1128 NORTH ATLANTIC COAST FISHERIES ARBITRATION. 



Turning to pp. 1076 and 1077 of the Appendix to the Case of 

 the United States, the abstract showing the places where the respec- 

 tive American vessels were seized, as shown from affidavits filed in 

 the Vice- Admiralty Court in Halifax, discloses that on the 8th July, 

 1818, the "Raven" was seized in Mackarel Cove, lying at anchor, 

 that the " Nabby " was seized on the 28th July, 1818, off Pope's 

 Harbour, that the " Washington " was seized on the 28th July, 1818, 

 in Lipscomb Harbour, and that the " Betsey " was seized in Lips- 

 comb Harbour. 



If the Tribunal will be good enough to refer to the charts which 

 I handed in at the last session of the Tribunal, they w r ill find that 

 the locations of these vessels are designated on the charts, although, 

 when referring to the earlier seizures which Mr. Rush was immedi- 

 ately concerned with, I did not more than mention the fact that the 

 other seizures were located on the charts. 



These are the four seizures, Sir Charles, to which Mr. Rush refers 

 in the note appearing near the bottom of p. 308, and concerning 

 which you made an enquiry. 



I may add one other thing, that, in the Case of the United States 

 which goes with great care, and with a minuteness which, it seems to 

 me, is very creditable, into these seizures, the statement was made 

 that every one of these seizures took place within 3 miles of land; 

 and that while that statement was made in the Case served in 

 October last upon the Government of Great Britain, the statement 

 has not been challenged in the Counter-Case of Great Britain answer- 

 ing the Case or in the Argument presented before this Tribunal. 



I now take up, Mr. President, the line of argument which I was 

 pursuing at the last adjournment, unless there are some questions 

 which the Tribunal cares to ask bearing on the two questions which 

 I have undertaken to answer. 



I was reading, just before adjournment, from p. 3 of the report of 

 Sir Robert Finlay's argument, and I had read these words : 



" The language of the Treaty must of course be read by the light 

 of all the circumstances as they existed at the time when it was en- 

 tered into, and the history of that time is, for that purpose, very 

 material. 



" There has been an immense amount of discussion with regard to 

 what the meaning of the treaty is. That discussion has broken out 

 from time to time, and upon it some of the acutest minds upon both 

 sides of the Atlantic have been engaged." 



It seems that it would be a matter of the first importance to ex- 

 amine the meaning given to the words of the treaty by the two Gov- 

 ernments at the time of its making, and especially by their repre- 

 sentatives who participated in the negotiations; and for that 

 680 reason I desire to refer briefly to the report of the Commis- 



