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 willing, 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 fishoil 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 necesssary to complete an equivalent, it being understood that legislation would be needed before any payment could be made.

The subject was further discussed in the conferences of April 18 and 19, and the British 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.

ARTICLES XXVI TO XXXIII.

At the conference on the 6th of March the British Commissioners proposed that the Reciprocity Treaty of June 5, 1854, should be restored in principle, and that, if any considerable modifications in the tariff arrangements in force under it were made, 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 St. Lawrence and of the Canadian Canals should be thrown open to the citizens of the United States on terms of equality with British subjects.

The American Commissioners declined this proposal, and in the subsequent negotiations the question of the Fisheries was treated by itself. At the conference on the 17th of March the Joint High Commission considered the subject of the American improvement of the navigation of the Saint Clair Flats.

At the conference on the 18th of March the questions of the navigation of the River Saint Lawrence and the Canals and the other subjects connected therewith were taken up.

The American Commissioners proposed to take into consideration the question of transit of goods in bond through Canada and the United States, which was agreed to.

The British Commissioners proposed to take into consideration the question of opening the coasting trade of the lakes reciprocally to each party, which was declined.

On the proposal of the British Commissioners it was agreed to take the question of transshipment into consideration.

The British Commissioners proposed to take into consideration the reciprocal registration of vessels, as between the Dominion of Canada and the United States, which was declined.

At the conference on the 23d of March the transshipment question was discussed, and postponed for further information, on the motion of the American Commissioners.

The transit question was discussed, and it was agreed that any settle

ment that might be made should include a reciprocal arrangement in that respect for the period for which the Fishery articles should be in force.

The question of the navigation of the River Saint Lawrence and the Canals was taken up.

The British Commissioners stated that they regarded the concession of the navigation of Lake Michigan as an equivalent for the concession of the navigation of the River Saint Lawrence.

As to the Canals, they stated that the concession of the privilege to navigate them in their present condition, on terms of equality with British subjects, was a much greater concession than the corresponding use of the Canals offered by the United States.

They further said that the enlargement of the Canals would involve the expenditure of a large amount of money, and they asked what equivalent the American Commissioners proposed to give for the surrender of the right to control the tolls for the use of the Canals, either in their present state or after enlargement.

The American Commissioners replied, that unless the Welland Canal should be enlarged so as to accommodate the present course of trade, they should not be disposed to make any concessions; that in their opinion the citizens of the United States could now justly claim to navigate the River St. Lawrence in its natural state, ascending and descending, from the forty-fifth parallel of north latitude, where it ceases to form the boundary between the two countries, from, to, and into the sea; and they could not concede that the navigation of Lake Michigan should be given or taken as an equivalent for that right; and they thought that the concession of the navigation of Lake Michigan and of the Canals offered by them was more than an equivalent for the conces sions as to the Canadian Canals which were asked. They proposed, in connection with a reciprocal arrangement as to transit and transshipment, that Canada should agree to enlarge the Welland and St. Lawrence Canals, to make no discriminating tolls, and to limit the tolls to rates sufficient to maintain the Canals, pay a reasonable interest on the cost of construction and enlargement, and raise a sinking-fund for the repaying, within a reasonable time, the cost of enlargement; and that the navigation of the River St. Lawrence, the Canadian Canals, the Canals offered by the United States, and Lake Michigan should be enjoyed reciprocally by citizens of the United States and by British subjects. This proposal was declined by the British Commissioners, who repeated that they did not regard the equivalent offered by the United States as at all commensurate with the concessions asked from Great Britain.

At the conference on the 27th of March the proposed enlargement of the Canadian Canals was further discussed. It was stated on the part of the British Commissioners that the Canadian Government were now considering the expediency of enlarging the capacity of the Canals on the River St. Lawrence, and had already provided for the enlargement of the Welland Canal, which would be undertaken without delay.

The subject of the export duty in New Brunswick on American lumber floated down the River St. John, was proposed for consideration by the American Commissioners.

