184 



f 



themselves. On the other hand, if the flshermen upon the coast keep large supplies 

 of bait, for the purpose of selling to such persons as come along, then under the 

 construction of the Treaty contended for by the learned Agent of the United States' 

 Government, whenever bait is purchased in that way, that is a purpose for which it 

 is unlawful to enter our ports under the Treaty of 1818, and the act works a 

 forfeiture of the vessel and cargo. That is a startling proposition. 



In reference to bait tlierc is another consideration I throw out. I do not know 

 whether it will be dissented from or not by the learned counsel on the other side, 

 but this Treaty does give them this power, that they shall, in common with the 

 subjects of Her Britannic Majesty, have the liberty, for the term of, &c., to take 

 fish, Afay not buying lish be a takmg offish within the meaning of the Treaty ? 



It (lc)cs not say to catch ftuh. The words are not '' to fish," but "to take tish." 

 It simply uses the word " take." The term is a wide one, and I am not by any 

 means prepared to say that by a strict legal construction these people, finding the 

 fish cauglit here, have not a right to take it from the fishermen ; 1 say that is 

 possibly a fair construction of the Treafy. In that case they do "take fis!i," and 

 that is all. The contention on the other side, 1 suppose, will be to narrow that 

 word " take " down to mean the actual takini^ of fish by the citizens of the United 

 States from the water, by means of nets and otiier appliances. If that be the con- 

 struction, tlien it follows, as a necessary conseciuence, that in taking bait from our 

 fishermen they infringe the Treaty of 1818. I wish to make myself distinctly 

 undersiood on that point. By the Convention of 1818, the American fishermen 

 could not enter our harbours at all except for the three purposes of obtaining 

 shelter, to get wood and water, and to make repairs in case of necessity. Entrance 

 for anv otiier purpose was made illcg.d. Any privileges which they had under that 

 Convention romaiiicd. Any restrictions that they laboured under after that Con- 

 vention still remained, except in so far as tiiey have lieen removed by the Wash- 

 ington Treaty, and if the construction be true, as contended lor by the learned 

 Agent of the United States' (jovernment, then the restriction as to landing for the 

 purposes I h;ive mentioned .ue not removed. The purchasing of bait and ice, and 

 the transshipping of cargoes, are matters entirely outside of the Treaty, and unpro- 

 vided for. Under tlie Treaty of 1818, vessels entering for any other purposes than 

 the three provided for in that Treaty can be taken. As was put forward in the 

 American Answer, any law can be passed. An inhospitable law, they will say, by 

 which, the moment they do any of those acts, they will become liable to forfeiture. 



I do not presume that the remarks of the Agent ot the United States, in which 

 he speaks of instructions possibly coming from his Government, or from the Govern- 

 ment of Great Britain, sliould he taken into consideration, or that they can properly 

 be used as arguments to be addressed to this tribunal, because, as the learned 

 Afjent very projierly sa\s, the authority of this tribunal is contained in the Treaty. 

 If the Treaty gives you authority, you have sworn to decide this matter according 

 to the verv right of the matter, and I presume you will not be governed bv any 

 directions fiom cither (lovernment. Nothing ol that sort can be made use of as an 

 argument, and you will determine the matter conscientiously, 1 have no (l()ul)t, upon 

 the terms of tlie Treaty itself. Now ller Majesty's Government does not object to 

 your deciding, in so many words, that these things are not subjects of compensation, 

 If that be the judgment of the Court. I have advanced very feebly the views which 

 I think ought to govern your decision u|)on the point, namely, that these are 

 incidental privileges which may fairly be constructed, in view of the wav in which 

 this Treaty is framed, and as inseparable from the right given to the Americans 

 under the Treaty of NVashington. But 1 confess that 1 shall not be at all dissatis- 

 fied should this tril)unal decide otherwise. If it be the desire of the American 

 Government that this tribunal shall keep within the very letter, and disregard 

 what I have ari^ued is the spirit of the Treaty, and determine just merely the value 

 of the fisheries themselves, and of landing on the shores to dry nets, — very well, — 1 

 have no objection, and we will accept such a decision. But Her Majesty's Govern- 

 ment wish it to be distinctly understood, that that is not th(- view they have held, or 

 wish to be compelled to hold of this Treaty. If, however, pressed as you are to 

 determine the question in this way by the Government of the United States, and in 

 view of tlie declaration you have made to determine it according to the very right 

 of the matter, you can conscientiously arrive at the conclusion for which they ask, 

 we shall not regret it at all. 



Mr. Doutrc. — I would desire to add to what has been so well said by my learned 

 friend that the interpretation which Her I^Iajcsty'8 Government has put upon 



