1430 NORTH ATLANTIC COAST FISHERIES ARBITRATION. 



of the liberties under the two treaties, but the respective positions of 

 the two Governments as shown in the correspondence between Adams 

 and Bathurst. 



JUDGE GRAY: The respective positions of the two Governments 

 would illustrate, or throw light upon the attitudes in which the 

 negotiators approached the treaty of 1818. That would be all. 



MR. EWART: Possibly, Sir. But that, I submit, affords no expla- 

 nation of the line of argument which the United States Case pursues, 

 and at all events, there is no suggestion of servitudes, either there or 

 in the United States Counter-Case nothing until two weeks before 

 the Tribunal met. 



Now, Sirs, the British Case, at pp. 48 and 49, made reply to that 



partition theory, and the United States reply to what is there 



864 said is important, and will be drawn to the attention of the 



Tribunal in a few moments. I read from the British Case, 



p. 48 : 



" It has from time to time been earnestly contended by the United 

 States that the war of 1812 did not terminate the liberties to take and 

 dry and cure fish which were granted by the treaty of 1783 ; that the 

 treaty of 1783 merely recognised and continued the rights which the 

 fishermen of the United States possessed as subjects of the British 

 Crown before the Declaration of Independence; and that the treaty 

 of 1818, in its turn, recognised and continued existing rights. This 

 view has always been repudiated by Great Britain, and, for reasons 

 which will be submitted to the Tribunal if reliance is placed on this 

 contention in the United States Case, cannot be sustained." 



Then the Case goes on to argue that if the citizens of the United 

 States are now enjoying the rights which they formerly enjoyed, and 

 if their present rights are merely a continuation of that which they 

 had before, they must necessarily be subject to regulations. The 

 reply of the United States Argument is to be found at pp. 59 and 

 60 ; and I think what is said there is of importance. I read from the 

 foot of p. 59 : 



"An alternative argument is presented in the British Case, based 

 on an assumed contention attributed to the United States, that the 

 treaty of 1783 merely recognized and continued the rights which the 

 fishermen of the United States possessed as subjects of the British 

 Crown before the Declaration of Independence, and that the treaty 

 of 1818 in turn simply recognized and continued preexisting rights. 



"As a statement of the contention of the United States this is not 

 strictly accurate. The position taken by the United States was that 

 the American Colonies, by reason of their exertions to acquire, main- 

 tain, and develop the North Atlantic fisheries, and of the relation of 

 the fisheries to them geographically and economically, were as much 

 entitled to those fisheries upon their separation from Great Britain, 

 as the people inhabiting the territories which remained under the 

 British Crown, and that the treaty of 1783, recognizing the division 



