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 pres ervation 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. tective Service. Another general advantage, represented as Benefits of the Pro- derived by the United States from the Treaty of Washington, was that of sharing in the benefits 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 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 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 reciproc ity 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 jurisdic Value of Inshore collusion 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. tion. The fisheries, said the Answer of the United States, pursued by the American fishermen in the waters adjacent to the British provinces on the Atlantic coast, were the halibut and cod fishery and the mackerel and herring fishery. But the halibut and cod fishery, which included the hake, haddock, cusk, and pollack, was conducted exclusively on the banks, beyond the jurisdiction of any nation, and as an exclusively deep-sea fishery was not within the cognizance of the commission. The codfishermen neither used the shores for drying their nets and curing their fish-a practice which belonged to primitive methods of fishing-nor fished for bait to any considerable extent in British territorial waters; nor had the claim of Great Britain to be compensated for allowing United States fishermen to buy bait and other supplies of British subjects any semblance of foundation in the treaty, which conceded no right of traffic. The Mackerel Fisheries. Almost the only fish, said the Answer of the United States, ever taken by Americans within the three-mile limit off the coast of the British provinces was the mackerel, and of the entire catch of this fish only a small part was taken inshore. The mackerel abounded along the Atlantic coast from Cape May northward; great quantities of it were found in the deep sea; the purse seine had been substituted for hand lines and hooks in taking it, and the chief use made of the Canadian waters by the American fishermen was to follow, occasionally, a school of fish which happened to set in toward the shore. The herring fishery was treated as practically worthless. Advantages to British Fishermen. As to the advantages derived by British subjects from the fishery articles of the Treaty of Washington, the American Answer maintained (1) that the admission of American fishermen into British waters was beneficial to colonial fishermen, who caught more fish, made more money, and were improved in their general condition by the presence of foreign fishermen; (2) that the incidental benefits arising from traffic with American fishermen were of vital importance to the inhabitants of the maritime provinces. These things were referred to as benefits only indirectly and remotely within the cognizance of the commission, and as evidences that "a system of freedom, rather than one of repression, proves the best for all mankind." The specific benefits, which United States. the treaty directed the commission to regard in its comparison and adjustment of equivalents, were described Inshore Fisheries of as (1) the admission of British subjects to the fishing grounds of the United States down to the thirty-ninth parallel of north latitude, where all descriptions of fishes found in the colonial waters, including the best quality of mackerel, abounded, and where were exclusively found the menhaden and porgies, which were not only the best bait for mackerel, but of which the former was valuable for its oil and as a fertilizer; and (2) the “enormous Remission of Duties. pecuniary value of the right to import fish and fish oil, free of duty, into the markets of the United States." Various Canadian authorities were quoted as to the value of this right, and evidence was presented to show that the remission of duties to Canadian fishermen, during the four years that had elapsed since the treaty went into effect, had amounted to $400,000 annually. In conclusion, the Answer recapitulated the Recapitulation. contentions of the United States as follows: "First. That the province of this Commission is limited solely to estimating the value to the inhabitants of the United States of new rights accorded by the Treaty of Washington to the fisheries within the territorial waters of the British North American provinces on the Atlantic coast; which comprise only that portion of the sea lying within a marine league of the coast, and also the interior of such bays and inlets as are less than six miles wide between their headlands; while all larger bodies of water are parts of the free and open ocean, and the territorial line within them is to be measured along the contour of the shore, according to its sinuosities, and within these limits no rights existing under the convention of 1818 can be made the subject of compensation. "Second. That within these limits there are no fisheries, except for mackerel, which United States fishermen do or advantageously can pursue; and that of the mackerel catch only a small fractional part is taken in British territorial waters. "Third. That the various incidental and reciprocal advantages of the treaty, such as the privileges of traffic, purchasing bait, and other supplies, are not the subject of compensation; because the Treaty of Washington confers no such rights on the inhabitants of the United States, who now enjoy them merely by sufferance, and who can at any time be deprived of them by the enforcement of exhisting laws or the re-enactment of former oppressive statutes. Moreover, the treaty does not provide for any possible compensation for such privileges; and they are far more important and valuable to the subjects of Her Majesty than to the inhabitants of the United States. "Fourth. That the inshore fisheries along the coast of the |