UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (FOREIGN RELATIONS.) 



one an English, the other a Russian jurisconsult; 

 Mexico chose Senator Guamaschelli, an Italian, 

 and M. de Savornin Lohman, a Dutch member 

 of the court. Judge Guamaschelli being unable 

 to accept, M. Asser was appointed by the Mex- 

 ican Government. The 4 members met at The 

 Hague on Sept. 1 and chose Dr. Matzen, a Danish 

 jurist, as umpire. The Pious fund originated in 

 1097, and consisted of money collected in Mexico 

 to enable the Jesuits to carry on their mission- 

 ary labors in the two Californias. After the ex- 

 pulsion of the Jesuits from Spanish dominions 

 in 1768 the property of the fund was confiscated 

 by the Government, but it was provided that it 

 should remain subject to the charges imposed by 

 the original donors. The Dominicans took over 

 the Jesuit missions in Lower California, the Fran- 

 ciscans those in Upper California, and both the 

 Spanish Crown and the Mexican Republic kept 

 the promise to the Church until the property 

 was seized in the exigencies of the Mexican treas- 

 ury, when an undertaking was given that 6 per 

 cent, interest would be paid in perpetuity on the 

 full value. This pledge was kept likewise. The 

 Franciscans established 21 missions, which occu- 

 pied the sites of the principal cities of California. 

 About twenty years after the cession of Upper 

 California to the United States a treaty was con- 

 cluded with Mexico for the settlement of claims 

 of Mexican citizens against the United States 

 and of United States citizens against Mexico. 

 Each Government appointed an arbitrator, and the 

 arbitrators chose Sir Edward Thornton, British 

 minister at Washington, to be umpire. The arbi- 

 trators having disagreed in the matter of the 

 Pious fund, the umpire decided that it amounted to 

 $1,435,033, and that half belonged to the clergy of 

 the State of California. He accordingly condemned 

 Mexico to pay interest at 6 per cent, on half the 

 total sum for twenty-one years, amounting to 

 $904,070 up to Feb. 2, 1869, the date at which 

 the umpire's jurisdiction ended. This was paid in 

 instalments from 1877 to 1890, but the interest 

 that has accrued since 1869 has not been paid, 

 although the claim of the Californian bishops has 

 been urged repeatedly by the State Department 

 at Washington. In the new treaty of arbitra- 

 tion the judges were asked to decide three ques- 

 tions: First, whether the claim was, in conse- 

 quence of the decision of Sir Edward Thornton, 

 res adjudicata; second, if not governed by that 

 principle, whether it was just; third, if the de- 

 cision went against Mexico, in what currency 

 should it be paid. Mexico held that the. prin- 

 ciple of res adjudicata, which was acknowledged 

 to be applicable in international law, as it is in 

 the civil law of most European countries, did not 

 apply in this case because Sir Edward Thornton 

 had no jurisdiction to make his award; and, in 

 case it was found that he had, because his award 

 did not cover the present claim. The Tribunal 

 decided that Sir Edward Thornton had jurisdic- 

 tion to make his award, and that, as the princi- 

 ples and evidence on which it was based were 

 identical with those governing the present claim, 

 the matter was res adjudicata. The full amount 

 of the claim, which is $1,420,689, was awarded to 

 the United States for the benefit of the bishops 

 of California, the claimants in behalf of the 

 Church. The court decided that this could be 

 paid in Mexican currency. The Mexican Govern- 

 ment was, moreover, directed to pay in perpetuity 

 the annual sum of $43,051. The court was opened 

 on Sept. 15 and the award was made on Oct. 14. 

 In the dispute with Germany regarding Samoa 

 the decision of King Oscar of Sweden was against 

 the United States. (See SAMOA.) 



Sir Robert Bond, Premier of Newfoundland, 

 arranged a reciprocity convention with Secretary 

 Hay in September, 1902. He negotiated a conven- 

 tion with Secretary Blaine in 1900, but the Brit- 

 ish Government withheld ratification at the re- 

 quest of the Dominion Government in order that 

 Canada might have an opportunity to effect a 

 similar arrangement. If Canada failed to secure 

 this within a reasonable time the Newfoundland 

 Government received an assurance that the Im- 

 perial Government would not withhold its con- 

 sent longer to . an arrangement it might make 

 for the advantage of Newfoundland. Ihe prin- 

 ciple of the Bond-Blaine convention was free bait 

 for free fish. It provided for the admission of 

 Newfoundland dried codfish into the United 

 States free of duty on condition that American 

 vessels engaged in the deep-sea fisheries for cod r 

 haddock, halibut, etc., on the Grand Banks and 

 adjacent waters may freely buy bait, consisting 

 of herring, caplin, and squid, caught in the New- 

 foundland inshore fisheries. At present American 

 fishermen obtain bait in Newfoundland under a 

 modus Vivendi arranged in 1888 by paying an an- 

 nual license fee of $1.50 a. ton, taxing each ship 

 from $120 to $200 a year. In 1901 in Newfoundland 

 waters 76 American vessels baited and supplied 

 Newfoundland bait to probably as many more 

 at Gloucester. During the winter herring can be 

 obtained nowhere else. The Canadians, who can 

 not be restricted in any way from baiting in 

 Newfoundland, being British subjects, desire the 

 same reciprocity with the United States for fish- 

 ery products that the Newfoundlanders do. The 

 supply of fcait, however, in Canadian waters is. 

 so limited or inaccessible that at least two- 

 thirds of the Dominion fishermen obtain theirs in 

 Newfoundland. Except for the modus riroidi 

 the New England fishermen would find it as diffi- 

 cult to fish on the banks as the French do, who 

 as foreigners can only get bait by smuggling. 

 The French by the treaty of Utrecht, made in 

 1713, have the right to trawl in the territorial 

 waters of the west and the northeast coasts of 

 Newfoundland. Americans by the treaty of 

 Washington, made in 1818, have equal rights on 

 the west shore and also are entitled to frequent 

 the southwest coast. All these shores are remote 

 and the inshore fishery rights are valueless for the 

 bank fishermen. The catch of American fisher- 

 men on the Newfoundland banks is in vah 

 about $4,000,000 a year, only 10 per cent, of th 

 total fisheries of the United States and not mor 

 than half the catch of the Canadian fishermer 

 those of the maritime provinces who wish 

 obtain free entry for their fish into the Unite 

 States to compete with the New England fisher 

 men. The Newfoundlanders threaten no serioi 

 competition. They depend on their inshore fisher 

 ies, and what cod they cure after their fashioi 

 by drying it after it is pickled in the wind and 

 sun. Of this peculiar product 35,000 quintals is 

 exported to the United States, valued at $150,- 

 000 paying a duty of \ cent a pound. The 

 Newfoundlanders would like to have the duty on 

 their salt cod removed in the United States and 

 Porto Rico, and on salt herring, of which Amer- 

 ican vessels took away 200,000 barrels in the 

 winter of 1901, and on other fishery products. 

 The Bond-Hay convention goes mvich further to 

 meet their wishes than the Bond-Blaine conven- 

 tion. It offers to admit free of duty all fishery 

 products, except fresh fish, and also crude min- 

 erals. If it is ratified by both parties Newfound- 

 landers can market in the Atlantic cities not only 

 dry fish, but green fish, in which state, simply 

 packed in the holds of the schooners with salt 



