52 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 



be exercised. The renuuciatory clause, which the Tribunal is called upon 

 to construe, runs thus: "And the United States hereby renounce, forever, 

 any liberty heretofore enjoyed or claimed by the inhabitants thereof, to 

 take, dry or cure fish on, or within three marine miles of any of the coasts, 

 bays, creeks or harbours of His Britannic Majesty's Dominions in 

 America not included within the above mentioned limits." This language 

 does not lend itself to different construction. If the bays in which the 

 liberty has been renounced are those "of His Britannic Majesty's Dom- 

 inions in America," they must necessarily be territorial bays, because in 

 so far as they are not so considered they should belong to the high seas 

 and consequently form no part of His Britannic Majesty's Dominions, 

 which, by definition, do not extend to the high seas. It cannot be said, as 

 has been suggested, that the use of the word "dominions," in the plural, 

 implies a different meaning than would be conveyed by the same term as 

 used in the singular, so that in the present case, "the British dominions 

 in America" ought to be considered as a mere geographical expression, 

 without reference to any right of sovereignty or dominion. It seems to 

 me, on the contrary, that "dominions," or "possessions," or "estates," 

 or such other equivalent terms, simply designate the places over which 

 the "dominion" or property rights are exercised. Where there is no 

 possil)ility of appropriation or dominion, as on the high seas, we cannot 

 speak of dominions. The ' ' dominions ' ' extend exactly to the point which 

 the "dominion" reaches; they are simply the actual or physical thing 

 over which the abstract power or authority, the right, as given to the 

 proprietor or tlie ruler, applies. The interpretation as to the territorial- 

 ity of the bays as mentioned in the renunciatory clause of the Treaty 

 appears stronger when considering that the United States specifically 

 renounced the "liberty," not the "right" to fish or to cure and dry fish. 

 "The United States renounced forever, any liberty heretofore enjoyed 

 or claimed, to take, cure or dry fish on, or within three marine miles of 

 any of the coasts, bays, creeks or harbours of His Britannic Majesty's 

 Dominions in America." It is well known that the negotiators of the 

 Treaty of 1783 gave a very different meaning to the terms liberty and 

 riqht, as distinguished from each other. In this connection Mr. Adams' 

 Journal may be recited. To this Journal the British Counter Case refers 

 Iti the following terms: "From an entry in Mr. Adams' Journal it 

 appears he drafted an article by which he distinguished the right to take 

 fish (both on the high seas and on the shores) and the liberty to take and 

 cure fish on the land. But on the following day he presented to the 

 British negotiators a draft in which he distinguishes between the riqht 

 to take fish on the high seas and the liberty to take fish on the coasts, and 

 to dry and cure fish on the land****. The British Commissioner called 

 attention to the distinction thus sufgested by Mr. Adams and proposed 

 that the word liberty should be applied to the privileges both on the 



