national unpleasantness, in putting these provisions into this treaty. Article 12 provides:

"Fishing vessels of Canada and Newfoundland shall have on the Atlantic coasts of the United States all the privileges reserved and secured by this treaty to the United States fishing vessels in the aforesaid waters of Canada and Newfoundland."

I do not pretend that this is accomplishing a great deal, because, as is well known, Canadian fishing vessels do not require to resort to any great extent to the waters of the United States; but at the same time it is a reciprocal arrangement, and it shows that we are not granting anything to the fishermen of the United States that they are not prepared to grant in express terms to the fishermen of Canada. Article 13 provides :

"The Secretary of the Treasury of the United States shall make regulations providing for the conspicuous exhibition by every United States fishing vessel, of its official number on each bow; and any such vessel, required by law to have an official number, and failing to comply with such regulations, shall not be entitled to the licences provided for in this treaty. Such regulations shall be communicated to Her Majesty's Government previously to their taking effect."

The object of that is obvious. Under the arrangements of the Government of the United States every vessel has an official number, and it will save a great deal of trouble if that official number is required to be exhibited in such a conspicuous form that the moment you see the vessel you will know that it is an American fishing vessel. That will enable you to investigate her character and position and everything about her. Although I have seen the Government of the United States very severely criticised for subjecting these vessels to such an indignity, I do not regard it in that light at all. It is purely a matter of business between the two countries for the purpose of facilitating the recognition of vessels, and thus making it much easier to deal with any question that may arise in

relation to her; and as you will know every vessel to which you have given a licence, the moment you see a vessel, you will know whether she has a licence or not. This measure gives you an opportunity of identifying a vessel and protecting your fishing grounds much more effectually than you could do without it. Article 14 provides :

"The penalties of unlawfully fishing in the waters, bays, creeks, and harbours, referred to in Article I of this treaty, may extend to forfeiture of the boat or vessel and appurtenances, and also of the supplies and cargo aboard when the offence was committed; and for preparing in such waters to unlawfully fish therein, penalties shall be fixed by the court, not to exceed those for unlawfully fishing."

That is to say, if you are able to establish a charge against the vessel of unlawfully preparing to fish, the court may in its judgment forfeit the vessel, but a discretion is left with the court, which it had not before, of imposing a comparatively much lighter penalty than the forfeiture of the vessel. I do not think anybody will question the wisdom of dealing with this question as we have done. We have left the penalty for unlawful fishing to extend to the forfeiture of the vessel and everything appertaining to her. I think the House will agree with me that the penalty for the lighter offence may be lighter, and that the efficiency of the law is likely to be much greater with the lighter penalty than with the extreme ones that existed before.

'And for any other violation of the laws of Great Britain, Canada, or Newfoundland relating to the right of fishery in such waters, bays, creeks, or harbours, penalties shall be fixed by the court, not exceeding in all three dollars for every ton of the boat or vessel concerned. The boat or vessel may be holden for such penalties and forfeitures."

That penalty does not apply to unlawful fishing or preparing to fish, but it applies to the lighter offences, such as attempting to purchase bait or anything of that

kind. The penalty is reduced to a reasonable one of three dollars a ton, but yet sufficient, in my judgment, to secure probably a more prompt and effective administration of the law than would be secured if you made the penalty a great deal higher.

"The proceedings shall be summary and as inexpensive as practicable."

I do not know that anybody but the judges in the courts of Vice-Admiralty could complain of that. The object of every civilised country should be to have the laws administered in as inexpensive and summary a mode as practicable.

"The trial (except on appeal) shall be at the place of detention, unless the judge shall, on request of the defence, order it to be held at some other place adjudged by him more convenient."

That is to say, it is proposed instead of bringing these cases to the court of Vice-Admiralty at Halifax, or St. John, N.B., or Quebec, as the case may be, it is proposed that a judge should be sent to deal with the case in a summary manner where the witnesses are all present and the facts can be ascertained, and thus save the cost and inconvenience occasioned by laying up a vessel for a year or two while awaiting judgment.

