98 COUNTER CASE OF THE UNITED STATES. 



less than the American fishermen from the limits assigned to France, 

 it is not improbable that His Majesty's Ministers may feel themselves 

 bound in equity to allow the Americans an equivalent in some other 

 quarter, unless they can prevail on France to waive her extreme right 

 and to consent to their participating henceforward in the west-coast 

 fisheries of Newfoundland. It is not to be imagined that the British 

 plenipotentiaries in framing the convention of 1818, could have meant 

 to concede, in return for concessions made by America, a privilege 

 already made over in toto to another Power, even to the exclusive ex- 

 clusion of British subjects ; though it is not impossible that the clause 

 relating to the western coast or Newfoundland may have been in- 

 serted with a knowledge of the French claim, and intended only to 

 have an eventual and contingent effect. 



If the British Government at that time had held the view, now 

 contended for in the British Case, that the bays, creeks, and harbors 

 of the west coast of Newfoundland were not included in the American 

 treaty coast under the treaty of 1818, it is inconceivable that such 

 interpretation should not have been stated by them in the course of 

 the discussion above reviewed, or in response to Mr. Rush's note, for 

 obviously the exclusion of American fishermen from the bays, creeks, 

 and harbors on that coast would have furnished a convenient basis 

 for adjusting a question which clearly occasioned considerable em- 

 barrassment to the British Government. It is a noteworthy fact, 

 therefore, that nowhere throughout the discussion can any suggestion 

 be found on either side that the treaty was intended to be so inter- 

 preted, or, indeed, that it was even susceptible of any such interpre- 

 tation. The British Government made no answer to Mr. Rush's note, 

 but as no further attempt was made by the French Government to 

 interfere with American fishing vessels on the western coast of 

 Newfoundland, the incident closed without the necessity of further 

 action either by the United States or Great Britain. 



Referring to the suggestion in the extract above quoted from Mr. 

 Stratford Canning's letter to Mr. George Canning, that " it is not 

 impossible that the clause relating to the western coast of Newfound- 

 land may have been inserted with a knowledge of the French claim 

 and intended only to have an eventual and contingent effect," atten- 

 tion is called to the fact that, by the treaty of 1904 between Great 

 Britain and France, 6 it was agreed that the only fishing rights which 

 France retained on the Newfoundland coasts should be exercised on 

 a footing of equality with British subjects. It is evident, therefore, 

 that, even if the clause referred to was intended to have a contingent 



British Case Appendix, p. 112. 

 6 U. S. Case Appendix, p. 83. 



