Foreign Affairs, by which I understand that it has no yet been taken into consideration. Earl Granville to Sir E. Thornton. FOREIGN OFFICE, June 9, 1880. SIR: I had to-day an interview with the United States' Minister at this Court respecting the Fortune Bay affair. Mr. Lowell stated that there was a much stronger and deeper feeling on the other side of the Atlantic upon this question than was appreciated here. There was, he said, a feeling that a wrong had been done which ought to be redressed. We agreed that this was a reason why both Governments should try to settle the question. I observed that the present Government had not their reputation to make as to a wish to act in a conciliatory manner towards the United States, but that we could make no concession which could not be made with perfect justification. I then asked Mr. Lowell whether he had any suggestions to make. He replied, "none;" that his instructions were to conform his language to that of Mr. Evarts' note. I inquired whether it would not be possible to separate the two questions of the interpretation of the Treaty and of the attack upon the American fishermen. He replied that he feared it might be too late to do this, but that, at my request, he would be prepared to ask the question. Mr. Lowell added, not officially, but only as his personal opinion, that there would be no precipitate action on the part of the United States. The President, he said, had power to act, but the moment for doing so was at his own discretion. We finally agreed to renew our conversation upon this subject at an early date. I am, &c. (Signed) GRANVILLE. Mr. Lowell to Earl Granville. UNITED STATES' LEGATION, MY LORD: Referring to my conversation with your Lordship on the 9th instant, I have the honour to acquaint you that I took pleasure in communicating by cable the next day to my Government the friendly sentiments of your Lordship in respect to the differences between the two countries on the Fishery question. I have this morning received a telegram from Mr. Evarts, by which he desires me to communicate his great gratification at the expression by your Lordship of the friendly disposition of the British Cabinet, a disposition which, he states, he should have been ready to assume from the public character of its members. He adds that the President will be quite ready to entertain any considerations which may be presented to the Secretary of State to relieve the question of the fisheries from its present difficulties, and that the Bill now pending before Congress extends to the President adequate discretionary power to meet an accord between the two Governments respecting the fishery rights of the United States under the Treaty, should such an accord be established during the recess of Congress. I have, &c. (Signed) J. R. LOWELL. Earl Granville to Mr. Lowell. FOREIGN OFFICE, October 27, 1880. SIR: Her Majesty's Government have carefully considered the correspondence which has taken place between their predecessors and the Government of the United States respecting the disturbance which occurred at Fortune Bay, on the 6th of January, 1878, and they have approached this subject with the most earnest desire to arrive at an amicable solution of the differences which have unfortunately arisen between the two governments on the construction of the provisions of the treaties which regulate the rights of the United States fishermen on the coast of Newfoundland. In the first place, I desire that there should be no possibility of misconception as to the views entertained by Her Majesty's Government respecting the conduct of the Newfoundland fishermen in violently interfering with the United States fishermen, and destroying or damaging some of their nets. Her Majesty's Government have no hesitation in admitting that this proceeding was quite indefensible, and is much to be regretted. No sense of injury to their rights, however well founded, could, under the circumstances, justify the British fishermen in taking the law into their own hands and committing acts of violence, but I will revert by and by to this feature in the case, and will now proceed to the important question raised in this controversy, whether, under the treaty of Washington, the United States fishermen are bound to observe the fishery regulations of Newfoundland in common with British subjects. Without entering into any lengthy discussion on this point, I feel bound to state that in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government the clause in the treaty of Washington which provides that the citizens of the United States shall be entitled, "in common with British subjects," to fish in Newfoundland waters within the limits of British sovereignty, means that the American and British fishermen shall fish in these waters upon terms of equality, and not that there shall be an exemption of American fishermen from any reasonable regulations to which British fishermen are subject. Her Majesty's Government entirely concur in Mr. Marcy's circular of the 28th of March, 1856. The principle therein laid down appears to them perfectly sound, and as applicable to the fishery provisions of the treaty of Washington as those of the treaty which Mr. Marcy had in view. They cannot, therefore, admit the accuracy of the opinion expressed in Mr. Evarts's letter to Mr. Welsh, of the 28th of September, 1878, " that the fishery rights of the United States conceded by the treaty of Washington are to be exercised wholly free from the restraints and regulations of the statutes of Newfoundland," if by that opinion anything inconsistent with Mr. Marcy's principle is really intended. Her Majesty's Government, however, fully admit that if any such local statutes could be shown to be inconsistent with the express stipulations, or even with the spirit of the treaty, they would not be within the category of those reasonable regulations by which American (in common with British) fishermen ought to be bound, and they observe, on the other hand, with much satisfaction, that Mr. Evarts, at the close of his letter to Mr. Welsh. of the 1st of August, 1879, after expressing regret at "the conflict of interests which the exercise of the treaty privileges enjoyed by the United States appears to have developed," expressed himself as follows: "There is no intention on the part of this [the United States] government that these privileges should be abused, and no desire that their full and free enjoyment should harm the colonial fishermen. “While the differing interests and methods of the shore fishery and the vessel fishery make it impossible that the regulation of the one should be entirely given to the other, yet if the mutual obligations of the treaty of 1871 are to be maintained, the United States Government would gladly co-operate with the Government of Her Britannic Majesty in any effort to make those regulations a matter of reciprocal convenience and right, a means of preserving the fisheries at their highest point of production, and of conciliating a community of interest by a just proportion of advantages and profits." Her Majesty's Government do not interpret these expressions in any sense derogatory to the sovereign authority of Great Britain in the territorial waters of Newfoundland, by which only regulations having the force of law within those waters can be made. So regarding the proposal, they are pleased not only to recognize in it an indication that the desire of Her Majesty's Government to arrive at a friendly and speedy settlement of this question is fully reciprocated by the Government of the United States, but also to