1630 NORTH ATLANTIC COAST FISHERIES ARBITRATION. 



by express terms. There are no such terms in the grant to you, the 

 French people, of the right to fish on this coast. Great Britain re- 

 mains" and here I am using the words of the parties themselves 

 "sole sovereign. Her sovereignty is undivided. The waters of the 

 western coast of Newfoundland are purely British waters." That is 

 what they said. I need not read all of these passages. They are so 

 familiar to the Tribunal that I do not need to go through the refer- 

 ences again. But I wish to recall the fact that Mr. Rush writes to 

 Mr. Gallatin formulating the argument that they were to use in the 

 negotiations, and saying that England had never yielded any ex- 

 clusive right; and he says that whenever an exclusive right is 

 granted, proper words are used for that purpose; and winds up by 

 quoting with approval from a British document: 



" Your Majesty continues to be sole sovereign of the Island of New- 

 foundland." [British Case Appendix, p. 102.] 



The reply of France was that the United States had acknowledged 

 her claim to exclusive rights by the treaty of 1778; and I think 

 France was right. I am not concerned with the merits of that con- 

 troversy, but when the revolution was in progress, and the war be- 

 tween England and the United States was at its height, America, 

 needing the assistance of France, had undoubtedly agreed to acknowl- 

 edge the exclusiveness of the French right by the treaty of 1778 ; but 

 that was a terminable treaty, and it was determined by the United 

 States, and the United States contended, I think not very logically, 

 that as it was a terminable treaty, and its existence had been brought 

 to an end, the recognition of exclusive right on the part of the French 

 had died with it ; so that the Americans were no longer bound by the 

 admission they had made in 1778. So they continued the argument, 

 and this is how the United States replied to it. I think it is worth 

 my reading the exact words, because they are important. It is on p. 

 105 of the British Case Appendix, where they state this point in 

 terms of extraordinary clearness. They say : 



" Whatever may be the extent of the rights of France on that coast, 

 whether exclusive or not, they are only those of taking and 



986 drying fish. The sovereignty of the Island of Newfoundland, 

 on which she had till then possessions, was expressly ceded by 



the treaty of Utrecht to Great Britain, subject to no other reservation 



whatever but that of fishing as above mentioned, on part of the 



coast." 



Now, these are the material words : 



"The jurisdiction and all the other rights of sovereignty remained 

 with and belonged to Great Britain and not to France. She has not 

 therefore that of doing herself on that coast, what may be termed 

 summary justice, by seizing or driving away vessels of another 

 nation, even if these should in her opinion infringe her rights." 



