INTRODUCTION li 



cerning the Bay of Fundy and the passage through the Gut of Canso. 

 With these exceptions the fisheries article of the Convention of 1818 was 

 to be submitted to arbitration; but Great Britain and the United States 

 desired to enlarge the scope of the arbitration, already comprehensive, 

 and to provide for the settlement of any future difierences that might 

 arise relating "to the interpretation of the treaty of 1818 or to the effect 

 and application of the award of the Tribunal," so that it should no 

 longer be within the power of a handful of fishermen, British or Ameri- 

 can, to threaten or disturb the peaceful relations of the two countries. 

 In order to keep within one's rights it is necessary to know definitely 

 and precisely the nature and extent of those rights. Therefore Great 

 Britain and the United States agreed, in Article II, that the opinion of 

 the tribxmal of arbitration might be taken on "any legislative or exec- 

 utive act of the other Party . . . claimed to be inconsistent with the 

 true interpretation of the treaty of 1818"; that the tribunal might be 

 requested "to express in its award its opinion upon such acts, and to 

 point out in what respects, if any, they are inconsistent with the princi- 

 ples laid down in the award in reply to the preceding questions," and in 

 order to prevent controversy each country agreed in advance to conform 

 to such opinion. 



The purpose of this article was to obtain an authoritative interpreta- 

 tion of various legislative or executive acts already called to the atten- 

 tion of the Tribunal, and about which the parties in controversy were 

 themselves unable to agree. Great Britain and the United States agreed, 

 in Question I, that the fishing regulations were to be reasonable, and 

 it might well happen in the course of the arbitration that the reasonable- 

 ness of regulations not previously examined might be questioned, or that 

 expert information regarding the practical effect of the fisheries would 

 be advisable for the guidance of the tribunal. Hence Great Britain 

 and the United States agreed, in Article III, that in such cases a 

 commission of three expert specialists might be created, to which the 

 tribvmal could refer such questions. The tribunal was not, however, 

 obliged to constitute such a commission, nor would the findings of the 

 commission when constituted bind the tribunal unless approved by it. 

 During the course of the arbitration the United States requested the 

 institution of the commission in order to pass upon various questions 

 propounded by American counsel, but the arbitrators deemed it neither 

 necessary nor advisable to form it during the course of the arbitration.' 



' For the statement of the United States, see Oral Argument, Vol. II, pp. 1360-1376. For 

 the British reply objecting to the consideration of the American statement, see ibid., p. 1395. 

 See also Mr. Anderson's letter to the Tribunal, ibid., pp. 1427-1429; Mr. Aylesworth's 



