;uo 



to enter the Bny of St. Lawrence tor fisliinp; purposes. Can (liere 1)0 stroiiiicr proof of 

 habit ? Speaking of tlu' British testimony, says the learned coinisel, Mr. Treseot : '• Willi 

 equal testimony, their proof fails." Pcrliapsao. Has " equal testimony " lieen pmdueeil 

 by tlie United States? Is there any testimony whatever to eontradict this immense mass 

 of evidence of the "habit" of the IJnited States' fisliin;,' fleet .' 



Numbers of fishermen were produced by the United States to sliow that they them- 

 selves had fished at Hanks Bradley and Orphan, and otlier banks and shoals, and at lh<' 

 Magdalen Islands, outside of British waters, who by tlic way, nearly all siitfered loss, hut 

 scarcely any of these witnesses undertook to show li-hryr the ileet fished. On the contrary, 

 they almost invariably qualified their statements by showing that they spoke only of their 

 own individual fishing;. 



The learned counsel for the United States imj)liedly admits that, unless there has 

 been produced witnesses contradicting the Britisli evidence as to " habit," tlie British 

 case is made out. There is a sinp;ular absence in the vast numb<'r v\ witnesses and 

 affidavits produe(>d on both sides Ibr twelve weeks — there is a 8ini;ular and marked 

 absence of contradiction, and upon the principle involvins? " habit." enunciated by 

 Mr. Trescot, the evidence can bo relied on with confidence as fully and completely 

 establishing the claim. 



The learned as;ent, Mr. Foster, in his very able speech, contends that the British 

 claim is not made out, because there are InU a trifiing; (puintity of fish eavight by United 

 States' vessels within the formerly i)rohil»ited limits, but it can be clearly shown that bo 

 is entirely mistaken as to the wein^ht and character of the evidence. He says: — 



" If the tlnoe-iiiilo limit olf tlio lioiiil of I'linco I'.ilwiin! Tslaiiil, iind down bv Mnruiuoi'. wlicro our 

 fisliprnieii sunietinu's lisli a week or twd in liie iuituinn (iiiid those are tlie two puints in wliicii almost 

 (ill the ovideiiee of iii.-iliove tishiiig in this ear.e ix'lates\ if the three-mile limit liad lu'eii Imovi'd out in 

 those places, and our people could have lislieil where they had a right to, under the law 1 1' nations and 

 the terms of the Treaty, nobody would have heard any complaint." 



Again : — 



" .Uraost all the evidence in this case of tisliin;^ within three miles of the slioro relates to the bend 

 of Prince Kdwanl Island and to the vicinity of Maruarec. As to tlie heiid of the island it aii)>ears, in 

 tlw first ]ilace,tliat many of our fishermen rejiacd it as a dan;;erous place, and shun it on that account, 

 not dariufj to come as near the shore as within tlireo miles, because in case of a jrale blowiiij,' (ui shore 

 their vessels would be likely to be wrecked." 



He also says : — 



"There is .somethinn; peculiar about this Prince Edward Island fishery, and its relative proportion 

 to the Nova Scotia fishery. As I said before. 1 am inclined to believe that the iircatest proportion of 

 mackerel caught anywhere in.shuie, arc caiiglit olf Margaree, late in the autumn. The I'nited States' 

 vessels, on their lionu^ward voyage, make harliour at fort Hood, and lie there one or two weeks ; while 

 there they ilo tish within three miles of Maiyarce Islcnd : not lietwcen Margaree Islaiul and the main 

 land, but within three miles of the island .shores ; and just there is found watrr deep enough for 

 vcssel-lishing. Look at the chart, which fully ex]daiiis this fact to my mind. Jlargaret^ i.s a ]iait of Nova 

 Scotia, and Trofessor Hind says there i.s nn immense boat-catch all along the outer coast of Nova Scotia, 

 and estimates that of the mai^kerel catch, (.'lubcc furnishes 7 per cent, (he does not say where it comes 

 from), Nova Scotia 80 per cent., Now IJrunswick 3 percent., and Prince Edward Island 10 per cent." 



This is also from the learned Agent of the United Slates : — 



" When I called Professor Hind's attention to that, and remarked to him that I liad not heard 

 much about the places where mackerel were caught in Xova Scotia, he said it wa.s liecause there was 

 an immense boat-catch on the coast. If there has been any evidence of United Slates' vessels fishing 

 for mackerel within three miles of the shore, or more than three mile.s from the .shore of the outer 

 coast of Nova Scotia, it has escaped my attention. I call my friends' attention to that point. If there 

 is any considerable evidence, I do not know but 1 miglit say any .appreciable evidence of I'^nited 

 Strtes' vessels fishing for mackerel off the coast of Novia Scotia (I am not now speaking of Margaree, 

 hut the coa.st of Nova Scotia), it has escaped my attention. As to Cape Hietoii. v(My liltle evidence 

 has been given, except in reference to the waters in the neighbourhood of Port Hood." 



Providing Mr. Foster were correct in the view he has put forward of the evidence, 

 he might with some reason urge the Commission to refuse tlic Award claimed on behalf 

 of Her Majesty's Government. 



Nothing could be more unjust and unfair to the character of the Canadian fisheries 

 ihan to adopt the statement of the learned Agent as to Prince Edward Island and Mar- 

 garee as the correct result of the facts established by absolutely uncontradicted evidence 

 now before the Commission. 



!t is true that the main efforts of United States' counsel were exerted to impeach 



