1958 NOBTH ATLANTIC COAST FISHERIES ARBITRATION. 



ment. They are and have been for many years protecting their in- 

 terests, which is very much the duty of the Government, and have 

 been following the natural and commendable instincts of human 

 nature in doing it. I find no fault with them. I am going to chal- 

 lenge a judge; I am going to put to the judgment of the Tribunal 

 the question whether the Government of Newfoundland, constituted 

 as it is, inspired by the motives that it has, can be properly a judge 

 upon our rights, which are its burdens, and left to draw the line 

 which was intended to be established by the grant of this treaty. 

 And I am going to urge upon you that the result which is developed 

 by the application of the British theory to this case up to this time is 

 a powerful argument against the soundness of the theory and against 

 the view, that the negotiators, in making the treaty, meant to have it 

 construed as Great Britain now construes it. 



I need not devote much time to urging upon the Tribunal the 

 importance of the right. The Tribunal will remember that it was 

 a sine qua non of the Treaty of Peace. John Adams declared he 

 would never put his hand to the treaty unless this fishery right was 

 provided for. He, and with him Franklin and Jay, were willing 

 to stake the issues of peace and war upon having that right. Adams 

 says so; Strachey wrote home to London so; Oswald wrote home to 

 London so; Fitzherbert wrote home to London so. Our friends on 

 the other side minimise it. They think little of it. Of course that 

 is their privilege. Probably it is their duty to take that view of it. 

 But not so these men who established it. One thing about it our 

 friends on the other side have said that is certainly true: the value 

 of it was not for the few miserable herring to be taken upon the 

 shore of Newfoundland, nor was it for the cod-fish, the chief value 

 that could be taken along the headlands or along the south shore; 

 nor was it for the other fish, the hake, the halibut, the sea-cows, the 

 great variety of fish that could be taken along the coast of New- 

 foundland. The great value of it was the bank fishery. And old 

 John Adams, who knew his subject well, for he himself had been a 

 participator in the fishing, as he tells us here, spoke of it as being 

 one fishery; and it was one fishery. Why? Because the bank 

 fishery cannot be prosecuted without bait. The herring, the caplin. 

 the squid, were the seed corn of the harvest of the sea, which made 

 the livelihood and the prosperity of the New England coast, and 

 which still do make its livelihood and its prosperity. 



The value of the bank fishery is quite apparent, I think. I will 

 refer the Tribunal to a single statement in our Counter-Case Ap- 

 pendix, at p. 554, where the British counsel at the Halifax discussion 

 presented the results of what was undoubtedly a careful enquiry 

 into the facts. I will read from just below the middle of p. 554. 

 They said : 



