72 ARGUMENT OP GREAT BRITAIN. 



reasonableness of the practice was admitted, as under the modus 

 vivendi then arranged it was continued. 



83 It is submitted that the contention which the United States 

 now apparently puts forward, that American fishermen may 



freely communicate with the shore for the purpose of obtaining 

 wood and water, and yet refuse to report at Customs, is quite 

 unsustainable. 



Nor is there anything unreasonable in asking that vessels taking 

 refuge in British harbours should conform to harbour regulations, 

 and should report at the custom-house. One of the earliest Acts of 

 the United States provided for entry at customs of storm-driven 

 vessels. The statute of 1789 enacted (British Case, App., p. 777) 



" That if any ship or vessel compelled by distress of weather, or 

 other sufficient cause, shall put into any port or place of the United 

 States, other than that to which she was actually destined, the master 

 or other person having command, shall within forty-eight hours next 

 after his arrival, make report and deliver a true manifest of his cargo 

 to the Collector of the port or district; and moreover shall within 

 twenty-four hours, make protest in the usual form before a notary 

 public or justice of the peace, of the cause and circumstances of such 

 distress ; " 



It would be quite inadmissible that United States fishing vessels 

 should remain in British harbours day after day, while taking shelter 

 or making repairs, without reporting at the custom-house. 



LIGHT AND HARBOUR DUES. 



The United States Counter-Case appears to argue that express 

 authority to impose light and harbour dues must be found in the 

 text of the treaty now under discussion, and that liability to such 

 light and harbour dues is excluded on the ground that it is not a 

 " restriction " such as is mentioned in the treaty. This point has been 

 sufficiently dealt with in discussing the obligation to make entry at 

 customs. 



In the case of light and harbour dues, it is obvious that the priv- 

 ileges conferred by the treaty are in no way interfered with, if it be 

 held that the vessel is bound to pay these dues in the ordinary way. 



Payment of light dues and harbour dues by American fishing-vessels 

 dates back prior to the treaty of 1818. No diplomatic complaint upon 

 the subject was made until 1905. 



84 In 1839, James Primrose (United States consul at Pictou, 

 Nova Scotia) (United States Case, App., pp. 442-450) made 



sundry objections to the amount of the light dues and to the methods 

 of enforcing payment. But he made none to the reasonableness of 

 some payment (British Case, App., p. 120). 



