Mr. BRODEUR.

Before the orders of the day are called, I wish to give an answer to a question put to me yesterday by the hon. member for Argenteuil (Mr. Perley). He nought to the attention of the House a telegram published in the Montreal ' Gazette ' of December 1, under this heading: ' Discontent in our Navy-Jack Tars want more pay and quarters for their families,' and the hon. member read the article. The oilowing statement in answer thereto has been placed in my hands by the officers of the department:

With reference to the attached clipping from the Montreal ' Gazette ' of December 1, no information has been received in the Naval Service Department, as to there being any complaints or discontent amongst the members of the crew of H.M.C.S. ' Niobe.'

Every member of the crew, when enlisted, had to sign an engagement form, and the conditions under which they entered were clearly explained to each man.

Notices as to rates of pay, &c., were also posted outside the recruiting office door and any information required was given.

Hon. A. B. AYLESWORTH (Minister of Justice).

our situation, the importance to us of considerations which had to he taken into account, might have a feeling that in many instances the special interests of Canada had not been put in first place. If one will but reflect it will, I am sure, be cheerfully recognized by every loyal subject within this colony, or if you please, this nation of Canada, that in the general interests which those who control and manage imperial affairs at Westminster must take into consideration it is often of necessity that the interests of one section of a world-wide empire should have to give way to the interests of the body politic at large, and if there have been occasions in which it has been, on that account, necessary that Canadian, or British North American interests, should, to some extent, suffer for the general welfare of the empire as a whole, I believe that I speak the sentiments of my fellow subjects in Canada when I say that that is a sacrifice which no true man in this country would for a moment hesitate to make.

In respect then to this particular treaty of peace made after the revolutionary war much can be said in support of the view which the United States on its part has always resolutely put forward that their. citizens, their colonists, discovered, exploited, developed those fisheries of the present Canadian and Newfoundland coast, at a time when they were subjects of the same British Crown as ourselves. It is to be borne in mind that in 1776, at the date of the Declaration of Independence. Canada itself had been ceded to the British Crown only 13 years before, by the treaty of 1763. Prior to that date, from the first settlement of British colonies in New England, the fisheries of the adjacent coast, which is to-day that of Canada, had been a source of living and of revenue to the British colonists of Massachusetts, and the other New England states. They considered, they have ever since maintained, that these fisheries were won by their toil, by their blood and by their treasure, and that when the treaty' of peace * came to be made in 1783, they of right had as good a ground to maintain a claim to continue in the enjoyment of these fisheries as any British subjects across the sea, that they had even a better right than the new British subjects of less than a generation who were to be found in either Canada or Nova Scotia ; and maintaining. that position, their plenipotentiaries were able to exact, if you will, from Great Britain, in the position in which she found herself in 1783, surrounded by enemies, weakened with the struggles of prolonged war, the terms of a treaty by which equal right with British subjects was given to every inhabitant of the United States, in all British North American waters. That state of things continued until it was interrupted Mr. AYLESWORTH.

by the war of 1812, and at the conclusion of that war, the British insisting that the rights of the inhabitants of the United States had been forfeited by the war and the United States oh the other hand insisting with equal vehemence, that their rights under the treaty of 1783 were perpetual, it was impossible to reach any common ground and the peace of 1814 left the whole question of the fisheries without mention in whatever condition it existed after the outbreak of the war in 1812. Of course collisions and friction continual were inevitable, and the result of four years was to demonstrate that some arrangement must be made. Accordingly, after prolonged negotiations, in October, 1818, a new treaty was entered into and it was the terms of that treaty of 1818 which fell to be interpreted by the tribunal, constituted for that purpose at the Hague this summer. In 1818 Great Britain was in a very different position from that which she had occupied 35 years before. In 1818 the wars with Napoleon had reached their end and he himself was a prisoner in St. Helena. In 1818 Great Britain was in a position to dictate terms to even the United States of America, and in 1818 we find the British plenipotentiaries taking a very different attitude indeed in regard to the North American coastal fisheries from that which their predecessors had taken in 1783. In 1818 Great Britain said to the United States : We are content without going so far as to say that your extreme pretensions of ownership or of right in these fisheries can be recognized, we are content to delimit to you certain definite extents of coastal territory in British North America in which your privilege of fishing in common with British subjects may continue, but it must be only upon the terms that you distinctly renounce all right or claim of right to exercise that privilege of fishing in all the rest of British North America ; and the British remaining firm in adhering to that position, the treaty which was finally entered into contains a specific renunciation clause on the part of the United States, which renunciation clause is the one out of which this question of what are bays, this question which to my mind has been of prime importance throughout all these disputes so far as Canada is concerned, took its rise. The wording of that treaty or of that renunciation requires to be specifically noted because out of its wording and out of the close criticism and study which throughout all these years have been given to that wording, this difficulty arises. The words are:

