i^> 



138 



iish l)etween Cape Ray and the Ramcau Islands, and to dry and cure fish in the 

 unsettled l>ays, liarlxiurs, and creeks of that part of the const. It is iinnosHil)lc to 

 conceive, having regard to the important privileges conceded by the Washington 

 Treaty, that (he extremely limited rights enjoyed by the United States under the 

 Convention of 1818, could in any way have been entertained by the High Contracting 

 Powers as operating against the undoubted chiini ol' the Colony of Newroundhind 

 for compensation. It i^: asserted on behalf of Newfoundland, that the United States 

 have never claimed for their fishermen the right to enter any of the bays of that 

 Islniid, other than those between Quirpon Island and Cape Itay, and llience to the 

 Hameau Islands, except '' for the juirpose of shelter and of repairing damages 

 therein, of purciiasing wood and of obtaining water," as provided by the Convention 

 of 1818. 



It will be sliown by conclusive testimony that, wi\ether the contention on the 

 part of liie United .States regarding the limit or extent of territorial waters, and the 

 rights ill lm\s, gulfs, and inlets, be inaintaipabie or not, it has no appreciable 

 practical elfecl, so lar as concerns tli(> claim for compensation made by Newfound- 

 iaiid, iiiasniudi ;is tiie cod and other lislieries of tl»;»t Island, set furth in the Case 

 as producing annually over lj,()0(),0()0 dollars tiy the laliour of a limited number of 

 operatives, and wliicli are now l)y Article Will ol'tlie Treaty of W.isliington thrown 

 open to the fishermen of the United ir^tates, are carried on within three miles of the 

 coast line following the sinuosities of the shores. The bait fishery, from which tiie 

 United States lisliermen can now, by virtue ol the same Article, proeure all the bait 

 rerpiisite for the successful prosecution of the deep-sea, bank, and inshore fisheries, 

 is also carried on within the said three-mile limit. The fact that such a large annual 

 amount of produce. princi|)ally of codfish, is drawn from the waters along our 

 coast, and within the admitted territorial limits of the jurisdiction of the Colony of 

 Newfoiuuiland, ett'cctually refutes the assertion by the United States that " the cod 

 fishery is solely a deep-sea fishery, and not a subject within the congni/.ancc of this 

 Commission." Tlie privilege of laiuling on the coast of Newfoundland for the 

 purpose of curing fish, drying nets. Sec, characterized in the Answer as "customs 

 belonging to the primitive mode of lisliing," is nevertheless hij;hly valued by the 

 United States, inasmuch as its insertion has always i)eeii insisted on in all Treaties 

 relating to the fisheries between the United States and (neat Hritain, and it has 

 been practically availed of, and may in the future be reasonably anticipated to 

 become niore generally used, the climate of Newfoundland being especially adapted 

 to the produelion of the best ipiality of dry codfish suitable for southern and 

 tro|)ical markets. 



The claim |)referred by Newfoundland is based alone upon the new privileges 

 conceded by the Washington Treaty, and does not embrace a demand under any 

 other Treaty or Convention. And it is submitted that, in estimating C(mipcnsation, 

 the Commissioners shouUl not ccnifine their jurisdiction and consideration merely to 

 the exprt'ssed speeilic, but to all necessary incidental privilei^cs which before could 

 not be claimed, and were not enjoved as thev have been, or may be, under this 

 Treaty. 



The specific and consecpiential concessions have already been set forth in the 

 Case, and ought not to be restricted to the limits pro|K)sed for awarding compensa- 

 tion in the Answer. 



So far as Newfoundland is concerned, these concessions are of great value to 

 the United .Stales, and of eorresj)onding detriment to liritish fishermen residing on 

 the coast. 



The restrictions in the Treaty of 1818 cannot be considered as in present 

 o|)eration as regards the rights conferred on, und exercised by, the Unite(l States 

 under the Washington Treaty. 



The free an<l uninterrupted exercise of these rights by the Uiuted States' 

 fishermen on the Newfoundland coast since this Treaty came into effect, may be 

 accepted as a practical proof ijf the interpretation placed by the United States upon 

 the Treaty of Washington. 



Kvidence will be submitted to prove that the United States is not a market for 

 Newfoundland produce, except to a very limited extent, and that neither the 

 al)rogation of the Reciprocity Treaty, nor the passing of the Washington Treaty, 

 did in anv way affect exports of the (Jolony to tiic United States, or the value of its 

 |)rodiiee, as the shipments of Newfoundland fish to the United .States form so 

 insignificant an item of export. Hut as a matter of fact, since tlie operation of the 

 present Treaty, Iish shipments to the United States have declined, as the fishermen 



o 



