212 CASE OF THE UNITED STATES. 



people, and tlie result. If a similar occurrence should take place 

 here, who will be responsible?" 



This resolution indicates the existence of still another source from 

 which, if not controlled, may come most unfortunate results when the 

 American fishermen proceed to the exercise of their Treaty rights, 

 that is, the Newfoundland fishermen themselves acting independently 

 of their Government. 



You are aware that for a considerable period American fishing- 

 vessels, instead of themselves taking herring, caplin, and squid upon 

 the Treaty Coast, have been in the habit of buying those fish from 

 the Newfoundland fishermen. For many of the Newfoundland 

 fishermen this trade has been a principal means of support. That 

 has been especiall}^ so in and about the Bay of Islands. It has been 

 profitable to the local fishermen, and it has been for the Americans a 

 satisfactory substitute for the exercise of their Treaty right to catch 

 the fish themselves. It is, indeed, not unnatural that these fisher- 

 men should struggle in every way open to them to prevent the loss 

 of their means of support, and that if they cannot control their own 

 Government so as to secure permission to sell herring and bait, they 

 should seek to prevent the Americans from taking the bait, in the 

 hope that as the result of that prevention, their profitable trade may 

 be restored. 



The Resolution which I have quoted referring to the Fortune Bay 

 .case is a clear threat of violence to prevent the exercise of the Treaty 

 right. If the threat should be carried out it is too much to expect 

 that some at least of the American fishermen will not refuse to yield 

 to lawless force w^hich seeks to deprive them of their rights and of 

 their means of livelihood. 



We shall do everything in our power to prevent such a collision, 

 and we should indeed deeply deplore it, but the true and effective 

 method of prevention plainly must be the exercise of proper control 

 by the Government of Newfoundland over the fishermen of New- 

 foundland, and it seems to me that the danger is sufficiently real and 

 imminent to justify me in asking that the Government of Great 

 Britain shall take speedy steps to bring about the exercise of such 

 control." 



On February 2, 1906, Sir Edward Grey, the Secretary of State for 

 Foreign Affairs, replying to Mr. Root's note to the British Ambassador 

 at Washington above quoted, wrote to Mr. Reid, the American 

 Ambassador at London, enclosing "a memorandum dealing seriatim 

 with the six propositions formulated by Mr. Root, and with his 

 observations with regard to some of provisions of the recent 

 Newfoundland legislation for the regulation of the fisheries", and 

 referring to the last portion of Mr. Root's note, he said that — 



As, owing to the prompt measures adopted and to the conciliatory 

 spirit displayed by both Governments, the fishing season has now 

 closed without any collision between the British and American fisher- 

 men, or the development of any such friction as was at one time 



o Appendix, p. 969. 



