Page images
PDF
EPUB

Whichever of these views be adopted, it is certain that inhabitants of the United States would not now be entitled to fish in British North American waters but for the fact that they were entitled to do so when they were British subjects. American fishermen cannot therefore rightly claim to exercise their right of fishery under the Convention of 1818 on a footing of greater freedom than if they had never ceased to be British subjects. Nor consistently with the terms of the Convention can they claim to exercise it on a footing of greater freedom than the British subjects “in common with whom they exercise it under the Convention. In other words, the American fishery under the Convention is not a free but a regulated fishery, and, in the opinion of His Majesty's Government, American fishermen are bound to comply with all Colonial Laws and Regulations, including any touching the conduct of the fishery, so long as these are not in their nature unreasonable, and are applicable to all fishermen alike. One of these Regulations prohibits fishing on Sundays. His Majesty's Government have received information that several breaches of this Regulation were committed by American fishermen during the past fishing season. This Regulation has been in force for many years, and looking to the insignificant extent to which American fishermen have exercised their right of fishery on the Treaty Coast in the past, it cannot be regarded as having been made with the object of restricting the enjoyment of that right. Both its reasonableness and its bona fides appear to His Majesty's Government to be beyond question, and they trust that the United States? Government will take steps to secure its observance in the future.

As regards the treatment of American vessels from which American fishermen exercise the Treaty right of fishery, His Majesty's Government are prepared to admit that, although the Convention confers no rights on American vessels as such, yet since the American fishery is essentially a ship fishery, no law of Newfoundland should be enforced on American fishing-vessels which would unreasonably interfere with the exercise by the American fishermen on board of their rights under the Convention. The United States' Government, on their part, admit, in Mr. Root's note, that the Colonial Government are entitled to have an American vessel engaged in the fishery refrain from violating any laws of Newfoundland not inconsistent with the Convention, but maintain that if she does not purpose to trade, but only to fish, she is not bound to enter at any Newfoundland custom-house.

Mr. Root's note refers only to the question of entry inwards, but it is presumed that the United States' Government entertain the same views on the question of clearing outwards. At all events, American vessels have not only passed to the fishing grounds in the inner waters of the Bay of Islands without reporting at a Colonial custom-house, but have also omitted to clear on returning to the United States. In both respects they have committed breaches of the Colonial Customs Law, which, as regards the obligations to enter and to clear, makes no distinction between fishing- and trading-vessels.

His Majesty's Government regret not to be able to share the view of the United States' Government that the provisions of the Colonial Law which impose those obligations are inconsistent with the Convention of 1818, if applied to American vessels which do not purpose to trade, but only to fish. They hold that the only ground on which the application of any provisions of the Colonial Law to American vessels engaged in the fishery can be objected to is that it unreasonably interferes with the exercise of the American right of fishery.

It is admitted that the majority of the American vessels lately engaged in the fishery on the western coast of the Colony were registered vessels, as opposed to licensed fishing-vessels, and as such were at liberty both to trade and to fish. The production of evidence of the United States' registration is therefore not sufficient to establish that a vessel, in Mr. Root's words,“ does not purpose to trade as well as fish,” and something more would seem clearly to be necessary. The United States' Government would undoubtedly be entitled to complain if the fishery of inhabitants of the United States were seriously interfered with by a vexatious and arbitrary enforcement of the Colonial Customs laws, but it must be remembered that, in proceeding to the waters in which the winter fishery is conducted, American vessels must pass in close proximity to several custom-houses, and that in order to reach or leave the grounds in the arms of the Bay of Islands, on which the fishery has been principally carried on during the past season, they have sailed by no less than three custom-houses on the shores of the bay itself. So that the obligation to report and clear need not in any way have interfered with a vessel's operations. [t must also be remembered that a fishery conducted in the midst of practically the only centres of population on the west coast of the Colony affords ample opportunities for illicit trade, and consequently calls for careful supervision in the interests of the Colonial

revenue.

The provisions in question are clearly necessary for the 'prevention of smuggling, and His Majesty's Government are of opinion that exception cannot be taken to their application to American vessels as an unreasonable interference with the American fishery, and they entertain the strong hope that the United States' Government will, on reconsideration, perceive the correctness of this view, and issue instructions accordingly for the future guidance of those in charge of American vessels.

