Mr. Foster began his closing argument on Oral Arguments. the 5th of November, and completed it on the 6th. On the 8th of November the tribunal was addressed by Mr. Trescot, and on the 9th and 10th by Mr. Dana. On the 15th of November Mr. Whiteway began the closing argument on behalf of the British Government. He was followed on the 16th by Mr. Doutre, who finished his speech on the 17th, and was followed by Mr. Thomson on the 19th. Mr. Thomson continued his argument on the 20th and 21st of November; and at its conclusion on the latter day he announced that the argument on the part of Her Majesty's government was finally closed. The president of the tribunal then requested the secretary to enter on the minutes the thanks of the commissioners to Mr. Bergne, for his services as secretary of the commission, and their sense of the zeal, intelligence, and accuracy which had marked the discharge of his duties. The commission then adjourned until Friday, the 23d of November, at 2 o'clock. Contentions of the two Governments. As the tribunal, when it next met, had determined upon its award, it will be proper, before proceeding to the session of the 23d of November, to summarize the contentions of the two governments, as they appear in the British Case, the Answer of the United States, and the British Reply. eries. The British Case opened with a review of British Case: Value the fishery question from 1783 down to the of the Coast Fish- conclusion of the Treaty of Washington, and then, after analyzing the pertinent clauses of that treaty, proceeded separately to estimate the value of the coast fisheries of Canada and of Newfoundland. In the coast fisheries of Canada it embraced the fisheries on the coasts and in the bays, harbors, and creeks of the Dominion, from the Bay of Fundy to the Gulf of St. Lawrence, inclusive. The value of these fisheries, of which the principal products are mackerel, codfish. herring, halibut, haddock, hake, pollack, and many small varieties of fishes taken for bait, was represented as constantly increasing. The Liberty of Inshore Fishing. Of the advantages derived by the United States from the Treaty of Washington, the first that was mentioned in the British Case was the liberty of fishing in British waters. The official records of the United States and other sources of information were represented as showing that an average number of about 1,000 American vessels annually resorted to British waters for the purpose of fishing. Of this fleet it was said that the larger part was fitted almost exclusively for the mackerel fishery, the successful prosecution of which was chiefly dependent on the liberty of resorting freely to the bays, creeks, and inshore waters generally, to fish and refit, and to transship cargoes. It was estimated that these privileges, which were represented as wholly derived from the treaty, were worth $3,600 annually to each vessel engaged in the mackerel fishery. The value of the other fish taken by such vessels was estimated at $2,000, thus making a total of $5,600 worth of fish of all kinds as an average for each trip. The amount of American capital embarked in the business was estimated at more than $7,000,000, and as employing about 16,000 men afloat and many ashore. Thus the inshore fisheries afforded occupation for men and money beyond many other lucrative industries. The fish trade of the United States was constantly increasing, and constantly rendered more valuable and necessary the access to the Canadian fisheries. This consideration was represented as forming an additional reason for compensation. The second general advantage mentioned in The Liberty to Land. the British Case, as derived by the United States from the Treaty of Washington, was the liberty to land for purposes, such as drying nets and curing fish, connected with the fishing on the coasts of Labrador, the Magdalen Islands, and other portions of the seaboard of the Dominion of Canada. This liberty had been secured to the United States for a period of twelve years, and it was represented as an important item on the ground that without it fishing operations on many parts of the coast would be not only unremunerative but impossible. The third general advantage represented in Transshipment and the British Case as accruing to the United other Privileges. States from the fishery articles was the freedom to transfer cargoes, to outfit vessels, buy supplies, obtain ice, engage sailors, procure bait, and traffic generally in British ports and harbors, or to transact other business ashore not necessarily connected with fishing pursuits.. These were treated as "secondary privileges" which were indispensable to the suc cess of foreign fishing on the Canadian coasts, and materially enhanced the value of the principal concessions. By the enjoy 5627-47 ment of these secondary privileges American fishing vessels were represented as being enabled to make second and third full fares, and thus to double the catch which could be made in British waters in a single season, besides avoiding risks of life and property. Establishment of The fourth general advantage represented as accruing to the United States was that of establishing permanent fishing stations on the Canadian bays, creeks, and harbors, especially for the purpose of curing codfish. Not only did these convenient stations, it was argued, enable the American fishermen to obtain more frequent fares, but it also enabled them to cheapen the cost of the preservation and improve the quality of their catch. Free Markets. As to the reciprocal free market established by the treaty, the British Case took the ground that such a market for any needful commodity, such as fish, entering extensively into daily consumption by rich and poor, was so manifest an advantage to everybody concerned the producer, the freighter, the seller, and consumer alike-that the remission of Canadian duties on Americancaught fish imported into Canada could not form a very material element for consideration. Another general advantage, represented as Benefits of the Pro- derived by the United States from the Treaty tective Service. of Washington, was that of sharing in the bene fits of the service organized and