52 ARGUMENT OP GREAT BRITAIN. 



Article III of that treaty, it was agreed that ' French subjects shall 

 have the right, concurrently with British subjects, to fish on the 

 coasts of Labrador from Blanc Sablon to Cape Charles and of North 

 Belleisle, together with liberty to dry and cure fish on any of the 

 portions of North Belleisle aforesaid, which shall not be settled 

 when this Convention shall come into operation ' ; which provisions 

 would have resulted, if the treaty had gone into operation, in the 

 very thing which the British Case now claims that the United States 

 cannot do." 



His Majesty's Government is not aware that Great Britain ever 

 expressed dissent from Mr. Evarts' view. In offering access to a 

 part of the Labrador coast, the British Government did not admit 

 in any way that a grant to the inhabitants of a particular country 

 to fish on the coasts of another country would entitle these inhabitants 



to introduce foreigners. The action of Great Britain in 1857, 

 60 which is referred to, had no reference to this point, but solely 



to the right of Great Britain as owners of the coast, and what- 

 ever view may be taken on that subject it does not touch the present 

 controversy. 



WIDE EFFECT OF UNITED STATES CONTENTION 



It is to be observed in this connection that the claim of the United 

 States now under consideration becomes still more formidable when 

 it is considered with reference to another claim that has been sub- 

 mitted to this Tribunal. For the United States claim not merely 

 the liberties of taking fish in British waters, and of drying and 

 curing fish upon British shores, with the help of men of any nation- 

 ality in the world, but also, under the head of commercial privileges, 

 the right of all such men to land at British ports and to transact 

 business there. Apart from such claim, too, American fishermen 

 have by treaty the right to go ashore for the purpose of drying and 

 curing their fish. Some Canadian laws, however, have for their 

 purpose the exclusion of certain nationals from Canadian territory. 

 And now Canada is confronted with the assertion that her policy, 

 in this respect, is hampered by treaty liberties given to American 

 fishermen in 1818. 



If the treaty were to be construed in the manner contended for by 

 the United States, then Great Britain has given a right to fish 

 which for all practical purposes is unlimited in extent. If there is 

 no limit to the number of fishermen who can be employed to fish for 

 Americans, then there can be no restriction upon the extent, of the 

 fishery operations which can be carried on by them. It cannot be 

 assumed, in the absence of express words, that Great Britain con- 

 ceded a right so indefinite in extent and so greatly to the prejudice 

 of British fishermen. 



