DESPATCHES, REPORTS, CORRESPONDENCE, ETC. 437 



tracting Parties, in this instance, that the Americans should simply 

 have the bare rights named in the treaty, and nothing else, they 

 would have followed the example set before them by the convention 

 of 1818 and used these strong negative words, " and for no other 

 purpose whatever." I say that this argument is a fair and just one; 

 of course its weight is to be determined by this tribunal. . . . 



* * ***** 



. . . But there is another matter to be considered, and it is this: 

 In 1854, the Reciprocity Treaty was passed, and under that treaty 

 the Americans came in to fish on our coasts generally. They exer- 

 cised the same rights as they do now, and no person then ever com- 

 plained of them for buying bait under the terms of that treaty, 

 though it did not in express terms authorize their purchase of bait 

 or their getting supplies of any kind on our shores ; still they did so. 

 By a kind of common consensus of opinion, it was understood that 

 they had a right to do so, and no person complained of it. And in 

 view of the course which then was pursued, this treaty was framed. 

 Mr. Foster has put this case: Suppose that when the Joint High 

 Commissioners were sitting, the British representative had proposed 

 that the value of the rights of transhipment, and of buying bait, 

 and of having commercial intercourse with our people should be 

 taken into consideration by this tribunal, then, had this been the case, 

 it would have been met by a well-bred shrug from the Earl of Ripon. 

 and Professor Bernard. This may possibly be so; but I can say, I 

 think it would have been very strange indeed if our Commissioners 

 had said to the American Commissioners: Under the treaty which 

 we propose you shall have the right to fish in our waters on equal 

 terms with our fishermen, and have the right to land and cure your 

 fish, and the right also to dry your nets on the land, but the moment 

 that you take one step farther, the moment that you buy a pound of 

 ice, and the moment that you presume to buy a single fish for the pur- 

 pose of bait in our waters, and the moment you attempt to exercise 

 any commercial privilege whatever, and above all, the moment you 

 undertake to tranship one single cargo, that moment your vessel will 

 be forfeited, and the cargo as well. I think that if this had been 

 stated, there would have been something more perhaps than a well- 

 bred shrug from the American Commissioners. . . . 



******* 



. . . Moreover, I think I can establish that this latter view is not 

 taken by the Americans on this subject. On page 467 of Mr. Sabine's 

 Report, the following language is used : " It is argued that if the 

 liberty of landing on the shores of the Magdalen Islands" Your 

 Excellency and Your Honors will recollect that while the Americans 

 have the right to fish around the Magdalen Islands, they have no 

 right to land on these shores, though our evidence has shown 

 261 that, as a rule, they have landed on these islands, both before 

 and since the negotiation of this Treaty, and have dragged 

 their nets on the shore, and fished for bait in this way. Mr. Sabine 

 states : 



It is argued that, " if the liberty of landing on the shores of the Magdalen 

 Islands had been intended to be conceded, such an important concession would 

 have been the subject of express stipulation," &c., it may not be amiss to con- 

 sider the suggestion. And I reply that if " a description of the inland extent 

 of the shore over which " we may use nets and seines in catching the herring if 



