Chapter XXV: Section 5: of the same rule is also hereby amended by inserting after (3)

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 without 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 less practical importance than has been supposed, for it does not, if in force, place any restraints upon the United States as to the method of dealing with imported merchandise destined for the United States arriving at a Canadian port for transportation to the United States, or of merchandise passing through Canadian territory from one place in the United States to another. It would be no infraction either of the letter or of the spirit of the treaty if we should stop, unload, and carefully inspect every vehicle arriving at our border with such merchandise; nor, on the other hand, would Canada violate her obligations under the treaty by a like treatment of merchandise imported through the port of New York on its arrival in Canada. Neither Government has placed itself under any restraint as to merchandise intended for the use of its own people when such merchandise comes within its own territory. The question, therefore, as to how we shall deal with merchandise imported by our own people through a Canadian port and with merchandise passing from one place in the United States to another through Canadian territory is wholly one of domestic policy and law.

I turn now to consider the legislation of Congress upon this subject, upon which, as it seems to me, the duties of the Treasury and the rights of our people as to those phases of the transportation question to which I have just alluded wholly depend. Sections 3005 and 3006 of the Revised Statutes, which are taken from the act of July 28, 1866, entitled "An act to protect the revenue, and for other purposes" (14 U.S. Statutes at Large, p. 328), are as follows:

SEC. 3005. All merchandise arriving at the ports of New York, Boston,
Portland in Maine, or any other port specially designated by the
Secretary of the Treasury, and destined for places in the adjacent
British Provinces, or arriving at the port of [_Point Isabel_]
[Brownsville] in Texas, or any other port specially designated by the
Secretary of the Treasury, and destined for places in the Republic of
Mexico, may be entered at the custom-house and conveyed in transit
through the territory of the United States without the payment of
duties, under such regulations as the Secretary of the Treasury may
prescribe.

SEC. 3006. Imported merchandise in bond, or duty paid, and products
or manufactures of the United States, may, with the consent of the
proper authorities of the British Provinces or Republic of Mexico, be
transported from one port in the United States to another port therein,
over the territory of such Provinces or Republic, by such routes and
under such rules, regulations, and conditions as the Secretary of the
Treasury may prescribe; and the merchandise so transported shall,
upon arrival in the United States from such Provinces or Republic, be
treated in regard to the liability to or exemption from duty or tax as
if the transportation had taken place entirely within the limits of
the United States.