Law . &
Internat
E477ca

Ellison, Williem Bruce

The Canadian-American
fisheries.

CANADIAN-AMERICAN

Peet iAiS,

. Ch
heyy
VW id
BY ii
WILLIAM B. ELLISON; -
(Of the New York Bar). a a
Py,
—-—— +

a NEW YORK:
». BURGOYNE’s “ Quick’? Print, 1446-150 CENTRE STREET.
si 4886.

THE CANADIAN-AMERICAN FISHERTES

Difficulties have arisen from time to time ever since the
beginning of this century, relative to the fisheries about
British North America. The Government of the United
States has at all times appreciated the great value of those
fisheries and has endeavored from time to time to en-
large the rights and privileges of American fishermen in
the waters : udjoining that country. The course pursued by
the United States in this matter furnishes another instance
of their efforts to secure new and valuable concessions from
other governments to the welfare and prosperity of the
American people.

The enormous value of a right to participate in fishing
in the waters adjoining the British Colonies has justified the
American Goyernment in making every honorable effort to
secure that right. During the time when the population of
the United States was comparatively small, notably before
the revolution, the waters off the Atlantic coast of that
country were amply sufficient to supply the demand; but,
with the great growth of the population and the decrease in
the supply, the "American fishermen were compelled to seek
new fishing grounds, which they found in the waters adjoin-
ing what is now the ‘Dominion of Canada. These grounds,
so long as they are affected, as they now are, by the currents
from the north, replete as at present with food suitable for
fish, must remain most prolific. About six hundred Ameri-
can vessels annually engage in the mackerel fishing in
Canadian waters, and the number of the vessels is rapidly
increasing. Each of these vessels takes on an average not
less than two hundred barrels of mackerel of the value of
about ten dollars per barrel. The importation of fish to the
New England States has assumed very large proportions and
is of immense value to New England fishermen who see loss
of occupation and livelihood in case Canada cannot be in-
duced to allow them to continue as they have hitherto done
under treaties, now expired.

On the other hand, the value of the fisheries in question
are of great importance to Canada, and there seems to be a
strong inclination in that country to protect what she may
deem her rights in the matter. She feels, it would appear,
that that source of wealth which nature has so lavishly
siven her should be harvested for her benefit and not that
of another government. It is estimated that the value of
the fisheries to Canada in 1884 was about $15,000,000, em-
ploying about 60,000 men and 23,000 boats. These figures

are, of course, exclusive of Newfoundland, which is not a
part of the Dominion of Canada.

With some idea of the attractiveness of the fisheries off
the shores of the Dominion both to its own people and _ to
the people of the United States, it will be well to ascertain
if possible, what are the legal claims of each to the waters in
dispute.

When British North America and the United States were
colonies of Great Britain the rights to fish were common to
both. When Great Britain formally acknowledged the inde-
pendence of the colonies, the United States obtained “ the
liberty” to take fish on the coasts of Newfoundland, but
not to dry or cure the same there. They were also granted
“ the liberty ” of taking and curing fish on the coasts and in
the bays and creeks of all British possessions in North
America as long as the same remained unsettled. ‘Their
right “to enjoy unmolested the fisheries on the banks of
Newfoundland and at all other places on the deep sea where
the inhabitants of both countries used at any time previously
to fish ” was explicitly acknowledged in the third article of
the same treaty, which was signed at Paris on September 3,
1783. During the years which elapsed between the signing
of this treaty and the breaking out of the war of 1812 the
British population increased along the shores of the bays
and creeks of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, and their in-
terest in the fisheries, enjoyedin common with the Americans,
became very much greater. When the war came to a close
the question of the fisheries was revived and Great Britain
considered that any “ liberty” formerly extended to the United
States had naturally terminated, and refused to grant to the
Americans “gratuitously” the privileges they formerly en-
joyed of “fishing within the limits of British territory or of
using the shores of the British territories for purposes connected
with the fisheries.” At the same time they refused to con-
sider the claim set up by the United States Government, of
“an immemorial and prescriptive right to the fisheries,” claim-
ing that any rights enjoyed by the people of the old colonies in
common with other British subjects ceased in those countries or
waters which were still British possessions when the former .
became independent. When no understanding could be

reached during the negotiations Which ended with the Treaty
of Ghent in 1814, Great Britain instructed the officers of her
fleet stationed in British American waters not to interfere
with American vessels on the Newfoundland banks, or in the
Gulf of St. Lawrence, or on the high seas, but to exclude
them from the harbors, bays and creeks of all His Majesty’s
possessions. Several American vessels were subsequently
captured for trespassing in British waters, and the Govern-
ment of the United States at last came to an amicable ar-

