QUESTION ONE. 53 



" with relation to the taking, drying and curing of fish by inhabit- 

 ants of the United States ". Moreover, if the act had been construed 

 by the King and Council, as requiring and authorizing regulations of 

 the fishery other than regulations for the purpose of assuring the 

 American fishermen in the exercise of their treaty rights, why were 

 not some regulations of that character ever made either by the order 

 in council of June 19, 1819, or by subsequent orders? 



The letter of Lord Bathurst of June 21, 1819, transmitting to Sir 

 C. Hamilton, governor of Newfoundland, the act of the British 

 Parliament of June 14, 1819, and the order in council made pursuant 

 thereto contains a further exposition of the meaning of the treaty 

 of 1818. 



Lord Bathurst in that letter directed the governor to confine 

 American fishermen to fishing "in the same manner as previous to 

 the late war with the United States," and distinguished between the 

 right to cure and dry fish on the coast of Labrador and on the south- 

 ern coast of Newfoundland, denominating the latter a " new privilege " 

 and therefore as more limited than the old one on the coast of 

 Labrador. It is quite evident that he considered that all the liber- 

 ties granted by the treaty of 1818, except the new privilege of 

 curing and drying on the southern coast of Newfoundland, partook 

 of the quality of right enjoyed under the treaty of 1783, which it 

 was the object of the treaty of 1818 to renew, and that the measure 

 of the powers and duties of the British Government with reference to 

 the fishery was the same under both treaties. 



LATER CONSTRUCTION. 



To the foregoing it may be added that for half a century after 

 the conclusion of the treaty of 1818, there were no laws or regula- 

 tions of Great Britain or any of her colonies which could be regarded 

 as an assertion of, or even an attempt to assert, a right to limit or 

 restrain the exercise by Americans of their treaty rights in the treaty 

 waters. This statement will perhaps be controverted by Great Brit- 

 ain and it would require more space than it is desirable to occupy in 

 this argument to analyze the various ancient laws, star chamber rules, 

 orders in council, regulations, and proclamations, published in the 



British Case, Appendix, 99. 



