are of an inferior quality, and the eastern oysters which are planted along the coast do not propagate. Because of these conditions and because of the limited area suitable for oyster-grounds, it is not likely that the oyster fishery of the Pacific States will ever be of great value. In recent years, in fact, it has shown a tendency to decline, the output of 213,579 bushels in 1912 being less than half the quantity gathered in 1899.1 But on account of their scarcity the oysters command a very high price, the small product in 1912 being valued at $676,243.

An interesting feature of the history of the fisheries of the western coast has been the introduction of valuable species of fish indigenous to the waters along the Atlantic coast, and hitherto unknown on the west coast. The first experiments in this line were made with the shad, a number of small plants of which were deposited by the United States Fish Commission in the Sacramento and Columbia Rivers between 1871 and 1886.2 The experiments were remarkably successful, and not only have the shad become abundant in the rivers where the plants were made, but they have migrated and established themselves in practically all the rivers for a distance of 4,000 miles along the coast from Los Angeles County to Cook Inlet. Since 1886 the shad has been one of the most abundant food-fish of California, though because of the small demand the catch is yet small compared to what it might be. However, in 1908, California reported a shad product of over 1,000,000 pounds, and Washington and Oregon each had an established shad fishery. The striped bass has also been successfully introduced on the Pacific coast and efforts are being made to colonize the lobster.

Considered as a whole, the fisheries of the Pacific coast are steadily growing in value and importance. Though the salmon fisheries still outrank all other fisheries combined, the rapid growth of the halibut and cod fisheries and the conservation of the fur-seal fishery mean that before long the importance of the salmon will be comparatively less. Furthermore, great fishing resources along the Alaska coast are yet practically untouched. Of 300 species of fishes known to inhabit the waters of Alaska, less than a score are utilized as food, and of a large number of varieties of shellfish, both mollusk and crustacean, a small portion is being used. Large areas of cod-fishing grounds remain unexploited, and the halibut fishery has by no means reached the limit of expansion. The herring alone, which as yet are used chiefly for oil, fertilizer, and bait, are sufficiently abundant to support sardine and smoked-herring industries as large as those on the Atlantic coast. Capelin, smelt, trout, clams, crabs, and many other valuable species exist in large quantities in Alaskan waters. No place in North America. offers more favorable opportunities for the development of valuable fishing industries.

1Report of U. S. Commissioner of Fisheries, 1913, p. 49.

2Smith, The U. S. Bureau of Fisheries, Its Establishment, Functions, etc. (Bureau of Fisheries, Doc. No. 725), 1403.

U. S. Census Report, Fisheries of the United States, 1908, p. 71.

CHAPTER XXXVI.

THE FISHERIES AS AN INTERNATIONAL QUESTION. Treaties of 1783 and 1818, 223. Controversy over treaty of 1818, 224. Seizures under the "headlands theory," 225. The Reciprocity Treaty of 1854, 226. Attempts of Canada to restrict operations of American fishermen, 1868-1870, 227. The Treaty of Washington, 1871, 227. The Chamberlain-Bayard Convention and modus vivendi of 1888, 229. The Blaine-Bond Convention of 1890 and the BondHay Convention of 1902, 230. Agreement to arbitrate North Atlantic fisheries dispute, 1909, questions submitted, 231. Decision of the arbitration tribunal, 232. Controversy over the fur-seal fisheries, 235. Questions submitted to arbitration in 1893, 236. Award of the arbitrators in the fur-seal controversy, 237. Agreement of United States, Great Britain, Russia, and Japan regarding fur-seal fisheries, 1911, 238.

The Government of the United States, in attempting to protect and extend the fishing interests of the country, has become involved in two important international controversies-one with respect to the fisheries of the North Atlantic Ocean and the other with respect to the fur-seal fisheries of the Bering Sea.

TREATIES OF 1783 AND 1818.

