the Reciprocity Treaty of June 5, 1854, should be restored in principle.

The American Commissioners declined to assent to a renewal of the former reciprocity treaty.

"The British Commissioners then suggested that, if any considerable modification were made in the tariff arrangements of that Treaty, the coasting trade of the United States and of Her Britannic Majesty's Possessions in North America should be reciprocally thrown open, and that the navigation of the River Saint Lawrence and of the Canadian Canals should be also thrown open to the citizens of the United States on terms of equality with British subjects.

"The American Commissioners declined this proposal, and objected to a negotiation on the basis of the Reciprocity Treaty. They said that that Treaty had proved unsatisfactory to the people of the United States, and consequently had been terminated by notice from the Government of the United States, in pursuance of its provisions. Its renewal was not in their interest, and would not be in accordance with the sentiments of their people. They further said that they were not at liberty to treat of the opening of the coasting trade of the United States to the subjects of Her Majesty residing in her Possessions in North America. It was agreed that the questions relating to the navigation of the River Saint Lawrence, and of the Canadian Canals, and to other commercial questions affecting Canada, should be treated by themselves.

eries.

"The subject of the Fisheries was further The Inshore Fish- discussed at the conferences on the 7th, 20th, 22d, and 25th of March. The American Commissioners stated that if the value of the inshore fisheries could be ascertained, the United States might prefer to purchase, for a sum of money, the right to enjoy, in perpetuity, the use of these inshore fisheries in common with British fishermen, and mentioned one million dollars as the sum they were prepared to offer. The British Commissioners replied that this offer was, they thought, wholly inadequate, and that no arrangement would be acceptable of which the admission into the United States free of duty of fish, the produce of the British fisheries, did not form a part, adding that any arrangement for the acquisition by purchase of the inshore fisheries in perpetuity was open to grave objection.

"The American Commissioners inquired whether it would be

necessary to refer any arrangement for purchase to the Colonial or Provincial Parliament.

The British Commissioners explained that the Fisheries within the limits of maritime jurisdiction were the property of the several British Colonies, and that it would be necessary to refer any arrangement which might affect Colonial property or rights to the Colonial or Provincial Parliment; and that legisla tion would also be required on the part of the Imperial Parlia

ment.

During these discussions the British ComReciprocity Promissioners contended that these inshore fishposals. eries were of great value, and that the most satisfactory arrangement for their use would be a reciprocal tariff arrangement, and reciprocity in the coasting trade; and the American Commissioners replied that their value was overestimated; that the United States desired to secure their enjoyment, not for their commercial or intrinsic value, but for the purpose of removing a source of irritation; and that they could hold out no hope that the Congress of the United States would give its assent to such a tariff arrangement as was proposed, or to any extended plan of reciprocal free admission of the prod uets of the two countries; but, that, inasmuch as one branch of Congress had recently, more than once, expressed itself in favor of the abolition of duties on coal and salt, they would propose that coal, salt, and fish be reciprocally admitted free: and, that, inasmuch as Congress had removed the duty from a portion of the lumber heretofore subject to duty, and as the tendency of legislation in the United States was toward the reduction of taxation and of duties in proportion to the reduetion of the public debt and expenses, they would further propose that lumber be admitted free from duty from and after the first of July, 1874, subject to the approval of Congress, which was necessary on all questions affecting import duties.

"The British Commissioners, at the conference on the 17th of April, stated that they had referred this offer to their Government, and were instructed to inform the American Commissioners that it was regarded as inadequate, and that Her Majesty's Government considered that free lumber should be granted at once, and that the proposed tariff concessions should be supplemented by a money payment.

The American Commissioners then stated Final Arrangement. that they withdrew the proposal which they had previously made of the reciprocal free admission of coal, salt, and fish, and of lumber after July 1, 1874; that that proposal had been made entirely in the interest of a peaceful settlement, and for the purpose of removing a source of irritation and of auxiety; that its value had been beyond the commercial or intrinsic value of the rights to have been acquired in return; and that they could not consent to an arrangement on the basis now proposed by the British Commissioners; and they renewed their proposal to pay a money

equivalent for the use of the inshore fisheries. They further proposed that, in case the two Governments should not be able to agree upon the sum to be paid as such an equivalent, the matter should be referred to an impartial Commission for determination.

"The British Commissioners replied that this proposal was one on which they had no instructions, and that it would not be possible for them to come to any arrangement except one for a term of years and involving the concession of free fish and fish-oil by the American Commissioners; but that if free fish and fish-oil were conceded, they would inquire of their Government whether they were prepared to assent to a reference to arbitration as to money payment.

“The American Commissioners replied that they were will ing, subject to the action of Congress, to concede free fish and fish oil as an equivalent for the use of the inshore fisheries, and to make the arrangement for a term of years; that they were of the opinion that free fish and fish-oil would be more than an equivalent for those fisheries, but that they were also willing to agree to a reference to determine that question and the amount of any money payment that might be found necessary to complete an equivalent, it being understood that legis. lation would be needed before any payment could be made. "The subject was further discussed in the Articles XXVIII. conferences of April 18 and 19, and the British XXV., Treaty of Commissioners having referred the last proposal to their Government and received instructions to accept it, the Treaty Articles XVIII. to XXV. were agreed to at the conference on the 22d of April."

Washington.

The articles thus agreed to were embodied in the treaty which was signed at Washington on May 8, 1871.

Restoration of Fishing Liberties.

By Article XVIII. it was provided that, in addition to the liberty secured by the convention of 1818 of taking, drying, and curing fish on certain coasts of the British North American colonies, the inhabitants of the United States should have, in common with the subjects of Her Britannic Majesty, the liberty, for the term of years mentioned in Article XXXIII.' of the treaty, "to take fish of every kind, except shell-fish, on the sea-coasts and shores, and in the bays, harbors and creeks, of the Provinces

This article provided that Articles XVIII. to XXV., inclusive, and Article XXX. should go into operation as soon as the necessary laws should have been passed to give them effect, and remain in force for ten years thereafter, and further, until the expiration of two years after either party should have notified the other of its wish to terminate them, each party being at liberty to give such notice at the end of the period of ten years or at any time afterward.