At the conference on the 22d of April the British Commissioners proposed that the navigation of Lake Michigan should be given in exchange for the navigation of the River St. Lawrence; and that Her Majesty's Government should agree to urge upon the Dominion of Canada to give to the citizens of the United States the use of the Canadian Canals on

terms of equality with British subjects; and that the Government of the United States should agree to urge upon the several States to give to British subjects the use of the several State Canals on terms of equality with citizens of the United States. They also proposed, as part of the arrangement, a reciprocal agreement as to transit and transshipment, and that the Government of Great Britain should urge upon New Brunswick not to impose export duties on the lumber floated down the River St. John for shipment to the United States.

The American Commissioners repeated their views as to the navigation of the River St. Lawrence in its natural state.

The British Commissioners replied that they could not admit the claims of American citizens to navigate the River St. Lawrence as of right; but that the British Government had no desire to exclude them from it. They, however, pointed out that there were certain rivers running through Alaska which should on like grounds be declared free and open to British subjects, in case the River St. Lawrence should be declared free.

The American Commissioners replied that they were prepared to consider that question. They also assented to the arrangement as to the canals, which was proposed by the British Commissioners, limiting it, as regarded American Canals, to the canals connected with the navigation of the lakes or rivers traversed by or contiguous to the boundaryline between the British and American possessions. They likewise agreed to give the right of navigating Lake Michigan for a term of years. They desired, and it was agreed, that the transshipment arrangement should be made dependent upon the non-existence of discriminating tolls or regulations on the Canadian Canals, and also upon the abolition of the New Brunswick export duty on American lumber intended for the United States. It was also agreed that the right of carrying should be made dependent upon the non-imposition of export duties on either side on the goods of the other party passing in transit. The discussion of these subjects was further continued at the conferences of the 24th, 25th, and 26th of April, and the Treaty Articles XXVI to XXXIII were agreed to at the conference on the 3d of May.

In the course of these discussions the British Commissioners called attention to the question of the survey of the boundary-line along the forty-ninth parallel, which still remained unexecuted from the Lake of the Woods to the Rocky Mountains, and to which reference had been made in the President's Message.

The American Commissioners stated that the survey was a matter for administrative action, and did not require to be dealt with by a treaty provision. The United States Government would be prepared to agree with the British Government for the appointment of a boundary survey commission in the same manner as had been done in regard to the remainder of the boundary along the forty-ninth parallel as soon as the legislative appropriations and other necessary arrangements could be made.

ARTICLES XXXIV TO XLII.

At the conference on the 15th of March the British Commissioners stated that it was proposed that day to take up the Northwest waterboundary question; that the difference was one of long standing, which had more than once been the subject of negotiations between the two Governments, and that the negotiators had, in January, 1869, agreed upon a treaty. They then proposed that an arbitration of this question should be made upon the basis of the provisions of that Treaty.

The American Commissioners replied that, though no formal vote was actually taken upon it, it was well understood that that Treaty had not been favorably regarded by the Senate. They declined the proposal of the British Commissioners, and expressed their wish that an effort should be made to settle the question in the Joint High Commission.

The British Commissioners assented to this, and presented the reasons which induced them to regard the Rosario Straits as the channel contemplated by the Treaty of June 15, 1846.

The American Commissioners replied, and presented the reasons which induced them to regard the Haro Channel as the channel contemplated by that Treaty. They also produced in support of their views some original correspondence of Mr. Everett with his Government, which had not been alluded to in previous discussions of the question.

The British Commissioners replied that they saw in that correspondence no reason to induce them to change the opinion which they had previously expressed. They then asked whether the American Commissioners had any further proposal to make.

The American Commissioners replied that, in view of the position taken by the British Commissioners, it appeared that the Treaty of June 15, 1846, might have been made under a mutual misunderstanding, and would not have been made.had each party understood at that time the construction which the other party puts upon the language whose interpretation is in dispute; they therefore proposed to abrogate the whole of that part of the Treaty, and re-arrange the boundary-line which was in dispute before that Treaty was concluded.

