AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1787 



upon ; that tbey have no foundation for the extraordinary defense that 

 has been set up to the righteous claim of the British Government for 

 compensation. If I fail to show/ this, it will not be because it cannot be 

 shown by counsel of the requisite ability, but simply because I have not 

 the ability to present the subject as it should be presented to your ex- 

 cellency and honors. 



My learned friend, Mr. Trescot, after taking the ground that the 

 treaty was not made between the United States and Canada, but was 

 made between the United States and Great Britain, went on to use ati 

 argument which certainly caused me a great deal of astonishment at the 

 time, but which I think, upon reflection, will not inure to the benefit of 

 the United States. " Why," said he, referring to a minute of council 

 which he read, "the Canadian Government said in that minute that if 

 Great Britain would guarantee a loan of (I think it was 4,000,000), 

 they would be willing that this treaty should be passed." Now, that 

 had reference, we well know, to the Fenian claims particularly. Whether 

 it was creditable to Canada or not to give up the right to compensation 

 for the outrageous violation of neutral territory by marauders from The 

 United States, it is not my province to argue. She had a right to give 

 it up if she thought fit to do so in consideration of a guarantee by Great 

 Britain of the proposed loan. Mr. Trescot says : u Because you were 

 dissatisfied with this treaty because you were dissatisfied with losing 

 your territorial rights you obliged Great Britain to guarantee a loan of 

 4,000,000 in reference to an intercolonial railway." Great Britain did 

 guarantee a loan, and Canada got the money. " With what face," he 

 says, " does Canada come here now and claim compensation, since she 

 has been paid for thatP 



Well, it struck me that if his argument was correct it proved a little 

 too much. What does it show ? This question, by his own contention, 

 is one between Great Britain and the United States. Great Britain 

 claims a compensation here, which, under the terms of the treaty, she 

 is entitled to get. If, therefore, as Mr. Trescot argues, the claim has 

 been paid, I would ask who has paid it? If Canada has been paid for 

 yielding certain important territorial rights to the United States for the 

 term ot .twelve years from 1873, if Canada has ceded those rights to the 

 United States, as undoubtedly she has by the Treaty of Washington, 

 and if Canada has been paid for that cession by Great Britain, then I 

 apprehend that Great Britain has paid the debt which the United States 

 ought to have paid, and she can properly and justly look to the United 

 States to be refunded. Now, that guarantee was exactly 4,000,000 

 sterling. We are modest in our claim, and ask for only $15,000,000 al- 

 together. That being so, I think Mr. Trescot has pretty well settled 

 this case. I think it was he, but I am not quite sure, who said in the 

 course of his speech, although I did not find it reported afterwaids- 

 pcrhaps it was Mr. Dana that when he came down here first he thought 

 the case of the British government was a great deal better than it turned 

 out in evidence. 



Mr. TRESCOT. I didn't say that. 



Mr. THOMSON. It was said by one of the counsel for the United fc 

 It may be repudiated now. 



Mr. DANA. I haven't committed my speech to memory. 



Mr. THOMSON. Unfortunately I do not find it committed to paper, 

 all events, that is the fact. If you take Mr. Trescot's argument, tl 

 result is that we must get four million pounds sterling. Great 

 paid that ; and it is just the case of a man who, with the consen 



