1476 NORTH ATLANTIC COAST FISHERIES ARBITRATION. 



from shipping in the American schooners and thus cripple the Amer- 

 ican fishing almost entirely, or that even if the men did ship they 

 could be harassed and hampered under the Act quoted, and that this 

 might hinder the American fishermen to some extent." 



The notice to which he refers, is the one to which I referred on 

 Tuesday afternoon as having been issued by the Newfoundland 

 Government, giving a statement of the laws then in force, but with- 

 out giving the dates of the laws, and without a word of mention of 

 the modus vivendi; and the magistrate's comments to the captain 

 upon that are therefore intelligible : 



" He showed me a newspaper in which it was frankly avowed that 

 the intention and hope was to embarrass the British Government in 

 their relations with the United States. 



" The date of the passing of the Act being omitted in the Public 

 Notice, it will be difficult for the ordinary fisherman to read it in its 

 entirety, if they wish to perhaps some of the older men may know 

 that the extracts are from the Bait Act of 1889. I hear that the 

 Newfoundland fishermen have been told locally that they will render 

 themselves liable to a penalty of $1,000 or 12 months in the Peni- 

 tentiary if they ship on board American schooners. As 40 or 50 

 more American schooners are said to be coming here, whose skippers 

 will probably expect to fill up their fishing crews with Newfound- 

 land fishermen either from Bonne Bay or Bay of Islands, it is very 

 important to both Newfoundlanders and Americans to know exactly 

 how they stand." 



On the 17th November of the same year, 1906 (United States Case 

 Appendix, vol. ii, p. 1002), Governor MacGregor transmits the posi- 

 tion of his Ministers : 



" Referring to your telegram of 9th November, Responsible Min- 

 isters " 



892 That is the one that I have just read 



" Responsible Ministers send long reply, summary of which 

 follows : 



"(1) They do not see that any reason existed to justify modus 

 vivendi, which they think was unnecessary. They refer to your tele- 

 gram of 8th August, which stated His Majesty's Government were 

 informing United States Government that His Majesty's Govern- 

 ment were prepared to negotiate for provisional arrangement, and 

 would shortly submit proposals, from which Responsible Ministers 

 infer that engagement to enter into modus vivendi was actually 

 made without reference to opinion of this Government. Responsible 

 Ministers saw they could not prevent the arrangement, but set forth 

 their views and pointed out that modus vivendi not necessary, and 

 guaranteed to maintain peace if His Majesty's Government did not 

 interfere with enforcement of statute law against local fishermen. 

 Under the circumstances Responsible Ministers find it impossible to 

 admit any responsibility for mod/ua vivendi" 



