INTRODUCTION cxv 



and while the statement of the American negotiators may be open to the 

 criticism or objection of partiality it is, nevertheless, quoted as showing 

 what the American negotiators believed they had obtained by the con- 

 vention. They evidently thought that the renimciation which "ex- 

 tended only to the distance of three miles from the coasts" involved the 

 surrender of the inshore fisheries and which, according to the under- 

 standing of both parties, were subject to the territorial jurisdiction of 

 Great Britain, for they thus continue: 



"This last point was the more important, as, with the exception of the fishery in 

 open boats within certain harbors, it appeared, from the commmiications above men- 

 tioned, that the fishing-groimd, on the whole coast of Nova Scotia, is more than three 

 miles from the shores; whilst, on the contrary, it is almost universally close to the 

 shore on the coasts of Labrador. It is in that point of view that the privilege of 

 entering the ports for shelter is useful, and it is hoped that, with that provision, a 

 considerable portion of the actual fisheries on that coast (of Nova Scotia) will, not- 

 withstanding the renunciation, be preserved."' 



That they had only in mind the inshore fisheries within three miles 

 of the coast, whether the coast were washed by the open sea or indented 

 by bays, appears from another passage from their report, in which they 

 interpret "the exclusive rights of the Hudson Bay Company," which 

 were to be unaffected by the treaty. This exception they say "applies 

 only to the coasts and their harbors, and does not affect the right of fish- 

 ing in Hudson's Bay beyond three miles from the shores, a right which 

 could not exclusively belong to, or be granted by, any nation." ^ 



It would thus appear that the American negotiators had in mind two 

 kinds of bays: geographical bays, within which no nation could have 

 exclusive jurisdiction and could not be the subject of grant, and terri- 

 torial bays; that is to say, bays of small extent subject to local jurisdic- 

 tion, which, by virtue of their territoriaUty, might be the proper subject 

 of grant. Unfortunately, the views of the British commissioners can 

 only be ascertained from an examination of the language of the conven- 

 tion, from the views of their statesmen in charge of the difficulty, and by 

 the attending circumstances, because Great Britain, although taking 

 advantage of the official reports of the American negotiators, has never 

 published the official report of their commissioners, Messrs. Robinson 

 and Goulbum. 



What is the justification of the views of Messrs. Gallatin and Rush, 

 American negotiators, as expressed in their official report, drawn up by 

 them and sent to their government on the very day the treaty was 

 signed? 



'Appendix, U. S. Case, Vol. I, p. 307. ' Appendix, U. S. Case, Vol. I, p. 306. 



