AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1557 



the fishermen. I say that is possibly a fair construction of the treaty. 

 In that case they do "take fish," and that is all. The contention on 

 the other side, I suppose, will be to narrow that word " take" down to 

 mean the actual taking offish by the citizens of the United States from 

 the water by means of nets and other appliances. If that be the con- 

 struction, then it follows as a necessary consequence that in taking 

 bait from our fishermen they infringe the Treaty of 1818. I wish to 

 make myself distinctly understood on that point. By the Convention 

 of 1818 the American fishermen could not enter our harbors at all except 

 for the three purposes of obtaining shelter, to get wood and water, and 

 to make repairs in case of necessity. Entrance for any other purpose 

 was made illegal. Any privileges which they had under that conven- 

 tion remained. Any restrictions that they labored under after that 

 convention still remained, except in so far as they have been removed 

 by the Washington Treaty, and if the construction be true, as con- 

 tended for by the learned Agent of the United States Government, 

 then the restrictions as to landing for the purposes I have mentioned 

 are not removed. The purchasing of bait and ice and the transshipping 

 of cargoes are matters entirely outside of the treaty and unprovided 

 for. Under the Treaty of 1818, vessels entering for any other purposes 

 than the three provided for in that treaty can be taken. As was put 

 forward in the American Answer, any law can be passed. An inhospit- 

 able law, they will say, by which the moment they do any of these acts 

 they will become liable to forfeiture. 



I do not presume that the remarks of the Agent of the United States, 

 in which he speaks of instructions possibly coming from his government 

 or from the Government of Great Britain, should be taken into consid- 

 eration, or that they can properly be used as arguments to be addressed 

 to this tribunal, because, as the learned Agent very properly says, the 

 authority of this tribunal is contained in the treaty. If the treaty 

 gives you authority you have sworn to decide this matter according to 

 the very right of the matter, and I presume you will not be governed by 

 any directions from either government. Nothing of that sort can be 

 made use of as an argument, and you will determine the matter con- 

 scientiously, I have no doubt, upon the terms of the treaty itself. Now 

 Her Majesty's Government does not object to your deciding in so many 

 words that these things are not subjects of compensation, if that be the 

 judgment of the court. I have advanced very feebly the views which I 

 think ought to govern your decision upon the point, namely, that these 

 are incidental privileges which may fairly be construed, in view of the 

 way in which this treaty is framed, and as inseparable from the right 

 given to the Americans under the Treaty of Washington. But I confess 

 that I shall not be at all dissatisfied should this tribunal decide other- 

 wise. If it be thfi desire of the American Government that this tribu- 

 nal shall keep within the very letter, and disregard what I have argued 

 is the spirit of the treaty, and determine just merely the value of the 

 fisheries themselves, and of landing on the shores to dry nets, very 

 well I have no objection and we will accept such a decision. But 

 Her Majesty's Government wish it to be distinctly understood that that 

 is not the view they have held or wish to be compelled to hold of this treaty. 

 If, however, pressed as you are to determine the question in this way by 

 the Government of the United States, and in view of the declaration 

 you have made to determine it according to the very right of the mat- 

 ter, you can conscientiously arrive at the conclusion for which they ask, 

 we shall not regret it at all. 



Mr. DOUTRE. I would desire to add to what has been so well said by 



