241 



No. V. 

 Closing Argument of Hon. Wm. H. Trescot, on behalf of the United States. 



Mr. President uiul Gentlemen of the Commission, — 1 am very glad that in this con- 

 tiuversy tliere is one jioint upon wiiich we are all agreed, and that is, ihe imporlance of 

 setlling it, of having a source of constant irritation dried up for ever, or, better still, 

 if it bo possible, of having it converted into a spring of nuitual and iierpetual 

 benefit. Whatever, therefore, may be the direct practical result of this investigation, 

 we shall have achieved no small or inconsiderable thing, if we have hiarned at its close 

 to appreciate each other's rights and interests fairly, justly, and kindly. 



The best way to secure that end is to speaii on both sides with entire candour, to 

 state our respective views as clearly and as strongly as we can, \nd then to leave it to tlio 

 imj^artial judgment of the Conunlssion to balance our calculations, compare our pre- 

 tensions, and estimate at their true value the claims which we have submitted; only 

 asking them to remember that they do not sit here as arbitrators to compromise rival 

 interests, but as the appraisers of certain values, as the judges of the correctness of 

 certain facts and figures. 



I conceive it to be the duty of every one participating in this investigation to do all 

 he can to aid tlie Connnission in reaching an agreement, and that you will arrive at some 

 sound and satisfactory conclusion I sincerely hope ; for, during tlie whole of our exami- 

 nation, I confess I have never looked up at the picture of His Majesty George 111, 

 which hangs behind tlie President's chair, without feeling that it is not creditable that 

 two great and kindr(>d nations should to-day be still angrily discussing a question which 

 ho thought he had finally settled with Franklin and Adams, with Jay and Laurens, a 

 hundred years ago, when he recognized the independence of the United States with all 

 its consccpiences. 



You have been told, and with truth, by the representatives of both contestants, 

 that the Treaty of 1871 is the charter of your autliority. To ascertain, therefore, 

 the extent of the powers which have been given, and the character of the duties 

 which have been imposed, we must go to the Treaty of Washington. But we cannot 

 go to that Treaty alone. The Treaty of 1871 is but one phase of tlie fishery negotia- 

 tions. It was a marked change fron\ the condition of thii'gs in 18G6; that was a 

 change from the condition of things in 1854 ; that, again, was a large departure 

 from the Convention of 1818, and that Convention was in itself a very great change 

 U'om the Treaty of 1783. 



It is simply impossible to understand the meaning of the Treaty of 1871 correctly 

 Nvithout reference to the history of those negotiations, and the positions which have 

 been taken, and wliich have been abandoned or maintained by the respective 

 Governments. 



And the Britisli Case, as filed, distinctly recognizes this necessity, not only in the 

 elaborate history of those negotiations with which it prefaces its argument, but in the 

 central assumption of its formal contention, viz., that the Treaty of 1818 is part and 

 parcel of the Treaty of 1871, 



These negotiations, fortunately, lie within a compact and manageable compass, 

 and it is possible, I think, briefiy and clearh to develop tiicir history and sequence. 



The Treaty of 1783, the Convention of 1818, the Reciprocity Treaty of 1854, and 

 the Treaty of Washington of 1871, are landmarks in our navigation over these rather 

 troidiled waters. If I may borrow a figure frt)m our subject, I will endeavour, in my 

 argumen',, to keep well within the three-mile limit, not to run between headland and 

 headland, unless I am driven by extraordinary stress of weather, and even then I shall 

 not enter and delay in every port tiiat lines the coast for shelter, food, or fuel, 

 unless the persuasive rhetoric of my friend from Prince Kdward's Island should detain 

 me in the magnificent harbours of Malpeque and Cascumpeqne, or my friend from 

 Newfoundland should toll uie with "fresh scpiid" into tht happy and prosperous regions 

 of Fortune Bay. 



But before I go into the discussion of these Treaties, I wish to ask your con- 

 sideration to some observations on the general meaning and proper interpretation of 

 the Treaty of 1871, in order that they may be out of the way of the main argument. 

 And first 1 will ask you to carry with you throughout the discussion a fact so obvious 

 that I woidd not have referred to it at all, had not the whole argument of the Britisli 

 Case entirely ignored it. That fact is, simply, that this Convention, and the Treaty 

 upon which it is founded, arc transactions between the United Stales on the one side 



