Office of the Historian

No. 310.
Mr. White to Mr. Bayard.

Legation of the United States,
London, March 2, 1887. (Received March 14.)
No. 456.]

Sir: I have the honor to inclose herewith, for your information, an extract from the report contained in yesterday’s Times of the proceedings in Parliament on the 28th February, embodying the answer made by Sir James Ferguson, under secretary of state for foreign affairs, to a question put to him by Dr. Tanner in reference to the proposed retaliatory measures against Canada.

I deem it proper to add that Mr. George W. Smalley, the well-known correspondent of the New York Tribune, has informed me of a conversation which he had recently with the same functionary, and in the course of which Sir James Ferguson assured him that the governments late dispatches from Canada on the subject of the fisheries had been of a very conciliatory nature, and that a modus Vivendi would very shortly be proposed to you by the British minister at Washington, Which Her Majesty’s Government had reason to hope would be satisfactory to the United States.

I have, etc.,

Henry White.
[Page 463]
[Inclosure in No. 456.—Extract from the Report of Parliamentary Proceedings of February 28, 1887.]

north american fisheries.

[February 28, 1887]

Dr. Tanner asked the under secretary for foreign affairs whether his attention had been drawn to the following cablegram—“New York, February 24. A convention of smack-owners and others connected with the fishing interest has met at Gloucester, Mass., and adopted resolutions in favor of retaliatory measures against Canada.” (Reuter)—and whether any measures were being taken by the Government to reconcile the differences existing between the United States of America and Great Britain on this fishery question.

Sir J. Ferguson. I am aware of the paragraph quoted by thehonorable member, and of other news showing the strong feeling entertained in the United States in regard to the Canadian fishery question. Her Majesty’s Government are giving the subject the earnest attention which the importance of the matter requires.(From The Times, March 1, 1887.)