CO885-(16-18) — Page 802

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

C.O.885

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

18 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

Fifteenth Day. 14 May 1907.

FISHERY. (Sir E. Grey,)

176

to

the question of rights and the question of the Treaty altogether. That is one method. The second is to propose to the United States, or accept a proposal from them (which might come from them at any NEWFOUNDLAND time) that as we cannot agree as to the interpretation of this Treaty it should be settled by arbitration before the Hague Tribunal. The third method is to say we do not admit that any interpretation but our own is the correct one, and practically to send an ultimatum to the United States saying we mean to enforce that. Of course, that is a very serious position for the British Government, because if it is a question of enforcing the point of view Sir Robert Bond has put before the Conference, that falls upon us at home. It can be done by the fleet and by nothing else. I must say that, looking at the question from the point of view of general policy and what public opinion generally would feel on a question of this kind, I think they would say: Here is a fishery Treaty of ancient date; a dispute has arisen as to what the words of this Treaty which was drawn up a long time ago really mean. You have really come to the point when there are only two ways of settling a dispute between two great countries, the British Empire and the United States; one is arbitration, and the other is resort force. I think public opinion generally -I think the public opinion of the Empire generally and of the whole world--would say: Surely, when you have got an institution such as the Hague Tribunal established for I am this purpose, this is a case not for war but for arbitration. very reluctant to have arbitration raised, because, in spite of everything Sir Robert Bond has said to-day in his statement, it is very uncertain how this question of the interpretation of the Treaty would go before an Arbitra- tion Tribunal. The Conference cannot really judge of what our chances before an Arbitration Tribunal would be unless they were also to study very carefully, as I said just now, not only the arguments we should have put forward, but the arguments we should have to meet before an Arbitration Tribunal, and that they can only do by studying the United States case which has been put forward. I have got it here, and I could read it, but it would take an hour or so to read. I am quite clear that the issue of arbitration would be at least doubtful; and the conclusion to which I have come, after studying the matter very carefully as to what would be the best method to proceed is to endeavour to arrange with the United States a modus vivendi with regard to the regulations for the ensuing season, under which the fishery is to be worked. If we could come to an agreement with the United States about the regulations, and have a modus vivendi which would carry us over the next fishing season, and possibly over several successive fishing seasons, it may be the whole question would be found easier of a final settlement at some later date than it is now, when, no doubt, both in the United States and also in Newfoundland, feeling has been considerably aroused by the course which the controversy has hitherto taken. That is what I think would be the preferable course, and that seems to me the best line to take with the United States. We have to answer the contentions which the United States have put forward. I should try to avoid raising the question of rights altogether, but I can only do it by saying to the United States, without prejudice to our respective views of what our real rights under the Treaty are, we are ready to discuss with them under what regulations the fishery should be conducted in common during the ensuing season. That is really the point which we have reached, and it is on these lines I should propose to proceed.

Sir ROBERT BOND: Lord Elgin and gentlemen, in reply to what Sir Edward Grey has said I would observe, in the first place, that to agree to a modus vivendi, such as that of 1906, means setting aside the Statute Law of the Colony in the interest of American citizens. The regulations that now

177

Fifteenth Day.

14 May 1907.

govern the fishery on the Treaty shore are regulations that were made under Acts approved by the Crown. They are not, new regulations, but regulations that have been extending over a number of years, to which no exception was taken by the American Government until the year before last, and NEWFOUNDLAND then the exception was taken to them because the Newfoundland Government refused to permit its people to aid and abet American citizens in defrauding (Sir R. Bond.) their own revenue.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER: In what way did the Americans defraud their own revenue?

Sir ROBERT BOND: By running fish caught by Newfoundlanders into American markets in American vessels as the product of American fisheries, duty free. That is the way it is done. They come down to Bay of Islands to employ crews of Newfoundlanders to fish for them, and then set forth that the result of the voyage is an American catch, and they defeat their own revenue laws in that way.

The

Sir WILFRID LAURIER: I know that the question is a very com- plicated one, and it is one in which Canada has a good deal of interest, because the Treaty under which Newfoundland is now proceeding applies also to Canada. The Treaty of 1818 gives to the Americans (repeating in that the provision of the Treaty of 1783) the right to fish in common with British subjects. I sympathise very largely with Sir Robert Bond, and to a large extent share his views. I reply at once to the proposition which he made a moment ago, that the modus vivendi sets aside the statute passed by the Province. The powers of the Province in that respect are the same, as Sir Edward Grey has stated, as the powers of the Imperial Government. They are not limited, except by the letter of the Treaty itself. question is whether or not Newfoundland has done anything which is in contravention of the letter of the Treaty. On the other hand, the Americans have put up pretensions which, it seems to me, are absolutely untenable. The idea, for instance, that it might be claimed, as I understand it is claimed, by the United States that they have a word to say or power to exercise in regard to the regulations which are to be made seems to me absolutely without foundation. When the British Government gave to Americans the right to fish in common with British fishermen it gave them the right to exercise that privilege as British fishermen will exercise it, subject to British laws--British regulations. The only power which has the right to make regulations in those waters, which are territorial waters, is the British authority; and in my humble judgment it is simply untenable to think that the Americans can claim to have a right to have a word to say in those regulations. It is part of the law of the land, and because it applies upon three miles of the water they have no right to claim to have a word to say to that than to the laws of Newfoundland itself. But you stated a moment ago that the Americans would have a grievance if it were alleged that these regulations affected them injuriously or prejudicially, and weighed more severely upon them than upon British subjects. If such regulations exist I believe it would be in contravention of the Treaty. But the Legisla- ture of Newfoundland has no right to oppress the Americans or to do anything to their detriment. It is not only their right, but their duty to look It is vested in the after the good government and order in those waters. legislative authority to carry that out. The Americans, so far as that goes, have no word to say. Their right to complain only commences with the allegation, if there were such an allegation, that the regulations have been designed to harass them and to make the position more oppressive on them than on British subjects, and I never heard that there was such a contention. Y y

1 49270.

FISHERY.