1630 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 



able that two great and kindred nations should, to-day, be still angrily 

 discussing a question which he thought he had finally settled with 

 Franklin and Adams, with Jay and Laureus, an hundred years ago, 

 when In* recognized the independence of the United States, with all its 

 consequences. 



You have been told, and with truth, by the representatives of both 

 contestants, that the Treaty of 1871 is the charter of your authority. 

 To ascertain, therefore, the extent of the powers which have been given, 

 and thecharacter of the duties which have been imposed, we nmstgo to the 

 Treaty of Washington. But we cannot go to that treaty alone. The 

 Treaty of 1S71 is but one phase of the fishery-negotiations. It was a 

 marked change from the condition of things in 1866 ; that was a change 

 from the condition of things in 1854; that again was a large departure 

 from the Convention of 1818, and that convention was in itself a very 

 great change from the Treaty of 1783. 



It is simply impossible to understand the meaning of the Treaty of 

 1S71 correctly without reference to the history of those negotiations, 

 and the positions which have been taken, and which have been aban- 

 doned or maintained by the respective governments. 



And the British case, as filed, distinctly recognizes this necessity, not 

 only in the elaborate history of those negotiations with which it prefaces 

 its argument, but in the central assumption of its formal contention, 

 viz, that the Treaty of 1818 is part and parcel of the Treaty of 1871. 



These negotiations, fortunately, lie within a compact and manageable 

 compass, and it is possible, I think, briefly and clearly to develop their 

 history and sequence. 



The Treaty of 1783, the Convention of 1818, the Reciprocity Treaty of 

 1854, and the Treaty of Washington of 1871, are landmarks in our navi- 

 gation over these rather troubled waters. If I may borrow a figure 

 Jrom our subject, I will endeavor, in my argument, to keep well within 

 the three mile limit, not to run between headland and headland, unless 

 I am driven by extraordinary stress of weather, and even then I shall 

 not enter and delay in every port that lines the coast for shelter, food, 

 or fuel, unless the persuasive rhetoric of my friend from Prince Edward 

 Island should detain me in the magnificent harbors of Mdpeque and 

 Cascumpeqne, or my friend from Newfoundland should toll me with 

 'iresh squid" into the happy and prosperous regions of Fortune Bay. 



But before 1 go into the discussion of these treaties, I wish to ask 

 your consideration to some observations on the general meaning and 

 proper interpretation of the Treaty of 1871, in order that they may be 

 out of the way of the main argument. And first I will ask you to carry 

 with you throughout the discussion a fact so obvious that I would not 

 have referred to it at all had not the whole argument of the British Case 

 entirely ignored it. That fact is simply that this Convention, and the 

 treaty upon which it is founded, are transactions between the United 

 states on the one side and Great Britain on the other. Let me ask your 

 attention to the twenty-second article of the Treaty of 1871: 



ItiMumrh a* it in assorted by the Government of Her Britannic Majesty that the priv- 



ill t> th- citizens of the United States under Article XVIII of this treaty 



than those accorded by Articles XIX and XXI of this treaty to the 



<mnic Majnty, and this assertion is not admitted by the Government 



hiats it is further agreed that Commissioners shall be appointed to 



having n-itard to th,- privileges accorded by the United States to the subjects 



la**,r .\lj,*ty, a* stated in Articles XIX and XXI of this treaty, the amount 



Of compMutlioo, At\, &<. 



Now, who are the subjects of Her Britannic Majesty ? Are they only 

 tue inhabitant* of the Dominion of Canada? The fishermen of the 