maintained by Canada for the protection of the inshore fisheries. The value of the participation of the American fishermen in the benefits of this service was estimated at $200,000 annually. Compensation Such were the advantages set forth in the British Case as derived by the United States from Article XVIII. of the Treaty of Washington. On the other hand, it was represented that the privileges gained by British subjects were of no value. As to the liberty of fishing in United States waters and the privileges connected therewith, it was declared that it was valueless; and as to the admission of Canadian fish and fish oil into the United States free of duty, it was maintained that it was a concession advantageous to the people of the United States as well as of Canada. On the whole, in consideration of (1) the liberty of fishing inshore, (2) the liberty to land for the purpose of drying nets and curing fish, (3) the obtaining of bait and supplies and the transshipment of cargoes, and (4) the participation in the benefits of the fisheries protection service, the British Case claimed, in behalf of Canada, a gross sum of $12,000,000. Claim of Newfoundland. As to Newfoundland, the British Case stated that the coast, in respect of which free fishing had been secured by the United States under the Treaty of Washington, embraced an extent of upward of 11,000 square miles, including the most valuable codfisheries in the world. Moreover, herring, capelin, and squid, which constituted the best bait for codfishing, could be taken in unlimited quantities close inshore along the whole coast, while in some parts were to be found turbot, halibut, and lance. The prosecution of the fisheries on the banks of Newfoundland, which were situated from 35 to 200 miles from the coast, depended for its success almost wholly on securing a commodious and proximate base of operations. Newfoundland, from that part of the coast thrown open by the treaty to the United States fishermen, extracted yearly, at the lowest estimate, $5,000,000 worth of fish and fish oil, which was increased, by fish used for bait and for local consumption, to an annual value of $6,000,000. It was estimated that the inshore fisheries of Newfoundland were worth to the fishermen of the United States, at a moderate valuation, $120,000 per annum, or $1,440,000 for a period of twelve years, and that the use of the coast as a base of operations was worth as much more. Aggregate British Claims. In the aggregate the British Case claimed on account of Newfoundland a gross sum of $2,880,000. Adding this to the sum estimated on account of Canada, we have, as the aggregate amount claimed by the British Case for the period of twelve years covered by the Treaty of Washington, the sum of $14,880,000, or $1,240,000 per annum.1 Documents and Proceedings of the Halifax Commission, I. 77-117. In a pamphlet entitled "Fraudulent Official Records of Government," by "Henry Youle Hind, M. A., British Scientific Witness at the Halifax Fisheries Commission, and Official Compiler of the Analytical Index to the Documents of the Commission," published in 1884, the charge was made that the statistics printed with the British Case were falsified. This pamphlet was one of a series by the same author, in which he attacked the statistical department of Canada in respect of its publications on various "subjects. As to the fisheries statistics, he charged that "the Canadian statistics of fish trade with the United States were altered and adjusted year after year to an enormous extent in favor of Canada, by the Answer of United In the "Answer on behalf of the United States of America to the Case of Her Britannic Majesty's Government," it was maintained that the only privileges acquired by the United States under Article XVIII. of the Treaty of Washington were (1) Privileges Acquired. that of fishing on the seacoasts and shores and in the bays, harbors, and creeks of Quebec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, and the adjacent islands, without being restricted to any distance from the shore, and (2) that of landing on those coasts, shores, and islands for the purpose of drying nets and curing fish, provided there was no interference with rights of private property or the occupancy of British fishermen. It was contended that the American fishermen possessed, independently of the treaty, the right to fish anywhere in the sea, including bays and gulfs more than six miles wide at the mouth, beyond three miles from low-water mark. This claim was insisted upon not only on grounds of international law, but also on the basis of the status actually existing when the Treaty of Washington was entered into. It was claimed that, even before the adoption of the reciprocity treaty of 1854, "the extreme and untenable claims put forth at an earlier day had been abandoned," and that since its abrogation the British Government had confined the prevention of fishing to the distance of three miles from the shore. As to the value of the inshore fisheries to the United States, the American Answer declared that the British Case had not attempted to separate and distinguish the inshore from the open-sea fisheries, but had implicitly assumed that all gulfs and bays, even of the larger size, were within the exclusive British jurisdiccollusion of Canadian officials with the Chief of the United States Bureau of Statistics;" that "at the same time the United States statistics of fish trade with Canada were annually modified in the final record against the interests of the United States by similar secret collusion and treachery;" and that “this kind of work was carried on during several years for purely selfish objects and in the interest of a few individuals, with the purpose of using it in future exalted government negotiations." Of these charges he furnished cryptogrammatic proof, which he published under the title "An Exposition of the Fisheries Commission Frauds, showing how the Frauds were concealed by the use of the number 666, and the masking numbers 42, 10, 7, 2, taken from the 13th chapter of Revelation." It would add little to the elucidation of the process thus described to give examples of it. Value of Inshore |