important questions discussed had reference to a definition of the privileges of fishermen, citizens of the United States, in the waters of British North America. Their right to fish on the Grand Banks or in the gulf of St. Lawrence, or elsewhere in the open sea, could not, of course, be denied, but it was claimed that they should not fish in British waters, or land in British territory to dry or cure their catch. At that time the methods of our fishermen were different from those now in use. The resources of our own coast were little understood, and the greater part of the New England fishing fleet resorted every summer to Labrador, Newfoundland, and the gulf of St. Lawrence, where they fished near the shores, making a harbor usually every night, always in threatening weather, and curing their fish upon the rocky shores, before loading them into the vessels for final home transportation. It was therefore important that they should retain as many as possible of the privileges enjoyed by them before the outbreak of the revolution. A compromise was finally agreed upon, and by the terms of article III. of the treaty of Paris (Sept. 3, 1783), it was arranged that the people of the United States should have liberty to fish on such parts of the coast of Newfoundland as British fishermen could, and also on the coasts, bays and creeks of all other of their Britannic majesties' dominions in America; and to dry and cure fish in the bays, harbors and creeks of Nova Scotia, the Magdalen islands and Labrador, so long as they were unsettled, or after their settlement if they could secure permission from the inhabitants or proprietors. By this treaty they were excluded simply from their former privilege of drying fish on the coasts of Newfoundland, Prince Edward island and Cape Breton. - The war of 1812 suspended for a second time the privileges of our fishermen in British waters; and when the question of their readjustment was brought up, strong petitions were made by the British colonists against a renewal of the privileges of 1783. At the first meeting of the commissioners assembled at Ghent to draw up the articles of peace, it was announced "that the British government did not intend to grant to the United States gratuitously the privileges formerly granted for purposes connected with the fisheries." They argued that the claim of an immemorial and prescriptive right to these privileges was untenable, and that the rights which the inhabitants of the United States had possessed when British subjects, could not be continued to them after they had become citizens of an independent state. After much discussion the subject was dropped, and the treaty of Ghent (Dec. 24, 1814) contained no reference to the fishery question. The governors of the British colonies were now instructed to exclude our fishing vessels from their harbors and coasts, and the naval officers stationed in that district received orders to resist all encroachments. The result was the capture of several of our fishing vessels on the charge of trespassing in British waters. - In 1818 commission - ers from the two countries met in London to sette amicably disputed points in connection with the fisheries, and their deliberations resulted in the signing of the convention of Oct. 20, 1818. By the terms of the first article of the convention it was provided that subjects of the United States should have forever the right to take fish of every kind on the southern, western and northern coasts of Newfoundland, on the shores of the Magdalen islands, and on that of Labrador, from Cape Jolly northward, and to dry and cure fish in any of the bays, harbors and creeks of these regions, except the Magdalens, so long as they should remain unsettled. The United States renounced any claim of right to take, dry or cure fish on or within three marine miles of any British territory not mentioned in the specifications above. American fishermen were, however, to be admitted to all harbors for shelter, repair of damages, purchasing wood or obtaining water. In order to secure the observance of this treaty our government issued to its fishermen a notice warning them against violation of the provisions of the first article of the above mentioned convention, a copy of which was annexed to the circular. In 1847, in consequence of a petition addressed to the queen by the Canadian parliament, negotiations were opened for the establishment of reciprocal free trade between the United States and Canada. In exchange for reciprocity in trade with the United States in all natural productions, such as fish, wheat, timber, etc., access was offered to the fisheries of all the colonies, except Newfoundland, which refused consent. Some years were consumed in fruitless effort, and it was not until June 5, 1854, that the reciprocity treaty was signed, the senate of the United States confirming it August 3. By this treaty the fishermen of the United States gained a right to fish on all the coasts of British North America, while British fishermen gained access to the waters of the United States north of Cape May (latitude 36°); the salmon and shad fisheries were reserved for the exclusive uses of the subjects of each country; certain rivers and mouths of rivers, to be determined by a commission to be appointed for that purpose, were also reserved. The treaty also contained numerous provisions to secure and regulate free trade in certain articles of commerce. The treaty was to remain in force for ten years, after which it could be terminated upon a year's notice by either party. The commission to designate the places reserved to each country occupied years in deliberations, the results of which were so insignificant that they do not deserve discussion in this connection. appeared valid and valuable, though the charges since published by Prof. H. Y. Hind show that their accuracy is far from being unimpeachable.