The North Atlantic fisheries question had its origin in 1783, at the time of the signing of the treaty of peace in which England acknowledged the independence of the thirteen States. Under the provisions of that treaty the people of the United States were confirmed in their right to take fish on the Newfoundland banks and at other places in the sea which they had been accustomed to visit, and they also secured from Great Britain the liberty to take fish on the coasts, bays, and creeks of all parts of the British possessions in America, as well as the privilege of drying and curing fish in the unsettled bays and harbors of Nova Scotia, Labrador, and the Magdalen Islands. At the time of the negotiation of the treaty of peace following the War of 1812, the question arose as to whether the fishery concessions contained in the Treaty of Paris had been terminated by the war. The British commissioners affirmed that, by making war on Great Britain, the United States had lost the fishing privileges; the American commissioners took the position that those privileges remained undisturbed. It was impossible to reach a mutually satisfactory agreement on the subject, and the treaty was eventually signed without reference being made to the fisheries. Shortly after peace was established, the British authorities in Canada, acting in pursuance of the theory that the United States had forfeited the concession made in 1783, seized several New England vessels engaged in fishing along the coast of Nova Scotia.1 Though the vessels were subsequently released, the British Government persisted in declaring its right to exclude all vessels of the United States from the 'Proceedings in the North Atlantic Coast Fisheries Arbitration,I,"The Case of the United States," 42.

coast fisheries of British territory. With the two governments holding diametrically opposing views, it was necessary, in order to avert a serious collision, to negotiate a new treaty, and accordingly in 1818, when the general commercial treaty between the two nations was renewed, an agreement concerning the fisheries was included. This agreement, which constituted Article I of the treaty, was as follows:1

"Whereas differences have arisen respecting the Liberty claimed by the United States for the inhabitants thereof, to take, dry and cure Fish on Certain Coasts, Bays, Harbours, and Creeks of His Britannic Majesty's Dominions in America, it is agreed between the High Contracting Parties, that the inhabitants of the said United States shall have forever, in common with the Subjects of His Britannic Majesty, the Liberty to take Fish of every kind on that part of the Southern Coast of Newfoundland which extends from Cape Ray to the Rameau Islands, on the Western and the Northern Coast of Newfoundland, from the said Cape Ray to the Quirpon Islands, on the shores of the Magdalen Islands, and also on the Coasts, Bays, Harbours and Creeks from Mount Joly on the Southern Coast of Labrador, to and through the Streights of Belleisle and thence Northwardly indefinitely along the Coast, without prejudice however, to any of the exclusive Rights of the Hudson Bay Company: And that the American fishermen shall also have liberty forever, to dry and cure Fish in any of the unsettled Bays, Harbours, and Creeks of the Southern part of the Coast of Newfoundland hereabove described, and of the Coast of Labrador; but so soon as the same, or any portion thereof, shall be settled it shall not be lawful for the said Fishermen to dry or cure Fish at such Portion so settled, without_previous agreement for such purpose with the Inhabitants, Proprietors, or Possessors of the ground. And the United States hereby renounce forever, any Liberty, heretofore enjoyed or claimed by the Inhabitants thereof, to take, dry or cure Fish on, or within three marine Miles of any of the Coasts, Bays, Creeks or Harbours of His Britannic Majesty's Dominions in America not included within the above-mentioned limits: Provided however, that the American Fishermen shall be admitted to enter such Bays or Harbours for the purpose of Shelter and of repairing Damages therein, or purchasing Wood, and of obtaining Water, and for no other purpose whatever. But they shall be under such Restrictions as may be necessary to prevent their taking, drying or curing Fish therein, or in any other manner whatever abusing the Privileges hereby reserved to them."

It was thought at the time that in this convention an amicable solution of the fisheries question had been reached, but serious disagreements soon arose as to the meaning of various passages of the treaty, and for almost a century, until the interpretation of the words of the agreement was determined by a court of arbitration in 1910, the fisheries question was a source of almost constant friction between the governments of the United States and Great Britain.

The first serious controversy over the meaning of the treaty, which arose in 1839, had to do with the phrase "within three marine miles of any of the Coasts, Bays, Creeks or Harbours of His Britannic Majesty's Dominions in America." For several years subsequent to the conclusion of the treaty the fishermen of the United States were allowed to fish

1Proceedings in the North Atlantic Coast Fisheries Arbitration, II, 25.