Page images
PDF
EPUB

he could not fish by the Inspector of the Revenue Protection Service of Newfoundland, and several of them that they have been ordered not to take herring by the Collector of Customs at Bonne Bay, Newfoundland.

It would seem that the Newfoundland officials are making a distinction between two classes of American vessels. We have vessels which are registered, and vessels which are licensed to fish and not registered. The licence carries a narrow and restricted authority; the registry carries the broadest and most unrestricted authority. The vessel with a licence can fish, but cannot trade ; the registered vessels can lawfully both fish and trade. The distinction between the two classes in the action of the Newfoundland authorities would seem to have been implied in the despatch from Senator Lodge which I quoted in my letter of the 12th, * and the imputation of the prohibition of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries may perhaps have come from the port officers, in conversation with the masters of American vessels, giving him as their authority for their prohibitions.

As the buying of herring and bait fish, which until recently has been permitted for a good many years in Newfoundland, is trading, the American fishing fleet have come very generally to take an American registry, instead of confining themselves to the narrower fishing licence, and far the greater part of the fleet now in northern waters consists of registered vessels. The prohibition against fishing under an American register substantially bars the fleet from fishing. American vessels have also apparently been in the habit of entering at the Newfoundland custom-houses and applying for a Newfoundland licence to buy or take bait, and I gather from all the information I have been able to get that both the American masters and the Customs officials have failed to clearly appreciate the different conditions created by the practical withdrawal of all privileges on the part of Newfoundland and the throwing of the American fishermen back upon the bare rights which belong to them under the Treaty of 1818.7

I am confident that we can reach a clear understanding regarding those rights and the essential conditions of their exercise, and that a statement of this understanding to the Newfoundland Government, for the guidance of its officials on the one hand, and to our American fishermen for their guidance on the other, will prevent causeless injury and possible disturbances, such as have been cause for regret in the past history of the north-eastern fisheries.

I will try to state our view upon the matters involved in the situation, which now appears to exist upon the Treaty Coast.

the Treaty Coast. We consider that, 1. Any American vessel is entitled to go into the waters of the Treaty Coast and take fish of

any

kind. She derives this right from the Treaty (or from the conditions existing prior to the Treaty and recognized by it) and not from any permission or authority proceeding from the Government of Newfoundland.

2. An American vessel seeking to exercise the Treaty right is not bound to obtain a licence from the Government of Newfoundland, and, if she does not purpose to trade as well as fish, she is not bound to enter at any Newfoundland customhouse.

3. The only concern of the Government of Newfoundland with such a vessel is to call for proper evidence that she is an American vessel, and, therefore, entitled to exercise the Treaty right, and to have her refrain from violating any laws of Newfoundland not inconsistent with the Treaty.

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.

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.

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.

[blocks in formation]

If your Government sees no cause to dissent from these propositions, I am inclined to think a statement of them as agreed upon would resolve the immediate difficulty now existing on the Treaty Coast.

I have, however, to call your attention to a further subject, which I apprehend may lead to further misunderstanding in the near future if it is not dealt with now. That is, the purposes of the Government of Newfoundland in respect of the treatment of American fishing-vessels as exhibited in a Law* enacted during the past summer by the Legislature of that Colony, under the title “ An Act respecting Foreign FishingVessels."

This Act appears to be designed for the enforcement of laws previously enactel by Newfoundland, which prohibited the sale to foreign fishing-vessels of herring, caplin, squid, or other bait fishes, lines, seines, or other outfits or supplies for the fishery or the shipment by a foreign fishing-vessel of crews within the jurisdiction of Newfoundland.

