fish on the southern part of the coast of this island, as above described, but not on the western coast.

"From the preceding statement, it follows that the French have the right of taking and drying fish on the western coast of the Island of Newfoundland. The United States claim for their citizens the right of taking fish on the same coast. But this France denies, saying that the right both of taking and drying belongs to her EXCLUSIVELY. Her cruisers have, accordingly, in 1820 and 1821, ordered off the American fishing vessels whilst within the acknowledged jurisdiction of the coast, threatening them with seizure and confiscation in case of refusal."

And on the top of p. 126 of the same volume I read from the same document prepared by Mr. Rush, and incorporated in the protocols of this conference as follows:

"The above summary may serve to present the general nature of the question which has arisen between the United States and France respecting fishing rights, and which Great Britain will doubtless desire to see settled in a manner satisfactory to the United States. It is obvious that, of Great Britain cannot make good the title which the United States hold under her to take fish on the western coast of Newfoundland, it will rest with her to indemnify them for the loss. Another question which it is supposed will also be for her consideration is, how far she will deem it proper that France should be allowed to drive or order away the fishermen of the United States from a coast that is clearly within the jurisdiction and sovereignty of Great Britain."

On p. 129, still reading from the same volume, Mr. Rush stated, in a note to Mr. Canning, dated London, the 3rd May, 1824:

"The United States seek only the fair and unmolested enjoyment of the fishing rights which they hold at the hands of Great Britain under the convention of 1818, satisfied that Great Britain, whether as regards the guarantee of those rights, or the maintenance of her own sovereign jurisdiction over this island and its immediate waters, will take such steps as the occasion calls for, and above all, as are appropriate to the just and amicable intentions which it may be so confidently supposed will animate the Government of his most Christian Majesty, as well as that of His Britannic Majesty, towards the United States, touching the full rights of the latter under the convention aforesaid."

We are fortunate in having knowledge as to the rights Mr. Rush thought had been renounced by the treaty of 1818, for, turning to the report of Mr. Rush and Mr. Gallatin on p. 306 of the United States Case Appendix, I read :—

"The exception (writing then as to the exception concerning Hudson's Bay) applies only to the coasts and their harbors, and does not affect the right of fishing in Hudson's Bay beyond three miles from the shores, a right which could not exclusively belong to, or be granted by, any nation."

92909°-S. Doc. 870, 61-3, vol 10- -17

695

If the Tribunal will now kindly follow me to p. 319 of the Appendix to the Case of the United States there will be found an extract from the book of Richard Rush, published in 1833, entitled, "Memoranda of a Residence at the Court of London," concerning which I spoke at this morning's session, and from which I desire to read the following extract:

"It was by our act that the United States renounced the right to the fisheries not guaranteed to them by the Convention. That clause did not find a place in the British counter-projet. We deemed it proper under a three-fold view: (1) to exclude the implication of the fisheries secured to us being a new grant; (2) to place the rights secured and renounced, on the same footing of permanence; (3) that it might expressly appear, that our renunciation was limited to three miles from the coasts. This last point we deemed of the more consequence from our fishermen having informed us, that the whole fishing ground on the coast of Nova Scotia, extended to a greater distance than three miles from the land; whereas, along the coasts of Labrador it was almost universally close in with the shore. To the saving of the exclusive rights of the Hudson's Bay Company, we did not object. The charter of that company had been granted in 1670, and the people of the United States had never enjoyed rights in that bay that could trench upon those of the company. Finally, it is to be remarked, that the liberty of drying and curing on certain parts of the coast of Newfoundland, as secured in the article, had not been allotted to the United States even under the old treaty of 1783."

Mr. Rush stated, after these negotiations with France in 1822 and 1824, and after taking up the matter with England, his idea of what the United States had renounced.

I am now going to pass by the consideration of the affidavits, correspondence and documents in connection with this controversy found in the Appendix to the Counter-Case of the United States, from pp. 105 to 129 inclusive, with the statement that the affidavits therein found, and the notes and documents therein found, will abundantly establish that the American fishing-vessels were fishing within the strictest territorial jurisdiction of Great Britain, which, according to Mr. Rush, was 3 miles from land, and that Mr. Rush was not presenting to the British Government any claim that involved an admission of exclusive jurisdiction of Great Britain over all the waters of St. George's Bay.

I respect fully submit to the Tribunal the evidence referred to, and pass the subject, believing that an examination of the material in the Appendix to the Counter-Case of the United States bearing on this controversy will abundantly establish the position which I have just submitted to the Tribunal.

I have now come to the consideration of the acts of the two Governments during the period immediately following the making of the treaty.

The United States contends that the orders issued to the Admiralty of Great Britain and by the Admiralty to the vessels stationed in the North Atlantic, conclusively demonstrate that the construction put upon the treaty of 1818 by Great Britain was that United States fishing-vessels should be permitted to fish within any of the large bodies of water, provided fishing operations were not conducted within 3 miles of the shore.

It is, perhaps, important to call attention to the nature of the Act of 1819 which is relied upon by the Counsel for Great Britain as a construction of the treaty.

I have only to say this regarding that Act. It is the unilateral act of Great Britain, and, in any event, if its terms are examined-the Act will be found in the Appendix to the Case of the United States at pp. 112, 113, and 114-it will be found merely to follow the language of the Treaty itself, and therefore it is really of no importance in the discussion of the Question with which I am now immediately concerned.

In the Case presented on behalf of the United States at pp. 77 to 82 will be found discussed in detail the seizures made between 1821 and 1824, and no seizures were made after 1824 until after the passage of the Nova Scotia Act in 1836.

