1632 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 



should not the British subject pay for the inshore United States fisher- 

 ie* which he does not use ? 



Mr. 'lnoMsoN. I understand you admit the principle. 



Mr. TRBSCOT. I am using it as a reply to this argument, I am going 

 to show you that my argument is based on yours; and I contend, there- 

 fore, on the very principle that you state. 



* It is not because the tenant fails to exercise the rights which he has 

 acquired by virtue of his lease that the proprietor should be debarred 

 from the recovery of his rent." On this principle, we claim that all the 

 subjects of Her Britannic Majesty are tenants, under the treaty, and 

 must pay for the privilege whether thry use it or not; and you are bound 

 to take that into consideration in establishing the value of the privileges 

 exchanged. 



Further, if this is a treaty between Great Britain and the United 

 States, it cannot be converted into a treaty between the United States 

 and Canada. This Commission cannot alter it or supplement it. Cer- 

 tain specified provisions in the treaty it can execute, but it cannot amend 

 its errors or correct its faults. If in that treaty the British Government 

 has compromised or endangered the interests of the colonies, much as 

 it is to be regretted, you have no power to undo tie work ; it is a mat- 

 ter with which the Commission has nothing to do. 



Upon the negotiation of the Treaty of 1871, the most correct and in- 

 fluential i epresentative of public opinion in England, the London Times, 

 used the following language : 



We watched with some uneasiness the repeated splutters of bad feeling between the 

 fishermen <f New England and the people of the maritime provinces, because we could 

 rever be certain that an ugly accident might not some day force us, much against our 

 will, to become the champions of a quarrel we could only half approve. It is very 

 easy, therefore, to understand with what motives our ministers suggested a Commis- 

 sion, and with what readiness they yielded to the hint that it should be allowed to 

 wttle all subjects of difference between the two countries. Lord Derby has repeat- 

 -dly blamed their eagerness, and the American Government could not but be sensible 

 of the advantage they obtained when the Commissioners arrived at Washington, 

 iMiiind to come to some settlement on the points in dispute. It is true that one of the 

 Commifwonera was the prime minister of Canada ; but against this circumstance must 

 le net tlu- facts that the other four approached their work from an English point of 

 view, that the Commissioners, as a body, were instructed from day to day, and, we 

 may alinoHt way, from hour to hour, by the English Cabinet, and their work was done 

 with an eye to the approval of the English people. It was inevitable that the result 

 of their Inborn should not satisfy the inhabitants of the Dominion. We are far from 

 waving that the Commissioners did not do their best for Canadian interests, as they 

 tiiid.T-tMxl them; but it was not in human nature for them or their instructions to be 

 to Canada what they are to England; and, as the treaty was conceived for the par- 

 JMM- of removing the present and contingent liabilities of England, it was agreed upon 

 M moii us it was believed that these liabilities were settled. 



If this in so, then surely this Commission was not appointed to cor- 

 rtct ' .In- inevitable" results of the treaty which created it. 



The colonial authorities recognized this view. When that treaty 

 was lormed, Karl Kimberley, writing to the colonial governor, made 

 thin Matement, in a paragraph which is not too long to read, for I do 

 not mean to trouble you with a great many quotations. It is a state- 

 ment ol the secretary of state for the colonies to the Governor General, 

 Downing street, 17th June, 1371," and published at Ottawa: 



Canadian Government itself took the initiative in suggesting that a joint British 

 ITHIIII tnmisMon should be appointed, with a view to settle the disputes 

 d HIIM-II it* to the interpretation of the Treaty of 1618. But it was certain 

 i. however desirable it might be. in default of any complete settlement, to appoint 

 mil, the cans,-* of the difliciilty lay deeper than any question of inter- 

 iind (he meie discussion of such points as the correct definition of bays could 

 I to a realiy Iriendly agieemeiit with the United States. It was iiecess;iiy, 

 lo endeavor to Bud an equivalent which the United States might be willing . 



