"tTT" 



iM 



cii»iiieiil Coiiiiscl of tlie United Stutes, tlicy may say at once, " This is United Slates' 

 doctrine, and tiiey will back us up; and it' we break tbrouu'h these laws, wliich wo know 

 perfectly well were pas8>.a lor the purpose of prcventint? vis iiavinj; these rights, nnd passed 

 l()r the purpose of |)reventinj; us entering liiese waters, the United States will hack us up, 

 for she has said so tinough lier Counsel.'' I deprecai- that lan}<uai;e very much. 



In this connection 1 will point out sonic other sei..onccs, from which 1 entirely dissent 

 for the .same reason. 1 will take the following statement, which will be found on page 71 

 of the Argument : — 



"There wa«, at the snnu' time, n (Icsiic j.'riiwinf; on lioth siilos for i-cciprocily nl" trndc, ami it 

 bui'iiiiii' n)))mri'nt tlint tliiTo rould he im |H'nii) liclwccii thcsr ('(iiintries until this iilicnipt ill I'xcliioiciii 

 liy iiiiiijjiiiuiv linos, always to lie iiiatlcis nl' (lis|iiili', wiis yivcn ii|i — aalil we ciiiiic lmci< I" mir iiin ii'iil 

 rij^lits 1111(1 iiosiliiiiis ll wiis iiioiv cxiii'ii-ivi' t'l (Irciil Uriliiin lliiin In us. It inmli' niniv ilislinlniiici! 

 in liu' ivlilimis liftwfcii iirciit r.riiniu ami licv provinces than il did lictwiru (irc.il lliilaiu and 

 it\u-si'lv('s ; Imt it ]ml cvitv mans lili' in jHiil ; it |>ut the results oj every manV laln.ni- in iieril, and 



tor wlmt .' For tlie imiij,'iiiiUT i'i'.;lit to exelude a di'e]i->eii li>liernian tVoni dro|.|iinj,' Ids 1 k or Ins 



net into tlie water t'or the free swimuiiny; tisli, that haM' no liaMtiit, timt are tlie iiropeiiy of nnliody. 

 hut whiih are created to be cam^lit liy lisliei'nien." 



I again say that these views might possibly be properly advanced by High Commis- 

 sioners appointed to settle new Treaties between nations ; but, in respect to a delinitt; 

 Treaty which cannot be altcieii, and f)vcr wl.ich this Commission has i!u power whatever, 

 this language ought never to have been uttered. 



Again, on page 72, wc find the following : — 



" That, may it ]dcnse the liilninal. i^ the mil me ul tins tlure-iiMle exelU'inn. Ini- ilc- ;vlu|iii.-,|i 

 uieilt of wldcli (ileal Ihitain asks iis In niiike pei iiniaiy compcnsatiuii. It is one ol imnieiisi iiiipoi- 

 tanco to her, a cau.sc of constant troiilile. nii.l. us I .■^Imll show yoii--iis 1ms hei'ii ,^hn\\ n \oii alveady hy 

 my piodece.s,sin-s — of very little ]iccuiiiaiy value in I'',ii;_daiMl, in sliuriiij,' it villi n>. nr In \: in olii.iiiiiuL' 

 it, hut a very dan;,'erous iiistruineiil for two natinn-. to play with." 



Now, I cannot conceive why imy danger sliould exist in connectitm with any solemn 

 aizreomcnt made by two great nilions which cleaily nnder.^tood their respective rights 

 under lliat agreement, I am not now talking of the headland question at all. 1 am not 

 discussing that, but there is an explicit agreement that these ()eople shall not enter waters 

 within three miles of the land, and l;ow that became a " dangerous instrument," unless one 

 or other of the parties to it intend to commit a breach of it, I cannot understand. Of course, 

 Great Britain (loes not intend to commit tiny breach of it, because she giiined no |)rivilege 

 under it ; and, unless the United States' lishcrmen intend to violate it, and the United 

 iStates intend to uphold them in committing this breach of international law, and this 

 breach of laith, I cannot see where this " dangerous instrument" is. 



Mr. Dana. — Does the learned Counsel refer to the present Treaty ? 



Mr. Thi mson. — Oh, certainly not. As 1 stated at the outset, I cannot perceive why tills 

 language was used at all, because, uiuier the Treaty liy virtue of which you are now sitting, 

 there is no (juestion about this at all. The Treaty of IhlS has notliinu' to do with this 

 iiU|uiry except, indeed, showing how .Americans were tbrmerly cxcludett from the limits, 

 and therefore, what privileges they have gained under the Treaty of Washimiton. 



So, on the same page, 7"^, he says, alter alluding to the abrogation of the Reciprocity 

 Treaty :— 



'■ We Were remitted to the anlii|unted ami most uudesii.d'h iiositinn of excli; inn. Iml ve ri'iiiiiined 

 in that jiosition only li\e years, frniii ISHi; uiilil 1S71. until a new Treaty could he made, and a little 

 while loiiiier, until it could be imt into operalii'ii. Whal was the result of retmninu in tlie old system 

 of exclusion ? Why, at once the cutlers ami llie shijisof wni- tliiit were watchiiij,' these coasis s])rea(i 

 their sails; they .stole out of the liailionis wheir ihey hml lieeii hidden, ihey naiiked ilieir tires, thes 

 lay in wail for the American ve.ssels, and they jiuisued them from hendlaiid in headland, ami liom 

 bay to hay ; .sometimes a liritish olVheroii the i|uar;ei-(lcck- and tlu'ii vM' weir ( (aiilniialiMly safe-- 

 but someliines a new-Hedged ]iioviiK iid. a tc-miKiiaiy nllicer, and then we weri' iin\ lliili;,' lail .'■ale. ;\ii(i 

 ihey seized us and look us. imt into eniirt, Inil Ihey Inok us into haihnur, iiiid tliev sliipj.ed us, and 

 the crew left the vessel, and the carj.'o was lauded: and al their will and ]ileiisiiie the ea.se. at last 

 might fjome into court. Then, if we were disiui.s.scd, we had no costs, if theii- was jihihahle cause, we 

 could not sue, if we had not given a innuiji's iintice, and we were helpless." 



I repeat that I deprecate these terms. M ho brought the cutters down upon them 

 after l^()()■f' Did Great Britain do so? Did the Dominion of Canada do so i* Most 

 certainly not. The United Stilte^ did so. 'Iheir eyes were open to the consequences of 

 their act, and the United Statis, under these circumstances, of their own mere motion, 

 al>ro:.alcd the Treaty of H54, by which common privileges were given to American and 

 British fisliermen. It was iheir own act by which that Treaty was abrogated, and as a 

 consequence, they were remitted to the old system of exclusion. Wc did nol do tliic. 



Iv- 



