1436 NORTH ATLANTIC COAST FISHERIES ARBITRATION. 



Then they quote from Mr. John Adams in support of that con- 

 tention, at p. 14 of the United States Case: 



" The United States refused to assent to this proposition " 

 That is, the proposition made at Ghent 



" and contended that there was no justification for discriminating 

 against this particular portion of the treaty ; and that, like any other 

 provision of the treaty which was intended to secure to the United 

 States the continued enjoyment of pre-existing rights upon the par- 

 tition of the British North American Empire at the close of the 

 Revolution, this particular provision survived the War of 1812, and 

 consequently that no declaration or provision in the new treaty was 

 required to continue it in force." 



At p. 26, also, near the top of the page : 



"As will appear from the correspondence by which this discussion 

 was carried on, Mr. Adams contended throughout the discussion that 

 such provisions had survived owing to the character of the treaty, 

 and the language used, and the nature of the liberties, and the rela- 

 tion of the American Colonies to them before the Revolution, and 

 that as these liberties had never been renounced by the United States, 

 either in the treaty of Ghent or otherwise, they were still in force." 



The United States Counter-Case, at p. 86, continued along the 

 same line : 



" It appears, therefore, that, notwithstanding the existence of the 

 French claim in 1783, the use of the waters of Newfoundland for 

 fishing, which American fishermen had enjoyed equally with British 

 fishermen prior to the revolution separating the American Colonies 

 from Oreat Britain, was continued under the treaty of peace of 1783 

 between the United States and Great Britain, by the stipula- 

 tion, . . ." &c. 



868 I am not able to make any such quotations from the United 

 States Argument; but I submit that the quotations which I 

 have made amply support the statement of our Case. 



I now seek to make use of the establishment of that United States 

 traditional view in this way : That if it be true that the rights of the 

 colonists were continued by the treaty of 1783, they are necessarily 

 subject to the regulations which existed at that time, and which were 

 afterwards made, because that was the position which was being con- 

 tinued. 



So far as regulations prior to the existence of the treaty are con- 

 cerned, I think I may say that at the time of the correspondence 

 which preceded this reference, Mr. Root's opinion was that the 

 American view this partition and continuation view involved the 

 idea that the United States were subject to regulations passed prior 

 to the treaty. 



In order quite to understand the full significance of what Mr. Root 

 said, one must see what it was he was replying to ; and that will be 

 found upon p. 495 of the British Case Appendix, where Sir Edward 



