1C58 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 



did not {jive us this right. We always had it. We continued to enjoy 

 these rights without geographical limitation, and it was conceded that 

 we did so by the Treaty of 1783, and we no more depend upon a treaty 

 gift of 1783 for the right to these fisheries than we depend upon it for 

 the enjoyment of our right to our independence." Of course, the gentle- 

 men of the Commission are familiar with that correspondence, and I will 

 go no further with it. The whole subject is followed up with a great 

 deal of ability in that remarkable book which has been lying upon the 

 table; I mean John Qtiincy Adams's book on " The Fisheries and the 

 Mississippi" in connection with the Treaty of Ghent, and his reply to 

 Mr. Jonathan Russell. 



Well, the parties could not agree, and it went on in that way until 

 1818, and then came a compromise, and nothing but a compromise. 

 The introduction to the Treaty of 1818 says : " Whereas differences 

 have arisen respecting the liberty claimed by the United States and in- 

 habitants thereof to take, dry, and cure fish in certain coasts, harbors, 

 creeks, and bays of His Majesty's dominions in America, it is agreed 

 between the High Contracting Parties" it is all based upon "differ- 

 ences."' Now, the position of the two parties was this : the people of 

 the United States said, " We own these fisheries just as much to day 

 as we did the day that we declared war." Great Britain did not declare 

 war, nor did she make a conquest. The declaration of war was from 

 Washington, from the Congress of the United States, and it ended by 

 a treaty which said nothing about fisheries, leaving us where we were. 

 The ground taken by the United States was that the fisheries, irre- 

 spective of the three-mile limit, or anything else, belonged to us still. 

 Great Britain said, "No; you lost them"; not by war, because Earl 

 Bathurst is careful to say that the war did not deprive us of the fish- 

 eries, but the war ended the treaty, and the fisheries were appended 

 solely to the treaty, and when the treaty was removed, away went the 

 fisheries. Now, it is a singular thing in examining this treaty to 

 tind that there is nothing said about our right to take fish on the 

 Banks, in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and in the deep sea. The treaty 

 of 1783 referred to that among other things, and it is well known that 

 Great Britain claimed more than a jurisdiction over the fisheries. It 

 claimed general jurisdiction and authority over the high seas, to which, 

 it appended no particular limit, and the claim admitted no limit. You 

 were told by my learned associate, Judge Foster, a few days ago, that 

 they arrested one of our vessels at a distance of sixty miles from the 

 shore, claiming that we were within the King's chambers. Nothing is 

 said in that treaty upon the subject. It is an implied concession that 

 all those rights belong to the United States, with which England would 

 not undertake after that ever to interfere. And then we stood in this 

 position : that we had used the fisheries, though we did not border upon 

 the seas, from IGL'O to 1818, in one and the same manner, under one and 

 the same right, and if the general dominion of the seas was shifted, it 

 vr&H still subject to the American right and liberty to fish. 



I Hhall say nothing in this discussion about the right to land on shores 

 for the purpose of drying nets and curing fish. That was a very antique 

 idea. It has quite passed out now, fortunately, for your provinces are 

 becoming well settled, and no right ever existed to land and dry fish 

 where a private right is interfered with. There is no evidence to show 

 t we ever practiced that right or cared anything about it. It was 

 put in the treaty to follow the language of the old treaties, for what- 

 ever it might be worth. 



Your honors will also observe that until 1830 the mackerel fisheries 



