206 CASE OF THE UNITED STATES. 



PERIOD FROM 1888 TO 1909. 



During this period no new question involving the interpretation of 

 the fisheries article of the treaty of 1818 in its relation to the Cana- 

 dian coasts came up for discussion between the United States and 

 Great Britain, and no question involving its interpretation in relation 

 to the Newfoundland coasts arose until 1905. 



Although the modus vivendi of February 15, 1888, was entered 

 into for a period not exceeding two years in order to afford a tem- 

 porary arrangement pending the ratification of the proposed treaty 

 of 1888, and the United States Senate refused its consent to the 

 proposed treaty in August of that year, nevertheless the modus 

 vivendi has been regarded as continuing in force for the period of 

 two years following its date. So far as Canada is concerned this 

 modus vivendi has been continued in practical effect dowTi to the 

 present time by action of the Canadian Government without formal 

 extension, and during this period no change has taken place in the 

 attitude either of the United States or British Governments on 

 the questions of difference which had previously arisen in the 

 fisheries controversy with reference either to the so-called treaty 

 coasts or other coasts of Canada. So far as Newfoundland is con- 

 cerned, the laws of that colony in force during this period down 

 to 1905 authorized the granting of licenses to foreign fishing ves- 

 sels, permitting such vessels, within the jurisdiction of that colony, 

 to purchase bait and ice and fishing supplies and outfits generally, 

 and to ship fishing crews for such vessels. These laws provided 

 for the seizure and forfeiture of such vessels for purchasing bait or 

 other suppUes, or engaging members of the crew without first 

 obtaining a license therefor; and although no distinction is made 

 in the acts referred to between the treaty coasts and those covered 

 by the renunciatory clause, except that entering within the three 

 mile limit on the latter coasts for any purposes not permitted by 

 treaty is made a ground for seizure, nevertheless the acts referred 

 to contained the usual provision, found in all Newfoundland fishery 

 legislation, that nothing therein should affect "the rights and privi- 

 leges granted by treaty to subjects of any state or power in amity 

 with Her Majesty." It does not appear that any questions involving 

 the interpretation of the fisheries provisions of the treaty of 1818 

 arose between the United States and Great Britain in connection 

 with such legislation. 



