kxviii INTRODUCTION 



of its beneficial enjoyment by local statute. The interpretation of the 

 British Government was, therefore, in fact the same as the American 

 interpretation in law, and after much correspondence the British Govern- 

 ment paid an indemnity to the United States of $75,000 for the outrages 

 upon American fishermen in Fortune Bay, although in so doing it was 

 expressly stated that the payment was not to prejudice the views of 

 either party to the controversy. 



The Treaty of Washington expired in 1886 and the United States 

 was thrown back upon the Convention of 1818 as the measure of its 

 fishing rights in British American waters. The first attempt to enforce 

 local regulations against American fishermen under the Convention of 

 1818 appears only to have occurred in the year 1905, in respect to the 

 Newfoundland Foreign Fishing Vessels Act of that year, an act which 

 gave rise to the discussion between Mr. Root and Sir Edward Grey, 

 which has already been set forth, and which resulted in the Arbitration 

 of 1910. It will be seen, therefore, that the discussion of the question 

 of local regulation, arising out of the Reciprocity Treaty of 1854 and the 

 Treaty of Washington of 1871, was not academic and throws a strong 

 light upon the correct interpretation of the Convention of 1818. Mr. 

 Marcy's Circular notifying American fishermen of the Reciprocity Treaty 

 stated generally that they were subjected to existing local regulations 

 which had been shown to him and which he approved. Mr. Fish's atti- 

 tude in 1873 negatived the right of Newfoundland to affect by local 

 legislation American fishermen within Newfoundland waters in the man- 

 ner and time of fishing, and made the suspension of such local legisla- 

 tion a condition precedent upon the admission of Newfoundland to the 

 benefits of the Treaty of Washington. Newfoundland complied with 

 the demands of the United States in this matter by suspending the 

 effect of local legislation, "any law of this Colony to the contrary not- 

 withstanding." Mr. Evarts as Secretary of State, in considering a con- 

 crete case — namely, the Fortune Bay outrage — maintained that local 

 regulations affecting the time and manner of fishing of American fisher- 

 men under the Treaty of Washington did not bind such fishermen, and 

 Lord SaUsbury admitted, in the course of the same correspondence, that 

 American fishermen were only subject to local legislation existing at 

 the time of the treaty; that the colonial legislature was incompetent to 

 pass legislation restricting or limiting the rights granted by the treaty, 

 because British sovereignty was limited by the obligations of the treaty. 

 It would seem, therefore, that the views of the United States were 

 clearly determined, and formed upon mature consideration, not merely of 

 the reasonable and necessary interpretation of the provisions of the treaty, 



