199 



r 



from the Grand Banks, or inshore fisheries, who should buy bait or ice, or refit, is 

 guilty of an offence, it would then be a question for Her Majesty's Governor- 

 C5eneral to determine whether that was not an Imperial question, and if so, to refer 

 it to Her Majesty in Council to determine. I have no fear that any such statute 

 would be passed, because the number of persons interested in that traffic with 

 American fishermen is very great, and they are voters ; they have even in Nevv- 

 foundlaiul l)roi<en their chains, and l)ecome a sober and saving people, since tiiey 

 came to liave cash of their own, from their trading with Americans. 



I doubf. wiietiicr the Canadian Government will be encouraged, however strong 

 may be the wave of politics, to meet tlic people of the various constituencies, and 

 insist on this American traffic; being entirely cut off'. If they do it, I doubt whether 

 Great liritain would sanction it, and if Great Britain did allow it, then it becomes 

 at. once a question between tiie two Governments. Is that a course fair and right, 

 in accoidance with the comity of nations, in accordance with practices which are 

 earlier than when the first disciples threw their nets into the Sea of Galilee -is not 

 such a course an interference with a right practised from earliest times, and with- 

 out good reason for the prohibition ? You may put regulations on us so that our 

 fishermen shall not be smugglers in disguise, and so that merchants sliall not come 

 in the disguise of fishermen ; but to prohibit American fishermen from purciiasing 

 bait and supplies, not in case of necessity merely, but as i)art of the jjlan of their 

 trade, and transshipping cargoes, would be a violation of tlie spirit which has 

 governed the commercial relations between the two I'hupircs. 



I would tlierel'ore present a summary of the matter tluis : The only matter of 

 dispute between Great liritain and tli<' United States in the Treaty of itf^ 5, related 

 to the inshore fisheries, I mean the right to catcli fish more or less near tlie British 

 coast, and in addition to that to cure and dry fish. The Treaty of 17815 acknow- 

 ledged the general right. 



'['he Treaty of 1818 gave us certain places, which were named, where we could 

 exercise those fishing rights, and stated certain places where we could not exercise 

 them ; but it did not undertake to deal with the commercial side of the fisheries 

 (piestion. The Tieaty of 1 S.")4 was the same — it gave a general right to take (ish within 

 these dominions, and to land and dry them in certain places. The only (piestion 

 of late Jias been whether (ireat Britain has the right, without any Treaty, to 

 t;xclude us from tlire(! miles of the co/ist. That was Nir. Adams' famous argument 

 with Earl Bathursl. NVe saiti in tiie Treaty of 1M18 that, as a right, we no longer 

 claimed it. That is the meaning of the Treaty — that having claimed it as a right 

 inherent in us. either because we did not lose it at the time of ihe Revolution, or from 

 the nature of fisheries, or on some other grounil, we no longer claimed it as a right 

 which cannot be taken away from us but at the point of the bayonet. But while 

 we say we will not go within the three miles to lisli without permission, it must not 

 be held that vessels cannot go there lor shelter and repairs, and for wood and water, 

 i)ut may be |)ut under such regulations as will prevent us from doing any thing- 

 further. It is (Mitirely a matter fi)r (ireat Britain to determine what regulations 

 we should he placed under, in thos'- respects, and she has seen lit to make none. 

 The Statute 5i) (Jeorge HI. passed to carry out the Treaty of I81H, prohibited 

 fishing, or preparing to fish, in certain boiuulai'ies. A decision has been rendered 

 in one Province, th.il buying bait was " preparing" to fish. In anotiier Province a 

 «iccision was rendered directly the other way. 



That, h()W(,'ver, is a local matter altogether. The decision rendered in New 

 Brunswick was. that tiie proliibitioa of " pre|)aring to fish ' must apply only to 

 those who intended to tish within tiie proliibiteil degree ; that the buying of bait, 

 whether it was a step in pre|)aring to lisii or not, was not an ott'euce unless the 

 fishing itself would be an otfenee. If an American bought bait here to go ojf to 

 Greenland, or to tiie Mediterr.ine.in to fish, it could not be considered an olfenee. 

 Great Britain cannot make a Statute which would alter our rights under tliis Treaty, 

 nor revive an old statute to do so. The learned Judge was carel'iil to say (hat he 

 <lid not mean to apply his decision one step beyond the point of talking bait lor tlie 

 purpose of fisiiing within prescribed limits. 



Sir Alvxanth-r Gnlt. — I desire to ask the learned counsel (.Mr. Dan.i), if I under- 

 stood him to say, that no seizure or confiscation of American fishing vesst-ls took 

 place before IM5I. I think there were confiscatious. and 1 should like to know 

 whether those confiscations were confined to vessels catching fish, and that alone, 

 within tiic three-mile limit. 



[280] '2 E 2 



