142 FISHERIES ARBITRATION AT THE HAGUE 



of 1818, a reference to the observation of Sir Robert Finlay in his 

 opening argument, which appears at p. 1204 of the typewritten 

 report [p. 207 supra]. He said: 



"It is perfectly true that Great Britain did not frame regulations for 

 the exercise by French fishermen of their rights upon the French shore of 

 Newfoundland, and she did not do it for this reason. France throughout 

 claimed that her rights upon these shores were exclusive. She asserted that 

 in the strongest way. And, although that right was never admitted by Great 

 Britain, it is perfectly obvious that Great Britain could not have undertaken 

 the framing of regulations for the exercise by the French fishermen of their 

 privileges upon the coast of Newfoundland, without producing most serious 

 friction with France." 



That I believe to have been a just statement of the condition 

 which existed from very early times, practically from the time of 

 the Treaty of Utrecht of 17 13 down to the making of the treaty 

 of 1904, which so radically changed the relations between Great 

 Britain and France upon that shore. 



But the fact that Great Britain found in her relations with 

 France a reason for not framing regulations, whatever it may have 

 been, whatever may have been the secret spring of policy which 

 moved the government of Great Britain, still leaves the fact 

 standing that in 1818, when these negotiators were regranting to 

 the United States the right that its inhabitants should have the 

 Uberty to take fish upon that coast, they had before them the 

 example of a grant by Great Britain to France in those very 

 words of a "liberty" to take fish upon those shores, and for 105 

 years that "Uberty" had been exercised by France without pos- 

 sibiUty of regulation by Great Britain. And if the negotiators 

 intended that the right that they were granting to the United 

 States should be different in respect of regulation from the right 

 which had been granted to France, they should have said so then 

 and there, and they would have said so then and there in the 

 treaty in which they made the grant. 



I now pass, Mr. President, to the practice under the treaty of 

 1783 between Great Britain and the United States. 



A schedule has been presented by the Attorney-General con- 

 taining a reference to a great number of statutes upon which it 

 is asserted on behalf of Great Britain that the rights of the United 