And the United States hereby renounce for ever any liberty heretofore enjoyed or claimed by the inhabitants thereof to take, dry or cure fish on or within three marine miles of any of the coasts, bays, creeks or harbours of

His Britannic Majesty's dominions in Ameriea>

not included within the above-mentioned limits.

A proviso follows that fishing vessels of the United States may have resort in cases of distress for shelter, for wood, for water, or repairs to any of the 'bays and harbours in question, but so far as taking fish was concerned, the renunciation on the part of the United States is distinct that except as to the defined portions of the coast upon which their liberty to fish was continued, they renounced for ever all right or claim to take, dry, or cure fish within three marine miles of any of the bays of His Britannic Majesty's dominions in America, not included within the above mentioned limits.

While I am fully aware that there are many gentlemen in the House as thoroughly well acquainted with many of the matters to which I am referring, as I am, I wish to remind hon. gentlemen just what that extent of coastal line was which is assigned by the treaty of 1818 to the fishermen of the United States.

Taking Canada first, as of the most practical importance to us, the fishing limits are simply the shores of the Magdalen Islands and that portion of the north shore of the Gulf of St. Lawrence which extends from a point approximately opposite the eastern end of the island of Anticosti to the Interqolonial boundary between Canada and Newfoundland at about the southern entrance to the Straits of Belle Isle. To that stretch of coast, which in 1818. and indeed, I think I may say at the present time, is not, to any great extent, at any rate, an inhabited coast, by this treaty of 1818, United States fishermen may resort, in common with British subjects, as well as to the shores of the Magdalen Islands. But as to all the rest of the maritime coasts on the Atlantic, of what is now the Dominion of Canada, the United States has for ever renounced its right to fish within three miles of any of the bays.

I may, in passing, simply say, with regard to the coast line of the island of Newfoundland, that the portion upon which was given to the United States fishermen, the right to exercise their calling in common with British subjects, was the uninhabited portion-the whole of the western or St. Lawrence coast and about one-third of the southern coast-the western one-third. To the whole of the eastern coast and to the remainder, about the eastern two-thirds of the southern coast, the renunciation which I have read applies; and to that the United tSates in 1818 was content if not compelled to renounce for ever any pretension of further claim.

The question of practical importance, then, is, what are the bays which the United States fishermen gave up the leave to fish in? That question became one of

difficulty almost immediately after the treaty was entered into. The Bay of Fundy was then no doubt, an infinitely more valuable'fishing ground than it is to-day. The Bay of Fundy was immediately adjacent to the coast line of Massachusetts, as readily accessible to the enterprising fishermen of Gloucester as it was from the coasts of either Nova Scotia or New Brunswick; and within two years we have records of seizures of vessels being made for contravention of the treaty of 1818, and of difficulties arising between the colony of Nova Scotia on the one part and the inhabitants of the states of Massachusetts and Maine on the other. Their fishing vessels were engaged in the Bay of Fundy; British men-of-war or cruisers were turning them off the fishing grounds; diplomatic representations were being made, and vessels were being seized and condemned in colonial courts or in admiralty courts; and the difficulties from the very outset became, as year after year passed by, more and more marked upon the question, of what it was that the United States had renounced by the language of the treaty to which I have adverted.

