DISSENTING OPINION OF DR. DRAGO ON QUESTION FIVE. 103 



me, on the contrary, that " dominions," or " possessions," or " estates," 

 or such other equivalent terms, simply designate the places over 

 which the " dominion " or property rights are exercised. "Wlicre 

 there is no possibility of appropriation or dominion, as on the 

 128 the high seas, we cannot speak of dominions. The "domin- 

 ions " extend exactly to the point which the " dominion " 

 reaches; they are simply the actual or physical thing over which 

 the abstract power or authority, the rights as given to the proprietor 

 or the ruler, applies. The interpretation as to the territoriality of 

 the bays as mentioned in the renunciatory clause of the treaty ap- 

 pears stronger when considering that the United States specifically 

 renounced the " liberty," not the " right," to fish or to cure and dry 

 fish. " The United States renounce, forever, any liberty heretofore 

 enjoyed or claimed, to take, cure or dry fish on, or within three 

 marine miles of any of the coasts, bays, creeks or harbours of His 

 Britannic Majesty's dominions in America." It is well known that 

 the negotiators of the treaty of 1783 gave a very different meaning 

 to the terms liberty and rights as distinguished from each other. 

 In this connection, Mr. Adams' journal may be recited. To this 

 journal the British Counter-Case refers in the following terms: 

 '' From an entry in Mr. Adams' journal it appears that he drafted 

 an article by which he distinguished the right to take fish (both on 

 the high seas and on the shores) and the liberty to take and cure 

 fish on the land. But on the following day he presented to the 

 British negotiators a draft in which he distinguishes between the 

 ' right ' to take fish on the high seas, and the ' liberty ' to take fish on 



the ' coasts^ and to dry and cure fish on the land The British 



Commissioner called attention to the distinction thus suggested by 

 Mr. Adams, and proposed that the word liberty should be applied 

 to the privileges both on the water and on the land. Mr. Adams 

 thereupon rose up and made a vehement protest, as is recorded in 

 his diary, against the suggestion that the United States enjoyed the 

 fishing on the banks of Newfoundland by any other title than that 



of right The application of the word liberty to the coast 



fishery was left as Mr. Adams proposed." " The incident," pro- 

 ceeds the British Case, " is of importance, since it shows that the 

 difference between the two phrases was intentional " (British 

 Counter-Case, p. 17). And the British Argument emphasises again 

 the difference. " More cogent still is the distinction between the 

 words right and liberty. The word nght is applied to the sea fish- 

 eries, and the word liberty to the shore fisheries. The history of 

 the negotiations shows that this distinction was advisedly adopted." 

 If, then, a liberty is a grant and not the recognition of a right., if, as 

 the British Case, Counter-Case, and Argument recognise, the United 

 States had the right to fish in the open sea in contradistinction with 



