46o APPENDIX 



that the latter are bound to conform to such Newfoundland laws and regulations as 

 are reasonable and not inconsistent with the exercise of their Treaty rights. The 

 United States Government, on the other hand, assert that American rights may be 

 exercised irrespectively of any laws or regulations which the Newfoundland Govern- 

 ment may impose, and agree that as ships strictly speaking can have no rights or 

 duties, whenever the term is used, it is but a convenient or customary form of describ- 

 ing the owners' or masters' rights. As the Newfoundland fishery, however, is essen- 

 tially a ship fishery, they consider that it is probably quite unimportant which form 

 of expression is used. 



By way of qualification Mr. Root goes on to say that if it is intended to assert that 

 the British Government is entitled to claim that, when an American goes with his 

 vessel upon the Treaty Coast for the purpose of fishing, or with his vessel enters the 

 bays or harbours of the coast for the purpose of obtaining shelter, and of repairing 

 damages therein, or of purchasing wood, or of obtaining water, he is bound to furnish 

 evidence that all the members of the crew are inhabitants of the United States, he 

 is obliged entirely to dissent from any such proposition. 



The views of His Majesty's Government are quite clear upon this point. The 

 Convention of 1818 laid down that the inhabitants of the United States should have for- 

 ever in common with the subjects of His Britannic Majesty the liberty to take fish 

 of every kind on the coasts of Newfoundland within the limits which it proceeds 

 to define. 



This right is not given to American vessels, and the distinction is an important 

 one from the point of view of His Majesty's Government, as it is upon the actual 

 words of the Convention that they base their claim to deny any right under the Treaty 

 to American masters to employ other than American fishermen for the taking of 

 fish in Newfoundland Treaty waters. 



Mr. Root's language, however, appears to imply that the condition which His 

 Majesty's Government seek to impose on the right of fishing is a condition upon the 

 entry of an American vessel into the Treaty waters for the purpose of fishing. This 

 is not the case. His Majesty's Government do not contend that every person on 

 board an American vessel fishing in the Treaty waters must be an inhabitant of the 

 United States, but merely that no such person is entitled to take fish unless he is an 

 inhabitant of the United States. This appears to meet Mr. Root's argument that 

 the contention of His Majesty's Government involves as a corollary that no American 

 vessel would be entitled to enter the waters of British North America (in which inhab- 

 itants of the United States are debarred from fishing by the Convention of 1818) 

 for any of the four specified purposes, unless all the members of the crew are inhab- 

 itants of the United States. 



Whatever may be the correct interpretation of the Treaty as to the employment 

 of foreigners generally on board American vesse's. His Majesty's Government do not 

 suppose that the United States Government lay claim to withdraw Newfoundlanders 

 from the jurisdiction of their own Government so as to entitle them to fish in the em- 

 ployment of Americans in violation of Newfoundland laws. The United States Gov- 

 ernment do not. His Majesty's Government understand, put their claim higher than 

 that of a "common" fishery, and such an arrangement cannot override the power 

 of the Colonial Legislature to enact laws binding on the inhabitants of the Colony. ^ 



It can hardly be contended that His Majesty's Government have lost their juris- 

 diction not only over American fishermen fishing in territorial waters of Newfound- 

 land, but also over the British subjects working with them. 