It is, moreover, to the advantage of the American vessels engaged in the winter fishery in the Bay of Islands that they should report at a Colonial custom-house. Owing to the extent and peculiar configuration of that bay, and owing to the prevalence of fogs, vessels that enter its inner waters may remain for days without the local officers becoming aware that they are on the coast unless they so report. In such circumstances it is difficult for the Colonial Government to insure to American fishermen that protection against lawless interference for which Mr. Root calls in the concluding part of his note.

His Majesty's Government desire further to invite the attention of the United States Government to the fact that certain United States' vessels engaged in the fishery refused to pay light dues. This is the first time, His Majesty's Government are informed, that American vessels have refused to pay these dues, and it is presumed that the refusal is based on the denial by the Colonial Government of the trading privileges allowed in past years. His Majesty's Government, however, cannot admit that such denial entitles American vessels to exemption from light dues in the ports in which they fish. As already stated, American fishing-vessels engaged in the fishery under the Convention of 1818 have no Treaty status as such, and the only ground on which, in the opinion of His Majesty's Government, the application of any Colonial law to such vessels can be objected to is that such application involves an unreasonable interference with the exercise of the Treaty rights of the American fishermen on board. The payment of light dues by a vessel on entering a port of the Colony clearly involves no such interference. These dues are payable by all vessels of whatever description and nationality other than coasting- and fishing vessels owned and registered in the Colony (which are, on certain conditions, exempt either wholly or in part). His Majesty's Government trust that in these circumstances such directions will be issued as will prevent further refusals in the future, and they would point out generally that it is the duty of all foreigners sojourning in the limits of the British jurisdiction to obey that law, and that, if it is considered that the local jurisdiction is being exercised in a manner not consistent with the enjoyment of any Treaty rights, the proper course to pursue is not to ignore the law, but to obey it, and to refer the question of any alleged infringement of their Treaty rights to be settled diplomatically between their Government and that of His Majesty.

Propositions 4, 5, and 6 state :

Proposition 4. “ The proper evidence that a vessel is an American vessel, and entitled to exercise the Treaty right, is the production of the ship's papers of the kind generally recognized in the maritime world as evidence of a vessel's national character."

Proposition 5. “When a vessel has produced papers showing that she is an American vessel, the officials of Newfoundland have no concern with the character or extent of the privileges accorded to such a vessel by the Government of the United States. No question as between a registry and licence is a proper subject for their consideration. They are not charged with enforcing any Laws or Regulations of the United States, As to them, if the vessel is American she has the Treaty right, and they are not at liberty to deny it.”

Proposition 6. “If any such matter were a proper subject for the consideration of the officials of Newfoundland, the statement of this Department that vessels bearing an American registry are entitled to exercise the Treaty right should be taken by such officials as conclusive."

His Majesty's Government are unable to agree to these propositions, except with the reservations as to the status of American vessels under the Convention already indicated, and with reference to proposition 6, they would submit that the assurance to be given by the Department of State of the United States should be that the persons by whom the fishery is to be exercised from the American vessels are inhabitants of the United States.

In point of fact the Colonial Government have informed His Majesty's Government that they do not require an American vessel to produce a United States' fishing licence. The distinction between United States' registration and the possession of a United States' fishing licence is, however, of some importance, inasmuch as a vessel which, so far as the United States' Government are concerned, is at liberty both to trade and to fish naturally calls for a greater measure of supervision by the Colonial Government than a vessel fitted out only for fishing and debarred by the United States' Government from trading; and information has been furnished to His Majesty's Government by the Colonial Government which shows that the proceedings of American fishing-vessels in Newfoundland waters have in the past been of such a character as to make it impossible, from the point of view of the protection of the Colonial revenue, to exempt such vessels from the supervision authorized by the Colonial Customs Law.

His Majesty's Government now turn to that part of Mr. Root's note which deals with “The Foreign Fishing-Vessels Act, 1905."

His Majesty's Government would have viewed with the strongest disapproval any disposition on the part of the Colonial authorities to administer this Act in a manner not consistent with His Majesty's Treaty obligations, but they are confident that the United States' Government will readily admit that the fears expressed on this head in Mr. Root's note have not been realized.

