upon; that they have no foundation for the extraordinary defense that has been set up to the righteous claim of the British Government for compensation. If I fail to show 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 honors.

My 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 I think, upon reflection, will not inure to the benefit of the United States. "Why," said he, referring to a minute of council which he read, "the Canadian Government said in that minute that if Great Britain would guarantee a loan of (I think it was £4,000,000), they would be willing that this treaty should be 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 she thought 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 rights-you obliged Great Britain to guarantee a loan of £4,000,000 in reference to an intercolonial railway." Great Britain did guarantee a loan, and Canada got the money. "With what face," he says," does Canada come here now and claim compensation, since she has been paid for that?"

Well, it struck me that if his argument was correct it proved a little too much. What does it show? This 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. Trescot argues, the claim has been paid, I would ask who has paid it? If Canada has been paid for yielding certain important territorial rights to the United States for the term of twelve years from 1873, if Canada has ceded those rights to the United States, as undoubtedly she has by the Treaty of Washington, and if Canada has been paid for that cession by Great Britain, then Í apprehend that Great Britain has paid the debt which 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 are modest in our claim, and ask for only $15,000,000 altogether. That being so, I 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 he thought the case of the British government was a great deal better than it turned out in evidence.

Mr. TRESCOT. I didn't say that.

Mг. THOMSON. 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.

Mг. THOMSON. Unfortunately I do not find it committed to paper. At all events, that is the fact. If you take Mr. Trescot's argument, the result is that we must get four million pounds sterling. Great Britain paid that; and it is just the case of a man who, with the consent of an

other, pays that other's debt. It is money paid to his use, as all law. yers 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 propositious that he laid down. He says this, on page 58 of his speech:

It is precisely, as far as you are concerned, as if, instead of the exchange of fishing priv ileges, that treaty had proposed an exchange of territory. For instance, if that treaty had proposed the exchange of Maine and Manitoba, and the United States had maintained that the value of Maine was much larger than Manitoba, and referred it to you to equalize the exchange. It is very manifest that to New England, for instance, it might not only be disadvantageous, but very dangerous; but the only question for you to consider would be the relative value of the two pieces of territory.

Well, I will take his view of that matter, and let us see what follows. He in effect says, just put one territory against another and take their value-how many acres are there in the State of Maine and how many in the Province of Nova Scotia? Now, we have evidence of what the concession is under this treaty to the fishermen of the Dominion. They get the right to fish as far north as they please over a line drawn from the thirty-ninth parallel of north latitude upon the American coast, a distance, I think, of somewhere about 1,050 miles. As against that, the United States fishermen get upon the British-American coast the right to fish over an extent of some 3,700 odd miles. There is a clear balance entirely against them. Or, if you choose to take the area in square miles, you have nearly 3,500 square miles of fishing territory given to us by the United States, while 11,900 square miles of British territorial waters are given to them. I am quite willing to meet them upon their own ground, to oppose them with their own weapons. In that view there is just the difference in our favor between 3,500 square miles and 11,900.

Now, I will pass on to another branch of our claim for compensation. Great Britain says, and we have proved, that along the line of Canadian coast upon which the American fishermen ply their calling by virtue of this treaty, there have been very costly harbors made, and there have been numerous large and expensive light-houses erected. Great Britain says that by means of these harbors and light-houses the fishermen of the United States have been enabled more successfully to prosecute their calling in territorial waters. That would strike you, I think, as being obviously the case. These improvements render the privilege conceded by us much more valuable than it otherwise would have been. Suppose the coast to have been entirely unlighted, and the harbors to have been unsafe and difficult of access, it might then well have been said that the privilege was merely a nominal one; that no fisherman could ply his vocation in Canadian territorial waters without danger to life and property. The evidence as to the cost of these works is before you, and I do not intend to go into it. I am only alluding to it because I am following the course of Mr. Trescot's address. Does it not strike you as reasonable that the effect of these expenditures upon the American fishing-business should be taken into consideration? Not only is there greater safety and more certainty of successful catches, but money is there. by actually put into the pockets of their merchants in the shape of premiums of insurance saved. If it be true that they pay one per cent. a month for a fishing-vessel in the bay-and some of the witnesses say that is the rate-what would they pay if there were no such light-houses to guide their vessels to a place of safety-no such harbors to shelter them from storms? When Mr. Trescot made his flourish on the subject he asked if we had no trade that required these lighthouses. I am

afraid to trust my memory, to quote the very words he used, for his language startled me a little. I read his remarks as follows:

