116 THE ARGUMENT OF THE UNITED STATES. 



templated, which may be necessary to prevent abuses of the privi- 

 leges reserved, may vary from time to time and place to place, but the 

 question must always be whether they are necessary and whether the 

 power of making them is carried to the extent of unduly restricting or 

 burdening the privilege. Restrictions may become necessary upon 

 the settlement of a bay or harbor not necessary before its settle- 

 ment, and they may not be unduly burdensome in a harbor having 

 a custom-house or customs officer, when they would be so in an un- 

 settled and unfrequented bay or harbor. The requirement of a re- 

 port of American fishing vessels, when visiting a bay or harbor 

 where there are customs officers to whom a report may be made, or 

 other officials authorized to receive such reports, might, under some 

 circumstances, be considered a necessary restriction to prevent abuses 

 of the privileges reserved to such vessels. Such a requirement in 

 unsettled bays would not only be unnecessary but it would go far 

 to nullify the privilege reserved. It can not be maintained that the 

 reporting and entering at a distant custom-house can have any tend- 

 ency to prevent fishing vessels from abusing the privileges of seek- 

 ing shelter, repairing damages, obtaining water, and purchasing 

 wood in unfrequented bays or harbors. 



Passing now from the question of entering or reporting at custom- 

 houses, how is it possible to claim that the payment of light, har- 

 bor, or other dues are necessary to prevent the taking, drying or 

 curing of fish or otherwise abusing the privileges reserved? Such 

 dues are confessedly laid as a tax on the vessels, and the United 

 States insists that a tax on its fishing vessels, is not only unneces- 

 sary to prevent them abusing any privilege, but is directly and dis- 

 tinctly contrary to the purposes of the treaty. As the argument in 

 the British Case concerning the imposition of light dues and other 

 similar burdens proceeds largely on the assumption that American 

 fishermen are benefited by light-houses and port conveniences, which 

 is a consideration entirely outside of the scope of this Question, it is 

 not deemed necessary to respond to it. 



The United States submits that the negotiators of the treaty of 

 1818 had in mind no other subjection of American fishing vessels 

 resorting to the bays or harbors of the non-treaty coast for the four 

 purposes mentioned in the treaty, than that specifically mentioned, 

 namely, subjection to such restrictions as might be necessary to pre- 

 vent the taking or drying or enuring of fish or in any other manner 

 abusing the treaty privilege*. 



