privileges be prohibited from employing as members of their crews persons who were not inhabitants of the United States; three, might the inhabitants of the United States be subjected, without the consent of the United States, to the requirements of entry or report at custom-houses, or the payment of light or harbor or other dues, or any other similar requirements or conditions or exactions; four, might restrictions be imposed upon American fishermen, making the exercise of the privileges granted them by the treaty of entering certain bays and harbors for shelter, repairs, wood, or water, conditional upon the payment of light or harbor or other dues, or entering or reporting at customhouses, or any similar conditions; five, from what point should the three mile limit be measured in the case of bays which were more than three miles wide, from a line drawn from promontory to promontory, or from a line paralleling all irregularities of the coast; six, did the treaty of 1818 give the inhabitants of the United States the same liberty to take fish in the bays, harbors, and creeks of Newfoundland as of Labrador; seven, were the fishermen of the United States to have for their vessels, when duly authorized by the United States in their behalf, the commercial privileges on the treaty coasts accorded by agreement or otherwise to United States trading vessels generally.55 55 Proceedings in the North Atlantic Coast Fisheries Arbitration; 61st Cong., 3d sess., S. Doc. 870, Vol. VIII., 13, 87, Of the seven points discussed five were decided in favor of the United States and two in favor of Great Britain. The two questions interpreted favorably to Great Britain, or rather to Newfoundland, were the first and the fifth. By the decision relative to the first, Newfoundland was allowed to make reasonable regulations of the fisheries, such as determining the time during which and the methods by which fishing might be carried on along her coasts. The decision of the Arbitration Court upon the fifth question construed the three mile limit to be from a line drawn from headland to headland and not from the coast indentations of the bays. The decision upon all points has justified the wisdom of the creation of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, for not only was a most vexed question of long standing settled, but settled in such a fair manner that the United States, Great Britain, Canada, and Newfoundland were all satisfied. The award was made September 7, 1910. The court in connection with its decision recommended the adoption by the United States and Great Britain of certain rules and methods of procedure under which all questions that might arise in the future with reference to the exercise of the liberties referred to in Article I of the treaty of 1818 might be settled in accordance with the principles laid down in the award. On July 20, 1912, representatives of the two countries signed an agreement which provided for the publication of laws, ordin ances, or rules for the regulation of the fisheries, and for the creation of a Permanent Mixed Fishery Commission of three, which should decide upon the reasonableness of future regulations. This treaty also gave effect to the decision of the Court of Arbitration relative to bays by providing that the rule established by the said court should apply in all bays where the width of the entrance did not not exceed ten miles. Ratifications over this convention were exchanged November 15, 1912, and it was proclaimed by the President November 16, 1912.56 With the establishment of the Permanent Mixed Fishery Commission it is believed that all future disputes over the fishing privileges will find speedy adjustment. This commission and the recently established International Boundary Commission illustrate a tendency toward permanent commissions to deal with questions as they arise, in place of special and temporary commissions called into existence after differences have been augmented through a period of years. With permanent commissions of the character mentioned, with arbitration treaties, and the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague, the prospects for continued peace with Great Britain are far more assuring than they were when the commissioners signed the treaty of Ghent one hundred years ago. 56 Proceedings in the North Atlantic Coast Fisheries Arbitration; 61st Cong., 3d sess., S. Doc. 870, Vol. XII., 2376–2380. INDEX Adams, John, 2, 3. 206, Russia, 143-145; mediation en- ment on cession of Canada, Addington, Henry, signs treaty for Amnesty, article on, 308; amended Britain and United States, opposes the embargo, Bagot, Sir Charles, 463-465. Barclay, Anthony, 432-434. Barlow, Joel, 119. Bathurst, Lord, gives instructions Bayard, James, mediation envoy, Beasley, R. J., 139, 378. West Indies, 67; illegal block- |