480 MISCELLANEOUS 



28th March, 1856, and which was quoted in full by Lord Salisbury in 

 his despatch to Mr. Hoppin under date the 3rd April. 1880. 



The United States Government, as far back as that date (1856) 

 ordered that it should be made known to the masters of fishing vessels 

 that, as there were certain " acts of the colonial legislature, as also, 

 perhaps, executive regulations, intended to prevent the wanton de- 

 struction of the fish which frequent the coasts of the colonies and 

 injurious to the fishing thereon, it is deemed reasonable and desirable 

 that both United States and British fishermen should pay a like re- 

 spect to such laws and regulations which are designed to preserve and 

 increase the productiveness of the fisheries on these coasts. Such 

 being the object of these laws and regulations, the observation of 

 them is enforced upon the citizens of the United States in a like man- 

 ner as they are observed by British subjects. By granting the mutual 

 use of the inshore fisheries neither party has yielded its right to civic 

 jurisdiction over a marine league along its coast. Its laws are as 

 obligatory upon the citizens or subjects of the other as upon its own." 



The Committee of Council would also have reference to the des- 

 patch from Mr. Bayard, of the Department of State, Washington, to 

 Sir Lionel West, bearing date 10th May, 1886, wherein Mr. Bayard 

 stated : " Since 1818 certain important changes have taken place in 

 fishing which have materially modified the conditions under which 

 the business of inshore fishing is conducted, and it must have great 

 weight in any present administration of the treaty." ..." Every- 

 thing will be done by the United States to cause its citizens engaged 

 in fishing to conform to the obligations of the treaty and prevent an 

 infraction of the fishing laws of the British Provinces." 



Again, in a despatch from Mr. Bayard to Sir Lionel West of date 

 20th May, 1886, that gentleman stated that he was desirous that due 

 and full observance should be paid by citizens of the United States to 

 local laws and commercial regulations of the ports of the British 

 Provinces. In view of the foregoing, and of the fact that the Gov- 

 ernment of the United States has long been aware of the necessity of 

 reference to the colonial governments in matters affecting their 

 inshore fisheries, the objection or the contention now set up by the 

 United States is somewhat remarkable. 



If the fishery regulations or laws of this colony had been so 

 framed and executed as to make any discrimination in favor of 

 British fishermen, or to impair the rights conveyed to the United 

 States fishermen by treaty, then there would be sufficient justification 

 for the position taken by the Government of the United States, the 

 fishery granted to the United States under the Treaty of 1818 being 

 a fishery " in common " with His Majesty's subjects. 



It will not be disputed that British sovereignty on the treaty 

 coast is limited in its scope to the extent implied by the words " in 

 common ; " but, on the other hand, it is submitted that if, as is the 

 case, the fishery regulations or laws of this colony as framed and 

 executed do not make any discrimination in favor of British fisher- 

 men, then the obligation on the part of United States fishermen to 

 observe them, in common with His Majesty's subjects, attached from 

 the date that the Treaty of 1818 came into force. 



It has to be remembered that by the signing of the Treaty of 1818 

 Great Britain was not the recipient of sovereignty to which attached 

 conditions. She was the possessor of prior existing sovereignty, 



