1260 NORTH ATLANTIC COAST FISHERIES ARBITRATION. 



Now that bears evidence upon its face of being inaccurate, because 

 the latter alternative clearly includes the former, and the alternative 

 is useless. It reads: 



" Could not permit the vessels of the United States to fish within 

 the creeks and close upon the shores " 



that, of course, is within 3 miles 



" so, on the other hand, it was by no means her intention to interrupt 

 them in fishing anywhere in the open sea, or without the territorial 

 jurisdiction, a marine league from the shore; " 



It is the same thing. 



Now, if Mr. Adams, instead of saying " close upon the shores," 

 had added to the word " creeks " the words " bays and harbours," as 

 it is in Lord Bathurst's letter to Mr. Baker, there would be a real 

 alternative; and that is what Lord Bathurst meant, and no doubt 

 when he made use of an alternative he meant something. 



Now, if the Tribunal will turn to Mr. Adams' letter to Lord Bath- 

 urst, in which he purports to recount the same conversation (British 

 Case Appendix, at p. 67), it will be found that the alternative dis- 

 appears altogether. There is not any. In the first letter, he spoils 

 the alternative; in the second, he eliminates it: 



" Your Lordship did also express it as the intention of the British 

 Government to exclude the fishing vessels of the United States, here- 

 after, from the liberty of fishing within one marine league of the 

 shores of all the British territorities in North America," 



No alternative at all being stated not even the creeks or close 

 upon the shores, if that is an alternative. 



That letter, then, from Mr. Adams to Mr. Monroe, seems to me 

 to be a very slight basis upon which to found an argument, going as 

 far as, really, the changing of this treaty. If an agreement between 

 the parties was intended, that agreement must be contained not in 

 this conversation as stated by Mr. Adams in these two ways, but in 

 the letter which was sent to Mr. Baker, and which was, no doubt, 

 communicated by Mr. Baker to the United States Government 

 (although of that we submit no evidence, and merely say it is 

 extremely likely). It is quite clear that no agreement could have 

 been based upon the letter, unless it had been seen by the United 

 States Government, and if it was seen it disclosed Lord Bathurst's 

 real meaning. 



I wish now to call the attention of the Tribunal to the report made 

 by Messrs. Rush and Gallatin, which, as Mr. Warren has said, is 

 dated upon the very day of the treaty. As preliminary to that, how- 

 ever, I should like to remind the Tribunal of the great uncertainty 

 which existed at that time, and previously, as to the extent of the 

 British claims. It is well stated, and perhaps the Tribunal has it 



