AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1569 



house respectively and decide the question. But according to the theory * 



of the British counsel, whenever we got before the board of arbitration 

 Mr. Thomson would say : " Now, this house is valuable as a house, and 

 it is also valuable as a base of operations, for if you did not have the 

 house and there was bad weather you would have to stay out in it ; con- 

 sequently that point has to be taken into consideration." The reply 

 would be, " When I bought the house I bought it for these things." So 

 when we come to calculate the value of the fisheries, we expect that all 

 these incidental advantages go along with the calculation. 



Mr. THOMSON. That is what we are contending. 



Mr. TEESCOT. I beg your pardon; that isjust what you do not do. You 

 just make an elaborate calculation of the value of your fisheries as fishe- 

 ries, then you add every conceivable incidental or consequential possible 

 advantage, whether of the fisheries or our enterprise in the use of them, 

 and add that estimate to the value. You contend that we shall pay for 

 the house, and then pay you additionally for every use to which it is 

 possible to put the house. 



Mr. THOMSON. Do you admit that the value of the fisheries is enhanced 

 by those advantages? 



Mr. TRESCOT. I do not. I do not believe that your alleged advan- 

 tages are advantages at all. We can supply their places from our own 

 resources as well and as cheaply. Now, with regard to the treaty itself 

 there are only two points which I propose to submit to the Commission. 

 I contend in the first place that if the interpretation for which the British 

 counsel contend is true, viz, that by the Treaty of 1818 we were excluded 

 from certain rights, and by the Treaty of 1871 we were admitted to them, 

 then we must find out from what we were excluded by the Treaty of 1818 

 and to what we were admitted by the Treaty of 1871. I contend that 

 the language of the Treaty of 1818 is explicit. (Quotes from convention). 



Now, I hold that that limitation, that prohibitive permission to go into 

 the harbors, was confined entirely to fishermen engaged in the inshore 

 fishery. That treaty had no reference to any other fishery whatever. It 

 was a treaty confined to inshore fishermen and inshore fisheries, and we 

 agreed that we should be allowed to fish inshore at certain places, and 

 if we would renounce the fishery within three miles at certain places we 

 should enter the ports within those three-mile fisheries which we agreed 

 to renounce, for the purpose of getting wood, water, &c. The limitation 

 and permission go together, and are confined simply to those engaged in 

 the three-mile fishery. 1 contend that to day, under that treaty, the 

 bankers are not referred to, and they have the right to enter any port 

 of Newfoundland and buy bait and ice and transship their cargoes with- 

 out reference to that treaty. I insist that it is a treaty referring to a 

 special class of people ; that those people are not included who are ex- 

 cluded from the three-mile limit, and if they are not so included they 

 have the right to go to any port and purchase the articles they require. 

 In other words, while the British Government might say that none of 

 the inshore fishermen should enter the harbors except for wood and 

 water, yet the bankers from Newfoundland had a perfect right to go into 

 port for any reason whatever, unless some commercial regulation be- 

 tween the United States and Great Britain forbade them. With regard 

 to the construction that is to be placed upon the articles of the Treaty 

 of 1871, Mr. Thomson seems very much surprised at the construction 

 we have put upon it. Here is the arrangement. (Quotes from conven- 

 tion of 1818 and Treaty of 1871.) 



Does that take away the prohibition? Surely if it had been inteude I 

 to remove that prohibition it would have been stated. lu addition to 

 99 F 



