1410 NORTH ATLANTIC COAST FISHERIES ARBITRATION. 



I submit, Sirs, that the interpretation of the treaties of 1818 and 

 1871 must be the same; and, that if power to regulate on the part of 

 Great Britain was implied in the treaty of 1818, similar powers of 

 regulation were implied in the treaty of 1871 powers of regulation 

 to be exercised in British waters by the British Government, and in 

 United States waters by the United States Government. 



I am not aware whether Senator Turner would draw a distinction 

 between those two treaties, and would say that as to the 1818 treaty, 

 no power of regulation remained with Great Britain, but that as to 

 the 1871 treaty, powers of regulation did remain with the respective 

 countries. Possibly, Sirs, he might distinguish between the two 

 treaties upon the ground that the 1818 treaty was of a permanent 

 character, whereas the 1871 treat}- (I may include the 1854 with 

 the 1871) that the 1871 treaty was one to last only during the 

 wish of the parties after the expiry of the first ten 3 r ears. 



It appears to me, Sirs, that that is not a sufficient ground of distinc- 

 tion, and that if there is any line of argument which would bring those 

 treaties into such sharp contrast with one another as would be sug- 

 gested by the line that I have been speaking of, such an argument 

 would be condemned by the result to which it would lead. If the law 

 of servitudes, for instance, leads one necessarily to such a conclu- 

 sion to draw such an extraordinary difference between two treaties 

 which are almost precisely similar in language, and absolutely similar 

 in effect, so far as the point I am speaking of is involved that that 

 line of argument would be condemned by the result to which it would 

 lead. 



If that be true, Sirs, then we have a test of the interpretation of 

 the treaty of 1818 by asking: What did the parties mean by the 

 treaties of 1854 and 1871 ? Did they intend to open their fisheries 

 to one another upon such terms as would permit of the mutual de- 

 struction of those fisheries ? Or, did they intend to open the fisheries 

 upon the principle that always had been applied from earliest colo- 

 nial times in British North America ; a principle that has never been 

 deviated from; that has never been questioned; and as to the 

 852 correctness of which there had never been up to that moment 

 a suggestion for it was not until after 1871 that Mr. Evarts 

 for the first time raised the point? 



It seems to me, Sirs, that the views of the negotiators of the 1854 

 and particularly of the 1871 treaty must be gathered from the prac- 

 tice that had been followed previous to those dates. They knew" 

 perfectly well that down to that time each country had regulated its 

 own fishery. It is quite impossible, as I respectfully submit, to 

 imagine that those men intended to open the fisheries in such a way 

 as to leave them really unregulated. And, speaking more particu- 

 larly of the 1871 treaty, one must remember that the question of 



