QUESTION ONE. 33 



appear calculated to place the Americans at a disadvantage in com- 

 parison with British fishermen in the waters which, by the Treaty of 

 1818, are opened to vessels of the United States. On the contrary, 

 their unequal operation should, in this case, be reported to their 

 Lordships, a copy of the Report being at the same time sent to the 

 Governor of the Colony." (British Case, App., p. 221.) 



No exception was taken by the Government of the United States 

 to this letter. It was brought to their attention in 1870. (British 

 Case, App., p. 237.) 



3. In 1870 and again in 1872, Mr. Boutwell, the United States 

 Secretary to the Treasury, issued a circular to American fishermen in 

 which the British contention was again admitted. He said: 



" Fishermen of the United States are bound to respect the British 

 laws and regulations for the regulation and preservation of the 

 fisheries to the same extent to which they are applicable to British or 

 Canadian fishermen." (British Case, App., p. 237.) 



In the Counter-Case of the United States an endeavour is made to 

 show that this circular was confined to the non-treaty coasts. There 

 is no such limitation in the circular itself. Indeed, the passage refers 

 in express terms to a part of the treaty coasts. (United States 



Counter-Case, p. 37.) 



38 4. In 1873 some discussion arose in regard to a proviso pro- 



posed to be inserted in the Act of the Newfoundland Legisla- 

 ture, which was enacted to give effect to the treaty of Washington. 

 The proviso has been set out in the British Case (British Case, 

 pp. 30, 31), and it will be seen for the reasons there pointed out 

 that it was. unnecessary. The United States protested against it, 

 and it was not insisted upon. 



Much stress is laid on this point in the Counter-Case of the United 

 States (United States Counter-Case, pp. 32-36), but it is clear that 

 Mr. Fish, although he objected to the form of the Newfoundland 

 statute, did not intend to question the jurisdiction of British legis- 

 latures. This is sufficiently shown in the despatches from the British 

 Minister at Washington (Sir E. Thornton) to Lord Granville, in 

 which he tells of his conversations with Mr. Fish. In his letter of 

 the 23rd June, 1873, Sir E. Thornton stated that Mr. Fish said in 

 general terms that (British Case, App., p. 251) 



" the fishermen of the two countries would have to observe the laws 

 enacted by the country within whose jurisdiction they might be 

 fishing." 



As stated in the letter of the 30th June, 1873, Mr. Fish said that 

 (British Case, App., p. 253) 



"The jurisdiction gave the right of laying down reasonable police 

 regulations, and that as a matter of course such regulations would 

 be observed by all who fished in the waters in question ; " 



