10 COUNTEB CASE OF THE UNITED STATES. 



In making this statement, however, Lord Bathurst recognized that, 

 if the American fishermen were not to be at liberty to take precedence 

 over the British fishermen in those waters by preoccupying the British 

 harbors and by forcibly excluding the British vessels from places 

 where the fishery might be most advantageously conducted, neither 

 should the British fishermen be at liberty to take precedence over the 

 American fishermen in carrying on their fishing operations, and that 

 the appropriate way to prevent the fishermen of either country from 

 interfering with those of the other would be to adopt joint or concur- 

 rent regulations between the two Governments. Lord Bathurst, there- 

 fore, added in the same note, from which the above extract is taken, 

 that he had called attention to the matters referred to in the hope that 

 the Government of the United States " may be induced amicably and 

 cordially to co-operate with His Majesty's Government in devising 

 such regulations as shall prevent the recurrence of similar incon- 

 veniences." 



That the United States entertained the same view on the subject 

 of the adoption of regulations by the two Governments, is shown by 

 the instructions sent by Mr. Monroe, when Secretary of State, on 

 February 27, 1816, to Mr. Adams at London, empowering him to 

 undertake the negotiations for a new fisheries agreement along the 

 lines proposed by Lord Bathurst, which instructions are stated to be 

 based on the representation " that the British Government was dis- 

 posed to regulate in concert with the United States, the taking of fish 

 on the coast, bays and creeks of all His Britannic Majesty's dominions 

 in America." 



Again, as pointed out in the Case of the United States, in reviewing 

 the final negotiations which resulted in the treaty of 1818 and the 

 actions of both Governments subsequent to that treaty, the position 

 taken by both sides in those negotiations strongly supports the view 

 that it was understood that, in the exercise of the common right of 

 fishery, neither side was to be permitted to interfere with the other 

 without its consent; and this view was confirmed by the action of 

 Great Britain in issuing the Orders in Council of June 19, 1819, and 

 September 9, 1907, which are reviewed in the Case of the United 

 States. 6 It will be remembered that these Orders were issued under 

 the authority of the British Act of June 14, 1819, permitting the 

 adoption of such Orders in Council as might be necessary to carry into 



U. S. Case, p. 35. &U. S. Case, pp. 69-75. 



