187 



i!^ 



and raise the question for the decision of the Court of Vice-Admiralty here in 

 Halifax, or elsewhere, as it has been formerly raised and settled here, and if the 

 decision of such questions must necessarily lead to the conliscation of the vessels 

 attempting to avail themselves of these snp[)Osed privilej^es, then this is certainly a 

 matter of s^rcat concern to the United States, and a matter of great responsibility to 

 those in whose hands her great interests are for the time committed. In this view 

 I do not wonder that this answer is so much insisted on. In this view — if these 

 results are imminent, there is ground for careful deliberation. If these results 

 arc inevitable, this answer, respecting the enforcement of Statutes, is a complete 

 and full answer — and that far the cause is ended, and the Court is closed. 



It is admitted, I suppose, that the fishermen of the United States sail from their 

 own shores, enter tliese waters, and annually, monthly, daily, practically enjoy 

 these advantages since the Treaty of VVashrngton. They never contended ibr a 

 right to enjoy them previously. All the witnesses unite in saying that they liave 

 bcou shipping crews, purchasing and cutting and shir^ping ice, transshipping 

 cargoes of mackerel — that they have been in the full and al)solute enjoyment of 

 every incident necessary to the successful prosecution of the fislieries. But it is 

 now put forward and urged, on the |)art of the Government and nation of these 

 foreign fishermen, that they have enjoyed these privileges witliout the sanction of 

 the Treaty, and in violation of tiie laws of the land, which could lie at any moment 

 enforced against them ; that there was, and is, no semblance of authority to enjoy 

 these rights under the Treaty of Washington ; that they were, and ar<s exorcised in 

 the face of existing Statutes, and at tiie peril of the United States' fishermen, and 

 the risk of loss of tlieir vessels, property, f .... earnings. If you will look at the 

 Treaty — the learned counsel says in elfect — you will find iis Articles do not permit 

 the traiissiiipment of nuickei-el, or the hiring of crews, or obtaining ice and bait ; 

 that we may land and dry lish, but we cannot transship; that we can take fisli 

 out of the water and land them on deck, but we must stop there ; and tiie Treaty 

 in no manner annuls the disabilities under which we laboured, and none of the 

 various things necessary to carry on tlie business of fishing is permitted; that you 

 have Statutes which you have enforced before, and wiiich you can and will enforce 

 again. This, then, is an important inquiry, i quite admit that much. 



It was on consideration of the importance of this question as regarded by the 

 United States, as 1 understand — this is the view of counsel representing Her 

 Majesty's Government — tliat it was considered quite reasonable a discussion should 

 be entered upon, and it was decided not to resist the argument raised by the United 

 States, whose Agent and counsel claim the advantage to be obtained by reducing 

 the compensation in this manner. 



I understantl the learned .\gent and counsel, Mr. Foster, now to say, that if an 

 award should be made including any compensation for these advantages — I |)resume 

 it is meant as well the enjoyment of them in the jiast, as prospectively. Great 

 Britain could not expect to receive paynient for such award — that is, that they 

 would not i)e paid. There is no kind of argument in this, and, for my part, I am at 

 a loss to understand why it should be olfered. 



If Great Britain were obliged to admit that an award contained anytiiing by 

 which it ap|)earcd on its face to he ultra virex, the United States could not be called 

 on for payment. But I submit to the learned Agent, whether he would or ought to 

 declare, in the name of the great nation he represents, tiiat if an award were made, 

 including compensation for the privileges already enjoyed, even although under 

 misappreiiension, the United States would repudiate that. They would hardly, I 

 humi)ly submit, in the face of the world, repudiate payment of such a sum as might 

 be awarded for those privileges of the past, because the danger of confiscation had 

 passed away. And we are safe in believing that, if the United States were assured 

 in any way that no proceedings would ever be taken, but the privileges in question 

 could be secured throughout the continuance of the Treaty to the fishermen of the 

 United States, that nation would promptly pay any sum that might be awarded. 

 Moreover, if this tribunal had the power — if authority had been delegated, and 

 were to be found in the Treaty, to set questions of this kind at rest, and in making- 

 their award of compensation — if the Commissioners could secure these privileges, if 

 not already secure, I think then, also, no objection would be taken to their being 

 considered by the tribunal. But it is because it is contended that the enjoyment 

 of these necessary incidents is insecure — because the power of the tribunal is 

 limited — because the matter will, it is said, be hift in a state of uncertainty here- 

 after — because questions may arise over which the Government may have little 



