778 CORRESPONDENCE, ETC. 



insisted on, I reply that no one of them is more extreme than the one 

 relied upon in this case. 



I am persuaded that your lordship will, upon reflection, concur 

 with me that an intention so narrow, and in its result so unreasonable 

 and so unfair, is not to be attributed to the high contracting parties 

 who entered into this treaty. 



It seems to me clear that the treaty must be construed in accord- 

 ance with those ordinary and well-settled rules applicable to all writ- 

 ten instruments, which without such salutary assistance must con- 

 stantly fail of their purpose. By these rules the letter often gives 

 way to the intent, or rather is only used to ascertain the intent. 



The whole document will be taken together, and will be consid- 

 ered in connection with the attendant circumstances, the situation of 

 the parties, and the object in view, and thus the literal meaning of an 

 isolated clause is often shown not to be the meaning really understood 

 or intended. 



Upon these principles of construction the meaning of the clause in 

 question does not seem doubtful. It is a treaty of friendship and not 

 of hostility. Its object was to define and protect the relative rights 

 of the people of the two countries in these fisheries, not to establish 

 a system of non-intercourse or the means of mutual and unnecessary 

 annoyance. It should be judged in view of the general rules of 

 international comity and of maritime intercourse and usage, and its 

 restrictions considered in the light of the purposes they were designed 

 to serve. 



Thus regarded it appears to me clear that the words " for no other 

 purpose whatever," as employed in the treaty, mean no other pur- 

 poses inconsistent with the provisions of the treaty, or prejudicial to 

 the interests of the provinces or their inhabitants, and were not in- 

 tended to prevent the entry of American fishing vessels into Cana- 

 dian ports for innocent and mutually beneficial purposes, or unneces- 

 sarily to restrict the free and friendly intercourse customary between 

 all civilized maritime nations, and especially between the United 

 States and Great Britain. Such, I cannot but believe, is the con- 

 struction that would be placed upon this treaty by any enlightened 

 court of justice. 



But even were it conceded that if the treaty was a private contract, 

 instead of an international one, a court in dealing with an action 

 upon it might find itself hampered by the letter from giving effect to 

 the intent, that would not be decisive of the present case. 



The interpretation of treaties between nations in their intercourse 

 with each other proceeds upon broader and higher considerations. 

 The question is not what is the technical effect of words, but what is 

 the construction most consonant to the dignity, the just interests, and 

 the friendly relations of the sovereign powers. I submit to your 

 lordship that a construction so harsh, so unfriendly, so unnecessary, 

 and so irritating as that set up by the Canadian authorities is not 

 such as Her Majesty's Government has been accustomed either to 

 accord or to submit to. It would find no precedent in the history of 

 British diplomacy, and no provocation in any action or assertion of 

 the Government of the United States. 



