28 COUNTER-CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 



the " inconveniences " being the pre-occupation of British har- 

 bours, the exclusion of British vessels from places " where the fishery 



might be most advantageously conducted," and the " clandes- 

 34 tine introduction of prohibited goods into the British colonies." 



To this proposal the United States expressed its assent (Adams 

 to Bathurst, 22nd January, 1816), Mr. Adams at the same time con- 

 ceding that (United States Case, p. 30) 



" the jurisdiction over the shores washed by the waters where this 

 fishery was placed was reserved to Great Britain," 



Again in 1866, the United States proposed (amongst other things) 

 to appoint a commission (United States Case, p. 136) 



" To agree upon and establish such regulations as may be necessary 

 and proper to secure to the fishermen of the United States the privi- 

 lege of entering bays and harbours for the purpose of shelter and of 

 repairing damages therein, of purchasing wood, and of obtaining 

 water, and to agree upon and establish such restrictions as may be 

 necessary to prevent the abuse of the privilege reserved by said con- 

 vention to the fishermen of the United States." 



The British Government agreed to the proposal, but stipulated that 

 (United States Case, p. 137)- 



"Her Majesty's Government would hold themselves entitled to main- 

 tain, pending the determination of the questions to be discussed, the 

 principle for which they have heretofore contended, and to enforce 

 all regulations and assert all rights which previously to the conclu- 

 sions of the Reciprocity Treaty, the British Government asserted and 

 enforced." 



The commission was never proceeded with. 



In 1879, during the existence of the treaty of 1871, Mr. Evarts 

 (United States Secretary of State) wrote to Mr. Welsh (United 

 States Minister at London) for communication to the British Gov- 

 ernment (United States Case, p. 177) : 



" While the differing interests and methods of the shore fishery and 

 the vessel fishery make it impossible that the regulation of the one 

 should be entirely given to the other, yet if the mutual obligations 

 of the treaty of 1871 are to be maintained, the United States Govern- 

 ment would gladly co-operate with the Government of Her Britannic 

 Majesty in any effort to make those regulations a matter of reciprocal 

 convenience and right, a means of preserving the fisheries at their 

 highest point of production, and of conciliating a community of in- 

 terests by a just proportion of advantages and profits." 



In reply, Lord Granville (27th October, 1880), after quoting the 

 above paragraph, proceeded as follows (United States Case, pp. 

 177_8) : 



" Her Majesty's Government do not interpret these expressions in 

 any sense derogatory to the sovereign authority of Great Britain in 

 the territorial waters of Newfoundland, by which only regulations 

 having the force of law within those waters can be made. So regard- 



