relieve our fishing vessels from entry in less than twenty-four hours, if driven into Canadian harbors by stress of weather. Is that a concession? Why, we have always claimed that in any Canadian port, harbor, or creek, for shelter, we ought not to be compelled to enter in less than twenty-four hours, and there is not a civilized nation in the world that would require it of us. No instance can be found in which a Canadian vessel, under like circumstances, coming into our harbors has been compelled to report and enter in that time. Article 10 further relieves these vessels from compulsory pilotage. But there is no compulsory pilotage in the Dominion of Canada for fishing vessels eighty tons and under, and the average of our fishing vessels does not exceed that. Besides, in another article in the treaty it is provided that Canadian vessels shall enjoy such privileges in our ports and harbors as are given to our vessels in Canadian ports and harbors, and as we have no such limitation in our compulsory pilotage laws as eighty tons, the balance of benefit here would decidedly be for Canada. No American fisherman is ever heard to complain of the payment of pilotage; so this is no favor to us.

Article II of the treaty provides that American fishing vessels, forced into Canadian harbors under stress of weather or other casualty, "may unload, reload, transship or sell, subject to customs laws and regulations, all fish on board, when such unloading, transshipment, 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." It provides, further, that if they obtain licenses they may purchase such provisions and supplies as are ordinarily sold to trading vessels, necessary for the homeward voyage.

In other words, the treaty gives us that which no civilized nation on the face of the earth would deny to the vessel of any nation in distress. It gives to us that which it is discreditable to any nation to make a right, under a treaty. It gives to us that which humanity and civilization, as well as common decency, demand shall be given without let or hindrance. It gives to us, almost in words, what we compelled Algiers to give

us in a treaty we made with her in 1815. It gives to us no more than, nor so much as, the people on the islands off the coast of China recently gave our wrecked vessels, for which Congress returned them thanks, and not so much as the Esquimaux have, over and over again, granted of their own free will and pleasure.

Fourth. We claim the right to equip our vessels with such papers as we ourselves shall determine by law, giving to one a register, to another an enrollment, and to another a license. If we reverse that rule and give to the licensed vessel a register, or if we give to the licensed vessel a permit to touch and trade, our right to do so is beyond question, and no nation can interfere with us in this regard. And yet the Dominion of Canada insists that the papers with which we arm our vessels are of no authority, and in this treaty their right to interfere in this regard is admitted in Article 13, which provides just how our vessels shall be designated by official numbers on bows, etc.

Fifth. Article 14 contains the legal amenities of the treaty, and they are amazingly generous, yielded in the nineteenth century by a neighboring nation! If one of our fishing vessels captures a mackerel for breakfast in the delimited water, no greater penalty shall be paid than the forfeiture of vessel and cargo! If a hook is baited, or a seine is mended with the intention of so fishing, the punishment shall not exceed forfeiture! For lesser offences three dollars a ton shall be the measure! Security for costs shall not be required so long as vessels and cargo are held, nor shall unreasonable bail be exacted. That these rights can be secured only by a solemn treaty, and must be paid for, requires no comment.

Sixth. By the terms of the treaty of 1818 we reserve to our fishing vessels the right to enter British waters for shelter, for repairs, to purchase wood and to take water, “and for no other purpose whatever." Under this article the Dominion of Canada insists that in the waters partitioned to them, our fishing vessels in their ports, etc., can have no privileges and no rights whatsoever beyond those named in the bond; that they cannot be permitted to buy flour or bread, beef or ice, bait or anything else except wood; and indeed they have gone so fr

as to insist that under the term "wood" they did not include coal, and refused the fishing steamer Novelty permission to buy. We, on the contrary, have insisted that while from 1818, for twelve years thereafter, it is true our fishermen were to enjoy the privileges of harbor and shelter, repairs of damage, purchase of wood and taking of water only, yet since October 5, 1830, they and all other vessels of the United States of America were entitled to be treated in the harbors, bays, and creeks of the Dominion of Canada on terms of perfect equality of flag with the British American dependencies. We have insisted, and never have yielded in that insistance, that the acts of Congress and the British Orders in Council of 1830, with the proclamation of President Jackson in the same year, gave to al! of our vessels, of whatever character, registered, enrolled, or licensed, complete commercial privileges in all the ports of the Dominion of Canada to the same extent they give to the vessels of the Dominion of Canada and of Great Britain rights and privileges in our ports.

Practically we, on our part, have lived up to that understanding from 1830 down to the present time. Secretary Bayard insisted upon those commercial rights and privileges up to the time he was appointed by the President a Plenipotentiary to negotiate this treaty. In 1886, in presenting to the British Government the case of the Annie M. Jordan, prohibited from buying bait, under date of June 7th, Mr. Bayard says:

"I earnestly protest against this unwarranted withholding of lawful commercial privileges from an American vessel and her owners, and for the loss and damage consequent thereon the Government of Great Britain will be held liable."

Again, in his letter to Sir Lionel West, May 10, 1886, he

says:

"I may recall to your attention the fact that a proposition to exclude the vessels of the United States engaged in fishing from carrying also merchandise was made by the British negotiators of the treaty of 1818, but, being resisted by the American negotiators, was abandoned. This fact would seem clearly to indicate that the business of fishing did not then and does