QUESTION SEVEN. 107 



With reference to the non-treaty coasts, it has been contended 

 by Great Britain that American fishing vessels, as such, were 

 not entitled to claim the commercial privileges which had been 

 extended since the treaty of 1818 to American vessels generally, 

 because, under the renunciatory clause of the treaty, which applied 

 only to the non-treaty coasts, it had been agreed that American 

 fishermen were to be admitted to the bays and harbors of that coast 

 for four specified purposes and " for no other purpose whatever." 

 The United States, on the other hand, as pointed out in the Case of 

 the United States, has always contended that 



the only renunciation contained in the renunciatory clause relates not 

 to commerce but to fishing on the coasts referred to, which renuncia- 

 tion is made with the express proviso that fishermen shall neverthe- 

 less be permitted to enter the bays and harbors on such coast for four 

 specified purposes. There is nothing in the renunciation, therefore, 

 which applies to commercial privileges extended generally to Ameri- 

 can vessels after the date of the treaty; and as fishing vessels were 

 not expressly exempted from the commercial privileges subsequently 

 extended to American vessels, the provisions of the treaty would 

 seem to have no bearing on either side of the question. 



That question, however, as has already been shown, is not sub- 

 mitted to this Tribunal for decision, and it is unnecessary to discuss 

 it here, for, as stated in the Case of the United States, " it has no 

 bearing whatsoever on the question of commercial privileges on the 

 treaty coasts." 



With reference to the treaty coasts, as is pointed out in the Case 

 of the United States, " the renunciatory clause, which was the basis 

 for denying commercial privileges to American fishermen on the 

 coasts covered by it, does not apply to the treaty coasts, and, there- 

 fore, on those coasts the American fishermen are not limited by the 

 treaty to the use of the bays and harbors for the four purposes of 

 shelter, repairs, wood, and water, and the ' no other purpose what- 

 ever ' provision has no application to them there." 6 



In this connection attention is called to the extract quoted in the 

 Case of the United States from a report made in June, 1886, by the 

 Canadian Minister of Marine and Fisheries,* in which he discusses 

 the question of commercial privileges on the non-treaty coasts, and 

 draws a distinction between the exercise of such privileges on those 

 coasts and on the treaty coasts as follows : 



Mr. Bayard states that in the proceedings prior to the treaty of 

 1818 the British commissioners proposed that United States fishing 



U. S. Case, p. 190. *U. S. Case, p. 194. 



