« AnteriorContinuar »
the other that the dates fixed for promulgation be revised in consequence of the varying conditions due to changes in the habits of the fish or other natural causes; and if there shall be a difference of opinion as to whether the conditions have so varied as to render a revision desirable, such difference shall be referred for decision to a commission possessing expert knowledge, such as the Permanent Mixed Fishery Commission hereinafter mentioned.
2. If the Government of the United States considers any such laws or regulations inconsistent with the Treaty of 1818, it is entitled so to notify the Government of Great Britain within forty-five days after the publication above referred to, and may require that the same be submitted to and their reasonableness, within the meaning of the award, be determined by the Permanent Mixed Fishery Commission constituted as hereinafter provided.
3. Any law or regulation not so notified within the said period of forty-five days, or which, having been so notified, has been declared reasonable and consistent with the Treaty of 1818 (as interpreted by the said award) by the Permanent Mixed Fishery Commission, shall be held to be reasonable within the meaning of the award; but if declared by the said commission to be unreasonable and inconsistent with the Treaty of 1818, it shall not be applicable to the inhabitants of the United States exercising their fishing liberties under the Treaty of 1818.
4. Permanent Mixed Fishery Commissions for Canada and Newfoundland, respectively, shall be established for the decision of such questions as to the reasonableness of future regulations, as contemplated by Article IV of the special agreement of January 27, 1909. These commissions shall consist of an expert national, appointed by each party for five years; the third member shall not be a national of either party. He shall be nominated for five years by agreement of the parties, or, failing such agreement, within two months from the date, when either of the parties to this agreement shall call upon the other to agree upon such third member, he shall be nominated by Her Majesty the Queen of the Netherlands.
5. The two national members shall be summoned by the Government of Great Britain, and shall convene within thirty days from the date of notification by the Government of the United States. These two members having failed to agree on any or all of the questions submitted within thirty days after they have convened, or having before the expiration of that period notified the Government of Great Britain that they are unable to agree, the full commission, under the presidency of the umpire, is to be summoned by the Government of Great Britain, and shall convene within thirty days thereafter to decide all questions upon which the two national members had disagreed. The commission must deliver its decision, if the two governments do not agree otherwise, within forty-five days after it has convened. The umpire shall conduct the procedure in accordance with that provided in Chapter IV of the Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes, of October 18, 1907, except in so far as herein otherwise provided.
6. The form of convocation of the commission, including the terms of reference of the question at issue, shall be as follows:
"The provision hereinafter fully set forth of an act dated published in the Gazette, has been notified to the Government of Great Britain by the Government of the United States under date of
, as provided by the agreement entered into on July 20, 1912, pursuant to the award of the Hague Tribunal of September 7, 1910.
"Pursuant to the provisions of that agreement the Government of Great Britain hereby summons the Permanent Mixed Fishery Commission for
composed of ......... Commissioner for the United (Newfoundland)
(Canada) States of America, and of....... Commissioner for
(Newfoundland) who shall meet at Halifax, Nova Scotia, with power to hold subsequent meetings at such other place or places as they may determine, and render a decision within thirty days as to whether the provision 80 notified is reasonable and consistent with the Treaty of 1818, as interpreted by the award of the Hague Tribunal of September 7, 1910, and if not, in what respect it is unreasonable and inconsistent therewith.
"Failing an agreement on this question within thirty days, the commission shall so notify the Government of Great Britain in order that the further action required by that award shall be taken for the decision of the above question.
“The provision is as follows.....
7. The unanimous decision of the two national commissioners, or the majority decision of the umpire and one commissioner, shall be final and binding.
8. Any difference in regard to the regulations specified in Protocol XXX of the arbitration proceedings, which shall not have been disposed of by diplomatic methods, shall be referred not to the commission of expert specialists mentioned in the award but to the Permanent Mixed Fishery Commissions, to be constituted as hereinbefore provided, in the same manner as a difference in regard to future regulations would be so referred.
And whereas the Tribunal of Arbitration in its award decided that
In case of bays the 3 marine miles are to be measured from a straight line drawn across the body of water at the place where it ceases to have the configuration and characteristics of a bay. At all other places the 3 marine miles are to be measured following the sinuosities of the coast.
