AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1559 



4 



sidering also that we are to be followed by counsel of very great abil- 

 ity, I trust the imperfections of what few suggestions I have to offer 

 may be excused. For my own part, I am much in favor of written 

 argument before this tribunal whenever that is practicable. For ex- 

 ample, it seems we quite misunderstood the learned agent and counsel 

 for the United States, Mr. Foster. This may have occurred in other 

 respects. Were written arguments to be submitted, and, after exami- 

 nation, replied to in writing, all that would be avoided. The other side 

 will probably admit their written argument would have beeu different 

 from what has iallen from their lips. 



Mr. FOSTER. I hope it would be very much better. 



Mr. WEATHERBE. And yet an advantage of oral discussion was very 

 forcibly stated by Mr. D*ua the other day namely, the privilege of 

 asking at the moment for explanation for obscure and ambiguous ex- 

 pressions; and hence, just now, in reply to my friend Mr. Doutre in 

 regard to his interpretation in which I must say I concurred as to 

 the declaration by the Agent of the United States of what his govern- 

 ment would do in case of an adverse decision on the point under dis- 

 cussion, an explanation has followed. The words, as we took them, 

 would certainly form an unjustfiable mode of argument. 



Treaties between th e United States and Great Britain have been referred 

 to the old treaties and I have just examined the passages cited. But 

 I understood the learned counsel to admit that the argument relative 

 to these was too remote or of no consequence in relation to this discus- 

 sion. (Mr. TRESOOT. That is correct.) So then I may pass over my 

 notes on that subject. 



Mr. Foster, representing the United States before this tribunal, says 

 that a formal protest against the claim of Her Majesty's Government 

 for these incidental advantages the purchase of bait and supplies, 

 transshipment and traffic for which we are here claiming compensation 

 under the Treaty of Washington, is to be found in the answer of the 

 United States. He calls it a protest. I do find it in the Answer, but I 

 find something more. I think this highly important. Of course this 

 Answer on behalf of a great nation is carefully prepared to express the 

 views of the United States. We all weigh well we have never ceased 

 to weigh well these words and we have within the prescribed time, 

 many weeks ago, prepared and filed our Keply. These are the words to 

 which the Agent and. counsel of the United States refer : 



Suffice it now to be observed, that the claim of Great Britain to be compensated for 

 allowing the United States fishermen to buy bait and other supplies of British subjects 

 finds no semblance of foundation in the treaty, by which no right of traffic is conceded. 



The answer does not stop there. It goes further: 



The United States are not aware that the former inhospitable statutes have ever 

 been repealed. 



Neither does it stop here, but continues; 



Their enforcement may be renewed at any moment. 



Here are three distinct grounds taken by the United States in their 

 formal answer to the case presented by Great Britain, and the claim for 

 the right of bait, supplies, and transshipment, &c. First, there is no 

 right to the enjoyment of these privileges secured by the treaty. Sec- 

 ondly, there are statutes unrepealed, by which it is rendered illegal to 

 exercise these fishing privileges. Thirdly, such statutes may be en- 

 forced. 



Therefore, we understand the contention of the United States to be 

 not only that this claim for incidental advantages the incidents follow- 



