PERIOD FROM 18*71 TO 1905. 685 



The incident now under discussion occurred on that part of the 

 shore of Fortune Bay which is called Tickle Beach, Long Harbor. 

 On this beach is situated the fishing settlement of Mark Bolt, a 

 British fisherman, who in his evidence, taken upon oath, deposes as 

 follows : 



" The ground I occupy was granted me for life by government, and 

 for which I have to pay a fee. There are two families on the beach ; 

 there were three in winter. Our living is dependent on our fishing 

 off this settlement. If these large American seines are allowed to be 

 hauled, it forces me away from the place." 



John Saunders, another British fisherman of Tickle Beach, deposed 

 that the United States fishermen hauled their seine on the beach 

 immediately in front of his property. 



The United States fishermen, therefore, on the occasion in question, 

 not only exceeded the limits of their treat}' privileges by fishing from 

 the shore, but they " interfered with the rights of private property 

 and with British fishermen in the peaceable use of that part of the 

 coast in their occupancy for the same purpose," contrary to the express 

 provisions of Articles XVIII and XXXII of the Treaty of Wash- 

 ington. 



Further, they used seines for the purpose of in-barring herrings, 

 and this leads me to the consideration of the second question, namely, 

 whether United States fishermen have the right to take herrings with 

 a seine at the season of the year in question, or to use a seine at any 

 season of the year for the purpose of barring herrings on the coast of 

 Newfoundland. 



The in-barring of herrings is a practice most injurious, and, if con- 

 tinued, calculated in time to destroy the fishery; consequently it has 

 been prohibited by statute since 1862. 



In my note to Mr. Welsh, of the 7th of November, 1878, I stated 

 " that British sovereignty, as regards these waters, is limited in its 

 scope by the engagements of the Treaty of Washington, which cannot 

 be modified or affected by any municipal legislation," and Her Majes- 

 ty's Government fully admit that United States fishermen have the 

 right of participation on the Newfoundland inshore fisheries, in com- 

 mon with British subjects, as specified in Article XVIII of that 

 treaty. But it can not be claimed, consistently with this right of par- 

 ticipation in common with the British fishermen, that the United 

 States fishermen have any other, and still less that they have greater 

 rights than the British fishermen had at the date of the treaty. 



If, then, at the date of the signature of the Treaty of Washington, 

 certain restraints were, by the municipal law, imposed upon the 

 British fishermen, the United States fishermen were, by the express 

 terms of the treaty, equally subjected to those restraints, and the obli- 

 gation to observe in common with the British the then existing local 

 laws and regulations, which is implied by the words " in common" 

 attached to the United States citizens as soon as they claimed the ben- 

 efit of the treaty. That such was the view entertained by the Gov- 

 ernment of the United States during the existence of the reciprocity 

 treaty, under which United States fishermen enjoyed precisely the 

 same rights of fishing as they do now under the Treaty of Washing- 

 ton, is proved conclusively by the circular issued on the 28th of March, 

 1856, to the collector of customs at Boston, which so thoroughly ex- 



