ARGUMENT OF MR. ROOT 137 



both nations had an equal right to form an opinion as to what 

 constituted interference. These letters are long subsequent to 

 the treaty of 18 18, but they furnish an authentic statement of what 

 the rights were, and a statement by the head of the British Foreign 

 Office, who had made the most complete and exhaustive study of 

 the subject of any of the statesmen of Great Britain. 



It was well understood that the American rights, granted in the 

 same terms, were, in effect, the same rights. Perhaps I should 

 here call attention to the relation of the British declaration of 1783 

 to the rights granted under the treaties of 17 13 and 1763. I have 

 already said that the terms of the treaty of 1763 were the same as 

 the terms which contained the grant of the American right — "shall 

 have the Hberty" and so forth. The treaty with France of 1783 

 granted no new right, made no change in the right. It changed 

 the limits shghtly, cutting off at one end and extending at the other. 

 On p. II of the British Appendix, in Article 5 of the French treaty 

 of the 3rd September, 1783, is the provision: 



"His Majesty the Most Christian King, in order to prevent the quarrels 

 which have hitherto arisen between the two nations of England and France, 

 consents to renounce the right of fishing, which belongs to him in virtue 

 of the Treaty of Utrecht from Cape Bonavista to Cape St. John, situated 

 on the eastern coast of Newfoundland, . . . and His Majesty the King of 

 Great Britain consents, on his part, that the fishery assigned to the subjects 

 of His Most Christian Majesty, beginning at the said Cape St. John, passing 

 to the north, and descending by the western coast of the Island of Newfound- 

 land, shall extend to the place called Cape Ray, . . . The French fishermen 

 shall enjoy the fishery which is assigned to them by the present article, as 

 they had the right to enjoy that which was assigned to them by the Treaty 

 of Utrecht." 



The right in all that great part of the coast which was not 

 affected by this renunciation on one end and addition on the other 

 remained untouched, and the addition was to be upon the same 

 basis as that which remained untouched; that is to say, it was the 

 same right which was granted by the treaty of 1763. 



Then, in the declaration, which Mr. Turner has very justly 

 characterized as a modality, there is no additional right given to 

 France — none whatever. The seventy years of exercise of this 

 French right had developed quarrels and controversies between 

 the French and the Enghsh. The French were claiming that their 



