214 



retained, was found on tlic Statutes o[ Nova Scot ia as late as the year 1868, and I 

 am not aware that it has been repealed to-day, Tlu- construction put upon it in 

 this Provintv was, that a man ulio came into a Uritish harbour to buy hait with 

 which to catch lish in the dccji sea, was guilty oi" " [ircparinj;- to lish," and that it 

 was an otFencc under the Act to prepare within British territorial waters to carry 

 on a deep-sea fishery. 



Such, };eutlcnuMi, was the t'ondition ol' things wliicii led the lisiicrmcn of the 

 United States to attrii)ute so much importance to the three-mile restriction. We 

 know to-day that all this has passed away. Wc know that such pretensions are as 

 unlikely ever to be repeated, as they are sure never again to be submitted to. And 

 why do 1 refer to them? Not, certainly, to revive any roots of bitterness; not, 

 certainly, to comi)lain of anything so long gone by, but bccaiiso it is absolutely 

 indispensal)lc for yon to undcrstaiul the posture of this queslion historically, in 

 order that you may i)c aware liow different the (piestion we arc trying to-day, is 

 from the (piestion whicli has liad such importance heretofore. 



If the three-mile limit ofl" the bend of Prince Kdward Island, and down by 

 Margaree, where our fishermcu sou»etinies fish a week or two in the autumn (and 

 those are the two points to which almost all the evidence of inshore fishing in this 

 case relates), if the three-mile limit had been marked out by a lino of buoys in 

 those places, and our people could have fished where they had a right to, under the 

 Law of Nations, and the terms of the Convention of 1818. nobody would have heard 

 any complaint, ('crlainlv it is most unjust, after a question has liad such a history 

 as this — after the twi) nations have been brought to the very verge of war with 

 each other, in conseipienee o( disputes based upon such claims as 1 have referred 

 to — certainly, now th.it those claims are abandoned, it is most unjust to say to us, 

 "Because you complained of these things, therefore you must iiave thought the right 

 to catch maeken I in ten or liitecn fathoms of water, within three miles of the bight 

 of the island, was of i;reat natii.iial iniporianee." We are not i)re pared to enter 

 fairly into ;i disiussini oi'.tiie present (jucstion, oniil it is perceived how different it 

 is from tiie one to wliicli 1 have l)een alluding. Of course, our nshermein were 

 alarmed and excited, and indignant, when the things were done to which 1 have 

 referred. Of course ii was true, that if such claims were to be maintained, they 

 must abandon fisliing in the (iulfur St. Lawrence allogither, and not only did they 

 feel that there w.is an attenipL unjustly and unlawlully to drive them out of a 

 valuable fishery, which had i)clong('d to tliem and their forefathers ever since vessels 

 came here at all, but there was also, with reference to it, a sense of wrong and 

 outrage, and tin- lisiicrmcn of Xew Kngland. like the rest of the people of New 

 England, altiiongh loiig-snifcring and simv to wralli, have ever l)een founil to be a 

 race '• who know their tights, and knowing, dare maintain." Hut when these chains 

 are abandoned, as iluy li;ivc been no.v, tlierc remains simply the {(uestion, what is 

 the value of lishiiig within three mihs of the siiorc of the British territories? And 

 this brings me to some of tlie immediate questions whicii wc have to discuss. 



In the first place, I suppo-e I may as well take up the case of Newfoundland. 

 The easeof Ncwlonndland, .is 1 understand it, is almost entirely eliniinatetl froMi this 

 controversy, by the decision \\ Inch was made on tlie (ith September. The claim, 

 as presented in Her .Majesty's Case, is not one of com|>ensation for fishing within 

 the territorial waters of Niwvl'oundland. but it is oik? of enjoying the privileges oi' 

 commercial intereumsc with t!ie penple of tliat islaiul. Of territiuial fishing in 

 New Innndl.ind waters, there is hardly any evidence to be found since th? first day 

 of ,luly. ]S7">, when the lislicry elanses of the Treaty (if Washington took effect, 

 with one exception, to whieii 1 will allude hercalicr. 'riierc is c("i tainly no cod-fishing 

 done by our |)cople in liie teriit irial w.-itersof Xewtnunilliiud : mine has been proved, 

 and there is no pioliahilily tlial tlicre ever will be, diir'ng llie period of the 'I'reaty, 

 or afterwards. 'I'lic .\inirican cod-llsliery is ever\ where deep-sea fishing. There 

 is ;i little cvideiu-i (if two localities in which a i'w lialil)ut are s;iid to have been 

 taken in Newfoundland waters— oiu" near Hermitage Way, and one near Fortune 

 Bay. But the same evidence that show.^ thai it once existed, shows that it had been 

 exhausted .•ind aliandoned, before the 'l'rcal\ n\' ^\'ashingtoii was made. Judge 

 Beiinct lestilied (in ihal pdlnt, and said 



Trcal\ 

 thai — 



■ Tlir I1..I1I11. !"i-liai;; nii llic Xi uIimiiliIiii'I rn,i-i is ,i vi^rv liniitfil one, ^rv fm n^ T run nwnrr. It i.s 

 liiiiili'il I'l ilii> \v:iI(M- lii'lv.icii liniiiil IsImimI ill I'Virtmic fiuy. ;ni<l I'lisis l-liurl in IfiTiiiitii'.'c ll:i\. It is 

 c.iikImi 11(1 rjosc iiislmiv, iiihI \\ii> ;i \ciy |ir<ililii- li'<li('fy ("V .■ iiiiliilicr ii| yciir-'. < hir liicij li^'liciiiicii 

 lIUIxllcil il willi liniik llllil liliu. I lliilil, ^iliiiii'. ('i;_'lil, \"IIIM :rjM. till' .\lMiTii illis ^isill■l| lli.il pliiri' I'm llic 



]iitr|.iisi,. Ill' ii^liiii^^ aiiii 'Inn li'licil i, \i'i\ ilii.|i'u;.'lil\. riic\ ii'-hcil •■iirl\ ill til" s. ;i-nii ill thc'iMuiitii nl 



