le
thirty-third of said treaty, all goods, wares, and merchandise, arriving

etc., etc., following in the remainder of the section the precise words
of the stipulation on the part of the United States as contained in
Article XXIX, which I have already fully quoted.

Here, then, is a distinct enactment of the Congress limiting the
duration of this article of the treaty to the time that Articles XVIII
to XXV, inclusive, and Article XXX should continue in force. That in
fixing such limitation it but gave the meaning of the treaty itself is
indicated by the fact that its purpose is declared to be to carry into
effect the provisions of the treaty, and by the further fact that this
law appears to have been submitted before the promulgation of the treaty
to certain members of the joint high commission representing both
countries, and met with no objection or dissent.

There appearing to be no conflict or inconsistency between the treaty
and the act of the Congress last cited, it is not necessary to invoke
the well-settled principle that in case of such conflict the statute
governs the question.

In any event, and whether the law of 1873 construes the treaty or
governs it, section 29 of such treaty, I have no doubt, terminated with
the proceedings taken by our Government to terminate Articles XVIII to
XXV, inclusive, and Article XXX of the treaty. These proceedings had
their inception in a joint resolution of Congress passed May 3, 1883,
declaring that in the judgment of Congress these articles ought to
be terminated, and directing the President to give the notice to the
Government of Great Britain provided for in Article XXXIII of the
treaty. Such notice having been given two years prior to the 1st day of
July, 1885, the articles mentioned were absolutely terminated on the
last-named day, and with them Article XXIX was also terminated.

If by any language used in the joint resolution it was intended to
relieve section 3 of the act of 1873, embodying Article XXIX of the
treaty, from its own limitations, or to save the article itself, I am
entirely satisfied that the intention miscarried.

But statutes granting to the people of Canada the valuable privileges of
transit for their goods from our ports and over our soil, which had been
passed prior to the making of the treaty of 1871 and independently of
it, remained in force; and ever since the abrogation of the treaty, and
notwithstanding the refusal of Canada to permit