‘angement on a question which might at any os lead
to a serious international difficulty. The issue was the
treaty signed by England and the United States on
October 20, 1818, in which the rights of these two nations
were cle: arly defined. By the first article of that treaty it
was agreed that the inhabitants of the United States should
have forever, in common with British subjects, the liberty to
take and cure fish on certain parts of Newfoundland and
Labrador, and on the coasts of the Magdalen Islands, wnder a
few restrictions, on which it is not necessary to dwell, since
no serious differences have arisen on the subject. In the
same article the United States “ renounce forever any liberty
heretofore enjoyed or claimed by the inhabitants thereof to take,
dry, or cure fish on or within three marine miles of any of the
coasts, bays, creeks or harbors” of the British dominions in
America not included within the limits just mentioned. At
the same time American fishermen were to be permitted “ to
enter such bays and harbors for the purpose of shelter and of
repairing damages therein, of purchasing wood, of obtaining
water, and for no other purpose whatever.

The whole controversy in past years between Great Britain
(representing the Dominion of Canada and Newfoundland)
and the United States has turned upon the true effect of the
renunciation on the part of the latter ‘‘ of any liberty here-
tofore enjoyed to take, dry and cure fish on or within three
marine miles of any of the coasts, bays, creeks or harbors”
of British North America. In order to understand the im-
portance of this point—which is in effect the fishery ques-
tion constantly cropping up when all temporary arrange-
ments like the Washington Treaty of 1871 cease between
Canada and the United States—it is necessary to study the
natural configuration of the eastern or maritime provinces
of British North America. Looking at the map, we find
first of all the large island of Newfoundland standing at the
approaches of the Gulf of St. Lawrence. The French and
Americans have free access, as a matter of right, to the
Grand and other banks, and certain privileges of catching
and curing fish on the coasts. American fishermen frequent
the Grand Banks and come at times into the bays and
harbors for repairs and bait; and the only important ques-

4

tion that has arisen with respect to Newfoundland is the

value of these privileges within her territorial limits. Leav-
ing Newfoundland, we come to the fishing grounds much
frequented by the Americans for the mackerel, herring and
other fisheries. We see the island of Cape Breton, separ-
ated from the mainland of Nova Scotia by a narrow strait
known as the Gut of Canseau. This passage, whose average
breadth does not exceed two and a half miles, takes us into
the Straits of Northumberland, which le between Nova
Scotia and Prince Edward Island. We are now in the Gulf
of St. Lawrence ; in the middle of this gulf are the Magdalen
Islands, the home of Canadian fishermen. The coast of New
Brunsw ‘ick, which forms the western boundary of the gulf, is
indented by several bays, one of which—the Bay das. Cha-
leurs, is one of the most prolific fishing grounds of the con-
tinent. In this bay, and on the coasts of Cape Breton and
Prince Edward Island, the American fishermen during this
century have dragged up fish to an enormous value. But
leaving the Gulf ‘of St. Lawrence and passing around the
southern coast of Nova Scotia we come to the Bay of Fundy,
bounded on the north by the province of New Brunswick,
and having a small portion of the United States territory
opposite to its southern headland. All the valuable fish to
be caught in North America frequent this bay and the
waters of the Gulf of St. Lawrence. These are the great
fishing grounds so long envied by the fishermen of New
England.

Now, it is admitted that the largest quantities of fish are
found within three marine miles from the coasts and bays
of the maritime provinces. Great Britain has always main-
tained that the three marine miles from the coasts, bays and
creeks of her possessions must be measured from the head-
lands or entrance of such classes of indents. But this asser-
tion of the territorial and maritime jurisdiction of the
Dominion of Canada, as a section of the British Empire, is
not admitted by the United States, and they have heretofore
raised the issue, that the line of demarcation between exclu-
sive and common water should not be measured from the
headlands of bays, but should follow the shores of those in-
dents as if they were sinuosities of the coasts. If their con-
tention is founded on some principles of international law,
or sustained by authority, then it would be difficult to ex-
clude them from the most important fishing grounds of
America. Wheaton states the rule as follows: “The mari-
time territory of every State extends to the ports, harbors,
bays, mouth of rivers and adjacent parts of the s 1a inclosed
by headlands belonging to the same State.” Chancellor
Kent admits that bays” like Delaware Bay, which may be
compared in many respects to Bay des Chaleurs, is wholly

5

within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, and
that this jurisdiction extends for three miles seaward from
its headlands, Capes May and Henlopen. The same rule
applies to Chesapeake and Massachusetts Bays, which are
also inlets of large size.

