1932 NORTH ATLANTIC COAST FISHERIES ARBITRATION. 



representation appears in the letter of Mr. Crampton of the 25th 

 April, 1856, which is to be found on p. 210 of the British Case 

 Appendix. And the British Minister asked" Mr. Marcy to amend 

 his circular by putting in other words in place of the observation 

 that there was no stipulation requiring obedience. These are the 

 words that the British Minister wished included I am reading from 

 p. 211 of the British Case Appendix, the italicised words near the 

 foot of the page : 



"American citizens would indeed, within British jurisdiction, be 

 liable equally with British subjects to the penalties prescribed by 

 law for a wilful infraction of such regulations, but nevertheless should 

 these be so framed or executed as to make any discrimination in 

 favour of the British fishermen or to impair the rights secured to 

 American fishermen by the Reciprocity Treaty, those injuriously 

 affected by them will appeal to this Government for redress. 



Mr. Marcy apparently declined to substitute those words for his 

 own. At all events, he did not substitute them, but instead 

 1170 of that he put in a statement, which is the first example of the 

 drawing of the line between what Great Britain could do and 

 what Great Britain could not do, to which I ask your attention. 

 What he put into his circular, in place of the denial of his own first 

 circular, and in the place of the declaration of binding obligation 

 which the British Minister wanted to put in, was: first, a statement 

 of this very general jurisdiction, general sovereign right of Great 

 Britain to which I have already referred ; and, secondly, a statement 

 of the limitation in regard to the treaty. What he said was 

 and I now read from the final circular, on p. 209 of the British 

 Appendix : 



" By granting the mutual use of the inshore fisheries neither party 

 has yielded its right to civil jurisdiction over a marine league along 

 its coast. Its laws are as obligatory upon the citizens or subjects of 

 the other as upon its own." 



To that proposition we fully subscribe, with the addition which he 

 makes of the particular situation in which the treaty places laws re- 

 lating to the subject-matter of the treaty. That addition was in these 

 words : 



" The laws of the British Provinces not in conflict with the provi- 

 sions of the Reciprocity Treaty would be as binding upon citizens of 

 the United States within that jurisdiction as upon British subjects." 



There is the first statement. It is first in point of being general, 

 and it is first historically. General jurisdiction untouched; laws of 

 the jurisdiction binding upon American citizens as fully as upon 

 British subjects; laws not inconsistent with the treaty, binding; laws 

 that are inconsistent with the treaty, not binding. 



