QUESTION ONE. 35 



and the words " any law of this Colony to the contrary notwith- 

 standing " added. 



In commenting on this incident, the British Case states by way of 

 explanation : 



" The United States Secretary of State, Mr. Fish, objected to this 

 proviso, and properly so, for clearly it was either unnecessary, or 

 else it was a modification of the treaty. If, by the treaty, United 

 States fishermen were bound to observe the local regulations, the pro- 

 viso was unnecessary and mere surplusage; and if they were not so 

 bound, the proviso altered the treaty. The statute was therefore re- 

 enacted without this proviso." 6 



Clearly, however, the proviso was not omitted by Newfoundland, 

 because it was regarded as unnecessary on the theory that the re- 

 strictions referred to could be enforced without it. As shown by the 

 telegram from the Governor of Newfoundland and the letter from 

 the British Minister, an urgent request was made that the proviso be 

 retained on the ground that the regulations affected by it related " to 

 time and mode of taking herring and salmon " and were " necessary 

 for the preservation of those fisheries, and consequently for the com- 

 mon interest of all engaged in them," and also that the proviso ap- 

 plied only to already existing legislation, so that the refusal of the 

 United States to accept the proviso because, for the reasons stated by 

 Mr. Fish in his note from which the above extracts are quoted, the 

 laws excepted by it did, under the terms of the amendment of the 

 act by Newfoundland, "prevent such articles from taking full 

 effect ", distinctly raised an issue as to Newfoundland's right under 

 the treaty to enforce such laws without the consent of the United 

 States. 



In the circumstances, the amendment of the act, as required by 

 the United States, was clearly intended to meet this objection in order 

 that the benefits to be derived from the treaty might be extended to 

 Newfoundland. 



The suggestion that in adopting this amendment Newfoundland, 

 nevertheless, intended to enforce against American fishermen the 

 objectionable laws, which is implied in the explanation advanced in 

 the British Case, involves a breach of good faith on the part of 

 Newfoundland which the United States would be unwilling to at- 

 tribute to that government. The alternative suggestion offered by 

 the British explanation that " if American fishermen were not bound 



British Case Appendix, p. 706. * British Case, p. 31. 