Daniel Webster admitted, when the question came under
his notice in 1852, that the claim of England to draw a line
from headland to headland, and to capture all American
fishermen who might follow their pursuits inside of that line,
was well founded, and that “it was undoubtedly an over-
sight in the Convention of 1818 to make so large a conces-
sion to England. If we look at the first article of this Con-
vention, we find that the United States herchz y renounce for-
ever any liberty heretofore enjoyed or claimed” by their people
in British waters. In the Franconian case, which came be-
fore the British Courts in 1876, the question involved was
whether or not a foreigner commanding a foreign vessel
could legally be convicted of manslaughter committed whilst
sailing by the external coast of England, within three miles
from the shore, in the prosecution of a voyage from one
foreign port to another. ‘The Court, by a majority of seven
judges to six, held the conviction bad on the ground that
the jurisdiction of the Common Law Courts extended only
to offenses committed within the realm, and that at common
law such realm did not extend on the external coasts beyond
low water mark. None of the Judges, however, doubted
that Parliament had power to extend the laws of the realm
to a zone of three miles around the outer coast, if it saw fit
to do so. The Lord Chief Justice of England, by whose
casting judgment the conviction was quashed, stated, “If an
offense was committed ” he said, “in a bay, gulf or estuary,
inter fauces terre, the common law would deal with it be-
cause the parts of the sea so circumstanced were held to be
within the body of the adjacent county or counties.” In
another case, which was decided by the Judicial Committee
of the Privy Council, in 1877, the question arose between
two telegraph companies, whether Conception Bay in New-
foundland (which is rather more than twenty miles wide at
its mouth and runs inland between forty and fifty miles) was
within British waters or a part of the high seas. One of the
companies laid a cable and buoys within the bay at a dis-
tance of more than three miles from the shore, and the rival
company contended that the former had infringed rights
granted to them by the Legislature of Newfoundland. The
Judicial Committee held that Conception Bay was within
territorial dominion of Great Britain. The Canadians claim
that all bodies of water or inlets inter fuuces terre, being
then within the territorial jurisdiction of England and her
dependencies, it follows that when the Americans, by the

Convention of 1818, explicitly renounced all liberty previously
enjoyed to fish “on or within three marine miles of any of the
coasts, oays, creeks or harbors of his Britannic Majesty's do-
minions,’ they gave up any claims they may previously have
had, and confined themselves to the waters a league distant
from those indents measured from headland to headland.
The British Government, however, as alleged by Canadians,
in its desire to afford every facility to the United States con-
sistent with their sovereign rights and the interests of the
people of British North America, have since 1845 thought it
expedient to relax, in the case of the Bay of Fundy, the ap-
plication of the rule to which they have generally adhered.
They have permitted American fishermen to pursue their
calling in any part of the bay, provided they should not ap-
proach, except in cases specified by the treaty of 1818, within
three miles of the entrance of any bay on the coast of Nova
Scotia or New Brunswick. While maintaining, as a matter of
strict construction, that this large bay is rightfully claimed
by Great Britain as a body of water within the meaning of
the Convention of 1818, they have considered that in one
respect this inlet could be treated exceptionally, inasmuch
as there was some plausibility in the reasoning of the United
States, that the headlands were not only sixty miles apart,
but one of them was not British ; and that, as pointed out
by Mr. Everett to Lord Aberdeen in 1844: “ Owing to the
peculiar configuration of the coasts of this arm of the sea, there
is a succession of bays indenting the shores both of Nova Scotia
and New Brunswick, within any distance not less than three
miles, from which American fishermen were necessarily ex-
cluded by holding the whole body of water to be in the British
territorial limits.” The same argument could not be used
in the case of the Bay of Chaleurs or other important indents
of the coasts.
The imperial authorities have on many occasions strictly
maintained the rights they possess under the law of nations.
From 1818 to 1854 the British cruisers detailed by the Im-
perial and Colonial Government for the protection of their
fisheries captured and confiscated several American vessels
that were found ranging at points varying from quite near
the shore to a distance of upwards of ten miles from land,
on the ground that they were within the headlands of bays.
In 1854, after considerable negotiation for years, the two
Governments arranged a Reciprocity Treaty, which ftempo-
rarily settled the increasing difficulties on the question. By
this treaty the United States obtained free access to the
fishing grounds on the east coast of British North America,
and certain natural products of these two countries, like
fish, coal, flour, meal, lumber and salt, were allowed to enter
into each free of duty. This arrangement was of undoubted