You will have observed, Mr. Speaker, that the waters which were renounced are described as ' the bays, the creeks, the harbours of His Britannic Majesty's dominions in America,' and the contention was very soon put forward on the part of United States fishermen that the centre, the middle of a wide bay or sheet of water like the Bay of Fundy, was no part of His Majesty's dominions, covered by this renunciation. but was the high sea and the property of the world, in regard to which they had enjoyed no special privilege by the earlier treaty of 1783, and in regard to which they had given up nothing by the renunciation contained in the treaty of 1818; and from a very early date there grew up a contention. which ultimately was presented and argued as strenuously as any legal contention could be this summer at the Hague, that it was only bays or inlets from which, if their entrance was not more than six miles across, by this renunciation clause the fishermen of the United States were in any way excluded. In regard to a bay, the entrance to which was seven miles across, it was said that by this renunciation clause the fishermen of the United States were not in any way excluded. In regard to the bay the entrance to which was seven miles across, the United States fisherman took the position: So long

as I stay at least three miles from land, I may enter that seven-mile-wide bay in the centre; I can go as far upon that wedge-shaped piece of water as I can navigate, keeping at least three miles from either shore, and I am still upon the high sea, and not in any of the waters of His Britannic Majesty's dominions in America.

The difficulty becoming, as the years passed on, more and more highly, accentuated, there came a time, in 1845, after some years of fruitless negotiations and diplomatic representations and answers, when the British government felt that the necessity of the case called for some particular action so far as the Bay of Fundy was concerned. Early in the forties, I think in 1841, an address on the subject ihad been voted by the Assembly of Nova Scotia. The Attorney General of Nova Scotia, at that time, the Hon. J. W. Johnston, had written a most able paper [DOT] reviewing this question of territorial and treaty rights in waters of the character of the Bay of Fundy and other large inlets indenting the coasts of Nova Scotia. That paper was sent to the Colonial office and accompanied by the address of the Colonial Assembly, was submitted to the law officers of the Crown in England. Their report confirmed, as the award of two months ago, has in the most striking manner confirmed, the opinion of Mr. Johnston that those waters were territorial waters of Britain, from which the fishermen of the United States were excluded. That opinion having been pronounced by the responsible law officers of the Crown of that day, the colonists of Nova Scotia, I have no doubt, felt their case immensely strengthened, and thought they would have behind them all the prestige and power of the British government itself in defending the claim they were making to the Bay of Fundy as part of their territorial waters. But in 1845, the Lord Aberdeen of that day, then Foreign Secretary of Great Britain, wrote a letter which had been prepared as a piece of diplomatic correspondence, after the most careful and matured consideration, in which while affirming the right of the colonies, while standing unon the opinion which had been expressed by their legal advisers and by the legal advisers of the British government, none the less, on the part of His Majesty's government, as a pure matter of grace and concession, he expressed his willingness to forego, so far as the Bay of Fundy was concerned, the extreme right of the British subject in that Tegard, and assented to the use, by the fishermen of the United States, of the fisheries in the Bay of Fundy, in common with the inhabitants of the British colonies, upon *the stipulation that as to the remainder of the maritime coasts of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Quebec, the claims of United States fishermen should cease. "The representative of the United States government at the court of St. James, to whom that letter was addressed, acknowledged courteously the concession which had been made, but continued to argue that it was really no concession, but only, the recognition of a right which the United States fishermen already had. And I am sorry to say, that the stipu-Mr. AYLESWORTH.

lation which had been attached by the British government to the concession was, I think, at no time recognized by the United States, and their claims continued as strongly pressed as before to equal enjoyment in all the other bays of the maritime coast of British North America. But the result of the argument made during the present summer and the award pronounced three months ago has been to uphold to the fullest extent the British contention and to demonstrate, I think, that if the concession regarding the Bay of Fundy had not been made in 1845, that bay, as well as the other large bays of our maritime provinces, would to-day be declared British territorial water.

Hon. J. HAGGAET (Lanark).

In what way was that concession made? Was it simply by correspondence or by imperial statute or by treaty?

Mr. AYLESWORTH.

Air. FOSTER.

May I ask a question? Where does Hudson's bay stand at the present time under this?

Mr. AYLESWORTH.

I shall not omit to refer to Hudson's bay in a moment.

