56 COUNTER-CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 



underlying them, and there is no obligation to continue them. This 

 is emphasised in a report of the Committee for Foreign Relations of 

 the United States Senate (19th Januray, 1887) (British Case, App., 

 p. 397) : 



" The treaties between the United States and Great Britain on the 

 subject of inter-communication, and the rights of the citizens and 

 subjects of the one in the ports and territories of the other have not 

 included the British dominions of North America (with possibly cer- 

 tain exceptions as to intercourse by land), and such intercourse, 

 strangely enough, still remains the subject of legislation merely in 

 the two countries." 



All such arrangements, moreover, relate to trading-vessels only. 

 None of them furnishes the slightest warrant for a claim, by United 

 States fishermen, to the same privileges under the treaty of 1818. 



TREATY COASTS. 



It would appear from the United States Case that the United 

 States intends to argue that although the treaty did not confer com- 

 mercial privileges on the non-treaty coasts, yet that it did confer such 

 privileges on the treaty coasts. The quotations from United States 

 authorities on pages 141 to 145 of the British Case would seem to 

 supply sufficient reasons why such a contention cannot prevail. 



The only point which could be urged in favour of such a dis- 

 65 tinction would be that, on the non-treaty coasts, the treat} 7 gave 

 United States fishermen liberty to enter the bays and harbours 

 for four specified purposes, and " for no other purposes whatever," 

 while on the treaty coasts no such words of restriction v;ere used. 

 The United States Case (p. 194) puts the matter in this way: 



" It must also be noted that 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 purposes what- 

 ever ' provision has no application to them there." 



But the question is not one of limitation, but of grant. His 

 Majesty's Government submits that the right to enjoy commercial 

 privileges will not be inferred merely because the treaty contains no 

 specific prohibition of them. 



" THOMAS F. BAYARD " AXD " MASCOTTE." 



The only incidents put forward by the United States as affecting 

 the question of trading on the treaty shores are the cases of the 

 "Thomas F. Bayard" and the " Mascotte." United States Case, 

 pp. 190-4.) 



The United States relies on the correspondence relating to the 

 refusal of permission to these vessels to purchase bait upon the treaty 



