1880 NORTH ATLANTIC COAST FISHERIES ARBITRATION. 



that they are not giving away more than they need. We must con- 

 strue the clause strictly." But I think a different air is given to the 

 clause when we see, not that they are offering to renounce, but that 

 they are being compelled to renounce; and that they renounce most 

 unwillingly. But the whole of the negotiation of these protocols 

 is conducted on the footing that they have agreed to renounce. 

 Otherwise, we would not have gone any further. Their own secre- 

 tary had communicated to them their instructions, as to what they 

 were authorised to do; so there never was any dispute about it. 

 When the parties met, no dispute arose. As I shall show, the dif- 

 ferences were on other points than this. We proposed one form of 

 renunciation; they proposed another. As it happened, their form 

 of renunciation, I think, was in terms a little more explicit than 

 ours, and we took it; and nobody thought it mattered one way or 

 another. Let me go through the protocols very shortly, of these 

 conferences. There was nothing at the first or second conference: 

 and then, at the third conference, on the 17th September, 1818, the 

 United States submits their proposal. Article A, on p. 311 of the 

 United States Case Appendix shows their clause as they submit it. 

 I will read, afterwards, the one that we submitted : 



" The United States hereby renounce any liberty heretofore en- 

 joyed or claimed by the inhabitants thereof to take, dry, or cure fish 

 on or within three marine miles of any of the coasts, bays, creeks, and 

 harbors of His Britannic Majesty's dominions in America not in- 

 cluded within the above-mentioned limits: Provided, however, That 

 the American fishermen shall be admitted to enter such bays and 

 harbors for the purpose only of obtaining shelter, wood, water, and 

 bait," 



"And bait." Now, before I pass that clause, I wish to draw atten- 

 tion to a few words in it. They use rather significant language 

 there. First of all, they are quite clear in renouncing the right to 

 enter the bays. They say: "We will keep 3 marine miles away from 

 a bay." This was the first point, as they knew from Lord Bathurst'= 

 letter to Mr. Bagot that it was insisted on. Then they say : 



"Provided, however, That the American fishermen shall be ad- 

 mitted to enter such bays and harbors for the purpose only of obtain- 

 ing shelter, wood, water, and bait," 



"Admitted to enter" is rather curious phraseology. I am dealing 

 now with the suggestion that when bays were spoken of they were 

 merely spoken of as indentations in the coast; that everybody was 

 allowed to go into the bay, but that they were compelled to keep a 

 certain distance from the shore. That is not the way in which the 

 United States negotiators were looking at it. They had in their 

 minds the closed bay not the open bay into which they might enter, 

 but where they might not fish, or might not land. They had in their 



