M. Delcassé, Minister of Foreign Affairs, to the Ambassadors of the French Republic at Berlin, Berne, Constantinople, Madrid, St. Petersburg, Vienna, Washington, to His Majesty the King of Italy, to the Pope, to the Minister of the Republic at Tangier, and to the Diplomatic Agent and Consul-General of France at Cairo.

PARIS, April 12, 1904.

The great interests both of a moral and material nature which are involved in the entente between England and France called forth a peaceful settlement of the questions upon which the two countries were divided and whence under certain circumstances a conflict might have arisen. Both at London and in Paris the two Governments took these matters into consideration. The visits exchanged last year between King Edward and the President of France showed that public opinion on both sides of the Channel was favourably disposed toward an arrangement.

In the course of the conversation which I had the honour to engage in with Lord Lansdowne on the 7th July, the eminent Minister of Foreign Affairs of the King and I examined one by one all the problems which presented themselves before us. It was recognised that it was not impossible to find a solution equally advantageous to both parties in the case of all of them.

Our common efforts which a like spirit of conciliation at all times directed, resulted in the agreements of the 8th April of which I append hereto the authentic text, adding some explanations upon their nature and their import.

Newfoundland.-The affairs of Newfoundland were among those which on numerous occasions had given rise to discussions increasingly troublesome. Their origin lies in the remote past. Article 13 of the Treaty of Utrecht had abandoned to Great Britain Newfoundland and the adjacent islands. It was only on the western coast and on a portion of the eastern coast that we could take and dry fish and then only during the customary fishing season. Every permanent establishment was forbidden to us.

The increasingly frequent difficulties to which the execution of the Treaty of Utrecht led necessitated a special clause in the Treaty of Versailles of 1783, which was completed by the declaration of King George of the same date, the object of which was the avoidance of daily quarrels between the fishermen of the two nations.

In spite of all precautions taken it may be said that in the course of the last century hardly a year passed in which the exercise of our privilege was not the cause of complaints or collisions. The population of Newfoundland, which in the beginning numbered hardly 4,000 or 5,000 souls, increased gradually to 210,000. In the desire of the latter to develop the resources of their island the French shore presented itself to them as closed to all progress; they could enjoy no benefits in a region in which they hoped to find mines and soil favourable to agriculture, and which we ourselves could not utilise. Thus hostile opinion began to arise against our privilege. The irresistible pressure of the necessities of existence in an uninviting and hard climate weakened in an increasing measure day by day the barriers of the ancient servitudes ("servitudes anciennes ") and in spite of our constant protest the inhabitants of the island established themselves gradually along a portion of the coveted shore.

Our resistance to these invasions became the more difficult because, while the island saw its population and its requirements increase, the number of our fishermen frequenting the French shore diminished year by year. From 10,000, the number of fishermen in the middle of the last century, it decreased to 400 or 500, until it reached last year scarcely 238. For the benefit of these few fishermen, and for the few weeks in the year which they devoted to fishing in these regions, the inhabitants of the country saw access to and enjoyment of almost half the coast of the island forbidden to them. 1426 It was this state of things, impatiently borne, which caused the Parliament of Newfoundland to reject the arrangements concluded between the Cabinets at Paris and at London in 1857 and 1885 for the purpose of bringing about a compromise between the rigour of ancient treaties and the exigencies of the present situation. The latter of these agreements contained a stipulation which accorded to us the right of purchasing bait, that is, herring, capelin, squid, &c., necessary for the cod fishery. This was the reason which induced the Parliament at St. John's to reject the arrangement of 1885. In the following year they even voted the Bait Act, the object of which was to forbid the sale of bait to foreigners. This law ceased provisionally to be enforced from 1893 on, but the Newfoundland Parliament in 1898 imposed a tax upon the sale of bait, which, in default of an express stipulation, it was feared might be applied along the French shore.

