209 



No. IV. 



Cl/)NINO AllOUMKNT OP lloy. DWIOIIT FoSTKK, OX BKIIALF OF THE UNITED STATES. 



Gcntleinei) of the Commission :— 



IT hoc'omes my duty to open the discussion of this voluminous mass of evidence, 

 which lins occupiecl your attention through so many weeks. It is u satisfaction to 

 know that many topics, as to which numerous witnesses testified, and over wiiich 

 much time has hccn conMiimcd, have been chininated from the investigation, so that 

 they need not occupy the time of counsel in urgnmcnt, as tiiey arc sure not to give 

 any trouble to the OommisHioncrs in arriving at their verdict. The decision of tho 

 Commission, made on the (ith September, by wliich it was held not to be coinpe* 

 tent for this tribunal to award compensation for commercial intercourse between tho 

 two countries, or for purciwising bait, ice, supplies, &c., or for permission to 

 transslii[> cargoes in Hrilisii wateis, is based upon tlie principle — the obvicais principle, 

 perhaps I may pr<i[)erly say — that no award can be made by this triljunal against 

 the United States, except f<n- rights which they acquire under the Treaty ; so that, 

 for the period of twelve years, they belong to our citizens, and cannot be taken from 

 them. Kor advantages conferred by the Treaty, as vested rights, you are empowered 

 to make an award, and for nothing else. 



The (piestion before you is whether the privileges accorded the citizens of tho 

 United States i)y the Treaty of W'asliinglon are of greater value tlian those accor led 

 to tlie sul)j('cts ol' llcr Hritainiic iMajesLy, and, if s >, how much is the dillerence, in 

 money? 'i'he concessions made by each Government to the other in the Treaty, 

 were freely and voluntarily made. If it should turn out (as I do not suppose it will), 

 that in any respect the making of those concessions has been injurious to the 

 subjects of ller .Majesty, you are not on that account to render an award of 

 damages against the United States. The two (.iovcrnmcnts decided that they would 

 grant certain privileges to the citizens of one, and the subjects of the other. 

 Whether those privileges may be detrimental to the party by whom they have been 

 conceded, is no concern of ours. That was disposed of when the Treaty was made. 

 Our case before this tribunal is a case, not of damuges, but of an adjustment of 

 equivalents between concessions freely made on t!ie one side and on tiic other. It 

 follows from tiiii (•onsideration, gentlemen, that all that part of the testimony wliich 

 ha> been devoted to showing that possibly, under certain circumstances. American 

 tishernien, either in the exercise of their Treaty rights, or in trespassing beyond 

 their rights, may have done injury to the tishing grounds, or to the people of the 

 Provinces, is wholly .iside from the subject-matter submitted for your decision. 

 The question wlietlii-r throwing over "gurry " hurts fishing grounds — tiio (piestion 

 whether vessels *• lee-bow ' boats — and all matters of that sort, wliieii at an early 

 period of the investigation loomed up occasionally, as if they might have some 

 importance, may i)e dismissed from our minds; for, whether the claims made in 

 that respect are well founded are not, no autliority has been vested in this tribunal 

 to make an award based upon any such grounds. That which you have been 

 empowered to decide, is the question to what extent the citizens of the United 

 States are gainers by having, for the term of twelve years, liberty to take iish on 

 the shores and coasts of H<'r Majesty's dominions, without being restricted to any 

 di.stance from the land. It is t!ie right of inshore fishing. In other words, tim 

 removal of a restriction by which our (ishermen were forbidden to come within three 

 miles of the shore for fishing- purposes, and that is all. No rights to do anything 

 upon the land arc conferred upon the citizens of the United States under this 

 Treaty, with the single exception of the right to dry nets and cure Iish on the shores 

 of the Magdalen Islands, if we did not |)ossess that before. No right to land for 

 the purpose of seining from the shore ; no right to the •' stranil fishery," as it has 

 been called; no right to do anything except, water-borne on our vessels, to go 

 within the limits which had been previously forbidden. 



When I commenced the investigation of this question, I supposed that it was 

 probable that an important question of international law would turn out to be 

 involved in it, relative, of course, to the so-called headland question, which has been 

 the subject of so much discussion between the two Governments for a long scries of 

 years; but the evidence that has been introduced renders this question not of the 

 slightest im[)ortance, and inasmuch as it is a question which you are not empowered, 

 except incidentally, to decide; a question eminently proper to be passed u|)ou 



