I7'J 



l)ccn UHcd in tho Treaty, there would lie an cixl of the argument. M' that had been 

 the intention of the lligli Commissioners, tliev would have gone on in this Treaty to 

 state in Article XVII I :- 



I'liiii 



It i» ili,'lV('il liy llu' llij,'li ('tillUiiclilli,' l'illiii'> lliill, ill ililililiiili lo the lilicriy si'illlvik Ici tin: 

 Stiitrs' lisln'iiiiuli liv tlic <'ciii\ciitii)ii butwcL'ii Ciiviit Uiiliiiii ami llic I iiitfii Slates, si^licil iit 



l.i'iiiliiM nil ill,, liiith iliiv iirdctolMT, I81X, of takiiij,', cuiiii^, ami drying,' lisli on rfitiiiii I'uaatn <if llie 

 r.riti-li .Viiitli Aiiiciicnii ('iiioiiii's ihcrcili tictiiicd, tlic iiiliiiliilautM of till' fiiiti'd t«tatu.i shall liavo, ill 

 loiiiiiioii wjtli the Niibjfiis of rii'i- l!ritiiiiniu MaJi-'Mty, till! liljfity l(ir tho tiini ol' yuurs meiitioiietl in 

 Arliiii' XXXIII of this Tivuty, to tiiko HhIi oI' iivery kind, oxcfjit slii'11-fi.sli, on the .scu-consis mid 

 ■lioifs, iinil ill tin- hays, Imilioins, mid creeks ol' tliu Trovinciw of QuehL'c, Nova Scotia, imd Xi'W 

 Ihuii.swick, and the Cohaiy of I'riiki' Kdwaid Island, iiiul of tho suvi-ial islands thereunto adjaoont, 

 nillioiil hciiiif li'Ntiicti'd to any distanec fioni the sliciie, with )U'nni.ssion to land iiiioii tho said coiusls 

 and shoics and islands, mid also n|tnn tlii' Mii^'dalfii Islands, for llic piu|)osc of iliyiii|,' ihcir nets and 

 riii'iii',' lliL'ir lisli, mid/ii/' im uI/ut jinr/m-'i' ii'ltnlurr," 



But these worils were not used. 



Now these are tiic words wliich the learned Agent of tin United Slates, and 

 the learned eounscl w ho are associated with him, seek, in my judgment, to interpolate 

 into this Treaty. The f'ramers of the Convention of 1818. were very cautious as to 

 its wording; the framers of the Tn^ity of >\'asliiiigton had that Convention before 

 them, and it must, therefore, I think, be fairly assumed that if it had been the 

 intention of either of the High Contracting Parties, in this instance, that the 

 Americans shotdd simply have the bare rights named in the Treaty, and nothing 

 else, they uoidd have followed the example set before them bv the Convention 

 of 1S18, and used these strong negative words," and fornoother juirpose whatever." 

 1 say that this argument is a fair and just one, of course its weight is to bedetermined 

 by this tribinial. 1 am by no means |)utling it forward as a conclusive argument, 

 but still the fact that they did not tlo so is oi great weight in my mind, though to 

 what extent its weight will att'ect the decision of this tribunal is not for me to 

 say, but it docs appear to me to be a very strong argument indeed. Had it been 

 intended to restrict the United States' fishermen, and, to use the language of 

 Mr. Foster, confine them merely to wiiat was mentioned in the bond, the High 

 Commissioners vvoulil have added "and for no other purpose whatever;" and 

 therefore their leaving that language out is open to the construction that the 

 Americans were entitled to all the incidental advantages which that Treaty would 

 necessarily be understood to confer. 



Is it not a rather extraordinary atgument on the part of the United States that 

 litis privilege of theirs related only to their right of coming in and fishing on equal 

 terms with our citizens, and to landing and to drying their nets and curing their 

 lisli_, and that the moment they had dried tlieir nets and cured their (ish, they were 

 forthwith to take to their boats and go back to their vessels; and that by landing for 

 aiw other pur])ose whatever they are clearly liable for infraction of the provisions 

 <)!' litis Treaty? It is certainly a curious view which Mr. Foster presents, with 

 regard to their mode of bartering along the coast, when he intimates that they land 

 nierelv to exchange a gallon or two of kerosene oil or a barrel of flour for fish, and 

 in effect declares — for this is the result o( his argument — that for so doing the 

 Americans are liable to punishment. 



Mr. Foster. — I said tiiat they could be excluded by statute. 



Mr. Thomson. — I will show you, before 1 am Ihrougit, that tiiese American fisher- 

 men can by no possibility whatever come into our waters without incurring tlieri.sk 

 of loifeiture, if .Mr. Foster's reading of this Treaty be accepted as correct. This 

 would be the result of iiis argument: if you confitie them to the very terms of the 

 bond, to use the language of Mi . Foster, then it is clear that if they laud for the 

 purpose of giving a barrel of Hour in exchange for fish, or of purchasing fisii, at 

 that moment their vessels are liai)U' to forfeiture. This is a strange construction to 

 piit upon the Treaty, and these ate the stratige results which will necessarily follow 

 if this tribunal adopt the view presented by the American Agent. 



Ihit there is another matter to 1k> considerod. and it is this: In 1851 the 

 Heeiprocity Treaty was |)assed, and under that Treaty the Americans came in to 

 lisii on our coasts generally. They exeiciscd the same rights as they do now, and 

 no person then ever complained ol tiiem for buying bait under the terms of that 

 Treaty, though it did not in express tonus authorize their purchase of bait, or their 

 getting su|)plics of any kind on our shores; still they did so. By a kind of 

 common consensus of opinion, it was understood that they had a right to do so, 

 and VM person complained of it. .Vnd in view of the course which then was pur- 

 sued, this Treaty was framed. Mr. Foster has put this case : Suppose that, when 



