QUESTION ONE. 27 



building only their scaffolds, confining themselves to the repair of 

 their fishing vessels, and not wintering there; the subjects of His 

 Britannic Majesty, on their part, not molesting, in any manner, the 

 French fishermen, during their fishing, nor injuring their scaffolds 

 during their absence." (British Case, App., p. 11.) 



The statute passed subsequently to this treaty (28 Geo. Ill, c. 35) 

 provided that 



" it shall and may be lawful for His Majesty, his heirs and successors, 

 by advice of council, from time to time, to give such orders and in- 

 structions to the governor of Newfoundland, or to any officer or officers 

 on that station, as he or they shall deem proper and necessary to filfil 

 the purposes of the definitive treaty and declaration aforesaid; and, 

 if it shall be necessary to that end, to give orders and instructions to 

 the governor, or other officer or officers aforesaid, to remove, or cause 

 to be removed, any stages, flakes, train vatts, or other works whatever, 

 for the purpose of carrying on fishery, erected by His Majesty's sub- 

 jects on that part of the coast of Newfoundland which lies between 

 Cape Saint John, passing to the north, and descending by the western 

 coast of the said island to the place called Cape Raye, and also 

 31 all ships, vessels, and boats, belonging to His Majesty's sub- 

 jects, which shall be found within the limits aforesaid, and 

 also, in case of refusal to depart from within the limits aforesaid, to 

 compel any of His Majesty's subjects to depart from thence; any law, 

 usage, or custom, to the contrary notwithstanding." (British Case, 

 App., p. 562.) 



It will be seen from these extracts that the right of the French 

 fishermen was not a right in common with British subjects, such as 

 American fishermen have. It was a right of fishing which was not 

 to be interrupted by British subjects by their competition, during the 

 period when it was being exercised by the French. 



But the difference does not lie in the mere terms of the grant alone. 

 From the very first France claimed that the rights given to her were 

 exclusive. Great Britain never admitted that claim, but she was 

 never able to induce France to forgo it. The United States also took 

 objection to the French claim of an exclusive right, and the corre- 

 spondence on the point in 1822 has already been referred to. It is 

 printed in the Appendix to the British Case. (British Case, App., 

 pp. 101-113.) France met the objection of the United States by 

 pointing out that by Article 10 of the treaty, concluded between the 

 two countries in 1778, the United States had pledged themselves 

 never to disturb the subjects of the Most Christian King in the 

 exercise of the perpetual and exclusive enjoyment which belonged 

 to them on the part of the coasts of the island designated in the treaty 

 of Utrecht. 



The United States never did claim, and never could have claimed, 

 any exclusive right, and there is therefore no parallel between the 

 two treaties. 



