BEITISH, COLONIAL AND OTHER CORRESPONDENCE, ETC. 439 



Now, sir, in reference to the assertion that " no lawyer could place 

 such a construction upon the treaty," I would observe that lawyers, 

 like doctors, differ in their opinions. It is their business apparently 

 to differ. If they agreed in their construction of treaties and laws, 

 then there would be no litigation, and their avocation and that of 

 judges and juries would be gone. But not only do lawyers differ in 

 their interpretation of treaties and laws, but judges do likewise, and 

 hence it is that under our British Constitution another tribunal has 

 been established, namely, the Privy Council, which is called upon to 

 decide when judges differ. I am not a lawyer, I am sorry to say ; I 

 am only a humble layman; but it is just possible that I may have 

 given more study to treaties that concern this colony and to the sub- 

 ject of international law than some who have qualified for the prac- 

 tice of that profession. 



When my learned friend, the leader of the opposition, declared 

 that " no lawyer would place such a construction " on the treaty of 

 1818 as that the American fishermen have no right to land on any 

 portion of our coast to fish, he was setting up his opinion, not only 

 against my humble view of the matter, but against that of one of the 

 most eminent lawyers that the United States has produced, viz, the 

 Hon. Dwight Foster, who, as I showed on Friday last, when address- 

 ing the Halifax Fishery Commission, in his closing argument on 

 behalf of the United States, said : " No rights to do anything upon 

 the land are conferred upon citizens of the United States under the 

 treaty. So far as the herring trade goes, we could not, if we were 

 disposed to, carry it on successfully under the provisions of the 

 treaty, for this herring trade is substantially a seining from the 

 shore a strand fishery, as it is called and we have no right any- 

 where conferred by the treaty to go ashore and seine herring. We 

 have no right to go ashore for any purpose anywhere on the British 

 territories, except to dry nets and cure fish." (Page 215, Eecord of 

 Proceedings, Halifax Commission, 1877.) This is the opinion of a 

 lawyer an eminent lawyer; a lawyer charged by the United States 

 Government with the defense of its rights and privileges under the 

 treaty of 1818. It is only proper to assume that he would have placed 

 the most favorable construction possible upon the treaty in the inter- 

 est of his nation. He could not he did not attempt to contend that 

 the right to fish along the coasts of this colony carried with it the 

 " incidentals " to land and fish from the shore. He said frankly and 

 honestly, American fishermen " have no right to go ashore for any 

 purpose anywhere on British territories except to dry nets and cure 

 fish." It will be observed, then, that I simply hold Americans to the 

 position that they have defined themselves. 



It has been left to the leader of the opposition in this House to set 

 up a claim on behalf of the American people that their Government 

 renounced eighty-seven years ago, and which one of its most eminent 

 lawyers repudiated in 1877, when it was advanced on behalf of the 

 United States before the Halifax Commission. 



With respect to the further position that I set up, namely, that not 

 only have the American fishermen no right to land upon any portion 

 of our coast to fish, but that they have no right to enter any bay, 

 creek, or harbor between Cape Ray and Ramcau Islands and Cape 

 Ray and Quirpon Islands to fish, the leader of the opposition said in 

 the first place that my contention was absurd, as the word " coast " 



