■V 



203 



clause was iasci-tcd in that form, was to show it was not intended that we should 

 have the rigfht to cut wood. If your Honours will examine the Treaties, from that 

 of 1783 to that of 1871, you will find they never had for their scope or purpose any 

 provisions regarding trading or purchasing, Init related solely to the right to fish, 

 and to use the shores for the purpose of drying and curing. In framing the Treaty 

 of 1871, care was taken to name the rights. It gave the right to fish. What kind 

 of fish ? Not shell-fish, nor salmon, nor river fish. Care is taken also to describe 

 for what purpose American iishermcn may land. It is to dry nets, cure and dry 

 fish. There is no reference to purchasing anytliing. except in the Treaty of 1818, in 

 regard to purchasing wood, and that subject has l)ecn intentionally left out of all 

 Treaties, or it woulrl he more accurate to say tiiat to include sucii matters in a 

 Treaty was never considered as appositt;, Tlie Treaty of 1S7I, an 1 have said, 

 grants a territorial extension of specified, long-e.xistingriglits, and the only question 

 in dispute between the United States and Great Britain lias alwavs been as to thq 

 territorial extent of the right of fishing. 



The question arose, can we fish on the (irand Hanks? Kngland said " No,'' 

 but she gave up that contention in \7Sli. Then Knglanci said that American 

 fishermen could not risli within three miles of its coast.s i'rom a line drawn from 

 headland to headland. Dispute arose again as to tlie correctness of that territorial 

 designation, but the subject matter was the drawing of fish from the sea. At last 

 it becaujc settled that we should not fish witliin the three miles, unless with the 

 consent of tireat Britain, exjiressed through a Treaty or otherwise. Tiien occurred 

 the (piestion as to what constitutes three miles — three miles from what? Always 

 the dispute was as to the territorial extent of a specified rigiit, the rigiit to lish, and all 

 the Treaties were made for that purpose. Incidentally there was always brought 

 in the cpiestion of places, not being private property, where the fishermen could 

 land for the purpose of drying nets aiul curing and drying fish. These were the 

 sui)jeet matters of every Treaty, the occasion of every dispute, and these were 

 all tliat were settled by the Treaty of Washington. Great liritain gave to the 

 United States an extended territoriality, up to the very Banks, u|) to high-water mark 

 evcrywiiere; and tlie United States gave the same extended territoriality to Great 

 Britain, to fisii in the United States northward of 39th parallel. Then there were 

 certain extensions ot' territory for the curing and drying of fish. By Article XXI 

 the United States gives to Great Britain, and she accords to us, tlie right of free 

 trade, reciprocity, in fish and fish-oil. That is purely a commercial clause. It 

 might have been marie a Treaty by itself. It has no connection with fishing, or the 

 curing and drying of fish. When your Honours come to estimate the pecuniary 

 valuation of the concessions on each side, we contend that the pecuniary value of 

 that concession made by the United States to Great Britain, which is purely fiscal, is 

 very great. 



It is conceded by tlie British counsel, I believe, that those rights of which I 

 speak were not given in tiie terms of the Treaty of Washington, and cannot be 

 found there. The only argument on the side of the Crown — and 1 think I state it 

 fairly and with its luli force — is this: •' Vou have tliose rights now; you did not 

 have tliem before tlie Treaty, therefore you must have got them by the Treaty. 

 You did not have tliem until 18.M, and you possessetl them from 1854 to 18G6 under 

 the Reciprocity Treaty. Vou flid not have them during the interval. They were 

 revived in 187i, and you have had them since. Their history shows they must have 

 come by Treaty." Instead of the word " have," I would substitute the word 

 " exercise," and say w(! exorcised those rights. We exercised them long before 

 that period. Kvidencc has been adduced before the Commission which has shown 

 that those rights were exercised by the United States entirely irrespective of Treaties. 



Before the Treaty nf 1854, when we had nothing but the Treaty of 1818 to 

 stand U[)on, which as a Treaty certainly did i\ot give us any of those rights, we 

 exercised them. We exercised tiiem also irrespective ol, and never by virtue of the 

 Treaty of 18r>l. We exercised them in the interv.J between 18()(1 and 1871, as we 

 are exeicising them now. The Court will not be able i,o find any connection 

 betwen the Treaties and tlie exercise of those rights. They have never been 

 exercised the more or the less by reason of any Treaties. It is not incumbent upon 

 us to show why we are in the exercise of tlun.j rights. It is rather a speculative 

 inquiry on the part of the British counsel as to where we got them, or whether we 

 have them at all. Suppose I were to concede that we had no right to buy bait or 

 ice or supplies, ov tran.sship cargoes anywhere on these coasts, certainly that ends 

 the argument, because we cannot be called upon to pay for something which we 

 have not got. If the proper construction of the Treaty of 1818 is, that fishermen 



