AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1561 



loss of their vessels, property and earnings. If you will look at the 

 treaty the learned counsel says in effect you will find its articles do 

 not permit the transshipment of mackerel, or the hiring of crews, or ob- 

 taining ice and bait; that we may land and dry fish, but we cannot 

 transship ; that we can take fish out of the water and land them on deck, 

 but we must stop there; and the treaty in no manner annuls the disabil- 

 ities under which we labored, and none of the various things necessary 

 to carry on the business of fishing is permitted ; that you have statutes 

 which you have enforced before, and which you can and will enforce 

 again. This, then, is an important inquiry. I quite admit that much. 



Is was on consideration of the importance of this question as regarded 

 by the United States, as I understand this is the view of counsel repre- 

 senting Her Majesty's Government that it was considered quite reason- 

 able a discusssion should be entered upon, and it was decided not to 

 resist the argument raised by the United States, whose agent and coun- 

 sel claim the advantage to be obtained by reducing the compensation in 

 this manner. 



I understand the learned Agent and counsel, Mr. Foster, now to say 

 that if an award should be made including any compensation for these 

 advantages I presume it is meant as well the enjoyment of them in the 

 past as prospectively Great Britain could not expect to receive pay- 

 ment for such award that is, that they would not be paid. There is no 

 kind of argument in this, and for my part I am at a loss to understand 

 why it should be offered. 



If Great Britain were obliged to admit that an award contained any- 

 thing by which it appeared on its face to be ultra vires, the United 

 States could not be called on for payment. But I submit to the learned 

 Agent whether be would or ought to declare in the name of the great 

 nation he represents that if an award were made, including compensa- 

 tion for the privileges already enjoyed, even although under misappre- 

 hension, the United States would repudiate that. They would hardly, 

 I humbly submit, in the face of the world, repudiate payment of such 

 a sum as might be awarded for those privileges of the past because 

 the danger of confiscation had passed away. And we are safe in be- 

 lieving that if the United States were assured in any way that no pro- 

 ceedings would ever be taken, but the previleges in question could be 

 secured throughout the continuance of the treaty to the fishermen of 

 the United States, that nation would promptly pay any sum that might 

 be awarded. Moreover, if this tribunal had the power ; if authority had 

 been delegated and were to be found in the treaty to set questions of 

 this kind at rest, and in making their award of compensation if the 

 Commissioners could secure these privileges if not already secure I 

 think then, also, no objection would be taken to their being considered 

 by the tribunal. But it is because it is contended that the enjoyment 

 of these necessary incidents is insecure ; because the power of the tribu- 

 nal is limited ; because the matter will, it is said, be left in a state of un- 

 certainty hereafter ; because questions may arise over which the govern- 

 ment may have little control ; because the international relations of the 

 future are unforeseen and cannot be anticipated, thatthe claim tocompen- 

 sation is resisted. This seems to me to be the condition of the question, 

 and this I gather and have observed in the Answer, from the first, is the 

 manner in which the subject has been regarded by the Agent represent- 

 ing the United States. And so regarding it, an anxiety to prevent com- 

 pensation incommensurate with the privileges understood to be settled 

 and secure beyond all question seems perfectly reasonable. 



But I think there are objections to attacking the claim set up here on 



