248 



I i 



on tlie otlicr side at all. 1 am talking: iib"ut. Treaties — 1 say there is nothing; in any 

 Treaty wliieli would forbid a Nova Scotian or a Prineo Kdward Island eili/.en from 

 goiui? to llloucester, hiring; a^i American vessel with an American resjisler and coming; 

 wit .ii the tliree-iuiio limit and fishin>;' — nothing; at all. If such a vessel be manned by 

 a crew lialf citizens of the United Stales and half Nova Scolians, who are fishing; on 

 shares recollect, and who take the profits of their own catches, where is the dilierence? 

 The United Stales' citizen niav violate the law, but are (he citizens of Nova Scotia 



do ins. 



Tin V are not not tlie " inliabitants " or " fishermen of tiie United States" 



excluded troin tishini;- witliin the tliree-mile limit. Take tiie analosy suggested by the 

 British Cast'. Snppuse, for instance, tiiere was a law forliidding shooting- in the 

 Dominion altoj;i llier h\ any one not a eilizen, miglil not a citizen of the United States 

 lend a gun to a citizi'ii of tlu' Dominion who wanted to shoot game mid jiay him for the 

 g;ame that he sliol ? It comes to tliis, th-it wiien Nova Scotia lishermen fish in an 

 Anieiiean vessel within tlu> tliree-ir,il(> limit, always supposing tliat they engage in the 

 business on sliarcs, thiy are simply using- an instrument lawtiillx under liie Treaty that 

 the .American part of the crew are using; unlawfully, that is all. 1 do not ])ress this 

 legal view, because it is one which, one of tliese iia\s. will have to be taken uj) and 

 decided; 1 siiiqily :-.a\ that is common sense opinion, that if, out of o,(){J0 fisliermen 



GjoOtJ are l>riiish siibji i . -, and lishiiig in American vess.'ls, taking- thi'ir own catciies, 

 making- their own prolits, in that i-ase you c.omol, in e()uity .iiid justice, consider that as 

 part ot' the privil(i;e given to the lisjicrmen or inl'.aliitants of the United States. I am 

 glad 1 am furui.^liing- my friends sometiiing- to tiiink of even if it amuses tliem. 



Mr. Thomson --You are. 



Mr. Trryrnl. — [ thoiii;lii 1 was. Tlie threi- points wiiicii I make are these: — 



1, Tliat ill vahiiiii;- the exclKuii;e of priviiei;-e, tlie crlriif to wliicli tlie ])rivileu;e is 

 onVrcHl is a fair suli;ect of calculalion. and that a privilei;-e opened to "all Hritish 

 subjeels"' is a largi-r and more valuable privilege than one restricted to only the Hritish 

 subjects residi 111 iu tiie Dominion. 



-. 'I'iiat in valuing- tlie excliange of privileg-i', only the direct value can be 

 estimated, ami tlie •■oiisniin'iircs to either part} cannot lie taken into account. 



."!. That so liir as Hritish subjects particijiate in the inshore iisher} in United States' 

 vess( I.-, upon shares, their tisherv is iu no sense the lisliing- of lishermen or inhabitants of 

 the United Slates. 



With regard to the history of these Treaties, tliere are two subjects in that con- 

 necticiii wiiieli I do not propose to discuss at all. One is the lieadland (|nestion. I 

 consider that ilic statement made iiy m\ distinguished colleague who preceded me has 

 really taken t'lat (|iii slion oiil of this discussion. I do not undc rstand that there is any 

 claim iiKuic lure iha! air. portion of t]iis.i>>ard is to be assessed for the jirivilege of 

 coining;- within tlie lic;,illaiids. As to the i-xcecdinulv intei-isliiig- and vry able brief, 

 .submitted for the other side, 1 am not disposed to (piarrel with it. At any rate, I shall 

 not undeiiake to l;o into an\ ariiumeu! upon it. It refers t'litirely to the (jiu'stioii of 

 territ(M'ial ri^ht. and tin- (piestion of extent of jurisdiction— ipiestions with which the 



Uiiiii 



1 



robal 



i States 



>lV WW: 



as iio;iiuii:- III do 



Thev hav(- urver jicin raised b\ our (iovernment, and 



\Mll 



lie 



b 



leeause our claim to lish within the three-mile limit is no more 



an interrereii(-e wiili territorial and iiirisdiction: 

 wax thrmigh a jiark 

 right to cut timber 

 soil. 



d rii;hls o 



t' (ireal lirilain. than a right of 



wciidd be an intertireiice with the ownership of the property, or a 

 ir. a forest wduld he an interference with thi; lee-simple in the 



^fr. Tiidinson. — Do \oii mean to sav there winild be no interfi'rence there ? 



Mr. luisli'r. — Ceriaiiily not. It w-ould be simply a servitude, ^'oti do not mean to 

 say that my rii;lit to i;(i through vour farm interferes with the fee-simple of the 

 projierty -.' 



'Mr. Thomson. — it does not take away the fee-siin])le, but it interferes with my 

 enjoMiieiit ot' ili(^ iiro)ierl V. 



Mr. Trrsrot. — 'I'lial is .-iiiothe'- {|uestion. because compensation may hv tinuid and 

 given, i simply say that it does not interfere with the territorial or jurisdictional right. 



That is the view- 1 take of it. at 



1U1\ 



rate, and I think I can sustain it, if it ever becomes 



necessarv. 



Till'!), with regard to tiie character of the Convention of ISls. I wisli to put on 

 reeri-'i in r<' my proioiuid coinielioii, that b\- everv ride of diploiintic intei'|irelation, and 

 b\ every estalili>lied preeed(.nt. the ('ouveiition of ISlS was abrogated by the 'I're.Uy of 

 11 that 'I'reatv was ended in ls(i(;. the United States and (ireat 

 to tiie Tri'utv of 17!S;?. as the reiiiilator of tlirir rights. That 



]'^'}i. and that wlie 



Britain were reh 



■ate 



proposition f will maintain whenever the proprr time arrives. Hut, certainly, lam not 



