DESPATCHES, REPORTS, CORRESPONDENCE, ETC. 465 



And in the reply of the British Government, referring to the same 

 Newfoundland fisheries, is the following declaration: 



As regards the herring fishery on the coast of Newfoundland, it is availed of, 

 to a considerable extent, by the United States fishermen, and evidence will be 

 adduced of large expectations of them in American vessels, particularly from 

 Fortune Bay and the neighbourhood, both to European and their own markets. 



The presence of United States fishermen upon the coast of Newfoundland, so 

 far from being an advantage, as is assumed in the answer, operates most 

 prejudicially to Newfoundland fishermen. Bait is not thrown overboard to 

 attract the fish, as asserted, but the United States bank fishing vessels, visiting 

 the coast in such large numbers as they do, for the purpose of obtaining bait, 

 sweep the coast, creeks, and inlets, thereby diminishing the supply of bait for 

 local catch, and scaring it from the grounds, where it would otherwise be an 

 attraction for cod. 



In support of these views, the most abundant testimony was pro- 

 duced by the British Government, showing the extent of the United 

 States herring fishery, the character and construction of the seines 

 used, the time when the vessels came and left, and the employment 

 of the native fishermen by the United States vessels. And it follows 

 unanswerably that upon the existence of that fishery between the 

 months of October and April (the very time prohibited by the 

 Colonial law), and upon the use of just such seines as were used by. 

 the complainants in this case (the very seines forbidden by the 

 Colonial law), and because the increasing direct fishery of the United 

 States vessels was interfering with native methods and native profits, 

 the British Government demanded and received compensation for the 

 damages thus alleged to proceed from "the liberty to take fish of 

 every kind " secured by the Treaty. This Government cannot antici- 

 pate that the British Government will now contend that the 

 277 time and the method for which it asked and received com- 

 pensation are forbidden by the terms of the very Treaty under 

 which it made the claim and received the payment. Indeed, the 

 language of Lord Salisbury justifies the Government of the United 

 States in drawing the conclusion that between itself and Her Britan- 

 nic Majesty's Government there is no substantial difference in the 

 construction of the privilege of the Treaty of 1871, and that, in the 

 future, the Colonial regulation of the fisheries, with which, as far as 

 their own interests are concerned, we have neither right nor desire to 

 intermeddle, will not be allowed to modify or affect the rights which 

 have been guaranteed to citizens of the United States. 



You will therefore say to Lord Salisbury, that the Government 

 of the United States considers that the engagements of the Treaty 

 of 1871 contravened by the local legislation of Newfoundland, by 

 the prohibition of the use of seines, by the closing of the fishery 

 with seines between October and April, by the forbidding of fishing 

 for the purpose of exportation between December and April, by the 

 prohibition to fish on Sunday, by the allowance of nets of only a 

 specified mesh, and by the limitation of the area of fishing between 

 Cape Ray and Cape Chapeau Rouge. Of course, this is only upon 

 the supposition that such laws are considered as applying to United 

 States fishermen : as local regulations for native fishermen, we have 

 no concern with them. The contravention consists in excluding 

 United States fishermen during the very times in which they have 

 been used to pursue this industry, and forbidding the methods by 

 which alone it can profitably be carried on. The exclusion of the 

 92909 S. Doc. 870, 61-3, vol 4 40 



