DESPATCHES, REPORTS, CORRESPONDENCE, ETC. 187 



By the treaty of Paris of 1814 between Great Britain and France, 

 the former restores to the latter, the colonies, fisheries, factories, and 

 establishments of every kind, which France possessed on the 1st of 

 January 1792, in the seas or on the continents of America, Asia, and 

 Africa, with the exception o;f Tobago, St. Lucia, and the Isle of 

 France. By the 13th article of this treaty it is declared that " as to 

 the French right of fishery on the Grand Bank of Newfoundland, on 

 the coasts of the island of that name, and the adjacent islands, and in 

 the Gulf of St. Lawrence, everything shall be restored to the same 

 footing as in 1792." 



Finally by the convention of October 20, 1818, between the United 

 States and Great Britain, it is provided, article 1st, that "the inhabit- 

 ants of the said United States shall have for ever, in common with 

 the subjects of His Britannic Majesty, the liberty to take fish of 

 every kind on that part of the southern coast of Newfoundland, 

 110 which extends from Cape Ray to the Rameau Islands, and on 

 the western and northern coast, from the said Cape Ray to the 

 Quirpon Islands." By the same convention, the United States are 

 allowed to dry and cure 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 the right of taking fish 

 on the same coast. But this the French deny, saying that the right 

 both of taking and drying belongs to France exclusively. Their 

 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 in case of refusal. 



It may be that France will allege in support of her doctrine, that 

 by her treaty of September 3, 1783, with Great Britain, which gave 

 her the right of fishing and drying fish on the western coast of the 

 island, it was intended that this right should be exclusive; that the 

 words of the treaty, and, above all, those of the declaration annexed 

 to it, show this to have been the meaning, as France obtained the 

 wos'orn coast in exchange for a part of the eastern coast with a view 

 to prevent quarrels between the French and British fishermen. To 

 this end, as it may perhaps be also alleged, the words of the decla- 

 ration provide that British subjects were not to " interrupt the 

 French fishery on this coast by their competition in any manner ; " 

 and further provide that the " fixed settlements " which had been 

 formed there (by British subjects it is presumed) should be removed. 



The United States will insist on the other hand, that Great Britain 

 never could have intended by her treaty of 1783 with France to 

 grant a right of fishing and of curing fish on the western coast to 

 French fishermen exclusively, but that the right of British subjects 

 to resort there in common, must necessarily be implied. That a con- 

 trary construction of the instrument cannot be received, the sover- 

 eignty of the whole island having been fully vested in Great Britain, 

 and even confirmed by this very treaty. That it can never be pre- 

 sumed that she intended so far to renounce, or in any wise to dimin- 

 ish this sovereignty as to exclude her own subjects from any part of 

 the coast. That no positive grant to this effect is to be found in the 

 treaty, and that the claim of France to an exclusive right, a claim so 

 repugnant to the sovereign rights of Great Britain, can rest on noth- 



