■f- 





272 



ripjlit to ri'fit ; for a rii>1it to pet stipplica ; to:- a vi ;lil to tradr ; to iihId.uI car,! s • f fisli 

 ar C'aiiso anil si-nd llu'in to llu; I'nitod Siatfs, and lor all llic dania^u ilial lisiicrmeu 

 nii^lil do anywlit re bv llu-ir mode of lisliin^^ ; for tlie iiijurv done by llirowinp; overboard 

 the {jurry, ami for collisions between boats and vessels that migiit occur in the wattsrs of 

 the Island bend; and, addin|; those all tof!;ether, they mip;ht make a claim that — winit 

 they lost ii\ damaRcs, and what they t!;ave to us in facilities of trade, adiled to wliat we fjot 

 by Article XVllI, might make up somethijig to set-olf against what they knew they were 

 receiving in dollars and cents from us by tlie remission of tjulies. 'I'iiey felt that we had on 

 our side a certainty ; they had on their side altogetlier an uncertainty and a mere specula- 

 tion ; that we remitted from our Treasury and put back into tlieir pockets exactly two 

 dollars a barrel on every barrel of mackerel sent into port, and one dollar on every barrel 

 of herring that was to be computed and estimated ; so that the British iisherman, when he 

 landed his tish on tlio wiiarf in Boston, landed it on the same terms that the American 

 landed his, while heretofore he had landed it handicapped by two dollars a barrel, wliich 

 he nuist first i)ay. Our charge is substantial; ours can be put into ihe columns of an 

 account ; ours is certain. Theirs is speculative and uncertain, and unless it could be backed 

 up with some certainties of damages and of trade tliey felt that it fell beneath them. 



It will be my duty hereatYer to press upon your Honours a little further the 

 consideration of the utterly uncertain estimate that can be put upon the meie franchise 

 or liberty of attempting to catch the free-swinuning (ish within certain limits of the 

 ocean. Now, first, with your Honours' leave, I will take up tiie consideration of 

 tlie money value of the removal of this geographical restriction, for that is what it is. 

 The ancient freedom is restored, the recent and occasional restrictions as to three mil s 

 is removed, and the colonists say that that has been of pecuniary value to us. Wlietli(,>r 

 it is a loss to them or not is utterly immaterial in this consiileratiDii. They cannot ask 

 you to give them damages for any loss to them. It is only i!ie value to us. It is like a 

 person buving an article in a shop and a third person appointed to determine what 

 is the value of that article to the purch.iser. It is quite immaterial how great a 

 mistake the man may have made in selling it to him, or what (laiiKr;e the want of it may 

 have brought upon his family or himself. If I have bought an umbrella across the 

 counter, and I leave it to a third man to determine the value of the umbrella to me, it 

 is totally immaterial whether the man has sold tlie only one he had, and iiis family havo 

 snflered for the want of it. That is a homely illustration, but it is perfectly apt. 

 The question is, VV'liat is the value to the citizens of the United States, in money, of the 

 removal of this geographic restriction ? Not what damage this may have been to the 

 Provinces by reason of the Treaty which Her Majesty's Governmant saw lit to make 

 with us. 



What, then, is the money value of the removal of the restriction ? On the subject of 

 Newfoundland — which 1 desire to treat with great respect, because of tlie size of the 

 Island and its numerous bays, and because of my respect and alfection tor the gentleman 

 who represents the semi-sovereignty before this Tribunal — there is an article in the 

 " Revue des Deux Mondes"of November, 1874, on the value ot Newfoundland and 

 its fisheries to France, of extreme interest, from which I would like to cpiote largely. It 

 seems to nie to be exhaustive. It gives the whole history and present condition of these 

 fisheries, and among other things, it sliows tliat in attempting to grant us a riglit there, 

 Great Britain made us overlap very much the rights of the French; and that if wc 

 . slioiild undertake to carry into eflect some of the rights given us by the Treaty of 1871, 

 we might have tlie Republic, or Monarchy, or Empire, or whatever it may be, on the 

 other side of the water, to settle the question with, as well as this Tribunal. ! suppose 

 this Tribunal is satisfied that we do not catch cod within three miles of Newfoundland ; 

 that we do not catch even our bait there, but that we buy it. Finding that we had 

 proved a complete case, that we bought our bait there, the very keen argument was 

 made by the counsel on the other side, that though we bought our bait, wc must be 

 held to have caught it. " Qui facit per alium,facit per se," says the counsel ; and so, if 

 yon buy a thing of a man and he sends a boy out to get it, the boy is your messenger, 

 not his ; and you have not bought it of him, but of the person to whom he sends lor it ! 

 This again is a homely illustration, but it is perfectly plain. When a fisherman comes and 

 says, " I will sell my fish at so much a pound," and has not got them, but goes o(f and 

 catches them, and I pay him that price, I buy the fish of him, do I not ? What is it but 

 a mere illusion, a mere deception, a mere fallacy to say, that because I knew that he 

 had not the fish on hand at the time and is going off to get it, though I agree to buy it 

 of him a* i fixed rate, and 1 am not going to pay liiiii tiir his services, but for the fish 

 wlien delivered — that I am fishing through him and not buving of him ? It is very hard 

 to argue a perfectly clear case, one that has but one side iu it. Nothing but stress of 



