1504 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 



gtruction of the words, the Uuited States have obtained the privilege of 

 carrying on the fishery. Can it be doubted that this was the intention 

 when the words were adopted. Are we asking for any strained con- 

 struction bv the tribunal ? I think not. 



Hv the Convention of 1818 the United States renounce, forever there- 

 after, the liberty to United States fishermen of fishing in certain British 

 waters, or ever entering these waters, except tor shelter and for wood 

 and water. " For no other purpose whatever" is the sweeping language 

 of the t reaty. I presume we are to have very little difference of opinion as 

 to the intention of the clause containing these words. That clause of 

 the Convention of 1818 was fully considered by the Joint High Commis- 

 sion who framed the Treaty of Washington. What do those Commis- 

 sioners say f That language has been cited. In addition to the liberty 

 net-tired by that Convention, the privilege is granted of taking fish. The 

 Treaty of Washington permits the liberty of taking fish and of landing 

 to dry nets and cure fish. This tribunal is invited to decide that it is 

 not competent for them to award anything in relation to the incidental 

 and necessary requirements to carry on the fisheries. 



Is it contended there there was an oversight in framing the Treaty of 

 Washington ! Is there an absence of words necessary to secure the 

 full enjoyment ot our fisheries to United States fishermen I Was that 

 absence intentional! The learned counsel for the United States have 

 not stated their views upon this point. Can it be possible that those who 

 represented the United States in framing the Treaty of Washington 

 intended the result which would follow the success of the present motion. 

 Can it be |K>ssil>le both parties intended that result? If this is an over- 

 sight, who are to suffer? The compensation is to be reduced, we are 

 told. J5ut if the United States Treasury is to be saved, are the United 

 States fishermen to suffer? Or is the award to be reduced for the want 

 of privileges and the fishermen to continue illegally to enjoy all the privi- 

 leges T This matter has not been fully explained. I must admit, if there 

 has been an oversight here if so great an error has occurred the tribu- 

 nal is powerless to correct the error or to grant full compensation. 



Hut the learned Agent and counsel who support the motion did not 



Htale fully to the Commission did not give to the Commission a full 



explanation this morning. The answer states the matter more fully 



than the application for the motion. The Commissioners are entitled to 



know fully and distinctly what view is taken by the United States. 



Nothing was said as to the statutes to be enforced against United States 



Sherman in case the motion should be successful. In that event it would 



etoo late to deny the right to enforce the statute. This would beuufortu- 



aU- fur American fishermen, as it formerly was. Is the success of the 



I ion to open old sores and awaken the very troubles the treaty was 



> set at rest T There is no escape, it appears to me. 



that our construction is the reasonable, fair, and legitimate 



words of the treaty are sufficient to secure all the privileges 



ide Hie enforcement of statutes. The words are sufficient to 



awarding of full compensation. Our argument is that the 



lish r carries with it the right to prepare to fish, and the 



icient to secure to American fisaermen those rights of 



vere deprived until secured by treaty. We submit the mat- 



II confidence to this honorable Commission, regretting that 



on should have been offered on the other side as to the 



ity of payment of any award, unless the judgment of Com- 



fcouhl be favorable. I think I am obliged to admit on our 



B have uo alternative; that for us, on this question of reducing 



