186 



the Washington Treaty, has received the consecration of tiie whole time that the 

 Reciprocity Treaty was in operation, by the course of dealing between the two 

 Governments witii reference to that Treaty. The Reciprocity Treaty was in exactly 

 the same terms as the Washington Treaty, and under it the Americans have been 

 admitted to purchase bait, transship their cargoes, and do all those things men- 

 tioned in the motion. I think that this interpretation cannot be lightly set aside to 

 arlopt the construction now sought to be put upon the Treaty by our learned friends 

 on the other side. And to show that the several Provinces have not been indifferent 

 to these matters, I would refer the Commission to a Petition sent to the Queen by 

 the Legislature of Newfoundland on the 23rd April, 1853, which is to be found on 

 page 12 of the official correspondence which has been filed on our side: — 



"TO THE QUEHN'.S MOST EXCELLFINT MAJESTY. 



" May it please Yoiir Miijesty : — 



" We, Yi)ur AriiJL'sty's loyiil suiijeets, the Commons of Newfoundland, in (leueral Asseinlily con- 

 vened, bei; leave to ajiiiroiicli Youv Aliijesty with sentiments of unswervin;,' loyalty to Your (Jracious 

 Majesty's ])ei'son and tlu'one, to teiuler to Your Majesty nui' respectful ami sincere acknowledgements 

 for tlio protection afforded liy tlie linjierial Ooverinnent to the tisiieries of this (Jolony and Iial)rador 

 (luring tiie last year, and to ])ray that Your tiraoious Majesty will be pleased to continue tlie same 

 liming tlie ensuing season. 



" May it please Your Majesty :— 



" The illicit trallie in bait carried on between the inhabitants of tlie western part of tliis isla'id 

 andllie French, has ]iroved of serious injury to the tisiieries geuendly, as the su])ply enaliles the Kr.Mich 

 Hankers to eonnuence their voyage early in sining, and thereliy prevent the iish fmni reaciiing our 

 coasts. AYe thc'vibn^ most earni'stly be.seecji Vour Maji'Sty graciously to lie pleased to cause an 

 eliicient war-steamer to be idaced in Ihu'in during wiiitei', so tliat by being early on the c(jast, she may 

 avert tlu; evil of which we so greatly com])lain. 



"ras.sed the House of Assemblv, April L'3rd, 18.";5. 



" (Signed) JOHN KENT, Sjieaker." 



I think that every other Province would have made the same complaint in 

 a different siuipe, but I quote this to show tiiat the Provinces have never been 

 indifferent to the matter of selling bait to the Americans by Canadian subjects. 



This is ai)out all that 1 wish to add to what has been said, except that I do not 

 know if I have well understood Mr. Foster in reierence to a class of argument 

 which he has used. 1 repeat, I am not very certain that 1 have understood him 

 well, that if the construction put by the American side upon thio Article were 

 not admitted, the .American Government might repudiate the award made by the 

 Commission. 



Mr. Fo,ster. — Oh, no. I said that if the award included matters not sul)mitte(l 

 to the tril)iinal, the principles of law would roiuler it void. I did not say wliat my 

 Government would do under any given circumstances, nor am I authorized to 

 do so. 



Mr. Daulrc. — There is no authority to decide as to the legality of the award 

 made by the Commissioners, there is no other right than might. However, if this 

 argument ha.s not been used, I have nothing to add to what lias been said by my 

 learned friend. If it had been, I should have found it necessary to address some 

 observations, which are rendered needless by the fact tiiat 1 have misunderstood mv 

 learned frienil. 



Mr. Wcathvrhe, — Owing to our adherence, until quite recently, to the arrange- 

 ment entered into to argue this morning a preliminary qucsticm, and considering 

 the sudden determination of counsel on beiialf of Her Majesty's Government to 

 enter upon the main question, and considering also that wc are to be followed bv 

 counsel of very great ability, I trust the imperfections of what few suggestions I 

 have to offer may be excused. For my own part, I am much in favour of written 

 argument before this tribunal, whenever liiatis practicable. For example, it seems 

 we quite misunderstood the learned Agent and counsel for the United States, 

 Mr. Foster. Tins may have occurred in other respects. Were written arguments 

 to be submitted, and, after examination, replied to in writing, all that would be 

 avoided. The other side would probably adnut their written argument would have 

 been different from what nas fallen from the lips. 



Mr. Foster. — I hope it would be very mucli better. 



Mr. W'eatherbe. — And yet an advantage of oral discussion was very forcibly 

 stated by Mr. Dana the other day — namely, the privilege of asking at the moment 

 for explanation for obscure and ambiguous expressions; and hence just now, in 

 reply to my friend, Mr. Doutre, in regard to his interpretation — in which I must say 

 I concurred — as to the declaration h\ tiie Agent of the United States, of what his 



