ithout some dissent, that Article XXIX was still in
force.

On the 6th of July, 1887, in response to an inquiry by the Secretary of
the Treasury, Mr. Bayard wrote a letter, a copy of which accompanies
this message, in which he expresses the opinion that Article XXIX of
the treaty was unaffected by the abrogation of the fisheries articles
and was still in force. In August, 1888, however, Mr. Cleveland, in
a message to Congress, expresses his opinion of the question in the
following language:

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. * * *

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.

I have asked the opinion of the Attorney-General upon this question, and
his answer accompanies this message. He is of the opinion that Article
XXIX has been abrogated.

It should be added that the United States has continuously, through the
Treasury Department, conducted our trade intercourse with Canada as if
Article XXIX of the treaty and section 3 of the act of 1873 remained
in force, and that Canada has continued to yield in practice the
concessions made by her in that article. No change in our Treasury
methods was made following Mr. Cleveland's message from which I have
quoted. I am inclined to think that, using the aids which the protocol
and the nearly contemporaneous legislation by Congress in the act of
1873 furnish in construing the treaty, the better opinion is that
Article XXIX of the treaty is no longer operative. The enactment of
section 3 of the act of 1873 was a clear declaration that legislation
was necessary to put Article XXIX of the treaty into operation, and that
under the treaty our obligation to provide such legislation terminated
whenever Articles XVIII to XXV and XXX should be abrogated. This
legislation was accepted by Great Britain as a compliance with our
obligations under the treaty. No objection was made that our statute
treated Article XXIX as having force only so long as the other articles
named were in force.

But the question whether Article XXIX is in force has le