ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR RICHARD WEBSTER, Q. C. M. P. 545 



an argument in favour of the United States contention it is a most 

 conclusive arjiument in favour of Great Britain. Sir, what happened 

 was this. In the year 1778 the United States had made a Treaty with 

 France that they wouhl not interfere with the French on the banks of 

 Newfoundland. That was at the time when the United States was 

 struggling for its independence. It was a treaty of friendship and 

 amity, and where having been Treaty rights as between Great Britain 

 and France which excluded the French, the United States rebelling 

 against Great Britain was willing to make terms: and what were the 

 terms ? 



Senator Morgan. — You mean that Great Britain had made that 

 Treaty — not the United States? 



Sir EiCHARD Weester. — No, the United States while in the course 

 of its rebellion — not with Great Britain, with France 



By Article 10 of the Treaty of 1778 the United States covenanted: 



The United States, their citizens and inhabitants, shall never disturb the subjects 

 of the most Christian King in the enjoyment and exercise of the right of fishery on 

 the banks of Newfoundland 



that is to say in the Treaty of friendship the United States had agreed 

 that they would not interfere with the French. In 1775 an attempt 

 had been made by Lord North (and, if I may be permitted to say so in 

 passing, in my mind a most unjust attempt), to restrain and to prevent 

 the inhabitants of New England from tishing on the banks of New- 

 foundland, they still being, according to the contention of Great 

 Britain, British subjects, and being engaged in rebellion. The \\ar 

 came to an end, and the state of things for consideration was: What 

 should be the claims of the United States? I can scarcely but think 

 that .there are many in this room who hear me who are well acquainted 

 with the history of those times, but possibly it may not be out of place 

 if I refer to Lyman's Diploma(;y of the United States, a work with 

 which many are familiar. In the course of that negotiation in 1783 

 (which was the Treaty, you remember, recognizing their Independence) 

 the United States people became aware that France was endeavouring 

 to influence Great Britain, to restrict by Treaty rights, the rights of 

 the United States upon these banks. This will point the observation 

 that was made the other day about the elder Adams saying that he 

 would rather cut off' his right hand than let the rights of fishing go. 



The President. — You mean fishing on the banks in the open sea? 



Sir BiCHARD Webster.— In the open sea. 



The President. — Not on the Coast? 



Sir EiCHARD Webster. — I was not dealing with the coast. I will 

 make an observation upon that in a moment. I am dealing entirely 

 with rights in the open sea. A letter was intercepted and deciphered 

 coming from the then representatives of France to Great Britain, 

 which put the United States upon the alarm, and they imagined that 

 some attempt might be made by Great Britain actually to insist on a 

 restriction of their natural right to fish upon these banks outside. 

 You will find the reference to that incident in connexion with the 

 negotiations of the Treaty at page 124 of the 1st volume of Lyman's 

 Diplomacy of the United States, published, as no doubt the Tribunal 

 know, in the year 1828, and a book from an historical point of view of 

 the highest authority. I might mention only in passing, I shall show 

 it presently, that the fact is that the United States claimed the right 

 of fishing on the Banks as of right as one of the nations. It is a mis- 

 take to suppose that she got or claimed those rights by Treaty. The 

 suggestion made a moment or two ago by Senator Morgan that that 

 B s, pt xih 35 



