191 



On page 9* of the Answer, they say : — • 



" It is riii'tlii'v iiii]ioitiiiit til luMir ill iiiiiul, tlmt tiu! Iinhcry diiiiiiH of tlic Treaty of Wii>iliiii;,'t(m 

 ImvK nirciuly lurii in foniiiii oiicniUoii iluriiij,' foiif yumn, — oiu'-iiiird of tlie whole period of tlieir 

 coiilimmiKKs wliili' |irii('li(;ally liotli linliiiij,' niid coiiiincivial iiitercoursu have iteun carried on in 

 coiij'iirmilij ii-illi till' Tmitij over since it wiis Mii,'n(.'d, -Miiy Stii, 1871." 



Here they say that practically, lioth fishing and oommercial intercourse has 

 been carried on in conformity with t\w Treaty, ever since 1871. Now then, if you 

 tnrn to the same Answer, I'age l.'{,f they say :— 



"The riiili'd Slides cull u|ioii the I'rilish Ai;ent to |>rodn('e,and upon the t'oiriinissioners toreqniro 

 ftt liis liiinds, liniLrilde eviilenee of the iiiimi/ /n-'xiinil ruliir nf tlic priri/ii/i- nf Jhliin;/ hji Aiiicriciniit in 

 Bvitixli ti-n-itnriiil imitn-s, us it hus f.iislnl vndir lln' Ti'tnlij fny Jour ijrifs iiii/<l, n-t if i.ri.il.i t(i-ili(i<, tniil as, 

 jiKhjimj iif till- future I'll till- /Hist, if iniii/ ivasimuhli/ he crpeded to iviiliiiiif ihiriiuj tlir viumiinj eight 

 i/et(rs cmlirainl in. Ilif Tnuli/," 



We have met their views, and given evidence of the actual practical value of 

 the privilof^c of fishing, and its incidents of commercial intercourse, as actually carried 

 on in conformity with the Treaty. 



Now, your Kxccllency and your Honours, it appears to me very unfortunate, as 

 regards our present position, that this Commission (lid not sit immediately after the 

 Treaty was entered into. If it had sat,— if the construction put upon the Treaty 

 was to the effect that the Commission had no jurisdiction to take into consideration 

 the incidental advantages of which evidence lias been given, then, as has been put 

 by my learned friend, Mr. Thomson, no trallic would liave taken |)lace from 

 American fisiiing vessels coming into our harbours for the |)urpoSe of buying bait, 

 for they would have been liable to be confiscated forthwith. IJut this Treaty having 

 existed four years, the fisliermen of the United States and of Great Britain have 

 solved |)racti('aily the question of the construction of the T'reaty themselves. Tiic 

 fishermen ol tlu' United States have found it more to tlicir convenience, and speedy 

 baiting, to em])l()y British fishermen to take bait for them, and in some instances to 

 buy it from ihem, believing that the right of traflic was conceded by this 'J'reaty, 

 and thence the traffic has arisen. \o such traflic would have arisen had this 

 question been determined at the outset, in accordance with the views contentled for 

 by the counsel lor the United States, but because that traflic lias arisen, and the 

 question has been solved by the people themselves, therelbie they now say we are 

 precluded from recovering any compensation for it. It lias been siiown here by 

 clear. indis])utable evidence, that the bank (islicries ofl' the coasts of the Dominion 

 and Newfoundland could not be carried on to advantage by American fishermen, 

 without obtainint;; tlu> bait upon our coast, whicli they have done. It is admitted 

 that this is a siiliject for consideration, and that tiiis is a (juestion they have to pay 

 for; but now, forsooth, because this Commission has not s;it, and four years have 

 elajjsed, .and the fisiicrmen of tiie two counti'ies have practically solved the (juestion 

 for tiu'inselves, ue an- to be precluded from obtaining compensation for the advan- 

 tages that wcndil otiiorwise have to I)e paid for. 



Again, in the Answer of the United States, at page IS.J 't '*^ staled : '• The 

 benefits alluded to 'tliat is. the incidental advantai'-cs) are only indirectlv and 

 remotel\ within the scope and cogni/.a.nce of this Commission."' Here my learned 

 friends show that they were clearly of the opinion, at the time tiiey penned this 

 Answer, that these were matters that were within the scope of the Commission, 

 and within their jurisdiction. And without objection on their j)art, we have 

 throughout tiie whole conduct of oui' case, adduced evidence to support the jxisition 

 we now contend for. 



Mr. Tri'snit. — What I have to sav 1 sliall say very lirieily, for my pur|)()se is 

 rather to express my assent to what has been said, than to add anything to what 1 

 consider the very complete argument of my colk-ague ^ir. Koster. 



If I understand the British counsel correctlv, they admit that the construction 

 for which we contend is a fair construction. Tliev seem to think that a broader and 

 more liberal interpretation would be more in conl'ornuty witli what they consider to 

 be the spirit (d'tliis discussion, but all of tliem apj)ear lo admit, that if we choose to 

 stand on tiiat language, we have the right to do it, and they do not object that it 

 shouhl be eidbrccil. T'hey seem to thiid\, iiov.ever, tiiat certain consecpiences would 

 follow, of which they have a|)prehensions for us. That is our matter. The conse- 

 quences that How from the interpretation will be coniincd to us, and are matters we 

 must look to. At present the only (|uestion is. whetiici we have the rigiit to say to 

 your Honours, tliat you are limited in vour award to ;i certain and siii'citie series of 

 items, I think', honestly, we have drifted verv far from the common-sense view of 



[2S0] 



S!) (if this volume. 



t I'a-e 91. 



\ Piigc 93. 



2 D 