* The decision of the case rested entirely with the neutral member of the commission, Mr. Delfosse, who without doubt based his action not upon the testimony presented, nor the facts otherwise accessible to him at the time, but upon certain considerations of diplomatic expediency, based upon the previous treaty relations of Great Britain and the United States. He adjudged to Great Britain the sum of $5,500,000, to be paid by the United States in exchange for alleged privileges granted to its fishermen in British waters. This sum was | paid in 1878, and the terms of the treaty having been thus fully complied with, the fishermen of the two countries entered upon a mutual participation of fishing territory for a period of twelve years. The only important difficulty occurring under this treaty was in January, 1878, when several Gloucester vessels, taking in cargoes of frozen herring at Fortune Bay, N. F., were attacked by the people of the vicinity, their nets cut up, and the crews driven away from the shore. This proceeding was manifestly an interference with American rights under the treaty, and the claim that local laws were being transgressed was quite untenable, such laws being annulled by the treaty. Such was the view taken by the British government, and damages to the amount of £15,000 were awarded, to be divided among the injured herring vessels, the total amount of claims being $105,305. — The present treaty terminated July 4, 1881, and notice having been given by the United States, its provisions will be invalid after the same date in 1883, when, unless some new arrangement be made, our privileges in British waters will be limited as before, and Canadian fish will no longer pass into our markets free of duty. It is impossible in this place to discuss at length the advanta ges and disadvantages of the existing treaty. They may, however, receive passing allusion. The advantages to the United States were supposed to be twofold: 1, the right to buy bait in provincial ports; 2 participation in the inshore mackerel fishery of the gulf. The first is scarcely worth considering by treaty makers. The advantage to the bait seller is equally as great as to the buyer. Many provincial ports are dependent for liveli hood upon trade with American fishing vessels, and only the most short sighted policy on the part of Canada and Newfoundland can exclude the only purchasers from their markets, for every vessel visiting one of their ports expends from $50 to $200. The second "advantage" strangely enough lost its value simultaneously with its acquisition. For half a century previous to the past decade the waters would terminate on the 17th of March | minister of marine and fisheries: these at the time 1866. It was subsequently decided, however, that during 1866 vessels from the United States should be allowed to fish in all provincial waters upon the payment of a nominal license fee to be exacted as a formal recognition of right. This privilege was continued for four years. In 1870 it was, however, discontinued, owing, it is claimed by the British government, to the failure of our fishermen to provide themselves with licenses, a claim which was to a certain extent, I have no doubt, a true one. During the year 1870 a considerable number of American fishing vessels were seized by British and provincial vessels, and forfeited. It now became necessary for the two governments again to meet the question squarely, and to this end was appointed the joint high commission, which met in Washington, Feb. 27-May 8, 1871, and from whose deliberations resulted the treaty of Washington. Articles XVIII. to XXV. inclusive, and XXXII. and XXXIII. of the treaty of Washington appertain to the fisheries. By the provisions of these articles citizens of the United States are allowed to take fish of every kind except shell fish along the shores of Canada, and British subjects have equal rights on the coast of the United States north of latitude 39° north, the shad, salmon and other river fisheries being excluded, and some trifling local exceptions in the treaty of 1854 being confirmed. Article XXI. provided for free trade between Canada and the United States in all fishery products save fish of inland lakes and rivers, and fish preserved in oil. It was the theory of the makers of this treaty that the United States was in all particulars the chief beneficiary, and it was consequently provided in articles XXII. and XXIII. that "inasmuch as it is asserted by the government of her Britannic majesty that the privileges accorded to the citizens of the United States are of greater value than those accorded to the subjects of her Britannic majesty," a commission should be appointed to decide upon the amount of compensation which should be paid by the government of the United States for the privileges to them accorded. The commission referred to met in accordance with the provisions of the treaty, at Halifax, N. S., and was in session from June 15 to Nov. 23, 1877. Its members were Mr. Maurice Delfosse, at that time Belgian minister at Washington, Sir Alexander T. Galt for Great Britain, and Hon. Ensign H. Kellogg for the United States. The record of its sessions may be found in 3495 printed pages of the "Documents and Proceedings of the Halifax Commission," vols. i. -iii., Washington, 1878. The entire lack of reliable statistics of the fisheries was of course fatal to the cause of the United States, the great mass of irrelevant and contradictory testimony given by fishermen and others summoned before the commission being