322 FISHERIES ARBITRATION AT THE HAGUE 



tion to that. That statute carries the boundary of New Brunswick 

 down through the middle of the Bay of Chaleur to the Gulf of 

 St. Lawrence, and that is the statute of 1851 that Lord Sahsbury 

 refers to. 



I shall take up no more time with these statutes, further than to 

 say that, in our view, they do not constitute such a claim to terri- 

 torial jurisdiction over the waters of these bays as to have any 

 effect internationally; and of course they were never referred to 

 in any way whatever or made any ground of prescription, or defini- 

 tion of maritime jurisdiction of Great Britain before or at the time 

 of the negotiations of 18 18. 



One other subject I ought to speak of, and that is what the 

 Attorney-General said about the renimciation clause. He says 

 there were two renunciation clauses: one of the British and one of 

 the Americans. The difference between them is that one was a 

 renunciation clause and the other was not. The American proposal 

 was the renunciation clause with which we are familiar. The 

 British proposal was contained in Article A, presented by the British, 

 to be found on p. 312 of the American Appendix. That article 

 begins by saying that the "inhabitants of the United States shall 

 have Uberty to take fish" on such and such coasts. Then follows 

 a regulation regarding the rivers, and then follows this, which 

 is the British substitute for the remmciation clause as we now 

 have it: 



"His Britannic Majesty further agrees that the vessels of the United 

 States, bond fide engaged in such fishery, shall have liberty to enter the bays 

 and harbors of any of His Britannic Majesty's dominions in North America, 

 for the purpose of shelter, or of repairing damages therein, and of purchasing 

 wood and obtaining water, and for no other purpose; and all vessels so resort- 

 ing to the said bays, and harbors shall be under such restrictions as may be 

 necessary to prevent their taking, drying, or curing fish therein." 



That is not a renunciation clause. That is a grant. That is 

 a grant from Great Britain. And the difference between the two 

 is that the clause proposed by the Americans renounced the right 

 of taking and drying and curing of fish, and, by necessary implica- 

 tion, asserted that the Americans had the right that they were 

 renouncing; while the clause proposed by the British granted a 

 right for specific purposes, and, by necessary imphcation, asserted 