The Act of last summer respecting foreign fishing-vessels provides :

“ Section 1. Any Justice of the Peace, sub-collector, preventive officers, fishery warden, or constable, may go on board any foreign fishing-vessel being within any port, of the coasts of this island, or hovering within British waters within 3 marine miles of any of the coasts, bays, creeks, or harbours in this island, and may bring such foreign fishing-vessel into port, may search her cargo and may examine the master upon oath touching the cargo and voyage, and the master or person in command, shall answer truly such questions as shall be put to him under a penalty not exceeding 500 dollars. And if such foreign fishing-vessel has on board any herring, caplin, squid, or other bait fishes, ice, lines, seines, or other outfits or supplies for the fishery purchased within any port on the coast of this island, or within the distance of 3 marine miles from any coasts, bays, creeks, or harbours of this island, or if the master of the said vessel shall have engaged or attempted to engage any person to form part of the crew of the said vessel in any port or on any part of the coasts of this island, or has entered such waters for any purpose not permitted by Treaty or Convention for the time being in force such vessel and the tackle, rigging, apparel, furniture, stores, and cargo thereof shall be forfeited.

“Section 3. In any prosecution under this Act the presence on board any foreign fishing-vessel in any port of this island, or within British waters aforesaid of any caplin, squid, or other bait fishes, of ice, lines, seines, or other outits or supplies for the fishery shall be prima facie evidence of the purchase of the said bait, fishes, and supplies and outfits within such port or waters.”

It seems plain that the provisions above quoted constitute a warrant to the officers named to interfere with and violate the rights of American fishing.vessels under the Treaty of 1818.

The 1st section authorizes any of the officers named to stop an American vessel while fishing upon the Treaty Coast and compel it to leave the fishing grounds, to prevent it from going to the places where the fish may be, to prevent it departing with the fish which it may have taken, and to detain it for an indefinite period during a search of the cargo and an examination of the master under oath under a heavy penalty.

It is to be observed that this section does not require that the vessel shall have been charged with any violation of the laws of Newfoundland, or even that she shall have been suspected of having violated the laws of Newfoundland as a condition precedent to compelling it to desist from the exercise of its Treaty rights, and virtually seizing it and taking it into port. In the consideration of this provision, it is unnecessary to discuss any question as to the extent to which American vessels may be interfered with in the exercise of their Treaty rights pursuant to judicial proceedings based upon a charge of violation of law, or even upon reasonable ground to believe that any law has been violated, for the authority of the Acts authorized appears to be part of no such proceeding.

When we consider that the minor officials named in the Act, invested with this extraordinary and summary power, are presumptively members of the fishing communities, in competition with which the American fishermen are following their calling, it is plain that in denying the right of the Government of Newfoundland to do what this section provides for we are not merely dealing with a theoretical question, but with the probability of serious injustice.

Appendix No. 9.

The 3rd section of the Act, above quoted in full, makes the presence on board of an American vessel of the fish, gear—the implements necessary to the exercise of the Treaty right-prima facie evidence of a criminal offence against the laws of Newfoundland, and it also makes the presence on board the vessel of the fish which the vessel has a right to take under Treaty prima facie evidence of a criminal offence under the laws of Newfoundland. This certainly cannot be justified. It is, in effect, providing that the exercise of the Treaty right shall be prima facie evidence of a crime.

I need not argue with the Government of Great Britain that the 1st section of this Act purports to authorize the very kind of official conduct which led to the establishment in England of the rule against unreasonable searches and seizures, now firmly embedded in the jurisprudence of both nations. Nor need I argue that American vessels are of right entitled to bave on them in the waters of the Treaty Coast both fish of every kind, and the gear for the taking of fish, and that a law undertaking to make that possession prima facie proof of crime deprives them of that presumption of innocence to which all citizens of Great Britain and America are entitled. When the Legislature of Newfoundland denies these rights to American fishing-vessels, it imposes upon them a heavy penalty for the exercise of their rights under the Treaty, and we may reasonably apprehend that this penalty will be so severe in its practical effect as to be an effectual bar to the exercise of the Treaty right.

I feel bound to urge that the Government of Great Britain shall advise the Newfoundland Government that the provisions of law which I have quoted are inconsistent with the rights of the United States under the Treaty of 1818, and ought to be repealed; and that, in the meantime, and without any avoidable delay, the Governor in Council shall be requested by a Proclamation which he is authorized to issue under the Sth section of the Act respecting Foreign Fishing-Vessels, to suspend the operation of the Act.

