DESPATCHES, REPORTS, CORRESPONDENCE, ETC. 367 



It is, therefore, necessary before deciding which of the lines above 

 designated as the mouth of the Miramichi, is the correct one, to 

 dispose of this preliminary question, namely : Does the mouth of a 

 river forfeit its exclusive character, under this Treaty, because it 

 may constitute a bay, or harbour? Is the restriction imposed, limited 

 to particular fish, or locality? The spirit with which this Treaty 

 was made, and the object it has in view, demand for it the most 

 liberal construction; but, consistently with the most liberal con- 

 struction, there are many wise and judicious reasons why the excep- 

 tion should be made. The joint, or common, fishery in those places 

 where the forbidden fish resort, would be a prolific cause of dispute. 

 The very fact, that after the forbidden fish are named, there should 

 follow the significant expression that all fisheries in those places, 

 should be reserved, is conclusive as to the idea, predominant in the 

 minds of the framers of the Treaty. They wanted peace; they 

 would not put the fishermen of the two nations together, on the same 

 ground, where they would have unequal rights. Considerations of 

 a national, administrative, or fiscal character, may have determined 

 them to exclude the entrances of the great thoroughfares into the 

 respective countries, from a common possession. There are large 

 and magnificent bays, and harbours, unconnected with rivers; there 

 are bays, and harbours, dependent upon, and formed by, the mouths 

 of rivers. The term: are not indicative of locality. Bays, and 

 harbours, may be found far up in the interior of a country ; in lakes, 

 or in rivers; and on the sea-board. The "mouths of rivers," are 

 found only in one locality, namely, in that part of the river by 

 which its waters are discharged into the sea, or ocean; or into a lake^ 

 and that part of the river is, by the express language of this Treaty, 

 excluded. Is the use of a term which may be applicable to many 

 places, to supersede that which can only be applied to a particular 

 place, when the latter is pointedly, eo nomine, excluded? But why 

 should such a construction be required, when the object of the Treaty 

 can be attained without it? The cause of the difficulty was, not the 

 refusal to permit a common fishery within the mouths of rivers, 

 but within three marine miles of the sea coast. That difficulty is 

 entirely removed, by the liberty to take fish, "on the sea coast and 

 shores, and in the bays, harbours, and creeks, without being re- 

 stricted to any distance from the shore." 



The position taken by the Commissioner of the United States, is 

 further pressed upon the ground, "that the terms of a grant are 

 always to be construed most strongly against the granting party." 

 The application of that principle to the present case is not very per- 

 ceptible. This is rather the case of two contracting parties exchang- 

 ing equal advantages; and the contract must be governed by the 

 ordinary rules of interpretation. Vattel says, " In the interpre- 

 tation of Treaties, compacts, and promises, we ought not to deviate 

 from the common use of the language, unless we have very strong 

 reasons for it." And, " when we evidently see what is the sense 

 that agrees with the intention of the contracting parties, it is not 

 allowable to wrest their words to a contrary meaning." It is plain, 

 that the framers of this Treaty intended to exclude the " mouths of 



Vattel, book 2, c. 17, sec. 271. 