Security for costs shall not be required of the defence, except when bail is offered. Reasonable bail shall be accepted. There shall be proper appeals available to the defence only and the evidence at the trial may be used on appeal."

That is, we do not propose to appeal against the judgments of our own judges, but we allow an appeal to foreigners who are affected by the judgments of our own judges and who have not the same confidence in their judgments that we have. All this is done for the purpose of saving time and costs, thus avoiding endless irritation through delay.

'Judgments of forfeiture shall be reviewed by the Governor

General of Canada in Council, or the Governor in Council of Newfoundland, before the same are executed."

Thus, in a case in which, for unlawfully fishing or for unlawfully preparing to fish, the judge forfeits the vessel, that decision shall not be carried into execution until the Governor-General in Council shall have had the opportunity of deliberately examining the evidence upon which this judgment was founded, so as to remedy the judgment if they think there is any ground for the exercise of greater lenity than the judge has felt himself able to

use.

Article 15 is, of course, a contingent article. As I have already informed the House, the plenipotentiaries of the United States stated they were quite unable to put anything in the treaty that would necessarily touch the fiscal policy of their country. They say to do so would be simply to invite rejection of the treaty, on the ground that they had infringed the jurisdiction which Congress possessed, the United States Congress having, as I have shown the House, adopted, in the most emphatic form, the policy not to allow any changes in their tariff except by the act of Congress itself. We therefore put this in the contingent clause. We provide absolutely for the concessions that have been made with reference to delimitation, and with reference to the treatment of United States fishing vessels, when compelled to resort to our ports in distress or in need of casual supplies or for a homeward voyage. All these were made absolute by the treaty; but when it came to that which is of great value to the United States fishermen, when it came to that which enables the United States fishermen to make Canada a basis of supplies for the purpose of better competing with our own fishermen, we then felt that we had a right to take our stand, and if Her Majesty's plenipotentiaries have not been able to support the extreme contention of the Canadian Government, hon. gentlemen will find that, on the other hand, the plenipotentiaries of the United States, who had, as a matter of diplomatic

intercourse, taken a very strong ground as to the indefeasible rights of American fishing vessels to obtain, in our ports, as commercial vessels, whatever supplies they required for carrying on their fishing-to be able to purchase bait, to be able to purchase supplies of every kind, and to be able to tranship their fish-they will find that our friends on the other side had, in the same way, to concede a great deal as compared with the extreme contention that they had made. Here it is provided, as a just and proper security to the interests of the fishermen of Canada, who have the right, while excluded by heavy duties from the markets of the United States, to such protection as the treaty of 1818 has provided for them, that whenever the question arises as to Canada being made the basis of supply for the American deep sea fishing vessels-because the question of fishing is not in the controversy at all, the Americans having given up the right to catch fish in the inshore waters of Canada-that only can be done for a sufficient quid pro quo. We have, therefore, provided in Article 15:—

"

Whenever the United States shall remove the duty from fish-oil, whale-oil, seal-oil, and fish of all kinds (except fish preserved in oil), being the produce of fisheries carried on by the fishermen of Canada and of Newfoundland, including Labrador, as well as from the usual and necessary casks, barrels, kegs, cans, and other usual necessary coverings containing the products above mentioned, the like products, being the produce of fisheries carried on by the fishermen of the United States, as well as the usual necessary covering of the same, as above described, shall be admitted free of duty into the Dominion of Canada and Newfoundland.

"And upon such removal of duties, and while the aforesaid articles are allowed to be brought into the United States by British subjects, without duty being reimposed thereon, the privilege of entering the ports, bays, and harbours of the aforesaid coasts of Canada and of Newfoundland shall be accorded to United States fishing vessels by annual licences, free of charge, for the following purposes, namely: