[Inclosure.] The Secretary of Commerce and Labor to the Secretary of State. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND LABOR, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt to-day of your communica tion of the 6th instant, transmitting a copy of the full text of a letter from Mr. Joseph O'Reilly, inspector of revenue preventive service of Newfoundland, in which allegation is made that Newfoundland fishermen were illegally shipped by American vessels, particularly by the M. B. Stetson, on the advice of Mr. A. B. Alexander, an agent of the Bureau of Fisheries in this department. As you were advised on the 26th ultimo, your previous communication of December 22, 1905, regarding the same matter, was referred to the Bureau of Fisheries with instructions to have Mr. Alexander submit a statement relative to the allegations mentioned immediately upon his return to Washington. This statement has just been received, and in transmitting a copy herewith I beg to invite your attention to Mr. Alexander's assertion that the inference of Sir Edward Grey from reports received through Mr. O'Reilly that men were illegally shipped on the schooner M. B. Stetson, and that such course was advised by Mr. Alexander, is unwarranted and based wholly on untrustworthy information. V. H. METCALF. [Subinclosure.] Mr. Alexander to the Commissioner of Fisheries. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND LABOR, BUREAU OF FISHERIES, Washington, January 8, 1906. SIR: A communication, dated December 27, from the chief clerk, Department of Commerce and Labor, to the Commissioner of Fisheries, transmitting a letter from the Secretary of State to the Secretary of Commerce and Labor, with an inclosed copy of a telegram from the American embassy at London to the Secretary of State, calling attention to alleged violation of the laws of Newfoundland by the schooner M. B. Stetson, of Bucksport, Me., was received January 5. In reply, I have the honor to say the inference of Sir Edward Gray from reports received through Mr. J. O'Reilly, inspector of revenue protection service, of Newfoundland, that men were illegally shipped on the schooner M. B. Stetson, and that such course was advised by me, is unwarranted and based on wholly untrustworthy information. Mr. T. M. Nicholson, owner of the vessel in question, previous to engaging men, came on board the Grampus and solicited my advice. He was told that he must not permit either men or boats on board his vessel within territorial waters nor must be afford any assistance to them in reaching a point beyond the 3-mile limit. This was fully understood by Mr. Nicholson. Several days afterwards Mr. Nicholson came on board the Grampus and stated that on November 29 a native crew of fishermen had been shipped on the Stetson, and, furthermore, that he had complied with the law in every particular, and that Mr. O'Reilly had been a witness to the legality of the method employed. During our conversation Mr. Nicholson was asked if the men engaged to be enlisted had been taken on board or in any way given assistance previous to their being received on board outside the 3-mile limit. He stated that no assistance was rendered. The second paragraph of the telegram, however, affirms that nine men were engaged at Wood Island, and that the vessel towed them in their boat to Lark Harbor. The weather being too stormy the Grampus did not go out and I was not a witness. Previous to my arrival at Washington, I had not heard that the captain and owner of the M. B. Stetson had been charged with violating the law in the manner described. On the contrary, in conversation with Mr. O'Reilly, subsequent to the men being shipped on the M. B. Stetson, he asked me if I had heard it reported that Mr. Nicholson, owner of the Stetson, had towed a fishing boat and crew from Wood Island to Lark Harbor that had been engaged for the herring fishing on that vessel. I replied that I had not heard such a report, and, furthermore, did not believe that Mr. Nicholson acted contrary to law, as he had informed me that he had been very particular to do nothing that would cause comment or place the Government in an embarrassing position. Mr. O'Reilly replied that he felt confident that Mr. Nicholson had committed no overt act. This would imply that Mr. O'Reilly had no positive knowledge of any infraction of the law on the part of Mr. Nicholson. From October 5 until December 22, 43 American vessels arrived at Bay of Islands for salted and frozen herring. The captains and agents of these vessels were instructed before leaving the home port to obey the law in every particular, and in all cases where any doubt existed as to the proper methods to pursue, to exercise great caution and make the necessary inquiries regarding the wording and interpretation of the law before acting. I would state that the captains, owners, and agents of the said vessels frequently visited the Grampus for the purpose of gaining information relating to the law governing the herring fishery on the treaty shore of Newfoundland, and in no single instance, among all the American captains, have I observed or learned that the law had been transgressed; neither have the captains been advised to pursue methods or perform acts contrary to the treaty rights of 1818 as interpreted by the United States Government. Precaution was taken to prevent captains from violating the law through ignorance, and they in turn exhibited a disposition to gain all possible information bearing upon the subject in order to comply with the requirements. Respectfully, Approved and forwarded: GEO. M. BOWERS, Commissioner. A. B. ALEXANDER. The Secretary of State to the British Ambassador. