QUESTION ONE. 81 



This suggestion not being immediately responded to, Lord Gran- 

 ville in a letter of February 24, 1881, to Sir Edward Thornton, re- 

 newed the suggestion. 



In his interview with Mr. Lowell, at a later period, Earl Gran- 

 ville reverted to this suggestion and asked Mr. Lowell to inquire 

 whether it would be acceptable, to which Mr. Elaine, then Secretary 

 of State, replied by cablegram, March 14, 1881, that 



The subject of joint cruisers may be postponed, or, if desired, may 

 also be referred to Sir Edward and myself to be taken up after- 

 wards with power to agree upon a series of regulations under which 

 treaty rights may be mutually secured. 6 



On the day of Mr. Blame's cablegram, Sir Edward Thornton wrote 

 Earl Gran ville: 



Upon my inquiring what steps it was proposed to take with a view 

 to an agreement as to the rules and regulations which are to prevail 

 hereafter respecting the fisheries, Mr. Blaine replied that this ques- 

 tion would meet the early consideration of the United States Govern- 

 ment, and that he thought it was very desirable that a decision should 

 be arrived at as soon as possible. 



No further correspondence on the subject immediately ensued, but 

 on May 3, 1882, the British legation at Washington left with the De- 

 partment of State a memorandum of the laws of Newfoundland regu- 

 lating the fisheries, containing the statement that, when an agreement 

 had been arrived at as to' regulations governing the fisheries, New- 

 foundland would be invited to make any changes in her laws found 

 to be necessary . a 



In reply to this the Department of State submitted- a memorandum 

 pointing out a number of provisions in the laws referred to, which 

 were considered objectionable and as limiting the American fishery 

 right, and concluding with the suggestion that the saTiie be dispensed 

 with or declared not applicable to the United: States by virtue of its 

 treaty rights. 6 



Earl Granville in a letter to Sir L. S. West of July 15, 1882, failed 

 to recognize in the memorandum of the United States a favorable 

 response to the British memorandum or to the repeated suggestions of 

 his own that the two Governments should unite in the making of joint 

 regulations and thus avoid further controversy, and dismissed the 



matter with regret/ 



. ^ i . 



U. S. Case, Appendix, 726. <* U. S. Case, 179 ; Appendix, 742-743. 



6 U. S. Case, 178; Appendix, 730,731. e U. S. Case, ISO: Apfiwul-ix. 74u. 

 c U. S. Case, Appendix, 732. 1 U. S. Case, Appendix, 747 



