ARGUMENT OF ELIHU BOOT. 2067 



of control. For that reason they wanted to shove them off to these 

 unfrequented and practically unsettled coasts. 



Mr. Monroe declined each of these offers, and Mr. Bagot came 

 back with a letter on the 31st December, 1816, in which he offered 

 both of these stretches which he had formerly offered in the alterna- 

 tive. The letter is on p. 292 of the United States Case Appendix, 

 and in it he says : 



" The object of His Majesty's Government, in framing these propo- 

 sitions, was to endeavor to assign to the American fishermen, in the 

 prosecution of their employment, as large a participation of the con- 

 veniences afforded by the neighboring coasts of His Majesty's settle- 

 ments as might be reconcileable with the just rights and interests of 

 His Majesty's own subjects, and the due administration of His Maj- 

 esty's dominions ; " 



Mr. Monroe declined that proposition, and when the negotiators 

 came together (the negotiations having been kept open by expres- 

 sions of good intentions of both parties) the American negotiators 

 presented a third proposition, which is the one now in the treaty, 

 which took in both the Labrador coast and the south coast of New- 

 foundland, that had been offered, first, alternatively, and, second, 

 collectively; and also the west coast of Newfoundland. They pre- 

 sented that on the 17th September, 1818, and on that same day Messrs. 

 Robinson and Goulburn, the British negotiators, reported to their 

 government the reasons given by the Americans for the action which 

 they took; and that appears at p. 86 of the British Case Appendix. 

 I shall be very glad to have your Honour's attention to that letter. 

 This is the letter not dated, except September, but which I haA^e 

 already observed, is located as of the 17th by reference to the 

 1251 protocols of that day. Reading about one-third down, the 

 third paragraph on p. 86, the writers say : 



" With respect to the fisheries they observed " 



That is, the American Commissioners observed. 



" that in consideration of the different opinions known to be enter- 

 tained by the Governments of the two countries, as to the right of 

 the United States to a participation in the fisheries within the British 

 jurisdiction, and to the use for those purposes of British territory, 

 they had been induced to forego a statement of their views of this 

 right in the article which they had proposed; but they desired to be 

 understood, as in no degree abandoning the ground upon which the 

 right to the fishery had been claimed by the Government of the 

 United States, and only waiving discussion of it, upon the principle 

 that, that right was not to be limited in any way, which should 

 exclude the United States from a fair participation in the advan- 

 tages of the fishery: They added that while they could not but re- 

 gard the propositions made to the Government of the United States 

 by Mr. Bagot as altogether inadmissable, inasmuch as they restricted 

 the American fishing to a line of coast so limited, as to exclude them 



