1636 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 



treaty liad proposed the exchange of Maine and Manitoba, and the United 

 States had maintained that the value of Maine was much larger than 

 Manitoba, and referred it to you to equalize the exchange. It is very 

 manifest that to Xew England, for instance, it might not only be dis- 

 advantageous, but very dangerous ; but the only question for you to con- 

 sider would be the relative value of the two pieces of territory. So 

 here, I do not care what the consequences may be. It may be that 

 when you have equalized these privileges so as to make the exchange 

 of privileges precisely even, that then the consequences of the exchange 

 of fisheries might be the destruction of all the fisheries of Prince Ed- 

 ward Island, the entire destruction of the fishing industry of the mari- 

 time provinces. But that is a matter with which you have nothing to 

 do. This is a consequence of the treaty, and not a consequence of the 

 difference in value between the two articles of exchange which you are 

 called upon to appraise. 



The same principle would lead to this result also, that with the con- 

 sequential profit or loss of the fisheries you have nothing to do. You 

 have a right to measure the value of the fisheries as they are, and what 

 they are, but you have no right to put into that estimate a calculation 

 of the enterprise, industry, skill, au'd capital which the American puts 

 into the fishery ; that is, brains and money and experience, which is en- 

 tirely foreign to the fishery, as a fishery. It is free to be employed any- 

 where else, and you have no right to calculate that. The fish in the 

 water have a certain value, but the skill and capital and enterprise 

 which are required to take them out does not belong to the fishery, as 

 fishery ; and it is not a matter that you have any right to take into cal- 

 culation. Take, for example, the extraordinary principle that is stated 

 in the British Case, on page 34: 



A participation by fishermen of the United States in the freedom of these waters 

 must, notwithstanding their wonderfully reproductive capacity, tell materially on the 

 local catch, and, while affording to the United States fishermen a profitable employment, 

 must seriously interfere with local success. 



Is that a principle of calculation which you can only apply to a case 

 like this ! Was there ever a case of such absolute forgetfulness of that 

 homely old proverb, over which every one of us has painfully stumbled 

 in his walk through life, that "you cannot eat your cake and have it too"! 

 Why, take that favorite and apt illustration of the British Case, a ten- 

 ancy for shooting. If I exchanged a grouse moor in Scotland for a 

 pheasant preserve in England, and my friend, Her British Majesty's 

 Agent, was arbitrator to equalize their values, what would he think of 

 the claim that the grouse moor was the more valuable, because 1 used a 

 breech-loader, carried two keepers with extra guns, shot over dogs cost- 

 *) guineas apiece, and bagged a hundred brace, where the other 

 Hiian stuck to the old muzzle-loader, carried no keeper, shot over 

 amed pointer, and only bagged twenty-five brace, or to the still 

 xtraordinary complaint, that the freedom of the moor, notwith- 

 s wonderful reproductive capacity, must tell materially on 

 shooting, and while affording the lessee profitable and pleasant 

 nt, "must seriously interfere" with the pot-shooting of the 

 < lessor's family ? And this is just preciselv the argument that 

 have made. They undertake, not to decide the value of the - 

 they undertake to put into arbitration here what we do with 

 1 hat is, we are to pay, not only for the privilege of going 

 umckerd-nshing , the bend of Prince Edward Island, but we are to 

 'liar ol capital and industry we employ, and for the men 



