ave already characterized as
the concessions on the part of the United States, namely, the passage
duty free from certain designated ports of the United States to Canada
of imported goods, and the passage duty free to ports of the United
States of Canadian goods for export. Section 3 of the law of 1873, which
I have quoted, however, contains a legislative construction of Article
XXIX of the treaty in the limitation that the provisions therein
contained as to the transit of goods should continue in force only so
long as Articles XVIII to XXV, inclusive, and XXX of the treaty should
remain in force.

On March 3, 1883, Congress passed a joint resolution entitled as
follows: "Joint resolution providing for the termination of articles
numbered XVIII to XXV, inclusive, and article numbered XXX of the treaty
between the United States of America and Her Britannic Majesty concluded
at Washington May 8, 1871."

The resolution provided for the giving of notice of the abrogation of
the articles of the treaty named in the title, and of no others. Section
3 contained the following provision:

And the act of Congress approved March 1, A.D. 1873, entitled * * * so
far as it relates to the articles of said treaty so to be terminated,
shall be and stand repealed and be of no force on and after the time
of the expiration of said two years.

An examination of the debates at the time of the passage of this joint
resolution very clearly shows that Congress made an attempt to save
Article XXIX of the treaty and section 3 of the act of 1873. In the
Senate on the 21st of February, 1883, the resolution being under
consideration, several Senators, including Mr. Edmunds, the chairman of
the Judiciary Committee, expressed the opinion that Article XXIX would
not be affected by the abrogation of Articles XVIII to XXV and XXX, and
an amendment was made to the resolution with a view to leave section 3
of the act of 1873 in force. The same view was taken in the debates in
the House.

The subject again came before Congress in connection with the
consideration of a bill (S. 3173) to "authorize the President of the
United States to protect and defend the rights of American fishing
vessels, American fishermen, American trading and other vessels in
certain cases, and for other purposes."

In the course of the debate upon the bill in the Senate January 24,
1887, and in the House February 23 following, the prevailing opinion
was, though not w