S40 



value of till! articles (•xcl\anK0t1, an'l that llic (lucstioii wIicIIrt or not ('f)iializati()ii is 

 romjuMisatioii tor any sacrilin's made by the Treat), is one uilli wliicli lliey Innr notliinj;- 

 to do ; tlie (|iU'stion wliiei) is sulmiitteil (o llieni is llie value, ami not liin;;' else, ot' tliu 

 two exi'lian;;i's. It is not llie 'Inly, nor is il wiiliiii llii" power of lliis ConHuission, as the 

 Hrilisli Counsel seem to siipiiose, to make (lie Treaty of l'*^71 an eijual Tnaly, hut 

 simply to eipialize a specific i'xcliani;e of values under a six'cial [provision of that Treaty. 

 It is precisely, as far as you are concerned, as it', instead of the exchange of lisliiiij; 

 privile;;-es, that 'I'reaty had proposed an exehauf^e of territory, i-'or instanei', if that 

 Treats had proposed the I'xcliaiifi'e of Maine and Manitoiia, and the I'nili'd States had 

 niaintaineil that the value t' Maine was mucii larger than Manilol)a. an<l rel'errcd it to 

 you to etpialize the exclian^c. il is very manifest that to New KnL;land, for instance, it 

 iiiiy;ht not oi.ly he disadvantageous, hut very dan;;erons; hut tlic oidy ipieslion t()r you to 

 consider woiild he the relative value of the two pieces of lerritorv. So here f do not 

 care \vhat the eoiise(|uenees may he. Il may he that when u)U have eipiali/.ed these 

 privilcLies so as to mak(> the exehaimc of piMvile^c'. preeisrls e\en, that ihen tlio 

 cons(i|U('iK'es of the excliani;!' of tishi'ries mii^ht he the dcslruetion of all the fisheries 

 of Prince Kdwiinl Island, the entire destruction of the iisjiiu:; industry of the 

 Maritime Provinces. Hut that is a matter svilh which you have nolhin;.;- to do. This 

 is a eonsccpienee of the Treaty, and not a consciiiK-nce of tin- dillerenee in \alue 

 between the \\\'i artieli"s of exehani;c which \ou are called upon lo a|ipraise. 



The same principle wouhl le;iil lo this result also; that with the eonse(pienlial 

 profit or hxs of the fisheries you have nothinj;' to do. You have a rii-ht lo measiu'o 

 the value of the fisheries as they are, and what they are. hut \ou have no rii;ht lo i)ut 

 into that estimate a calculation of the enterprise, industry, skill, and ea[iilal whieii the 

 Aiuerieans put into tin fishery : that is, brains, and money, and experience, which 

 is entirely foreii;;n to the fishery as a fishiMW. It is fre(^ to he enijiloyed anywhere else, 

 anil you have no rii;lit to calcidate that. The lisli in the water havi- a certain value, 

 but the skill, and capital, and enter[)ri/.o which are reipfuvd lo take them out, dava not 

 belon;; lo the fishery as a fishery, and it is not a matter that \ou ha\e an\ ri^hl to lake 

 into calculation. Take, for (.-x uiiiile, the extraordinary iirinci|)lu that is staicid in the 

 British Case, on page 'M : — 



" A li;il'liii|p:ili(iii liV lislh'iiiic'U (if till' I'liileil Stiiti's ill llii^ fri'oifoMi uf tlit'si; waters liiiist, iiiit- 

 witfist,iiiiliiiL' llu'ir Udiwlcii'iillv icprciihlctivi' caiKirily, tell iiiatcriallv nii tin- lucaj eateli, and. wliili! 

 U'lf Status' tislieiiiieii a pl'elitalile riii|iloyiiu,'iil, iiui-Jt s.'l'inllsly iulelfei't' willi jecaf 



afl'enfiiiL; t'l llie 

 SUi'eess." 



I'lii 



Is tliat a principh' of calculation wliieh you can apply to a (msc like this .' Was 

 there ever a case of such absolute toru'etfuliicss of that homely old proverb over which 

 everv oiu' of us lias painfully sliunhled in his walk thr()uj;h life, that " you cannot (>al your 

 cak(> and have it loo<'" Why, take that fivourite aixl a.pt ilhistraiion of the IJritish 

 case, a tenancy for shootiiu;-. If I exehant^cd a grouse moor in Scotland for a pheasant 

 preserve in Kni;land, and my friend Her British Majesty's Agent was arbitrator to 

 ctpiali/.e their values, what would ho think of the claim that the grouse moor was the 

 more valuable because 1 used a breech-loadtjr, carried two kei'pers with extra guns, 

 shot over do;:;s costing 100 guineas a-pieee, and bagged 100 hrace, where the other 

 sportsman stuck to the old nm/.zle-loader, carried no keeper, shot over an untrained 

 pointer, and only bagged twenty-five brace, or to the still more extraordinary comi)iaint 

 that the freedom of the moor, notwithstan<'ing its wonderful reprodiiclive capacity, 

 must tidl materially on the local shooting, and wliih; alfording the l(.'ssee profitable aiid 

 pleasant eiiiphiyment, •'must seriously inlert'erc" with the ])ot-shooting of the hoys of 

 the lessor's family. Yet tliat is jtist iirecisely tlie argument ihat our friends liave inade. 

 Tlie\ undertake, not to decidi; tiie value of the fisliery, l)ut they undertake to put 

 into arbitration licre what we do with the fishery. That is, we are to pay, not 

 onlv for the privilege of going mackerel fishing in t\w IkmhI of Prince Ivlward 

 Tsiand, but we are to pay for every dollar of capital and Imlustry we emplov, and 

 for tlie men employed, and the result of that combination is the money to which they are 



ntitled. 



So also with the conserpiential damages, witli regard lo the destruction of lish, 

 trawling, sehiing, and all those things with which yon have nothing to do. I think I cau 



eplv to the whole of that by a very pithy sentence, uttered hy one of your citizens 

 who was very famous, the late .Joseph Howe, in a siH.'ech made in my country in regard 

 to the fisheries here. He said: "As for tlu; destruction of the fisheries, wIkmi one 

 thought that the roes of thirty cod supply all the waste of the American, IJritish. and 

 Colonial fisheries, it was not worth while to discuss that question ;" and I do not think it 



