mmmm 



364 



He hud no more power to deteniiiiic that impoitant international (jucslion thnn, aii it 

 is conceded, have 3'our Excellency and Honours in this Conunission. 



Mr. Trescot. — Docs not the question of damages .^r trespass settle the right of 

 possession ? 



Mr. Thomson.— \ am quite willing that when the learned Counsel for the United 

 States think I am making misstatements of law or facts I should be interrupted, but I 

 cannot expect them to concur iu my arguments, and it is difficult to get on in the midst 

 of interruptions. If I undci-stand the argur.enta against the British case, able arguments 

 1 admit they are, and if I understand the arguments which I shall have the honour to 

 submit, I shall show that they have not one single leg to stand upon ; that they have no 

 foundation for the extraordinary defence that has been se: up to the righteous claim of the 

 British Government for compensation. If I fail to sliow this, it will not be because it 

 cannot be shown by Counsel of the requisite ability, but simply because I have not the 

 ability to present the subject as it should be presented to your Excellency and Honours. 



Aly learned friend, Mr. Trescot, after taking the ground that the Treaty was not made 

 between the United States and Canada, but was made between the United States and 

 Great Britain, went on to use an argument which certainly caused me a great deal of 

 astonishment at the time, but which 1 think, upon reflection, will not inure to the benefit 

 of the United States. " Why," said he, referring to a Minute of Council which ht read, 

 " the Canadian Government said in that Minute that if Great Britain would guarani<;e a 

 loan of (I think it was 4,000,000/.) they would be willing that this Treaty should b? 

 passed." Now, that had reference, we well know, to the Fenian claims particularly. 

 Whether it was creditable to Canada or not to give up the right to compensation for the 

 outrageous violation of neutral territory by marauders from the United States, it is not my 

 province to argue. She had a right to give it up if slie saw fit to do so in consideration of 

 a guarantee by Great Britain of the proposed loan. Mr. Trescot says : " Because you were 

 dissatisfied with this Treaty, — because you were dissatisfied with losing your territorial nj^lits, 

 — you obliged Great Britain to guarautee a lean of 4,000,000/. in reference to an inter- 

 colonial railway.' Great Hriiain did guarantee a loan, and Canada got the money. '' With 

 what face," he says, " docs Canada come here now and claim compensation since she has 

 been paid for that !- " 



Well, it struck iiic thai if his argument was correct it proved a little too much. What 

 does it show ? TIjIs question, by his own contention, is one between Great Britain and the 

 United States. Great Britain claims a compensation here which, under the terms of the Treaty 

 she is entitled to get. If, therefore, as Mr, Trescol argues, the claim has been paid, I would 

 ask, who has paid it? If Canada has been paid for yielding certain important teiritorial 

 rights to the United States for the term of twelve ycais from 1873, if Canada has ceded 

 those rights to the Unittu t?tate», as undoubtedly she has by the Treaty of Washington, and 

 if Canada has been paid ibi' tluit cession by Great Biitaiu, then I ap|irchend Great Britain 

 has paid the debt whieli the United States ought to have paid, and she can properly and 

 justly look to the United States to be refunded. !Now, that guarantee was exactly 

 4,000,000/. sterling. We arc modest in our claim, and ask for only 15,000,000 dollars 

 aitogeLlier. That being s-o, 1 think Mr. Trescot has pretty well settled this case. I think 

 it was he, but I am not quite sure, who said in the course of his speech, although I did not 

 find it reported afterwards, perhaps it was Mr. Dana, — that when he came down here first 

 b.e thought the case of the British Government was a great deal better than it turned cut 

 in evidence. 



Mr. Trescot. — I didn't say that. 



Mr. Thormon. — It was said by one of the Counsel for the United States. It may be 

 repudiated now. 



Mr. Dana. —I haven't committed my speech to memory. 



Mr. Thomson. — Unfortunately, 1 do not find it committed to paper. At all events thpt 

 is the fact. If you take Mr. 'i'rcscot's argument, the result is that wc must get 4,000,000/. 

 sterling. Great Britain paid that ; and it is just the case of a man who, with the consent 

 of another, pays that other's debt. It is money paid to his use, as all lawyers know, and is 

 a valid claim against the party for whom it was paid. 



Now, I will follow him a little further, and will examine some other propositions that 

 he laid down. He says this, on page .OS of hi* speech : — 



" It is (irocisely, a.s Uw us you aid concerned, u^ if, inslcml of the excliange of tisliinj,' iiriviloi;efl, 

 that Treaty liiid ]mjiJoseil iiu cxclmii^'c of territory, if tlmt Trciity liuil proposed the e.\cliaiij,'e of Maine 

 and Manitoba, and tlie riiitcd .'^tiitcs Imd nminlniiicd tlmt tlic value of Maine was niucli iarf,'or than 

 Manitoba, and leleiied it to yon lo wiualise tln' 1 xclianu'e. ll is very manifest that to New Kn<,'land 

 for instance, it nii},dil not only l>e di.sailvaiitayeous, but very dangerous; but the only ipie.stion for 

 you to consider, would be the relative value of the two pieces of temtory." 



