1586 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 



the same considerations, in the future. At the same time, I confess to 

 H great feeling of disappointment that such an important part of the 

 question connected with the settlement of the fisheries dispute should 

 pparently he removed, or partly removed, from the possible considera- 

 tion and adjudication of this tribunal, and I am bound to say that my 

 conviction of the intention of the parties to the Treaty of Washington 

 is that this was not their purpose at the time. 



I have listened with very great attention to the arguments presented 

 on behalf of the United States, but I do not think that they have cor- 

 rectly stated the position of the two parties at the time when the Treaty 

 of Washington was entered into. The history of this case begins, as 

 has been stated by counsel, as far back as 1783, but by common consent 

 the Convention of 1818 is the treaty by which the fishery rights of the 

 two countries have subsisted. Under the Convention of 1818 certain 

 things were forbidden to the United States fishermen, and the United 

 States renounced the right to do anything except what they were per- 

 mitted to do by the words of that treaty. They renounced forever any 

 liberty of taking, drying, or curing fish, etc., "provided that the American 

 fishermen shall be permitted to enter the said bays or harbors for the pur- 

 jK)se of shelter, and of repairing damages therein, of purchasing wood and 

 obtaining water, and for no other purpose whatever." By the imperial 

 Act .~>9, George the Third, Chapter 38, and by several colonial statutes, 

 restrictions and definitions were imposed or were established with re- 

 gard to offenses arising from infringements of those privileges conferred 

 u|Kin American citizens, though it has not been shown that the seizures 

 which took place prior to 1854 were for trading or for obtaining supplies, 

 or for any other benefit referred to in the motion, still it is undoubted 

 that arising out of this legislation great irritation arose between the two 

 countries, and this resulted in the adoption of what is known as the 

 Reciprocity Treaty in 1854. That the Reciprocity Treaty was under- 

 stood to have removed all those restrictions is unquestionably shown to 

 l>e the case, to my mind, by the action taken by Great Britain and the 

 colonies when the treaty came into force. 



Immediately afterward, all statutes which had operated against the 

 American fishermen were suspended, and the greatest possible freedom 

 of intercourse existed during the continuation of that treaty. At the ter- 

 mination of the Reciprocity Treaty, and in support of the view that it was 

 Ki>pjM)sed to have given those privileges, we find the whole of these en- 

 actments revived, and we also find that subsequently more stringent 

 statutes were passed by the Dominion of Canada iu this relation. Now, 

 it is iin|M>rtant in the history of this case to consider what effect was 

 produced by those statutes; and we find in a most important public 

 document, that is the annual message of President Grant to Congress, 

 in l*7o, that this legislation on the part of the colonies was made the 

 Mbject of the gravest possible complaint. The President states that: 



The rounn- piirMicd by the Canadian authorities toward the fishermen of the United' 



during th.- luM wason has not been marked by a friendly feeling. By the first 



th* Convention of 1818, between Great Britain and the United* States, it 



wiw ffT l d that tin- Inhabitants of the United States should have forever, in common 



Ji Biil.j-cta. tin* right of taking fish in certain waters therein defined. In the 



Included in the limits named in the convention, within three milesof pane, 



tab eoMt, it hu been the custom for twenty years to give to intruding fisb- 



Stut-s a reasonable warning of their violation of the technical 



num. The Imperial Government is understood to have delegated 



T bare of ito juriadioion or control of these inshore fishery-grounds to 



rity, known as the Dominion of Canada, and this semi-independent 



i- agiM.t DM exercised its delegated powers in an unfriendly way ves- 



j wsizc-U without notice or warning, iu violatiou of the custom previously 



