Debating this point, those holding to the British thesis claimed that the 

 right to take all kinds of fish was indisputable but that it could not apply to 

 the lobster which was a crustacean and not a fish and which, moreover, was 

 not fished for but trapped! 



The French jurists were not at loss to find a reply to these new argu- 

 ments. They stated to their British colleagues that the natural history trea- 

 ties of the period of the treaty of Utrecht ranked the lobster, as well as the 

 crawfish and the shrimp, in the category of fishes, qualifying them as "fish 

 with a shell", and that, furthermore, the official English translation of the 

 treaty of Utrecht used the term "catch" for "piscaturam exercire" and that 

 "to catch" was the same as saying "to trap. " 



The English casuistry then sought refuge behind a last intrenchment. 

 The treaties, claimed the English, did not allow the French fishermen to 

 build on the shore of Newfoundland "any habitation of any kind, except wharfs 

 and cabins necessary and useful for drying fish. . . " En consequence, they 

 argued at London, it was forbidden them to build buildings intended for cook- 

 ing and canning lobsters. 



It was easy to reply that such buildings were not dwellings and that the 

 words "docks", "cabins", and "drying" were used only as examples, without 

 any intention on the part of the negotiators to impose such limitations. The 

 sole condition to which the French were indisputably held was that the char- 

 acter of their installations be temporary. 



It was, however, without great conviction that the government at London 

 engaged in similar chicanery. In this affair, which seemed insoluble, it was 

 necessary to remember the attitude of the islanders against the text of the 

 treaties. But it could not follow the government at St. John's in an action 

 which openly violated the treaty. Thus it found itself, in 1892, obliged to 

 demand the Dominion to respect the pledges and to demand that the Parlia- 

 ment vote the bill by coercion. 



The adoption of the bill broke the resistance of the local authorities but 

 did not calm the people. Resentment increased on the island year after year. 

 Between the islanders and the French fishermen, the situation became dan- 

 gerously tense; at any moment one feared an incident likely to lead to com- 

 plications of the utmost gravity in Franco-British relations. 



66 



