1634 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMESSION. 



That is the view he took of that treaty. What was the view that the 

 Canadian Government took of it? On page 47 of this same pamphlet 

 will be found the reply of a committee of the Privy Council to that let- 

 ter of the Earl of Kimberley, in which will be found this statement: 



When the Canadian Government took the initiative of suggesting the appointment 

 of a joint Hritish and American Commission, they never contemplated the surrender 

 O f thtir territorial rights, and they had no reason to suppose that Her Majesty's Gov- 

 ernment entertained the sentiments expressed by the Earl of Kimberley in his recent 

 despatch. Had such sentiments been expressed to the delegate appointed by the Cana- 

 dian Government to confer with his lordship a few mouths before the appointment of 

 the Commission, it would at least have been in their power to have remonstrated 

 against the cession of the inshore fisheries, and it would moreover have prevented any 

 member of the Canadian Government from acting as a member of the Joint High Com- 

 mission, unless on the clear understanding that no such cession should be embodied in 

 the treaty without their consent. The expediency of the cession of a common right to 

 the insho're fisheries has been defended, on the ground that such a sacrifice on the part 

 of Canada should be made in the interests of peace. The committee of the Privy Council, 

 as they have already observed, would have been prepared to recommend any necessary 

 concession for so desirable an object, but they must remind the Earl of Kimberley that 

 the original proposition of Sir Edward Thornton, as appears by his letter of 26th Jan- 

 uary, was that a friendly and complete understanding should be come to between the 

 two governments, as to the extent of the rights which belong to the citizens of the 

 United States and Her Majesty's subjects respectively, with reference to the fisheries 

 on the coasts of Her Majesty's possessions in North America. 



Then there is a continuation of the argument. 



Mr. THOMSON. Won't you read it? 



Mr. TRESCOT. I will read it if you wish. 



Mr. THOMSON. I would like to hear it, if it is not too much trouble to 

 yon. 



Mr. TRESCOT. I will read it with great pleasure, although it does not 

 bear upon the point I desire to present. 



In his reply dated 30th January last, Mr. Secretary Fish informs Sir Edward Thorn- 

 ton that the President instructs him to say that " he shares with her Majesty's Govern- 

 ment the appreciation of the importance of a friendly and complete understanding 

 between the two governments with reference to the subjects specially suggested for 

 the consideration of the proposed Joint High Commission." In accordance with the 

 explicit understanding, thus arrived at between the two governments, Earl Granville 

 iwued instructions to Her Majesty's High Commission, which, in the opinion of the 

 Committee of the Privy Council, covered the whole ground of controversy. The 

 United States had never pretended to claim a right on the part of their citizens to tish 

 within three marine miles of the coasts and bays, according to their limited definition 

 of the latter term, and although the right to enjoy the use of the inshore fisheries 

 might fairly have been made the subject of negotiation, with the view of ascertaining 

 whether any proper equivalents could be found for such a concession, the United States 

 wan precluded by the original correspondence from insisting on it as a condition of the 

 reaty. The abandonment of the exclusive right to the inshore fisheries without 

 adequate compensation mark that the abandonment of the exclusive right to the 

 uhore fisheries without adequate compensation was not therefore necessary in order 

 o a satisfactory understanding on the points really at issue. The Committee 

 the Privy Council forbear from entering into a controversial discussion as to the ex- 

 nc-y of trying to influence the United States to adopt a more liberal commercial 

 rhey must, however, disclaim most emphatically the imputation of desiring 

 ic peace of the whole empire in order to force the American Government 

 commercial policy. They have for a considerable time back ceased to 

 oiled Mates to alter their commercial policy; but they are of opinion that 

 Ida is asked to surrender her inshore fisheries to foreigners, she is fairly 

 -Mtitlcl to name the proper equivalent. 



I need not go any further. You can read it if you wish. Then, of 



Kimberley replied to that communication. The reply it is 



li while to read. The Privy Council then replied to his strict- 



iipon their opinion, and their communication is the point to which 



I wih to come. 



In tb -nnrM of the negotiations the United States Commissioners had offered as an 

 > rights of lUhcry to admit Canadian coal and salt, free of duty, and 



