60 CASE OF THE UNITED STATES. 



arisen, were the liberties under the second clause of Article III of 

 the treaty of 1783, relating to the inshore or coast fisheries, which 

 clause, it will be remembered, Great Britain asserted, and the United 

 States denied, had been terminated by the War of 1812. It is evident, 

 therefore, that the liberties referred to in the introductory clause of 

 the new article were the liberties claimed by the United States under 

 the second clause of Article III of the treaty of 1783, and it will 

 further appear from an examination of the negotiations and of the 

 stipulations of the new article that, so far as it reserves liberties in 

 these fisheries to the inhabitants of the United States, the liberties so 

 reserved were intended to be the identical liberties to which the 

 American fishermen were previouslj^ entitled under the second clause 

 of Article III of the treaty of 1783, and that, so far as liberties are 

 relinquished or renounced by it, such relinquislmient or renunciation 

 applies only to liberties which were covered by the clause referred to 

 of the treaty of 1783, which Great Britain contended had been ter- 

 minated by the War of 1812. In this connection attention is called to 

 the explanatory memorandum which accompanied the first draft of 

 the article as proposed by the American Plenipotentiaries in which 

 it is clearly set forth that the United States considered the liberty of 

 taking, drying, and curing fish, secured to them by the treaty of peace 

 of 1783, as being unimpaired and still in full force for the whole 

 extent of the fisheries in question, while Great Britain considered that 

 liberty as having been abrogated by war; and that, hj the article 

 proposed, the United States offered to desist from their claim to a 

 certain portion of the said fisheries. 



Attention is further called to the note already quoted, wliich was 

 sent by the American Plenipotentiaries to the British Plenipoten- 

 tiaries, and in which their reason for rejecting the British counter- 

 proposal containing some conditions upon the enjoj'^ment of the 

 liberties to be reserved to the American fishermen is stated to be: 



T\Tiatever extent of fishing ground may be secured to American 

 fishermen, the American plenipotentiaries are not prepared to accept 

 it on a tenure or on conditions different from those on which the 

 whole has heretofore been held. Their instructions did not antici- 

 pate that any new terms or restrictions would be annexed, as none 

 was suggested in the proposals made by Mr. Bagot to the American 

 Government.* 



<» Supra, p. 59. 