nearly equally unconvincing and confusing on each side. Canada presented the so-called "official statistics" of its fisheries printed for ten years or more in the reports of the * Prof. Hind's charges of intentional falsification of fishery statistics by the British authorities so widely published, are not sustained by evidence, and should not be entertained for a moment. The hundreds of errors which he has pointed out are evidently the result of inattention on the part of the responsible persons, and of childish incompetency on that of the clerks employed in their preparation. The number of vessels and their catch in seapacked barrels, up to 1880, is from British sources, with exception of catch of 1878 and 1879, which is from reports of Boston fish bureau; 1880 and 1881 was from United States fish commission. The vessel in the gulf in 1882 was the schooner Yankee Lass, of Boston. The market value of some of the mackerel was increased by scraping and messing them by the labor of the crews, extra labor. cost of catching the mackerel was much greater than the price obtained, making an aggregate loss to those engaged in it. G. BROWN GOODE. The TREATIES OF THE UNITED STATES. Nov. 29, 1775, the continental congress appointed a committee of secret correspondence, charged with the duty of corresponding with the friends of the colonies in other parts of the world. March | 3, 1776, this committee instructed Silas Deane to go to France, and ascertain from M. de Vergennes "whether, if the colonies should be forced to form themselves into an independent state, France would enter into any treaty or alliance with them for commerce, or defense, or both." Sept. 17, 1776, congress adopted a plan of a treaty to be proposed to the King of France. This plan embraced the following political ideas: 1. Equality with natives in the payment of duties or imposts, and the enjoyment of privileges, immunities, and exemptions in trade, navigation and commerce. This was not incorporated in any treaty actually concluded by the United States until after the peace of 1814. 2. Equality between France and the United States in colonial export duties. 3. Exemption from the droit d'aubaine. 4. That on the surrender of contraband of war by the commander of a vessel taken on the high seas in time of war, the vessel shall be allowed to proceed on its voyage. 5. That each party may capture goods the property of citizens of the other when found in enemy's ships in time of war. 6. That vessels and property rescued from pirates shall be restored. 7. That the ports of each shall be open to the prizes of the other without payment of duties, 238 barrels. * Average price per barrel. but shall not be open to the prizes of the enemies of the other. 8. That if a war breaks out, citizens of one power, residing as merchants in the dominions of the other, may have time to close their business and remove their properties. 9. The citizens of neither power can take out letters of marque against the other in time of war. 10. Citizens of each may trade with enemies of the other in time of war in articles not contraband, and free ships shall make free goods except as to articles contraband. 11. Vessels of either coming into ports of the other, and not wishing to break bulk, shall not be obliged to do so, in the absence of cause for suspicion. 12. Merchant vessels of one power on the high seas may be visited by vessels of war of the other for the purpose of examining their sea letters and passports. If these are found correct the cargoes can not be examined. The draft also contained several provisions respecting the contemplated alliance with France. -On Feb. 6, 1778, two treaties were concluded in Paris with France: a treaty of alliance, and a treaty of amity and commerce. The treaty of alliance contained the usual provisions in regard to mutual action in time of war and in making peace, and, in article xi., a mutual territorial guarantee, which afterward became a subject of contention. France guaranteed to the United States the whole of their possessions: the United States, in return, guaranteed to France its then present possessions in America, and such as it might acquire by a treaty of peace. The treaty of amity and commerce was somewhat less liberal than that proposed by congress, and contained the most favored nation clause. - Oct. 8, 1782, a treaty of amity and commerce was concluded with the Nether lands; April 3, 1783, a similar treaty with Sweden; Jan. 20, 1783, an armistice with Great Britain, followed on Sept. 3, 1783, by a definitive treaty of peace with that power; Dec. 10, 1785, a treaty of amity and commerce with Prussia; January, 1787, a treaty of peace and friendship with Morocco; and, Nov. 14, 1788, a consular convention with France. These several treaties, con cluded prior to the adoption of the constitution, | are remarkable for the directness and freedom from doubt with which they assume sovereign powers to be in the central government: as in 1, the restraints upon duties, charges and fees in the ports of the several states; 2, the prohibition of the exaction of the droit d'aubaine in the states; 3, the permission to aliens to own and dispose of real estate anywhere in the United States; 4, their right to reside and do business in the states on an equality with natives; 5, their right to worship after their own faith; 6, the right of foreign consuls to exercise judicial functions in the several states over the estates of their countrymen de ceased; 7, their right to exercise police over vessels of their nationality in American ports, to arrest the officers and crews of the vessels, and to try and determine all disputes between them. They are also remarkable for humane provisions