And now, with regard to this question of consequences, there is but one other illustration to which I will refer, and I will be done. I find at the close of the British testimony an elaborate exhibit of 166 lights, fog-whistles, and humane establishments used by United States fishermen on the coast of the Dominion, estimated to have cost in erection, from the Sambro light-house, built in 1758, to the present day, $232, 138, and for annual maintenance, $268,197. I scarcely know whether to consider this serious; but there it is, and there it has been placed, either as the foundation for a claim, or to produce an effect. Now, if this Dominion has no commerce; if no ships bear precious freight upon the dangerous waters of the gulf, or hazard valuable cargoes in the straits which connect it with the ocean; if no traffic traverses the imperial river which connects the Atlantic with the great lakes; if this fabulous fishery, of which we have heard so much, is carried on only in boats so small that they dare not venture out of sight of land, and the fishermen need no other guide and protecting light than the light streaming from their own cabin-windows on shore; if, in short, this Dominion, as it is proudly called, owes nothing to the protection of its commerce and the safety of its seamen; if these humane establishments are not the free institutions of a wise and provident government, but charitable institutions to be supported by the subscriptions of those who use them, then the Government of the Dominion can collect its $200,000 by levying light-dues upon every vessel which seeks shelter in its harbors, or brings wealth into its ports. But if, in the present age of civilization, when a common humanity is binding the nations of the world together every day by mutual interests, mutual cares, and privileges equally shared, the Dominion repeals her light-dues in obedience to the common feeling of the whole world, with what justice can that government ask you, by a forced construction of this treaty, to reimpose this duty, in its most exorbitant proportions and its most odious form, upon us, al upon us alone?

Now, a more extraordinary argument than that I have never heard used. Your excellency and your honors are here to value the difference between the concessions made by the United States to Great Britain on the one hand, and those made by Great Britain to the United States on the other. We contend that the fisheries of the United States are useless, not because there are no light-houses on their shore, and no harbors in which our fishing vessels could find shelter in time of need; but we say their fishing-grounds are of no service to us, because the fish are not there, because our fishermen have never used them, preferring to fish upon our own coasts; there being, in fact, no occasion for them to leave their own shores and go hundreds of miles away from home to fish on the American coast; but if the fish had been abundant in American coastal waters, and light-houses had been there to guide our fishermen, and harbors to preserve them from shipwreck, or reduce their perils, do you think these things should not be taken into consideration in fixing the compensation for the use of those fisheries? Do you think they would not have been the basis of a claim against us? Certainly they would. I shall show from the written statements of United States officials what estimate was placed upon light-houses immediately after the great storm, which is called the "American storm," by reason of the vast number of American vessels that were destroyed in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and the vast number of American seamen that found a watery grave beneath its waves. I will show you what was thought about this subject of light-houses at that time. And if you can then agree with the view presented by Mr. Trescot, I have nothing more to say; but I do not think it is possible that you can. In the official correspondence, which is in evidence, we have this letter addressed by the then United States consul, I think, at Pictou, to Sir Alexander Bannerman, at that time the governor of Prince Edward Island. It is No. 28, in the official correspondence (Appendix H), put in as part of the evidence in support of Her Majesty's case, at the outset of these proceedings. I may mention here that a number of the witnesses spoke of the storm as having taken place in 1851. This letter bears date in 1852, but as it refers to a great storm, and I have heard of only one such

storm happening between 1850 and 1860, I should judge either that this is a misprint for October, 1851, or that the storm actually took place in 1852, for no two storms succeeded one another in 1851 and 1852. The letter is as follows:

CONSULATE Of the United STATES,
Province of Nova Scotia, October 28, 1852.

SIR Since my return from Charlotte Town, where I had the honor of an interview with your excellency, my time has been so constantly employed in the discharge of official duties connected with the results of the late disastrous gale, so severely felt on the north side of Prince Edward Island, that I have not found time to make my acknowledgments to your excellency for the kind and courteous reception extended to me at the government house, nor to furnish you with my views relative to some improvements which might be made by your excellency's government, thereby preventing a similar catastrophe to the one which has so lately befallen many of my countrymen; and at the same time on behalf of the Government of the United States, which I have the honor to represent, to thank you most feelingly for the promptness and energy displayed by your excellency in issuing proclamations, whereby the property of the poor ship-wrecked mariner should be protected from pillage.

These various duties devolving upon me, I now have the pleasure of discharging, but only in a brief and hurried manner.

The effect of the recent visitation of Providence, although most disastrous in its cousequences, will yet result in much good.

In the first place, it has afforded the means of knowing the extent and value of fisheries on your coast, the number of vessels and men employed, and the immense benefit which would result to the people within your jurisdiction, as well as those of the United States, if the fishermen were allowed unrestrained liberty to fish in any portion of your waters, and permitted to land for the purpose of curing and packing.

From remarks made by your excellency, I am satisfied it is a subject which has secured your most mature reflection and consideration, and that it would be a source of pride and pleasure to your excellency to carry into successful operation a measure fraught with so much interest to both countries.

