170 CASE OF THE UNITED STATES. 



curing ice in abundance for the preservation of bait, liberty of trans- 

 shipping their cargoes, &c., an almost continuous prosecution of the 

 bank fishery is secured to them. By means of these advantages, 

 United States fishermen have acquired by the Treaty of Washington 

 all the requisite facilities for increasing their fishing operations to 

 such an extent as to enable them to supply the demand for fish food 

 in the United States markets, and largely to furnish the other fish 

 markets of the world, and thereby exercise a competition which must 

 inevitably prejudice Newfoundland exporters. It must be remem- 

 bered, in contrast with the foregoing, that United States fishing craft, 

 before the conclusion of the treaty of Washington, could only avail 

 themselves of the coast of Newfoundland for obtaining a supply of 

 wood and water, for shelter, and for necessary repairs in case of ac- 

 cident, and for no other purpose whatever. They therefore pros- 

 ecuted the bank fishery under great disadvantages, notwithstanding 

 which, owing to the failure of the United States local fisheries, and 

 the consequent necessity of providing new fishing grounds, the bank 

 fisheries have developed into a lucrative source of employment to the 

 fishermen of the United States. 



"That this position is appreciated by those actively engaged in the 

 bank fishery is attested by the statement of competent witnesses, 

 whose evidence will be laid before the Commission." 



And in the reply of the British Government, referring to the same 

 Newfoundland fisheries, is the following declaration: 



"As regards the herring fishery on the coast of Newfoundland, it is 

 availed of to a considerable extent by the United States fishermen, 

 and evidence will be adduced of large exportations by them in Ameri- 

 can vessels, particularly from Fortune Bay and the neighborhood, 

 both to European and their own markets. 



"The presence of United States fishermen upon the coast of New- 

 foundland, so far from being an advantage, as is assumed in the 

 answer, operates most prejudicially to Newfoundland fishermen. 

 Bait is not thrown overboard to attract the fish, as asserted, but the 

 United States bank fishing vessels, visiting the coast in such large 

 numbers as they do for the purpose of obtaining bait, sweep the coast, 

 creeks, and inlets, thereby diminishing the supply of bait for local 

 catch and scaring it from the grounds, where it would otherwise be an 

 attraction for cod." 



In support of these views, the most abundant testimony was pro- 

 duced by the British Government showing the extent of the United 

 States herring fishery, the character and construction of the seines 

 used, the time when the vessels came and left, and the employment 

 of the native fishermen by the United States vessels. And it follows 

 unanswerably that upon the existence of that fishery between the 

 months of October and April (the very time prohibited by the 

 colonial law), and upon the use of just such seines as were used b}'" 

 the complainants in this case (the very seines forbidden by the 

 colonial law), and because the increasing direct fishery of the United 

 States vessels was interfering with native methods and native profits, 

 the British Government demanded and received compensation for the 

 damages thus alleged to proceed from "the liberty to take fish of 

 every kind" secured by the treaty. 



This Government cannot anticipate that the British Government 

 will now contend that the time and method for which it asked and 



