that she possesses a small domain, in which the Mississippi took its rise, she insisted on the right to navigate the entire volume of its waters. On the ground that she possesses both banks of the St. Lawrence where it disembogues itself into the sea, she denies to the United States the right of navigation, though about half the waters of Lakes Ontario, Erie, Huron, and Superior, and the whole of Lake Michigan, through which the river flows, are the property of the United States." (See Phillimore's International Law, vol. 1, page 167 et seq., where the authorities are collected and reviewed.)

The canals in aid of the lake and Saint Lawrence navigation are : 1. The Sault Ste. Marie Canal, in the dominions of the United States. Vessels between Lake Huron and Lake Superior must pass through this canal. 2. The Saint Clair Canal, in the dominions of the United States, which is a deepening of the channel to the depth of fourteen feet. 3. The Welland Canal, in British dominions, from Lake Erie to Lake Ontario. 4. Several canals between Lake Ontario and tidewater, in the aggregate about forty miles in length. 5. The canal between Lake Champlain and the river Saint Lawrence. Neither of the Canadian canals have at present the capacity of the American canals.

1870, July 12.

A confidential memorandum was submitted by Great Britain as the basis of proposed arrangements on the subject of the navigation of the Saint Lawrence, and other inland waters of British North America, &c. This was in substance as follows: That if a satisfactory reciprocity-treaty could be made, the United States should be restored to the enjoyment of the fisheries as under the old reciprocitytreaty; and also to the navigation of the inland waters of Canada; provided, further, that like permission in the United States should be granted to Canada. Canada was also willing to further agree to enlarge and improve the access to the ocean, provided she could have assurance of the permanency of the arrangement for reciprocity. The proposal further contemplated throwing open the coasting-trade to each party; reciprocal patent and copyright laws; arrangements for a reciprocal transit trade; extension of the provisions of the extradition treaties, and a re-adjustment of the Canadian excise-duty.

No steps were taken in the direction of carrying out these suggestions. The present importance of some of these points may be estimated from the following tables for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1869:

[Compiled from the Canadian Almanac for 1871.]

IV.-RECIPROCAL TRADE BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND

THE DOMINION OF CANADA.

1845.

Previously to 1845 the trade of the United States and other nations with the British provinces of Canada and others north and east of the United States was burdened with a system of differential duties which discriminated against foreign importations in favor of British to such an extent as to prevent any extensive importations into those provinces from the United States.

Under these circumstances our exports, which, for the four years preceding the reciprocity-treaty, averaged about eleven millions of dollars per annum, did not average, for the period extending from 1821 to 1844, four millions per annum. (Estimated from table 3, 1st division, H. R. Ex. Doc., 38th Cong., 1st sess.)

In 1845 the British government changed their colonial commercial policy by authorizing the Canadian legislature to regulate their own tariff. In 1846 the Canadian legislature removed the existing differential duties, and admitted American manufactures and foreign goods, purchased in the American markets, on the same terms as those from Great Britain. This change gave a considerable impetus to importations from the United States, so that by the years 1851-52-53 they were upward of twelve, ten and a half, and thirteen millions of dollars, respectively. (S. Ex. Doc. No. 1, 32d Cong., 1st sess., p. 85.) (Estimated from table 3, 1st division, H. R. Ex. Doc., 38th Cong., 1st sess.)

1849.

A proposition for a reciprocal relaxation of commercial restrictions between the United States and the British North American provinces was presented by Mr. John F. Crampton, the chargé d'affaires of Great Britain, in a note of the 22d March, 1849, which, with the correspondence to which it led, is to be found in the congressional documents.

1850.

President Taylor's message, transmitting this correspondence to the House of Representatives, submits to Congress the expediency of effecting an arrangement for a free trade between the United States and the provinces in their natural productions, providing, also, for the free navigation of the Saint Lawrence and of the canals connecting it with the lakes.

1846.

1848.

Mr. Packenham, the British minister, had, in 1846, communicated with the Secretary of the Treasury, (Hon. Robert J. Walker,) who immediately submitted the matter to the Government; and Mr. Crampton again brought the subject before him in 1848, in consequence of which a bill was drawn up by Mr. Grinnell of the Committee on Commerce of the House of Representatives, and its adoption recommended by the Secretary of the Treasury in a letter to that committee of 1st of May, 1848. The bill was passed by the House of Representatives, but was not voted upon that session by the Senate. (Ex. Doc. No. 64, H. R., 31st Cong., 1st session.)

1849.

Mr. Crampton, on the 25th of June, 1849, wrote to the Secretary of State, Mr. Clayton, inclosing a memorandum drawn up by Hon. William Hamilton Merritt, one of the Canadian cabinet, sent to Washington to ascertain the decision of the United States. The

memorandum reviews the efforts made by the provincial government, and the notice given by Hon. Mr. Robinson, in the provincial parliament, of an address to the Queen, praying for a return to protection, &c., incloses copy of a letter from Mr. Grinnell, of the Committee on Coinmerce, to Hon. R. J. Walker, and Mr. Walker's reply meets objections to reciprocity, and elaborates considerations in favor of it.

Mr. Grinnell to Mr. Walker, April 28, 1848, asks his views on reciprocal free trade in the articles of the growth or production of the provinces and the United States, respectively.

1848.

Mr. McC. Young replies for Mr. Walker, warmly approving it. The Canadian bill on the subject is given, and is said to be the exact counterpart of the bill before Congress.

1849.

