1572 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 



ice bait and other supplies. If there had been the least intention by 

 either party to extend the rights to new subjects it would certainly have 

 been stated in the treaty. If, when the representatives of Great Britain 

 and the United States had come together, the Joint High Commission 

 had understood that we should not enter British American ports except 

 those we were allowed to enter under the Treaty of 1818 for any purpose 

 except for shelter, and to buy wood and water, and the British nation 

 had proposed to add to these subjects so as to include the right to buy 

 unit and ice and to transship cargoes, why inevitably they would have 

 said so; inevitably the new rights would have been specifically included 

 in the matters on which your honors were to base your calculations. 

 England might have said to the United States (I deny the position, but 

 England might have taken the position) that American fishermen have 

 no right to enter our waters except under the Treaty of 1818, and theu 

 not to buy anything but wood and water, and now we are opening to 

 them the 'great privilege of buying bait, ice, and supplies, and trans- 

 shipping cargoes, which will add immensely to the value of their fisheries. 

 The argument would have been made, which has been made here, in the 

 form of questions put to expert witnesses: " Is not all that essential to 

 American fisheries!" But, on the contrary, the treaty says nothing 

 about it. We hear of it tor the first time when the counsel of the 

 British Government are getting up their case for damages. We imme- 

 diately protest against it as something not included in the jurisdiction 

 of this court, and our Agent, Mr. Foster, on page 32 of the Answer, 

 distinctly states 



That the various incidenlal and reciprocal advantages of the treaty, such as the 

 privileges of traffic, purchasing bait, and other supplies, are not the subject of com- 

 |ienH*t ion, because the Treaty of Washington confers no such rights on the inhabit- 

 ant of the United States, who now enjoy them merely by sufferance, and who can at 

 any time be deprived of them by the enforcement of existing laws or the re-enactment 

 of former oppressive statutes. Moreover, the treaty does not provide for any possible 

 eompenKatioti for such privileges ; and they are far more important and valuable to 

 the BubjecU) of Her Majesty than to the inhabitants of the United States. 



The passages which the British counsel have referred to as an argu- 

 ment that the Agent of the United States bad admitted that those privi- 

 leges came by treaty, all refer to something quite different. A passage 

 on page 9 of the Answer of the United States has been quoted : 



^hile practically both fishing and commercial intercourse have been car- 

 m conformity with the treaty ever since it was signed, May 8, 1871. 



That "commercial intercourse" means the free importation on each 

 side of the articles of commerce, the only articles of commerce the 

 treaty refers to, li.sh and fish-oil. On page 14. section 2 of the Answer, 

 it IN stated : 



The inci.l.-ntal benefits arising from traffic with American fishermen are of vital im- 

 > the inhabitants of the British maritime provinces. 



The*- are benefita which the British people get from us, and they are 



I to be only incidental, and are only introduced as a set-off, if Great 



ritain churned to have the right to receive compensation for the privi- 



trading in bait, &c., with her people. 



May it please your honors, it is clear to our minds that the Treaty of 

 >n does i,,t give us those advantages. That subject has been 

 elaborat. I by the Agent of the United States and by my learned friend 

 In the first place it has been said in answer to that con- 

 rather it has been suggested, for it was not said with earnest- 

 the counsel for the Crown thought it was goiug to stand as an 

 ut, that those were treaty gifts to the United States, and though 