_ It will be none the less manifest that it is, in each individual instance, a matter of 22

practical difficulty to say exactly where upon the ground the line would fall that is marked across the entrance to a bay. Take any bay you please-say the Baie des Chaleurs which I mentioned a moment ago. On the north shore there are two points not far apart; which is the one at which point the Baie des Chaleurs ceases to have the configuration and characteristics of a bay? And the same thing may be said of many of the other large and small indentations of our maritime coast. In order to avoid that practical difficulty, if possible, the tribunal has recommended to the high contracting parties the acceptance of the rejected treaty of 1888, commonly known as the Chamberlain-Bayard treaty. In 1888, this difficulty having once more become critical and important by the abrogation on the part of the United States of the treaty of Washington, negotiations were entered upon and meetings were had in Washington between the representatives of the two countries, Sir Charles Tupper being the special representative of Canada as one of the British plenipotentiaries. And, in February, 1888, the treaty called the Chamberlain-Bayard treaty was signed by the plenipotentiaries and recommended by President Cleveland to the consideration of the United States Senate. It was referred to a committee, I think the committee on foreign relations, a committee of the Senate, at any rate, consisting of nine members. And, in the result, after prolonged discussion and deliberation in. the committee, a majority and a minority report in regard to this whole question of the fisheries were presented, two most able state papers reviewing the whole controversy from its origin. One report reached a conclusion entirely supporting all the contentions which from time to time had been made on the part of the United States, while the other, in many respects, pointed out the difficulties which attended supporting these contentions and in the end recommended the adoption of the treaty in question. The report which recommended the adoption of the treaty was, however, the minority report, signed by four only out of the nine members of the committee. The majority prevailed; the Senate rejected the treaty, and we have been living ever since under the modus vivendi which had been arranged contemporaneously with the treaty. That rejected treaty, which has never come into effect by reason of the action of the United States Senate in 1888, is now taken, so far as the delimitation of the bays is concerned, bodily by the tribunal and presented to the two powers interested with the strong recommendation on the part of the tribunal that it should be accepted, that it is a reasonable, a proper settlement of this difficult question as to the practical delimitation of the entrance to a bay, and that the lines

of this award which are perhaps of no less importance than that to which I have already adverted. The first question which was put to the tribunal by the submission was one which concerned Newfoundland as well as ourselves and one in which every one in Canada has a vital interest not merely of a sentimental but as well of a practical character. The question in brief was whether or not Canadian or Newfoundland law, passed with regard to the operation of these common fisheries, was binding upon the fishermen of the United States. The contention was boldly made on the part of the United States that no law of Canada, or Newfoundland or Great Britain, had any effect in so far as their citizens were concerned when these citizens were exercising their treaty rights within our coastal waters.

I would not have you understand, Sir, that it was at any time contended on the part of the United States that if one of their fishermen were to break the ordinary law of the land, were to commit an assault or an offence within Canadian waters, he would be exempt from punishment. No such contention was put forward, but it was stoutly maintained, and has for years been a strong contention in the United States, that with regard to the regulations, with regard to the laws which might be said to regulate the method, the time and the manner of fishing within those waters, Canadian regulations could have no binding effect upon their fishermen. So far did that contention go that their counsel at the Hague this summer was driven to argue and, when driven to do it, did boldly take the position that the United States themselves had a better right to legislate with regard to those waters than Great Britain, that those waters were subject to the dominance of the United States and that because this treaty had made Great Britain's sovereignty servient to the privileges of the United States, congress and not the parliaments of Great Britain or her colonies had the right to enact regulations which should govern the taking of these fish. That certainly was pushing the contention to the utmost limits and I need but state the contention to a British audience in a British House of parliament to have it recognized that the maintenance of any such contention would have produced not merely a humiliating but an intolerable condition of things in this country.

The tribunal has unequivocally rejected that contention. It has not only rejected it, but it has maintained to the fullest extent the British contention. The British contention in that regard was one about the stating of which there was a great deal of practical difficulty. I propose, with your permission, as I finish, to lay upon the table the official record of the oral pro-Mr. AYLESWOETH.

