AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1581 



from that of 1783 to that of 1871, you will find they never had for their 

 scope or purpose any provisions regarding trading or purchasing, but 

 related solely to the right to fish, and to use the shores for the purpose 

 of drying and curing. In framing the Treaty of 1871 care was taken to 

 name the rights. It gave the right to fish. What kind of fish f Not 

 shell-fish, nor salmon, nor river fish. Care is taken also to describe for 

 what purpose American fishermen may land. It is to dry nets, cure and 

 dry fish. There is no reference to purchasing anything except in the 

 Treaty of 1818, in regard to purchasing wood, and that subject has been 

 intentionally left out of all treaties, or it would be more accurate to say 

 that to include such matters in a treaty was never considered as apposite. 

 The Treaty of 1871, as I have said, grants a territorial extension of speci- 

 fied, long-existing rights, and the only question in dispute between the 

 United States and Great Britain has always been as to the territorial 

 extent of the right of fishing. 



The question arose, can we fish on the Grand Banks? England said 

 "No," but she gave up that contention in 1783. Then England said 

 that American fishermen could not fish within three miles of its coasts 

 from a line drawn from headland to headland. Dispute arose again as 

 to the correctness of that territorial designation, but the subject-matter 

 was the drawing of fish from the sea. At last it became settled that 

 we should not fish within the three miles unless with the consent of 

 Great Britain expressed through a treaty or otherwise. Then occurred 

 the question as to what constitutes three miles three miles from wha,t ! 

 Always the dispute was as to the territorial extent of a specified right, 

 the right to fish, and all the treaties were made for that purpose. In- 

 cidentally there was always brought in the question of places, not being 

 private property, where the fishermen could land for the purpose of dry- 

 ing nets and curing and drying fish. These were the subject-matters 

 of every treaty, the occasion of every dispute, and these were all that 

 were settled by the Treaty of Washington. Great Britain gave to the 

 United States an extended territoriality, up to the very banks, up to 

 high-water mark everywhere ; and the United States gave the same ex- 

 tended territoriality to Great Britain, to fish in the United States north- 

 ward of 39th parallel. Then there were certain extensions of territory 

 for the curing and drying of fish. By Article 21 the United States gives 

 to- Great Britain, and she accords to us, the right of free trade, recipro- 

 city, in fish and fish-oil. That is purely a commercial clause. It might 

 have been made a treaty by itself. It has no connection with fishing or 

 the curing and drying of fish. When your honors come to estimate the 

 pecuniary valuation of the concessions on each side, we contend that 

 the pecuniary value of that concession made by the United States to 

 Great Britain, which is purely fiscal, is very great. 



It is conceded by the British counsel, I believe, that those rights of 

 which I speak were not given in the terms of the Treaty of Washing- 

 ton, and cannot be found there. The only argument on the side of the 

 Crown and I think I state it fairly and with its full force is this : 

 "You have those rights now j you did not have them before the treaty ; 

 therefore you must have got them by the treaty. You did not have 

 them until 1854, and you possessed them from 1854 to I860 under the 

 Reciprocity Treaty. You did not have them during the interval. They 

 were revived in 1871. and you have had them since. Their history 

 shows they must have come by treaty." Instead of the word " have," 

 1 would substitute the word " exercise," and say we exercised those 

 rights. We exercised them long before that period. Evidence has 



