446 APPENDIX TO BRITISH CASE. 



these so-called unfriendly acts on the part of Canada, by repealing 

 the bonded system, and by putting on other restrictions, which Presi- 

 dent Grant proposed to apply to that particular purpose, are, by the 

 clauses of the Washington Treaty, dealt with for the term of that 

 treaty in another way, and for other considerations ; therefore, to my 

 mind, it leaves me in this position, in endeavouring to interpret the 

 intentions of the parties to the Washington Treaty, that it must nec- 

 essarily have been supposed that, as in the case of the Reciprocity 

 Treaty, so in the case of the Washington Treaty, the rights of traffic 

 and of obtaining bait and supplies were conferred, being incidental to 

 the fishing privilege. It could scarcely be otherwise, because in the 

 case of the Reciprocity Treaty commercial advantages were the com- 

 pensation which the United States offered to Great Britain for the 

 concession of the privilege of fishing in her waters; while, by the 

 Washington Treaty, compensation in money, exclusively of the free 

 admission of fish, is to be made the measure of the difference in value; 

 therefore I quite believe that the intention of the parties to the treaty 

 was to direct this tribunal to consider all the points relating to the 

 fisheries, which have been set forth in the British case. But I am now 

 met by the most authoritative statement as to what were the inten- 

 tions of the parties to the treaty. There can be no stronger or better 

 evidence of what the United States proposed to acquire under the 

 Washington Treaty than the authoritative statement which has been 

 made by their Agent before us here, and by their counsel. We are 

 now distinctly told that it was not the intention of the United States, 

 in any way, by that treaty, to provide for the continuation of these 

 incidental privileges, and that the United States are prepared to take 

 the whole responsibility, and to run all the risk of the re-enactment of 

 the vexatious statutes, to which reference has been made. 



I cannot resist the argument that has been put before me, in refer- 

 ence to the true, rigid, and strict interpretation of the clauses of the 

 Treaty of Washington. I therefore cannot escape, by any known rule 

 concerning the interpretation of treaties, from the conclusion that the 

 contention offered by the Agent of the United States must be acqui- 

 esced in. 



There is no escape from it. The responsibility is accepted by and 

 must rest upon those who appeal to the strict words of the treaty as 

 their justification. I therefore, while I regret that this tribunal does 

 not find itself in a position to give full consideration to all the points 

 that may be brought up on behalf of the Crown, as proof of the ad- 

 vantages which the United States derive from their admission to fish 

 in British waters, still feel myself, under the obligation which I have 

 incurred, required to assent to the decision which has been communi- 

 cated to the Agents of the two governments by the president of this 

 tribunal. 



266 Extract from closing argument of Hon. William H. Trescot, 

 on behalf of the United States. 



* * * In the treaty of 1871 we have reached a settlement which 

 it depends upon your decision to make the foundation of a firm and 

 lasting Union. Putting aside for the moment the technical pleadings 



