1S9 



it, they arc required to reduce that sum, by deducting therefrom the value to a 

 certain class residinf>' on our shores, of the right to trade with United States' fisher- 

 men, inohiding the supply of this very bait in question. The Commissioners will 

 find, on the pages mentioned, very clear language to show how reasonably we can 

 claim for the privileges now sought to be excluded. 



Afr. Foster. — I don't believe you remember just the view we take of that. We 

 say : "The benefits thus far alluded to, arc only indirectly, and remotely, within the 

 scope and cognizance of tiiis Commission. They are iirought to its attention chiefly 

 to refute the claim that it is an advantage to the United States to be able to enter 

 the harbours of the provinces, and trallic with the inhabitants." I say it lies out of 

 the case on both sides, and that is what our motion says. 



Mr. IVcntlicrbe. — That is an admission that incidental privileges arc within the 

 scope and cognizance of the Commission. Hut there is other language which has 

 been assigned to other counsel to cite. Tiicre arc ample quotations from the 

 arguments of Canadian Statesmen, advocating remote and incidental privileges in 

 Parliament, as arguments in favour of the adoption of the Treaty. If the Agent 

 and learned counsel for the United States succeed in this motion, they do more tlian 

 exclude from the consideration of the case, compensation for the right of procuring 

 bait and ice by purchase, and the other incidents to a successful prosecution of the 

 fisheries. And, as the Answer stands, evidence may be offered on other points, 

 unless other moti')ns follow the present for excluding matter from the consideration 

 of the Commission. I think it can be shown, that if this matter is not within the 

 jurisdiction oi' the Commission, and liad not been so considered wlien the Answer 

 was drawn up, a great modification of that Answer would have Ijeen made. 



Mr. Foster. — It is quite capable of being very much improved, if I had more time, 



Mr. Weatherhe. — 1 am, however, only turning the attention of the tribunal 

 the deliberate and solemn admissions and declarations of the Answer, whicii bii : 

 now and herealtcr. \\'hatever may be the argument of the United States for the 

 present moment, these must remain, and they jjoint to the true intention to be 

 gathered from the language of the Treaty of Washington, as understood by both 

 the great Parties to that compact. 



The simple question we are now discussing is this: Whether certain things 

 are to be taken into consideration, as incidental to the mere act of taking fish out of 

 the water? What I understand the argument of tlie United States to be now is, 

 that, by the Treaty of Washington, the American ilshermen have the right of taking 

 fish out of British waters, and landing to dry their nets and cure their fish, and 

 nothing else. The right to land to dry their nets and cure their fish they admit 

 are subjects for compcnsati(m. IJut wiiat does taking lish mean .' It means taking 

 them out of the water and landing them on the tieck, and notiiing more, it is 

 contended. We contend that, by a ";>'i- and reasonable construction of the words, 

 the United States have obtained the \)r\\\\cs;G o\' carnjhuj on the Jishtrtj. Can it lie 

 doubted tliat this was tiie intention w'uun the words were adopted. Are we asking 

 for any strained construction by the tribunal? I think not. 



Hy the Convention of 1818, the United States renounce for ever thereafter the 

 liberty to United States' fisliernien of fishinj^ in certain British waters, or ever 

 entering tiiese waters, except for shelter and for wnod and water. " For no other 

 purpose whatever" is the sweeping lancuage of the Tivaty. 1 presume we are to 

 have very little dirterence of opinion as to the intention of the clause containing 

 these words. That clause of tiie Convention of 1818 was fully considered by the 

 Joint High Commission who framed tiie Treaty of Washington. What do those 

 Commissioners say ? Tiiat language has been cited. In addition to the liberty 

 secured by that Convention, tiie privilege is granted of taking lish. The Treaty of 

 Washington permits the liberty of taking fish, and of landing to dry nets and cure 

 fish. '"' . tribunal is invited to decic'e that it is not competent for them to award 

 anything in relation to the incidental and necessary requirements to carry on the 

 fisheries. 



Is it contended there was an oversight in framing the Treaty of Washing- 

 ton? Is tlieie an absence of words necessary to secure the full enjoyment of our 

 fisheries to United States' fishermen? Was tiiat ab-sence intentional? The learned 

 counsel for the United States iiave not stated their views upon this point. Can it be 

 possible that those who represented the United States in framing the Treatv of 

 .Washington intended the result wliicli would follow the success of tlie present 

 motion. Can it be possible lioth parties intended that result? If this is an over- 

 sight, who arc to siillcr? The conqiensation is to be reduced, we are told. But if 

 |t>80] 2 D 