And whereas the Tribunal made certain recommendations for the determination of the limits of the bays enumerated in the award;
Now, therefore, it is agreed that the recommendations, in so far as the same relate to bays contiguous to the territory of the Dominion of Canada, to which Question V of the special agreement is applicable, are hereby adopted, to wit:
In every bay not hereinafter specifically provided for, the limits of exclusion shall be drawn three miles seaward from a straight line across the bay in the part nearest the entrance at the first point where the width does not exceed ten miles.
For the Baie des Chaleurs the limits of exclusion shall be drawn from the line from the Light at Birch Point on Miscou Island to Macquereau Point Light; for the bay of Miramichi, the line from the Light at Point Escuminac to the Light on the eastern point of Tabisintac Gully; for Egmont Bay, in Prince Edward Island, the line from the Light at Cape Egmont to the Light at West Point; and off St. Ann's Bay, in the Province of Nova Scotia, the line from the Light at Point Anconi to the nearest point on the opposite shore of the mainland.
For or near the following bays the limits of exclusion shall be three marine miles seawards from the following lines, namely:
For or near Barrington Bay, in Nova Scotia, the line from the Light on Stoddard Island to the Light on the south point of Cape Sable, thence to the Light at Baccaro Point; at Chedabucto and St. Peter's Bays, the line from Cranberry Island Light to Green Island Light, thence to Point Rouge; for Mira Bay, the line from the Light on the east point of Scatary Island to the northeasterly point of Cape Morien.
Long Island and Bryer Island, on St. Mary's Bay, in Nova Scotia, shall, for the purpose of delimitation, be taken as the coasts of such bays.
It is understood that the award does not cover Hudson Bay.
It is further agreed that the delimitation of all or any of the bays on the coast of Newfoundland, whether mentioned in the recommendations or not, does not require consideration at present.
The present agreement shall be ratified by the President of the United States, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate thereof, and by His Britannic Majesty, and the ratifications shall be exchanged in Washington as soon as practicable.
In faith whereof the respective plenipotentiaries have signed this agreement in duplicate and have hereunto affixed their seals.
Done at Washington on the 20th day of July, one thousand nine hundred and twelve.
CHANDLER P. ANDERSON (SEAL.
BRITISH NOTES OF JULY 8, 1912, AND NOVEMBER 14, 1912, CONCERNING
PANAMA CANAL TOLLS
Chargé Innes to the Secretary of State
July 8, 1912. SIR,
The attention of His Majesty's Government has been called to the various proposals that have from time to time been made for the purpose of relieving American shipping from the burden of the tolls to be levied
on vessels passing through the Panama Canal, and these proposals together with the arguments that have been used to support them have been carefully considered with a view to the bearing on them of the provisions of the treaty between the United States and Great Britain of November 18th, 1901.
The proposals may be summed up as follows: -
(2). To refund to all American ships the tolls which they may have paid,
(3). To exempt American ships engaged in the coastwise trade,
(4). To repay the tolls to American ships engaged in the coastwise trade.
The proposal to exempt all American shipping from the payment of the tolls, would, in the opinion of His Majesty's Government, involve an infraction of the treaty, nor is there, in their opinion any difference in principle between charging tolls only to refund them and remitting tolls altogether. The result is the same in either case, and the adoption of the alternative method of refunding the tolls in preference to that of remitting them, while perhaps complying with the letter of the treaty, would still contravene its spirit.
It has been argued that a refund of the tolls would merely be equivalent to a subsidy and that there is nothing in the Hay-Pauncefote treaty which limits the right of the United States to subsidise its shipping. It is true that there is nothing in that treaty to prevent the United States from subsidising its shipping and if it granted a subsidy His Majesty's Government could not be in a position to complain. But there is a great distinction between a general subsidy, either to shipping at large or to shipping engaged in any given trade, and a subsidy calculated particularly with reference to the amount of user of the Canal by the subsidised lines or vessels. If such a subsidy were granted it would not, in the opinion of His Majesty's Government, be in accordance with the obligations of the Treaty.
As to the proposal that exemption shall be given to vessels engaged in the coastwise trade, a more difficult question arises. If the trade should be so regulated as to make it certain that only bona-fide coastwise traffic which is reserved for United States vessels would be benefited by this exemption, it may be that no objection could be taken. But it appears to my government that it would be impossible to frame regulations which would prevent the exemption from resulting, in fact, in a