DESPATCHES, REPORTS, CORRESPONDENCE, ETC. 439 



By the Convention of 1818 the United States renounce, forever 

 thereafter, the liberty to United States fishermen of fishing in certain 

 British waters, or ever entering these waters, except for shelter and 

 for wood and water. "For no other purpose whatever " is the sweep- 

 ing language of the treaty. I presume we are to have very little dif- 

 ference of opinion as to the intention of the clause containing these 

 words. That clause of the convention of 1818 was fully considered 

 by the Joint High Commission who framed the treaty of Washington. 

 What do those Commissioners say? That language has been cited. 

 In addition to the liberty secured by that convention, the privilege 

 is granted of taking fish. The treaty of Washington permits the 

 liberty of taking fish and of landing to dry nets and cure fish. This 

 tribunal is invited to decide that it is not competent for them to 

 award anything in relation to the incidental and necessary require- 

 ments to carry on the fisheries. 



Is it contended there was an oversight in framing the treaty of 

 Washington? Is there an absence of words necessary to secure the 

 full enjoyment of our fisheries to United States fishermen? Was 

 that absence intentional? The learned Counsel for the United States 

 have not stated their views upon this point. Can it be possible that 

 those who represented the United States in framing the treaty of 

 Washington intended the result which would follow the success of 

 the present motion. Can it be possible that both parties intended 

 that result ? If this is an oversight, who are to suffer ? The compen- 

 sation is to be reduced, we are told. But if the United States treasury 

 is to be saved, are the United States fishermen to suffer? Or is the 

 award to be reduced for the want of privileges and the fishermen to 

 continue illegally to enjoy all the privileges? This matter has not 

 been fully explained. I must admit, if there has been an oversight 

 here if so great an error has occurred the tribunal is powerless to 

 correct the error or to grant full compensation. 



******* 



262 [In reply, Mr. Trescot (U.S.) said in part, as follows: ] 



******* 



If I understand the British counsel correctly, they admit that the 

 construction for which we contend is a fair construction. They seem 

 to think that a broader and more liberal interpretation would be more 

 in conformity with what they consider to be the spirit of this discus- 

 sion, but all of them appear to admit that if we choose to stand on 

 that language we have the right to do it, and they do not object that 

 it should be enforced. They seem to think, however, that certain 

 consequences would follow, of which they have apprehensions for us. 

 That is our matter. The consequences that flow from the interpreta- 

 tion will be confined to us, and are matters we must look to. At pres- 

 ent the only question is, whether we have the right to say to Your 

 Honors that you are limited in your award to a certain and specific 

 series of items. I think, honestly, we have drifted very far from the 

 common-sense view of this case. As to the technical argument, if we 

 are to go into it, it might be insisted, first, that, under the treaty of 

 1818, if a fisherman went into a colonial port and bought a load of coal 

 for his cabin stove he violated the treaty, because it only gave him the 

 right to go in and buy wood ; or when a fisherman bought ice, he was 



