Mr. RAYMOND. I rise to make a report from the comForAffrs, upon a resolution which was referred to that committee some do s since, calling upon the SecyNavy to send armed vessels to the fishing grounds adjacent to the British Provinces, for the protection of American fishermen. The committee have instructed me to make a preliminary report, submitting to the House a resolution asking for information. Perhaps it may have some interest to the House i I state the circumstances which have called attention to this subject just now. These circumstances grow out of the repeal or abrogation of the reciprocity treaty negotiated in 1854. The colonies which constituted the U.S. enjo ed, previous to their independence, an equa right with the other co onies to partake of the sheries on the coast of Newfoundland, and that was recognized as an existing, absolute right by the treaty of 1783; not conceded, not. a privilege granted, but a right claimed, and admitted and recognized as a right by that treaty. The Americans continued their fishing until the war of 1812, which, of course, suspended it. In the treaty of 1814no provision whatever was made upon the subject, because the American commissioners authorized to negotiate at Ghent were expressly instructed by their government not to allow the right of shin on the coast to be drawn into question at al. The matter was, therefore, left precisely as it had stood before under the treaty of 1783, which i admitted our absolute right to fish. But disturbances occurred between the rival fishermen of the colonies and the States which led to a convention in 1818, Messrs. Gallatin and Rush acting on the part of the American Government, and by that convention the Americans renounced or waived the right to fish within 3 miles from the shore of the British Prov inces. This was not a restriction by GreatBritain of any right or privilege which she had granted. It was a renunciation by the U.S. of a portion of the absolute right to participate in those fisheries which the U.S. had enjoyed from the beginnin, and which had been expressly recognized and admitted by the treaty of 1783. That was in October, 1818. The U.S., as I have said, then renounced the right of fishing within the distance of one may rine league from the coast, that being the distance to which the jurisdiction of the adacent Governments is held by international law to extend in all cases of a similar kind. Under the treaty of 1818, the Americans still continued to fish until disturbances arose in 1841 with the provincial governments, and they presented new pretensions, claiming to exc ude Americans from the fisheries to a greater extent than 3 miles from the coast, and put ting upon that clause of the treaty an entirely new interpretation, namely, that the line from which the 3 miles was to be measured was to be drawn from the headlands of all the bays alon the coast, including the great buy of Fundy, the bay of Chaleurs, gand the straits of Canso. That would have excluded our fish ermen, if we had admitted the claim, from some of the most valuable fishing grounds on the coast. Our Government never for a moment admitted the justice of thatinterpretation, but it led to many cases of seizure y the provincial authorities of American fishin vessels; and in 1845, on the remonstrance of our minister to England, the matter was brought to the attention of the English Government. A case was made u by the rovincial authorities and submitte to the law officers of the Crown, and upon that case, thus submitted, the law Officers decided 2 points: 1st, that the treat of 1783 was annulled by the war of 1812 an the treaty of 1814; and 2nd, that the line from which the marine league was to be measured was to be drawn from headland to headland of these great bays. The American Government refused to recognize that de cision, and the British Government consented to waive it in 1845; so that the enjoyment of the fisheries still went on, the Americans occupying them in common with the British, under the convention of 1818, until the conclusion of the reciprocity treaty of 1854. By that treaty the Americans were again admitted to the exercise of the right which we had waived in 1818, and were allowed to fish all along the coast without reference to the 3 miles ofriarian jurisdiction and that continued to e the state of the case until the treaty of 1854 was abrogated and annulled on the 17th day of last month. Now the American fishermen are thrown back upon the rights they enjoyed nevious to the conclusion of the treaty o 1854. he House will perceive that some important questions of construction will arise under this state of things. It will become a question under what treat we are now to enjoy the right of fishing on those coasts. The ritish claim that by the treaty of 14 the preceding treaty of 1783 was an nulled. I do not think that claim can be maintained. But if it should be maintained, it seems to me equally clear that the treaty of 1818must have been annulled by the treaty of 1854. We are therefore thrown back either upon the original admission of the treaty of 1783, or if that was annulled by the treaty of 1814, then we are thrown back upon the rights which we enjoyed previous to that time. Probably, however, the construction which both Governments will consent to place upon this matter will be that by the abrogation of the treaty of 1854 both purties will be thrown back upon the treaty of 1818; and the American fishermen will again be permitted to enjoy their share of the fish eries on the open sea up to the line of 3 miles from the coast. But I have no idea that the American government will ever consent to have that 3 miles measured from a line drawn from head land to headland of these great bays. The claim is entirely preposterous; the law officers of the Crown, moreover, based the decision they gave upon an error in point of fact. Tha language they used is, that “the term haadland, use in the treaty of 1818, was evidently intended to mean the headlands of these great bays.” But it so hap us that the word “ head land” was not used in that treaty at all; it is not to be found in it from beginning to end and it indicates a great laxity and carelessness in the examination of the case for the law otheers of the Crown to introduce so capital an error as this into their case, and base their decision upon it.