2. It has been satisfactorily proved, by the testimony of many of those who escaped from a watery grave in the late gales, that had there been beacon-lights upon the two extreme points of the coast, extending a distance of 150 miles, scarcely any lives would have been lost, and but a small amount of property been sacrificed. And I am satisfied, from the opinion expressed by your excellency, that the attention of your government will be early called to the subject, and that but a brief period will elapse before the blessing of the hardy fishermen of New England and your own industrious sons will be gratefully returned for this most philanthropic effort to preserve life and property, and for which benefit every vessel should contribute its share of light-duty.

3. It has been the means of developing the capacity of many of your harbors, and expos ing the dangers attending their entrance and the necessity of immediate steps being taken to place buoys in such prominent positions that the mariner would in perfect safety flee to them in case of necessity, with a knowledge that these guides would enable him to be sure of shelter and protection.

From the desire manifested by your excellency previous to my leaving Charlottetown, that I would freely express my views relative to the recent most melancholy disaster, and make such suggestions as might in my opinion have a tendency to prevent similar results, there is no occasion for my offering an apology for addressing you at this time. I have, &c.,

His Excellency Sir A. BANNERMAN, &c.

B. H. NORTON, United States Consul for Pictou Dependency.

Bear in mind that an official letter, written in the year 1864 by Mr. Sherman, the then American consul at Charlottetown, was put in evidence by the United States Agent; and Mr. Foster contended with much force that the statements in that letter should be treated as thoroughly trustworthy, because the writer could have had no object in misleading his own government. I accede to that view. No doubt Mr. Sherman believed in the truth of all he wrote. It is for you to say on the evidence whether or not he was correct in point of fact. Apply Mr. Foster's reasoning to Consul Norton's letter, and are not the value of the Prince Edward Island inshore fisheries, and the value to American fishermen of the light-houses and harbors since built and constructed around her shores, proved by the best of all evidence? As regards the inshore

fisheries, the consul had no object in overestimating their value in any way to the governor of the island that owned them, or to the government that alone, of all the governments of the world, sought entrance into them as against the rightful owners. Now, what does he say:

It has been satisfactorily proved, by the testimony of many of those who escaped from a watery grave in the late gales, that had there been beacon-lights upon the two extreme points of the coast, extending a distance of 150 miles, scarcely any lives would have been lost, and but a small amount of property been sacrificed. And I am satisfied, from the opinion expressed by your excellency, that the attention of your government will be early called to the subject, and that but a brief period will elapse before the blessing of the hardy fishermen of New England and your own industrious sons will be gratefully returned for this most philanthropic effort to preserve life and property, and for which benefit every vessel should contribute its share of light-duty.

This is a very different opinion from that of Mr. Trescot-very different, indeed. All these light-houses, and many more than ever Mr. Norton dreamed of, have since been built. Before they were built, Mr. Norton says that such erection would prove of the greatest value to future American fishermen, and that not only their blessings would be poured on the heads of those who should erect them, but he even pledged them to go a step further and part with that which they are less disposed to bestow than blessings-a little money. The light-dues have long since been abandoned.

Mr. FOSTER. When?

Mr. THOMSON. They were abandoned in 1867.

It has been so stated

in evidence, and it is in the minutes. From that time to the present there have been no light-dues collected at all.

He goes on to say:

It has been the means of developing the capacity of many of your harbors, and exposing the dangers attending their entrance and the necessity of immediate steps being taken to place buoys in such prominent positions that the mariner would in perfect safety flee to them in case of necessity, with a knowledge that these guides would enable him to be sure of shelter and protection.

There is the opinion of a disinterested man at that time, or rather of a man who was directly interested in getting these light-houses erected, for which we now ask them to pay us a fair share during the twelve years they are to be kept up for their fishermen. We could not ask it before, although the fishermen were in the body of the gulf, and had the advantage of them. But when they come on equal terms with our own subjects into our territorial waters, why should they not bear a portion of the territorial burdens? Is it not monstrous to argue against it?

Mr. FOSTER. Does it not appear in your evidence that you charged the American fishing vessels light-dues from the time they came into your harbors, or passed through the Strait of Canso, until such time as you saw fit to abolish them, having collected enough to pay for them? Mr. THOMSON. They have been abolished since 1867, as regards the Gut of Canso, if my memory does not deceive me very much. We have in the evidence of that very amusing gentlemen, Mr. Patillo, a description of the way they were evaded. To this evidence I shall refer hereafter.

I think that I have now shown conclusively that this part of the British case is entitled to serious and favorable consideration at the hands of your honors-I mean this question of the lights.

I come to another part of Mr. Trescot's argument, which I think will be found on page 59:

I have but one other consideration to suggest before I come to the history of this question, and it is this: If you will examine the treaties, you will find that everywhere it is the