i 



i \ 



tl 



126 



exclusively to the terms of the Treaty of Washington, unci the Ist Article of the 

 Convention of 181S. 



It is asserted in the Answer, at page 3,* that the Commissioners who framed the 

 Treaty of Washington, "decided not to enter into an examination of the respective 

 rights of the two countries under the Treaty of 1818, and tiic general law of nations, 

 but to approach the settlement of the (picstion on a conipreiiensivu basis." It is 

 submitted that no such decision was ever ccmie to by the Commissioners, and in 

 proof of this assertion, attention is directed to the Protocols of tlie .I«)int High Com- 

 mission preceding the Treaty. These Protocols prove that Iter Majesty's iJovern- 

 ment were prepared to discuss the question " either in detail or generally, so as 

 either to enter into an examination of the respective rifiiits of the two countries 

 under the Treaty of 18|N, and the general law of nations, or to appn)acii the settle- 

 ment of the question on a coin|)reiieiisiv(; basis.'' and in answer to an in(piiry on the 

 part of the Amei.icaii Commissioners as to wl-.at, in llie latter »ase, would be the 

 proposition of the Uritish Commissioners, tlio latter replied, " tiie restoration in 

 principle of t!ie Ueeriiroeity Treaty of ISal." Tiie American Connnissioners having 

 (iecliiieil to proceed on the liasis ol the Ueciprocity Treat), negotiations were again 

 resumeil, and residted in the adoption oi the clauses in the Treaty of Washingion 

 already referred to in tiie "Case," and widcii, as if to remove tiie possibility of a 

 doubt, expressly make the Convention of ISIH, and the respective rights of the two 

 countries under it, the basis upon which the value of (he new concessions is to be 

 measured. 



Tiie words of Article I of that Convention, used by the United States in 

 renouncing lor ever .all liberty |)reviously "claimed or enjoyed of taking fish within 

 thrvi' miirmc mili"< of umj of the roa.il.i, hitijs, crreks, or harhoiirs of ller -Majesty's domi- 

 nions in America," seem too clear and bmding for dispute, whatever notions may 

 hav(> previously existed among writers as tu the territorial jurisdiction of a nation 

 over its adjacent waters. 



Tills |)rivilege so renounced for ever is conce«le<l for twelve years by the 

 Treaty of Washington, and the extent of territorial waters in question is easily 

 ascertainable. 



A portion of the first section of the Answer is devoted to extracts from public 

 documents, which were prepared us instructions of a purely temporary character, 

 and to prevent embarrassment and loss to Uniteil States' lishermcn, and the section 

 closes with an extract from the language used by the Lord Chief .lustice of Kngland 

 in a recent criminal case. 



Tlio special attention of the Commissioners is directed to the entire inapplica- 

 bility of these extracts. 



ll.ul the word "slatus" in the Answer been used as meaning the leg,al status 

 under the Convention of 1818, then Her Majesty's Government would be in perfect 

 accord witii that of the United States, hut as it is evidently intended to mean the 

 state of facts existing; during the [leriods when ller jNIajesty's Government either 

 granted lisliing licenses to American fishermen, or otherwise voluntarily relaxed for 

 a tini(> their undoubted rights, then Her Majesty's Government entirely dissents. 

 In the latter c.ise tlie express words of the Convention of 1818 would be ignored, 

 and the Commissioners asked to adopt as a basis, in lieu of that Conventi(m, certain 

 indulgences which Her Majesty's (iovernment were pleased, from motives of jjood 

 will and tricndship, to extend to the United States' tishermen. These relaxations 

 of legal riglits were only temporary in tlieir nature, were always given with an 

 express reserviition of the undoubted riglits of Her Majesty's Government, and 

 cannot, on any princijile of law, justice, or ecpiily, be considered by the Commis- 

 sion with the object of prejudicing the Government so temporarily conceding tlicni. 



.\s an instance of such express reservation, attention is called to a telegraphic 

 despatch from Lord ('larendon to the British Ministei' at Washington, protesting 

 against the terms of a C'ircular from the Secretary of the United States' Treasury, 

 dated the With May, 1870, addressed to Collectors of Customs, notifying them that 

 the Dominion Government iiad terminated the system of granting fishing licenses 

 to foreign vessels, and warning American fishermen of the legal cousequences of 

 encroaching upon proliibited limits. 



This is dated the 7th June, 1870, and is as follows : — 



•■'rako an opportunity to jioint out to .S(M:retavy of SlutL' tluit Mr. IJoutwi'U'.s Ciivulor of tin; IGlli 

 Aliiv, l.>70. respectiug the Cuuadiuu lushori! Fisherif.s, luuy load to future iiusundurstanJiug, iiiitsmui'li 



* Page 8C of this volume. 



i 