There is still another phase of this subject to which I must ask your attention. I am advised that there is a very strong feeling among the Newfoundland fishermen on the Treaty Coast against the enforcement of the Newfoundland Act prohibiting the sale of bait, and that at a recent mass meeting of fishermen at the Bay of Islands, Resolutions were adopted urging the repeal or suspension of that Act, and containing the following clauses :

“If our requests are not granted immediately we shall be compelled, in justice to ourselves and families, to seek other ways and means to engage with the Americans.

“We would also direct the attention of his Excellency the Governor in Council to what took place in Fortune Bay a few years ago when Captain Solomon Jacobs seined herring against the wishes of the people, and the result. If a similar occurrence should take place here, who will be responsible ?”

This Resolution indicates the existence of still another source from which, if not controlled, may come most unfortunate results when the American fishermen proceed to the exercise of their Treaty rights, that is, the Newfoundland fishermen themselves acting independently of their Government.

You are aware that for a considerable period American fishing-vessels, instead of themselves taking herring, caplin, and squid upon the Treaty Coast, have been in the habit of buying those fish from the Newfoundland fishermen. For many of the Newfoundland fishermen this trade has been a principal means of support. That has been especially so in and about the Bay of Islands. It has been profitable to the local fishermen, and it has been for the Americans a satisfactory substitute for the exercise of their Treaty right to catch the fish themselves. It is, indeed, not unnatural that these fishermen should struggle in every way open to them to prevent the loss of their means of support, and that if they cannot control their own Government so as to secure permission to sell herring and bait, they should seek to prevent the Americans from taking the bait, in the hope that as the result of that prevention, their profitable trade may be restored.

The Resolution which I have quoted referring to the Fortune Bay case is a clear threat of violence to prevent the exercise of the Treaty right. If the threat should be carried out it is too much to expect that some at least of the American fishermen will not refuse to yield to lawless force which seeks to deprive them of their rights and of their means of livelihood.

We shall do everything in our power to prevent such a collision, and we should

indeed deeply deplore it, but the true and effective method of prevention plainly must be the exercise of proper control by the Government of Newfoundland over the fishermen of Newfoundland, and it seems to me that the danger is sufficiently real and imminent to justify me in asking that the Government of Great Britain shall take speedy steps to bring about the exercise of such control.

I have, &c. (Signed) ELIHU ROOT.

No. 3.

Sir Edward Grey to Mr. Whitelaw Reid.

Your Excellency,

Foreign Office, February 2, 1906. THE views of the United States' Government with respect to the position of affairs on the coast of Newfoundland, and to the rights of American fishing-vessels in those waters under the Treaty of the 20th October, 1818, as set forth in Mr. Root's note to His Majesty's Ambassador at Washington of the 19th October, 1905, have received the serious attention of His Majesty's Government.

I have now the honour to inclose a Memorandum dealing seriatim with the six propositions formulated by Mr. Root, and with his observations with regard to some of the provisions of recent Newfoundland legislation for the regulation of the fisheries.

As, owing to the prompt measures adopted and to the conciliatory spirit displayed by both Governments, the fishing season has now closed without any collision between the British and American fishermen, or the development of any such friction as was at one time anticipated, it is unnecessary to deal more particularly with the latter portion of Mr. Root's note, which was devoted to that side of the question.

I have, &c. (Signed) EDWARD GREY.

Inclosure in No. 3.

Memorandum.

MR. ROOT'S note to Sir M. Durand of the 19th October, 1905, on the subject of the United States' fishery in the waters of Newfoundland under the Convention of the 20th October, 1818, may be divided into three parts.

The first deals with complaints which had reached the United States' Government to the effect that vessels of United States' registry had been forbidden by the Colonial authorities to fish on the Treaty Coast, the second with the provisions of “The Newfoundland Foreign Fishing-Vessels Act, 1905,"* and the third with the possibility of a lawless and violent interruption of the United States' fishery by the inhabitants of the Bay of Islands.

