AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1641 



4 



of a native population. Where was Prince Edward Island, which speaks 

 to-day through a premier and assembly f Why, in the early years of 

 the Revolution, an American skipper, not then having the fear of the 

 three-mile limit before his eyes, entered that famous bend, of which we 

 have heard so much, fishing for men instead of mackerel, and he caught 

 the governor and the executive council a catch which, I am sure, my 

 friend on the other side will admit to be all " number ones" and car- 

 ried them to General Washington, who, not knowing what use to put 

 them to, treated them as our witnesses have told us the fishermen treat 

 young cod, threw them back into the water, and told them to swim home 

 again. Why, the very names with which we have become so familiar 

 in the last months Tignish and Paspebiac, Margaree and Chetticamp, 

 Sciminac and Scatterie had not then risen from the obscurity of a 

 vulgar geography, to shine in the annals of international discussion. 

 There was then no venerable Nestor of Dominion politics, to whose 

 experienced sagacity the interests of an empire might be safely in- 

 trusted ; there were no learned and dignified queen's counsel to be 

 drawn up in imposing contrast to the humble advocates who address 

 you from this side of the table. There was no minister of marine, with 

 one hundred and sixty-five fog-whistles at his command, ready to blow 

 a blast of triumph all along the coast upon the receipt of this award. 

 There were no rights to invade, and the maritime provinces and the 

 Dominion came into existence subject to the conditions of national life 

 which that treaty created. When they did come into these waters they 

 found us there. 



Our rights and the character of our rights, under the Treaty of 1783, 

 were never questioned or disputed for over a quarter of a century, not 

 until the war of 1812, and then the question was made only as an effort 

 of diplomatic finesse. The Treaty of 1783 had given to British subjects 

 the right of navigation on the Mississippi Eiver, under the belief that 

 the boundary line between the two countries touched the sources of that 

 river. By 1814 it was discovered that this was not so, and as the right 

 to use the territory of the United States to reach the river had not been 

 given, the right to use the river was not available. Then was invented 

 the theory that the war of 1812 abrogated the Treaty of 1783, and 

 by it the British Government were enabled to propose to renew the 

 fishery articles, if we would remodel and make effective the article as 

 to the Mississippi. We denied the theory. I will not, of course, trouble 

 you with any detailed account of the negotiations. The correspondence 

 between Mr. Adams and Lord Bathurst and the negotiations of the 

 Treaty of Ghent are matters of familiar history. 



The question thus raised was left unsettled, both governments main- 

 taining their positions until the Convention of 1818. Two things are 

 evident from that convention. First, that our right, as we maintained 

 it, to the inshore fisheries was recognized, because Great Britain ac- 

 cepted from us the relinqnishment of a portion of it, and by accepting 

 what we gave recognized our right to give. Second, that we relin- 

 quished this right because our fishing was at that time entirely a deep- 

 sea fishing, and because the settlement of the coasts of the maritime prov- 

 inces and the development of local colonial fisheries, anticipated in the 

 Treaty of 1783, were now being realized. That convention was a friendly 

 and liberal concession on the part of the United States, and when we 

 are required to-day to pay for the restoration of the former condition, 

 we are simply made to pay for our own liberality. For what are the 

 Treaties of 1854, and 1871 but a restoration of the conditions of the Treaty 



