DESPATCHES, REPORTS, CORRESPONDENCE, ETC. 489 



ble resistance to the exercise of these rights is not without justification 

 in their local law and the construction which Her Britannic Majesty's 

 Government is supposed to have placed upon the provisions of the 

 Treaty. 



It is now three years since twenty-two vessels belonging to the 

 United States and engaged in what by them and their Government 

 was considered a lawful industry were forcibly driven from Fortune 

 Bay under circumstances of great provocation and at very serious 

 pecuniary loss. And this occurred at the very time when, under the 

 award of the Halifax Commission, the Government of the United 

 States were about paying to Her Britannic Majesty's Government a 

 very large amount for the privilege of the exercise of this industry 

 by these fishermen. In March of the same year, 1878, this very 

 grave occurrence of January was brought to the attention of the 

 British Government, in the confident hope that compensation would 

 be promptly made for the losses caused by what the United States 

 Government was willing to believe was a local misconstruction of the 

 Treaty or a temporary and, from ignorance, perhaps an excusable 

 popular excitement. 



It is unnecessary to do more than recall to your attention the long 

 and unsatisfactory discussion which followed the presentation of this 

 claim, and especially the fact that in its progress the Government of 

 the United States was compelled to express with emphatic distinct- 

 ness the impossibility of accepting the subordination of its Treaty 

 rights to the provisions of local legislation, which was apparently put 

 forward by Her Majesty's Government as a sufficient ground for the 

 rejection of the claim. And it was not until April 1880 (a delay of 

 two years, during which the importance of an early settlement was 

 urged upon Her Majesty's Government), that, after \vhat this Gov- 

 ernment understood and accepted at least as a satisfactory modifica- 

 tion of the assumption, we were informed by Lord Salisbury that 

 "Her Majesty's Government are of opinion that under the circum- 

 stances of the case as at present within their knowledge, the claim 

 advanced by the United States fishermen for compensation on account 

 of the losses stated to have been sustained by them on the occasion in 

 question, is one which should not be entertained." 



This decision of Her Majesty's Government terminated any further 

 discussion, and the Government of the United States found itself 

 compelled to protect the interests of its citizens by such methods as 

 might commend themselves to its judgment. In addition to the Hali- 

 fax Award which we had paid for the privileges and rights, the 

 exercise of which is now denied our citizens, we were also con- 

 tinuously paying, in the shape of a remission of duties, some $300,000 

 per annum for this abortive right. Thus forced into position of an- 

 tagonism which it profoundly regretted, the Government of the 

 United States was about to take such action as would at least suspend 

 this annual payment, until the two Governments were in accord upon 

 the construction of the Treaty, when Her Majesty's Government, 

 through the United States Minister in London, suggested, June 9, 

 1880, that the consideration of the subject be resumed between the 

 two Governments, and that in such consideration, the two questions 

 of the interpretation of the Treaty and the attack upon the Ameri- 

 can fishermen be separated. To that suggestion I replied, Jime 12, 



