INTRODUCTION kiii 



granted to the United States "the liberty to take fish of every kind . . . 

 on the western and northern coast of Newfoundland from the said Cape 

 Ray, to the Quirpon Islands." Great Britain thus granted to the United 

 States the liberty to fish "in common with the subjects of His Britannic 

 Majesty" within waters over which France claimed an exclusive right. 

 It seems almost superfluous to add that Great Britain could not convey 

 a right which it did not possess, and an attempt to do so would be an 

 act of bad faith, with which it is unnecessary to charge a great and 

 honorable nation. It is, therefore, clear beyond doubt that, so far as 

 Great Britain is concerned, France did not possess an exclusive right to 

 fish within Newfoundland waters, and if that be so, the French right 

 and the American right were identical in the sense that British subjects 

 retained a concurrent right within the treaty waters. Assuming, there- 

 fore, that the French right was not exclusive, but concurrent, and that 

 it was limited to the summer months, leaving the balance of the year 

 to the exclusive enjoyment of British subjects, so far as France is con- 

 cerned, it is a matter of history that Great Britain did not regulate the 

 exercise of French fishing rights secured to French subjects within the 

 treaty waters of Newfoundland, and it is fair to presiune that Great 

 Britain's failure to" regulate French fishermen in the exercise of their 

 calling was due, not to any sense of fear, but rather to the fact that inter- 

 national law did not permit Great Britain to regulate the exercise of the 

 French Treaty rights. 



In support of the statement that Great Britain did not regulate 

 French fishing rights within Newfoundland waters, attention is called to 

 the solemn statement of Lord Salisbury to the French government in 

 1887 that the local act of Newfoundland establishing a closed season of 

 three years in Bonne Bay in the French Treaty waters did not apply 

 to French fishermen. The tribunal did not specify a single example of 

 British regulation of French Treaty rights, and it is, therefore, safe to 

 assume that the American contention that none such were to be found 

 is strictly accurate. If American fishing rights were identical with 

 French fishing rights, it is difficult to see why one could be regulated, 

 whereas unbroken practice shows that the other was not.' 



' "It is an elementary rule of international law that the sovereign power alone exercises 

 authority within its own territory. Whatever rights France may have had on the Newfound- 

 land treaty shore they must be carried out under English supervision and control; neither 

 France nor any other foreign power can exercise coercitive jurisdiction in English territory. 

 It will appear strange to many English readers, but it is nevertheless true, that England has 

 never maintained this principle until the last few years. Lord Salisbury was the first English 

 minister to put his foot down firmly and declare that no French officer would be permitted to 

 seize English boats, cut EngHsh nets, or to drive English fishermen out of their own harbours." 

 (Prowse, History of Newfoundland, p. 355. 1895.) 



The paragraph quoted from Judge Prowse states the fact; the following extracts from 



