ARGUMENT OF SIB WILLIAM BOBSON. 1801 



tinction is made between coasts and bays? Did not at that time be- 

 fore 1818, the disputes between the two Powers rather refer, first, to 

 the right of fishing on the coast, taken in a general sense without 

 making any distinction between coasts and bays, and secondly, to the 

 question whether landing on the shores should be allowed or not? 



That is the first question that I wish to draw your attention to. 

 Then, in the same letter of Lord Bathurst's, p. 278 of the United 

 States Case Appendix, I find these words: 



" yet they do feel that the enjoyment of the liberties, formerly used 

 by the inhabitants of the United States, may be very conducive to 

 their national and individual prosperity, though they should be 

 placed under some modifications;" 



These words clearly refer to the fishing rights on all the shores, 

 coasts, and bays that are mentioned in the letter of Mr. Adams to 

 Lord Bathurst. So, he speaks there of the enjoyment of the " lib- 

 erties formerly used " and Mr. Monroe, p. 287, understands it in the 

 same sense. Mr. Monroe writes to Mr. Adams : 



" It is willing to secure to our citizens the liberty stipulated by the 

 treaty of 1783, under such regulations as will secure the benefit to 

 both parties," 



We read, on p. 304 of the United States Case Appendix, that un- 

 expectedly the President authorises the negotiators, on behalf of the 

 United States to desist from the liberty of fishing and curing and 

 drying fish within the British jurisdiction generally. In using the 

 words " British Jurisdiction generally " I use the same words that 

 Mr. Adams used in the letter that I first cited. This proposition is 

 submitted by the American negotiators in the same terms as are now 

 in the treaty. And in the British Argument, p. 92, it is observed 

 that the language of the renunciation of the treaty of 1818 follows 

 closely the language of the grant of 1783. These are the two ques- 

 tions that I want to put to you: 



1089 Is it probable or not that the Americans, in renouncing the 

 right of fishing within 3 miles of any of the coasts, bays, har- 

 bours and creeks, intended to distinguish, for the first time, coasts 

 and bays, and to abandon a right that always, in their opinion, had 

 been common to all nations? 



Also: 



Is it admissible or not to read the words of the renunciatory clause 

 " any of the coasts, bays, creeks or harbours " as designating the 

 coast in general, by enumerating its component parts in the same 

 sense and in the same manner as is done in the treaty of 1783? 



SIR W. ROBSOX: I shall take the questions in the course of the 

 argument which I propose to present on Question 5. They really 

 cover the main features of my argument, so that I shall answer them 

 92909 S. Doc. 870, 61-3, vol 11 15 



