BRITISH, COLONIAL AND OTHEB CORRESPONDENCE, ETC. 487 



necessary. This government pointed out that no such condition of 

 things appertained in the case under discussion, the real questions 

 at issue being (1) as to the right of the inhabitants of the United 

 States to purchase bait fishes within the territorial jurisdiction of 

 this colony, and (2) as to the right to engage people of this colony 

 to procure such supplies for them. There was, in the case under dis- 

 cussion, no question of the lapse of imperial authority to enforce treaty 

 obligations, no question as to territorial rights, nor any excitement or 

 bad feeling in connection with the conduct of the fishery, such as 

 was held to warrant the modus vivendi of 1891. This government 

 assured His Majesty's Government that it was exceedingly anxious 

 to assist the efforts of His Majesty's Government in obviating the 

 difficulties and dangers they considered were to be apprehended in 

 the course of the approaching autumn and winter fishery, and that 

 having full knowledge of the local conditions which it was impossible 

 for His Majesty's Government to possess, it was considered that 

 such assistance could be best rendered if they were empowered to call 

 into force the Foreign Fishing Vessels Act of 1906, which would 

 convey to them the authority to deal with the fishermen of the colony 

 as they could not do under previous laws. The government further 

 intimated that if His Majesty's Government would consent to the 

 Foreign Fishing Vessels Act of 1906 being proclaimed and decided 

 that the government of this colony could be justly held liable for an 

 arbitration which in the opinion of His Majesty's Government might 

 be rendered necessary by the ambiguity of a treaty that this colony 

 is in no way responsible for, then the Committee of Council would 

 consider the question of such liability, as well as that of any damages 

 arising out of the ambiguity of the treaty and that might accrue from 

 the enforcement of the Foreign Fishing Vessels Act of 1906. 



In drafting this reply I did not fail to recognize that it must be 

 admitted as a general principle that existing treaties ought to be 

 strictly construed, and that this colony would only have the right to 

 apply for redress if we could establish that Americans had exercised 

 privileges that the Treaty of 1818 does not justify. 



Nothing further was heard from the Secretary of State for the 

 Colonies until the 13th of September, when a cablegram was received 

 by his excellency the governor informing him that the proposal of a 

 modus vivendi, including the suspension of the Foreign Fishing Ves- 

 sels Act of 1906, had been made to the United States ambassador on 

 the 3rd of September. To this communication the following reply 

 was transmitted by cable the following day, viz : 



" That the government had learned with profound regret that with- 

 out reference to this colony His Majesty's Government had proposed 

 to the United States ambassador as one of the terms of the modus 

 vivendi the suspension of the Foreign Fishing Vessels Act of 1906, 

 which was only adopted after consultation with His Majesty's Gov- 

 ernment and with a view mainly to enable the government of this 

 colony to deal with local fishermen and to secure the peaceable con- 

 duct of the fishery during the approaching autumn. They submitted 

 that any arrangement embracing the suspension of that act interfered 

 with the internal affairs of the colony, and would therefore be a 

 violation of the pledge furnished by Lord Salisbury through the Brit- 

 ish Parliament on May 5th, 1891, during debate on the Newfound- 

 land fisheries bill, to the effect that the government of this colony 



