AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1799 



Affect. Now, I am not aware there is anything else in Mr. Trescot'H 

 speech which I need specially take up y because some of the other point* 

 occur in the arguments of Mr. Dana and Mr. Foster. 



Mr. TRESCOT. Perhaps you will allow me to say that you are reply- 

 ing to an opinion and not to an argument. 



Mr. THOMSON. Where an opinion is put forward by counsel, he must 

 either be counsel of such eminence that his opinion did not require to be 

 supported by authorities, or else authorities should be advanced at the 

 time. I admit that Mr. Trescot possesses great ability, but I have un- 

 dertaken to meet him by British and American authorities, and, as I 

 have shown, he is completely refuted by both. I think it was Mr. Tres- 

 cot's duty, when he put forward such an extraordinary doctrine, to have 

 stated his authorities. If he did not choose to do so, I cannot help it; 

 but if he now wishes to retract it as not being anything else than an 

 opinion, well, of course, it makes the matter different. 



Mr. TRESCOT. No ; but I did not argue it. 



Mr. THOMSON. It is put forward not as an opinion, but as a proposi- 

 tion on behalf of the United States; there is no opinion about it; 'and 

 when the United States speaks through the mouth of counsel, I am 

 bound to treat the matter seriously. If this were a common case be- 

 tween man and man, I would not treat it seriously ; but when such a 

 proposition is put forward on the part of a great nation through counsel, 

 it cannot be treated lightly, but is entitled to be treated with respect; 

 and if there is nothing in it, I am bound to show that such is the case. 



I pass from Mr. Trescot to Mr. Dana. I propose to take this course for 

 this reason : while I admit the great ability of Mr. Trescot and Mr. 

 Dana, still I think your honors will agree with me that whatever the 

 case of the United Staates has in it, is to be found in the speech of Mr. 

 Foster. No doubt it is also to be found in the other speeches, but I am 

 'taking Mr. Trescot's speech and Mr. Dana's speech out of their order, 

 because I only want to touch on those subjects contained in them which 

 Mr. Foster did not put forward. Anything submitted by Mr. Foster, 

 although it is put forward by Mr. Dana and Mr. Trescot, I will treat as 

 it appears in Mr. Foster's speech, in order to avoid going over the 

 ground twice. Besides, Mr. Foster, as Agent, put forward his case with 

 great ability, and as he on this occasion is officially the representative 

 of the United States, I shall treat his argument as the most serious one 

 of the three. 



Mr. Dana stated that all these fisheries belonged to the United I 

 as a right (it is very curious language), because, said he, they were won. 

 He gave a very good description, only a little fanciful, of the whole of 

 the contests for the last century in respect to the fisheries. It was a 

 very pretty essay, and I had much pleasure in listening .to it. It was 

 delivered, as one would suppose anything eman vting from him would be 

 delivered, very well indeed the English was admirable, and the style 

 not to be found fault with. But there was very considerable play of im- 

 agination, and in this respect the learned counsel on the other side 1 

 a great advantage over me, for I am obliged to stick to hard fact 

 They have followed the practice of the free-swimming fish, and I 

 little trip through history in a most graceful but free-and-easy m; 

 Mr. Dana sets out by stating that the fisheries belonged to the I 

 States, and particularly to the State of Massachusetts, because, say 

 he, "they were won by the 'bow and spear' of Massachusett 

 never had the pleasure of visiting any of the museums of 

 other cities of New England where those bows and spears 

 ably, hung up ; but if those bows of that olden time were anytL 



