1258 NORTH ATLANTIC COAST FISHERIES ARBITRATION. 



Fuca Strait, the United States would say : " Why, you have agreed 

 that the line is in the centre there ! " And if Great Britain were 

 to answer that the agreement depended upon the prior existence of 

 territorial right, and that the United States had possessed no such 

 right, the reply would be that the point was immaterial, that we 

 had agreed upon the location of the territorial line, and that we were 

 bound by our agreement that we could not escape by suggesting 

 that there was in mind at the time that possibly the territorial line 

 was not there. 



The next argument that I pass to is that resting upon what is 

 said to be Lord Stanley's decision in 1845. Mr. Warren put it in 

 the very forefront of his argument, the first thing that he referred 

 to, and spoke of it as a decision of Great Britain in accordance with 

 the contention of the United States. In this letter Lord Stanley 

 said that, having frequently had complaints from the Minister of 

 the United States on account of the capture of vessels belonging to 

 fishermen of the United States by provincial cruisers, for alleged in- 

 fractions of the Convention of 1818, between Great Britain and the 

 United States, the Government deemed it advisable to relax the 

 strict rule of exclusion. 



THE PRESIDENT : From what page are you reading ? 



MR. EWART : From p. 146 of the British Case Appendix, at the top 

 of the page. The language is : 



" deem it advisable for the interests of both countries to relax the 

 strict rule of exclusion exercised by Great Britain over the fishing 

 vessels of tha United States entering the bays of the sea on the 

 British North American coasts. ... I transmit to your Lordship 

 herewith the copy of a letter, together with its enclosures, which I 

 have received from the Foreign Office upon this subject . . . and I 

 have to request that your Lordship would inform me whether you 

 have any objections to offer," etc. 



It was a mere proposal, and after hearing that the relaxation 

 would be seriously injurious to the local fishermen, the British Gov- 

 ernment determined not to carry it further than a proposal. It was 

 a letter that was not, of course, communicated to the United States 

 in any way. It was a purpose a purpose not carried out. And 

 that is all I have to say about it. 



I now come to the Adams and Bathurst correspondence, which 

 was so much relied upon by Mr. Warren. In fact, he seems to me 

 to put his case almost entirely upon what Mr. Adams told Mr. Mon- 

 roe that Lord Bathurst said. 



The Tribunal will have clearly in mind the letter to Mr. Baker, 

 and the previous letter to Mr. Keats, in which Lord Bathurst had 

 indicated very clearly what his position was, and in which, in his 

 letter to Mr. Baker, he had answered the complaint that had been 

 made in respect of the " Jaseur." 



