379 



States the right to enter her territorial waters ; and she absolutely not only gives that 

 right, whicii England accepts — iiiid England admits licr right, or otherwise she would not 

 accept the pvitit— -but tliu United States also go a step f'urtiicr, and say tbiit, -'although 

 wo givi- you the right to cotnc on our coasts and fish in our waters within this privileged 

 and territorial distance, yet we warn you tiiat we only L'ivc you that right ibr the portion of 

 our coasts lying to the nortliward of the .'50fh ijaralicl of North latitude." Can anything 

 be clearer than that. It is in the face of that declaration of the United States herself, that 

 one of her Counsel, in arguing this case, advances tliis most extraordinary doctrine. If 

 Mr. Dana be right about tliat matter, tiien the o'Jtli parallel oi North latitude is no barrier 

 at all to our tisbermen, and we have the right to go down and rish where we please along 

 the whole lengtii of the coast of liie United States, liut do you think that this would be 

 tolerated for a moment ? What would be :nu\ to us if we attempted it ? Would it not 

 be this? '' You have admitted our rights, and wc have admitted your rights, then how 

 dare you come to the southward of that line?" What could bc'said to that ? Why 

 clearly nothing, save tiiat wf were infringing our ;.;;rwment. 



And tiu'n, altliough I do not know that this, in itself, would have very much strength 

 as an argument, ir mij,ht be mentioned tlial, in l^lb, tbe .Americans agreed, not on any 

 account whatever to eonie uitliiii three miles oi our ecjasis ; but wo nevei' nuiiie any airrce- 

 meat not to come within three miles of their coasts. At all events, we arc nut hampered 

 by any sue!) agreement ; and if this novel law be correct, as Mr. Dana lays it down, then, 

 beyond a doubt, we have a ri^rlit to (isli on tlieir coast anywhere we please. Tliere can be 

 no doubt about tiiat at all. It helongs to tlie law ol nation;-, says Mr. Dana, that, as long 

 as our lea(l( (I line (Iocs not tiiueli bottom, and our vi.vi'l':: keel toueiies no sand beneath 

 the water, we have the undoubted right to go tli!';c and fisli , but J am very mucii afraid 

 that tiie Anu'rieans wouM tre.t '.is to soiiu' oi' ilr.ir 1^ :i|iecl )vs ii' we were tu ::o down there, 

 and explode us out of those waters in a very short fiiiiv- ; am! I think liiat we would, under 

 such eiicumsta!iC(s, have \(ry scant sympatliy lioia liie civilized world. What does 

 Mr. Dana, or the otiier Counsel in tiiis ease, mean by rai>ing this (|uesti(in'.' A nundjer of 

 the observations made by Mr. Dana, in ihe eourse ol his sijceeli, I could understand would 

 well become the hnstmgs. I could well understand that, in a speech bel'ore a Legislative 

 Assembly, having a jurisdiction over the matter, for the |)urpose of getting such Assembly 

 to alter the law, he might atlvanee such reasons and ari;umenl to show why the law should 

 be altered; but are we not now met — the very itoint wliich lias been forgotten by some of 

 the Counsel — to detcrmint' the relative value of reciprocal jirivilegcs bestowed on eacii 

 nation by llie Treaty of 1S71 ? Is not that Treaty the ehaiter under which you sit';" and 

 does not that expressly admit that we iiave this tbrce-niiie limit? And have not the 

 Americans aece|)ted all our terms? 'j'hey got permis>ion, by that Treaty, to enter tiiese 

 limits; and \ou are here to a>sess the damages .viiii li tluy ouitht to pay to Great Britain 

 for iiaving that right extended to tbein. A\'liy are these (|ue.-ti()ns raised at all? 



i Hiust now refer to some language en'; i .ed i.y ^lr. Dana, whicii, I hope, he used 

 unadvisedly. I am not going to say a harsh wo. a at ;.il ; hut, 1 confess, it struck me that 

 a great deal of what he said wa.'s out of iiiaee: and I only reler to it for the reason, wiiica 

 1 stated at the outset, that 1 cannot pass l)y tiicse observations without notice, lest it 

 sliould be said hereafter that they wcri' put forth by a man ol' high reputation at the L'nited 

 States' Bar, and therefore advanced seriously on hehalt of the l'nited States, and that Cjrcat 

 Britain ■ stood here, represented by her Counsel, and never dissented from tliese views. 

 Let me now say what they are. Iwill first take one expression, which he uses on page (39. 

 He says : — 



"But iliero wen' j,'i'ciil ililliriiltic.-, auciuliii,^ ilie i\i-rci-c <!!' tliis right ef i'\i.-lii.'<iiwi — verv ureal 

 difticaltics. There always Imvc hecii, there always w ill lie. and I jn'ay there al\vav« shall be saeh, until 

 tliiie he I'rei' li.4iiii,L; as well as l'i'i;e trade in fish." 



Xow. I hope that my learned friend, .Mr. Dana, used that language unadvisedly, h 

 Mr. Dana iiad been a inemi)ei' of a llii,di t-'ommission, appointed to settle new Treaties 

 between two countries — two great and Christi.m countries, as Mr. Foster charaeteri/ed 

 Great Mritain and the United States — this language mi'.;ht then be used, and he might 

 then pray that the time would conii' when there should lie no such exclusion : hut, 1 think 

 it is a very ditl'erent thing when the law stands as it does, fixed, and as yet unaltered, and 

 unalterable for the next seven or ei;;ht years, to employ this dangerous and incendiary 

 language. I use the term iiiceiidiai y, m tliis way : I fi'ar that this language will come to the 

 ears and lie read by the eyes ol'a class of men, w lioiii the cvuletiee laid lielorc your I'^xeellency 

 and voiir Honours, if it be not entirely untrue, shows are not always the most peaceable 

 and law-ahiding citizens to be tbund in this world. 'J'hose tisliernien are sometimes rather 

 lawless men ; and if they find language such as this used by the lips of a learned and 



