negotiations, it finally appeared that Great Britain was willing to agree to the rules and method of procedure recommended by the Tribunal, if modified so that instead of suspending the operation of the Canadian and Newfoundland laws pending the determination of their reasonableness by an impartial tribunal, the Canadian and Newfoundland Governments should be required to adopt regulations, relating to the fisheries in Canadian and Newfoundland waters, at least six months before the opening of the next fishing season when the laws were intended to go into effect. The reason for fixing six months as a minimum period was to give sufficient time before its expiration within which the question of the reasonableness of any fisheries regulations which were objected to might be submitted to and decided by a permanent mixed fishery commission established by the two governments pursuant to the award recommendations. This modification, together with certain other modifications which were desired by the United States, were finally agreed to, and the rules and method of procedure recommended in the award, with these modifications, have now been adopted by both countries in their agreement of July 20, 1912. These amended rules and method of procedure are based upon the decision of the Tribunal that neither the United States nor Great Britain, nor her Colonies, can be the sole judge of the reasonableness of fisheries regulations in treaty waters and they fulfil, quite as effectively as the rules originally recommended by the award would have fulfilled, the requirement of the award that the United States shall hereafter have an opportunity of having any dispute as to the reasonableness of fisheries regulations determined by an impartial tribunal before such regulations are imposed upon American fishermen exercising their treaty liberties.

In order to give the award practical application to existing regulations, and in accordance with a special provision for that purpose made in the arbitration agreement, the question of the reasonableness of all existing Canadian and Newfoundland regulations, to which the United States had previously objected, was referred by the Tribunal, at the request of the United States, to a commission of expert specialists on the ground that the determination of their reasonableness required an examination of their effect in actual operation, and expert information about the fisheries themselves. By the agreement of July 20, 1912, the jurisdic

tion thus conferred upon the commission of expert specialists was transferred to the Permanent Mixed Fisheries Commissions established in accordance with the award recommendations, so that now this commission has authority to pass upon the reasonableness not only of fisheries regulations hereafter adopted, but also of all existing fisheries regulations which the United States has objected to as unreasonable.

Such, in general, were the results which have been secured as the outcome of this arbitration in relation to the issues presented by the first question, and it will be perceived that very substantial advantages have been gained by the United States. Under the conditions previously existing, the United States was at a considerable disadvantage because the Newfoundland and Canadian Governments were in a position to enforce the disputed fishing regulations in British waters and seize and confiscate American vessels for violating them, while the United States, on the other hand, had no alternative but forcible intervention, which was out of the question, or renewed diplomatic remonstrance and argument, which had already proved to be futile. Now, however, before any fishing regulation can be enforced against American fishermen in treaty waters, the United States has the right to have the question of their reasonableness within the meaning of the award submitted to and decided by an impartial tribunal; and henceforth American fishermen will know before the beginning of each season just what fisheries regulations will be in force for that season, thus putting an end to the practice, which has heretofore prevailed upon the treaty coast, of imposing on short notice, or without any notice at all to the American fishermen, new regulations which were prejudicial and embarrassing to their fishing operations.

The results thus secured would have been accepted by the United States as a satisfactory settlement of this question at any time during the history of the controversy, almost every Secretary of State who had occasion to discuss this question having expressed a willingness that American fishermen on the treaty coasts should be subject to just and reasonable fishery regulations, the determination, however, of the justness and reasonableness of such regulations not being left solely to Great Britain or her Colonies.

The sixth question ranked next to the first in importance. This ques

tion was introduced into the arbitration by Newfoundland, and was of recent origin. It called upon the Tribunal to determine whether or not the American fishermen were entitled under the treaty to fish in the bays on the Magdalen Island and on the southern and western coasts of Newfoundland, which formed part of the so-called treaty coasts. The Newfoundland contention that the treaty right of fishing did not extend to such bays rested on the ground that bays were expressly mentioned in the treaty as part of the Labrador treaty coast, and were not expressly mentioned in the treaty as forming part of the treaty coast of Newfoundland and the Magdalen Island, except as to drying and curing fish in the bays on the southern treaty coast of Newfoundland. The United States contended, on the other hand, that the right to fish in these bays was included in the right to fish on these coasts generally, and that this was shown to be the intentions of the parties by the language of the treaty, and by the negotiations leading up to it, and by usage and custom, the actions of both governments in that regard having uniformly so interpreted the treaty in actual practice ever since it was entered into. The Tribunal in its award overruled the contention of Great Britain on this question and sustained in all respects the contention of the United States.

