he arbitration; Article XXVI, relating to the navigation of the St.
Lawrence and other rivers, and Article XXVII, relating to the use of the
canals. The question whether Article XXIX is still in force depends,
so far as the construction of the treaty goes, upon the meaning of the
words "the term of years mentioned in Article XXXIII." That article is
as follows:

The foregoing Articles XVIII to XXV, inclusive, and Article XXX of this
treaty shall take effect as soon as the laws required to carry them
into operation shall have been passed by the Imperial Parliament of
Great Britain, by the parliament of Canada, and by the legislature of
Prince Edwards Island on the one hand and by the Congress of the United
States on the other. Such assent having been given, the said articles
shall remain in force for the period of ten years from the date at
which they may come into operation, and, further, until the expiration
of two years after either of the high contracting parties shall have
given notice to the other of its wish to terminate the same; each of
the high contracting parties being at liberty to give such notice to
the other at the end of the said period of ten years or at any time
afterwards.

The question of construction here presented is whether the reference to
"the term of years mentioned in Article XXXIII" is to be construed as
limiting the continuance of Article XXIX to the duration of Articles
XVIII to XXV and XXX in such a way that the abrogation of those articles
necessarily carried with it the other articles of the treaty which
contained the reference to Article XXXIII already quoted, or whether
the reference to this "term of years" in Articles XXVIII and XXIX was
intended to provide a method of abrogation after ten years from the time
of their taking effect, viz, a notice of two years of an intention to
abrogate. The language of the treaty, considered alone, might support
the conclusion that Article XXXIII was intended to provide a uniform
method of abrogation for certain other articles. It will be noticed that
the treaty does not expressly call for legislation to put Article XXIX
into operation. Senator Edmunds, in the discussion in the Senate of
the joint resolution terminating the fisheries article, took the view
that no legislation was necessary. It seems to me, however, that such
legislation was necessary, and Congress acted upon this view in the law
of 1873, to which reference