QUESTION ONE. 15 



the soil, is consistent only with the idea that the fishing liberties on 

 the shore and the soil were a new grant. As to the sea-fisheries, the 

 words are that the people of the United States "shall continue to 

 enjoy," whereas the words relating to the shore fisheries and the 

 soil are that "the Inhabitants of the United States shall have 

 liberty." &c. 



More cogent still is the distinction between the words "right" 

 and " liberty." The word " right " is applied to the sea-fish- 

 17 cries and the word " liberty " to the shore-fisheries. The his- 

 tory of the negotiations shows that this distinction was ad- 

 visedly adopted. The observations made by Mr. Daniel Webster in 

 his unfinished Memorandum of 1852, which is printed in the United 

 States Case Appendix at p. 526, and extracts from which will be 

 found in the British Counter-Case, at p. 22, illustrate clearly the 

 distinction between "right" and "liberty" which is here being 

 pointed out. 



(e.) A further difficulty if the matter is to be examined analytic- 

 ally, lies in the fact that the thirteen colonies in 1782-3 constituted 

 not one sovereignty, but thirteen. The Confederation was consti- 

 tuted in 1778, but it took nothing in the way of property or assets 

 from the confederating States. It follows that if partition was made 

 between joint-owners in 1782-3, it was not between Great Britain 

 and the United States, but between Great Britain and the thirteen 

 States. 



(/.) The attitude of the United States towards the French fishing 

 rights in Newfoundland is evidence, if further evidence be needed, 

 that no idea of joint property or partition existed in 1783. 



By the preliminary Articles of Peace between Great Britain and 

 the United States which were signed c i the 30th November, 1782, 

 the fishery liberties were defined in the form finally adopted in the 

 treaty of the 3rd September, 1783. 



By the treaty of peace with France, which was signed on the same 

 day, Great Britain granted to France the right of fishing on the 

 coast between Point Riche and Cape Ray, a right which she had not 

 enjoyed under the Treaty of Utrecht. The United States were no 

 party to this treaty, and never in any way protested against the 

 dealing by Great Britain, in this way, with fisheries which are now 

 alleged to have formed the joint property of Great Britain and the 

 United States. Nor did they protest against the subsequent treaties 

 by which the rights on the French treaty shores were renewed after 

 each war between Frnnce and Great Britain. 



Moreover, the United States acquiesced and indeed maintained 

 ns against France that the sovereignty of Great Britain on the 

 French treaty coasts was unimpaired by the treaty of 1783, and in 

 1822-24 maintained Great Britain's sovereignty upon the "French 



