say that you will not find a single man who will talk to you on the subject of unrestricted reciprocity, as I did not find one at the time when public attention was being turned to it in this country.

Was it not desirable that we should know what the views and sentiments of the United States were upon the subject? Talk to them, Sir, of commercial union-I tell you that I did not meet a man of any party, I did not meet an American statesman, who would not hold up both hands for commercial union with Canada. Why, Sir? Because he knows that it would give Canada to the United States; he knows that you would never occupy the degrading position of having a neighbouring country make your tariff and impose taxes upon you. I say, Sir, that it is a condition of things from which the most craven Canadian would recoil. This proposition of unrestricted reciprocity, of free trade with the United States, with liberty to make our own tariff with the rest of the worldI say I did not meet a man-I discussed this question fully and freely from day to day with scores of leading public men in the United States-I did not meet a man who would talk about such a thing for a single moment. Why, Sir, they treated the very proposition with scorn. They said: "Do you suppose that we intend to make a free-trade arrangement with Canada that would involve free trade with England, and destroy the position we occupy in relation to all the vast industries of this country? " I say, Sir, that under these circumstances I did a service to Canada. And you have got the answer. You did not get from Mr. Bayard the statement: "If you will go the whole length of unrestricted reciprocity with us, if you will make everything free, then we will talk with you." Nothing of the kind. Here is the answer, coming from the leader of the Administration of the United States, which conclusively shows that, I was going to say, but, after the interesting and animated discussion we had in this House, I will not say that it was a waste of time to

take up a fortnight of the time of Parliament in discussing that which it is just as rational as to have been discussing how to construct a railway from Canada to the moon. The answer is here:

"

While continuing their proposal heretofore submittedon the 30th ultimo-and fully sharing the desire of Her Britannic Majesty's plenipotentiaries to remove all causes of difference in connection with the fisheries, the American plenipotentiaries are constrained, after careful consideration, to decline to ask from the President authority requisite to consider the proposal conveyed to them on the 3rd instant as a means to the desired end, because the greater freedom of commerical intercourse so proposed would necessitate an adjustment of the present tariff of the United States by congressional action, which adjustment the American plenipotentiaries consider to be manifestly impracticable of accomplishment through the medium of a treaty under the circumstances now existing. Nor could the American plenipotentiaries admit that such a mutual arrangement as is proposed by Her Britannic Majesty's plenipotentiaries could be accepted as constituting a suitable basis of negotiation concerning the rights and privileges claimed for American fishing vessels. It still appears to the American plenipotentiaries to be possible to find an adjustment of differences by agreeing on an interpretation or modification of the treaty of 1818 which will be honourable to both parties and remove the causes of complaint to which end they are nowas they have been from the beginning of this conferenceready to devote themselves."

Mr. Bayard gives a further illustration of the position in his letter to the Senate. It is dated Washington, March 22nd, and in it he says:

"In conformity with the invariable course pursued in previous negotiations, when the conference met it was generally agreed that an honourable confidence should be maintained in its deliberations, and that only results should be announced, and such other matters as the joint protocolists should sign under the direction of the plenipotentiaries: With this understanding, which was strictly kept, the discussions of the con

ference proceeded, through its numerous and prolonged session, with that freedom and informality in the exchange of views which the nature of the negotiations required, and without which its progress would have been materially hampered, and any agreement rendered very difficult of attainment.

"Upon the conclusion of the treaty some members of the conference at once left the city under the pressure of other duties, and it is thus possible that some statements were excluded that otherwise might have been placed in the joint protocols."

I have explained to the House my great surprise at finding they did not give what I assumed that the purely formal protocols would give-that is to say, all the proposals made and the counter-proposals and the replies on both sides. I assumed that the protocols would contain those. Mr. Bayard has explained how it was that this was not done.

"After the conference had finally adjourned and Sir Charles Tupper had returned to Ottawa, a request was received through the British Minister that assent be given to the publication of a certain proposal which had been submitted by the British plenipotentiaries and declined by the Americans. The consent as desired was given, and I enclose herewith a copy of the papers so referred to. Every point submitted to the conference is covered by the papers now in the possession of the Senate."

I wish the House to note that. Although we have not given any proposals and counter-proposals, here is the statement, which I confirm as being thoroughly and entirely accurate, that the papers submitted to the Senate, as the papers submitted to you, give all the information necessary for the consideration of this question.

"Excepting the question of damages sustained by our fishermen, which, being met by the counter-claim for damages to British vessels in Behring's Sea, was left for future settlement."

President Angell, who was one of the commissioners, after he returned home, made the following observations:

"We were a long time getting down to the real work of the commission, all the parties interested were so varied. The British and Canadian commissioners were especially anxious to make a reciprocal free trade treaty a part of the treaty before they would settle on the fishery question. More than one-half the time was occupied in this manner. The real work has been done within the last month. We told them over and over that the tariff was a matter which must be settled by Congress, and that we could do nothing about it. I must say, if this treaty is not ratified by the Senate they will make a great mistake."

I give you President Angell's statement, and I will now give the House a still more authoritative statement bearing on the same subject. I have here the report of the Judicial Committee of the House of Representatives, to whom was referred, in 1885, the question as to the power of the President to negotiate treaties with foreign Governments. This report is No. 2,680, 48 Congress, 2nd Session.

"Mr. Tucker, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the following report:

"The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the resolution of the House of Representatives embodied in this report, respectfully submit their report thereon."

"The resolution is in these words:

"Resolved, That the Judiciary Committee be directed to report to the House whether the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, can negotiate treaties with foreign Governments by which the duties levied by Congress on importations can be changed or abrogated.

"The question thus referred to the Committee is one of great importance in its relations to our foreign intercourse and our internal Government.

"Your Committee have thus considered the question on the true interpretation of the language of the constitution; upon the construction of the Government itself; on the historic developments of the constitution from its British original through the articles of Confederation to its present form; on analogy to the British prototype; on precedents and the authority;

and have come to the conclusion expressed in the following resolution, which, though the discussion has taken a wider range, is confined to the question submitted by the resolution referred to the Committee:

"Resolved, that the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, cannot negotiate treaties with foreign Governments by which the duties levied by Congress can be changed or abrogated, and such treaties to be operative as law must have the sanction of an Act of Congress."

I have therefore shown the grounds on which the United States plenipotentiaries refused, in the most positive manner, as they have stated in their reply over and over again, to take up the question of trade relations. You may ask me, then, what Mr. Bayard meant by using the words "these commercial questions and this commercial intercourse between the two countries." I confess I was misled. I confess I took the same view as hon. gentlemen would take, I think, on reading his letter to me and my letter to him and his instructions to Mr. Phelps, and I was not prepared to be met by an absolute refusal on the part of the United States plenipotentiaries to take up and consider the question of commercial intercourse at all. But the explanation was this, and I think it is right and fair that in his absence I should give it. Mr. Bayard states now, and has stated throughout, his great desire to have the freest commercial intercourse between us consistent with the position and interest of the two countries. He says, if you want to see the policy of the Government of the United States, you have it in the President's Message to Congress; there is our policy. Our policy is to meet this enormous surplus revenue in the United States, not by a reduction that will strike at the labour and capital of the country by reducing the duty on manufactured articles simply and purely, but it is to meet it by two courses -by making every thing that operatives use cheap, by making it free, by making the natural products of the two countries free; in other words, by removing the duty