ABGUMENT OF SAMUEL J. ELDER. 1449 



yet questions of the most vital importance to the conduct of the fish- 

 eries between these two nations. I have found it to be of distinct 

 service, Mr. President, to arrange in order the events of the last few 

 years which lead up to the arbitration, and I hope that it will not be 

 without service to the Tribunal, if I review, as briefly as I may, those 

 circumstances. In using the word " briefly," which has been so fre- 

 quently used in the course of these proceedings, I cannot hope that 

 any member of the Tribunal, or any one of our friends upon the 

 other side, will say to me what a Scotch juror said to a distinguished 

 Scotch advocate some years ago, a man of great eminence, native of 

 that country which has produced so many of the greatest advocates 

 in the world, which has given to Great Britain and to our own 

 United States men distinguished by their eloquence and attainments 

 at the Bar. He had come to be known in Edinburgh to everyone 

 as "Harry," and, in opening his argument to a jury, he once said: 

 " I shall briefly review the circumstances of this case." One of the 

 jurors, brought up in the forensic, almost casuistical, school of the 

 Scotch, loving debate and fearing that what had promised to be a 

 great intellectual treat would fail him, cried out: "Dinna be brief, 

 Harry ; dinna be brief. What 'a ye do, dinna be brief." 



My friend, Mr. Warren, brought the consideration of the history 

 down to 1886, having in mind, of course, Question No. 5. Sir Robert 

 Finlay, whom I hope I may also speak of now and always, as my 

 friend, dealt with the subsequent period much more briefly than the 

 earlier history, which facts may be my two excuses for going a little 

 more into detail with reference to this subsequent period. The Treaty 

 of Washington terminated on the 1st July, 1885, but was continued 

 in force by irwdus until the 1st January, the following year. During 

 1886, however, notices were served on American vessels, upon two of 

 which I shall have occasion to comment more at length later. The 

 " Thomas F. Bayard " was notified at Bonne Bay that American 

 fishermen could not fish on that shore, and the " Mascot " was notified 

 at Port Amherst, in the Canadian jurisdiction, to the same effect. 

 The form of the notices in each case was that they could neither fish 

 nor trade at either of these places. Upon reference being made to 

 Great Britain both of these notices were withdrawn. Both of these 

 notices, you will observe, were upon the treaty coast, and these fish- 

 ermen were seeking to exercise what were believed to be their treaty 

 rights on this coast. The position assumed by Canada and New- 

 foundland was such that the President of the United States was au- 

 thorised, by an Act of the 3rd March, 1887, United States Case 

 Appendix, p. 96, to terminate relations with Canada and with the 

 colony, if he was convinced that they were unreasonably interfering 

 with the rights of American fishing- vessels. One of the significant 

 things about it was that if the vessels of the United States were 