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, January 20, 1906. MY DEAR SIR MORTIMER: I send you a copy of a letter which I have just received from Mr. Gardner, the Representative of Gloucester in the House, which indicates the kindly feeling happily existing between our American fishermen and the Newfoundland officials. Faithfully, yours, ELIHU ROOT. [Inclosure.] Representative Gardner to Mr. Root. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ARTS AND EXPOSITIONS, DEAR MR. SECRETARY: I spoke to you to-day about the appreciation expressed by Gloucester people of the courteous act of Inspector O'Reilly, who by prompt action recovered American fishing gear and fish that would otherwise have been lost in the ice. I quote from a letter just received from William H. Jordan, collector of the port of Gloucester, Mass.: "I thought you would be interested in knowing that a letter Mr. Merchant received yesterday from Doctor Webber at Bay of Islands, sent at the request of Captain Ross, stated that Inspector O'Reilly of the Newfoundland cutter Fiona went into Penguin and Goose Arm last Tuesday, which were frozen over, broke up the ice, and recovered all the fishing gear and a large haul of herring that would have been lost except for that act of courtesy on the part of Inspector O'Reilly." A. P. GARDNER. Very truly, yours, The British Ambassador to the Secretary of State. BRITISH EMBASSY, Washington, January 24, 1906. MY DEAR MR. SECRETARY: I am much obliged to you for your letter of January 20 inclosing a copy of a letter which had been addressed to you by Mr. Gardner, the Representative of Gloucester in the House, which indicates the kindly feeling happily existing between the American fishermen and the Newfoundland officials. I have had much pleasure in sending a copy of your communication to the governor of Newfoundland. Believe me to be, dear Mr. Secretary, Very faithfully, yours, H. M. DURAND. No. 134.] Ambassador Reid to the Secretary of State. AMERICAN EMBASSY, London, January 31, 1906. SIR: With reference to Mr. Carter's dispatch of the 29th ultimo " on the subject of the Newfoundland fisheries question, I have the honor to inclose herewith a copy of a report of Inspector O'Reilly to the minister of justice in Newfoundland, dated the 21st ultimo, which has been sent to me by Sir Edward Grey, confirming and extending the report already communicated in the dispatch above mentioned, and is to the effect that the complaint of malicious damage to American fishing nets and fishing tackle by the Newfoundland fishermen was unfounded. I have, etc., WHITELAW REID. [Inclosure.-Telegram.] Inspector O'Reilly to Minister of Justice. BIRCHY COVE, December 21, 1905. Just in from Penguin Arm, where whole fleet are fishing. Have been at anchor there past ten days. No person came on board to make any complaints re loss or damage to nets or gear. There has been great loss of nets and gear, caused principally through the ignorance and carelessness of fishermen on board American vessels and through storms. Colonial, Shea, Gloucester, lost one night 56 nets. Some were afterwards creaped off the bottom. Fishermen brought here are unused to herring fishing and set their nets over other men's gear and foul them, causing loss and damage to both. We have been amongst the fishermen continuously, and only two official complaints made, and those were by two of our people re herring taken from nets and loss and damage to a fleet of nets. No truth in statement that any malicious damage or injury has been done to gear. Things are very quiet and the most kindly feelings seemingly prevail amongst the fishermen of all classes, Herring are not plentiful. a Printed in Foreign Relations 1905, p. 502. No. 142.] Ambassador Reid to the Secretary of State. AMERICAN EMBASSY, London, February 6, 1906. SIR: I have the honor to forward herewith a copy of a letter received yesterday from Sir Charles Hardinge, the new permanent under secretary of state for foreign affairs, acting for Sir Edward Grey, and also of the memorandum to which it refers, together with a copy of the act of the Newfoundland legislature of 1893, therein quoted. Under the impression that you would wish to take up the question soon, in the hope of bringing the discussion to some satisfactory result before the opening of the next fishing season, I thought you might find it a convenience to know the vital points of this memorandum before the arrival of the pouch, and am accordingly cabling you a synopsis, of which a confirmation copy is also inclosed [not printed]. I have, etc., WHITELAW REID. [Inclosure.] The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to Ambassador Reid. No. 2993.] FOREIGN OFFICE, February 2, 1906. YOUR EXCELLENCY: 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 October 20, 1818, as set forth in Mr. Root's note to His Majesty's ambassador at Washington of the 19th of October last, and in your excellency's communication of the 23d of that month, have received the serious attention of His Majesty's Government. I have now the honor 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, etc., (For the Secretary of State) CHARLES HARDINGE. [Subinclosure.-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 Govern ment 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. a See appendix No. 9, p. 778. 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 inures 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 license 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 license from the colonial government. No license is required for what is a matter of right, and no such license 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 convenion 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 cerried 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, 1815) "of fishing and drying a See appendix No. 1, p. 750. |