AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1793 



for want of business to make it pay, and if we should show conclu- 

 sively on behalf of the British Government that such is really the case, 

 that nevertheless the United States Government should not pay one dol- 

 lar because it is a consequence of the privilege, and not the direct value ! 

 Does he seriously contend for such an extraordinary doctrine ? I think 

 I shall be able to show you by the evidence on record in this inquiry, 

 that unless the Americans had the right to come on the shores of Nova 

 Scotia and New Brunswick, to enter our territorial waters along the 

 shores of Prince Edward Island, along the Gaspu shore, the southern 

 shore of Labrador, and along the estuary of the St. Lawrence, that 

 unless they had those rights, the United States fishing fleet could not 

 subsist; and I do not intend to rely upon British proofs on that point; 

 but I intend to turn up the American evidence, and 1 shall make that 

 as clear as daylight. I will prove it by evidence from the lips of their 

 own witnesses, man after man, witness after witness, not by evidence 

 given by us. And is it to be said that the United States ought to pay 

 nothing to us for rights obtained under the treaty, if I can show that 

 without those rights the Gloucester fishing-fleet, and all the American 

 fishing-fleet, the whole North American fishery, as prosecuted by Amer- 

 icans, would be a failure? Are they not to pay for that privilege? If 

 we hold fishing grounds over which alone fishing can be successfully 

 prosecuted, is that fact not to be taken into account ? Underlying the 

 whole arguments of Mr. Foster, Mr. Dana, and Mr. Trescot, is the ex- 

 traordinary fallacy that this is a simple question for you to determine 

 as between Great Britain and the fishermen of Gloucester. They ap- 

 parently think that if they can show that under the status quo before 

 the treaty, their fishermen could make more money than since the treaty 

 went into operation, that is an end of the British case. That is not so. 

 The treaty was not made between Great Britain and the fishermen of 

 Gloucester ; it was not made in respect to the Gloucester fishermen, but in 

 respect to the whole body of the people of the United States. It is not 

 a question whether the fishermen get more or less money. In fact, how- 

 ever, how is the whole trade of Gloucester and other American fishing 

 ports kept up ? Is it not by the fishing business ! The people of Glou- 

 cester do not, however, live merely on fish. They have to buy meat, 

 pork, flour, &c., which are raised elsewhere than in Gloucester, I ap- 

 prehend. They come from the far West ; the Gloucester people are 

 consumers of the produce of the far West. How are they able to pay 

 for that produce ? From the fisheries ; and so the far West is interested 

 as much as the seaboard itself. So, again, take the consumers of the 

 United States. If a much larger quantity of fish goes into the country 

 under the treaty than otherwise would, the price falls and the consumers 

 get the fish for far less money. Is that not a benefit ? I care not 

 whether it is an injury to Gloucester fishermen or not ; I care nothing 

 about them, as a class, although it can and will be shown that the fisher- 

 men of Gloucester, as such, have not lost one dollar by this treaty, but 

 have made money. Now, let us pass on and see what is the next propo- 

 sition. Mr. Trescot says : 



That so far as British subjects participate in the inshore fishery in United States yr.** 

 upon shares, their fishery is in no sense the fishing or fishermen of inhabitants of t 



states. 



I have dealt with this subject before. It requires a man posses* 

 great flexibility of argument and great boldness of utterance, to 

 ciate such a proposition in this or any other court. We have 1 

 for the first time, and we will never hear it again after this Com 

 closes. What difference does it make, in valueing the privilegi 



113 F 



