129 



fiHlieries proper, wliich arc mimittcdiy niirgiind in the vicinity or Britisli American 

 cnnRts, I'onid not he nirricd on ()roritul)ly, iC, indeed, at nil, hy American fishermen 

 without the |>rivilei;e of rcHortinp to the insiiores \\}V the purpose of proetirins; Imit. 

 nnd without availiner themselves of facilities for preserving the enmc in n fit sinte 

 for effective use, which (he Treaty of Washington nlfonlM. It is admitted on papfe H* 

 of the Answer, that tli«' Iierring thus procured forms " tiic best hait for cod nnd other 

 similar fish," l)ut asserted thnt it is ohtnined chiefly by purchnse, because the Ameri- 

 can fisheruH'n " lind it more economical to buy thnn lo catch it." 



It has been shown that this privilejye of purchasing bnit is derived through the 

 provisions of the Treaty. In some places within the limits now tiirowii open to 

 them, as will be pr(»ved, L'nited States' citizens, since the Washington Treaty, catch 

 bnit for themselves, where formerly they used to buy it. 



Notwithstanding the statement t«) the contrary at page 8 of the Answer, it can 

 be sliown in evidence th:>t the .Vnierican lishornien do land on the British sliores to 

 haul and dry their nets and cure their lish. 



On page !) it is alleged that tlie increased produce of the (isheries ohtained by 

 liriti.si) sulijccis during the |)ast seven years is due to the " benign inlliiences " of 

 the Treaty ol Washington. This Her Niajesty's (Jovernnient distinctly deny, and 

 contend thai it has been tiie result of progress and iniprovemer.t, from increased 

 numbers uf men and mat-rials, fmm improvetl I'neilities, and from greater develop- 

 ment, coincident with the system of protection and cultivation ap[)licd to them. 



The reciprocal concession of fishing privileges in .American waters being abso- 

 lutely valueless, as set forth in the f^ase, cannot be taken into account. 



The Commissioners will readily perceive, on referring to the table appended to 

 the Case — 



1. That the increase of catch by British subjects consists principally of these 

 kinds of fish which are not ad'ected in any way whatever by the remission of tiic 

 United States' Customs duties under the Treaty of Washington, inasmuch as fresh 

 fish was ndmitted free of duty into the United States at the time of the Treaty of 

 Washington, and for some time previously. 



2. That the aggregate annual value of fish caught by the British subjects 

 increased in much greater ratio for the four years preceding the complete operation 

 of the Treaty than for succeeding years. 



3. Thnt the value of the British catch in 1872 — the year before the Treaty took 

 effect as regards Customs duties — amounted to more than double that of 1869, while 

 the value of 18",') was considerably less than that of 187.'5. 



The statement made in the Answer thnt, since the date of the Washington 

 Treaty, the American cod and mackerel fisheries have declined, cannot for a moment 

 he admitted. On the contrary, it is asserted that they have shown a gradual and 

 progressive! increase over the average catch of those years which precedeil the 

 signing of the Treaty. 



The important statement hazarded on page 2(\t that " almost the only fish taken 

 by the Americans within the three-mile limit oil the coasts of the British Provinces 

 are the mackerel, and that of the entire catch of these fish only a very small 

 fractional part is so taken," Her Majesty's Ciovernment feel called upon to deny in 

 the strongest terms. Not only will it be shown that cixifish in limited quantities, 

 and herring in large (|uantities, are so taken, but that by far the larger proportion 

 of the catch of mackerel in British waters is taken within "the threc-mdc limit;" 

 and the right to fish in the entire extent of waters claimed by the United States as 

 "the open ocean free to all " is practically valueless, when not coupled with the 



f»rivilegcs accorded by the Treaty of Washington ; and further that without the 

 iberty of fishing within this limit the entire fishery would have lo be abandoned by 

 the American Heetas useless anrl unremunerative. 



In the language of John^^uincy .\dams, one of the United States' Commissioners 

 at Ghent, in a work published by him so long ago as 1822 — 



"The Nt^wfinindliuul, Nova Scotia, Gulf of St. I.tiwn!nw, mill Ijil)riitlor fisheries nre, in imturo and 

 in considcmtioM liotli «( llicir \a\\w uiul of tiio rifilit U> .sliaiv in tlii'iu, our ti.itii'ry. To liu cut otl' from 

 tilt! ciijoynri'iit of tliat ri^'lit wmild he to tin; )i('o]di! of Ma.'tM.'icliusi'lts similar in kind, and ('(iiii]>anil)li' 

 in dc^'iir, witli an inti'idict to the jiroplc of (J(!oif,'ia or I.duisiana to onllivatii i-olloii or ^:ll;,'iU•. To \n- 

 cut off even from tiiiit ])orlion of it wliicli was within tlic I'Xidn.sivi' Jlrilish jiiiisdiclion, in the striutoal 

 sense, within tlie (!iilf of St. Ijiwii'iici! ami on the enast of Ijihrador, would have lieen like an intiM'diet 

 uiion the [leople of (leoifjia or Louisiana to cultivato with cotton or sujinr three-fourths of those 

 respective St4ite.s." 



• Pago 89 of tliis volume. t •'"gc 93. 



