186 



Government would do in case of .an adverse decision on tlvc point under discussion, 

 an explanation has followed. The words, as we took thcin, would certainly form an 

 unjustifiable mode of argument. 



Treaties between the United States and (ireat Britain have been referred to — 

 the old Treaties — and 1 have just examined the passages cited. But i understood 

 the learned counsel to admit that the argument relative to these was too remote or 

 of no consequence in relation to this discussion. {Mr. Trescot. — That is correct.) So 

 then I ma\ pass over my notes on that subject. 



Mr. Foster, representing tiie United States before this tribunal, says that a 

 formal protest against the claim of Her JNlajesty's Government for these incidental 

 advantages — the purchase of bait and supplies, transshipment, and traffic — for 

 which we arc here claiming compensation under the Treaty of Washington, is to be 

 found in the Answer of the United States. He calls it a protest. 1 do find it in the 

 Answer, but 1 find something more. 1 think tin's iiighly important. Of course this 

 Answer on behalf of a great nation is carefully prepared to express the views of the 

 United States. We all weigh well — we have never ceased to weigh well these 

 words — and we have within the prescribed time, many weeks ago, prepared and 

 filed our Reply. These arc the words to which the Agent and counsel of the 

 United States refer : — 



" SuHicc it now to be observed, that the claim of Great Britain to be compen- 

 sated for allowing United States' fishermen to buy bait, and other supplies, of British 

 subjects finds no semblance of foundation in the Treaty, by which no right of traffic 

 is conceded." 



The Answer does not stop there. It goes further: — 



"The United States arc not aware that the former inhospitable Statutes have 

 ever been repealed." 



Noithor docs it stop here, but continues : — 



"Their cnl'orcempnt may be renewed at any moment." 



Here are throe distinct grounds taken by the United States, in their formal 

 Answer to the Case presented by Great Britain — and the claim for tiie right of bait, 

 supplies, and transshipment, &c. First: there is no right to the enjoyment of these 

 privileges secured by the Treaty. Secondly : there are Statutes unre|ieale(!, by w Inch 

 it is rendered illegal to exercise these fishing privileges. Thirdly : such Statutes 

 may be enforced. 



Therefore we understand the contention of the United States to be, not only 

 that this claim for iiieidental advantages^ — the incidents following necessarilv the 

 rigiit given in express terms by the Treaty to take fish — not only do the United 

 States say there is no semblance of authority for the tribunal to c:;nsider these 

 things in awarding compensation, but tliat in jioint of fact these acts on the part of 

 tlie I'niied States' fishermen have ijccn, and are now, illegally exercised on our 

 shores. In dealing with that part of the United States' Answer, whicii I have read, 

 this is the language used in the Reply, printed and filed on behalf of Her Majesty's 

 Government : — 



'• 'i'he arlvantages so explicitly set forth in the Case, of freedom to transshij) 

 cargors, outfit vessels, obtain ice, procure bait, and engage hands, See., are not 

 denied in the Answer. Nor is it denied that tiiesc privileges iiave been constantly 

 enjoyed i)y .\merican fisiiermen, under tlio operation of the Treaty of Washington. 

 Neither is the contention on tiie |)art of Her .Maj(!sty's riovernment, tiiat ;ill these 

 advantages arc necessary to the successful pursuit of the inshoi'e or outside fisheries, 

 attempted to be controverted, lint it is alleged, in the 'Avd ?ection of the Answer, 

 that there arc Statutes in force, or whicli may be c;\lled into foree, to j)revent the 

 enjoyment l)v American lishermen o'' 'lese indispensable privileges." 



Here, in the case prepared ;..■.• filed and presented before this tribunal on 

 behalf of Her Majesty, it is alleged tiiat these incidents are ai)solutely essential to 

 the successful prosecution of tiic fishery, and that they are enjoyed under, and by 

 virtue of the acceptance of the Treaty of Washington. Here in the 3rd Section of 

 the Answer |)rosented before this Commission to become matter of record and 

 history, it is alleged that there arc Statutes now in existence, or that may be called 

 into force, to j)reeliide the enjoyment i)y the fishermen of tiie United States of tliese 

 necessivry incidental advantages. Substantially that is the oidy ground taken in 

 the Answer, and I do not hesitate for a moment to say that, provicfing it is correct, 

 it is a reasonable answer. If Great Britain may, after the award of this tribunal 

 shall have been delivered — if the Government of (ireat Britain or Canada may 

 afterwards call into force those Statutes, w hich we contend arc at present suspende , 