ceedings before the tribunal at the Hague this summer and any gentleman interested will find, of course, in that volume, a full copy of the submission to arbitration and of the award and the reasons for the award which has recently been pronounced. In looking at the terms of the submission to arbitration, any one will observe that, whereas, with regard to all the other points which were submitted to the tribunal except this one in respect to the right to legislate, a specific question was framed and put to the tribunal for answer, in so far as this matter of legislation is concerned, the course was adopted of having each party state its own contention. That course was adopted because it was the only one that could reach any result. For months the effort had been made-an honest effort, I have not the slightest doubt on the part of the representatives of each country-to reach some common ground for argument, to state the position in one short sentence, if possible, for the tribunal to pass upon it. But, it turned out impossible to reach any common ground. The starting points were so wide asunder, the whole view point was so utterly different, the British or Canadian view being that the water was our territory, that we had the sole right to legislate with regard to it exactly and to the same extent as we have the right to legislate in regard to the people and the territory of the city of Ottawa. We could not realize, we could not frame language which would be common to our view and to the contrary view which was presented by the United States that they had, not merely the right to be consulted or to acquiesce in and assent to legislation with regard to the working of the fisheries, and to its operation as against their citizens, but that they had actually the right to make the laws with us, if we would agree, but without us if we would not. So far did it go, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. Turner, or Mr. Senator Turner as he was a few years ago, of counsel for the United States, who first addressed the tribunal on behalf of the United States took that position-in fact, he was forced to take it for the sake of the consistency of his argument-and backed it Up by the contention that not only had the United States Congress the right to make the laws but it had the right to enforce them in British territory and in British waters by armed force, to send a man-of-war into the bays and harbours of Canada to see that the laws which they might make were obeyed and were not broken bv the British subjects interfering with the fishermen of the United States, Where the parties were so far apart, where their views were so utterly irreconcilable as can be seen at once from the statement I have just made, it was a matter of the very greatest practical difficulty

fi32

to select words which would state in the form of a question to the tribunal what, the tribunal was asked to decide in this respect without in any way prejudicing the contention of either one party or the other; and as a consequence the device was ultimately adopted of having each party state its own contentions and leaving the tribunal to say what the true meaning of the treaty was in the light of the contentions so stated. I do not know whether or not it was any advantage that the contention of Great Britain should be the first one to be stated, but in the result it came to be so, and being so it was a question of very great practical importance to determine just how far it would be safe to go without overstepping the line, and still to go far enough in the contention to secure to Canada and to Newfoundland the rights which its people considered they possessed. In this connection I should pay and I gladly pay a tribute of appreciation to the work of the present British ministei at Washington, the Hon. James Bryce. After, I think I may say, an intimate knowledge of the difficulties which for more than 12 months after arbitration had been decided upon surrounded the preparation of the documents for submission to arbitration, after a personal knowledge during a good many days of the difficulties which beset the ultimate stating upon paper of this particular question, I think I am in a position to say that no one less able, less learned, and honestly earnest in the interests of Canada and of Newfoundland than Mr. Bryce proved himself to be, could ever have succeeded in bringing these difficult negotiations to a successful close, and the extent to which his efforts in this respect have been successful is best demonstrated by the circumstance that when the award came to be pronounced on the 7th of September last, the tribunal adopted-verbatim et literatim the language which Mr. Bryce used two years ago in stating the British contention under this clause of the treaty. After stating to the fullest extent the various contentions of the two contending parties, and dealing with the arguments which during the course of ten weeks' deliberations and discussions were presented to them, the tribunal has said:

The right of Great Britain

i-which of course includes Canada and Newfoundland

to make regulations without the consent of the United States, as to the exercise of the liberty to take fish referred to in article 1 of the treaty of the 20th of October, 1818, in the form of municipal law, ordinances or rules of Great Britain, Canada or Newfound land, is inherent to the sovereignty of Great Britain. The exercise of that right by Great

Britain, is, however, limited by the said treaty in respect of the said liberties therein granted to the inhabitants of the United States in that such regulations must be made bona fide and must not be in violation of the said treaty.

In other words, it would be incompetent to this parliament, or even to the parliament at Westminster to derogate from the treaty itself by legislation to whittle away or lessen the rights which were given under that treaty to the United States; but so long as the regulations are made in good faith and not in violation of the treaty they are regulations which it is the inherent sovereign right of Great Britain, and her colonies to enact and which must be observed by all men, regardless of their nationality, who may resort to these fishing waters. The tribunal in specific terms adopted the very words which were prepared when this matter of putting on paper the contention of Great Britain was under consideration; the regulations must be first, appropriate or necessary for the protection and preservation of such fisheries, or second, desirable or necessary on the ground of public order and morals, without unnecessarily interfering with' the fishery itself, and in both cases equitable and fair as between local and American fishermen, and not so framed as to give unfairly an advantage to the former over the latter class. Such regulations are not inconsistent with the obligation to execute the treaty in good faith, and are therefore, reasonable, and not in violation of the treaty. The decision is, therefore, simply that so long as our Canadian fishery regulations, are appropriate or necessary foT the protection and preservation of the' fisheries, or aTe desirable or necessary on grounds of public order or morals, as for instance the prohibition of fishing on Sunday, without unnecessarily interfering with the fisheries, just so long as these regulations are equitable and fair, as between local and American fishermen and not so framed as to give unfairly an advantage to the local over the American class, these regulations are not inconsistent with our obligations under the treaty and must be observed. In other words, it is a complete affirmance of our right to regulate these fisheries by legislation so long as we avoid any infringing of the principles and true meaning , of the treaty in question.