They desire, however, to point out that, though the Act in question was passed to give effect to the decision of the Colonial Government to withdraw from American fishing-vessels the privileges which they had been allowed to enjoy for many years previously of purchasing bait and supplies and of engaging crews in the ports of the Colony, the provisions objectionable to the United States' Government which it embodies are in no sense new. They will be found in “The Foreign Fishing-Vessels Act, 1893."* The present Act differs from the earlier Act in that it takes away, by omission, from the Colonial Government the power conferred upon them by the earlier Act of authorizing the issue of licences to foreign fishing-vessels for the enjoyment of the privileges mentioned. Allowing for this change, the provisions of the two Acts are in all essential respects identical. The provisions as to boarding, bringing into port, and searching appear in both Acts, and also the provisions as to the possession of bait, outfits, and supplies being prima facie evidence of the purchase of the same in the Colonial jurisdiction, except that in the earlier Act there was a further provision, consequential on the authority which it conferred on the Colonial Government to issue licences, directing that the failure or refusal to produce a licence should be prima facie evidence of the purchase of such articles without a licence. The position of any American fishing vessel choosing to fish for herself on the Treaty Coast has consequently been since 1893 the same as it is to-day. His Majesty's Government do not advance these considerations with the object of suggesting that the objections which the United States' Government have taken to sections 1 and 3 of the Foreign Fishing-Vessels Act are impaired by the fact that these provisions have been on the Statute Book of the Colony since 1893 without protest, and they are ready to assume that no such protest has been lodged merely because the privileges accorded to American vessels in the ports of the Colony up to the present have been such as to render it unnecessary for inhabitants of the United States to avail themselves of their right of fishing under the Convention of 1818. The object of His Majesty's Government is simply to remove any impression which may have formed itself in the mind of the United States' Government that the language of the Act of 1905 was selected with any special view of prejudicing the exercise of the American Treaty right of fishery, and to point out that, on the contrary, it dates back to 1893, that is, to a time when it was the policy of the Colonial Government to treat American vessels on a favoured footing.

A new Act was not necessary to give effect to the present policy of the Colonial Government. Effect to it could have been given under the Act of 1893 by the mere suspension of the issue of licences to American vessels, and the only object of the new Act, as His Majesty's Government understand the position, was to secure the express and formal approval of the Colonial Legislature for the carrying out of the policy of the Colonial Government.

Having offered these general remarks, His Majesty's Government desire to point out that, in discussing the general effects of “ The Foreign Fishing-Vessels Act, 1905," on the American fishery under the Convention of 1818, the United States' Government confine themselves to sections 1 and 3 and make no reference to section 7, which preserves “the rights and privileges granted by Treaty to the subjects of any State in amity with His Majesty." In view of this provision, His Majesty's Government are unable to agree with the United States' Government in regarding the provisions of sections 1 and 3 as “constituting a warrant to the officers named to interfere with and violate” American rights under the Convention of 1818. On the contrary, they consider section 7 as, in effect, a prohibition of any vexatious interference with the exercise of the Treaty rights whether of American or of French fishermen. As regards section 3, they admit that the possession by inbabitants of the United States of any fish and gear which they may lawfully take or use in the exercise of their rights under the Convention of 1818 cannot properly be made primâ facie evidence of the commission of an offence, and, bearing in mind the provisions of section 7, they cannot believe that a Court of Law would take a different view.

* Appendix No. 5.

They do not, however, contend that the Act is as clear and explicit as, in the circumstances, it is desirable that it should be, and they propose to confer with the Government of Newfoundland with the object of removing any doubts which the Act in its present form may suggest as to the power of His Majesty to fulfil his obligations under the Convention of 1818.

On the concluding part of Mr. Root's note it is happily not necessary for His Majesty's Government to offer any remarks, since the fishing season has come to an end without any attempt on the part of British fishermen to interfere with the peaceful exercise of the American Treaty right of fishery.

No. 4.

Mr. Whitelaw Reid to Sir Edward Grey.-(Received July 23.)

Sir,

American Embassy, London, July 20, 1906. THE Memorandum sent me on the 2nd February, 1906, embodying the views of His Majesty's Government on the propositions formulated by the Secretary of State of the United States as to the rights of American fishing-vessels on the Newfoundland coast, in his letter to Sir Mortimer Durand of the 19th October, 1905, has har Mr. Root's careful consideration.

He has now addressed me a letter, under date of the 30th June, 1906, giving the reasons which prevent his agreement with several of the views stated in this Memorandum. I am instructed, while communicating to you these reasons, to ask for such action as shall prevent any interference upon any ground by the officers of the Newfoundland Government with American fishermen, when they go to exercise their Treaty rights upon the Newfoundland coast during the approaching fishing

season.

