2 22 FISHERIES ARBITRATION AT THE HAGUE 



purpose; regulations not in themselves pointing to fishing. So 

 that there might well be regulations which might be violated by 

 American fishermen on the non-treaty coast — regulations appro- 

 priate and necessary to prevent an abuse, and designed for the 

 protection of the fisheries, and by which they would be bound. 



I do not suppose Mr. BoutweU refined about it as much as we 

 may in discussing it, but what he was talking about was regulation 

 on that non-treaty coast. That is perfectly clear. And it is 

 perfectly clear there were provisions designed for the preservation 

 of the fisheries answering to this description: 



"Fishermen of the United States are bound to respect the British laws 

 and regulations for the preservation of the fisheries to the same extent as 

 they are applicable to Canadian fishermen." 



Speaking only of the non-treaty coast. That is quite a reasonable 

 proposition, and not anything inappHcable to the non-treaty coast. 



So that I think the BoutweU circular goes with the Marcy 

 circular and the Cardwell letter, and there is nothing left at all of 

 the BoutweU circular, for nowhere on either side in any transaction, 

 letter, or reported interview, or written or printed matter, is there 

 any expression of opinion of any kind regarding the rights and 

 powers of the respective parties, or their subjects or inhabitants 

 upon the treaty coast. 



As to the Marcy circular and as to the CardweU letter there is 

 nothing to be said, except that in each case a British official, not 

 of the Foreign Office and not charged with interpreting the position 

 of the government of Great Britain upon an international question, 

 expressed an opinion involving the natural assumption that British 

 law was supreme in British territory, without adverting to any 

 question of distinction between the general jurisdiction and juris- 

 diction over fishery, and without any consideration or study or 

 discussion of the subject of the scope or the power and authority 

 under the treaty of 1818. One of those opinions was expressed by 

 Mr. CardweU in 1866; another was expressed by the British Min- 

 ister and Lord Clarendon in 1855. They were both completely dis- 

 posed of when the governments themselves, through their authorized 

 representatives, their foreign offices, took up and considered and 

 dealt formally and authoritatively with the question of the rights 



