208 



These were cnmpliiints which were inndc in the annual mcsBagc of President 

 Grant in 1H70-, and he concludes by HUgp^eHtinj;^ to Congress the course that should 

 be taken in rcrcrencc to this matter, in the following; words: — 



" AiitiiiiHiiiii^' tlmt nil ntii'iii|it iiiiiy iiiiMsilily lir imuli' liy tlin ('aniuliun aiitlioritit's in tho 

 coming sciisuu in ii'iicnl llirir iiniu'i;,'lil"iuily iictn iciwunls (nir lislu'riiu^ii, I i'(!i'iiiniiii'iiil yoii t<» confer 

 u|xin tile Kxt'ciitivc tlu! jiowi'r lo siis|i('iiil liy in'ocluiiiiitioii llic (i|icriili(>ii (if tlic Inws aiitliori/in;,' tlitt 

 tniiiait (pf jidoils, wiiri'M. mid iiu'iclmiiilizt! in lioiid, lurnss tlic ti'irilnry ol' tho United States to Ciinadii; 

 iilld I'lii'tlier, hIhuiIiI surli an extreme nieamire liceonie necessary, to Nns|ieiid the M|M'nitio!i of any 

 liiWM wiiereliy the vesitls of tlie Doiniliioli of Camilla are jiermitteil to enlir tiie waters of tho l.'iiitod 



StlltCH." 



It is, tlicri'forc, ])Iaiiilv evident that disagreeinonts were in existence at that 

 time with i-pf:;;iril to the lislioiies, and that tiie lenr that they would produce serious 

 complications between the two countries was present in the minds of the President 

 and CioveriKiient of the Tnitc*! States. AVell, the history of the case goes on to 

 show, that these complaiiils made by President (Irant were the t'oiindaticm of the 

 negotiaticms which led to tlie adoption of the Wasiiiiigton Treaty; and it is 

 important to oliserve, on examining that 'rrcaty, that the means whereby President 

 Grant proposed to Congress to cnsiu'c tiie repeal of these so-called unfriendly acts 

 on tlie part of Canada, by repealing the Uoiided System, and by |)utting on other 

 restrictions, which President (Jrant proposed to apply to that particular purpose, 

 are, by the Clauses of the Washington Treaty, dealt with for the term <if that 

 Treaty in another way, and for other considerations; therefore, to my mind, it 

 leaves me in this position, in endeavouring to interpret the intentions of the parties 

 to the Wa'^hington Treaty — that it nuist necessarily have been supposed that, as in 

 the case of (lie Ueciiiroeity Treaty, so in the rase of the Washington Treaty, the 

 rights of trallic and of obtaining bait an<l supplies were conferred, being incidental 

 to tho (isliing privilege. Il could scarcely be otherwise, because, in the case of the 

 Reciprocity Treat y,comin<'rcial advantages were the compensation which the United 

 States ollered to (Jicat Mrilain for the concession of the |)rivilegc of fishing in her 

 waters, while by the Washington Treaty, compensation in !n(mey, exclusively of the 

 free admission of (ish, is to be made the measure of the diderence in value; therefore 

 I rpiite believe that the intention of the parties to the Treaty was to direct this 

 tribniiai to consider all the points relating to the fisheries which have been set 

 forth in the British case. Hut 1 am now met by the most authoritative statement 

 as to what were the intentions of the parties to the Treaty. Then; can be no 

 stroll, cr or belter evidence of what the United States proposed to accpiire under the 

 Washington Treats, than the authoritative statement which has been made by their 

 Agent lielorc us here, and by their counsel. Wo are now distinctly told that it was 

 not tlie intention of the United States, in any way, by that Treaty, t-i provide for 

 the continuation of tiiese incidental privilege.^, and tliat the United States arc 

 preparc'l lo lake the whole responsibility, and to run all the risk of tiie re-enactment 

 of tiie vexations .Statutes to which reference has been made. 



1 cannot resist the argiimeut that has been |)nt before me, in reference to the 

 true, rigiil, and strict interpretation of the clauses of the Tn-.-ilN of Washington. I 

 therefore eaiinol escape, by any known rule concerning the interpretation of Treaties, 

 from the conclusion that the contention od'ered by the .Agent of the United States 

 must be aetpiiesccd in. 



There is no escape from it. The responsibility is accepted by, and must rest 

 upon, those who appeal to the strict words of the Treaty as their justification. I 

 therefore, while [ regret that this tri))unal does not find itself in a position to give 

 full consideration to all the points that may be brought up on behalf ol the Crown, 

 as proof of the advantages which the United States derive from their admissitm to 

 fish in British waters, still feel myself, under the obligation which 1 have incurred, 

 required to assent to the decision which has been communicated to the Agents of 

 the two Governments by the President of this tribunal. 