In the Case of the United States, the evidence to substantiate the place of the seizures is specifically referred to, and it is established in respect to each seizure that the claim was made in behalf of Great Britain that an offence had been committed within 3 marine miles of the shore; and it is also established that no attempt was made, prior to the appearance of the Nova Scotia theory of interpretation, to prevent the fishing-vessels of the United States from fishing in the waters of any of the large outer bays, provided they remained outside the 3-mile limit from the shores and outside the bays, harbours, and creeks lying landward of the 3-mile line, unless they resorted to such small bays, harbours, and creeks for one of the four purposes specified in the proviso clause of the renunciatory clause of the treaty. In the Case of the United States, on p. 75, will be found this state

ment:

696

"During the eighteen years from 1818 to 1836, and, in fact, for several years thereafter, no question arose between Great Britain and the United States under this treaty involving the interpretation of the meaning of its provisions. . . . The only seizures of American vessels during this period were made between the years 1821 and 1824 for alleged violations of the provisions of this section of the act. It will be found upon an examination of the circumstances surrounding these seizures that in every instance they were made under the direction of British naval officers on the charge of fishing within three miles of the shore in waters wherein the liberty of fishing had been renounced by the treaty, or of being

within three miles of the shore in such waters for purposes other than the four purposes of shelter, repairs, wood, and water provided for in the treaty.

The evidence is then discussed at length, and it is established beyond any possibility of doubt that the only seizures made during that period were within the 3-mile limit.

That this was the position of Great Britain is established by the orders, under which His Majesty's sloop "Dotterel," then stationed on the North Atlantic coast, acted.

Commander Hoare in a report to Rear-Admiral Lake, the 25th November, 1824, to be found in the Appendix to the Case of the United States, on pp. 374 to 377, stated, in answer to a complaint of the owners of the American fishing-vessel " Hero," which had been seized in a harbour within the 3-mile limit, that, as appears at the end of the note closing on p. 377:

66

My order to the officers of the boats has been, that any American vessels they may find within three marine miles of the shore, except in evident cases of distress or in want of wood or water, they are to detain and send or carry them to St. Andrew's."

This report of this British Commander I maintain conclusively establishes that the orders issued by the Admiralty of Great Britain in compliance with instructions from the Foreign Office of Great Britain, to the vessels stationed upon the North Atlantic coast were to carry out the terms of this treaty on lines in harmony with the contention now put forward by the United States in this submission; and in accordance with which construction the people of the United States were exercising their rights at that time.

There was no discussion of the interpretation of the renunciatory clause at that time, because there was no question raised at that time about the rights of American vessels in the great bays.

But while the fishermen were not molested in their operations within the great bodies of water, unless nearer than 3 miles of the shore, they were not allowed to go into the small bays, creeks, and harbours indenting the coast of the larger bays, "except in evident cases of distress, or in want of wood or water," and that was the cause of the trouble then.

The dispute in those days was as to whether a vessel was actually in distress or not. The representatives of Great Britain demanded that the vessel must be in evident distress, while on the other hand the masters of the fishing-vessels of the United States contended that they were the judges of what was the nature of their distress, and as to whether or not they went in for shelter, or whether they required wood, or water, or whether they required repairs. That difference in interpretation was a source of dispute and controversy during this period, and that difference only.

It was of course natural that differences of opinion would arise in specific cases, as to whether or not any particular vessel was in need of wood or water; but the great and important fact remains, that by the instructions of the Government of Great Britain, shown by these orders issued to the "Dotterel," the treaty was being construed, as to the great outer bodies of water, in accordance with the interpretation always put forward by the United States, and not in accordance with the interpretation originated in Nova Scotia in 1841.

The Case of the United States, on pp. 77 to 82 inclusive, reviews the various seizures made between 1821 and 1824, and, as I have stated, no seizure was made after 1824, prior to the passage of this Nova Scotia Act in 1836. I shall not refer therefore to the seizures in detail. They were all made, I repeat, within the 3-mile limit.

The Case of the United States, in discussing each one of these seizures, locates the vessel with particularity and discusses its location in great detail.

If the Tribunal please, the Government of Great Britain could have produced and can now produce before this Tribunal the orders issued to these vessels, and if the statement, made in the Case of the United States served upon the Government of Great Britain in October last, that those orders were that no seizures should be made in these great bodies of water unless the vessel was within 3 miles of land, was not accurate, and if that statement did not represent 697 the fact, then it was and is the duty of the Government of

Great Britain to produce the orders issued to those vessels. These orders are not in the possession of the Government of the United States; but I maintain that it is conclusively to be presumed, in accordance with the ordinary rules of evidence, that the production of the orders would not at least assist the contention now made by the Government of Great Britain before this Tribunal.

In the British Counter-Case, on p. 47, the following statement is made:

"that so far from freely asserting and exercising the right of fishing in the bays, they did not, until after 1836, frequent the bays for any such purpose.

In order to establish that, at least in the opinion of one American, the treaty of 1818 surrendered the right to fish anywhere within the Bay of Chaleurs, the British Case, the Counter-Case, the Argument, and the counsel before this Tribunal cite Mr. Lyman's book on Diplomacy, written in 1828, in which it is claimed that the statement is made by Mr. Lyman, that we, meaning the United States, had "lost the Bay of Chaleurs fishing, so important formerly as to confer a name on a particular description of fish as well as vessels."

The British Case neglects to explain why a book published in 1828 contained the statement that fishing within the Bay of Chaleurs had