Ixviii INTRODUCTION 



vided that "the inhabitants of the United States shall have, in common 

 with the subjects of Her Britannic Majesty, the liberty" to take fish, 

 for a term of years and within the regions not specified by the Conven- 

 tion of 1818. There is indeed one difference which strengthens rather 

 than weakens the present contention, because, by the Convention of 

 1818, the hberty was. to be enjoyed forever, whereas, under the Treaty 

 of 1871, for a period of ten years. (Articles XVIII and XXXIII.) It 

 is familiar doctrine that like terms in like subject-matter should have a 

 like interpretation. 



Bearing in mind this fundamental canon of interpretation, it is advis- 

 able to pass briefly in review the two treaties between Great Britain 

 and the United States dealing with the fishery question, in which the 

 terms of the grant were identical with the Convention of 1818, in order 

 to ascertain the understanding placed by both parties upon them in the 

 matter of fishing regulations. 



The two treaties in question are the Reciprocity Treaty of 1854 and 

 the Treaty of Washington of 1871. The Reciprocity Treaty of 1854 

 will first be considered. 



The Convention of 18 18 was unaffected by subsequent agreements, 

 for the desire of the United States was to obtain a participation in the 

 fisheries not granted by the Convention of 1818. The Reciprocity 

 Treaty, therefore, was additional to and supplemented the right acquired 

 or recognized by the Convention of 1818. It is frequently asserted that 

 the term "right" is less extensive than the term "liberty," and a great 

 portion of the argument before the Tribunal dealt with the supposed 

 distinction. The parties, however, have uniformly considered "right" 

 and "liberty" as synonymous, and the preamble to the Reciprocity 

 Treaty of 1854 speaks of the liberty of 1818 as "the right of fishing on 

 the coasts of British North America." It will be recalled that John 

 Adams, one of the negotiators of the Treaty of 1783, considered "right" 

 and "liberty" as synonymous and thought it unnecessary to contend 

 for a word, and the two governments have used the two words inter- 

 changeably. 



The important passage for present consideration is the wording of the 

 grant, which was that "inhabitants of the United States shall have, in 

 common with the subjects of Her Britannic Majesty, the liberty to take 

 fish of every kind, except shell-fish [on the non- treaty coast], provided 

 that, in so doing, they do not interfere with the rights of private prop- 

 erty, or with British fishermen, in the peaceable use of any part of the , 

 said coast in their occupancy for the same purpose." If Lord SaUsbury's 

 canon of interpretation be correct, it would follow that the United States 



