226 CASE OF THE UNITED STATES. 



Newfoundland for the purpose of obtaining herring, capHn, and 

 squid for fishing purposes." 



And this further declaration: — 



''This communication is important evidence as to the value of 

 the position we occupy as mistress of the northern seas so far as 

 the fisheries are concerned. Herein was evidence that it is within 

 the power of the Legislature of this Colony to make or mar our 

 competitors to the North Atlantic fisheries. Here was evidence 

 that by refusing or restricting the necessary bait supply, we can 

 bring our foreign competitors to realize their dependency upon us. 

 One of the objects of this legislation is to bring the fishing interests 

 of Gloucester and New England to a realization of their depend- 

 ence upon the bait supplies of this Colony. No measure could 

 have been devised having more clearly for its object the conserving, 

 safeguarding, and protecting of the interests of those concerned in 

 the fisheries of the Colony." 



It will be observed that there is here the very frankest possible dis- 

 avowal of any intention to so regulate the fisheries as to be fair to the 

 American fishermen. The purpose is, under cover of the exercise of 

 the power of regulation, to exclude the American fishermen. The 

 Government of the United States surely cannot be expected to see 

 with complacency the rights of its citizens subjected to this Idnd of 

 regulation. 



The Government of the United States finds assurance of the desire 

 of His Majesty's Government to give reasonable and friendly treat- 

 ment to American fishing rights on the Newfoundland coast in the 

 statement of the ISIemorandum that the Newfoundland Foreign Fish- 

 ing-Vessels Act is not as clear and explicit as, in the circumstances, 

 it is desirable that it should be, and in the expressed purpose of His 

 Majesty's Government to confer with the Government of Newfound- 

 land with the object of removing any doubts which the Act, in its 

 present form, may suggest as to the power of His Majesty to fulfil liis 

 obligation under the Convention of 1818. It is hoped that, upon this 

 Conference, His Majesty's Government will have come to the con- 

 clusion, not merely that the seventh section of the Act, which seeks 

 to preserve "the rights and privileges granted by Treaty to the sub- 

 jects of any State in amity with His Majesty," amounts to a pro- 

 hibition of any ''vexatious interference" with the exercise of the 

 Treaty rights of American fishermen, but that this clause ought to 

 receive the effect of entirely excluding American vessels from the 

 operation of the first and third clauses of the Act relating to searches 

 and seizures and prima facie evidence. Such a construction by His 

 Majesty's Government would wholly meet the difficulty pointed out 

 in my letter of the 19th October, as arising under the first and tliird 

 sections of the Act. A mere limitation, however, to interference 

 which is not "vexatious," leaving the question as to what is "vexa- 

 tious interference" to be determined by the local officers of Newfound- 

 land, would be very far from meeting the difficulty. 



You will inform His Majesty's Government of these views, and ask 

 for such action as shall prevent any interference upon any ground by 

 the officers of the Newfoundland Government with American fisher- 