7

advantage to both countries from a purely commercial point
of view. Not only did it settle for the moment an ever-
present cause of irritation, but it opened a large and increas-
ing market to the export ‘trade of British North Ame rica,
while the Americans were able to prosecute one of their
ereat industries at a decided advantage, and at the same
time obtain additional buyers for their flour, corn, meal and
manufactured goods. The Americans, by their ereater en-
terprise and the superiority of their vessels, practically beat
the British American fishermen in their own waters, and
derived advantages, it was claimed, beyond any granted by
the United States. In those days the provinces were isola-
ted from each other, and a commercial or political union be-
tween them seemed still far off. In the absence of such a
union, the people were not animated by a national feeling,
but some of them began to consider whether a closer con-
nection with the United States was not among the probabil-
ities of the future. Manufactures were brought in large
quantities from the United States in return for the natural
products sent them by the provinces, and there was no pros-
pect of the growth of a native manufacturing industry to add
to the wealth and give additional employment to the peo-
ple, large numbers of whom were annually leaving the
country for the manufacturing districts of New England.
Whilst the treaty lasted the balance of trade with respect to
manufactured goods, amounted to £18,000,000 sterling in
favor of the United States. The treaty came to an end in
1865 by the action of the Washington Government.

In the meantime, while the people of the provinces were
endeavoring to consolidate their Government and establish
a federation on a sound basis, they found themselves again
threatened with the fishery question. The Convention of
1818 was again in force, and the fishermen of New England
were alleged to be once more ranging in their waters. The
efforts of the two governments to bring about a satisfactory
commercial arrangement were entir ely unsuccessful. The
question then constantly pressed itself upon them how best
to meet the difficulty of maintaining their rights without
bringing about any serious international complication. The
correspondence between England and Canada, as it appears
in the Canadian Blue Books, from 1867 to 1871, is not very
flattering to the national vanity of those Englishmen who
believe there are times when a little firmness is necessary
in the maintenance of undoubted Imperial rights. All the
despatches of the British Government are in the direction
of conciliating the United States in every way possible, until
at last it was pointed out in one Canadian Minute of Coun-
cil that ‘‘the course suggested (the freedom of the fisheries
for another year) would certainly be regarded by the Amer-

8

ican people as an evidence of weakness on the part of Great
Britain, and of an indisposition to maintain the rights of the
colonies.” The answers of the Canadian Government to the
despatches from the imperial authorities are distinguished
throughout by an assertion of the rights and interests of
Canada. Concession after concession was made to the
United States, until at one time it did look, as Mr.
Mitchell, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, pointed
out to his colleagues, there was every danger that ‘ the
hesitation on the part of England to assert an undoubted
national right would be misconstrued and be made the
ground for other and more serious exactions, until such a
point is reached that neither country can recede from with
honor.” However, the Canadian Government acquiesced in
the suggestion of Her Majesty’s Ministers at the very outset,
and adopted the temporary expedient of issuing season
licenses to American fishing vessels, at a nominal tonnage
rate, “so as formally to preserve the right of sovereignty
without occasioning any dangerous complications, such as
were apprehended by the imperial authorities.” American
fishermen were restrained at first to bays under ten geo-
graphical miles, and subsequently to those only under six
miles in width—a concession entirely in accord with the de-
mands of the United States before and since 1854. During
the four years this system remained in force it was evaded,
and at last became practically worthless. In the first year
of its existence 354 licenses were taxen out, but they dropped
to 25 in 1869. Vice-Admiral Wellesley, then in com-
mand of the North American fleet, considered it his duty to
point out to the Secretary of the Admiralty that, “as acon-—
sequence of the continued indulgence towards the Ameri-
cans, very few colonial fishermen are engaged in fishing,
owing to the tariff imposed by the United States on fish
imported in colonial vessels, and colonial fishermen, there-
fore, in considerable numbers, man American vessels.” The
eovernment of Canada, led then, as now, by Sir John Mac-
donald, felt called upon to state that they viewed “ with
very serious concern the effect upon our maritime population
of such dependence upon American employers. It creates sym-
pathy with foreign sentiments and institutions, and affords op-
portunities for instilling into the minds of our people ideas
and expectations altogether inimical to British connection.
There is actually presented to them the example of subjects of
a republican power and citizens of a foreign State prosecuting
their calling at the very doors and in the exclusive limits of
British subjects in Canada, who are themselves shut out of
the markets of that country hy a prohilitive tariff, adopted in
the interest of their own fishermen, while ours cannot even
enjoy their own exclusive privileges. The influence of these

