120 CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 



waiving the rights of Great Britain in respect of the non-treaty 

 coasts, this letter amounts to an assertion of these rights, which can 

 be got rid of only by amicable arrangement. It is submitted that 

 neither on the treaty, nor on the non-treaty coasts, have the American 

 fishermen any right to purchase bait or otherwise to traffic on British 

 territory. 



At the time this letter was written the treaty of 1871 was under 

 negotiation: it was signed three months later and ratified in the 

 following June. 



WASHINGTON TREATY, 1871. 



1871-1885. The treaty restored tranquillity, by again according 

 to United States fishermen the larger liberties of fishing; certain 

 trade privileges were given to the provinces, and they once more 

 relaxed the restrictions against buying bait and other articles by 

 the fishermen. 



HALIFAX COMMISSION, 1877. 



1877. The same point that is now under discussion was raised 

 before the Halifax Commission in 1877. The question before that 

 Commission was what sum was payable by the United States Gov- 

 ernment to Great Britain in respect of the greater value of the^ 

 concessions made by Great Britain as compared with those made 

 by the United States. Great Britain argued that under the right 

 to fish conceded by article 18 of the treaty of 1871 (which in this 

 respect is substantially the same as the convention of 1818) 

 133 American fishermen would be able to purchase bait and sup- 

 plies and transship cargoes in British waters, and claimed 

 compensation on that head. The United States Government, how- 

 ever, entirely disclaimed that construction of the treaty. They 

 stated that no such right was intended to be implied from the mere 

 grant of a right to fish. In the recapitulation of the argument at 

 the end of the " Answer " filed by the United States Government is 

 the following statement: 



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 existing laws, or 

 the re-enactment of former oppressive Statutes.* 



The tribunal accepted this contention and held that it was not 

 w.thin their competence to award compensation on this head. Their 

 decision was as follows (App., p. 263) : 



" United States Documents relating to the Fishery Controversy, vol. v, p. 136. 



