15G6 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 



tnnafe as regards our present position that this Commission did not sit 

 immediately after tlie treaty was entered into. If it had sat if the con- 

 hiriu-iion piit upon the treaty was to the effect that the Commission had 

 no iuiiMlirtion to take into consideration the incidental advantages of 

 \vhu-h evidence has been given, then, as has been put by my learned 

 friend, Mr. Thomson, no traflic would have taken place from American 

 fifthing-vessela coming into our harbors for the purpose of buying bait, 

 lor thev would have been liable to be confiscated forthwith. But this 

 in-lit v having existed four years, the fishermen of the United States and 

 of (in-lit Britain have solved practically the question of the construction 

 of tlie tn-aty themselves. The fishermen of the United States have 

 i. .uiHl it more to their convenience and speedy baiting to employ Brit- 

 ish fishermen to take bait for them, and, in some instances, to buy it 

 from them, believing that the right of traffic was conceded by this treaty, 

 and tluMice the traflic has arisen. !No such traffic would have arisen had 

 this question been determined at the outset in accordance with the 

 views contended for by the counsel for the United States ; but because 

 that traffic has arisen, and the question has been solved by the people 

 themselves, therefore they now say we are precluded from recovering 

 any compensation for it. It has been shown here by clear, indisputable 

 evidence that the Bank fisheries oft' the coasts of the Dominion and New- 

 fomidland could not be carried on to advantage by American fishermen 

 without obtaining the bait upon our coast, which they have done. It 

 is admitted that this is a subject for consideration, and that this is a 

 question they have to pay for ; but now, forsooth, because this Commis- 

 sion has not sat, and four years have elapsed, and the fishermen of the 

 two countries have practically solved the question for themselves, we 

 nre to be precluded from obtaining compensation for the advantages 

 that would otherwise have to be paid for. 



Again, in the Answer of the United States, at page 18, it is stated: 

 "The benefits alluded to (that is, the incidental advantages) are only 

 indirectly and remotely within the scope and cognizance of this Com- 

 mission." Here my learned friends show that they were clearly of the 

 opinion at the time they penned this answer that these were matters 

 that were within the scope of the Commission, and within their jurisdic- 

 tion. Ami without objection on their part, we have throughout the whole 

 eondtict of our case adduced evidence to support the position we now 

 contend for. 



Mr. TRKSCOT. What I have to say I shall say very briefly, for my pur- 

 jMse is rather to express my assent to what has been said than to add 

 anything to what 1 consider the very complete argument of my colleague, 

 .Mr. Foster. 



II I understand the British counsel correctly, they admit that the con 



lion for which we contend is a fair construction. They seem to 



that a broader ami more liberal interpretation would be more in 



'unity with what they consider to be the spirit of this discussion, 



i all of them appear to admit that if we choose to stand on that Ian- 



have the right to do it, and thev do not object that it should 



reed. They seem to think, however, that certain consequences 



w, of which they have apprehensions for us. That is our mat- 



I he. consequences that flow from the interpretation will be confined . 



matters we must look to. At present the only question 



we have the right to say to your hoiiprs that you are limited 



ward to a certain and specific series of items. I think, hon- 



liave drilled very far from the common-sense view of this case. 



hnical argument, if we are to go into it, it might be in- 