]

considerations cannot be otherwise than seductive of the loyal
attachment and personal enterprise of our s¢ ubourd population.
Lt discourages the independent employment of Canadian fish-
ing craft and provincial fishermen. Lt tempts our fishermen to
catch and sell their fish clandestinely to owners of American
vessels, who can afterwards market them in the United States,
free of duty, as American. caught fish. This practice demor-
alizes our population and accustoms them to violations of our
own laws.

Finally, the imperial authorities arranged with the admin-
istration at Washington the : appointment of a joint British
and American Commission, “to treat of and discuss the mode
of settling the different questions which have arisen out of the
fisheries, as well as those which affect the relations of the
United States towards Her Majesty's possessions in North
America.” The history of this Commission is well known.
The American Commissioners refused to consider a new re-*
ciprocity treaty, and it was at last decided to admit the
United States to the inshore sea fisheries of British North
America, on condition that Canadian fish and _ fish-oil were
admitted free of duty into the American market, and that
Commissioners be appointed to determine the amount of any
compensation which in their opinion ought to be paid by
the Government of the United States in return for the priv-
ileges accorded to their citizens under the treaty. The
Commission met at Halifax in the summer of 1877. The
three Commissioners, M. Maurice Delfosse, Belgian Minis-
ter at Washington, Mr. E. H. Kellogg and Sir A. T. Galt,
gave a hearing to the claims of the parties to the issue, and
after considering all the evidence submitted to them, a ma-
jority decided to award the sum of $5,500,000 in gold,
to be paid by the Government of the United States to the
Government of Great Britain, in accordance with the pro-
visions of the Washington Treaty. Mr. Kellogg, however,
on the part of the United States, dissented from the award.

However, the Americans had no other alternative open to
them than to pay the money and carry out the provisions of
the Washington Treaty. The arrangement was advantage-
ous to both countries, since it set at rest a vexatious ques-
tion and stimulated commercial intercourse between them.
Lhe American Government gave due notice of the repeal of
the treaty after it had been in existence for twelve years.
Consequently it expired in July, 1885, and the treaty
of 1818 should have once more immediately governed the
relations of the two nations. It was aot thought advisable,
however, by either the Canadian or the Imperial Government
to exclude American fishermen at once from the fisheries, as
many of them were already in Canadian waters when the
treaty came to an end, and had they been seized without

10

full notice having been previously given them, a serious
feeling might have arisen between the countries immediately
interested. After considerable correspondence between the
respective Governments of London, Ottawa and Washing-
ton, 7 was agreed that steps should be taken at the earliest
date possible for the appointment of a joint Commission
“charged with the consideration and settlement, upon a just,
equitable and honorable basis, of the entire question of the fish-
ing rights of the two Governments and their respective citizens
on the coasts of the United States and of British North Amer-
ica.” Accordingly, during the past season American fisher-
men freely frequented the waters of the Dominion. How-
ever, Canada had no other course open to her in this per-
plexing dilemma, involving such important international
considerations, than to agree to the temporary arrangement
in question, with the hope that the difficulty would be satis-
factorily settled in the way proposed. It is pleasant to find
that President Cleveland is evidently desirous of arriving at
a just and honorable solution of the question as soon as
possible. In his message to Congress in December last, he
expresses his opinion that “in the interest of good neigh-
borhood and of the commercial intercourse of adjacent com-
munities, the question of the North American fisheries is one
of large importance.” After recommending that Congress
provide for the appointment of a Commission, he proceeds
to say: “The fishing interests being intimately related to
other general questions dependent upon contiguity, consid-
eration thereof, in all their equities, might also properly
come within the province of such «a Commission, and the
fullest latitude of expression on both sides should be per-
mitted.”

