189 



of that nation, from the incrcascil ailvnntn^es conferred on tliem, cuii now supply 

 their own markets. The assumption, therefore, that the Treaty has opened up to 

 Newfonndland a free iiiari<et with ^O.OOO.OOO of pc«ph>, consumers of its profhice, is 

 utterly imteiial)le, this heiiip; in reality hut a harrcn right, as the people of the United 

 States are noL to any marked extent, as compared with tiiose of Oreat Britain, the 

 Mediterranean, West Indies, or Mra/.il, consumers of Ncwfounrliand dry codfish. 

 Only in years of ureat scarcity in the United Slates' markets is Newloundland hard 

 <'nrcd lisli called for to supply thedeliciency. I laving; shown how small a percentage of 

 the annual exports of Newfoundland liiids its way to the markets of the United States, 

 it is plain that the remission of thitics thereon, trivial in amount as they will he 

 shown to be, cannot for a moment he considered .as any adctpiate sct-olf to the 

 extensive fishinj;- privilej^es ceded to the United States by the Colony of New- 

 foundland. 



.As r('f;ar<ls the herrinjj; lishery on the Coast of Newfoundland, it is availed of to 

 a considcrai)le extent by the United States' llsliermen, and evidence will be adduced 

 of larfje exportations i)y them in .Vmcrican vessels, particularly from Fortune Uay 

 and the neij;i)l!onrli(;o(l. both to Kuropean and their own markets. 



The presence of United States" iisliermen upon the coast of NcwIoiMidland, so 

 far from beiuiran advantaf^e, as isa.ssunicd in the Answer, operates most prejiidieally 

 to NewfoiMidiand lishermen. Hait is not thrown overlioard to attr.ict the fish, as 

 asserted, but the l.'nited States' Haidx fishinj; vessels, visitinjj; the coast in such large 

 numbers as they do, lor the purpose of obtaining bait, sweep the C(>\es, creeks, and 

 inlets, thereby diminishing the supply of bait for local catch, and scaring it from 

 the grounds where it Mould otherwi.se be an attraction to the cod. 



No incidental henelits have heretofore accrued to the people of Newfoundland 

 from trallic with United States' lishermen under the operation of anv Treaty. Since 

 the abrogation of the Reciprocity Treaty, it is true, as stated in the Answer, that 

 large numbers of United Mates' mackercd fishing vessels have been diverted from 

 that fishcrv to the Hank lishery of N(!wfoundland, and hence the presence at this 

 time of a larg(! lleet «)f United Statics' cod-lisliing vessels upon tiie coast of that 

 Island. 



It has been stated in the Case that no Newfoundland fishermen ever visit the 

 coast of the United States for lisiiiiig purposes, and it is now asserted that, even 

 though tiie lisheiies there may be valuable to the United States, tluy .arc utterly 

 valueless to Newroiindland, not Iroin lack of enterpri..e on tiie part of Newfouncl- 

 landcrs, as aiiegeii, but because tliev have a teeming fishery at tlieir own door, and 

 coiilti not advant.igcoiisly rcKort to localities so remote. The contrary, however, is 

 the case with the United States, whose fishermen arc compelled to seek foreign 

 fishing grounds. 



The .isscrtion that the United States' cod lishery has declined in amount and 

 value, if this be sustained, can hardly be admitted as an argument against the 

 claim for compen.sation. but it ni.iy very fairly, and with force, be ccmtended that, 

 in view of the material i.nd umpiestionable benefits conferred upon the United 

 States by tlie Washington Treaty, and the free exercise of those privileges, the 

 falling oif would have been much more coiisiderai)le had the Treaty not existed. 



The allegation, on the part of tiie United .States, " tii.it they desire to 

 secure the privilege of using our fisheries, not for their commercial or intrinsic value, 

 but for the purpose of removing a source of irritation," is not maintainable, for, 

 while the Treaty of Washington oiiviates the necessity of a continuance of that 

 vigilance in the protection of British rights witiiin territcn'ial waters of the 

 Island, bv throwing open all its preserves to tiie free use of the citizens of the United 

 Stales, it must be remembereil tiiat sueli necessary protection was not the 

 eonsecpience of any right on llie pari of the United States, but tiie immediate result 

 of a svstem of eneroaehment by the tishermen of tiiat country in Mritisii waters iioi 

 in accordance with the ob.servaiice of international rights — for, notuiliistanding the 

 Convention of IHIH, they have eoiitiiiiially attempted to ])arti(ipale in |)rivileges 

 exclusively belonging to the sui)ject> of Her Hritannie .Majesty, tiiiis (•.iiisin,"; much 

 annoyance and vexation between the two iialioiis, and forcing, as it were, the |)reseiil 

 arrangement, to avoiil diliieulties iieiwecn two |)eo|)les whose mercantile, as well 

 as social and hereditary connections, should be characterized by respect lor mutual 

 rights. 



