ia 



•! i' 



pi; 



V ■ 



174 



fish on the shore; and the object of this Article is to add to the inshore fisheries the 

 right to dry nets and euro fish on tlic shore, and this superadded right is limited to 

 parts of the coast where it does not interfere with private property, or the similar 

 rigiits of British fishermen. Now, what argument can be constructed from |)ro- 

 visions like these to infer the creation of an adirmative commercial i)rivilege, or the 

 right to purchase supplies and transship cargoes, I am at a loss to imagine. It 

 seems to me that if 1 were required to maintain that under the right conceded to 

 dry nets and cure fish on unoccupied and unowned shores and coasts, taking care 

 not to interfere with British fishermen, couched in language like tiiat, the United 

 States had obtained a right to buy w hat the policy of the British Government mi^ht 

 forbid to be sold, I should not have one word to say for myself. I cannot conceive 

 how a commercial privilege can be founded upon that language, or how you can 

 construct an argument upon that lan^;uage in support of its existence. But, 

 gentlemen, this is not to be decided by the strict language of tlio Treaty alone. We 

 know very well what the views of Great Britain on sucli subjects arc, and we 

 know what the policy of Her Majesty's Government was just colore this Treaty was 

 entered into. On the 16th February, 1871, Earl Kimberley wu'e to Lord Lisgar as 

 follows ; — 



"Tlio oxuluslon dl' American fishcrmou IVoiii i\,'soitiiir;i.t) (.'lUiadian inirts, cxc '.])t fni' the |piii'|i(isii of 

 slii'lliT, iiiul of VL>|mirini,' iliiiun.t;es theroin, j)iiicliiisiuj,' wood, nml ol' olitaiiiiui,' wiiti r, uii^^lit lu' wiu'ranted 

 liy the litU'i- of ilio 'heaty ol' 1818, and liy llu' tciiiis of the liupciiiil Ail i'.t (leo. III,<'ii|i. o8 ; 

 liul Her Jliijesiy's (ioveinnient leel Itoiind to state, that it seems to tliiiu an extremi' measure, 

 inion>i>teiit \\'\\.\\ the general ]iolicy of tlie l'!ni[iire, and they are disiiosed lo concecU' this )i(iint to the 

 I'nited Stales' Cmvernment, under such re-triiiions as may he necessary to jirevent snaigjihni.', and In 

 j^iiavil a;,'aiusl any substantial invasion of the e\chi.sivc rij^hts of fishing' whieli may he reserved to 

 liritisli suhjects." 



A month later, on the 17th March, 1871, another letter from Karl Kimberley to 

 Lord Lisgar gives to the ('olonial Authorities this admonition : — 



" I think it ri^ht, liowever, to add that the responsilnlity of determininj,' what is the true 

 eonslruclion of a Treaty made liy Her Majesty with any foreij^ii I'ower, must remain with Her 

 Majesty's Ciovenimeut, and that the de;j;ree to which this country wiaih! make itself a party to the 

 strict eiil'orcemenl of Treaty rights may dejiend not only on the literal construction of the Treaty, 

 hut on the moderation and reasonableness with which those rights are asserteil.'' 



In such a spirit, and with these views of commercial policy, the Treaty of 

 Wasiiington was negotiated; and can one believe that it was intended to have a 

 valuation l)y arbitration oi the mutual privileges of international commerce? 

 Gentlemen, suppose that the Cana<lian llepresentative on the Joint High Commis- 

 sion, when the X\ llltli Article was under consideration, had proposed to amend it 

 by adding ii language something liixe tliis : — And the saiti Commission shall further 

 award such f.-ompensation as, in their judgment, the United States ought to pay for its 

 citizens being allowed to buy ice, and herring, squid and caplin, of Canadians and 

 New Ibundlanders, and for the further j)rivilege of being allowed to furnish them 

 with flour and kerosene oil and other articles of merchandize, in exchange for fish 

 and ice, and for the further privilege of being allowed to sell tiiem small codfish ; 

 suppose I say that an amendmciit in these or similar words had been suggested to 

 the members of the High Joint Commission; fancy the air of well-bred surprise 

 with which it would have been rcteiveil by Earl Grey and Professor Bernard and 

 others. Imagine England — free-trade England — which forced commercial inter- 

 course upon China with caiuion, asking for an arbitration to determine on what 

 l)rice England, that lives by selling, will trade with -the inhabitants of other 

 countries. 



I venture to express the belief that the ground which has been taken here is 

 not the ground that will be sustained by the English Government, and that my 

 friend, the British Agent, will receive from Her Majesty's Ministers the same 

 instructions that 1 shall certaiidy receive from the President of the United States, 

 vi/.., that at the time when the Treaty of Washington was negotiated, no one 

 dreamed that such claims as 1 have been referring to would be made, and that 

 neither Government can afford to insist upon, or submit to, anything of the kind, 

 because it is contrary to the policy of the British Empire, and contrary to the 

 sj)irit of civilization, if the language were at all equivocal, these considerations 

 jvotdd be decisive, but with the express limits to your authority hud down, they 

 hardly need to be asserted. 



The ne.\t question is, whether the motion that has been nuuie should be decided 