It is obviously injurious to all sides that these interna-
tional issues should be of constant occurrence, when it has
always been possible to settle them for a long term of years,
if not for all time. The Canadians have always felt—and
President Cleveland apparently felt the same way—that the
fishery question is intimately connected with the commercial
relations of the two countries, and that it should be ar-
ranged in the shape of a new Reciprocity Treaty like that
of 1854.

It would therefore appear that the claim made by Canada
that the United States are now entitled to such rights as
were given them under the treaty of 1818, and to no others,
is not without some foundation. It appears that every
treaty subsequent to that of 1818, has been rescinded by the
United States. These different treaties were but temporary
relaxations or modifications of the treaty of 1818 and in-
tended so to be when agreed to, and with all of them annulled
there must be a recurrence to that of 1818 where it is

11

claimed by Canada a// rights theretofore enjoyed or claimed
by the United States were renounced, and it was then agreed
that the treaty of 1818 should and did specifically settle all
the rights and privileges which the United States were to
have in Canadian waters. In the first section of that treaty
the United States ‘‘ renounce forever any liberty heretofore
enjoyed or claimed by the inhabitants thereof to take, dry or
eure fish on or within three marine miles of any of the
coasts, bays, creeks or harbours” of the British dominions
in America. After the provision whereby the Americans
renounced all the rights and liberties aforesaid, it was pro-
vided that American fishermen were to be permitted “ to
enter such bays and harbours for the purpose of shelter and
repairing damages therein, of purchasing wood, of obtaining

water, and for no other purposes whatever.” Applying the
rule as laid down by Wheaton and Kent, two American
jurists of great learning and repute, the United States
will be shut out from the most prolific fishing grounds in
the world. It must, however, be admitted that the legal
authorities cited are almost beyond question. They are quite
in accord with the English judicial decisions on the same
subject.

Under the provision relating to the circumstances under
which American fishermen may enter Canadian ports, those
fishing vessels which have entered for bait and have been
seized therefor, were not protected by the treaty, and it
would appear that the seizures were legally justifiable. It
may appear to manyas a harsh proceeding, but was it unduly
so when it is considered that since July, 1885, when the
treaty then in existence expired, af the instigation of the
United States, the .Canadian government has endeavored,
without success, to effect some new treaty, while the Ameri-
can people, though recommended so to do by President
Cleveland, have not evinced any desire to renew the old or
enter into a new one? So long as matters remained as they
have been since July, 1885, the Americans have certainly had
all they desired. The Canadians felt undoubtedly that a
few seizures would bring their neighbors to a sense of their
position as a similar course did in 1877, when the United
States was called upon to pay and did pay $5,500,000. The
people of Canada are now, as in 1885, desirous of meeting
the people of America in some fair settlement of the exist-
ing difficulties, and have expressed themselves to that effect,
and it is thought and hoped that there is a similar desire
among the people of the United States. Both countries
have rights and both will maintain them, neither country
will be driven into sacrificing those rights however much
there may be of the rant of a lick-spittle class of politicians
who feel that an occasional wrench of the lion’s tail is a

12

prolific means of securing votes. With the fair-minded men
who are at present at the head of the different governments,
both no doubt fully appreciating the desirability of a settle-
ment, an amicable and impartial arrangement becomes
feasible, and considering the two countries at difference,
almost inevitable.

Had President Cleveland’s wise suggestions been fol-
lowed, there would have been no cause for the trouble which
has occurred, and the press would not, as now, with a few
exceptions, been filled with the clamor of persons who hope
to ride into office upon the prejudices aroused by misrepre-
sentations of the facts involved.

(PE
gee lk

Tas

ay

Bei
Bhs
Riniieiy LNs
es) tomy

A

i E eee :

om a
| § 28.8895 |ik
| 5 a Of R & u
;

eee mene Sate hg Coy

UAMOUNO dO AWNVN

291150
*S8Tieusty UeoTlouy—uetpeues ous }eUl1ezZUT
Song WeTTITM ‘uostitq wey

166697

13,5