184 CASE OF THE UNITED STATES. 



" 'privileges enjoyed by the U. S. appears to have developed/ 

 "expressed liimself as follows: — - 



" 'There is no intention on the part of this (the U. S.) Gov* that 

 " 'these privileges should be abused; and no desire that their full 

 " 'and free enjoyment should harm the colonial fishermen. 



" 'Wliile the differing interests and methods of the shore fishery 

 " ' and the vessel fishery make it impossible that the regulation of the 

 "'one should be entirely given to the other, yet if the mutual 

 " 'obligations of the Treaty of 1871 are to be maintained, the U. S, 

 " 'Gov* would gladly cooperate with the Gov* of Her Britannic 

 " 'Majesty in any effort to make those regulations a matter of recip- 

 " 'rocal convenience and right, a means of preserving the fisheries 

 " 'at their highest point of production, and of conciliating a com- 

 " ' munity of interest by a just proportion of advantages and profits.' " 



I expressed the satisfaction with' which H. M.'s Gov* not only 

 recognized in M'" Evarts' proposal above referred to, an indication 

 that their desire to arrive at a friendly and speedy settlement of the 

 controversy was fully reciprocated by the Gov* of the U. S., but also 

 discerned in it the basis of a practical solution of the difficulty; and 

 I assured M'" Lowell of the readiness of H. M.'s Gov* to confer with 

 the Gov* of the U. S. respecting the establishment of regulations under 

 which the subjects of both parties to the Treaty of Washington 

 should have the full and equal enjoyment of any fishery which, under 

 the Treaty is to be used in common. 



The Memo of the U. S. Gov* after reviewing certain provisions of 

 the Newi^oundland Acts, complains of partiality in their enforcement 

 by the Magistrates and other officials of the Colony (a complaint 

 which H. M.'s Gov* cannot admit to be well founded, and in support 

 of which no facts are adduced) and concludes with a suggestion that 

 if the Legislature of Ne^vfoundland cannot dispense with those pro- 

 visions altogether, it should pass an act expressly declaring that they 

 shall have no application to the citizens of the U. S. 



I can only renew the expression of the regret and disappointment 

 which is felt by H. M.'s Gov* at the apparent disinclination on the 

 part of the Gov* of the U. S. to carry out M"" Evarts' proposal; and I 

 have to instruct you to read this dispatch to M"" Frelinghuysen, and 

 to leave a copy of it with him should he desire it, conveying to him 

 at the same time the hope of H. M.'s Gov* that, upon further con- 

 sideration, the Gov* of the U. S. will agree to let the disputed question 

 of Treaty rights remain in abeyance, and will unite with H. M.'s 

 Gov* in carrying out the revision of the fishery regulations in the 

 spirit and with the object indicated by M'" Evarts.*^ 



This letter from Lord Granville was handed by ]VIr. West to Mr, 



Frelinghuysen, then Secretary of State, on August 3, 1882, as appears 



from the following letter, and no reply having been made to it by 



Mr. Frelinghuysen, Mr. West again wrote to him on October 9, 1883 



on the subject as follows: 



Referring to a communication from Earl Granville conveyed to 

 me in a despatch copy of which I had the honor to place in your 

 hands on the 3rd of August of last year respecting the revision of 



o Appendix, p. 744. 



