DESPATCHES, REPORTS, CORRESPONDENCE, ETC. 823 



right, and no such- licence has, His Majesty's Government are in- 

 formed, been, in fact, required. 



With the last part of the proposition it will be more convenient to 

 deal in conjunction with proposition 3. 



Proposition 3 states: 



The only concern of the Government of Newfoundland with such a vessel is 

 to call for proper evidence that she is an American vessel, and therefore entitled 

 to exercise the Treaty right, and to have her refrain from violating any laws 

 of Newfoundland not inconsistent with the Treaty. 



It has already been pointed out that the Convention of 1818 confers 

 no rights on American vessels as such, and that the exercise of the 

 right of fishing under the Convention is subject to the condition that 

 the fishing is carried on by inhabitants of the United States. His 

 Majesty's Government, however, agree that no law of Newfoundland 

 should be enforced on American fishermen which is inconsistent with 

 their rights under the Convention. 



Mr. Root's note does not give any indication of what laws of the 

 Colony would be regarded by the United States' Government as in- 

 consistent with the Convention if applied to American fishermen. 

 The opinion of His Majesty's Government on this point is as 

 follows : 



The American fishery, under Article I of the Convention of 1818, 

 is one carried on within the British jurisdiction and "in common 

 with " British subjects. The two Governments hold different views 

 as to the nature of this Article. The British Government consider 

 that the war of 1812 abrogated that part of Article III of the Treaty 

 of Peace of 1783 which continued to inhabitants of the United States 

 "the liberty" (in the words used by Mr. Adams to Earl Bathurst in 

 his note of the 25th September, 1815, "of fishing and drying, and 

 curing their fish within the exclusive jurisdiction on the North 

 American coasts to which they had been accustomed while them- 

 selves forming a part of the British nation," and that consequently 

 Article I of the Convention of 1818 was a new grant to inhabitants of 

 the United States of fishing privileges within the British jurisdiction. 

 The United States' Government, on the other hand, contend that the 

 war of 1812 had not the effect attributed to it by the British Govern- 

 ment, and that Article I of the Convention of 1818 was not a new 

 grant, but merely a recognition (though limited in extent) of privi- 

 leges enjoyed by inhabitants of the United States prior, not only to 

 the war, but to the Treaty of 1783. Whichever of these views be 

 adopted, it is certain that inhabitants of the United States would not 

 now be entitled to fish in British North American waters but for the 

 fact that they were entitled to do so when they were British subjects. 

 American fishermen cannot therefore rightly claim to exercise their 

 right of fishery under the Convention of 1818 on a footing of greater 

 freedom than'if they had never ceased to be British subjects. Nor 

 consistently with the terms of the Convention can they claim to exer- 

 cise it on a footing of greater freedom than the British subjects " in 

 common with" whom they exercise it under the Convention. In 

 other words, the American fishery under the Convention is not a 

 free but a regulated fishery, and, in the opinion of His Majesty's 

 Government, American fishermen are bound to comply with all 

 Colonial Laws and Regulations, including any touching the conduct 

 of the fishery, so long as these are not in their nature unreasonable, 



