ARGUMENT OF SAMUEL J. ELDER. 1569 



received one communication, but has not received some others that 

 are important. And there is nothing further said between those 

 two Governments on the subject. 



With regard to the representations to Great Britain it would have 

 been the most opportune time in the world, with everybody knowing 

 all about it. to have said : " Why. what is the trouble with the United 

 States? You have not any right in the bays. We did not give you 

 any right in the bays. We only said " coast " when we spoke of 

 Newfoundland, and therefore you have nothing to complain of." 

 The fact was that they said nothing of the kind; and the cor- 

 respondence at that time, which is set out in the Counter-Case, quite 

 fully discloses that the representatives of Great Britain recognised 

 that unless the King of France could be persuaded not to pursue his 

 position further, some compensation must be made, an equivalent 

 must be given, to the United States, if the French claim to an ex- 

 clusive right was a valid one. But the suggestion is made that very 

 likely such orders may be given by the King at Newfoundland as 

 will prevent further interference. Apparently those orders were 

 given, because that is the last we hear of it. 



The United States never had occasion further to press this claim on 

 Great Britain for compensation, or to make further protest to 

 France: and the whole correspondence discloses an absolute absence 

 of everything of that kind. Mr. Adams' letter, one of the very last 

 ones, to the Minister, Mr. Rush, also one of the negotiators of this 

 treaty in London, says that very likely there would be no further 

 interference with United States vessels. And the fact that Mr. 

 Adams did not say anything more about it indicates, I think, pretty 

 distinctly, that there was no more interference. That starts the 

 history of these intervening years, the presence of United States 

 vessels conceded. I cannot help adverting to what Sir James Winter 

 said in his argument as to the reason for there not being any inter- 

 ference by Newfoundland with our people in the bays, because they 

 were not there, and he said that there were no fish there. He said 

 the Americans were not there, and there were no fish for them to 

 catch. At one time Sir James went so far as to say that the French 

 did not take any fish there; but that was withdrawn the next 

 950 morning. But he was rather inclined to persist that there were 

 no fish for the Americans to take there. It occurred to my 

 mind that it was most unfortunate that at Halifax we should have 

 been told that there were fish at Newfoundland; that there were a 

 great many fish at Newfoundland; there were 6,000,000 dollars 

 worth of fish a year at Newfoundland. Well, now, of course it may 

 be said that in asking for damages at Newfoundland they were only 

 asking on the non-treaty coasts, all the way around here (indicating 

 on map). But if there really were 6,000,000 dollars worth of fish 



