AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1635 



lumber, after the 1st of July, 1874. This was deemed, both by the Imperial and Cana- 

 dian Governments, an inadequate offer, and a counter proposition was made by the 

 British Commissioners that lumber should be admitted free immediately, and that in 

 consideration of the continued exclusion of cereals, live-stock, and othe'r articles ad- 

 mitted under the treaty of 1854, a sum of money should be paid to Canada. Tlie 

 United States Commissioners not only refused the counter proposition, but withdrew 

 their former offer, substituting one which the committee of council infer from the Earl 

 of Kimberley's dispatch, was, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, more fav- 

 orable to Canada than that which had been rejected as inadequate. Wide, however, 

 as are the differences of opinion on this continent regarding the treaty, there is but 

 one opinion on the point under consideration. It is clear that the United States pre- 

 ferred paying a sum of money to the concession of commercial advantages to Canada, 

 and the committee of council feel assured that there is not a single member of the 

 Canadian Parliament who would not have much preferred the rejected proposition to 

 that which was finally adopted. 



The committee of council cannot, with the Earl of Kimberley's dispatch before them, 

 continne to affirm that Her Majesty's Government are of opinion that the cession of 

 the fishery rights was made for an inadequate consideration, but they regret that they 

 are themselves of a different opinion. 



While still adhering to their expressed opinions as to the fishery articles of the 

 Treaty of Washington, they are yet most anxious to meet the views of Her Majesty's 

 Government, and to be placed in a position to propose the necessary legislative meas- 

 ures, and they will therefore proceed to make a suggestion which they earnestly hope 

 may receive a favorable response. 



The adoption of the principle of money payment in satisfaction of the expenses 

 incurred by the Fenian raids would not only be of no assistance with reference to the 

 treaty, but might lead to some complications. It is not improbable that differences of 

 opinion would arise in the discussion of the details of those claims between the two 

 governments which might lead to mutual dissatisfaction. Again, such a solution of 

 the question would necessitate a discussion in the Imperial Parliament, in the course 

 of which opinions might be expressed by members which might irritate the people of 

 Canada, and might moreover encourage the Fenian leaders in the United States, who 

 have not ceased their agitation. 



There is, in the opinion of the committee of council, a mode by which their hands 

 might be so materially strengthened that they would be enabled not only to abandon 

 all claims on account of the Fenian raids, but likewise to propose, with a fair prospect 

 of success, the measures necessary to give effect to those clauses in the Treaty of Wash- 

 ington which require the concurrence of the Dominion Parliament. That mode is by 

 an imperial guarantee to a portion of the loan which it will be necessary for Canada 

 to raise in order to procure the construction of certain important public works which 

 will be highly beneficial to the United Kingdom as well as to Canada. 



I ask if, iu the face of that official demand for a guarantee of 

 that loan in compensation for the sacrifice of the fisheries, which demand 

 was recognized as just, and granted by the British Government, it is 

 pbssible to claim that those interests were not sacrifices which were 

 compensated, or whether any construction is just, which, isolating the 

 articles of this treaty, and converting it into a separate negotiation, 

 determines that there were certain Imperial advantages gained by the 

 British Government in return for the sacrifice of those fisheries, and 

 then claims that that compensation should be made part and parcel of 

 the consideration iu a case like this? 1 beg you to understand distinctly 

 that 1 do not contend that this Commission is not bound to equalize the 

 two exchanges which have been committed to them. That is their duty. 

 But I mean to say that, in making that equalization, they are bound to 

 consider nothing but the specific value of the articles exchanged, and 

 that the question whether or not equalization is compensation for any 

 sacrifices made by the treaty is one with which they have nothing to 

 do ; the question which is submitted to them is the value, and nothing 

 else, of the two exchanges. It is not the duty, nor is it within the power 

 of this Commission, as the British counsel seem to suppose, to make the 

 treaty of 1871 an equal treaty, but simply to equalize a specific exchange 

 of values under a special provision of that treaty. It is precisely, as far 

 as you are concerned, as if, instead of the exchange of fishing privileges, 

 that treaty had proposed an exchange of territory. For instance, if that 