At the same time, with the question raised by the Bait Act, a new element of conflict arose by reason of an industry of recent origin in Newfoundland-that of the lobster fishery, the exercise of which on our part on the French shore was contested because the lobster was a crustacean and the stipulations of the Treaty of Utrecht had in view fish only. In 1890 a modus vivendi was arranged on the basis of the state of affairs existing on the 1st July, 1889. This arrangement, essentially temporary, and first limited to the season of 1890, was, in default of a better, renewed thereafter, at times under great difficulty. A refusal on the part of the Parliament of Newfoundland would have sufficed to bring about inextricable complications.

In this situation the urgent necessity was imposed of seeking a definitive solution. Our rights in Newfoundland were composed of two elements; the fishery, that is to say, the use of the territorial waters, and the drying of fish, that is, the use of the shore. By reason of its exclusive character, this latter right had become unbearable to the inhabitants. We consent to abandon it. But it must be observed that the circumstances are no longer the same as in the time of the treaty of Utrecht, the drying being possible and being actually carried on either on board ship or, thanks to the rapidity of communication, at St. Pierre or Miquelon, or even in France. On the other hand, our right of fishing in territorial waters, which is the essential thing, remains intact. With reference to the fishery on the Grand Banks, which is infinitely more productive and, consequently, more sought after, this is facilitated by the right which is henceforth guaranteed to us to purchase bait along the entire extent of the French shore. It is precisely this deep sea fishery which the Government has always sought to encourage as one of the most useful schools for our seamen and a valuable preparation for naval training.

The lobster having become increasingly rare by consequence of the intensive fishery of which for some years it has been the object, it was agreed that general regulations might be enacted with a view to prohibiting the fishing of this crustacean or even of other fish during a definite time. These regulations will be communicated to us at least three months before coming into force. For the purpose of fostering the propagation of the species, it was stipulated that permanent fishing gear could not be used without the permission of the local authorities. But in order to avoid all contest in this respect, we have asked the British Government to inform us as to what they understood exactly by permanent gear. It results from an exchange of notes between our Ambassador and the Principal Secretary of State that, according to British legislation, these words apply only to permanent establishments. Thus our fishermen will be able to continue to use nets attached to the shore for the duration of a fishery, and which constitute only a transitory method. Nothing, likewise, prevents them from installing lobster traps and the right of taking this crustacean, which had heretofore been denied to us and had given rise to long debates, is now definitely admitted in law as in practice.

Besides the fishing properly so called, we also have other interests on the French shore which had to be taken into consideration, that is, those of the owners of drying sheds and lobster establishments who find themselves dispossessed by reason of the exploitation of the coast heretofore reserved exclusively to their industry. Article 3 of the Convention of the 8th April assures to the proprietors of these establishments, as well as to the sailors employed by them, an indemnity the amount of which is to be determined by a commission of officers from the French and English navy, with eventual recourse to an umpire whose choice will lie with the International Court at The Hague. Every guaranty is consequently foreseen for the equitable compensation of the various enterprises involved.

It will thus be seen that to remove the risk of conflict which threatened to become a disturbing element, we are only abandoning in Newfoundland privileges defensible with difficulty and not at all necessary, while preserving the essential right, that is, fishing in territorial waters, and removing for the future from the field of possible conflict a valuable right-that of fishing freely or unhindered purchasing bait along the entire French shore.

These compensations are not, moreover, the only ones to which we secured consent. . . . [Livre Jaune, 1904, Accords conclus, le 8 avril, 1904, entre la France et l'Angleterre au sujet du Maroc, de l'Égypte, de Terre-Neuve, etc., pp. 7-10.]

Correspondence between the Agents of the United States and Great Britain with the Permanent Court of Arbitration.

No. 1.-To the President and Members of the Tribunal in the North Atlantic Coast Fisheries Arbitration.

AUGUST 13, 1910. GENTLEMEN: Acting on behalf of the United States, pursuant to article 62 of The Hague Convention for the specific settlement of international disputes, I have the honor to call to your attention a question of importance, upon which it is necessary that the views of my Government be made known to the Tribunal.

I had expected that an opportunity would be afforded me, as the agent of the United States, to inform the Tribunal whether or not I had any further communication to make on behalf of my Government to the Tribunal before the adjournment on Friday last. It appears, however, from the closing remarks of the President, that it is expected that the agents will remain in communication with the Tribunal in connection with its further proceedings, and the closing of the oral argument on the seven questions specified in the special agreement of the 27th January, 1909, does not concern the matter to which I now refer.

