193 



examination, one of the first things to determine is, what sort of a Treaty are \vc 

 dealing with? IJecaiiso, if it is a Commercial Treaty, an exchange of commercial 

 rights, it is one of the principles of diplomatic interpretation that cannot be contra- 

 dicted, that runs through every modern Reciprocity Treaty, that commercial equiva- 

 lents arc absolute equivalents, and do not admit of money valuation by an additional 

 money compensation. For instance, suppose iingland should make a Treaty with 

 F ance, and Kngland should say, " We will admit your wines free of duty, if you 

 w'll admit certain classes of manufactures free of duty." The Treaty then 

 goes into operation. Suppose, for some reason or otiier, there were no French light 

 wines drunk in Kngland lor ten years, and the Frencn took a large (|uantity of Knglish 

 manufactured goods ; nt the end of ten years it might turn out that Kngland had made 

 several millions of doll.irs by that Treaty, while France had made nothing. Hut 

 you cannot make any calculation as to compensation ; the whole point is, that it is 

 reciprocity — the right to exchange. Just so is it, in regard to the (piestion of 

 fisheries anrl their values. Su|)po.ie, from the risjlit to import tish into the United 

 States, the Canadians make .'lOD.tlDO dollars a year, and from our right to import fish 

 into the Dominion, we do not make Mi) dollars, what h.is that to do with this ques- 

 tion ? The reciprocity, the right of exchange, iti the principle. And tliis is why it 

 is that all Reciprocity Treaties are temporary Treaties ; because the ol)ject of such 

 Treaties is, regarding the general principle of free trade, as beneficial to all people, 

 to open the results of tlie industries of nations to each other. 



The men who in.ule ilie Treaty may have misc.dculatcd the industries airccted 

 by it. It may occur that, on. account of a want of adajitation on th{> part of the 

 people, or ign()ranc<> of the markets, tiie Reciprocity Treaty docs not turn out 

 advantageous, and therefore such a Treaty is only made for a short term of years. 

 But if it is a Reciprocity Treaty giving extended commercial faciii js, you have 

 to put every on;> as an e(|uivalent against another. If you ]iut tne Washington 

 Treaty on that footing, then our right to use your insluMC fisheries is balanced by 

 your right to use our inshore fisheries, and the advantages are ecpial. That is the 

 only way in whicii yon can deal with the (piestion, if you view the Treaty as one of 

 Reciprocity. But if you consider the Treaty as an exchange, to a certain extent, 

 of properties, then 1 understand that you can apply another principle. For 

 example, if 1 were to exchange with some one a farm in Prince Kdward Island for 

 a house in Halifax, and agreed to submit to a Hoard of Arl)itralioii the question of 

 the difference in value, that Hoard could meet and ascertain the market value of 

 the land and house res|)ectiveiy, and decide the (luestion. Hut according to the 

 theory of tlie Hritisli counsel, whenever wi; !;ot before the Hoard of Ari)itration, 

 i\Ir. Thomson woidd say ; " Xow, this house is valuable as a liousc. and it is also 

 valual)le as a i)aso of operations, for if you did not have the house, and there was 

 bad weather, you would liave to stay out in it; consequently that point has to i)e 

 taken into consideration." The reply would be, " Wiien I bougiit the house I 

 bought it for tiiese things." So when we come to calculate tlie value of the 

 fisheries, we expect that all these incidental advantages go along with the calcu- 

 lation. 



Mr. T/ioiiisnn. — That is what we arc contending. 



Mr. Tresrnt. — 1 beg your pardon, that is just what you do not do. You just 

 make an elaborate caleulation of the value of your fisheries, as fisheries, then you 

 add every conceivable incidental, or consequential, possible, advantage, whether of 

 the fisheries, or our enterprise in the use of them, and add that estimate to the 

 value. You contend tliat we shall pay for the house, and then pay you additionally 

 for every use to which it is possible to put the house. 



Mr. Thomson. — Do you admit that the value of the fisheries is enhanced by those 

 advantages ? 



Mr. Trescot. — I do not. I do not believe that your alleged advantages are 

 advantages at all. We can supply their places from our own resources, as well 

 and as cheaply. Now, with regard to the Treaty itself, there j,re only two points 

 which I propose to submit to the Commission. 1 contend, in the first place, that if 

 the interpretation for which the Hritish counsel contend is true, viz., that by the 

 Treaty of IS18 we were excluded from certain rights, and by the Treaty of 1871 

 we were admitted to them, tiien we must lind out from what we were excluded by 

 the Treaty of 1818, and to what we were admitted by the Treaty of 1871. I 

 contend that the language of the Treaty of 1818 is explicit. (Quotes from Con- 

 vention.) 



Now, I hold that that limitation, that prohibitive permission to go into the 



