202 CASE OF THE UNITED STATES. 



Lord Rosebery, then Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, 

 promptly wrote to the British Minister at Washington on July 23, 



1886, instructing him to inform Mr. Bayard of this explanation of 

 the occurrence, which was done by the British Charge at Washington in 

 his note of August 2, 1886, to ]VIr. Bayard, thus closing the incident." 



Negotiations for a new fisheries arrangement resulting in the proposed 



Treaty of 1888. 



During this period many expressions are found in the diplomatic 

 correspondence on both sides indicating a desire to settle the entire 

 controversy by entering into some arrangement for adjusting the 

 fisheries question on some new basis mutually acceptable to both 

 sides. In recognition of this situation, Mr. Bayard forwarded in 

 his letter of November 15, 1886, to Mr. Phelps, a draft agreement 

 which he had caused to be prepared, with instructions to propose it 

 to Lord Iddesleigh in the hope that it would be found ''k) contain 

 a satisfactory basis for the solution of existing difficulties and assist 

 in securing an assured, just, honorable, and, therefore, mutually 

 satisfactory settlement of the long-vexed question of the North 

 Atlantic Fisheries." ^ 



To this proposal Lord Salisbury replied in his note of March 24, 



1887, to the American Charge at London, commenting at some 

 length upon Mr. Bayard's draft,'^ and enclosing a memorandum of 

 observations; and Mr. Bayard in turn sent on July 12, 1887, to Mr. 

 Phelps for transmission to Lord Salisbury, a series of observations in 

 reply to the British observations. '^ 



It is unnecessary to examine the terms of Mr. Bayard's proposal 

 or the observations exchanged with reference thereto, inasmuch as 

 they were intended rather as a basis of compromise than as an 

 expression of opinion or interpretation of the true intent and mean- 

 ing of the fisheries provisions of the treaty of 1818, and the main 

 feature of Mr. Bayard's proposal was the appointment of a mixed 

 commission for the purpose of agreeing upon the meaning of some of 

 the disputed provisions of the treaty of 1818, subject to certain 

 conditions and directions limiting the scope of the commissioners' 

 powers. 



While these negotiations were proceeding, it was proposed and 

 agreed that a joint commission should be appointed to negotiate a 



"Appendix, pp. 809-823. c Appendix, pp. 908-912. 



& Appendix, pp. 863, 865. d Appendix, pp. 945, 948. 



