234 CASE OF THE UNITED STATES. 



taking the action referred to was subsequently confirmed, the incident 



closed without the necessity for further action on the part of the 



United States. 



Renewal of the discussion. 



The reasons for the delay of the British Government in replying 

 to the arguments contained in ^Ir. Root's letter of June 30, 1906, and 

 the \4ews of that Government on the c^uestions discussed by Mr. 

 Root are stated by Sir Edward Grey in his note of June 20, 1907, to 

 Mr. Reid as follows: ^ 



Oil the 20th of July last. Your Excellency communicated to 

 me a letter addressed to you by Mr. Root in which he gave reasons 

 which prevented liis agreement with, the views of His Majesty's Gov- 

 ernment as to the rights of American fishing vessels in the waters of 

 Newfoundland under the Convention of 1818. 



Xo reply was returned at the time to the arguments contained in 

 this letter, as the divergence of views between the two Governments 

 made it hopeless to expect an immediate and definitive settlement of 

 the various questions at issue and it was essential to arrive at some 

 arrangement irmnediatel}" wliich would seciu-e the peaceable and 

 orderly conduct of the impending fisherj^ season. 



Upon the conclusion of the Modus Vivendi, His Majesty's Govern- 

 ment further deferred any additional observations on the questions 

 at issue until the arrival in this country of the Premier of New- 

 foundland to attend the Imperial Conference. 



They have now had the advantage of a full discussion with Sir R. 

 Bond, and although His Majesty's Government are unable to modify 

 the views to which they have on various occasions given expression, 

 of the proper interpretation of the Convention of 1818 in its bearing 

 on the rights of American fishermen, they are not mthout hope, hav- 

 ing regard to the wiUingness of the United States Government from a 

 practical point of view to discuss reasonable and suitable regulations 

 for the due control of the fishermen of both countries, that an arrange- 

 ment may be arrived at wliich will be satisfactory to both countries. 



I desire at the outset to place on record my appreciation of the 

 moderation and fairness ^^'ith wliich Mr. Root has stated the American 

 side of the question and I shall in my turn endeavour to avoid any- 

 thing of a nature to embitter this long-standing controversy. 



It will be convenient to recapitulate the main grounds of divergence 

 between the two Governments on the question of principle. 



His jSfajesty's Government, on the one hand, claim that the Treaty 

 gave no fisliing rights to American vessels as such, but only to inhab- 

 itants of the United States and that the latter are bound to conform 

 to such Newfoundland laws and regulations as are reasonable and not 

 inconsistent with the exercise of their Treaty rights. The United 

 States Government, on the other hand, assert that American rights 

 may be exercised irrespectively of any laws or regulations which the 

 Newfoundland Government may impose, and agree that as ships 



