80 THE ARGUMENT OF THE UNITED STATES. 



Second. That the only laws or regulations, which the use of the 

 words " in common " in the treaty implied as binding on American 

 fishermen, were those which were in existence at the date of the treaty. 



Either one of the concessions made by Lord Salisbury, it is sub- 

 mitted, is sufficient to sustain the position of the United States in this 

 case. Without admitting the distinction made by him in favor of 

 laws and regulations in force at the date of the treaty, nevertheless, 

 under that distinction, American fishermen would be exempt from 

 limiting regulations of all kinds, because there are no such regula- 

 tions now in force which were in force at the date of the treaty 

 of 1818. 



SETTLEMENT OF FORTUNE BAY CLAIMS. 



This correspondence did not close the Fortune Bay incident. Earl 

 Granville, who had succeeded Lord Salisbury, took .up the matter in 

 a note of October 27, 1880, to Mr. Lowell, the American minister at 

 London. After reviewing the controversy he made the following 

 suggestion concerning the American claim for damages : 



As regards the claim of the United States fishermen to compensa- 

 tion for the injuries and losses which they are alleged to have sus- 

 tained in consequence of the violent obstruction which they encoun- 

 tered from British fishermen at Fortune Bay on the occasion referred 

 to, I have to state that Her Majesty's Government are quite willing 

 that they should be indemnified for any injuries and losses which, 

 upon a joint inquiry, may be found to have been sustained by them, 

 and in r"spect of which they are reasonably entitled to compensation; 

 but on this point I have to observe that a claim is put forward by 

 them for the loss of fish which had been caught, or which, but for the 

 interference of the British fishermen, might have been caught by 

 means of strand fishing, a mode of fishing to which, under the treaty 

 of Washington, they were not entitled to resort. 



This suggestion led to the eventual offer by the English Govern- 

 ment of the sum of 15,000 in full satisfaction of the claim. The 

 offer was accepted and the incident thus closed. 6 



BRITISH SUGGESTION FOR JOINT REGULATIONS. 



In this later correspondence it is important to note that Earl Gran- 

 ville, in his letter of October 27, made a suggestion that the two 

 Governments make joint regulations governing the common fishery, 

 and thereby avoid further difficulties. 



U. S. Case, 176; Appendix, 743. 

 U. S. Case, Appendix, 735, 736, 737. 

 U. S. Case, 177; Appendix, 713. 



