QUESTION ONE. 9 



related to fishing by foreigners on the treaty coasts was qualified by 

 a proviso, which is common to all legislation relating to those coasts, 

 " excepting the rights and privileges granted by treaty to the subjects 

 or citizens of any foreign state or power in amity with His Majesty." 

 With reference to regulations relating to the fisheries on the treaty 

 coasts in force prior to the treaty of 1818, the situation was stated 

 by Lord Elgin, Secretary of State for the Colonies, in his despatch 

 of August 8, 1906, to the Governor of Newfoundland as follows: 



Light dues were presumably not levied in 1818, seines were appar- 

 ently in use, the prohibition of Sunday fishing had been abolished in 

 1776 (see 15 George III, cap. 31), and fishing-ships were exempted 

 from entry at Custom-house, and required only to make a report on 

 first arrival and on clearing (see same Act). United States' vessels 

 could, on the basis of the status quo in 1818, only be asked to make 

 report at custom-house on arrival and on clearing. 



An examination of the provisions of the act referred to requiring 

 vessels to report at custom-houses will show that it applied only to 

 fishing vessels enjoying trading privileges. 6 



Evidence against the British Contention. 



The objection on the part of the United States to the statement 

 above quoted from the British Case does not rest, however, upon the 

 mere failure of Great Britain to present evidence in support of it; 

 the objection goes to the accuracy of the statement, and it will be 

 found that the evidence against the British contention is overwhelm- 

 ing. For the purpose of satisfying the Tribunal on that point, its 

 attention is invited to the evidence which has already been presented 

 on behalf of the United States and to certain additional evidence 

 now presented to disprove that contention. 



Reverting to the beginning of the series of negotiations which led 

 up to the Treaty of 1818, it will be remembered that, as pointed out 

 in the Case of the United States, Lord Bathurst in his controversy 

 with Mr. Adams stated, after discussing the basis for a new arrange- 

 ment, that 



It was not of fair competition that His Majesty's Government had 

 reason to complain, but of the preoccupation of British harbors and 

 creeks, in North America, by the fishing vessels of the United States, 

 and the forcible exclusion of British vessels from places where the 

 fishery might be most advantageously conducted. 



U. S. Case, p. 227. * Infra, p. 57. c U. S. Case, p. 33. 



92909 8. Doc. 870, 61-3, vol 6 2 