The tribunal having, by the language to which I have called attention, settled the principle upon which legislation for the future must proceed, and completely negatived the United States contention that they have any right even to be consulted on the subject, proceeds in the discharge of its duty under the agreement to arbitrate, to dispose of, first, existing legislation and, secondly, legislation for the

future. In regard to existing legislation, it was of course a necessity if we were going into an arbitration on this question that we should agree to conform to the award. That goes without saying, no one can agree to arbitrate and yet reserve to himself the right to say whether or not he will obey the award, and accordingly it is an express term of the agreement to arbitrate here that each country will honestly conform to the award when it comes to be administered.

In regard to existing fishery legislation in both Canada and Newfoundland, the submission to arbitration contains a provision that the United States may, within a given time, give to us notice of any enactments which they contend are opposed to the true meaning and interpretation of the treaty of 1818, and that upon their giving such notice the tribunal should pass upon that legislation and point out in what respect it contravened the true meaning of the treaty, and in what respect it ought to be amended or .possibly repealed, the countries agreeing to conform to such an award. Now, in dealing with that existing legislation, practically, what took place was'that notice was given on the part of the United States enumerating substantially the whole of existing Canadian legislation with regard to the fisheries, referring to our various statutes by chapter and number, and calling the attention of the tribunal by their notice simply to those statutes as being complained of. Following the course of the controversy and! of the proceedings before the tribunal during June, July and August last, it had been my expectation that when the tribunal reached a conclusion and pronounced the interpretation of the treaty of 1818, they would proceed then and there to take up the existing legislation which had been enumerated by the United States as objectionable, and determine, upon hearing the parties by their counsel, whether or no the objections made were tenable. I was, therefore, I am free to admit, disappointed when, on the award being pronounced, instead of the tribunal taking that course, they adopted this substituted course. They directed, in pursuance of one of the other provisions of the treaty of arbitration, that a board of experts should be formed, consisting of one to be selected by the United States, one to be selected by Great Britain, and the third neutral, whom the tribunal then named, and who is Dr. Hoek, of Holland, scientific adviser for the Fisheries of the Netherlands. These three experts would, by their examination, or by conferences among themselves, reach a conclusion as to the reasonableness and propriety of these various enactments, and report such conclusions to the tribunal, which I

Mr. AYLESWORTH.

if it were ultimately called upon to do so, would then itself pronounce upon the reasonableness and propriety of those different enactments which had been challenged. Accordingly, in that respect, so far as our Canadian and the Newfoundland existing fishery legislation which has been specified by the United States is concerned, the tribunal has not ended its work. It has given no decision, expressed no opinion, but has provided for the sitting of this subsidiary board, which shall examine into and report upon the matter to the tribunal, leaving the matter then to be further discussed if it should be necessary to reconvene the tribunal for that purpose.

As to the direct result, I can only say this, that having had this degree of personal experience of what an international arbitration of first importance means, in the wav of labour, time and expense, I have no desire, if it can be avoided, to see this tribunal reconvene for this purpose. I think that feeling will be found to be fully shared by the representatives of the United ' States who weTe concerned last summer in this argument at The Hague; and in that view I am hopeful that a modus vivendi can be, without difficulty, I trust, arranged -that, if the United States will state in plain terms to us just what provisions of our existing fishery laws they think ought to be amended, we will certainly give honest consideration to any representations in that regard which they may make, in the hope that by amendment, which, perhaps, may be of a comparatively unimportant character, their views can be met and our existing legislation put into such condition that no further objection to it may be raised. Indeed, I may say, and it is no more than right that I should say-no more than just to the United States and their representatives-that from first to last of this long-drawn-out controversy, so far at any rate as existing Canadian legislation is concerned, they have not made any specific objection.

