TREATY OF SEPTEMBER 3, 1783. 11 



coasts which fell to Great Britain in the division of territory. So 

 that, although still reciprocal in form as in the original proposal, 

 the article was no longer reciprocal in effect with respect to the drying 

 and curing of fish. 



The articles thus agreed upon were again sent to England for the 

 King's consideration and having proved unacceptable there fresh 

 proposals from the British Ministry were delivered by Mr. Oswald 

 to the American Commissioners on November 25, 1782, containing the 

 following fisheries article : 



Article III. The citizens of the said United States shall have the 

 liberty of taking fish of every kind on all the banks of Newfound- 

 land, and also in the Gulf of St. Lawrence; and also to dry and cure 

 their fish on the shores of the Isle of Sables and on the shores of 

 any of the unsettled bays, harbors, and creeks of the Magdalen 

 Islands, in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, so long as such bays, harbors, 

 and creeks shall continue and remain unsettled; on condition that 

 the citizens of the said United States do not exercise the fishery, but 

 at the distance of three leagues from all the coast belonging to Great 

 Britain, as well those of the continent as those of the islands situ- 

 ated in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. And as to what relates to the 

 fishery on the coast of the Island of Cape Breton out of the said gulf, 

 the citizens of the said United States shall not be permitted to 

 exercise the said fisherj^, but at the distance of fifteen leagues from 

 the coasts of the Island of Cape Breton.'* 



It is evident from this proposal that Great Britain acquiesced in 

 the elimination under the previous proposal of any reciprocal right of 

 using the coasts of the United States for drying and curing fish, for 

 no attempt is made to renew such provision, and even the provision 

 for the extension of equal privileges and hospitality to each other*s 

 fishermen, which is found at the end of the previous proposals, is 

 omitted here. In all other respects, however, this proposal shows a 

 marked departure by Great Britain from the proposals previously 

 agreed upon by the British Commissioner. Not only does it fail to 

 reserve to the inhabitants of the United States am' of the inshore or 

 coast fisheries which were provided for in the earlier proposals, but 

 it gTcatly reduces the shore space open to the Americans for drying 

 and curing fish and it fails to recognize the American rights in the 

 off-shore fisheries as a continuation of pre-existing rights in such 

 fisheries, and further it proposes that American fishermen should not 

 be permitted to enjoy such off-shore fisheries " but at the distance of 

 three leagues from all the coast belonging to Great Britain as well 



^ Appendix, p. 219. 



