1408 NORTH ATLANTIC COAST FISHERIES ARBITRATION. 



with the insertion, in the second edition of the circular of Mr. Bout- 

 well of 1870, of the clause : 



" Fishermen of the United States are bound to respect the British 

 laws and regulations for the regulation and preservation of the 

 fisheries to the same extent to which they are applicable to British or 

 Canadian fishermen." 



I wish to offer a suggestion as to the way that that clause came into 

 that circular. The first circular was dated the 16th May; this cir- 

 cular is on the 9th June. The reason for the issue of the new circular 

 is indicated in United States Counter-Case, p. 38, and the reason, as 

 given there, is that a copy of the amendment of the Canadian statute 

 was communicated to Mr. Fish by the British Minister in his note of 

 the 20th May, 1870, four days after the date of the first circular, and 

 that on the 26th May the British Minister communicated to Mr. Fish 

 the further information that, under the instructions to be issued to 

 the British and colonial officers for the enforcement of this law, it 

 would be given application only to vessels within 3 miles of land 



" thus making it clear that it was not intended to renew the attempt 

 to assert Canadian jurisdiction " 



and so on. Then, going on to the next paragraph : 



" The change made in the Act of May 22, 1868, by the amendment 

 of May 12, 1870, and the disclaimer on the part of Great Britain of 

 any intention to enforce the Act thus amended upon American fishing 

 vessels except in the waters of the coasts covered by the renunciatory 

 clause of the treaty within three marine miles of the land, made it 

 appropriate that the circular should be changed so as to inform the 

 American fishermen "- 



and so on. The suggestion is that the circular was changed because 

 of information obtained on the 20th May and on the 26th May. 

 Well, Sirs, besides the information which was obtained on the 20th 

 and the 26th May, Mr. Fish, on the 3rd June, received the Cardwell 

 instructions (British Case Appendix, p. 236), in which there was 

 an assertion of the obligation of American fishermen to conform to 

 British regulations ; so that, when this second Boutwell circular was 

 issued, Mr. Fish had three pieces of information before him, instead 

 of the two only that are referred to in the United States Counter- 

 Case, at p. 38. He had the additional information that the Card- 

 well instructions had been issued. Then, Sirs, six day& after the 

 last of these pieces of information had been received, namely, the 

 Cardwell instructions, the Boutwell circular was issued. That seems 

 to me to be the explanation of this clause in the Boutwell circular. 



That circular was in 1870. Mr. Boutwell issued a third circular in 

 1872, and I am inclined to think that the United States, for some rea- 

 son, does not like this third circular as Avell as the previous circular 

 of 1870, because its argument is always devoted to an explanation of 

 the circular of 1870. There is nothing as to this second circular in 



