220 



li 



i! 



intcrnatioiKil InwKiiit," iiiul \vc are to be f;;ovcrnc(i Ity the Niiiiic nilr^ ot evidence 

 thr t npply in all JudirinI Trihiinnis— not, of conrHc, by the techniniiilics of iin\ 

 pnrticiiinr system of law, but by those great general principles wliicii prevail 

 wherever, among civilized men, justice is administered. lie who makes a claim is 

 to prove his claim and tiie amount of it. This is not a (piestion to bo decided upon 

 diplomatic considerations ; it is a (pirstion of proof. Money is to be paid lor value 

 received, and he who claims the money is to show that the value hnH been received, 

 or will be. If tlicrc arc extravagant expectations on the one siile, that is no reason 

 for awarding a sum of money. If there is a belief on the other side that the 

 results of the Treaty are injurious to a great industry, which nearly all civilized 

 nations have thought it worth while to foster by bounties, that is no argument 

 against rendering compensation. Whatever benefit the citizens of the United 

 States are proved to derive from the inshore mackerel fisheries, within tlirce miles 

 of the shore of the tiulf of Sr. Lawrence, for that you are to make an award, 

 having regard to the offset, of which it will be my duty to sneak at a later period. 

 The inquiry divides itself into these two heads : First, What lin.i bent the value 

 from July \, 1873, dnw» to Ih" prpst-nt time? and, second, What is it ijning to br 

 herenftfr? I invite your attention to the proof that i.s before you as to the value 

 of the mackerel fishery since the Treaty went into effect. And here I must deal 

 with the question : What proportion of the mackerel is caught in territorial 

 waters, viz., within three miles of the shore? A great mass of testimtmy has 

 been adduced on both sides, and it might seem to be in irreconcilable conflict. 

 But let us not be dismayed at this a|)pearance. There arc certain land-marks 

 which cannot be changed, by a carcl'id attention to which I think wc may expect 

 to arrive at a tolerably certain coi\ciusion. In the first place, it has brrn proved, 

 has it not ? by a great body of evidence, tliat there is, and always has been, in the 

 Gulf of St. Lawrence, a very extensive mackerel fishery clearly beyond Itritish 

 jurisdiction, as to wh:ch no new rights are derived by the citizens of the United 

 States from the Treaty of Wasliington. It is true that the map tiled in the British 

 Case, and the original statement of that Case, make no distinction between the 

 inshore and the deep-sea mackerel fisheries. To look at this map, and to read the 

 British Case, you would think that the ohi claims of exclusive jurisdiction through- 

 out the Gulf were still kept up, ;ind that all the mackerel caught in the (lulf of 

 St. I^iwrence were, as one of the witnesses expressed himself, " British subjects." But 

 we know perfectcy well, that a United States' vessel, passing throng!) the Gut of 

 Canso to catch mackerel in tlie Gulf, will find numerous places where, for many 

 years, the fishing has been the best, where the fish arc the largest, and where the 

 catches are tlie greatest, wholly away from the shore. The map attached to the 

 British Case tells this story, for all through the tiulf of Sr. Lawrence, the 

 gentlemen who formed that map have put down the places where mackerel arc 

 caught ; and if the map itself does not indicate that seven-eighths of the mackerel 

 fishing grounds must be clearly far away from the shore, I am very much mistaken. 

 At the Magdalen Islands, where we have always had the right to fish as near as we 

 pleased to the shore, the largest and the best mackerel are taken. At Bird Rocks, 

 near the Magdalen Islands, where there is deej) water close to the rocks, and where 

 the mackerel are undoubtedly taken close inshore (within two or three miles 

 of the Bird Bocks you will find the water to be twenty fathoms «lecp),all around the 

 Magdalen Islands, the mackerel fishing is stated hv the experts who prepared this 

 map to be good the season ti)rou<;h. Then we have the Bank Br.ulley, the Bank 

 Miscou, the Orphan Bank, tiie Fisherman's Bank, and we have the tisliing ground 

 of Pigeon Mill; all these grounds are far away from the shore, where there cannot 

 be the least doubt that our fishermen have always had the right to tish, aside from anv 

 provisions (»f the present Treaty. The most experienced and ^'.iccessl'ul fishermen 

 who have testified before you, say that those have been places to which they have 

 resorted, and that there they were most successful. 



Look at the testimony of Andrew Lcighton, whom wc he.ird of from the other 

 side early, as one of tho most successful fishermen that ever was in the gull. He 

 speaks of' the largest season's fishing any man ever had in the bay — 1,515 barrels — 

 and says: " 1 got the mackerel the first trip at Orphans and the Magdalens; the 

 second trip, at the Magdalens; the third trip, at Fisherman's Bank; iind I ran 

 down to Margaree and got 2\h barrels there, and went home." All the nmckcrel at 

 Margaree, he says, were cauglit within two miles of the shore— within the admitted 

 limits. Recall the evidence of Sylvanus Smith and .loseph Rowe, experienced and 

 successful fishermen, who tell you that they cared little for the privilege of fishing 



