488 MISCELLANEOUS 



possessed unlimited power to deal with its internal affairs. They 

 had hoped and expected that if a modus vivendi were proposed to 

 the United States Government a full text of the same would have 

 been submitted and thus have afforded an opportunity for suggestion 

 or remonstrance. The reasonableness of this expectation, they also 

 submitted, was warranted by the statement of Lord Salisbury in 

 debate on Newfoundland fisheries bill, April 28th, 1891, and they 

 concluded by stating that the suspension of the Foreign Fishing 

 Vessels Act of 1906 rendered them entirely powerless to carry out 

 their fishery policy." 



On the 19th of September a cablegram was received from the Secre- 

 tary of State for the Colonies stating that the United States ambassa- 

 dor had presented a memorandum on the subject of the modus vivendi, 

 expressing appreciation of the readiness of His Majesty's Government 

 to waive the Foreign Fishing Vessels Bill of 1906, and pointing out 

 that this and other restrictive legislation had compelled American 

 fishermen to v use purse seines ; acknowledging the cordial disposition 

 evinced by the oner of His Majesty's Government not to apply the' 

 first part of section 1 and the whole of section 3 o fthe act of 1905, 

 stating that the Americans would gladly pay light dues if not hin- 

 dered in their rights to fish, and were not unwilling to comply with 

 customs regulations when physically possible to do so, but that it 

 was sometimes physically impossible to break through ice for that 

 purpose; that the United States Government were convinced that 

 purse seines were no more injurious to common fishery than gill nets, 

 and that the small amount of purse seining could not materially 

 affect the fishery for the season ; besides, a number of American fisher- 

 men had already sailed with purse seines, and others had provided 

 themselves with them; that the use of purse seines was not the free 

 choice of American fishermen, but that they had been driven to it by 

 local legislation." His Majesty's Government strongly urged the 

 acceptance of this solution, intimating at the same time that they 

 proposed to consent to the use of purse seines. In reply to this a 

 cablegram was transmitted to the Secretary of State the following 

 day that for reasons which had been fully set forth in previous de- 

 spatches this government regretted its inability to become consenting 

 parties to the modus vivendi with the United States Government; 

 that they entirely dissented from the views expressed by that Gov- 

 ernment in respect to the use of purse seines and the effect of the 

 same upon the herring fishery. This was followed the same day by a 

 lengthy and comprehensive Minute which dealt with the memoran- 

 dum of the United States ambassador communicated to the Foreign 

 Office under date llth July. This memorandum has not been pub- 

 lished, nor has my reply thereto, and I am precluded from tabling 

 the same. 



The statement that it is sometimes impossible for American ships 

 to break through the ice for the purpose of reporting at customs is an 

 absurdity, inasmuch as American vessels do not come upon this coast 

 to engage in the fishery when the ice is upon the coast, and, as a mat- 

 ter of fact, as soon as there is evidence of ice presenting an obstacle to 

 their progress American vessels quit these shores. 



The statement that purse seines are no more injurious than gill nets 

 is equally preposterous, as is evidenced by the fact that their use by 

 Americans in connection with the mackerel fishery is well known to 



