QUESTION ONE. 35 



While the differing interests and methods of the shore fishery and the vessel 

 fishery make it impossible that the regulation of the one should be entirely 

 given to the other, yet if the mutual obligations of the treaty of 1871 are to be 

 maintained, the United States' Government would glady co-operate with the 

 Government of Her Britannic Majesty in any effort to make those regulations 

 a matter of reciprocal convenience and right, a means of preserving the 

 39 fisheries at their highest point of production, and of conciliating a commu- 

 nity of interest by a just proportion of advantages and profits. 



Her Majesty's Government do not interpret these expressions 

 in any sense derogatory to the sovereign authority of Great Britain 

 in the territorial waters of Newfoundland, by which only regulations 

 having the force of law within those waters can be made. So regard- 

 ing the proposal, they are pleased not only to recognize in it an indi- 

 cation that the desire of Her Majesty's Government to arrive at a 

 friendly and speedy settlement of this question is fully reciprocated 

 by the Government of the United States, but also to discern in it the 

 basis of a practical settlement of the difficulty ; and I have the honour 

 to request that you will inform Mr. Evarts that Her Majesty's 

 Government, with a view to avoiding further discussion and future 

 misunderstandings, are quite willing to confer with the Govern- 

 ment of the United States respecting the establishment of regula- 

 tions under which the subjects of both parties to the Treaty of 

 Washington shall have the full and equal enjoyment of any fisher} 

 which under that treaty is to be used in common. The duty of 

 enacting and enforcing such regulations, when agreed upon, would, 

 of course, rest with the Power having the sovereignty of the shore 

 and waters in each case. 



CESSATION OF DISCUSSION, 1880-1905. 



Discussion as to regulations was apparently found to be unneces- 

 sary, and was never undertaken; Mr. Elaine succeeded Mr. Evarts 

 as Secretary of State; indemnity for the Fortune Bay affair was 

 agreed upon (with special reservation of respective opinions as to 

 treaty rights) ; and the suggestion of joint regulations disappeared. 

 British cruisers continued to patrol the fishing grounds; the local 

 laws were enforced as before; and for many years no complaint 

 or protest was heard of. 



CORRESPONDENCE, 1905-6. 



1905. The United States objected (19th October, 1905) to a 

 Newfoundland statute, upon the ground that, under its provisions, 

 United States fishing vessels might be seized for doing that which 

 the treaty permitted them to do. (App., p. 757.) In reply. 

 Sir Edward Grey (2nd February, 1906) pointed out that the clauses 

 of the statute to which objection had been taken, were controlled 

 by another clause which preserved (App., p. 494) 



the rights and privileges granted by treaty to the subjects of any 

 State in amity with His Majesty. 



