XXVI INTRODUCTION 



provisipfjj can only mean that even although French citizens are to be 

 ^^^^Rjected to local regulations, such regulations should be reasonable, 

 '^d that France be given ample time to examine such regulations before 

 they go into effect, in order to protest against unreasonable regulations 

 and to secure their modification. It will not escape observation that 

 the treaty provisions referred to concern the time and manner of fish- 

 ing, — two of the questions submitted to arbitration in 1910. 



The Convention of 1904 acknowledged the rights of France to fish 

 within Newfoundland waters, and places French citizens engaged in 

 fishing upon a footing of equahty with British fishermen and subjects 

 each to local regulation, both as to the time and manner of fishing. 

 This was, no doubt, a very proper modification, because the claim of 

 foreigners to fish within territorial waters without observing those local 

 regulations which local fishermen are bound to respect must be galling 

 to the local sovereign. But the right way to effect this modification 

 is by agreement of the contracting parties, not by the unilateral action 

 of the original grantor. The Convention of 1904 is remarkable for 

 another provision, for it recognizes clearly that the policing of the fishery 

 should not depend solely upon the grantor, lest the regulations might 

 bear harshly upon foreigners, who, by virtue of the treaty, are lawfully 

 within Newfoimdland waters. Therefore, it is provided, in Article II : 



" That the pohcing of the fishing on the above-mentioned portion of the coast, 

 and for prevention of ilUcit liquor traffic and smuggling of spirits, shall form 

 the subject of Regulations drawn up in agreement by the two Governments." 



The Convention of 1904 converted an unregulated into a rfegulated 

 fishery; placed British and French fishermen upon a like footing; sub- 

 jected them to local regulations respecting the time and manner of fish- 

 ing, reserving, however, the policing of the fishery for joint regulation 

 to be agreed upon by the two governments. There is no limitation 

 of time to the enjoyment of the right recognized by the treaty, and 

 French and British fishermen are likely to fish in peace and harmony, 

 for the treaty clearly defined the rights of each. 



It is submitted that Great Britain, convinced that the Convention 

 of 1818 was objectionable, should have been willing to negotiate with the 

 United States as it did with France in order to produce a treaty as satis- 

 factory to British subjects as to American fishermen, instead of seeking 

 to bring about the same result by a forced and strained interpretation 

 of a treaty identical in terms of grant with the French treaty, which 

 Great Britain had never attempted to modify by unilateral action. 



Having thus considered somewhat in detail the origin, nature, and 



