438 APPENDIX TO BEITISH CASE. 



fis] necessary, It is equally necessary to define our rights of drying and cur- 

 ing the cod elsewhere, and as stipulated in the Convention. Both are shore 

 rights, and both are left withous [without] condition or limitation as to the 

 quantity of beach and upland that may be appropriated by our fishermen. It 

 was proclaimed in the House of Commons, more than two centuries ago, by 

 Coke that giant of the law that " FREE FISHING " included " ALL ITS INCI- 

 DENTS." The thought may be useful to the Queen's Advocate and Her Majesty's 

 Attorney-General when next they transmit an opinion across the Atlantic 

 which is to affect their own reputation and the reputation of their country. 

 The right to take fish " on the shores of the Magdalen Islands," without condi- 

 tions annexed to the grant, whatever these profoundly ignorant advisers of the 

 Crown of England may say to the contrary, includes, by its very nature and 

 necessity, all the " incidents " of a " free fishery," and all the privileges in use 

 by, and common among fishermen, and all the facilities and accommodations, 

 on the land and on the sea, which conduce to the safety of the men employed 

 in the fishery, and to an economical and advantageous prosecution of it. 

 ******* 



. . . Now Her Majesty's Government does not object to your 

 deciding in so many words that these things are not subjects of com- 

 pensation, if that be the judgment of the Court. I have advanced 

 very feebly the views which I think ought to govern your decision 

 upon the point, namely, that these are identical privileges which may 

 fairly be constructed, in view of the way in which this Treaty is 

 framed, and as inseparable from the right given to the Americans 

 under the Treaty of Washington. But I confess that I shall not be 

 at all dissatisfied should this tribunal decide otherwise. If it be the 

 desire of the American Government that this tribunal shall keep 

 within the very letter, and disregard what I have argued is the spirit 

 of the Treaty, and determine just merely the value of the fisheries 

 themselves, and of landing on the shores to dry nets, very well I have 

 no objection and we will accept such a decision. But Her Majesty's 

 Government wish it to be distinctly understood that that is not the 

 view they have held or wish to be compelled to hold of this Treaty. 

 If, however, pressed as you are to determine the question in this way 

 by the Government of the United States, and in view of the declara- 

 tion you have made to determine it according to the very right of the 

 matter, you can conscientiously arrive at the conclusion for which 

 they ask, we shall not regret it at all. 



******* 



[Mr. Weatherbe, in the same interests, said in part as follows : ] 

 ******* 



The simple question we are now discussing is this : Whether certain 

 things are to be taken into consideration as incidental to the mere act 

 of taking fish out of the water. What I understand the argument 

 of the United States to be now is, that by the treaty of Washington 

 the American fishermen have the right of taking fish out of British 

 waters and landing to dry their nets and cure their fish, and nothing 

 else. The right to land to dry their nets and cure their fish they 

 admit are subjects for compensation. But what does taking fish 

 mean ? It means taking them out of the water and landing them on 

 the deck and nothing more, it is contended. We contend that by a 

 fair and reasonable construction of the words, the United States have 

 obtained the privilege of carrying on the -fishery. Can it be doubted 

 that this was the intention when the words were adopted. Are we 

 asking for any strained construction by the tribunal ? I think not. 



