AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1733 



was abandoned by the British plenipotentiaries, and Article I, as it stands in the convention 

 was substituted." 



The President has bt-en misinformed. The proposition alluded to had no connection with 

 the privilege given in the latter part of Article I, to enter bays and harbors for shelter and 

 other similar purposes ; but referred expressly and exclusively to the errant contained in the 

 former part of the article of a right to take, dry, and cure fish on the coasts and in the bay* 

 of Labrador and Newfoundland. This is apparent from a reference to the negotiations 

 themselves. On September 17, 1818, the American commissioners submitted their first 

 projet of a treaty. The proposed article relating to the fisheries was nearly the same as 

 the one finally adopted, including a renunciation of the liberty to fish within three miles of 

 other coasts and bays. The proviso was as follows : 



"Provided, however, That American fishermen shall be permitted to enter such bays and 

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



The British counter project granted a liberty to take, dry, and cure fish on the coasts of New- 

 fonndland and Labrador within much narrower limits than those demanded by the Amer- 

 ican plenipotentiaries. It admitted the fishing-vessels of the United States into other bay* 

 and harbors "for the purpose of shelter, of repairing damages therein, of purchasing wood, 

 and obtaining water, and for no other purpose." It also contained the following clause: 



"It is further understood that the liberty of taking, drying and curing fish granted in the 

 preceding part of this article shall not be construed to extend the privilege of carrying on 

 trade with any of His Britannic Majesty's subjects residing within the limits hereinbefore as- 

 signed to the use of fishermen of the United States. And in order the more effectually to guard 

 against smuggling, it shall not be lawful for the vessels of the United States engaged in the 

 said fishery to have on board any goods, wares, and merchandise, except such as may be 

 necessary lor the prosecution of the fishery." 



Messrs. Gallatin and Bush replied, insisting upon a privilege to take, dry, and cure fish 

 on the coasts of Newfoundland and Labrador within the limits first demanded by them, and 

 added, as the last sentence of their letter : "The clauses making vessels liable to confiscation 

 in case any articles not wanted for carrying on the fishery should be found on board, would 

 expose the fishermen to endless vexations." On the 13th October, the British commissioners 

 proposed Article I. as it now stands, which was accepted at once. There was no discussion 

 of an alleged right of American fishermen to engage in trade, and no further allusion on 

 the subject. Indeed, throughout all these conferences the American commissioners were 

 laboring to obtain as extensive a district of territory as possible on Newfoundland, Labra- 

 dor, and the Magdalen Islands for inshore fishing, and paid little attention to the privilege 

 then apparently of small value, but now important of using other bays and harbors for 

 shelter and kindred purposes. The British Agents, on the other hand, endeavored to confine 

 the former grant within narrow bounds and to load it with restrictions. The rejected clause, 

 concerning trade and carrying goods, was one of these restrictions, and in its very terms 

 referred alone to the vessels taking, drying, and curing fish on the portion of the Newfound- 

 land and Labrador coasts made free to our citizens. It should be noticed that the proviso 

 finally adopted omitted the right originally demanded by the Americans of entering other 

 bays and harbors for bait, and is identical with the one at first submitted by the British pleni- 

 potentiaries, strengthened by the addition of the word " whatever " after the clause " for no 

 other purpose." It is evident, therefore that the British Government is not estopped from 

 opposing the claim now set up by American fishermen, and sustained by the President, and 

 anything that occurred during the negotiations preliminary to the treaty. 



We must fall back, then, upon the accepted doctrines of international law. Every nation 

 has the undoubted right to prescribe such regulations of commerce carried on its waters 

 and with its citizens as it deems expedient, even to the extent of excluding entirely some or 

 all foreign vessels and merchandise. Such measures may be harsh, and under some cir- 

 cumstances a violation of inter-state comity, but they are not illegal. At all eveuta, it does 

 not become a government to complain which now maintains a tariff prohibitory as to many 

 articles, and which at one time ptissed a general embargo and non-intfrcourse act 

 seem to be special reasons why the Dominion authorities may inhibit general commerce by 

 Americans engaged in fishing. Their vessels clear for no particular port ; they are accu 

 tomed to enter one bay or harbor after another as their needs demand : they might t 

 carry on a coasting-trade; they would certainly have every opportunity for suci 

 smuggling. Indeed, this would' legitimately belong to the local customs and reveui; 

 tern, and not to the fisheries. We are thus forced to the conclusion that American fist 

 hate no right to enter the bays and harbors in question and Hell goods or purchase supphi 

 other than wood and water. 



It is not necessary to add a word to the able and impartial language 

 quoted, except to suggest that if the author had been now writing, he 

 might have found a more forcible example of inhospitable legislate 

 than the "general embargo and non-intercourse act,* 1 namely, the .1 

 tempt to evade the plighted promise of the nation to remove the taxa- 



