QUESTION ONE. 7 



It is submitted that this argument unduly narrows the effect of 



the words used. The obvious meaning of the provision is that 



American fishermen were to have access to these fisheries to the same 



extent as British fishermen and subject to the same regulations. 



8 If, therefore, the question now under consideration is to be 

 determined by examination of the language of the treaty only, 



it is incontrovertible that it must be answered in conformity with the 

 contention of His Majesty's Government. 



ARGUMENT OF UNITED STATES AS TO CONSTRUCTION OF TREATY. 



The argument of the United States in effect is, that the ordinary 

 rules of construction are not to be applied to the treaty of 1818; that 

 the treaty is of a peculiar character and that the plain language of it 

 must give way to extraneous considerations to which there is no 

 reference whatever in the treaty itself. 



It is claimed that the treaty was a partition of the fisheries between 

 two joint owners; that it was nothing more than a mutual acknowl- 

 edgment of antecedent rights; and that, for these reasons, Great 

 Britain can have no right to legislate in such a way as to bind 

 American citizens when exercising the treaty rights. 



His Majesty's Government submit that the treaty cannot be con- 

 strued in this way, in any view of the facts, since the language is not 

 ambiguous, and contains no reference whatever to the limitation now 

 sought to be implied. 



But apart from that objection His Majesty's Government challenge 

 the facts on which the whole contention is founded. They deny 

 absolutely that the treaty was in any way a partition of the North 

 American fisheries. It has been pointed out that the treaty itself 

 lends no colour to this suggestion, and it will be found that there is no 

 support for it in the transactions of the time. Indeed, the contention 

 on which the United States now relies was never put forward in any 

 communication to His Majesty's Government until thirty-one years 

 after the treaty of 1783. It originated with Mr. John Quincy Adams 

 in 1814 during the controversy which arose as to the effect of the war 

 of 1812 on the liberties granted in 1783. It did not commend itself to 

 the majority of his colleagues at that time but was propounded by 

 them in default of any better argument against the refusal of Great 

 Britain to recognise the continuance of the liberties granted in 1783. 

 It has never been accepted by Great Britain; on the contrary, it has 

 been expressly repudiated on every single occasion on which it has 

 been brought forward. 



The fact is that the idea of the treaty of 1783 being a parti- 



9 tion of these fisheries between two joint owners is incompatible 

 with the whole position of the two parties at the time. The 



thirteen colonies, which eventually became known as the United 



