QUESTION THREE. 11] 



waters, such altered conditions cannot change the meaning of the 

 treaty. This rule was well stated in the report of the Privy Council 

 of Canada, approved by the Governor-General, on the 14th June, 

 1886. That report, speaking of a contention as to trading privileges 

 put forth by Mr. Bayard, then Secretary of State, said : 



The undersigned is of opinion that while, for the reasons which 

 he has advanced, there is no evidence to show that the Government 

 of Canada has sought to expand the scope of the convention of 1818 

 or to increase the extent of its restrictions, it would not be difficult 

 to prove that the construction which the United States seeks to 

 place on that convention would have the effect of extending very 

 largely the privileges which their citizens enjoy under its terms. 

 The contention that the changes which may from time to time occur 

 in the habits of the fish taken off our coasts, or in the methods of 

 taking them, should be regarded as justifying a periodical revision 

 of the terms of the treaty, or a new interpretation of its provisions, 

 cannot be acceded to. Such changes may from time to time render 

 the conditions of the contract inconvenient to one part or the other, 

 but the validity of the agreement can hardly be said to depend on 

 the convenience or inconvenience which it imposes from time to time 

 on one or other of the contracting parties. When the operation of 

 its provisions can be shown to have become manifestly inequitable, 

 the utmost that good will and fair dealing can suggest is that the 

 terms should be re-considered and a new arrangement entered into; 

 but this the Government of the United States does not appear to 

 have considered desirable." 



CONCLUSION. 



The elimination of commercial privileges from consideration as one 

 of the liberties referred to in this Question obviates the necessity 

 of extended reply to much that has been said in the discussion of it in 

 the British Case. The practice of Great Britain, or of the United 

 States, or of the British colonies, in dealing with trading vessels 

 coming into their ports in relation to entry or report at custom- 

 houses, and the exaction of light, harbor, and other dues, is not perti- 

 nent to the question at issue. 



The Question to be determined is not what is or has been customary 

 in the case of either trading or fishing vessels, but, looked at in the 

 light of conditions surrounding the Newfoundland and Labrador 

 fisheries in 1818, and the known policy of Great Britain with ref- 

 erence to them and the shores on which they were carried on, what 



U. S. Case, Appendix, 817, 818. 



