642 APPENDIX TO BRITISH CASE. 



The treaty of 1818 gave rights of fishing independent of general 

 commercial rights, although it may be said that, as to shelter, repairs, 

 wood and water, the treaty did give to fishermen certain commercial 

 rights, or rather a few rights of humanity. The treaty did not re- 

 strain the granting or the exercising of commercial rights. The 

 right, if it be a right, of an American to buy anything in Canada does 

 not come of the inshore fishing treaty of 1818. Your committee are 

 not aware of any Canadian or Newfoundland law which, having 

 been approved by the British Crown, forbids a British subject to 

 there sell ice, or bait, or anything else, to an American, or to trade 

 with him. If there be such a law, then non-intercourse has to that 

 extent been proclaimed against our countrymen. 



CANADIAN VIOLATIONS OF TREATIES. 



The contention of your committee is that the treaty of 1818 covers 

 differences and disputes about the liberty of American fisher- 

 383 men to take, dry and cure fish on certain British North Amer- 

 ican coasts, bays, harbours and creeks. The Privy Council 

 of Canada, at the bottom of page 32 (Ex. Doc. No. 19, Forty-ninth 

 Congress, second session), concedes the correctness of this contention. 

 They say: 



" The sole purpose of the convention of 1818 was to establish and 

 define the rights of citizens of the two countries in relation to the 

 "fisheries on the British North American coast" 



The treaty is limited to coast fishing, drying or curing. On certain 

 defined portions of the coast "American fishermen " may fish, but 

 elsewhere on the coast they may not fish, and yet those coast "Ameri- 

 can fishermen " may, nevertheless, and for certain purposes, enter 

 the bays and harbours in which they cannot fish, under restrictions 

 to prevent them from doing what ? " Taking, drying or curing fish 

 therein f " 



Your committee contend that the term "American fishermen " as 

 used in the treaty of 1818, means the "American fishermen " of and 

 under that treaty. The rule noscitur a sociis, as understood and 

 applied by judges and lawyers in England and America, limits and 

 defines the term. They have a treaty right to enter " such bays and 

 harbours " and to remain there, subject, and subject only, to such 

 restrictions " as may be necessary to prevent their taking, drying or 

 curing fish therein." The restrictions can only apply to the preven- 

 tion of such fishing in those bays or harbours. Whatever concerns 

 or is preparation for fishing elsewhere is not thereby to be prevented. 

 It is true that, by the treaty of 1818, we have stipulated that our 

 fishermen " shall be under such restrictions as may be necessary to 

 prevent their taking, drying or curing fish therein" but the treaty 

 says nothing of " preparing to fish " somewhere else. A fair presen- 

 tation of the opinions of the Vice-Admiralty Court of Canada, in 

 regard to the meaning of the Canadian phrase " preparing to fish " 

 which is a stranger to the treaty of 1818 can be seen in Dr. Whar- 

 ton's " International Law Digest," vol. iii, 304. 



If it be said that our view of the treaty is strict, severe, and rigid 

 as against Canadian statutes and officials, your committee answer that 

 when Canada proposes and endeavours to use a treaty to arrest and 

 fine American fishermen, seize and confiscate American vessels for 

 the benefit of Canadian seizors, the Government of the United States 



