ARGUMENT OF JOHN 3. EWART. 1381 



sible to imagine Mr. Adams saying that; and yet that is what Sena- 

 tor Turner proposes to us as the implication of the treaty. 



With reference to the treaty itself, Sirs, I have, I think, four ob- 

 servations to make, and very briefly ; the first is this : The Tribunal 

 will observe that by the treaty, Great Britain relinquishes all claim 

 to government over the United States. It would not have been diffi- 

 cult, of course, to have added " and to the government of American 

 fishermen in the waters of His Majesty's dominions in America ; " 

 but that was not added. We have a relinquishment of government in 

 the United States. We have no relinquishement of government in 

 British territory. 



My second observation relates to the word " liberty " ; and I 

 merely mention it because I have already dealt with it, and, I think, 

 have shown that to these men the men who were negotiating that 

 treaty " liberty " to fish did not mean license to do as one pleases ; 

 and that free fishing did not mean unregulated fishing. 



The third observation I make is in opposition to what is very 

 formally put forward in the United States Case and Argument, and 

 which was touched upon by Senator Turner, namely, that what the 

 treaty meant by a grant of liberty was really a grant of a half 

 ownership in the fisheries. That is put forward in the United States 

 Case, at p. 9, and in the United States Argument, at pp. 65 and 67 ; 

 and it is said that there is no more reason why Great Britain should 

 regulate American fishermen than that the United States should 

 regulate British fishermen. I do not suppose, Sire, that this argument 

 will be given effect to; but I do not wish to let it pass unnoticed, 

 because one knows what is taken, at subsequent times, out of what 

 happens during these arbitrations. 



I submit, Sirs, that, so far from having given the United States a 

 half interest in these fisheries, or half ownership of them, that we 

 merely gave them a liberty to fish there ; and that that would not at 

 all preclude us from giving like liberty to other nations. I cite, in 

 support of that, the pamphlet which Senator Turner put in, Eivier, 

 at p. 6. But I can do better than that, for I can show that such was 

 the view taken by the parties with reference to these very fisheries. 

 For instance, Great Britain introduced the United States fishermen 

 on to the French shore of Newfoundland, after we had given rights 

 to the French. The French claimed exclusive rights. The United 

 States say : " No ; it was a mere right to fish in common." And prior 

 to the declarations interchanged with the treaty of 1783, I think it 

 was a right to fish in common ; that is, a right to fish in common be- 

 tween the British subjects and the French subjects. At that time, 

 while the fishery was in that condition, we made a treaty by which 

 we admitted the United States to participation in that common 

 fishery, and the United States accepted it 



