46 AEGUMENT OF GREAT BRITAIN. 



The United States Counter-Case, in commenting on that part of 

 the British Case which speaks of the treaty liberty as being (British 

 Case, p. 58) 



" a liberty to a specific class of persons to take fish themselves," 

 proceeds as follows (United State Counter-Case, p. 53) : - 



" Clearly, however, no such interpretation of the language of the 

 treaty is permissible, for by its express terms the American liberty 

 of fishing is for the benefit of any of the inhabitants of the United 

 States, and is not restricted to the fishermen, so that any of the per- 

 sons who are inhabitants of the United States are entitled to employ, 

 or be employed by, any other persons who are inhabitants of the 

 United States in the enjoyment of the fishing liberty under this 

 treaty." 



It is agreed that an inhabitant of the United States may fish, and 

 that it is quite immaterial whether he is fishing for himself or under 

 contract for some other inhabitant^ It is when the United 

 53 States says that an inhabitant of the United States may em- 

 ploy others who are not inhabitants who are not members of 

 the specific class that His Majesty's Government ventures to dis- 

 agree. 



SITUATION IN 1783 AND IN 1818 POLICY OF QBE AT BRITAIN. 



The same words, " inhabitants of the United States " and " Ameri- 

 can fishermen," are used in the treaties of 1783 and 1818, and the situ- 

 ation existing at those dates may therefore be thought material on 

 the question of construction. At those dates and for many years 

 previously, the policy of Great Britain had been directed to the 

 exclusion of foreigners from the North Atlantic fisheries, a policy 

 to which effect had consistently been given by treaties and legisla- 

 tion. One of the main objects of the policy was to maintain the fish- 

 eries as nurseries for the seamen of Great Britain. It is impossible 

 to accept the suggestion that the treaty of 1818 was an abandonment 

 of that policy. 



England's encouragement of fisheries had for its purpose, first, 

 naval supremacy, and secondly, an increase of wealth. Everywhere 

 in British history in statutes, negotiations, and avowed policy, the 

 value of fisheries as nurseries of seamen is a conspicuous object of 

 national requirement. France, for similar reasons, has always re- 

 garded the Newfoundland fisheries as an inestimable asset. And 

 the United States, when struggling for independence, learned that 

 but for the French fleet, built up by fisheries, her chance of success 

 would have been very seriously diminished. 



Short reference to some of the British statutes indicative of the 

 national purpose to use the fisheries as nurseries of seamen will serve 



