308 APPENDIX TO BRITISH COUNTER CASE. 



come to their particular localities that they may be the ones to catch 

 the bait for them. It is true that the British Case expresses the ap- 

 prehension that the frozen-herring trade may be lost to the inhab- 

 itants of Newfoundland in consequence of the provisions of the 

 treaty. It is said that " it is not at all probable that, possessing 

 the right to take herring and caplin for themselves on all parts of the 

 Newfoundland coast, the United States fishermen will continue to 

 purchase bait as heretofore, and they will thus prevent the local fish- 

 ermen, especially those of Fortune Bay, from engaging in a very 

 lucrative employment, which formerly occupied them during a por- 

 tion of the winter season, for the supply of the United States mar- 

 ket." One of the British witnesses, Joseph Tierney, whose testimony 

 is on page 371, in speaking of this matter of getting bait, says, in re- 

 ply to the question, " How do you get that bait ? " " Buy it from 

 persons that go and catch it and sell it for so much a barrel. The 

 American fishermen are not allowed to catch their own bait at all. 

 Of course, they may jig their own squid around the vessel." And 

 in reply to my question, " What would be done if they tried to catch 

 bait ? " the answer is, " They are pretty rough customers. I don't 

 know what they would do." So it appears that American fishermen 

 not only do not catch bait, but are not allowed to catch it. They buy 

 the bait, and that, to my mind, is the end of the question. 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 shore a strand fishing, as it 

 is called and we have no right anywhere conferred by this treaty 

 to go ashore and seine herring any more than we have to establish 

 fish-traps. I remember brother Thomson and Professor Baird were 

 at issue on the question whether we had a right to do this. Brother 

 Thomson was clearly right and Professor Baird was mistaken. We 

 have not acquired any right under the treaty to go ashore for any 

 purpose anywhere on the British territories except to dry nets and 

 cure fish. I do not think that I ought to spend more time over the 

 case of Newfoundland than this, except to call your attention to the 

 circumstance that, in return for these few squid jigged at night, the 

 islanders obtain an annual remission of duties averaging upwards of 

 $50,000 a year. 



We have been kindly furnished, in connection with the British 

 affidavits upon page 128, Appendix A, with a statement showing the 

 duties remitted upon exports from Newfoundland to the United 

 States since the Treaty of Washington, and their annual average is 

 made out to be $50,940.45. I submit to the Commission whether we 

 do not pay, upon any view of political economy, a thousand fold for 

 all the squid that our people jig after dark. 



Let it not. however, for a moment be supposed that because I took 

 up the case of Newfoundland for convenience' sake, as it is presented 

 separately, that I regard it as a distinct part of the case. The United 

 States has made no treaty with the Island of Newfoundland, which 

 has not yet hoisted the flag of the " Lone Star." When she does, per- 

 haps we shall be happy to enter into treaty relations with her; but 

 we know at present only Her Majesty's Government. We are dealing 

 with the whole aggregate of concessions, from the one side to the 

 other, and Newfoundland comes in with the rest. 



