173 



comity and commercial freedom which exist between all civilized countries. The 

 effect of these provisions, to employ an illustration, is this: If the Government of 

 Newfoundland chooses to prohibit its own people from exporting fish for bait, in 

 which export, it is testilicd, they carry on a trade of 40,000^. or 50,000;. annually 

 with St. Pierre, it can also, by the same law, prohibit United States' citizens froiii 

 carrying away such ai tides, but not otherwise. As I understand the effect of this 

 commercial clause, whatever may be exported from the British Provinces by any- 

 body — by tiieir own citizens, by Frenchmen, or by citizens of other nations at peace 

 with them, may also be exported by citizens of the United States on tiie same 

 terms, as to export duty, that apply to the rest of the world. If, then, Newfoundland 

 sees (it to conclude that the sale of bait fish— caplin, or Iiorring, or squid, and ice, 

 is injurious to its interests, and therefore forbid its export altogether, that prohibi- 

 tion may extend to the citizens of the United States; but the citizens of the United 

 States have there the same privileges with the rest of the world ; they cannot 

 be excluded from the right to buy and take bait out of the harbours of New- 

 foundland, unless the rest of the world is also excluded. However, this is of remote 

 consequence, and perhaps of no consequence, to the subject under discussion. 



The material thing is this: under the Treaty of Washington we cannot pre- 

 vent such legislation. The Treaty of Washington confers upon us no right 

 whatever to buy anything in Her Majesty's dominions. TJie Treaty of Washington 

 is a Treaty relating to fishing, and to nothing else. I am aware of the ground 

 taken in the reply filed by the IJritish Agent, "it is this : — 



" Pievious to tliu (liiti^ "I' till! Ti'u'.Uy nl' \\'a'^liiiigtoii, Aiuuricnn fishermen were, by tlio 1st Article 

 nf tlie Convention of 1S18, iidinitted to enter tlie. line's unci Imrlionra of His Uritannie Miijesty's dominions 

 in America for the }inr[iose I'l slielter anil of purcliiisiiig wood, and of obtaining water, and /or nn ntlier 

 purprmc idicikvcr. 



" J'>y the terms of An irk XVI II of the Treaty of Washington United States' fishermen were 

 granted ' permission to land ii])nu the said eoasts and shores and islands, and also upon the Magdalen 

 Islands, for tlie purpose of drying their r.els and curing their fish.' 



" The words, 'for no ntlit-r purpose irluilcrei;' are studiously onutted by the franiers of the last- 

 named Tn'aty, and the jirivilege in aininwn with the subjects of Her Hritannie Majesty, to take fish 

 and to land for fishing ])urposes, elearly inciudes the liberty to purchase bait and supplies, transshi 

 eargoes, &,(:, for which Her Majesty's Government contend it has a right to claim compensation.'' 



Well, as the quotation stands, to my mind it would be a non nequitur, but 

 when you turn to the 1st Article of the Convention of 1818, you find that under 

 it the conclusion quoted is a renunciation accompanied by two provisos: — 



"And the United States hereby venmince for ever any liberty heretofore enjoyed or claimed by tli 

 inhabitants thereof, to lake, dry, or cure lisli on or within three marine miles of any of the coasts 

 bays, creeks, or harbours of Hi.-- Britannic .Majesty's dominions in America, not included in the above- 

 mentioned limits." 



This was a lenuiKiulion of the right to fish inshore, and it is followed by this 

 further proviso : — 



" Provided, however, that the American fishermen shall be admitted to enter such bays or harbours 

 for the purpose of shelter and of repairing damages therein, of purchasing wood, and of obtaiuing 

 water, and for no other purpose whatever." 



This coupled the renunciation of the inshore fishery with the proviso that there 

 may be resort to Britisii waters for shelter and repairs, and for obtaining wood and 

 water. Then it goes on to say : — 



" " But they shall be under such restrictions as may be necessary to prevent their taking, drying, 

 or rurin>'fish therein, or in any other manner whatever abusing the privileges hereby reserved to them." 



Whenever American fishermen seek IJritish ports for shelter, or go tiiere to 

 repair damages to their vessels, or for wood and water, they sliall be under restric- 

 tions to prevent them from taking or curing fish therein. Now it was to remove 

 those restrictions which prevented'theni from taking, drying, and curing fish, that the 

 language framed in the XVIHth Article of the Treaty of Washington was adopted, 

 which gives the citizens of the United States liberty to take fish, and permission to 

 land upon the said coasts and islands, and also on the Magdalen Islands, for the 

 purpose of drying nets and curing fisli. You will observe that the United States 

 renounced tiie' right to the inshore fisheries in 1818, but these arc regained by the 

 provisions of tiie XVH ith Article of the Treaty of Washington. The United States 

 retain the right of resorting to British ports for shelter, repairs, and purchasing 

 wood and water, subject to such regulations as would prevent their citizens drying 

 [280] , ^ B 



