36 COUNTEB CASE OF THE UNITED STATES. 



by the laws objected to, the proviso altered the treaty " obviously is 

 the only interpretation of the action of Newfoundland which the 

 Tribunal can adopt without discrediting the course pursued by that 

 government. 



Other evidence presented J>y Great Britain. 



The remaining evidence presented in the British Case in support 

 of the British contention on this question consists of an extract from a 

 letter from Mr. Cardwell, the British Colonial Secretary, addressed to 

 the Lords of the Admiralty under date of April 12, 1866, and also 

 a sentence taken from a circular issued in 1870 by the Secretary of the 

 Treasury of the United States. 



So far as Mr. Cardwell's letter is concerned, it appears that it was 

 not communicated to the United States until over four years after 

 it was written, and that no attempt had been made during the inter- 

 vening period to give practical effect to the views expressed by Mr. 

 Cardwell in the extract quoted in the British Case.* 



This letter dealt chiefly with the " bays " question, which was then 

 the only feature of the fisheries controversy under discussion between 

 the United States and Great Britain; and nothing was said in the 

 note from Mr. Thornton to Mr. Fish enclosing this letter to indicate 

 that the British Government desired to raise at that time a new issue 

 which they had refrained from raising during the four years fol- 

 lowing the termination of the Reciprocity Treaty in 1866. 



The British Case infers an implied approval by the United States 

 of the views, expressed by Mr. Cardwell in the extract referred to, 

 in regard to the authority of Great Britain to regulate the fisheries, 

 from the fact that no exception was taken at that time to its terms by 

 the United States. 6 It is clear, however, that the situation did not 

 then require a statement of the position of the United States, and 

 any expression of its disapproval of the views expressed by Mr. 

 Cardwell on the subject now under consideration was uncalled for 

 and would have been premature. 



That the United States did not agree with Mr. Cardwell's views, 

 as expressed in the extract quoted in the British Case, was con- 

 clusvvely shown by the position taken by the United States soon after 

 the adoption of the treaty of 1871, with reference to the effect of 

 that treaty upon fisheries legislation in Newfoundland, which is 



U. S. Case Appendix, pp. 597, 602. British Case, p. 30. 



