AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1563 



The Answer of the United States, at pages 8 and 9, 14 and 15, 18 and 

 19, claims on the part of the United States consideration in estimating 

 the amount to be awarded for Canada of the advantages arising to Cana- 

 dians on the coast from the admission of United States fishermen into 

 our waters. In effect the Commission is asked in this document first 

 to estimate the value of the privileges accorded to the United States by 

 the terms of the Treaty of Washington m giving up to them the fish- 

 eries, and then, although there is nothing whatever in the treaty to 

 justify it, they are required to reduce that sura by deducting therefrom 

 the value to a certain class residing on our shores of the right to trade 

 with United States fishermen, including the supply of this very bait in 

 question. The Commissioners will find on the pages mentioned very 

 clear language to show how reasonably we can claim for the privileges 

 now sought to be excluded. 



Mr. FOSTER. I don't believe you remember just the view we take of 

 that. We say : 



The benefits thus far alluded to are only indirectly and remotely within the scope 

 and cognizance of this Commission. They are brought to its attention chiefly to refute 

 the claim that it is an advantage to the United States to be able to enter the harbors 

 of the provinces and traffic with the inhabitants. 



I say it lies out of the case on both sides, and that is what our mo- 

 tion says. 



Mr. WEATHERBE. That is an admission that incidental privileges are 

 within the scope and cognizance of the Commission. But there is other 

 language which has been assigned to other counsel to cite. There are 

 ample quotations from the arguments of Canadian statesmen, advocating 

 remote and incidental privileges in Parliament, as arguments in favor of 

 the adoption of the treaty. If the Agent and learned counsel for the 

 United States succeed in this motion they do more than exclude from 

 the consideration of the case compensation for the right of procuring 

 bait and ice by purchase, and the other incidents to a successful prose- 

 cution of the fisheries. And as the Answer stands, evidence may be of- 

 fered on other points, unless other motions follow the present, for exclud- 

 ing matter from the consideration of the Commission. I think it can 

 he shown that if this matter is not within the jurisdiction of the Com- 

 mission, and had not been so considered when the Answer was drawn 

 up, a great modification of that Answer would have been made. 



Mr. FOSTER. It is quite capable of being very much improved if I had 

 more time. 



Mr. WEATHERBE. I am, however, only turning the attention of the 

 tribunal to the deliberate and solemn admissions and declarations of the 

 Answer, which bind now and hereafter. Whatever may be the argument 

 of the United States for the present moment, these must remain, and 

 they point to the true intention to be gathered from the language of the 

 Treaty of Washington, as understood by both of the great parties to that 

 compact. 



The simple question we are now discussing is this: whether certain 

 things are to be taken into consideration as incidental to the mere act 

 of taking fish out of the water. What I understand the argument of the 

 United States to be now is, that by the Treaty of Washington the Amer- 

 ican fishermen have the right of taking fish out of British waters, and 

 landing to dry their nets and cure their fish, and nothing else. The 

 right to land to dry their nets and cure their fish they admit are sub- 

 jects for compensation. But what does taking fish mean? It means 

 taking them out of the water and landing them on the deck and nothing 

 more, it is contended. We contend that by a fair and reasonable con- 



