188 



control —because the international relations of the future are unforeseen, and cannot 

 be anticipated, that the claim to compensation is resisted. This seems to me to be 

 the condition of the question, and this I gather, and have observed in the Answer 

 from tlie first, is the manner in which the subject has been regarded by the Agent 

 representing the United States. And so regarding it, an anxiety to j)"revent com- 

 pensation incommensurate with the privileges understood to be settled and secure, 

 beyond all question, seems perfectly reasonable. 



But 1 thini< there are objections to attacking the claim set up here on behalf of 

 Her Majesty's Government in detail. A reason, stated by the learned Agent of the 

 United States, for asking for the decision of this question now, is, that the matter 

 should become a record of the Commission ; and if the Commissioners come to the 

 conclusion that the right to transshij) and obtain ice, and bait, and men, and 

 supplies for the fishery, are necessary incidents to the right to " take fish," and arise, 

 therefore, by necessary implication, i'lom the very terms of the Treaty, and that they 

 can be properly considered in making u|> the award, it should be known and read 

 hereafter. And 1 can understand, if an award were to be paid out of the United 

 States' Treasury, and in that sum was included an amount for these already 

 specified rights, and if any doubts existed as to whether they were secured to the 

 fishermen, those doubts should be set at rest upon such payment. It will, however, 

 hardly be contended that this tribunal should be asked to give the grounds. It 

 would be utterly impossible to give such grounds on each branch of the case. 

 Take the argument of tiie counsel in relation to lighthouses. The Representative 

 of the United States, it apj.ears, now tliinks that the evidence in regard to light- 

 houses was irrelevant; that is to say, if we had no lighthouses at all, our fisheries 

 would be just as valuable as they are now, and that if we had ten times as many 

 as we have, no compensation should be allowcil, in consequence of the efficiency of 

 that service. I don't know how it may strike others, but it seems to me just as 

 reasonable — with the exception already mentioned, about which I cannot conceive 

 any cause of anxiety — that a motion should be made to obtain a decision in 

 advance, for the information of the United States, as to whether that nation was, 

 in paying for the use of Canadian fisheries, paying in any indirect way, and to what 

 extent, for the support of the lights to guide the United States, in common with 

 British fishermen, through the ocean storms. It is a matter entirely for the Honour- 

 able Commissioners whether they are content to give their Award piecemeal; 

 whether they are to state prematurely the grounds — one ground to-daj', another 

 to-morrow — upon which their Award is to be made. 



It seems to me unfortunate that this question should not have been raised 

 earlier. One thing will be admitted: If this question had been submitted at the 

 outset, if this tribunal had undertaken to hear argument, and if the decision had 

 been adverse to us, a very large amount of time would have been saved in the mode 

 of submitting the testimony. We should have had this advantage, that we might 

 have fortified our case on matters where the quantity of evidence is small. The 

 learned counsel on the otiier side have listended to a large mass of testimony which 

 they now say is irrelevant. Sujipose it should be so decided, the United States is 

 in this position — a large portion of time allotted to them will be saved. A great 

 deal of time may be economised, which otherwise would have been occupied in 

 meeting claims supported in our case. Having succeeded in a matter of strict law, 

 after our time has been occupied in submitting a very large mass of evidence on 

 questions now sought to be excluded, the United States may now concentrate their 

 testimony upon points which are held to be before the Commission, and at the close 

 it will be contended that their evidence on these points greatly preponderates. 



Mr. Foster. — We will give you more time. 



Mr. Wratherbe. — Well, we have pretty well arranged our programme, and I 

 think it is highly undesirable that the time should be lengthened. 1 don't wish it to 

 be inferred at all that it is intimated in the slightest clegree that there was any 

 such motive governing the selection of the time to make this motion. 



The Answer of the United States, at. pages 8 and !t, 14 and 15, 18 and 19,* 

 claims, on the part of the United States, consideration, in estimating the amount to 

 be awarded for Canada, of the advantages arising to Canadians on the coast from 

 the admission of United States' fishermen into our waters. In eft'ect. the Commission 

 is asked in this document, first, to estimate the value of the privileges accorded to 

 the United States by the terms of the Treaty of Washington, in giving uj) to them 

 the fisheries; and then, although there is nothing whatever in the Treaty to justify 



* Pages 88, 89, 91, 92, and 93 of this volume. 