The British Commissioners replied that the proposal to abrogate a treaty was one of a serious character, and that they had no instructions which would enable them to entertain it; and at the conference on the 20th of March the British Commissioners declined the proposal.

At the conference on the 19th of April the British Commissioners proposed to the American Commissioners to adopt the Middle Channel (generally known as the Douglas Channel) as the channel through which the boundary-line should be run, with the understanding that all the channels through the Archipelago should be free and common to both parties.

The American Commissioners declined to entertain that proposal. They proposed that the Joint High Commission should recognize the Haro Channel as the channel intended by the Treaty of June 15, 1846, with a mutual agreement that no fortifications should be erected by either party to obstruct or command it, and with proper provisions as to any existing proprietary rights of British subjects in the island of San Juan.

The British Commissioners declined this proposal, and stated that, being convinced of the justice of their view of the Treaty, they could not abandon it except after a fair decision by an impartial arbitrator. They therefore renewed their proposal for a reference to arbitration, and hoped that it would be seriously considered.

The American Commissioners replied that they had hoped that their last proposal would be accepted. As it had been declined, they would, should the other questions between the two Governments be satisfactorily adjusted, agree to a reference to arbitration to determine whether the line should run through the Haro Channel or through the Rosario Straits, upon the condition that either Government should have the right to include in the evidence to be considered by the Arbitrator such documents, official correspondence, and other official or public statements, bearing on the subject of the reference, as they may consider

necessary to the support of their respective cases. This condition was agreed to.

The British Commissioners proposed that the Arbitrator should have the right to draw the boundary through an intermediate channel. The American Commissioners declined this proposal, stating that they desired a decision, not a compromise.

The British Commissioners proposed that it should be declared to be the proper construction of the Treaty of 1846 that all the channels were to be open to navigation by both parties. The American Commissioners stated that they did not so construe the Treaty of 1846, and therefore could not assent to such a declaration.

The discussion of this subject was continued during this conference, and in the conference of the 22d of April the Treaty Articles XXXIV to XLII were agreed to.

The Joint High Commissioners approved this statement, and directed it to be entered in the protocol.

The conference was adjourned to the 6th of May.

J. C. BANCROFT DAVIS.
TENTERDEN.

XXXVII.-PROTOCOL OF CONFERENCE BETWEEN THE HIGH COMMISSIONERS ON THE PART OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE HIGH COMMISSIONERS ON THE PART OF GREAT BRITAIN.

WASHINGTON, May 6, 1871.

The High Commissioners having met, the protocol of the conference held on the 4th of May was read and confirmed.

Lord de Grey said, that as the Joint High Commission would not meet again after to-day, except for the purpose of signing the Treaty, he desired, on behalf of himself and his colleagues, to express their high appreciation of the manner in which Mr. Fish and his American colleagues had, on their side, conducted the negotiations. It had been most gratifying to the British Commissioners to be associated with colleagues who were animated with the same sincere desire as themselves to bring about a settlement, equally honorable and just to both countries, of the various questions of which it had been their duty to treat, and the British Commissioners would always retain a grateful recollection of the fair and friendly spirit which the American Commissioners had displayed.

Mr. Fish, in behalf of the American Commissioners, said that they were gratefully sensible of the friendly words expressed by Lord de Grey, and of the kind spirit which had prompted them. From the date of the first conference the American Commissioners had been impressed by the earnestness of desire manifested by the British Commissioners to reach a settlement worthy of the two Powers who had committed to this Joint High Commission the treatment of various questions of peculiar interest, complexity, and delicacy. His colleagues and he could never cease to appreciate the generous spirit, and the open and friendly manner in which the British Commissioners had met and discussed the several questions that had led to the conclusion of a Treaty which it was hoped would receive the approval of the people of both countries, and would prove the foundation of a cordial and friendly understanding between them for all time to come.