QUESTION ONE. 35 



of the opinion expressed in Mr. Evarts' letter to Mr. Welsh of the 

 28th September, 1878, ' that the fisaery rights of the United States 

 conceded by the Treaty of Washington are to be exercised wholly 

 free from the restraints and regulations of the Statutes of Newfound- 

 land.' if by that opinion anything inconsistent with Mr. Marcy's 

 principle is really intended. Her Majesty's Government, however, 

 fully admit that, if any such local Statutes could be shown to be 

 inconsistent with the express stipulations, or even with the spirit 

 of the Treaty, they would not be within the category of those rea- 

 sonable regulations by which American (in common with British) 

 fishermen ought to be bound; and they observe, on the other hand, 

 with much satisfaction, that Mr. Evarts, at the close of his 

 40 letter to Mr. Welsh of the 1st August, 1879, after expressing 

 regret at ; the conflict of interests which the exercise of the 

 Treaty privileges enjoyed by the United States appears to have de- 

 veloped,' expressed himself as follows : 



"'There is no intention on the part of this [the United States'] 

 Government that these privileges should be abused, and no desire 

 that their full and free enjoyment should harm the colonial fishermen. 



" ' While the differing interests and methods of the shore fishery 

 and the vessel fishery make it impossible that the regulation of the one 

 should be entirely given to the other, yet if the mutual obligations 

 of the Treaty of 1871 are to be maintained, the United States' Gov- 

 ernment would gladly co-operate with the Government of Her Bri- 

 tannic Majesty in any effort to make those regulations a matter of 

 reciprocal convenience and right, a means of preserving the fisheries 

 at their highest point of production, and of conciliating a community 

 of interest by a just proportion of advantages and profits.' 



" Her Majesty's Government do not interpret these expressions in 

 any sense derogatory to the sovereign authority of Great Britain in 

 the territorial waters of Newfoundland, by which only regulations 

 having the force of law within those waters can be made. So regard- 

 ing the proposal, they are pleased not only to recognize in it an indi- 

 cation that the desire of Her Majesty's Government to arrive at a 

 friendly and speedy settlement of this question is fully reciprocated 

 by the Government of the United States, but also to discern in it the 

 basis of a practical settlement of the difficulty ; and I have the honour 

 to request that you will inform Mr. Evarts that Her Majesty's Gov- 

 ernment, with a view to avoiding further discussion and future mis- 

 understandings, are quite willing to confer with the Government of 

 the United States respecting the establishment of regulations under 

 which the subjects of both parties to the Treaty of Washington shall 

 have the full and equal enjoyment of any fishery which under that 

 Treaty is to be used in common. The duty of enacting and enforc- 

 ing such regulations, when agreed upon, would, of course, rest with 

 the Power having the sovereignty of the shore and waters in each 

 case." 



6. In 1905 the United States objected (19th October, 1905) to a 

 Newfoundland statute (British Case, App., p. 757), upon the ground 

 that, under its provisions. United States fishing vessels might be 

 seized for doing that which the treaty permitted them to do. (British 

 Case, App., p. 494.) 



