54 COUNTEK-CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 



FISHING AND TRADING VESSELS. 



The treaty gives a right of access to British shores for certain 

 specific purposes connected with fishing. To accomplish these pur- 

 poses it is necessary that the vessels employed by the citizens of the 

 United States should hover off the British Colonial coasts. In this 

 respect they differ entirely from trading vessels, which under the 

 laws of all nations are not permitted to hover, but are required to 

 go direct to and from established ports of entry. In fact, the right 

 enjoyed by fishing vessels is so different from that enjoyed by trad- 

 ing vessels that a grant of the one could not be interpreted to include 

 the other. 



This distinction between fishing vessels and trading vessels has 

 always been insisted on by Great Britain, and its propriety was fully 

 recognised by Mr. Putnam (one of the United States plenipoten- 

 tiaries who negotiated the unconfirmed treaty of 1888) who said 

 that, in the United States, confusion had been caused concerning the 

 interpretation of the treaty of 1818, by (British Case, App., p. 428) 



overlooking the indubitable fact that the practice of nations recog- 

 nises a broad line between fishing vessels and ordinary merchant 

 vessels, granting to each class privileges not possessed by the other. 



The legislation of the United States, as indeed that of all other 

 countries, has always recognised the distinction. 



It is impossible further to discuss the contention of the United 

 States until the grounds on which it is based are made known, and 

 His Majesty's Government is forced to content itself on the present 

 occasion with some observations on particular points of fact raised 

 in the Case of the JJnited States. For the argument on the main 

 question it begs to refer the Tribunal to the British Case. 



NEGOTIATIONS OF 1818. 



During the negotiations of 1818 in connection with the fisheries, 



the American negotiators asked for the liberty of entering the bays 



and harbours on the non-treaty coasts (British Case, App., 



63 p. 88) for the purpose of buying bait as well as for the four 



purposes which were ultimately conceded. To the proposal 



as to bait, the British representatives took exception, and it was 



dropped. 



In the British counter proposals there were some new clauses 

 (British Case, App., p. 89). One of them affirmed that the liberty 

 of fishing on the treaty coasts should not be construed to extend to 

 any privilege of carrying on trade. It was merely a declaratory 

 provision, which standing alone was entirely surplusage. But it 

 was followed by another clause giving powers of seizure and con- 



