181 



those profoundly ignorant Law Officers to govern themselves in future ns to their 

 opinions," &,c., we cnn understand that lauguagc ns being used, perha|>8, in the 

 American sense of the term, and certainly not in the ofTensivc sense in which such 

 words would bo construed here or in Kngland. 



Mr. Foster. — It is used in the Pickwickian sense. 



Mr. Tlinm.son. — I was about to soy so. I trust tiiat it was employed in that 

 sense. Hero \n a construction which the American nation can put forward, as the 

 true construction of this Treaty, for the purpose of olituining tne right to land on 

 the Magdalen Islands, and the moment the shoe pinches on the other side, they want 

 to have t!ic strict letter of the law and nothing else; they then do not wish to go a 

 single step beyond that, though the moment wiien it becomes necessary to extend 

 their rights, they want to obtain a liberal construction of its terms. I do not 

 think myself that the United States can always claim to come before any tribunal 

 and say that they have — where it suits their purpose to do so-^heen very liberal in 

 their construction of Treaties. In regard to this very Treaty itself, your Kxccl- 

 lency and your Honours are aware, that it certainly was an extraordinary construc- 

 tion on the part of the United States' Government, when a duty was by them placed 

 on the tin packages in which free fish entered into the United States. I wish to 

 show what necessarily would be the result if the United States' contention in this 

 matter were right; but, before doing so, it may be jjroper forme to notice an argu- 

 ment which Mr. Koster drew from the Convention of 1815, to which he called your 

 attention, and part of which he read. He says that inasmuch as the Convention 

 referred to previous privileges, which the United States had abandoned as against 

 Great Britain, an«l as those privileges must have been granted by the Treaty of 

 1794, that, therefore, the war of 1812 did not abrogate tiiose privileges, and that 

 this was a distinct admission on the part of Great Britain tiuit the Treaty men- 

 tioned was not al)rogated, and that the privilege conferred by that Treaty had been 

 in no way interfered with. I altogether deny tlie conclusion he thus draws; but it 

 is not now necessary for the pur|)ose of my argument to answer that statement, 

 farther than to say that the mention of those privileges had reference to ordinary 

 commercial relations existing between the traders of the two nations. These 

 traders are a well-known class of persons. They are merchants and ship-owners, 

 who send their ships to sea. These vessels have registers, clearances, manifests, 

 &c., for the purpose of showing the nationality of their vessels ; and these papers 

 also show the voyage which the vessels have undertaken to prosecute, what they 

 have on board, and everything al)out them. If they are on a trading voyage, this 

 states their object. Hut fishing vessels have no such papers except registers. They 

 come without clearances, and, if I understand the question at all, they are a 

 separate and distinct class of vessels, and as a separate and distinct class they have 

 always been treated by both nations. The 1st section of the Convention of 1818 

 had reference to ordinary traders, and to them solely. Let it be admitted, for the 

 sake of argument, lliat Mr. Foster is right in his construction of the effect of the 

 language used in the Convention of 181.') to vvhicii he refers, though this I, in fact, 

 utterly tleny ; but still, admitting tliat the words to whicli he has directed attention, 

 in fact declared that the war of 1812 had no practical effect whatever upon the 

 Treaty of 1794; supposing that this were so, what do we find? We find that in 

 1818 a distinct and separate Treaty is framed referring to this very class, respecting 

 whose rights your Kxcellency and your Honours are now sitting in judgment — the 

 fishermen engaged in the prosecution of the fisheries of the United States. The 

 Convention of 1818 v as m.ide altogether with reference to them; was it not? What 

 does the 1st section of that Convention of 1818 say ? It is this : — 



" Art. I. Wlicru.os tlifluroiices liiivo arisiui rospoctiiij; tlie liburty cliiimed by tlio United States 

 for the iuliabiUitits tlicruDt', to tiiko, dry, and cure tisli ou cuitalii coasts, bays, liarljours, and creeks of 

 His Hritanuic Majesty's dominions in America, it is ai^'reed between the IIi},'U Contracting Parties, 

 tliat tlie inliabitants of the said United States afiall have for vver, in common witli the subjects of His 

 Britannic Majesty, the liberty to take fisli of every kind on that ]>art of tlie southern coast of New- 

 foundland wliich extends from Capo Hay to ths llameau Islands, on tlie western and northern const 

 of Newfoundlaiuf, from said Capo Kay to the Quirpon Islands, on the shores of the JIagdalen Islands, 

 and also on the coasts, bays, harbours, and creeks from Mount .loly, on the southern coast of 

 Labrador, to and throuj,'h the Straits of lielleisle, and thence northwardly indelinitoly along tlio coast, 

 without prejudice, however, to any of the exclusive rights of the Hudson's Bay Company. And that 

 the American fishermen shall also have liberty, for ever, to dry and cure fish in any of the unsettled 

 bays, harbours, and creeks of the southern part of the coiusl of Newfoundland liereabove described, and 

 of the coast of Labrador ; but so soon as the same or any portion thereof sliall b,> settled, it shall not 

 be lawful for the said fishermen to dry or cure fish at such portion so settled, without previoiis agive- 



[2801 



2 (J 



