cxxxii INTRODUCTION 



engaged in fishing within three miles of the shore or of the land, to employ 

 an expression frequently used, and that whenever a greater extent than 

 three miles was found either in instructions from the home government 

 or in the provincial instructions, the limit of seizure was invariably 

 reduced to three miles under protest from the United States. These 

 various compliances with American requests cannot be considered as an 

 acceptance of the American view, because they were no doubt dictated 

 by a spirit of conciliation to avoid future conflict, but in 1886 Lord Rose- 

 bery, as Secretary of Foreign Affairs, used language which is incon- 

 sistent with concession and is only consistent with an acceptance of the 

 American view. 



The United Sl;ates objected to a Canadian customs circular, dated 

 March 5, 1886, which excluded foreign vessels from fishing "within three 

 marine miles of any of the coasts, bays, creeks and harbors in Canada." 

 By reason of the protests of the United States the expression "within 

 three marine miles of any of the coasts, bays, creeks and harbors in 

 Canada" was modified and replaced by the inhibition to fish "within 

 three marine miles of the shore." That is to say, the British interpreta- 

 tion was disregarded for the American interpretation, and in communi- 

 cating the revised circular Lord Rosebery stated to the British Minister 

 at Washington, in a note dated July 23, 1886: 



" I have to acquaint you that these documents have now been amended so as to 

 bring them into exact accordance with treaty stipulations; and I enclose, for com- 

 munication to the United States Government printed copies of these documents as 

 amended." ^ 



It is important to note that this interpretation is not stated by Lord 

 Rosebery to be a concession, but as in "exact accordance with treaty 

 stipulations." 



The two cfiuntries thereafter engaged in negotiations for the settle- 

 ment of outstanding questions, which resulted in the Bayard-Chamber- 

 lain Treaty of 1888, which, however, was not ratified by the United 

 States. No further discussion of the right to exclude from bays under 

 the renunciatory clause seems to have taken place from that period until 

 the arbitration, and Lord Rosebery's statement may, therefore, be 

 taken as the last word on the subject from an authoritative British 

 source, an interpretation in accord with the view of the United States. 



The negotiations for the unratified Treaty of 1806, the expressions 

 of British and American statesmen employed in discussing the fishery 

 question immediately preceding the Treaty of Ghent, and the conclusion 



I Earl of Rosebery to Sir L. West. (Appendix, U. S. Case, Vol. II, p. 823.) 