respecting the treatment of prisoners of war, and the exemption of women, children and non-combatants from the hardships of war, which have not yet been universally accepted. - The treaty of peace with Great Britain recognized valuable fishing rights on the Grand Banks, in the gulf of St. Lawrence, and in the bays, harbors and creeks of Nova Scotia, the Magdalen islands and Labrador, as belonging to the citizens of the United States in common with subjects of Great Britain. When Washington became president, he found the northern frontier of the United States occupied by British military posts: at Detroit, at Mackinaw, at Buffalo, at Niagara, at Oswego, at Point au fer, at Dutchman's point, and even in the interior of Ohio. On the south, Spain had established a station at Natchez, and was pushing forward to Vicksburg under pretense of a treaty with Indians claimed to be independent. Both were intriguing with the Indians, evidently believing that the United States must disintegrate, and desiring, as nearest neighbors, if not next of kin, to obtain in the dissolution as much as possible. In this state of things the French revolution broke out; England took up arms against France; and Spain, on May 25, 1793, joined England. Meanwhile France, through an injudicious and irritating envoy, was making trouble for Washington, by attempting to fit out privateers for French use, and to rekindle the dormant feeling of hostility to England. In addition to a hostile occupation of our frontiers, England was seizing and confiscating our nascent commerce under pretenses that had no right but that of force. Washington was pressed to cast the fortunes of the United States on the one side or the other of the great struggle. In this emergency he sent John Jay, the chief justice of the United States, to London, as a special envoy. Nov. 19, 1794, Jay concluded the treaty which has since borne his name. It provided for the withdrawal of the British garrisons; for the settlement of some disputed points in the boundaries; for a joint commission to determine what payments should be made by the United States to Great Britain on account of the 179 VOL. III. 60 | claims of British creditors; and for another joint commission to determine what payments should be made by Great Britain to the United States on account of illegal captures. It reasserted the power of the federal government over the subject of land titles in the states, made provision for consulates, contained a provision (the first one) as to the extradition of persons charged with crime, and provisions for regulating commercial intercourse. It contained no disavowal of the arbitrary principles which Great Britain had asserted, no provisions that free ships should make free goods, and it granted to Great Britain the privileges for her vessels of war and prizes which France enjoyed under the treaty of 1778. This treaty was disclosed by a senator. Its publication created an intense excitement, which lasted until the appropriations for carrying it into effect had passed a subsequent congress. I think it is the judgment of history, that, with all its shortcomings, it was a wise measure. We came out of the war of independence poor, with a great debt, with a depreciated paper currency emitted by the states and emitted by authority of Congress, with a paralyzed business, and with a narrow ribbon of population along the shores of the Atlantic, of uncongenial pursuits, with great difficulties of communication, and with no common historical traditions prior to the war. With the greatest difficulty the aversion to a stronger central government was overcome. The constitution started its operation in time of peace, among a people a large minority of whom, if not an actual majority, was averse to it. Jay's treaty secured a certainty of a longer time of peace for it to take root and grow. If we had not concluded that treaty, we might have been bound in honor to go to war with England at that time. I can not see what the result of such a war would have been: but I can see that by putting off taking part in the great struggle for eighteen years, we secured precious time for the people to become accustomed and attached to the new form of government: and on this I found my opinion that the measure, however intrinsically defective, was a wise turning point in our history. Partly in consequence of the conduct of Genet, partly in consequence of our refusal to abide by the guarantees of the treaty of 1778, and partly in consequence of the conclusion of Jay's treaty, a diplomatic rupture took place with France, accompanied by acts of hostility on the high seas. Congress, on July 7, 1798, enacted that the treaties and consular convention with France were no longer regarded as obligatory. This state, neither of war nor of peace, was terminated by a treaty in 1800, which was followed, in 1803, by three conventions; one for the cession of Louisiana, with a provision putting the commerce of France on the footing of the most favored nation in the ceded ports; one providing for the mode of payment of 60,000,000 francs to France by the United States; and one providing for the further payment by the United States of 20,000,000 francs to citizens of the United States who had respondence between John Quincy Adams and Lord Bathurst ensued. The former contended that the United States received their interest in the fisheries on the division of the British empire at the peace of 1783, and, therefore, could not be de by a war. The latter maintained that the rights of the United States depended upon the existence of the treaty, and fell with its abrogation. This view was practically maintained. The treaty was criticised because it did not contain an abandonment