48 FISHERIES ARBITRATION AT THE HAGUE 



of crowding us out of any opportunity of any benefit whatever 

 under this treaty of 1818, the exercise of a right under which is 

 the key to the great bank fishery. They said, in the last para- 

 graph on p. 538: 



"In the case of the remaining portions of the sea-board of Canada, the 

 terms of the Convention of 1818 debarred United States citizens from landing 

 at any part for the pursuit of operations connected with fishing. This privi- 

 lege is essential to the successful prosecution of both the inshore and deep-sea 

 fisheries." 



Lord SaUsbury, in a letter which has been much referred to, of 

 the 3rd April, 1880, refers to the same subject. I read from p. 684 

 of the United States Case Appendix. That is in his correspond- 

 ence with Mr. Evarts, in which they got down to an understanding, 

 or supposed they got down to an understanding, as to what the 

 rights of the parties were under the treaty, with the exception of 

 certain definite points on which they agreed to disagree. Lord 

 SaUsbtu-y says there, just below the middle of the page: 



"Thus whilst absolute freedom in the matter of fishing in territorial waters 

 is granted, the right to use the shore for four specified purposes alone is men- 

 tioned in the treaty articles, from which United States fishermen derive their 

 privileges, namely, to purchase wood, to obtain water, to dry nets, and cure 

 fish. 



" The citizens of the United States are thus by clear imphcation absolutely 

 precluded from the use of the shore in the direct act of catching fish. This view 

 was maintained in the strongest manner before the Halifax Commission," etc. 



And that statement of Lord Salisbury is based upon both the 

 treaty of 1818 and the treaty of 1871. He has just referred to both 

 of them as the basis of that conclusion. 



Sir Robert Bond, in his speech of the 7th April, 1905, refers to 

 the same subject, and reasserts the position. 



It is true that this view that we were excluded from the shore 

 was denied by Mr. Evarts, and that the United States has never 

 assented to it; but it has been the practical treatment of the sub- 

 ject by Great Britain that she has denied to the United States 

 any use of the shore; and, as a practical matter, any attempt to 

 overcome that would be met by this insuperable, or practically 

 insuperable, obstacle of the opposition of the shore population, so 