Mr. Clayton wrote to Mr. Crampton 26th June, 1849, in reply to his note of the day before, which inclosed the memorandum made by Mr. Merritt. As a measure affecting the revenue, the proposed arrangement would be referred to Congress, before whom a copy of the papers would be laid. Refers, as furnishing a British example for this, to Mr. Bancroft's efforts to negotiate at London a commercial treaty, in 1847, when the necessity of a similar reference to Parliament was pointed out to him; and to the failure of the reciprocity-bill in the Senate, after considerable debate, when a bare majority would have carried it, as an indication that a treaty having the same objects in view could not be expected to obtain the requisite majority of two-thirds. (Ho. Reps. Ex. Doc. No. 64, 31st Congress, 1st session.)

1851, Dec. 2.

President Fillmore's annual message of 2d December, 1851, invites the attention of Congress to the question of reciprocal trade with British provinces; states that overtures for a convention have been made, but suggests that it is preferable that the subject should be regulated by reciprocal legislation. Documents submitted showing the offer of British government, and measures it may adopt, if some arrangement on this subject is not made.

1851.

The accompanying papers were: Note of March, 1851, from Sir H. L. Bulwer to Mr. Webster, inclosing copy of letter of 6th January, 1851, from Mr. F. Hincks, inspector-general of customs, Canada, to Hon. R. McLane, chairman of Committee on Commerce, House of Representatives. Sir H. L. Bulwer thinks that the Canadians consider that their application for an interchange of agricultural products has failed because they have generously, without stipulations, conceded many commercial advantages which it was in their power to bestow; and that their only mode of securing desired privileges is to revoke concessions made. His attention had been drawn to two resolutions which passed the Senate on the subject, which he was told would have passed the House if proposed to that body.

Proposes eutering into a negotiation.

Mr. Hincks, in his letter to Mr. McLane, recites the important changes, which have occurred in the colonial policy of Great Britain concerning the regulation of commercial matters, and the removal of differential duties from American productions; that had Canada at that time stipulated that in return for her admission of American manufactures, the duties should be removed from her products, it would have been the interest of the United States to have agreed to it. No such propo sition, however, was made; and the very important concession scarcely attracted attention in the United States. Describes the importa nt results in the increased demand for American productions in the pro vinces, and the hardship of Canadian raw products, sent to the United States, being burdened with high duties. Urges with much force and

intelligence the considerations in favor of some arrangement of the question.

Sir H. L. Bulwer to Mr. Webster, March, 1851. Unless the Canadian concessions are reciprocated, they will retaliate by withdrawing them. Offers the Saint Lawrence, and canals, and the fisheries of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. Wants to know frankly whether the United States will treat or recommend legislation securing reciprocity. Incloses copy of a dispatch of June 7, 1851, from Lord Elgin, governor-general, to Sir Henry L. Bulwer, in which he expresses fears that public opinion in Canada will demand a resort to closing the canals, to levying a duty of 20 per cent. on American goods, and a return to differential duties on grain and breadstuffs, vegetables, fruits, seeds, animals, hides, wool, cheese, tallow, horns, salted and fresh meats, ores, plaster of Paris, ashes, timber, staves, and wood.

Incloses extracts to the effect that the British government are prepared to open the fisheries if the United States will admit fish free. This arrangement not to apply to Newfoundland.

4.

1851-52, Dec.

The adjustment of the questions of commercial reciprocity and the fisheries was the subject of conferences between Mr. Everett and Mr. Crampton during the brief service of the former as Secretary of State, as appears in a postscript to an instruction of the 4th December, 1852, to Mr. Ingersoll, United States minister to London, but no record was kept of what transpired in those conferences. (The instruction and P. S. above referred to are printed in Sen. Ex. Doc. No. 3, special session, March 8, 1853.)

1852 Dec. 6

President Fillmore, in his annnal message of 6th December, 1852, referring to the agitation of the preceding summer, on the fishery question, thinks the moment favorable for the reconsideratio of the question of the fisheries, with a view to place them upon a more liberal footing of reciprocal privilege. He states that there is a willingness on the part of Great Britain to meet us in such an arrangement, which will include the subject of commercial intercourse with the British provinces. Has thought that each subject should be embraced in a separate convention. (Sen. Ex. Doc. No. 1, 32d Cong., 2d sess.)

1852-53.

The Committee on Commerce of the House of Representatives, of which the Hon. D. L. Seymour was chairman, had under consideration sundry memorials relative to reciprocal trade, and reported House bill No. 360, accompanied by a report, with appendices, covering the subjects of reciprocal trade, the navigation of the Saint Lawrence, and the fisheries. (Rep. No. 4, Ho. Reps., 32d Cong., 2d sess.) On the 2d February, 1853, Hon. D. L. Seymour, chairman of 1853, Feb. 2. Committee on Commerce, House of Representatives, submitted to Mr. Everett the draught of a bill referred to in the foregoing, with a view to being informed how far pending negotiations authorize the belief that the British government and provinces are prepared, on their part, to give effect to such a bill. (The bill is printed in Appendix to Congressional Globe, 32d Cong., 2d sess., p. 198.)

On the 4th February, 1853, Mr. Everett replied that the bill contained the most important provisions of an arrangement between the countries; but that the British minister, under his then existing instructions, was not authorized to conclude a treaty, corresponding in all respects with the bill; and suggested that, for the sake of avoiding the evils of leaving the fishery question unadjusted, Congress limit its action to the passage of a short bill, referring to the fisheries alone, providing that whenever the President shall issue his proclamation that United States fishermen are admitted to a full participation in the colonial fisheries,