QUESTION TWO. 51 



and that the British Government did not intend to grant concessions 



o 



to persons other than those described in his letter. 



In answer to this point, the United States assert that the object 

 that the negotiators had in view was (United States Counter-Case, 

 P- 49)- 



" to encourage and make profitable the American fisheries as a source 

 of revenue for the benefit of Great Britain." 



Undoubtedly that was within the view of the British Govern- 

 ment ; but it is clear that the object which the American negotiators 

 had in view was the promotion of the welfare and prosperity of their 

 own people. 



ANALOGY OF TBEATY OF 1871. 



By the treaty of Washington, between the United Kingdom and 

 the United States (1871), it was agreed (British Case, App., p. 39) 



u that, in addition to the liberty secured to the United States fisher- 

 men by the convention between the United States and Great Britain, 

 signed at London on the 20th day of October, 1818, .... The in- 

 habitants of the United States shall have, in common with the sub- 

 jects of Her Britannic Majesty, the liberty .... to take fish," &c., 



on additional British coasts. And it was also agreed 



59 " that British subjects shall have, in common with the citizens 

 of the United States, the liberty .... to take fish," &c., 



on certain United States coasts. 



This treaty forms a parallel to the one under discussion, and of it 

 a United States Secretary of State (Mr. Evarts) formed the same 

 opinion as that now contended for by His Majesty's Government. 

 In a report to the President of the United States (17th May, 1880) 

 he said (British Case, App., p. 284) : 



" There was, to be sure, a restriction imposed upon both countries 

 which excluded both equally from extending the enjoyment of 

 cither's share of the common fishery beyond the ' inhabitants of the 

 United States' on the one side, and 'Her Britannic Majesty's sub- 

 jects' on the other, thus disabling either Government from impairing 

 the share of the other by introducing foreign fishermen into the 

 common fishery." 



There was, however, no restriction on the American rights other 

 than that contained in the use of the words " the inhabitants of the 

 United States," the very words used in the convention of 1818. 



Commenting upon this paragraph, the United States say (United 

 States Counter-Case, p. 51) : 



"The British Case fails to state, however, that Great Britain did 

 not agree with the views expressed by Mr. Evarts, and that so far as 

 they have any application to the treaty of 1818, Great Britain dis- 

 tinctly repudiated any such views by undertaking in the treaty of 1857 

 with France to introduce foreign fishermen into these fisheries. By 



