ARGUMENT OF MR. ROOT 167 



the 27th February, 1816, which appears on p. 287 of the United 

 States Case Appendix. Mr. Monroe says: 



"It appears by these communications that, although the British Govern- 

 ment denies our right of taking, curing, and drying fish within their juris- 

 diction, and on the coast of the British provinces in North America, it is 

 willing to secure to our citizens the liberty stipulated by the treaty of 1783, 

 under such regulations as wiU secure the benefit to both parties, and will 

 likewise prevent the smuggling of goods into the British provinces by our 

 vessels engaged in the fisheries." 



Then he goes on to say that he encloses a power authorizing 

 Mr. Adams to negotiate a convention providing for the objects 

 contemplated. 



And on p. 288 of the United States Case Appendix, the very 

 next page, the Tribunal will find a power from Mr. Monroe to Mr. 

 Adams, dated the 27th February, 1816, the same day as the letter 

 which I have just read: 



"Sir: It being represented, by your letter of the 8th of November, that 

 the British Government was disposed to regulate, in concert with the United 

 States, the taking of fish on the coasts, bays, and creeks of all His Britannic 

 Majesty's dominions in America, and the curing and drying of fish by their 

 citizens on the imsettled bays, harbors, and creeks of Nova Scotia, Magdalen 

 islands, and Labrador, in such manner as to promote the interest of both 

 nations, you wiU consider this letter an authority and instruction to negotiate 

 a convention for these purposes." 



The negotiation went on with a long period of offer, and refusal 

 and new offers and give-and-take bargaining regarding the extent 

 of territory, until finally it brought up with these negotiators at 

 London making the treaty of 1818, and with these letters in their 

 hands — both parties; and there the British negotiators proposed 

 express joint regulations. In the articles presented by the British 

 negotiators at the fifth conference, appearing at p. 312 of the United 

 States Case Appendix, the Tribunal will see that they proposed 

 express joint regulations to govern the protection of rivers — the 

 very subject on which this power of local regulations had been given 

 to the local magistrates, and to which this New Brunswick statute 

 about the River St. John referred, and to which the revised statutes 

 of New Brunswick referred. They do not depend upon any power 

 of Great Britain or of any British colony to pass laws which shall 



