AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1551 



States tbat this privilege of theirs related only to their right of com- 

 ing in and fishing on equal terms with our citizens, and to landing and 

 to drying their nets and curing their fish, and that the moment they had 

 dried their nets and cured their fish they were forthwith to take to their 

 boats and go hack to their vessels, and that by landing for any other 

 purpose whatever they are clearly liable for infraction of the provisions 

 of this treaty ? It is certainly a curious view which Mr. Foster presents 

 with regard to their mode of bartering along the coast when he intimates 

 that they land merely to exchange a gallon or two of kerosene oil or a 

 barrel of flour for fish, and iu effect declares for this is the result of 

 his argument that for so doing the Americans are liable to punish- 

 ment. 



Mr. FOSTER. I said that they could be excluded by statute. 



Mr. THOMSON. I will show you before I am through that these Ameri- 

 can fishermen can by no possibility whatever come into our waters 

 without incurring th'e risk of forfeiture, if Mr. Foster's reading of this 

 treaty be accepted as correct. This would be the result of his argu- 

 ment; if you confine them to the very terms of the bond, to use the 

 language of Mr. Foster, then it is clear that if they land tor the purpose 

 of giving a barrel of flour in exchange for fish, or of purchasing fish, at 

 that moment their vessels are liable to forfeiture. This is a strange con- 

 struction to put upon the treaty, and these are the strange results which 

 will necessarily follow if this tribunal adopt the view presented by the 

 American Agent. 



But there is another matter to be considered, and it is this : In 1854 

 the Reciprocity Treaty was passed, and under that treaty the Americans 

 came iu to fish on our coasts generally. They exercised the same rights 

 as they do now, and no person then ever complained of them for buying 

 bait under the terms of that treaty, though it did not in express terms 

 authorize their purchase of bait or their getting supplies of any kind ou 

 our shores; still they did so. By a kind of common consensus of opin- 

 ion, it was understood that they had a right feo do so, and no person 

 complained of it. And in view of the course which then was pursued, 

 this treaty was framed. Mr. Foster has put this case: Suppose that 

 when the Joint High Commissioners were sitting, the British represent- 

 a,tive had proposed that the value of the rights of transshipment, and 

 of buying bait, and of having commercial intercourse with our people 

 should be taken into consideration by this Tribunal, then, had this been 

 the case, it would have been met by a well bred shrug from the Earl of 

 Kipon, and Professor Bernard. This may possibly be so ; but 1 can say, 

 I think it would have been very strange indeed if our Commissioners 

 had said to the American Commissioners: Under the treaty which we 

 propose you shall have the right to fish in our waters on equal terms 

 with our fishermen, and have the right to land and cure your fish, and 

 the right also to dry your nets on the land, but the moment that you 

 take one step farther, the moment that you buy a pound of ice, and the 

 moment that you presume to buy a single fish for the purpose of bait 

 in our waters, and the moment you attempt to exercise any commercial 

 privilege whatever, and above all, the moment you undertake to trans- 

 ship one single cargo, that moment your vessel will be forfeited, and 

 the cargo as well. J think that if this had been stated, there would 

 have been something more perhaps than a well bred shrug from the 

 American Commissioners. I think, therefore, it may fairly be contended, 

 in view of the wording of the two treaties,that these are privileges, which 

 it was intended that this Commission should take into consideration 

 when they came to adjudicate respecting the value of our fisheries; and 