It is quite true, they have enumerated all these various statutes of the Canadian parliament compendiously. They have said, we bring all these to the attention'of the tribunal as objectionable. But it was necessary that they should take that position in order to protect themselves, in order that they might, if necessary, take up any specific article of our legislation and present it for argument before the tribunal. Throughout the discussion of this matter at The Hague last summer, I ought to say, and I gladly say, on the part notably of Mr. Root, and I may say, also, equally of the distinguished counsel from the United States who were associated with him, and who maintained the position of their country with marked ability and learning, that no word from first to last was ever uttered at which any Canadian could take, or would think of taking, the slightest umbrage or

offence. In regard, at all events, to Canadian legislation and to the manner in which, in international relations, the United States had been dealt with by Canada for at least a generation past, Mr. Root especially was most handsome in his statements that Canada had been a good neighbour, and that nobody had anything to complain of so far as we were concerned.

Mr. FOSTER.

A question as to existing regulations or laws governing the fisheries. Has that subject passed entirelv out of negotiation and passed entirely into the hands of these three experts?

Mr. AYLESWORTH.

So far as the legal effect of the decision is concerned, the answer to the hon. gentleman would be in the affirmative. The tribunal has directed this existing legislation to be considered by the substituted board which I have described.

Mr. FOSTER.

One other question. The minister, so far as I have followed him, has not touched the question of future legislation.

Mr. AYLESWORTH.

That is a separate and independent question on which I shall say a word in a moment. It is one dealt with by the tribunal in an en-tiiely different fashion. While I have made the answer, with regard to the disposition of existing legislation, that it is definitely sent by the tribunal to the consideration of this board, you will not overlook what I have also said that I entertain the hope- a hope which I think is not without good foundation-that it will be possible by amicable negotiations to remove the whole question, at any rate, so far as Canada is concerned, from the jurisdiction of, not only the board which I have described, but also of the tribunal itself. In that sense my answer to the question of the hon. gentleman, as to whether existing legislation was withdrawn from the realm of negotiation, would be qualified to the extent I have indicated. _ _ . .

In connection with existing legislation, I wish to say just a word regarding the relations under which we have been practically operating during the last 22 years. We often hear of the modus vivendi of 1888. Hon. gentlemen who are listening to me are no doubt, perfectly aware of the position we are in so far as that arrangement or agreement is concerned; and yet, as it is of such practical importance to us, I take this opportunity to say a word about it. When the arrangement, known as the Chamberlain-Bayard treaty, was signed by the plenipotentiaries in 1888, it was of course, understood perfectly that it would take some time to have it submitted to the Senate of the United States and considered by that body; and in order to avoid any difficulty in the intervening months, an understanding was arrived at and signed by the plenipotentiaries among themselves, that for the then approaching few months-for the fishing season of that year -certain regulations should obtain under which the fishing vessels of the United States would be permitted to enter freely Canadian harbours and buy, not only for the ordinary treaty purposes of relief m distress, but for commercial purposes-to outfit, to buy supplies, to tranship, and generally to have the privileges of Canadian ports to the full extent to which the vessels of any foreign country would be given them. 'That arrangement made for temporary purposes, has simply continued from that day to this. When the treaty to which that arrangement was subsidiary, was rejected by the senate of the United States and fell entirely to the ground, the intermediate or temporary arrangement did not necessarily fall with it. Nobody has rescinded it, and by simple acquiescence it has continued till the present. Accordingly on the payment of a nominal fee-

I think $1.50 a'ton, to the Canadian government-the fishing vessels of the United States are at liberty to resort to Canadian port's and bays. Not so in the case of Newfoundland. There, difficulties have arisen and continued for several years, and the existing legislation in Newfoundland with regard "to the management of its coastal facilities is certainly very objectionable to the, United States at present. I am limiting myself to the Canadian interests as distinguished from those of Newfoundland, although each alike was the subject of arbitration, and in this regard what I have said with respect to Canada has, of course, no application to Newfoundland.

