QUESTION TWO. 51 



It is evident, therefore, that the purpose of the British negotiators 

 in entering into this treaty was not to foster an American navy, nor 

 for the benefit of the fishermen, nor for any sentimental reasons of 

 " benevolence and humanity ", but to insure " national and individual 

 prosperity ". The British Government was less interested in the fish- 

 ermen than in that other " equally numerous class of our citizens " to 

 whom the fisheries afford " the means of remittance and payment for 

 the productions of British industry and ingenuity, imported from 

 the manufactures of this united kingdom " ; and the fishing liberty 

 established by the treaty was designed to insure the prosperity of the 

 numerous class of people who profited by the fishing business by 

 employing the fishermen, and otherwise investing money in it; and 

 the more fishermen they employed, the better for that purpose. 



These were reasons, and reasons of weight, adopting the language 

 of the British Case, " for giving liberties to trade in fish taken by 

 the fishermen of other countries " ; and, unlike the opposing reasons 

 advanced in the British Case, they were of a character to appeal 

 equally to the negotiators of both countries. 



Much reliance is placed by the British Case in supporting its con- 

 tention on this Question upon the following statement made in 1880 

 by Mr. Evarts in discussing the treaty of 1871 : 



There was, to be sure, a restriction imposed upon both countries 

 which excluded both equally from extending the enjoyment of cither's 

 share of the common fishery beyond the " inhabitants of the United 

 States " on the one side, and " Her Britannic Majesty's subjects " on 

 the other, thus disabling either Government from impairing the 

 share of the other by introducing foreign fishermen into the common 

 fishery. 



In commenting on this statement, the British Case says : 



But the contention of the United States to-day is that they can, 

 under the treaty of 1818, do the very thing which Mr. Evarts stated 

 was contrary to the corresponding provisions of the treaty of 1871. 

 They contend that they can introduce foreign fishermen into these 

 fisheries, although by so doing they must impair the share of the 

 British fishermen therein.* 



The British Case fails to state, however, that Great Britain did 

 not agree with the views expressed by Mr. Evarts, and that so far as 

 they have any application to the treaty of 1818, Great Britain dis- 

 tinctly repudiated any such views by undertaking in the treaty of 

 1857 with France to introduce foreign fishermen into these fisheries. 



British Case, p. 57. 



