The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1871-05-17

should consider the claims for injuries which the
people OF Canada had suffered from what were
The American Commissioners objected to this and
Twas agreed that the subject might be brought up
with the subject referred TO by SIR Edward Thornton
IN his letter OF February L.
AZ the conference on the l4th Of April the Joint
High Commission took INTO consideration the sub.
!ect mentioned by Sir Edward Thornton IN
that commson for the consderson 81
these claims should be appointed, and that
tine convention OF 1883 should be followed as a
precelcnt rms was agreed to- except that u was
settled that there should be hirGCommlssioner IN
stead OF an umpire. At the conference on the 10Th
! Of April the treaty articles twelve to seventeen
were agreed 70: Az the conference on the 26,h
OF April the British Commissioners again brought
the people OF Canada for injuries suffered from me
Fenian raids Tncy said mat they were instl uctcd
regarded by her Maiesty's government AZ coming
Wisnln tne CLASS OF SUBJECTS ndlcaed by Sir Edward
Tn0rnton IN his letter OF January 2o as subjects FOR
the consideration OF the Joint High Commission.
The American Commissioners replied that they
Mere ,astrucei to say that the government OF the
Onteu STATES dld not regard these claims coming
within the class OF subjects indicated in that letter
g subjects for the consideration OF the JOINT High
C0mmission anu that they were without any
Them, fnsy therefore declined to DO So '' The
| subject was understood not to be within
tne scope 81 tue Instructions OF the American Com
further Instructions upon It,
AZ the conference on the 81 OF May the British
commissioners stated nat they were instructed by
their government to express their regrets that the
american commissioners were without authority to
S@ehsr Sa me va es s ,Hs a
Inc American commissioners replied that
ttney could see no reason 70 vary the reply
subject was not embraced In the scope OF the cor
respondence between Sir Edward Thornton and Mr..
that they did not feel justified In entering upon The
con liberation Of any class OF claims not coniempla-
tel at the time OF The creation OF the present Oom
MISSION and that the claims referred to did not
commend themselves TO their favor. 70. S.
| Tne British ilgh commissioners said that under
the circumstances they would not urge further; that
the settlement OF the claims should be included In
Inc present treaty and that they had the less din
Guilty In doing 40, as portion or the claims OF
q constructive aud inierential character.
In articles lS0 70 At the conference on the 9th OF
March, the British Commissioners stated that they
were prepared TO discuss the question Of the lsll-
cries. either In detail or generally 80 as either TO
enter into an examination OF the respective rights
! OF the two countries under the Treaty of
! 1913 and the general law OF nations or to approach
at once me settlement OF the question on q c0mprc
! henslve basis. as as el anN
:, Tue American Commissioners said that, with the
view oravodlng the discussion OF matters which
subsequent negotiation might render 1t unnecessary
TO enter into they thought Il would be preferable
case would be the basis which The British Commits
siOners desired to propose. tt
The British Commissioners replied that they con.
sidered that the Reciprocity Treaty Of June 1854
/, should be restored In principle.
The American mmissloners declined to assent to
| rene wal OF the former Reciprocity Treaty,
The British Commissioners then su rgested,i r any
considerable modification made In the tariff
United States and of her Britannia Majesiys posses
stons In North America should be recprocaly
ST. Lawrence and OF the Canadian canals should be
also thrown open 10 the citizens Of The United states
on terms OF equality with British subjects.
The American Commissioners decliued this pro-
posai anu Objected 70 negotiation on The basis Of
sa sy 10 s n eSs 81
the United States aud consequently had
BEEN terminated by notice from the government Of
tho United States, In pursuance OF It's provisions.
Its renewal was not In their interest," ana would not
be In accordance with the sentiments Of their poo.
pie. They further SAID That they were not ~ 0erty
to treat oil the opening OF the cOasting trade OF the
United States 70 the subjects OF her Majesty residing
IN her possessions In North America.
IL was agreed that the question relating to navga
tion OF the river 81 Lawrence and OF Canadian ca
nals aud to other commercial questions ar citing
Canada should be treated by themselves. The sub.
ect OF the fisheries was further discussed at the
The American oommissioners stated that liza Il
value OF the inshOre fisheries could DO ascer-
css sum of the right 10
ENJOY in perpetuty the use OF these inshore
4 fisheries In common with British fishermen, and
mentioned one million dollars as the sum they were
rio British Commissioners replied tnat this otYcr
arrangement would &c acceptable Of which
duty Of ss the ~" produce Of sne Blush sSene 81
! did not form part, adding that any arrangement
cries I IN perpeay was open 70 grave obectons
The American Commissioners inQu rod whether it
purchase to the colonial or provincial Parliament
The British Commissioners explained that the
fisheries, within the limits oil maritime Jurisdiction,
were the property OF the several British colonies,
anu that would be necessary TO refer any arrange
rights to the colonial or provincial Parlia-
meDts, and that legislation would also be required
During these discussions the British commissioners
contended that these nsnOre fisheries OF great
value, and tnat the most satisfactory arrangement
ment and reciprocity In the cOasting trade, and
the American Commissioners replied that their
value was Oyer-estimated; that the United
not Tor their commercial or intrinsic value
irritation and that they could hold out nope that
the Congress OF the United States would give Its
or to any extended plan OF reclpr cal free admission
OF the products OF the TWO countries; but that mas
much as one branch OF Congress had recently more
than expressed itself In favor OF the abolition
Of duties on coal and SALT they would propose that
that inasmuch as Congress nad removed the duty
from portion OF the lumber heretofore subject to
sH ana .he arency OF n,no n the United
duties IN proportion to the reduction Of the public
debt and expenses they would further propose That
the lst OF july 1874 subject to the approval OF Con-
grsss Wh,Sa was necessary on questions anectins
the British Commissioners at the conference on
the nth OF April stated that they had referred this
form the American Commissioners that i. was re.
garded az ipadequato and that her Majcstys govern.
ment considered that free lumber should be granted
at once, and that the proposed tarin concessions
should be supplemented ny money payment.
Tho American Commissioners then stated that
they Withdrew the proposal which they mad pre-
viously made OF the reciprocal free admission OF
coat, salt and fish, and Of lumber, after July i 1874;
that tnat reciprocal had been made entirely In the
interest OF peaceful settlement and for the purpose
OF removing source Of irritation and anxiety; thar
Its value had been beyond the commercial or
intrinsic value OF the rights to have been &C.
qulrcd In return and that they could not
posed by the British Commissioners, and they re-
nnewel Their proposal TO pay money equivalent for
posed that 10 case the two 96verninents should not
he able to agree upon the sum TO be paid as such an
equivalent, the matter should be referred to an I'M
partial commission for determination.
The British Commissioners replied that this pro-
pOsal was one on which they had no Instructions
ana that 1t would not be possible for them 10 come
10 any arrangement except one for term Of years
and involving the concession OF free fish and fish OIL