I beg to inclose herewith a copy of this letter from the Secretary of State of the United States.

I have, &c. (Signed) WHITELAW REID.

Inclosure in No. 4.

Mr. Root to Mr. Whitelaw Reid.

Sir,

Department of State, Washington, June 30, 1906. THE Memorandum inclosed in the note from Sir Edward Grey to you of the 2nd February, 1906, and transmitted by you on the 6th February, has received careful consideration.

The letter which I had the honour to address to the British Ambassador in Washington on the 19th October last* stated with greater detail the complaint in my letter to him of the 12th October, 1905,+ to the effect that the local officers of New

* No. 2.

† No. 1.

foundland had attempted to treat American ships as such, without reference to the rights of their American owners and officers, refusing to allow such ships sailing under register to take part in the fishing on the Treaty coast, although owned and commanded by Americans, and limiting the exercise of the right to fish to ships having a fishing licence.

In my communications the Government of the United States objected to this treatment of ships as such-that is, as trading-vessels or fishing-vessels, and laid down a series of propositions regarding the treatment due to American vessels on the Treaty coast, based on the view that such treatment should depend, rot upon the character of the ship as a registered or licensed vessel, but upon its being American; that is, owned and officered by Americans, and, therefore, entitled to exercise the rights assured by the Treaty of 1818 to the inhabitants of the United States.

It is a cause of gratification to the Government of the United States that the prohibitions interposed by the local officials of Newfoundland were promptly withdrawn upon the communication of the facts to His Majesty's Government, and that the Memorandum now under consideration emphatically condemns the view upon which the action of the local officers was based, even to the extent of refusing assent to the ordinary forms of expression which ascribe to ships the rights and liabilities of owners and masters in respect of them.

It is true that the Memorandum itself uses the same form of expression when asserting that American ships have committed breaches of the Colonial Customs Law, and ascribing to them duties, obligations, omissions, and purposes which the Memorandum describes. Yet we may agree that ships, strictly speaking, can have no rights or duties, and that whenever the Memorandum, or the letter upon which it comments, speaks of a ship’s rights and duties, it but uses a convenient and customary form of describing the owner's or master's right and duties in respect of the ship. As this is conceded to be essentially “a ship fishing,” and as neither in 1818 nor since could there be an American ship not owned and officered by Americans, it is probably quite unimportant which form of expression is used.

I find in the Memorandum no substantial dissent from the first proposition of my note to Sir Mortimer Durand of the 19th October, 1905, that any American vessel is entitled to go into waters of the Treaty coast and take fish of any kind, and that she derives this right from the Treaty and not from any authority proceeding from the Government of Newfoundland.

Nor do I find any substantial dissent from the fourth, fifth, and sixth propositions, which relate to the method of establishing the nationality of the vessel entering the Treaty waters for the purpose of fishing, unless it be intended, by the comments on those propositions, 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 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 his crew are inhabitants of the United States. We cannot for a moment admit the existence of any such limitation upon our Treaty rights. The liberty assured to us by the Treaty plainly includes the right to use all the means customary or appropriate for fishing upon the sea, not only ships and nets and boats, but crews to handle the ships and the nets and the boats. No right to control or limit the means which Americans shall use in fishing can be admitted unless it is provided in the terms of the Treaty, and no right to question the nationality of the crews employed is contained in the terms of the Treaty. In 1818, and ever since, it has been customary for the owners and masters of fishing-vessels to employ crews of various nationalities. During all that period I am not able to discover that any suggestion has ever been made of a right to scrutinize the nationality of the crews employed in the vessels through which the Treaty right has been exercised.

The language of the Treaty of 1818 was taken from the IIIrd Article of the Treaty of 1783. The Treaty made at the same time between Great Britain and France, the previous Treaty of the 10th February, 1763, between Great Britain and France, and the Treaty of Utrecht of the 11th April, 1713, in like manner contained a general grant to "the subjects of France” to take fish on the Treaty coast. During all that period no suggestion, so far as I can learn, was ever made that Great Britain had a right to inquire into the nationality of the members of the crew employed upon a French vessel.

Nearly two hundred years have passed during which the subjects of the French

« PreviousContinue »