DESPATCHES, REPORTS, CORRESPONDENCE, ETC. 435 



The anticipation that the Treaty of Washington would so operate 

 as to remove the distress existing in the maritime provinces at the 

 date of its negotiation have been fully realized, as will appear by the 

 testimony to be laid before the Commission. It also appears that 

 several thousands of British fishermen [Sic.~\ find lucrative employ- 

 ment on board American fishing- vessels. 



The benefits thus far alluded to are only indirectly and remotely 

 within the scope and cognizance of this Commission. They are 

 brought to its attention chiefly to refute the claim, that it is an ad- 

 vantage to the United States to be able to enter the harbors of the 

 provinces and traffic with the -inhabitants. No doubt all such ad- 

 vantages are mutual and reciprocal. They only show that, in this 

 instance as in so many others, a system of freedom, rather than one 

 of repression, proves the best for all mankind. 



******* 



SPEECHES Or COUNSEL. 



Mr. Foster. I will read the motion that was presented on the 1st 

 instant: 



The Counsel and Agent of the United States ask the Honourable Commis- 

 sioners to rule declaring that it is not competent for this Commission to award 

 any compensation for commercial intercourse between the two countries, and 

 that the advantages resulting from the practice of purchasing bait, ice, sup- 

 plies, &c., and from being allowed to transship cargoes in British waters, do 

 not constitute a foundation for award of compensation, and shall be wholly 

 excluded from the consideration of this tribunal. 



******* 



[In support of this Mr. Foster urged in part as follows: ] 

 . . . We say first, that you have no jurisdiction over such matters 

 as a subject of compensation, because the treaty confers none upon 

 you and nothing of the kind is denominated in the bond. We say 

 secondly, that we have no vested rights under the treaty, regarding 

 commercial intercourse of this description ; and that as regards such 

 intercourse, the inhabitants of the United States stand in the same re- 

 lation to the subjects of Her Majesty as they did before this treaty 

 was negotiated. These two points, though running somewhat to- 

 gether are nevertheles distinct. And we base our contention upon 

 the plain language of the treaty, in which not one word can be found 

 relating to the right to buy or sell, to traffic or transfer cargoes; the 

 whole language is limited to the privilege of the inshore fisheries, both 

 in Article 18, where these privileges are conferred, and in Article 22, 

 which provides for the appointment of this Commission. . . 



******* 



[Mr. Foster urged that the question was one not of fishery but of 

 commercial relations. He referred to the commercial treaties of 1794, 

 1815, 1818 arid 1827, and added : ] 



Gentlemen, such I understand to be the footing on which com- 

 mercial intercourse stands between the two countries to-day, if there 

 is any treaty that governs commerce between the British North Amer- 

 ican Provinces and the United States. And if this is not the case, the 

 relations between the two countries stand upon that comity and com- 

 mercial freedom which exist between all civilized countries. The 



