. ;*it««»m *e*4ir,W«a«BS»ai. 



....... — i..t,m i ni ju ii n 



B-titr'iirTvi I 



196 



ship cargoes, why, inevitably they would have said so ; inevitably the new rights 

 would have been specifically included in the matters on which your Honours were 

 to base your calculations. Kngland might have said to the United States (I deny 

 the position, but England might have taken the position) that .Vmerican fishermen 

 have no right to enter .»nr waters except under the Treaty of 1818, and then not to 

 buy anything but wood ar,-| water, and now wc are opening; to them the great 

 privilege of buying bait, ice, and supplies, and transshipping cargoes, whicii will 

 add immensely to the value of their fisheries. The argument would have been 

 made, which has been made bore, in the form of questions put to expert witnesses: 

 " Is not all that essential to American fisheries r" But, on the contrary, the Treaty 

 says nothing about it. We hear of it for the first time when the cmmsel of the 

 British Government are getting up their case for damages. We immediately 

 protest against it, as something not included in the jurisdiction of this Court, and 

 our Agent, Mr. F'oster, on page 32 of the Answer, distinctly states : — 



" Tliiit tlie vnriim.s imidcTitiil iuul ivtiimical iulvmitauos dl" tlic Tiviily, such ii.-; tlii' i>nvili.'i,'o.s oF 

 Iratlio, jiuri'lia.siiiL; luiit ainl dlluT ,<iiii)ilii',>4, iii'c imt tlic siiliji'ct of iDiiiiit'ii.satidii, lu'caiiso the Tivaty of 

 Wn.-iliiiii,'tnn confers im such vi^'lits on tlie iiiliaMtaiits of tlu' I'liitcil States, wlio now enjoy tlioin laeivly 

 l)y sufferaiK''', ami wlio ean at any lime lie di'in'iveil of them hy the enfoicement of existiiii; laws, or 

 the re-Pliaetment of former o])iiressivo statutes. Moreover, the Treaty iloes not jirovidi' for any 

 ]ios.silile eom]iensatioii for sueli ]irivileL;es ; ami they are far more inijiorlanl and valuable to the 

 siilijects of Her JIajesty, than to the inhaliitants of the I'nited .State.s." 



The passages which the British counsel have referred to, as an argument that 

 the .Agent of the United States had .ndmitted that those privileges came by Treaty, 

 all refer to somotliing quite different. .\ passage on page 9* of the Answer of the 

 United States h:is lieen quoted : — 



" • * While, |iraetieally, hoth tishinu and eonimereial intereourse have lieen carrie<l on, in 

 conformity with the Treatv, ever since it was si^'ned. May S, 1.S71." 



That '• commercial intercourse " means the free importation on each side of the 

 articles of commerce, the onl\ articles of commerce the 'J'leaty refers to — fish and 

 fish-oil. On page 14, section 2,t of tlie Answer, it is stated : — 



" The incidental lienetits arisinjx from Iraftic with Ameiican lishermen are of vital impovtimce to 

 the inhaliitants of the I'lritish Maritime rrovinces," 



These are benefits which the British people get from us, and they are said to be 

 only incidental, and are only introduced as a set-off, if (Ireat Britain claimed to 

 have the right to receive compensation for the privilege of trading in bait, Sic, with 

 her people. 



May it |)lease your Honours, it is clear to our minds that the Treaty of Wash- 

 ington (iocs not give us those advantages. That sid)jcct has i)een elaljoratcd by the 

 Agent of the United States, and by my learned friend (.Mr. Trescot). In the first 

 place, it has been said, in answer to that contention, or rather it has l)een suggested, 

 for it was not said witii earnestness, as if the counsel for tiie Crown thought it was 

 going to stand as an argument, that tiiose were Treaty gifts to the United States, 

 and tiiough thev could not l)c found in any Treaty, yet they were iicces.sarily 

 implied in the Treaty of Washington. Take' the Treaties of 178:5, 18 IH, 1854, and 

 1871, and they are nowiiere referred to, according to any ordinary interpretation of 

 language. The only argument I can perceive is this : Vou have enjoyed tho.se 

 rights. They do not lieiong to you by nature or by usage, ami must therefore be 

 Treatv gifts; though we cainiot rind the langutige, yet thev must have been 

 conferred by the Treaty of 1871, and the Treaty of I8r)4. .May it please this learned 

 tribunal, we exercised all those rights and privileges before any Treaty was made, 

 except the old Treaty which was abolished by tiie war of 1812. .Almost the very 

 last witness we had on the stand, told your Honours that before the Reciprocity 

 Treaty was mad(>, we were buying bait in Ncwfoinidland.and several witnesses Ironi 

 time to time have stated, that it is a very ancient |)raetice for us to buy bait and 

 supplies, and to trade with the people aliing the shore, not -n merchandi/.e as 

 merchants, but to buy su|)plies of bait, and pay the sellers in money or in trade, as 

 might be most convenient. Now, that is one of those natural trades that grow up 

 in all countries ; it is older than any Treaty ; it is older than civilized States or 

 statutes. Fisheries have but one history. .As soon as there are places peopled 

 with inhabitants, fishermen go there. Thi; whale lishermen of the United States go 

 to the various islands of the Pacific which are inhabited, and get supplies. To be 



• Vagv 89 nf this vdlumc. + I'apc !)1. 



