xxiv INTRODUCTION 



the grantor for the preservation or regulation of the fishery. Such is 

 the situation suggested by theory and such was the status recognized in 

 practice by Great Britain and France; for, while maintaining that 

 British subjects had the right to fish within the waters from Cape St. 

 John to Cape Ray in competition with French fishermen, to whom the 

 liberty had been granted to fish within the specified region, neither 

 Great Britain nor its colony, Newfoundland, claimed or exercised the 

 right to regulate French fishermen pl3dng their calling within New- 

 foundland waters covered by the Treaty of Utrecht of 17 13 and the 

 Treaty of Versailles of 1783. From the many illustrations which may 

 be cited to substantiate this statement one will suflice. 



On August 9, 1886, the Newfoundland government issued an Order 

 in Council "prohibiting the taking of lobsters, except for bait or local 

 consumption, during a period of three years, in Rocky Harbor, Bonne 

 Bay, on the French treaty coast, which order contained no reservation 

 respecting treaty rights." ^ The French government at once informed 

 the British government that "in view of the fishery right conferred on 

 France by the Treaties in the part of the island to which the Decree 

 applies, a right which can evidently not be restricted in its exercise, it 

 is impossible for my government to recognize in any way the validity 

 of the measure taken by the Newfoundland authorities." ^ 



The issue was squarely raised. The order was general in its nature 

 and applicable to all fishermen within Bonne Bay. Lord SaUsbury, who 

 was not immindful of the just rights of Great Britain, informed the 

 French government that "a despatch has been received from the Gov- 

 ernor of that Colony in which he states that his Government have given 

 a formal assurance that the prohibition will not be enforced against 

 French citizens to whom there had not been any intention of applying it. "' 



The French government in the discussion of its rights in Newfound- 

 land waters considered it to be an international servitude just as its 

 right upon the French shore formed an international servitude, and 

 writers of authority have uniformly cited the French fishing right as well 

 as the American fishing right under the Treaty of 1783 and the Con- 

 vention of 1818 as the type of the economic servitude. It is impossible 

 to overestimate the importance of the conduct of Great Britain in the 

 matter of the French fishing rights within Newfoundland waters, because, 

 as previously stated, the American right is identical in language with the 



> U. S. Counter Case, p. 19. The Order in Council may be found in Appendix, U. S. 

 Counter Case, p. 319. 



^ U. S. Counter Case, pp. 19-20. This note may be found in Appendix, U. S. Counter 

 Case, p. 316. 



' U. S. Counter Case, p. 20. This note may be found in Appendix, U. S. Counter 

 Case, p. 322. 



