7?0 APPENDIX TO BEITISH CASE. 



peripheries of visibility of these lights overlap each other very con- 

 siderably on each of these lines, so that for our vessels danger is not 

 where the bays have been specifically released. This will be found 

 at the 3-mile limit from the open shore, where it always has been. 

 There is, however, confusion about this, and some debit the treaty 

 just negotiated with the inevitable hazards consequential on the 

 principles of that of 1818. If the commission of delimination is ap- 

 pointed as the treaty provides, this commission, of course, will, as Mr. 

 Seward and Mr. Fish foresaw, diminish the danger on the open coast, 

 by giving on the charts which it prepares bearing lights and other 

 marked points: so that vessels by the aid of these bearings will be 

 able to protect themselves in some degree. Nevertheless, there are 

 the nights and thick weather, but the consequences of these are in- 

 herent in the principles of the convention of 1818. and will be di- 

 minished and not enlarged by the practical workings of the present 

 treaty. 



In the case of the Washington Mr. Bates referred to the treaty 

 between France and Great Britain of 1839, excluding from the com- 

 mon right of fishing all bays, the mouths of which did not exceed 10 

 miles in width, and indorsed this as a proper limit. In the treaty 

 between France and. Great Britain of 1867 the same limit was 

 adopted; and it was approved by the common judgment of Great 

 Britain, the German Empire, Belgium. Denmark, France, and the 

 Netherlands, in the treaty concerning the North Sea fisheries, signed 

 at The Hague May 6,A..'D. 1882. With the weight of international 

 consensus in its favor, and in view of the interest of the United States 

 to aid precedents which will enable us to afford proper protection to 

 our extensive coasts, and admitting the necessity of finding some 

 practical method of delimitation, this rule seems on the whole con- 

 venient, wise, and not unjust. Moreover, considering the inability 

 of our mackerel vessels, substantially all of which use the purse seine 

 to fish in shallow waters along the coast, and that very few American 

 fishermen, perhaps none, in the pursuit of halibut or cod desire to 

 fish there, it is impossible to believe that this rule surrenders any- 

 thing of essential value to us. 



It is fair to add that the ten-mile rule was apparently not congenial 

 to Canada. In the proposals made to Great Britain in the autumn 

 of A. D. 1886, Mr. Bayard, after reciting substantially the sugges- 

 tions made by Mr. Seward, and elaborating them, offered this rule ; 

 but the Marquis of Salisbury, in his reply of March 24, 1887, com- 

 mented that this " would involve a surrender of fishing rights, which 

 have always been regarded as the exclusive property of Canada/' 



The specific delimitations at several smaller bays will, on examina- 

 tion, be found to be in harmony with the views of the United States 

 as to the proper results of the general rules of 1818. On the whole, 

 by this part of the treaty a long and troublesome dispute affords 

 promise of being ended without either party giving up anything 

 of value. 



Next, the treaty touches the matters which have involved our fish- 

 ing vessels in their most serious troubles, fully covering reports to 

 custom-houses, fees, and other charges, cases of disaster and distress, 

 and incidental supplies such as merchant vessels buy. It is of course 

 impossible to anticipate all the questions which may arise as between 

 coterminous peoples, even with the most careful phraseology; and 