discern in it the basis of a practical settlement of the difficulty, and I have the honor to request that you will inform Mr. Evarts that Her Majesty's Government, with a view to avoiding further discussion and future misunderstandings, are quite willing to confer with the Government of the United States respecting the establishment of regulations under which the subjects of both parties to the treaty of Washington shall have the full and equal enjoyment of any fishery which, under that treaty, is to be used in common. The duty of enacting and enforcing such regulations, when agreed upon, would of course rest with the power having the sovereignty of the shore and waters in each case. As regards the claim of the United States fishermen to compensation for the injuries and losses which they are alleged to have sustained in consequence of the violent obstruction which they encountered from British fishermen at Fortune Bay on the occasion referred to, I have to state that Her Majesty's Government are quite willing that they should be indemnified for any injuries and losses which, upon a joint inquiry, may be found to have been sustained by them, and in respect of which they are reasonably entitled to compensation; but on this point I have to observe that a claim is put forward by them for the loss of fish which had been caught, or which, but for the interference of the British fishermen, might have been caught by means of strand fishing, a mode of fishing to which, under the treaty of Washington, they were not entitled to resort. The prosecution by them of the strand fishery being clearly in excess of their treaty privilege, Her Majesty's Government cannot doubt that, on further consideration, the United States Government will not be disposed to support a claim in respect of the loss of the fish which they had caught or might have caught by that process. I have, &c., GRANVILLE. No. 109.] Mr. Evarts to Mr. Lowell. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, SIR: Inclosed herein you will receive the affidavits of the masters of two United States fishing vessels, detailing the acts of violence by which they have been prevented from exercising their rights of fishing in certain Newfoundland waters. You will observe that in these occurrences no questions arise as to the character or force of local legislation. They exhibit simply and distinctly the determination of the inhabitants of Newfoundland that the fishermen of the United States shall not be permitted to exercise the right of fishing guaranteed them by the treaty of Washington, but shall be compelled to purchase from provincial fishermen the bait which they are clearly entitled to catch. There is no question here of the size of the meshes of the seines, of the right of fishing at limited periods, of the use of the strand as auxiliary to legitimate fishing. It is simply the denial by force of the exercise of a right which is not disputed, but which is denied because it interferes with the profits of provincial fishermen. There is no pretense of the interference of lawful authority, general or local, but the undisguised use of mob violence to prevent the exercise of an undoubted right secured by treaty to our fishermen. You will bring these complaints immediately to the attention of Her Britannic Majesty's Government, and in doing so you will say that the Government of the United States sees with a dissatisfaction to which it is unwilling to give full expression this repeated and continuous invasion of the rights of its citizens; that this rude and persistent opposition to the exercise of rights guaranteed by treaty, and liberally paid for, is practically an abrogation of the very provisions which the treaty was intended to secure, and that the Government of the United States cannot permit the rights and interests of its citizens to be thus subjected to the ill-temper and unlawful violence of an excited mob. It can make no difference that these particular proceedings did not culminate in acts of personal injury or in the destruction of property. This has only been avoided by the fact that the United States fishermen, in a spirit of forbearance which cannot be too much commended, but which cannot be always anticipated, have yielded to an exhibition of force which they had not the power to resist. The Government of the United States cannot reject the conviction that the protracted delay of Her Majesty's Government in the matter of the disturbances at Fortune Bay has strengthened the impression of the provincial fishermen that the course of Her Majesty's Government had shown no severe condemnation for the violent methods which have been pursued to defeat a competition which was fairly purchased. It is impossible that this condition of things should be looked upon with indifference by either government. The Government of the United States cannot believe that Her Majesty's Government would prefer that the Government of the United States should by the exhibition or exercise of force in the provincial waters maintain the obligations of the treaty of Washington, rather than that by the exercise of the power of the British Government our fishermen should be secured in the use of their treaty rights; and yet, unless some prompt remedy be found, the fishermen of the United States must abandon entirely their fishing rights upon the shores of Newfoundland, or they must enforce their rights by methods which will necessarily threaten, first the local peace, and then the amicable relations of the two countries. You will say further that the Government of the United States earnestly presses these complaints upon the immediate attention of Her Majesty's Government for that fair and full compensation to which the United States fishermen are entitled for this violent interruption of their lawful industries, and in this connection you will impress upon Her Majesty's Government that the immediate and direct loss of cheap bait cannot be accepted as the measure of damages in these cases. These repeated infractions of treaty obligations have disorganized the whole fishing industry which the treaty was intended to protect. No vessel can calculate with certainty whether she will be allowed to catch her own bait or forced to purchase it, and so a whole cruise may be rendered profitless by this denial of the right to procure bait. But independent of this pecuniary advantage, Her Majesty's Government cannot surely deny that this systematic demonstration of violence against citizens of the United States pursuing a lawful industry is in itself cause of serious complaint and fair indemnity. You will present these views in your own manner to Lord Granville, but if you find it necessary to impress upon Her Majesty's Government the earnestness of the Government of the United States, you are at liberty to read him this dispatch confidentially, as in the exercise of your own discretion, without express instructions from your government to that effect. I am, &c., WM. M. EVARTS. [Inclosure No. 1.] Deposition of John Dago. November 18, 1880. (Received February 2, 1881.) I, John Dago, master of the American schooner Concord, of Gloucester, Mass., do, on oath, depose and say that I left Gloucester on the 1st of April, 1880, for a trip to the Grand Banks. Our first baiting was at Freshwater Bay, Newfoundland, buying capelin and ice to the amount of twenty-five dollars. On the 9th of August, 1880, we went into a cove in Conception Bay, called Northard Bay, for squid. I put out four dories and attempted to catch my bait with the squid jigs or hooks used for that purpose. My men went into |