.iP 



126 



contention is not based upon a proper construction or Articles XXI and XXII. 

 Article XXII expressly directs the CoinmissioncrR, in making their award, to have 

 regard to the privileges accorded by the United States to the subjects of Great 

 Britiuu, iiM these privlleyeti nre staled in Articles XIX and XXI. The right or privi- 

 lege, UH stated in the latter Article, is not the almolute right of one country to 

 export free into the other, but u reciprocal right conferred and to be enjoyed in 

 common. The value of this privilege to Canada is simnly the reciprocal value as 

 stated in the Article itself, and in putting a pecuniary estimate upon it the reciprocal 

 character of the privilege cannot be ignored. 



III. 



The advantages so explicitly set forth in the Case of freedom to transfer cargoes, 

 oiitlit vessels, obtain ice, procure bait, and engage hands, &c., are not denied in the 

 Answer. Nor is it denied that these privileges have been constantly enjoyed 

 by American fislicrinen under the operation of the Treaty of Washington. 

 Neither is tlie contention on the part of Her Majesty's (Joverninent that all these 

 advaiila;;('s are necessary to tiie snccesslnl pursuit of the inshore or outside fisheries 

 attempted to lie controverted. Hut it is alleged in the 3rd section of the Answer 

 ihat tiierc are Statutes in force, or 'vhieii may be called into force, to prevent the 

 enjoyment i>v Americnn lisliermen of these indispensable jirivileges. 



It is presumed that by tiiese " former inhospitable Statutes," as they arc termed 

 1)V the Ignited States, are meant the followiuj;, viz. : — 



1. The Imperial Act .')!• Geo. Ill, cap. :\H. 



2. Tile Acts of the Parliament of Canada, 31 Vict., cap. Gl, passed 1868: 

 3;< Vict., cap. 1.% passed 1S70; and 34 Vict., cap. 33, passed 1871. 



3. The Act of Parliament of Prince Kdward Island, 6 Vict., cap. 14, passed 

 1843. 



4. The Act of Parliament of New Brunswick, 16 Vict., cap. 69, i)a3sed 

 1853. 



5. The Act of Parliament of Nova Scotia, 27 Vict., cap. 94, passed 1864. 



It is scarcely necessary to mention that these Statutes were passed by the several 

 Parliaments solely to enforce the provisions contained in the Convention of 1816, 

 and they are entirely suspended for the period during which Great Britain has con- 

 ceded the fishery privileges under the Treaty of Washington to the inhabitants of 

 the United States, by the following enactments : — 



1. The Act of the Imperial Parliament, 35 and 36 Vict., cap. 45. 



2. The Act of the Dominion of Canada, 35 Vict., cap. 2, entitled an Act relating 

 to the Treaty of Washington, 1871. 



3. The Act of Parliament of Prince Edward Island, 35 Vict., cap. 2. 

 I'levions to the date of the Treaty of Washington, American lishermen were, 



by the 1st Article of the Convention of 1818, admitted to enter the bays and harbours 

 of His Britannic Majesty's dominions in America for the purpose of shelter, and of 

 purchasing wood, and of obtaining water, and "for no other purpose whatever." 



By the terms of Article XVHI of the Treaty of Washington, United States' 

 fishermen were granted "permission to land upon the said coasts and shores and 

 islands, and also upon the Magdalen Islands, for the purpose of drying their nets 

 and curing iheir fish." 



The words "for no other purpose 7rhnlever' are studiously omitted by the 

 framers of the last-named Treaty, and ihe privilege in common with the subjects of 

 Her Britannic Majesty to take iish and to land for fishing purposes, clearly includes 

 the lil)crtv to purchase bait and supplies, tranship cargoes, &c., for which Her 

 Majesty's Government contend it has a right to claim compensation. 



It is clear that these privileges were not enjoyed under the Convention of 1818, 

 and it is ecjually evident that they are enjoyed under the Treaty of Washington. 



IV. 



In section 3 of the Answer it is stated that the fishing pursuits of American 

 llsiiernicn in British tertitorial waters are limited to the mackerel and herring 

 fisheries ; and that the halil)nt and cod fisheries, including the sub-varieties of hake, 

 haddock, ewsk, and pollock, belong *• exclusively " to the open sea. This statement 

 is altogether erroneous, as evidence will fully establisli. It will further be j)roved, 

 not only that United States* citizens actually fish within British waters for the 

 various kinds of fishes and baits named in the Case, but also that the deep-sea 



