1426 NORTH ATLANTIC COAST FISHERIES ARBITRATION. 



753 from Mr. Frelinghuysen to Sir Lionel West. It is dated the 

 llth July, 1884, and it is a reply to Sir Lionel West's letter of the 9th 

 October in the previous year, in which Sir Lionel West enquired as 

 to the views of the United States. Mr. Frelinghuysen says : 



" Eeferring to your note of the 9th of October last, concerning the 

 revision of the fishery treaty, and adverting to the language of the 

 President's last annual message to Congress relative to appointing a 

 Commission to consider the subject, I now have the honor to inform 

 you that Congress has adjourned without reaching any action on the 

 President's recommendation. In such an important international 

 question, in which Congress has intervened at every stage hitherto, 

 it is deemed best to defer definite action on the British proposal until 

 December." 



Now, Sirs, that is the answer which we got after four years that 

 Congress had adjourned and that it would be better to leave the mat- 

 ter until later on. That was the last of that correspondence we did 

 not get very far. 



The next attempt at settling joint regulations related to the non- 

 treaty shore. Mr. Bayard proposed the matter in 1886 (British Case 

 Appendix, p. 418). Lord Salisbury suggested verbal changes, but 

 accepted the idea (British Case Appendix, pp. 418 and 420). But 

 nothing was done. Not much time elapsed between that corre- 

 spondence and the unconfirmed treaty and modus vivendi of 1888. 

 If the modus vivendi had not been arranged, possibly something 

 might have come of this proposal. 



The last suggestion was made by Sir Edward Grey, in the corre- 

 spondence immediately preceding this reference. His letter propos- 

 ing consideration of the regulations is set out in British Case Appen- 

 dix, p. 508, and the reply was that that matter with all others should 

 be referred to The Hague (British Case Appendix, p. 509). And so, 

 Sirs, we are here for the purpose of getting the opinion of the mem- 

 bers of the Tribunal, and submitting to them our respective conten- 

 tions. 



It seems to me. Sirs, that the British method of dealing with the 

 subject of regulations is very much better (even if we had to decide 

 upon the merits of the respective contentions) than that proposed by 

 the United States. One only has to imagine what the procedure 

 would be in case the United States contention were put into practical 

 operation. We have seen something of it in the correspondence be- 

 tween 1880 and 1884. Newfoundland would ask assent to certain 

 regulations; those would go before Congress, principally before the 

 Senate; and the Senate, not being sufficiently informed, would ap- 

 point a commission. Newfoundland would wish to be heard with 

 reference to its suggestions, and there might be a joint commission 

 and there might be disagreement, and a long time at all events would 

 elapse before anything could be done. It is quite possible it is I 



