1780 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 



a series of assumptions, without the slighest evidence on which to base 

 them. It was a most admirable speech in every respect, but one. It 

 had little or no foundation in the facts proved. It was an admirable 

 and ingenious speech, I admit, and the same may be said of the speeches 

 of his learned colleagues. It was an admirable speech in a bad cause. 

 Fortunately, I feel that I am not here for the purpose of measuring my 

 strength as an advocate against that of Judge Foster. Were it so, I 

 am very much afraid I should go to the wall. But I have just this ad- 

 vantage over him, as I think I shall satisfy you before I have done, that 

 my cause could not be injured even by a bad advocate; and I think I 

 shall show you that his cause has been made the very best of by a won- 

 derfully good advocate. 



Now, I think that probably the proper course for me to take, is to go 

 through those speeches, and after having done so, to turn your attention 

 somewhat to the evidence. I take the very pleasant and humorous 

 speech of my learned friend Mr. Trescot, which certainly gave me a great 

 deal of amusement, and, I humbly conceive, put me very much in the 

 position of the man who was beaten by his wife, and who, being remon- 

 strated with by his friends for permitting it, said that it pleased her and 

 didn't hurt him. The speech of my learned friend pleased him. and 

 didn't hurt us a bit. I will show why. In the course of his argument 

 he referred to a minute of the Privy Council of Canada, made in answer 

 to Earl Kimberly shortly after the Treaty of 1871 was negotiated be- 

 tween the two countries. Mr. Trescot laid great stress upon the fact 

 that this was not a treaty between the United States and Canada, but 

 that it was a treaty between the United States and England. No per- 

 son disputes that proposition. It is not doubted. But I suppose that 

 no person will dispute the fact that, although England is nominally the 

 party to the treaty, the Dominion of Canada is vitally interested in the 

 result of this Commission. 



There is just this difference between this treaty and an ordinary treaty 

 between the United States and England, that, by its very terms, it was 

 wholly inoperative as regards the British North American possessions, 

 unless it were sanctioned by the Dominion Parliament and the legisla- 

 ture of Prince Edward Island, which at that time was not a part of the 

 Dominion. In this respect it differed from an ordinary treaty, inasmuch 

 as by the very terms of the treaty the Dominion of Canada 'had a voice 

 ill the matter. But I am willing to treat the matter as Mr. Trescot has 

 been pleased to put it, as one between England and the United States 

 alone, as the High Contracting Parties. You will recollect that, in the 

 Answer to the British case, it was put prominently forward that this 

 treaty was not only a boon to the Dominion, but that it was so great a 

 boon that the premier of this Dominion, in his place in Parliament, 

 made a speech to that effect, which is quoted at length in the Answer. 

 Now, it may be right enough to quote the statements of public men in 



tch of the countries. They are representative persons, and may be 

 supposed to speak the language of their constituencies. Therefore I 

 not complain of their words being quoted. But I was surprised 

 ifii, in the course of this inquiry, it was argued I do not know 

 t was by Mr. Foster or by one of the learned gentlemen asso- 

 ciated with him that these speeches were calm expressions of opinion 

 by gentlemen not heated in any way by debate. It struck me that that 

 was a curious way in which to characterize a debate in the House of 



omnions, upon a question vital to the existence of the ministry for the 



I thought that was just a case where we had a right to 



that the speeches delivered on either side would probably par- 



