183 



till' rifivinros (if Quolioe, Nova Scotiii, and Xtnv nninswick, and tlio Coldny of Prince Edward's Island, 

 and of the suvcral inlands tlicrt'unti) udjacoiit, withont bcin^' n'stricted to any distance from the 

 shore." 



Can anything; be plainer than this ? Whereas, before tiiis Treaty, Great Britain 

 says to the United States, "' Yoii could only fish around the Magdalen Islands, but 

 not land c)n these Islands." By this Treaty, however, all these restrictions are 

 taken away from you ; and, in addition to that, the restrictions which were imposed 

 preventing you from lishing; wi*^hin three miles of the shores of Nova Scotia, New 

 Brunswick, Quel)cc, and Prince Kdward Island, are removed, and besides the right 

 of fishing- there, you also have the right to land and dry your nets on these coasts. 

 Is not that plain r The Convention of 1818 clearly stands untouched except in so far 

 as it is restricted by the Treatv of 1871. Now, what follows from this, if the Agent 

 of the United Slates is correct in his contention, and 1 presume that my learned 

 friends opposite liave weighed it carefullv ? This follows: — These American 

 tishermen having, then, as 1 have shown, no right to enter our harbours by any 

 Commercial Treaty ; they are governed by the Convention of 1818; their rights are 

 defined by that Convention, and extended by the Agreement and ' 'rcaty of 1871. 

 This being the case, wiiat have they a right to do, if the contention of my learned 

 friend on the other side is correct? They have a rii^ht, and that under this Treaty, 

 to fish within three miles of the shore in common with the inhabitants of these 

 Colonies, and there to take fish of every kind, shell-tish excepted, and to land 

 for the purpose of drying their nets and curing their fish, and nothing more; that is 

 the " l)ond." 



Tiiat is the " bond." savs Mr. Foster. That is all they have a right to do. If 

 it is, then what follows? Then all other privileges save those of taking fish within 

 three miles of the shore, landing on the coast for the purpose of drying nets and 

 curing fish, are governed by the Convention of 1818. And if that is the case then 

 when they do enter for the purpose of purchasing bait, they enter for another 

 purpose than tiiat of obtaining wood and water, securing shelter, &c., and they 

 become liable to forfeiture. If they come in for the purpose of buying ice, they are 

 in the same jiredieament; they have not entered for the |)urpose of buying wood or 

 obtaining shelter, they have come in for the purjuisc of buying ice, which is 

 wholly foreign to the provisions of the Treaty of 1818. They could not, under the 

 Treaty of 18 IS, enter for that purpose, and the position assumed by the learned 

 Agent and counsel for the United States is that that privilege is not conferred by 

 the Treaty of Washington. If so, they haven't got it, and every time they come in 

 for other purposes than those mentioned in the Treaty of 18 IS, they arc liable to 

 forfeiture. The stir|)rise with whieii 1, as counsel, heard that contention will, I 

 have no doid)t, be only exceeded by that of the fishermen of the United States, 

 when they find that that is the construction placed on the Treaty by the Govern- 

 ment of the I'nited Slates, as represented bv their Agent, before this Commission. 

 If this ai'gume::t applies to buying bait and ice, it fortiori, it applies to the i)rivilege 

 that they now enjoy of landing .unl transshi|)|)ing cargoes. Under the plain reailing 

 of the Treaty, there is no doubt about it; and if it does not come within the 

 incidental privileges. I admit tl.at, as a lawvcr, 1 cannot contend lor one nionient 

 that the privilege* of buvii'g bait, or at all events of buying ice, whatever may [)e 

 said al)oul bait, .is to wiiich there may be a particidar construction, to which I will 

 refer presently. I admit frankly that 1 cannot see that the privileges of buying ice, 

 or of transshi|)ping cargoes, are cono'ded, unless they an; to bo considered as 

 necessarily incidental. If it is denied liial tliey are ct)nceded incidentally, then 

 the moment a \essel lands for any of those purposes, a forfeiture is worked 

 immediately. 



There is just this distinction with reference to the taking of bait. It has been 

 shown by numerous witnesses before this tribunal, that these men come in and 

 employ our fisluM'nuMi to get bait for them, and then i)ay the fishermen for doing so. 

 Now I wish to l>e distinctly understood upon this point. 1 submit, without a shadow 

 of doubt— I don't think it will be controverted on the other side — at all evcnrs it 

 will not be successfully controverted, that if those tishermen, having a right to 

 come in and fish, as they undoubtedly have under the Treaty, choose to hire men 

 to catch bait for them, they are catching that bait themselves. There is a legal 

 maxim put in old i.atin. Qui f'acil jwr (ilium fncit jicr se, " What a man tloes by an 

 agent he does by himself." Therefore, in all these instances where it has come out 

 in evidence that they come in and get our fishermen to catch bait for them, and pay 

 them for doing so, in all such cases the act is that of the United States' fishermen 

 [280] 2 C 2 



