ARGUMENT OF MR. ROOT 325 



derived from this public document. It appears in the record that 

 Mr. Filhnore, on the day after the paper was pubhshed, had an 

 interview with the British Minister in which he stated authorita- 

 tively what the position of the United States was, and thait on the 

 same day he wrote a letter to Mr. Webster. The paper was 

 published on the 19th July, and on the 20th July there was an 

 interview between Mr. Fillmore and Mr. Crampton that appears 

 in the British Appendix at p. 154. Mr. Crampton is reporting 

 that interview to the Earl of Malmesbury, and in that letter the 

 Tribunal will see that Mr. Fillmore distinctly stated what his 

 view was. In the last paragraph on p. 155, Mr. Fillmore said to 

 Mr. Crampton: 



"What he would propose was that Mr. Webster and myself should make 

 some temporary arrangement of the matter until the true sense of the treaty 

 should be determined by the two governments between themselves, or, if 

 necessary, be referred to the decision of some friendly power." 



And in the paragraph before, he stated his view; he said: 



"We had been examining the Convention of 1818, he said, and although 

 he contested the construction put by the British Law OfiScers upon the clause 

 regarding the Umits assigned, within which American fishermen could not 

 legally carry on their operations, he nevertheless admitted that the wording 

 of the passage, which he thought somewhat obscure, countenanced to a certain 

 degree that construction. With regard to the opinion of the Law Officers 

 of the Crown by which this construction was maintained, he remarked, how- 

 ever, that it seemed to him singular that they adverted to expressions as being 

 used in the Treaty which were nowhere to be found in it: he alluded to that 

 part of the opinion where it is said, 'as we are of opinion that the term head- 

 land is used in the Treaty to express the part of the land we have before men- 

 tioned including the interior of the bays and indents of the coast.' Now, 

 said Mr. F illm ore, there is no such term as headland in the Treaty at aU, 

 which would look as if the opinion had been drawn up without reference being 

 made to the text of the Convention of 1818. He also remarked that as well 

 as he had been able to ascertain the fact, the government of the United States 

 had, on various previous occasions, contested the construction maintained 

 by the opinion in question." 



And the interview closed by his sajdng: 



"while the United States Government, on the other hand, should take every 

 means in their power to prevent their own citizens from fishing witbin the 

 prescribed distance as understood by the British construction, until such 



