the special subject of a treaty in 1818 which it was then hoped would prove definitive; but for more than eighty years after the latter date it was a frequent source of friction, controversy, and even peril to the friendly relations of the two countries. It was in its later years complicated with an injection into British affairs of a factor which had from the first been troublesome in our own, namely, the pretension of a colony-in our case, a State to traverse and defy a treaty made by the National Government. Mention has already been made of the attempt of Newfoundland authorities to exalt their local municipal laws above American treaty rights. In 1906 the Newfoundland government enacted a measure explicitly intended to impose upon the American fishermen conditions and disabilities which were held by this country to be in contravention of the treaty of 1818.

The matter was taken in hand both at Washington and at London. At the former capital there was a looking forward to an ultimate composure of the dispute through the offices of the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague. At London the effort was to prepare for such settlement by the creation and maintenance of a modus vivendi and the cultivation of confidence and friendly feelings between the nations. The intiative was taken in this beneficent labor by the American ambassador, Whitelaw Reid. Of all the distinguished men who had represented this country at the British court for a century and a score of years, none had been more resolute, aggressive, and indefatigable than he in maintaining both the letter and the spirit of American rights; while on the other hand none had been more highly persona grata with the British court, Government, and people. His former brief and formal missions, as special ambassador at the jubilee and at the funeral of Queen Victoria, had greatly commended him to Great Britain, and had served as an introduction to the serious work of diplomacy when he went thither for the third time as ambassador.

In 1906, Reid and the British foreign minister, Sir Edward Grey, took up the matter of a modus vivendi and on October 6-8 signed such an instrument, to be in force for one year. Under it American fishermen were to be permitted to employ Newfoundlanders outside of the three-mile limit of coast waters, and to use purse seines for taking fish. They were also to be ex

empted from the provisions of the Newfoundland law which had just been enacted. On the other hand, they were to waive the right of fishing on Sundays. This concession to Sabbatarianism did not mollify the Newfoundland government, which vigorously protested, but in vain, against the agreement. Despite colonial grumbling, the British government maintained the compact, and for the first time in many years there was peace in the fishing waters. A year later the agreement was renewed by Reid and Grey, in anticipation of reference of the controversy to The Hague, and again they renewed it in 1908, negotiations for arbitration being then in progress at Washington.

These latter were conducted by the American secretary of state, Elihu Root, and the British ambassador, James Bryce. Already, early in 1908, they had negotiated a general arbitration treaty, signed on April 4, ratified by the Senate on April 22, and proclaimed on June 5; providing for the submission to arbitration at The Hague of all disputes over the interpretations of treaties which could not be settled by ordinary diplomatic means, and which did not involve the vital interests, honor, or independence of either party or the interests of any third party; with the special stipulation that any such suit affecting the interests of a self-governing colony must have the assent of the Government of that colony. Under this treaty Root and Bryce concluded an agreement for submitting the interpretation of the Fisheries treaty of 1818 to arbitration; which was signed on January 27, 1909, ratified by the Senate on February 18, and confirmed on March 4. In order to give this convention time to be carried out at The Hague, Reid and Grey in the fall of 1909 effected still another year's extension of the modus vivendi.

The trial and determination of this century-old dispute at The Hague formed perhaps the most noteworthy of all the transactions, thus far, of that exalted tribunal. It was not so much arbitration as adjudication-a gigantic international lawsuit. There were five judges on the bench. The president was Dr. Heinrich Lammasch, a member of the Austrian Herrenhaus, the upper chamber of the Imperial Parliament, and a professor in the University of Vienna. The second member of the bench was A. F. de Savornin Lohman, formerly a minister of state of the Netherlands and a member of the lower house of the Parliament

of that country. The third was George Gray, a justice of the United States circuit court of appeals and formerly a senator from Delaware. The fourth was Sir Charles Fitzpatrick, chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada. The fifth was Luis Maria Drago, formerly minister of foreign affairs of Argentina, co-author of the Drago or Calvo doctrine, and one of the most eminent jurists that South America has ever produced. The chief counsel were Elihu Root, senator from New York and formerly secretary of state for the United States, and Sir William S. Robson, the British attorney-general, for Great Britain. More than a score more, of counsel, attorneys, clerks and what not, were implicated in the elaborate proceedings.

The whole case was searchingly reviewed, not merely from the date of the treaty of 1818, nor even from the Revolutionary War, but from the time of the British settlement of Newfoundland, the French settlement of Canada, and the British-American conquest of the latter country. Seven questions were presented for determination. The first was whether British or colonial municipal laws were subject to the assent of the United States. Second, whether American fishermen on those coasts had a right to employ aliens as members of their crews. Third, whether the right to take, dry, and cure fish in places designated by treaty could, without American consent, be conditioned upon compliance with custom-house regulations. Fourth, whether the treaty to enter certain coast waters for shelter, repairs, or supplies, could be conditioned upon compliance with custom-house or port requirements. Fifth, the meaning, in the treaties, of the term "bay." Sixth, whether the treaty of 1818 gave to Americans the same rights in Newfoundland as in Labrador. Seventh, whether American fishing vessels operating under the treaty were entitled to the privileges, also, of trading vessels generally.

The first question was decided in the negative, against the United States; the court deeming that necessary in order to sustain the sovereignty of Great Britain. It was held that municipal laws affecting the exercise of treaty rights might be made and enforced without the consent of the United States. Obviously the same principle, applied to the United States, would permit a State to make laws modifying the treaty rights of