The complaints referred to in the first part of Mr. Root's note were at once brought to the notice of the Government of Newfoundland, and they replied that there had been no attempt to prevent American fishermen from taking fish. The complaints in question appear to have been based on some misunderstanding, and the subsequent course of the fishery proved that the apprehensions on the part of the United States' Government to which they gave rise were, fortunately, not well founded.

His Majesty's Government, however, agree with the United States' Government in thinking that inasmuch as the privileges which citizens of the United States have for many years enjoyed of purchasing bait and supplies and engaging men in Newfoundland waters have recently been withdrawn and American fishermen have consequently, in Mr. Root's words, been thrown back upon their rights under the Convention of 1818, it is desirable that a clear understanding should be reached regarding those rights and the essential conditions of their exercise, and they have accordingly given the most careful consideration to the six propositions advanced in Mr. Root's note as embodying the views of the United States Government on the subject.

They regret, however, that they are unable to record their assent to these propositions without some important qualifications.

Proposition 1 states :

“Any American vessel is entitled to go into the waters of the Treaty Coast and take fish of any kind. She derives this right from the Treaty (or from the conditions existing prior to the Treaty and recognized by it) and not from any permission or authority proceeding from the Government of Newfoundland."

The privilege of fishing conceded by Article I of the Convention of 1818 is conceded, not to American vessels, but to inhabitants of the United States and to American fishermen.

His Majesty's Government are unable to agree to this or any of the subsequent propositions if they are meant to assert any right of American vessels to prosecute the fishery under the Convention of 1818 except when the fishery is carried on by inhabitants of the United States. The Convention confers no rights on American vessels as such. It enures for the benefit only of inhabitants of the United States.

Proposition 2 states :

“An American vessel seeking to exercise the Treaty right is not bound to obtain a licence from the Government of Newfoundland, and, if she does not purpose to trade as well as fish, she is not bound to enter at any Newfoundland custom-house."

His Majesty's Government agree that the Government of Newfoundland could not require that American fishermen seeking to exercise the Treaty right should take out a licence from the Colonial Government. No licence is required for what is a matter of right, and no such licence has, His Majesty's Government are informed, been, in fact, required.

With the last part of the proposition it will be more convenient to deal in conjunction with proposition 3.

Proposition 3 states :

“The only concern of the Government of Newfoundland with such a vessel is to call for proper evidence that she is an American vessel, and therefore entitled to exercise the Treaty right, and to have her refrain from violating any laws of Newfoundland not inconsistent with the Treaty."

It has already been pointed out that the Convention of 1818 confers no rights on American vessels as such, and that the exercise of the right of fishing under the Convention is subject to the condition that the fishing is carried on by inhabitants of the United States. His Majesty's Government, however, agree that no law of Newfoundland should be enforced on American fishermen which is inconsistent with their rights under the Convention.

Mr. Root's note does not give any indication of what laws of the Colony would be regarded by the United States' Government as inconsistent with the Convention if applied to American fishermen. The opinion of His Majesty's Government on this point is as follows :

The American fishery, under Article I of the Convention of 1818,* is one carried on within the British jurisdiction and “in common with” British subjects. The two Governments hold different views as to the nature of this Article. The British Government consider that the war of 1812 abrogated that part of Article III of the Treaty of Peace of 1783 which continued to inhabitants of the United States "the liberty” (in the words used by Mr. Adams to Earl Bathurst in his note of the 25th September, 1915) “ of fishing and drying, and curing their fish within the exclusive jurisdiction on the North American coasts to which they had been accustomed while themselves forming a part of the British nation,” and that consequently Article I of the Convention of 1818 was a new grant to inhabitants of the United States of fishing privileges within the British jurisdiction. The United States' Government, on the other hand, contend that the war of 1812 had not the effect attributed to it by the British Government, and that Article I of the Convention of 1818 was not a new grant, but merely a recognition (though limited in extent) of privileges enjoyed by inhabitants of the United States prior, not only to the war, but to the Treaty of 1783.

* Appendix No. 1.

« PreviousContinue »