1800 NORTH ATLANTIC COAST FISHERIES ARBITRATION. 



that there would be no provision and no law against smuggling at 

 all? Surely he cannot expect us to accept that inference. All that 



was meant when a provision of that very unusual character was 

 1088 rejected was that the safeguards against smuggling must be 



such as are provided by the ordinary law, and need not be 

 anything stronger. 



I think that I have now covered, I hope nojt at too great or too 

 tedious a length, the whole of the ground with regard to the distinc- 

 tion between the treaty and non-treaty coasts; and I have already 

 pointed out that it is not a distinction which relieves those who fre- 

 quent the non-treaty coasts from any obligation or regulation which 

 may be necessary to safeguard the revenue laws. It is only one 

 which puts in a somewhat more explicit form and gives rather a 

 wider range to the ordinary rights and obligations of the interna- 

 tional law for safeguarding the interests of any local authority whose 

 jurisdiction may be entered by strangers or aliens. Perhaps the 

 Tribunal would allow me to take up the fifth Question after the 

 adjournment. 



DR. DE SAVORNIN LOHMAN: Will you allow me, before you enter 

 upon the fifth Question, to put some questions to you? I shall put 

 them to you now, but you may answer them at your convenience in 

 the course of your argument. I draw your attention to two passages 

 having connection with the first question, which I desire to put to 

 you, and which has reference to the question of bays. At pp. 269 

 and 270 of the United States Case Appendix, there is a letter from 

 Mr. Adams to Lord Bathurst, and, on p. 269, Mr. Adams says: 



" 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 territories in North America," 



And on p. 270 Mr. Adams says: 



" and declaring that they should continue to enjoy the right of fish- 

 ing on the Grand Bank, and other places of common jurisdiction, and 

 have the liberty of fishing and of drying and curing their fish within 

 the exclusive British jurisdiction on the North American coasts," 



I suppose the meaning is that the Americans should have the right. 

 to fish on all the shores and also on the shores of the bays. If I am 

 wrong you will be able to correct me. In his reply to Mr. Adams, at 

 p. 273, Lord Bathurst does not deny that the Americans had that 

 right of fishery along the shores, and at the end of his letter he com- 

 plains only of the preoccupation of harbours and of smuggling. 

 You will find that at the end of his letter on p. 277. The first ques- 

 tion I want to put is this: Is there any document or fact before 1818 

 that proves that, either on the side of Great Britain or of the United 

 States, in reference to the fishing rights of the United States, a dis- 