The peculiar importance of this question was due to the fact that if the Tribunal had decided that American fishermen were not at liberty to fish in the bays referred to, they would have been wholly debarred from the winter herring fisheries, and deprived of the most important source of supply of bait fishes necessary for the successful prosecution of the immensely valuable fisheries of the Grand Banks and other banks in the North Atlantic; and the Newfoundland Government would have been very much strengthened in its policy of exacting commercial concession from the United States in exchange for granting the privilege of procuring bait fish. This question also involved a large pecuniary indemnity which Newfoundland was preparing to claim against the United States for the value of all the fish taken in these bays by American fishermen during the past ninety years, which claim was disposed of by the award of the Tribunal.

The fifth question called upon the Tribunal to determine whether the clause of the treaty by which the United States renounced the right

to fish on or within three marine miles of any of the bays of His Britannic Majesty's Dominions in North America, applied to all indentations of the non-treaty coasts, regardless of the size and shape of such indentations, which was the British contention, or applied only to such indentations of the coast as were within the three mile limit of jurisdiction measured seaward from the shore, which was the contention of the United States. The question of the meaning of the word "bays" in the renunciatory clause arose very early in the history of the controversy. It was then asserted on the part of Great Britain that any headlands on the coast, no matter how far apart, formed a bay, and that the line from which the three mile limit of exclusion extended seaward must be drawn between such headlands. This contention was supported by the notorious opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown, rendered in 1841, in which they erroneously assumed that the word "headlands" appeared in the treaty, and that its use there justified this interpretation. The view has been expressed by many who have written on the fisheries dispute that this controversy as to bays could easily have been settled, and probably would never have become serious, if it had not been for the acquiescence of Great Britain in this inexplicable blunder on the part of the Law Officers of the Crown.

On this question the Tribunal decided that the word "bays" meant only those indentations which had the configuration and characteristics of a bay, taking the word in its geographical sense. They did not decide, however, that Great Britain had territorial jurisdiction over the waters of the large bays beyond the usual distance of three miles from the shore. It is expressly stated in the award on this question that "the Tribunal is unable to understand the term 'bays' in other than its geographical sense," and also that "though a state cannot grant rights on the high seas, it certainly can abandon the exercise of its right to fish on the high seas within certain definite limits." It is evident, therefore, that the effect of the award on this question is merely to impose upon the United States an obligation under the treaty to prevent American fishermen from fishing anywhere in the large bays, but that, except when such vessels are found within three miles of the shores of such bays, they are still on the high seas and subject to American and not to British laws, and cannot be seized by British vessels. The question of

when an indentation has the characteristics of a bay was left open by the award. In order, therefore, "to render the decision more practicable and to remove the danger of future differences," the Tribunal recommended the adoption of a general rule covering all bays with exceptions as to certain enumerated bays with reference to which the line of delimitation was expressly defined, which recommendations clearly contain an expression of the Tribunal's opinion as to the meaning and application to be given its answer with reference to the bays under consideration.

These recommendations are substantially in accordance with the provisions of the unratified Bayard-Chamberlain Treaty of 1888, with several modifications favorable to the United States. It is understood that in considering the practical application of these recommendations, some questions arose between the two governments as to their effect in relation to certain of the Newfoundland bays, but as it appeared that the delimitation of the extent of the Newfoundland bays could be postponed without any practical disadvantage to American fishermen, it was not deemed advisable to delay the settlement of the other questions upon which an agreement had been reached pending the consideration of that question. The agreement of July 20, 1912, adopts the award regulations with reference to the Canadian bays, but leaves open for further consideration the delimitation of the Newfoundland bays affected by the award, and it defines the bays to which it applies as "bays contiguous to the territory of the Dominion of Canada," thus recognizing that under the award they are not British territorial waters.

It will be seen from the foregoing considerations, that the contention of neither government in regard to "bays" has been fully sustained, and the difficulties presented by this question are shown by the fact that it is the only question on which the award was not unanimous.

This question was of considerable historical interest, but of very little practical importance, because the Bay of Fundy, which is the only large bay on the non-treaty coasts in which the American fishermen have found fishing profitable in recent years, was excluded from the application of the award.

The award on the second question sustained the contention of the United States that the treaty liberty of fishing, which is secured to