r m w cTia t w^ gj^ 



^^mS9i 



190 



the United States' Treasury is to be saved, are the United States fishermen to suffer ? 

 Or IS the award to be rechiced for the want of privileges, and the (ishermeu to 

 continue illegally to enjoy all the privileges? This matter lias not been fully 

 explained. [ must admit, if there has been an oversiglit here, if so great an error 

 has occurred, tiio tribunal is powerless to correct the cr"'>i- or to grant full com- 

 pensation. 



liut the learned Agent and counsel who support th' . did not state fidly 



to the Commission, — did not give to tlieCommis.sion ;i anation tliis morning. 



The Answer slates the matter more fully than the ; lu fur the motion. The 



Commissioners are entitled to linow, fully and disi .vliat view is taken by the 



United States. Nothing was said as to tlio Statut ue enforced against United 



States' fisliermen in case tlie motion should be successlul. In that event it would be 

 too late to deny the right to enforce the Statute. Tliis would be uidbrtunatc for 

 American rishermcn, as it formerly was. Is the success of the motion to open old 

 sores, and awaken the very troubles the Treaty was made to set at rest? There is 

 no escape, it appears to me. 



I submit tiiat our construction is the reasonable, fair, and legitimate one. The 

 words of tlie Treaty are sufiicient to secure all the privileges, and preclude the 

 enforcement of Statutes. The words are sulHcient to justify the awanling of full 

 compensation. Our argument is, that tlie right to "take llsli " carries witii it the 

 right to prepare to fish, and the words are suiticient to secure to .\merican iisliermen 

 those rights of wliicli they were deprivetl, until secured by Treaty. We sul)init the 

 matter with full confidence to this Honourable Commission, regretting that any 

 intimation should have been offered on the other side, as to the improbability of 

 payment of an\ award, unless the judgment of C^ommissioneis should be favourable. 

 I think I am obliged to admit on our hide that we have no alternative: that for us, 

 on this question of reducing the amount cjf compensation, the decision, even if 

 adverse, must prevail ; and I beg to say, I trust whatever it may be, it will be 

 accepted in the proper spirit. 



Mr. Wlutrway. — I was rather taken by surprise when I learned but just now 

 that the main (|uestion in this propositiim was this day to be discussed, and not the 

 preliminary question as to whether the main cpiestion should be argued at the 

 present time, or as part of the linal argument. I have now only a few oi)servations 

 to make, in addition to those that have been so strongly put by the learned counsel 

 who have preceded me. It seems to me that the position taken by the learned 

 counsel on the opposite side to-day differs materially, and in fact is diametrically 

 opposed to that tai<en by them in their Answer. In their Answer they not only 

 allege, on the part of the United States, tliat they have a riitht to those incidental 

 advantages which may accrue from the concession of a right to fish, but they go 

 further, and they allege that they have a right to claim for the incidental benelits, 

 which may (low to the sul)jects of Her Britannic Majesty, from traliic with American 

 lishermen, and they allege this as a specitic ground for the reduction of the amount 

 claimed on behalf of Great Hritain. Now at page 13, part IV,* of the Answer, they 

 say : — 



'■ It is lu/Nt iii'Dpd'Jwl til consider thi' lulvantii^'i's (k'l'ivcd liv liriti.^li sulijt'its t'lmn tln' ]>iiivisioiis 

 nt' till' Ticiity 111' Wnsliiiiu'toii. 



" In till' tirsl jiluL-e, Uk; luhiussinu dl' Aiiu'viiau lislioviiit'ii intn liiitisii wiilcrs is im (Ictriiiicnt, Imt 

 i\ |io:-itivc ailv;int;i^'i: U\ ciildiiial lislifi'iiicii ; tlicy catcii iimrc lisli, iiiaki' umic iiiuiicy, ami luv iiu|ii-(ivi.-d 

 ill all thcii inatciial ciiuiimstaiiccs, by tile ih-l'suiwo ul' I'lircii;!! tislifi'iiicii. 'I'lic laij,'i' ((iiaiiLitics nf llio 

 best liail tliiiiw]! iivi'r riniii Aiiu'ricaii vcssi'ls uUraic inyi'iads nf li.sli, sn that ( 'aiiadiaiis pri't'ia- to ti.sh 

 .side liy sidr witli tlii'iu ; and wluMi dninj; so, iiiaki' a lar^iT catoli than tlicy otlii-rwisc rould. Tliij 

 Ti'tiirns ol'tlii' pi'oduct of llic I'ritisli lisln'iics conidiisivcly show that tin' in'ivscnii' of foreign lisiicnnon 

 cannot |iossilily liavi' done tticin any injiiiv, 



■' Secondly. Tin: imiili'.ntol liiiKfitt, iiriaiinj /nun Irnijif filli AiiKfifim fislui-iih'ii, an nf rititl 

 iui}tvrtuiicr In the inliiihitiuifs nf tlir. Britisli Muritimc J'niriiiirn." 



The incidental benelits arising from traffic, therefore, are, according to the 

 contention of our learned friends, to be taken into consideration, and to have weight 

 with the Commissioners in reflucing those damages whiih they may award to the 

 liritish Government. Now, all that has been contended for on the part of (ireat 

 Britain up to the present time, is, that the value of the incidental advantages, which 

 necessarily arise from the concession of the right to take fish within the three mile 

 limit, and to land for the purpose of curing, should be taken into consideration by 

 the Commission. 



* Page 91 of this volume. 