of the right of impressment. This could not have been obtained from Great Britain; but the right has never been enforced since the maritime successes of that war, and is now practically as dead as if it had been abandoned in the treaty. The same commissioners concluded a commercial treaty with Great Britain, which was in force four years by its terms, and was subsequently extended ten years, and then expired of its own limitation. In that treaty, it was for the first time agreed that no higher or other duties or charges should be imposed in any of the ports of the United States on vessels of another power, than those payable in the same ports by vessels of the United States; that the same duties should be paid on the importation into the United States of any articles, the growth, produce or manufacture of a foreign power, whether such importation should be made in vessels of the United States, or in vessels of that power, and that in all cases where drawbacks were or might be allowed upon the re-exportation of any goods, the growth, produce or manufacture of either country respectively, the amount of the drawback should be the same, whether the goods should have been imported in American vessels, or in vessels of the foreign power. These provisions have often since been inserted in treaties, claims against France. The claims excluded from participating in the division of this sum, constitute what are known as the French spoliation claims.These treaties were assailed at the time of their conclusion, both on account of the acquisition of Louisiana, and of their not providing for the pay-prived of it by the abrogation of all treaties caused ment of the spoliation claims. Without expressing an opinion on the latter point, on the broader question I may say that history fully justifies the wisdom of a measure acquiring for us the mouth of the Mississippi. Jay's treaty and these treaties had a marked influence on the political history of the country. They mainly contributed to wrest the federal government from the hands of those who favored the adoption of the constitution, and place it in the hands of those who opposed it. They thus converted a jealous and astute oligarchy in the south from opponents into supporters of the new form of government, and made it their interest to preserve it during the long years that they held power. When the day of change at last came, the constitution had ceased to be an experiment. It had traditions in the national heart deep enough to protect it. One other treaty of this period, the treaty of Oct. 27, 1795, with Spain, has survived to this time, and proved serviceable in recent political history. It contained agreements not to embargo the vessels or effects of citizens of either power in the territories of the other, and that, when arrested, persons should be prosecuted according to the ordinary forms of law, and have the right to employ agents and attorneys, and to have access to them. In the recent insurrection in Cuba, the insurgents had on their side everything to appeal to our sympathies. They were colonists, contending for self-government; humane men, contending against brute force; abolitionists, struggling against the re-establishment of slavery. Persons, said to be citizens of the United States, were seized and imprisoned without law, and denied access to counsel. Their properties were embargoed, and their incomes sequestrated. The treaty of 1795 gave us means of relief without resort to force; and afforded the government of the peninsula an opportunity of yielding to our demands without risk of revolution or of being upset. It requires but little imagination to conceive the evil effects upon the United States of a war resulting in the conquest of Cuba, and its admission into the Union subject to the conditions of the constitution as affected by article XV. of the amendments. The Napoleonic wars swept away all our commercial treaties, except the treaty of 1795 with Spain. The Dutch subsequently contended that the treaty of 1782 with the Netherlands survived, but the American government contended otherwise successfully. Peace was concluded with Great Britain by the treaty signed at Ghent, Dec. 24, 1814. This treaty contained provisions for settling some parts of the boundaries that were in dispute, and a declaration against the slave trade; but it was silent on the subject of impressment and change of allegiance, and of the rights in the fisheries. On the latter point, a cor In 1818, a convention was concluded at London for the definition and regulation of the fisheries, and also for the further settlement of disputed boundaries; and a joint occupation of the country west of the Rocky mountains was agreed to. The rights conceded to the United States fishermen by this convention are decidedly less than those conceded by the treaty of 1783, and are expressed in language which has given rise to much contention, the United States contending that it gives the right to fish within the waters of the bay of Fundy and other similar waters, and Great Britain contending otherwise. The treaty was negotiated, on the part of the United States, by two eminent diplomatists, but can not be regarded as a satisfactory solution of a question which is, in fact, difficult of solution. I shall refer later to modifications that have been made in it. The third article, which provided for the joint occupation of the territory west of the Rocky mountains, was, in 1827, extended indefinitely, with a privilege to each to give twelve months' notice of a purpose to abrogate and annul it. The United States gave this notice during President Polk's term. The two powers then concluded the treaty of June 15, 1846, adopting the 49th parallel |