ARGUMENT OF MR. ROOT 39 



of this treaty. And I am going to urge upon you that the result 

 which is developed by the apphcation of the British theory to this 

 case up to this time is a powerful argument against the soundness 

 of the theory and against the view that the negotiators, in making 

 the treaty, meant to have it construed as Great Britain now con- 

 strues it. 



I need not devote much time to urging upon the Tribunal the 

 importance of the right. The Tribunal will remember that it was 

 a sine qua -non of the Treaty of Peace. John Adams declared he 

 would never put his hand to the treaty imless this fishery right was 

 provided for. He, and with him Franklin and Jay, were willing 

 to stake the issues of peace and war upon having that right. Adams 

 says so; Strachey wrote home to London so; Oswald wrote home 

 to London so; Fitzherbert wrote home to London so. Our friends 

 on the other side minimize it. They think little of it. Of course 

 that is their privilege. Probably it is their duty to take that view 

 of it. But not so these men who established it. One thing about 

 it our friends on the other side have said that is certainly true: 

 the value of it was not for the few miserable herring to be taken 

 upon the shore of Newfoundland, nor was it for the cod-fish, the chief 

 value that could be taken along the headlands or along the south 

 shore; nor was it for the other fish, the hake, the halibut, the sea- 

 cows, the great variety of fish that could be taken along the coast 

 of Newfoundland. The great value of it was the bank fishery. 

 And old John Adams, who knew ids subject well, for he him- 

 seK had been a participator in the fishing, as he tells us here, 

 spoke of it as being one fishery; and it was one fishery. Why? 

 Because the bank fishery cannot be prosecuted without bait. 

 The herring, the caplin, the squid, were the seed corn of the 

 harvest of the sea, which made the livelihood and the prosperity 

 of the New England coast, and which still do make its livelihood 

 and its prosperity. 



The value of the bank fishery is qviite apparent, I think. I will 

 refer the Tribimal to a single statement in our Counter-Case 

 Appendix, at p. 554, where the British counsel at the Halifax dis- 

 cussion presented the results of what was imdoubtedly a careful 

 inquiry into the facts. I will read from just below the middle of 

 P- SS4- They said: 



