FRANCO- AMERICAN CONTROVERSY, 1822-1824. 125 



'western and northern coast from the said Cape Kay to the Quirpon 

 islands." By the same convention the United States are allowed to 

 dry and cure fish on the southern part of the coast of this island, as 

 above described, but not on the western coast. 



From the preceding statement, it follows that the French have 

 the right of taking and drying fish on the western coast of the island 

 of Newfoundland. The United States claim for their citizens the 

 right of taking fish on the same coast. But this France denies, say- 

 ing that the right both of taking and drying belongs to her EX- 

 CLUSIVELY. Her cruisers have, accordingly, in 1820 and 1821, or- 

 dered off the American fishing vessels whilst within the acknowledged 

 jurisdiction of the coast, threatening them with seizure and con- 

 fiscation in case of refusal. 



It may be that France will allege in support of her doctrine that 

 by her treaty of September 3, 1783, with Great Britain, which gave 

 her the right of shing and drying fish on the western coast of this 

 island, it was intended that the right should be exclusive; that the 

 words of the treaty, and, above all, those of the declaration annexed 

 to it, show this to have been the meaning, as France obtained the 

 western coast in exchange for a part of the eastern coast with a view 

 to prevent quarrels between the French and British fishermen. To 

 this end, as it may perhaps be also alleged, the words of the declara- 

 tion provide that British subjects were not to interrupt the French 

 fishery on this coast (the western) by their competition " in any 

 manner;" and further provide that the "fixed settlements" which 

 had been formed there (by British subjects it is presumed) should 

 be removed. 



The United States insist, on the other hand, that Great Britain 

 never could have intended by her treaty of 1783 with France to grant 

 a right of fishing, and of drying and curing fish, on the western coast 

 of the island to French fishermen exclusively, but that the right of 

 British subjects to resort there in common must necessarily be implied. 

 That a contrary construction of the instrument cannot be received, 

 the sovereignty of the whole island, without any exception, having 

 been fully vested in Great Britain, and even confirmed by this very 

 treaty. That it_ can never be presumed that she intended so far to 

 renounce or in anywise diminish this sovereignty as to exclude her 

 own subjects from any part of the coast. That no positive grant to 

 this effect is to be found in the treaty, any more than in the treaty 

 of Utrecht, and that the claim of France to an exclusive right, a claim 

 so totally repugnant to the sovereign rights of Great Britain, can 

 rest on nothing less strong than a positive grant. That all that the 

 words contained in the declaration to the treaty of 1783 can be con- 

 strued to mean is, that British subjects should never, whilst exercising 

 their right, improperly or injuriously " interrupt by their com- 

 petition " the enjoyment of the French right. Furthermore, the 

 United States cannot suppose that Great Britain, by the convention 

 of October, 1818, above recited, would ever have agreed that the in- 

 habitants of the United States should have (for a just equivalent 

 contained in the convention) the right or the liberty to take fish on 

 the very coast in question in common with British subjects but under 

 the conviction that British subjects had the liberty of resorting there; 

 and if they had, the claim of France to drive away the fishing vessels 

 of the United States cannot stand. 



