62 ARGUMENT OF GREAT BRITAIN. 



land from the banks and would thereby be under heavy fees, under 

 5 Geo. Ill, c. 45, sec. 27, and whom it was desired to favour, 



71 were partially relieved, being required to report on their first 

 arrival and on their last clearance only, and to pay 2s. d. on 



each report. (British Counter-Case, App., p. 219.) 



That being the state of matters it is difficult for His Majesty's Gov- 

 ernment to understand upon what argument it can successfully bo 

 contended that the inhabitants of the United States, upon being 

 granted liberty to take fish and to land on shore to dry and cure their 

 fish, became entitled to take vessels into British waters for the pur- 

 pose of carrying on the fishery freed from the control exercised over 

 all other vessels. 



The requirement to enter or report at customs was only one feature 

 of the laws then in force for the protection of trade and commerce. 

 By the British Statute 4 Geo. Ill, cap. 15 (1763), any foreign ship 

 or vessel found at anchor, or hovering within two leagues of the shore 

 of any British- American colony, and failing to depart within 48 

 hours after notice, was liable to forfeiture. When the United States 

 obtained their independence their vessels became foreign vessels, and 

 would, under this clause of the Hovering Act applicable to the British 

 Colonies, be prevented from anchoring or hovering within two leagues 

 of British shores. While no express power was given by the treaty to 

 American fishermen to bring and maintain their fishing- vessels within 

 this limit, it is conceded that it was the intent of the treaty that they 

 should be permitted to do so. Great Britain did not, however, aban- 

 don her right so to regulate and control these vessels, while carrying 

 or: their fishing operations, as to protect her trade and revenue, pro- 

 vided she did not unreasonably interfere with the exercise by the 

 American fishermen of their treaty liberties. That the obligations 

 imposed upon them by British and Colonial legislation since the date 

 of the treaty of 1818, as to entry or report at Customs on the treaty 

 shore, has not amounted to such an interference, is sufficiently estab- 

 lished by the fact that no complaint was made prior to the diplomatic 

 correspondence between Great Britain and the United States, which 

 commenced in 1905. It seems clear, therefore, that legislation 



72 requiring American fishing-vessels to report at Customs would 

 be a reasonable obligation to impose, even if there was no 



legislation to that effect in force at the date of the treaty. The fact 

 that there was such legislation at that time puts the matter beyond 

 question. (British Case, App., p. 532.) 



In the United States Counter-Case (p. 58) it is asserted that the 

 only port of entry in Newfoundland in 1775 was at St. John's, and 

 that there were no custom-houses on the treaty coast when the treaty 

 of 1818 was entered into. The only evidence offered in support of 



