254 FISHERIES ARBITRATION AT THE HAGUE 



and, such being the rights conferred, the respondents further contend that 

 they have the power to exclude the Indians from the river by reason of such 

 ownership." 



And upon that proposition the Court says (p. 381) : 



"The reservations were in large areas of territory and the negotiations 

 were with the tribe. They reserved rights, however, to every individual Indian, 

 as though named therein. They imposed a servitude upon every piece of 

 land as though described therein. There was an exclusive right of fishing 

 reserved within certain boundaries. There was a right outside of those boun- 

 daries reserved 'in common with citizens of the Territory.' As a mere right, 

 it was not exclusive in the Indians. Citizens might share it, but the Indians 

 were secured in its enjoyment by a special provision of means for its exercise. 

 They were given ' the right of taking fish at all usual and accustomed places,' 

 and the right 'of erecting temporary buildings for curing them.' The con- 

 tingency of the future ownership of the lands, therefore, was foreseen and 

 provided for — in other words, the Indians were given a right in the land — 

 the right of crossing it to the river — the right to occupy it to the extent 

 and for the purpose mentioned. No other conclusion would give effect to 

 the treaty. And the right was intended to be continuing against the United 

 States and its grantees as well as against the state and its grantees." 



A question was asked during the discussion upon the French 

 treaty rights, as to what reference there was in the correspondence, 

 and Mr. Turner said that an examination would be made. 



We have made such examination as was practicable, although 

 under great difficulty, the only papers accessible to us being two or 

 three French Yellow Books and the British Blue Book. There 

 were no such pubUcations covering the early history of transactions 

 between Great Britain and France, and the French Yellow Books 

 began in the sixties. There are only three. We have them here. 

 We have printed some extracts from them which we will hand to 

 our friends on the other side, and hand up to the Court. There 

 is one extract here from the British Blue Book which Mr. Turner 

 read in Court, and which we have reproduced here for your 

 convenience. 



They serve, taken together with the correspondence which is 

 already in the record, particularly the correspondence between 

 Lord Sahsbury and M. Waddington, to exhibit in a very clear light 

 the attitudes of the two countries in respect of these rights, and I 

 think they show the relative attitudes of the two countries, not only 



