176 CASE OF THE UNITED STATES. 



bury as Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, A\Tote to Mr. Lowell, 



the American Minister at London: 



As regards the claim of the United States fishermen to compensa- 

 tion for the injuries and losses which they are alleged to have sus- 

 tained in consequence of the violent obstruction wliich they encoun- 

 tered from British fishermen at Fortune Bay on the occasion referred 

 to, I have to state that Her Majesty's Government are quite wilhng 

 that they should be indemnified for any injuries and losses which, 

 upon a joint inquiry, may be found to have been sustained by them, 

 and in respect of wliich they are reasonably entitled to compensation ; 

 but on this point I have to observe that a claim is put forward by 

 them for the loss of fish which had been caught, or wliich, but for 

 the interference of the British fishermen, might have been caught by 

 means of strand fishing, a mode of fishing to which, under the treaty 

 of Washington, they were not entitled to resort.'* 



After some further discussion as to the amount of compensation 

 to be paid in settlement of these claims, it was finally agreed, as 

 stated in notes exchanged on May 28, 1881, between Sir Edward 

 Thornton, British Mmster at Washington, and Mr. Blaine, the 

 Secretar}?" of State, that fifteen thousand pounds sterhng should 

 be paid by Great Britain to the United States in full satisfaction 

 of all claims for disturbance of American fishing vessels in their 

 fishing operations on the coasts of Newfoundland and its depend- 

 encies up to March 4, 1881, and including two additional claims 

 arising from occurrences on the coasts of Nova Scotia and Canada, 

 it being mutually understood, however, "that the above mentioned 

 payment will be made without prejudice to any question of the rights 

 of either of the two Governments under Articles XVIII. to XXV., 

 both inclusive, and Article XXXII. of the treaty of May 8, 1871, 

 between the United States and Great Britain."'' 



Joint Regulations. 



In the course of the discussion which grew out of the Fortune 

 Bay case, the question of the joint regulation of the fisheries came 

 up for consideration, and the views expressed by the two Govern- 

 ments on this subject at that time are of interest in connection 

 with similar questions which have arisen under the treaty of 1818. 

 It wiU be remembered that Mr. Evarts in the portion of his letter 

 above quoted made the following statement with respect to joint 

 regulations : 



o Appendix, p. 713. & Appendix, p. 736. 



