CO885-(16-18) — Page 801

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

TLC.O.885

18 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO

174

representative for Gloucester in Congress, writing to the "Boston Herald," of July 9th, under date of July 7th, said as follows:-

་་

I am in receipt of a letter, dated July 2nd, from the Secretary of State (that is the Secretary of State for the United States) answering a large number of questions raised in my Memorandum to Mr. Alexander, of the United States Fishery Commission. The State Department believes that Newfoundland has the right to prohibit its own citizens from engaging in or prosecuting the If they fishery unless they are inhabitants of the United States. are inhabitants of the United States we are entitled to have them fish from our vessels regardless of their citizenship."

The State Department of Washington having thus placed this interpretation on the Treaty, it is difficult to conceive why the Newfoundland laws were over-ridden last year under the modus vivendi, or why the Act of 1906 which merely enables the Colony to more effectively enforce the Bait Act of 1887 upon its own citizens is still held in abeyance by His Majesty's Ministers. What I have asked for at the hands of His Majesty's Government is :-

1st. The Assent of the Crown to the Act of 1906.

2nd. That the Colony be permitted to carry out those laws that have

been approved by the Crown.

3rd. That His Majesty's Government define the rights of American

citizens under the Treaty of 1818.

The Colony does not desire to limit in any way the rights of American citizens under that Treaty. It asks for nothing but justice and responsibility sanctioned by the spirit and forms of the British constitution.

We do not think it just that permission should be given by His Majesty's Government to a foreign power to over-ride or contravene the laws of the Colony, or that an undertaking should be given to a foreign power by His Majesty's Government not to sanction certain Colonial legislation.

It has been suggested to me by His Majesty's Government that the matters in dispute might properly be submitted to arbitration. I cannot see what there is to arbitrate upon. To my mind, the only question is, as to the binding effect of Colonial laws upon American citizens when they come. If it is intended to submit the Treaty to within British jurisdiction. arbitration, then I contend, that its terms are clear, that the privileges granted to the inhabitants of the United States thereunder are not set forth in language that is ambiguous. Vattel, probably the best authority upon the interpretation of treaties says:-

"

'The first general maxim of interpretation is, that it is not allowable to interpret what has no need of interpretation. When the wording is in clear and precise terms and its moaning is evident and leads to no absurd conclusion, there can be no reason for refusing to admit the meaning which such Treaty naturally presents, and to go elsewhere in search of conjectures in order to restrict or extend it, is but an attempt to elude it."

If, on the other hand, it is intended to submit Colonial statutes to arbitration, then I respectfully contend that it would be derogatory to the Crown, and in direct contravention to the constitutional right of the self- governing Colonies to submit their statutes to the arbitrament of any foreign power or of any person, or hody of men.

After a short adjournment.

175

Fifteenth Day.

14 May 1907.

FISHERY.

Sir EDWARD GREY; Lord Elgin and gentleinen, I have not very much to say, because I do not want to make it a matter of argument, as it has rather passed out of the stage of argument. Sir Robert Bond, in his statement, has spoken of the rights of sovereignty. The rights of sovereignty NEWFOUNDLAND of Newfoundland are, of course, derived from England, and we could not confer greater rights of sovereignty than we have had; and whatever sovereignty Newfoundland has is, of course, subject to the same treaty That really obligations which it was subject to when we transferred it. brings us to what the whole difficulty in this matter is--that is, the interpretation of a Treaty.

31

The Treaty gives the Americans liberty to take in common fish of every kind, and it is over the question of what those words entail that the difficulties have arisen. The Conference has heard Sir Robert Bond's view of what the interpretation of the Treaty in his opinion should be. He says it is perfectly plain. But when one comes to deal with the other party to the treaty, one has to consider, not only the arguments which one wants to put forward oneself, as Sir Robert Bond has put forward his argument, but also to consider the arguments which one has to meet. The United States view of the Treaty has been that a liberty to take fish in common must be taken as liberty to the United States citizens to employ, not only ships and nets and boats for the purpose of taking fish, but also crews to handle the ships and nets and boats. Another contention which they put forward is that the right to "take in common must mean that the regulations for the management of the fishery are a matter on which they should be consulted and as to which their consent should be necessary before they were binding in the case of any regulations passed since 1818. I suppose a third point which they would urge is that it is open to question whether the regulations which have been passed since 1818 are such as in fact to operate unfairly in placing them at a disadvantage with regard to the exercise of their right to catch fish. Generally they have summed it up by saying that the claim asserted by the Colony of Newfoundland to regulate the exercise of the American Treaty right is equivalent to a claim of power to destroy that right completely. That is roughly the American contention as I understand it. They have also put forward some quotations from speeches of Sir Robert Bond, which, in their opinion, go to show that the object of the regulations now being imposed by Newfoundland with regard to the fishery and their legislation with regard to the fishery is not simply the preservation of a common fishery for the joint use and the equal use of both parties who are entitled to the fishery, but that the object of those regulations is to make it difficult for the American fishermen to exercise their right, and, if possible, to prevent them from coming to use their right at all. That is what has been put forward on the American side.

I do not see that there is really much to be gained, either at the Con- ference or anywhere else, by simply rehersing the contention which we have put forward as regards the proper interpretation of the Treaty or the conten- tion which the United States has put forward. The fact is, we have come to the point where argument is exhausted, and I do not think there is any more to be done in settlement of this question by argument. The point which really I think is the material one the Conference ought to devote its attention to is what you are to do in a case of this kind, when argument has come to an end and is exhausted. That is the position in which I am placed, and in which the British Government is placed at the present moment.

There are only three courses really open. One is, avoid raising the question of rights and the interpretation of the Treaty, and get by agreement with the United States a modus vivendi for the exercise of the Treaty, which will carry you on from year to year, but which should, I think, be terminable at a year's notice, in any case. That may carry you on and avoid raising