With regard to future legislation the tribunal of course, was not vested with any authority to dictate, but was given the right to make recommendations for the consideration of the powers interested and to suggest some practical plan of working out in the future whatever the decision of the tribunal might be. Inasmuch as the tribunal has pronounced that the right to legislate exists in Canada, Newfoundland and Great Britain alone, it was of first importance that it should frame and present for consideration some practical project for getting over possible future difficulties, and the plan which the tribunal is prepared to recommend in regard to any future legislation is, in brief, the constitution of a common board or commission appointed as between- Canada and the United States, on which each country shall have equal representation, and similarly upon which as between Newfoundland, and the United States, each country shall have ec|ual representation, with a third mernbei as umpire to prevent an equal division of opinion. To that board any contemplated future legislation shall be submitted. That of course, is but a recommendation. The

obligation of the treaty of arbitration is that, with regard to future legislation, each party will put itself upon the arbitrament of the Hague Tribunal, so that if difficulty should arise with regard to proposed legislation in the future, which might be objected to by the United States as inconsistent with the recent award, the question whether or not such legislation should stand or be repealed or amended would require to be submitted to ultimately the Hague Tribunal itself. It is not necessary that the tribunal should be composed of the same gentlemen. Some of them might then have passed away, but it would be a permanent court and its representatives would be selected by the governments interested.

I have occupied a great deal of time on this matter and have discussed simply two out, of the seven questions submitted for arbitration this summer. Let me rapidly discuss the remaining questions. Of the remaining five, three concern Canada and Newfoundland and two Newfoundland only. Dealing with the first three, the one of greatest importance is the rather peculiar ground which was taken at the instance of the government of the United States with regard to the privileges, from a commercial point of view, which they thiijk their fishing vessels ought to enjoy. A fishing vessel of course, is very different from a trading vessel. Trading vessels clear from one port to another and do not loiter on the way, whereas a fishing vessel goes into the territorial waters of Canada for the purpose of getting its cargo and necessarily moves about- from place to place. It loiters or hovers along the coast and has no given destination.

Now, the fishermen of the United States, desiring, of course, when far away from their own base of supplies, to use, if possible, the Canadian or Newfoundland shores, or the Canadian or Newfoundland ports, wish always the privilege of resorting to these ports for the purpose of buying supplies-ice, nets, any supplies that might be requisite, and especially in regard to the fisheries of the banks or the open sea, for the purpose of purchasing bait. And, that privilege being refused them by Newfoundland, although at present granted by Canada^ under the modus vivendi of 1888, the device was adopted on the part of the United States authorities of licensing a fishing vessel by a special license which they call, in ordinary parlance, the touch-and-trade license, by which license that particular vessel was authorized not only to fish, to pursue its ordinary avocation, but, upon any given trip, to touch and trade. And, the United States maintaining that the possession of such a license from their government entitled any vessel which had it to higher rights than the ordinary fishing vessel, or to the commercial privileges usually

Mr. AYLESWORTH.

accorded to trading vessels, and, at. any rate to the privilege of outfitting to the extent I have described, the question was propounded to the tribunal, what the effect of such a license would be under the treaty of 1818 and the true interpretation j- Lhat treaty. In that question Canada is not very much concerned; not only because at present it is not of practical consequence to us, but more because those portions, of the Canadian coast to which, under the original treaty of 1818, the United States fishermen have the right to resort, do not afford opportunities for trading. There'is no trading to be done upon the north shore of the Gulf of St. Lawrence; there is not much trading to be don^ in the Magdalen islands. And so this question, under present conditions, concerns Canada only so far as those portions of her coast are described. The tribunal has said in regard to that question that, so far as this treaty of 1818 goes, there being nothing whatever in that treaty on the subject, the United States fishing vessels may be said to be so entitled, in the sense that that treaty does not disentitle them to it. But the tribunal has taken occasion to say, further, that the same vessel cannot, on the same voyage and at the same time, exercise both trading rights and fishing rights. The fisherman may come, if he likes, in a trading vessel, and may fish from that trading vessel, and the fact that it is a regularly registered or regularly licensed trading vessel will not prevent his being able to exercise his treaty privileges by fishing from her decks. But, if that sort of work is going on upon any particular voyage or at anv nartioular time, that same vessel, under this deliverance of the tribunal, cannot exercise, for that voyage, the ordinary rights of a trading vessel. So that, the effect of that decision has been substantially in support of the contention of Canada and of Newfoundland.