ARGUMENT OF CHARLES B. WARREN. 1131 



subjects, enjoyed any right there; the charter of that company hav- 

 ing been granted in the year 1670. The exception applies only to the 

 coasts and their harbors, and does not affect the right of fishing in 

 Hudson's Bay beyond three miles from the shores, a right which could 

 not exclusively belong to, or be granted by any nation. 



" The most difficult part of the negotiation related to the perma- 

 nence of the right. To obtain the insertion in the body of the conven- 

 tion of a provision declaring expressly that that right should not be 

 abrogated by war, was impracticable. All that could be done was to 

 express the article in such manner as would not render the right liable 

 to be thus abrogated. The words ' for ever ' were inserted for that 

 purpose, and we also made the declaration annexed to the protocol of 

 the third conference, the principal object of which was to provide in 

 any event for the revival of all our prior rights. The insertion of 

 the words ' for ever ' was strenuously resisted. The British plenipo- 

 tentiaries urged that, in case of war, the only effect of those words be- 

 ing omitted, or of the article being considered as abrogated, would be 

 the necessity of inserting in the treaty of peace a new article renewing 

 the present one ; and that, after all that had passed, it would certainly 

 be deemed expedient to do it, in whatever manner the condition was 

 now expressed. We declared that we would not agree to any article 

 on the subject, unless the words were preserved, or in case they should 

 enter on the protocol a declaration impairing their effect. 



" It will also be perceived that we insisted on the clause by which 

 the United States renounce their right to the fisheries relinquished by 

 the convention, that clause having been omitted in the first British 

 Counter-project. We insisted on it with the view 1st. Of prevent- 

 ing any implication that the fisheries secured to us were a new 

 grant, and of placing the permanence of the rights secured and of 

 those renounced precisely on the same footing. 2d. Of its being ex- 

 pressly stated that our renunciation extended only to the distance of 

 three miles from the coasts. This last point was the more important, 

 as, with the exception of the fishery in open boats within certain har- 

 bors, it appeared, from the communications above mentioned, that 

 the fishing ground, on the whole coast of Nova Scotia, is more than 

 three miles from the shore ; whilst, on the contrary, it is almost uni- 

 versally close to the shore on the coasts of Labrador. It is in that 

 point of view that the privilege of entering the ports for shelter is 

 useful, and it is hoped that, with that provision, a considerable por- 

 tion of the actual fisheries on that coast (of Nova Scotia) will, not- 

 withstanding the renunciation, be preserved." 



In the first place, the Commissioners referred to the waters, cov- 

 ered by the renunciatory clause, as British harbours, in the fifth 

 line from the commencement of the report. That was their idea of 

 the nature of the waters which were renounced by the renunciatory 

 clause which is now being discussed. 



In the second place I desire respectfully to call the attention of the 

 Tribunal to the fact that, referring to the so-called exclusive rights 

 of the Hudson's Bay Company, whatever they were, which it is not 

 necessary here to discuss, they used the following language : 



" The exception applies only to the coasts and their harbours, and 

 does not effect the right of fishing in Hudson's Bay beyond three miles 



