' I 



21G 



anywlieio on the Uiitisli territories, oxoept to dry "fts and cure fish. I do not tliinU 

 that I ouglil to spend inoro time over the case of Ncwtoiindland thim this, except 

 to cull your attention to tiie circumstance, that in return i'ur these few s(|uid ,jig{;e<l 

 at night, tiie islanders obtain an annual remission of duties averap;ing upwards of 

 50,000 dollars a year. 



We have been kindly lurnisiied. in connection with the British atlidavits, upon 

 page 128, Appendix A, with a statement showing the duties remitted upon exports 

 from Newfoundlanil to the I'nited States, since the Treaty of Washington ; and their 

 annual average is made »!ut to be "'0,940 dol. 45 c. I submit to the Commis- 

 sion whether we do not pay, upon any view of political economy, a thousand-fold 

 for all the squid that our people jig alter dark. 



Let it not, however, for a moment be supposed that because I took up the case, 

 of Newfoundland lor convenience sake, as it is presented separately, that I regard it 

 as a distinct pait of the case. The United States has matle no Treaty with the 

 Island of Newfixindland, which has not yet hoisted the flag of the " tone Star." 

 When she docs, perhaps we shall be happy to enter into Treaty relations with her; 

 but we know at present only Her Majesty's Government. We are dealing with the 

 whole aggregate of concessions, from the one side to the other, and Newfoundland 

 conies in with the rest. 



Leaving, then, the Island of Newfoundland, I come to the question of the value 

 to the citizens of the United States of the concessions as to inshore (isheries in the 

 territorial waters of the Dominion of Canada (that is, within three miles of the 

 shore), for the tive annual seasons past, and for seven years to come. In the Hrst 

 place, there is the right conceded to our fishermen to land in order to cure fish and 

 dry nets — to land on unoccupied places, where they do not interfere with private 

 property, nor with British fishermen exercising the same rights. In one of the 

 oldest Law Ileports, I'opham's, an ancient sage of the law, Mr. Justice Doddridge, 

 remarks : " Fishermen, by the law of nations, may dry their nets on the land of any 

 man." Without asserting that as a correct rule of law, I think I may safely assert 

 that it lias been the practice permitted under the comity of nations from the 

 beginning;' of Iniman history, and that no nation or people, no kingdom or country, 

 has ever excluded lishermen from landing on barren and unoccupied shores and 

 rocks to dry their nets and cure their lish. If it was proved that the fishermen of 

 the I'nited Slates did use privileges ol this kind, under the provisions of the Treaty 

 of Washington, to a greater extent than before, I hardly ihink that you would be 

 able to liiid a current coin of the realm sufficiently small in which to estimate com- 

 peiisation lor such a concession. But, in point of fact, the thing is not done ; there 

 is no evidc'iHP that it is clone. On the contrary, the evidence is that this |)ractiee 

 belonged to the primitive usages of a bygone generation. Seventy, sixty, perhaps 

 fifty, years ago, when a little fishing vessel left Massachusetts Bay, it would sail to 

 Newoundland. and after catching a lew tish, the skipper would moor his craft near 

 the shore, land in a h lat and dry the lish on the rocks; and when he had collected 

 a fare of lisli, and tilled his vessel, he wouhl either return back home, or, quite as 

 fre<|uently. would sail on a commercial voyage t<» some foreign country, where he 

 would dispose ot the (Isli and take in a return cargo. But nothing' of that sort has 

 happened ■■vithin the memory of any living man. It is something wholly disused : of 

 no value whatever. And it must not be said that under this concession we .■UHpiire 

 any right to lish from the shore, to haul i-ets from the shore, or to (ish from rocks. 

 Obviously we do not. I agree entirely with the view of my Brother Thomson, as 

 manifested in his conversation with Professor Baird on that subject. 



W^e come, then, to the inshore fishing. What is that? In the first place, there 

 has been sonic attempt to show inshore halibut fishing in the neighbourhood of 

 Cape Sable. It is very slight. It is contradicted by all our witnesses. No 

 American fisherman can be (bund who has ever known of any halibut lishing within 

 three miles of the shore in tliat vicinity; and our lishermen all say th.it it is impos- 

 sible that there should be halibut caught, in any consi«lerable (piantities, in anv place 

 where the waters are so shallow. There is also simie evidence that up in the Gulf 

 of St. Lawrence there was once ;i small local halibut fishery; but the same evidence 

 that speaks of its existence there, speaks of its discontinuance years ago. The last 

 instance of a vessel going there to lish for halibut that has l)een made known to us, 

 is the one that Mr. Svlvantis Smith testifies about, where a vessel of his strayed up 

 into the Gulf, was captured, and was released, prior to the Treaty of Washington. 

 As to the inshore halibut llsliery, there has been no name of a vessel, except in one 

 single instance, when a witness did give the name of the " Saruh C. Pyle," as a 



