QUESTION ONE. 49 



cdterius. This silence when dealing with the treaty coasts is sig- 

 nificant also in view of the rule of interpretation that "if he who 

 could and ought to have explained himself clearly and fully has not 

 done it, it is the worse for him : he can not be allowed to introduce 

 subsequent restrictions which he has not expressed." Vattel com- 

 menting on this says : 



The equity of the rule is glaringly obvious, and its necessity is not 

 less evident. There will be no security in conventions, no stability in 

 grants and concessions, if they may be rendered nugatory by subse- 

 quent limitations which ought to have been orginally specified in the 

 deed, if they were in the contemplation of the contracting parties. 



It is submitted that the rule stated by Vattel gains added force 

 where it is found that a single article of a treaty or convention creates 

 two distinct servitudes, and limits only one of them, leaving the other 

 to stand wholly and entirely on the affirmative words of the grant. 



Another incident of the negotiations making strongly against the 

 British contention, is furnished by the treatment of the British 

 counter project introducing certain restrictions on American vessels 

 resorting to the treaty coasts in the matter of spreading nets across 

 the mouths of rivers, and in the matter of having on board dutiable 

 goods, wares, and merchandise. 



With reference to these proposed restrictions, the American nego- 

 tiators said in their memorandum that " their instructions did not 

 anticipate that any new terms or restrictions would be annexed, as 

 none were suggested in the proposals made by Mr. Bagot to the 

 American Government. The clauses forbidding the spreading of 

 nets, and making vessels liable to confiscation in case any articles not 

 wanted for carrying on the fishery should be found on board, are of 

 that description, and would expose the fishermen to endless vexa- 

 tions." 6 



Thereupon, the British plenipotentiaries withdrew their proposals 

 and acceded to the American suggestion. 



It would be difficult to present evidence more pertinent and con- 

 clusive that the negotiators of the treaty contemplated nothing more 

 than a renewal, as to limited coasts, of the treaty right of 1783, and 

 that they considered any form of restrictions imposed on the renewed 

 right as conflicting with it and therefore as inadmissible. If a pro- 



Vattel's Law of Nations, Book 2, chap. XVII, sec. 264. 

 * U. S. Case, Appendix, 314. 

 British Case, Appendix, 92. 