In any event, it is necessary, under the circumstances, that on behalf of my Government a formal record be made by means of this communication of its position in regard to the further proceedings to be taken with reference to the special questions raised by the answer of Great Britain in regard to the objections stated by the United States to specific provisions of certain legislative and executive acts of Newfoundland and Canada called to the attention of the Tribunal by the United States for action pursuant to articles 2 and 3 of the special agreement of the 27th January, 1909.

At the session of 19th July last, as recorded in protocol 26 of the proceedings, the Tribunal announced, referring to the provisions of article 2 of the special agreement of the 27th January, 1909, that, "it believes that it would facilitate its work and expedite the final disposition of this Case if the parties supply the Tribunal with a detailed statement of the particular provisions of the statutes and regulations to which they object, accompanied by an exposition of the grounds for such objection."

In making this announcement it apparently was assumed by the Tribunal that the United States had already called to the attention of the Tribunal certain legislative and executive acts, and had already asked the Tribunal to point out in what respects, if any, they were inconsistent with the true interpretation of the treaty. Up to

that time, however, the proceedings taken by the United States under article 2 of the treaty had not gone beyond the point of specifying to the opposite Party certain legislative and executive acts, which under article 2 was required to be done within three months of the exchange of notes enforcing the special agreement, in order that the acts so specified might subsequently, if the United States so desired, be called to the attention of the Tribunal for further action, as provided for in article 2.

Nevertheless, as the United States intended to do what the Tribunal supposed to have been already done, viz., to call the attention of the Tribunal to certain acts of the other Party which had been specified within three months of the exchange of notes enforcing the agreement, it was not deemed important to take note of the misapprehension on the part of the Tribunal, and the United States proceeded on the 26th of July to call the attention of the Tribunal to certain acts, pursuant to article 2 of the special agreement; and, further, in compliance with the suggestion of the Tribunal already referred to, in order to facilitate its work and expedite the final disposition of the Case, the United States supplied the Tribunal with a detailed statement thereof, accompanied by an exposition of the grounds of its objections thereto.

By reference to this statement it will appear that the grounds assigned by the United States for objecting to the specific regulations referred to were set forth as follows:

"I. Pursuant to the provisions of Article II of the Special Agreement of January 27, 1909, the United States calls the attention of the Tribunal to certain provisions of the acts specified in the note of June 2, 1909, from the Secretary of State of the United States to the British Ambassador at Washington (United States Counter-Case Appendix, p. 5), "which provisions are claimed by the United States to be inconsistent with the true interpretation of the Treaty of 1818, if applied to American fishermen on the treaty coasts, because even under the contention of Great Britain, as set out in Question One, they are not:

"(a.) Appropriate or necessary for the protection and preservation of such fisheries and the exercise of the rights of British subjects therein and of the liberty which by the said Article I the inhabitants of the United States have therein in common with British subjects;

"(b.) Desirable on grounds of public order and morals;

"(c.) Equitable and fair as between local fishermen and the inhabitants of the United States exercising the said treaty liberty and not so framed as to give unfairly an advantage to the former over the latter class,

"and also because under the contention of the United States as set out in such Question they are not:

1428

"(a.) Appropriate and necessary for the protection and preservation of the common rights in such fisheries and the exercise thereof; and "(b.) Reasonable in themselves and fair as between local fishermen and fishermen coming from the United States, and so framed as not to give an advantage to the former over the latter class.

"The specific provisions herein called to the attention of the Tribunal are set out in the First and Second Schedules hereto annexed."

The second and third paragraphs of the statement submitted by the United States were as follows:

"II. Pursuant to Article II of the Special Agreement of January 27, 1909, the United States calls upon the Tribunal to express in its award its opinion upon the aforesaid provisions so specified and called to its attention, and to point cut in what respects they are inconsistent with the principles laid down in the award in reply to Question One."

"III. If the award of the Tribunal be in favor of the British contention as stated in Question One, the United States will ask that the Tribunal refer to a