m) 



the Joint High CominissioiK'rswcnr sitting, the Uritinh HopiTscnliilivr Imd (iro))! >-,(•(! 

 that the valuu of the ri^itls ol IrunsshipnuMit, an;| of bnyiiii? hait, ami ol' having 

 commercial intercourse with our peopk-, should he taken into consideration by this 

 tribunal ; then, had this licen the case, it woidd have been met by a well-bred 

 BhruK from the Karl of Ripon and ProfesHor Iternard. This may possibly be so ; 

 but 1 can say I think it would have been very strange indeed if our C'onimiasioners 

 had said to the American ('ommissioners : llndcr the Treaty which we |)ro|)ose you 

 Hhall have the right to fish in our waters on equal terms with our (isliernien, and 

 have the right to land and cure your flsh, and the right also to dry your nets on the 

 land, but the moment that you take one step farther, the moment that you buy a 

 pound of ice, and the moment that you presume to buy a single lish for the purpose 

 of bait in our waters, and the moment you attempt to exercise any comniercial 

 privilege whatever, and above all, the moment you (indertako to transuhip one 

 single cargo, that moment y<iur vessel w ill be forfeited, and the cargo as well ; I 

 think that if this had been stated, there wotdd have been something more, perhaps, 

 than a well-bred shrug from the American Commissioners. I think, therefore, it 

 may fairly be contended, in view of the wording of the two Treaties, that these are 

 privileges which it was intended that this Commission should take into consideration, 

 when they came to adjudicate respecting the value of our Kshcries ; and, after all, 

 is not the value of our fisheries to these people enhanced by the way in which they 

 use them, and in which they generally have been using them — by coming into our 

 harbours to purchase bait and ice ? Hecause it takes a long time to catch the bait 

 for themselves, and they save time, and money therefore — time and money being in 

 such case equivalent terms — by buying their bait. And why is this not, to all 

 intents and |)urposos, a privilege under this 'JVt'aty? I fail to see tliat it is not. 

 Why, when it is necessary to i)reserve bait in ice, and, as has i)cen shown by all 

 the witnesses, that the Americans cannot procure bait and ice except on our 

 shores, should this not be considered an incidental right? It appears to me tiiat 

 this view must be taken. The argument put forward on behalf of the United 

 States, demanding a coiitr.try construction, is almost suicidal. Moreover I tiiir)k 

 1 can establish that this latter view is not taken by the Americans on this 

 subject. Un page 4(i7 «)f .Mr. Sabine's Report, the following language is used : 

 "It is argued that if the liberty of landing on the shores of the Magdalen 

 Islands" — your FAcelieney and your Monours will recollect that while the 

 .Americans have the right to fish around the Magdalen Islands, they have no right 

 to land on these shores, though our evidence has shown that, as a rule, they iiave 

 landed on these islands, boili before and since the negotiation of this Treaty, and have 

 dragged their nets on the shore, and fished for bait inthis way. Mr. Sabinestates: — 



" It i.s nrgued timt, ' if tlin lilierty of liindiiiK nii tlir -liiuii «( the Miiijdnlcii [sIhikIs had bei'ii in- 

 tended to be conceded, Hui'h un iniportiintroncessiim woidil hnvi- lu'cii tlic sidijccl of e\]iiVNM stipuliition,' 

 Ac, it may not U; iiniisH to i.onsiiler the .su},'j,'estion. And I ii|ii.v tluil, if ' a deseii|ition of tlie inlmid 

 extentof tlie shore over wliieh ' we may use nets and seines in I'alidiiiii; tlie heiiini; is nec(!s.sary, it is 

 equally necessary to define our ri^'hts of (hyinj,' and eurin,' ihe cod elscwlieie, and as stipulated in the 

 Convention. Hotii are s/mn riirhts, and hotii are left villiuiu conihtioii or limitation as to tlie i|uantity 

 of beach and upland thai ni.iy tie ai)i)ro])riatod by oar lisiimiien. It Mas proclaimed in the llon-c of 

 Common-:, more than two ciMilurir'-. aL;o, bv Coke—that ;,'ianl of the law — that ' I'UKi: hisilINi; ' included 

 ' AI.I, ns iNCiliKNTs.' The thonL,'ht may be n.sefnl to the '.niccn's Advocate and fler .Majesty '.s 

 Attorney-' 'Biieral, when mxt thc\ iransniil an opinion acros-.- die Atlantic which is to alfeet tlieir own 

 reputation, and the reputation of their country. 'Pile rij.'hl to lake tisli ■ m tlie shores of the .Miijjiialen 

 I.slands,' without conditions annexed to the ■,'rinit, whatevei these profoundly ignoniiil ailvi,-;ers of the 

 Crown of Klifiland may say to the contrary, includes, by ics very nature and nece^sity, all the 

 ' incidents ' of a ' free lishery,' and all the ]irivile!,'es in \ise by and common anion;,' tishermeii, anil all the 

 facilities and neeommodations, on the land and on the sea, which conduce to the safety of the men 

 employed in the tishery, and to an economical and adviniiageous prosecution of it." 



Now, it may be said that this is not the opinion of a person entitled to weight; 

 but, at all events, it had suflicient weight to induce the Legislature ol the United 

 States to republish this R(;port in a volume, which contains the sessional papers of 

 the House of Representatives of the forty-second Congress, second session. The 

 Legislature of the Unitetl States, therefore, thought it proper and of sufficient im- 

 portance to publisli it; and I believe ti\at the Report was published more than 

 once. At all events, it is from their ovvn State Papers that I (|uote it. The 

 language employed is very forcible. It is very often the case, when our friends across 

 the border are arguing matters that nearly or closely affect them, they couch 

 their arguments in stronu, and uncomplimentary language to those who differ 

 from them; and so, of course, when Mr. Sabine writes, " that it would be well for 



