1966 NORTH ATLANTIC COAST FISHERIES ARBITRATION. 



points on which they agreed to disagree. Lord Salisbury says there, 

 just below the middle of the page: 



" Thus whilst absolute freedom in the matter of fishing in terri- 

 torial waters is granted, the right to use the shore for four specified 

 Purposes alone is mentioned in the treaty articles, from which United 

 tates fishermen derive their privileges, namely, to purchase wood, to 



obtain water, to dry nets, and cure fish. 



1190 " The citizens' of the United States are thus by clear implica- 

 tion absolutely precluded from the use of the shore in the direct 

 act of catching fish. This view was maintained in the strongest man- 

 ner before the Halifax Commission," &c. 



And that statement of Lord Salisbury is based upon both the treaty 

 of 1818 and the treaty of 1871. He has just referred to both of them 

 as the basis of that conclusion. 



Sir Robert Bond, in his speech of the 7th April, 1905, refers to the 

 same subject, and reasserts the position. 



It is true that this view that we were excluded from the shore was 

 denied by Mr. Evarts, and that the United States has never assented 

 to it; but it has been the practical treatment of the subject by Great 

 Britain that she has denied to the United States any use of the shore; 

 and, as a practical matter, any attempt to overcome that would be 

 met by this insuperable, or practically insuperable, obstacle of the 

 opposition of the shore population, so that the attention of American 

 fishermen has been directed not to undertaking to get ashore and have 

 a fight with the inhabitants, but to getting their bait in the best way 

 they could. And so long as they could buy it, down to 1905, it wa> a 

 matter of comparatively little consequence. When I come to dism>- 

 the British view of the inferences to be drawn from the fact that the 

 fishing is in common, I am going to say something more about this 

 question of shore rights. But what I have said serves my present 

 purpose, which is to enumerate the successive steps by which the 

 shore of Newfoundland was protected against us. The shore fisher- 

 men, in the exercise of their industry, protested against the foreigner 

 coming there, and the foreigner was compelled to purchase until, in 

 1905, the right to purchase was cut off, and he found himself with 

 this barrier against the exercise of the treaty right of taking fish 

 standing before him, both being in pursuance of a general purpose to 

 shut him out from getting bait which would enable him to compete 

 with Newfoundlanders in the bank fishery. 



The Tribunal will perceive that by itself this exclusion from the 

 shore made it inevitable that the 'kind of fishery that the Americans 

 prosecuted should be a different kind of fishery from that which 

 the Newfoundlanders prosecuted. It made the ne<v->ary working 

 of the industry such that it was aptly described by Mr. Evarts when 

 he said that it was impossible that the rights of the strand fishermeai 



