« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »
appointed under that Treaty failed to receive the approval of the United States Senate and so did not become effective.
In the light of the above, the Dominion Government are of the opinion that the situation should be dealt with as a whole rather than that Missisquoi Bay should be considered by itself. I have [etc.]
The Acting Secretary of State to the Canadian Minister (Massey)
WASHINGTON, March 1, 1927. Sir: I have the honor to invite your attention to the situation regarding pike perch fisheries in Lake Champlain which in former years has been a subject of correspondence between the Department and the British Embassy. In note No. 393 of June 7, 1926, the Ambassador stated that it was the Canadian Government's view that fishing in boundary waters should be considered as a whole rather than that the fishing in Missisquoi Bay should be considered separately.
While this Government appreciates the Dominion Government's position as set out in the Ambassador's note, it believes that the interests of the people on both sides of the international boundary require the discontinuance of seine fishing in Missisquoi Bay, independent of the solution of questions relating to fisheries in other boundary waters. This Government understands that in the Lake Champlain region the interests of the summer angler are of greater financial importance to the resident people than market fisheries could be. You will recall that the American-Canadian Fisheries Conference of 1918 found that the work of the States of New York and Vermont directed toward the building up of the Lake Champlain region as a summer resort was being “argely nullified” by seine fishing in the Canadian part of Missisquoi Bay. The benefits of the fish hatcheries in the American section of the Lake are likewise impaired by the seine fishing.
This Government appreciates the importance of adequately protecting and regulating fishing in all the boundary waters through the cooperation of the governments of the United States and Canada. It is a matter of regret to it that questions of a local nature have delayed it in undertaking negotiations in regard to the fisheries in certain waters. However, this Government is hopeful that in respect of the fisheries in every part of the boundary waters in relation to which no serious questions have arisen the Dominion Government. will find it possible to cooperate in the preservation of the permanent interests of the people immediately concerned.
In view of the opening of the season in which seine fishing in Lake Champlain has been permitted, which is now approaching, I have the honor to request that you bring the views of this Government to the attention of the Government of Canada with the suggestion that, if the Dominion Government finds it practicable to prohibit the use of seines in Missisquoi Bay, this Government will appreciate such action being taken. Accept [etc.]
JOSEPH C. GREW
The Canadian Minister (Massey) to the Secretary of State No. 53
WASHINGTON, 22 March, 1927. SIR: With reference to your note No. 711.428/1072 of March 1st. on the subject of the pike perch fisheries in Lake Champlain, I have the honour to state that the competent Department of the Dominion Government which has had the matter under consideration, represents that the conditions affecting the situation in Lake Champlain remain unchanged, such conditions being briefly outlined in the following manner.
It is explained that the fisheries of Missisquoi Bay are the property · of the province of Quebec and are being administered by the Provincial authorities, who are opposed to the prohibition of a reasonable amount of seine fishing in the Bay, though while pike perch or pickerel resort to the Bay for spawning purposes fishing for them is prohibited during the spawning season. While the exclusive power to make regulations in all parts of Canada rests with the Federal Government, in an area where the fisheries are owned and are being administered by the Provincial authorities, the Federal Government hesitates to impose regulations that are not desired by the Provincial authorities unless the conditions are extraordinary in their character.
Although the question of fishery regulations in Lake Champlain was not referred to the Canadian American Fisheries Conference in 1918, it was brought to the attention of the Conference by delegations representing the States of New York and Vermont, and indeed the question was raised by the American members of the Conference at its preliminary sittings. It was at the time anticipated that the recommendations of the Conference would be approved by both countries, and accordingly as the fishing season was then approaching, on the recommendation of the Canadian members of the Conference to their Government, a regulation was adopted in February 1918, prohibiting all net fishing in Missisquoi Bay. The Conference completed its work and submitted its report in September 1918, and its recommendations were subsequently approved by the Canadian
Government, though such approval was not given by the United States Government. The regulation was, however, maintained in the face of continuously growing opposition until March 1922, when it was annulled as there was no indication at that time that the recommendations of the Conference would be approved.
Attention is further called by the Department to the fact that the Missisquoi Bay situation was covered by the Treaty of 1908 for the regulation of the fisheries in boundary waters, but that the regulations drawn up by the Commission appointed under that Treaty failed to receive the approval of the United States Senate.
After consideration of all circumstances, the Canadian Government is still of opinion that the Missisquoi Bay situation should be dealt with in connection with other outstanding matters and not by itself and I am accordingly requested in bringing their views to the notice of the United States Government, to take advantage of the opportunity to dwell upon the importance of early attention being given to the settlement of the outstanding fishery questions between the two countries. I have [etc.]
The Secretary of State to the Canadian Minister (Massey)
WASHINGTON, March 30, 1927. SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note No. 53 of March 22, 1927, relating to seine fishing in the Missisquoi Bay section of Lake Champlain.
I note with regret that the Canadian Government does not deem it advisable to discontinue the issuance of licenses for such seine fishing at this time. Accept [etc.]
FRANK B. KELLOGG
PROPOSED TREATY OF FRIENDSHIP, COMMERCE AND CONSULAR
RIGHTS BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND CHILE
The Secretary of State to the Ambassador in Chile (Collier)
WASHINGTON, August 19, 1927. SIR: This Government has, as you are aware, entered upon the policy of negotiating with other countries general treaties of friendship, commerce and consular rights, of which the central principle in respect of commerce is an unconditional most-favored-nation clause governing customs and related matters. This policy was inaugurated pursuant to the principles underlying Section 317 of the Tariff Act of 1922;- it seeks assurances that equality of treatment for American commerce will be maintained in all countries. Besides the provisions relating to commerce, those treaties include provisions relating to rights of nationals of each country in the other country, protection of property and rights and immunities of consuls.
Reference is made in this connection to the Department's Diplomatic Serial No. 211, dated August 18, 1923, and to the Embassy's despatch No. 346, December 20, 1923.* The Department's program of negotiating commercial treaties was delayed pending the favorable action of the United States Senate on the first treaty drafted in accordance with the new policy, the ratification of which treaty was not consented to until 1925. This Government is now prepared to enter into such a treaty with Chile and desires to do so as promptly as practicable.
The first treaty to become effective expressing the present policy of this Government was the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Consular Rights with Germany, signed December 8, 1923, ratifications of which were exchanged October 14, 1925. Similar treaties have been signed by the United States with Hungary, Esthonia and Salvador, of which the ones with Esthonia and Hungary have been brought into force by exchange of ratifications.
See Foreign Relations, 1923, vol. I, pp. 121 ff. * 42 Stat. 858, 944. * Foreign Relations, 1923, vol. I, p. 131. Not printed.
* For treaties and modi vivendi hereafter referred to in this instruction and not cited therein, see footnotes to instruction No. 1162, Aug. 21, 1926, to the Ambassador in Brazil, Foreign Relations, 1926, vol. I, p. 569.
A treaty containing the unconditional most-favored-nation clause was signed with Turkey on August 6, 1923. About a dozen other treaties containing it are in process of negotiation. Modi vivendi based upon the same principle, entered into with the following countries, are in force-Brazil, Czechoslovakia, Dominican Republic, Finland, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Latvia, Lithuania, Nicaragua, Poland (including Danzig), Rumania and Turkey.
Two copies of the treaty of December 8, 1923, with Germany are enclosed. You are requested, unless you perceive objection, to inquire whether it would be agreeable to the Government of Chile to proceed to the negotiation with the United States of a similar treaty. A special draft will, of course, be prepared for presentation to Chile if this proposal is acceptable to the Chilean Government. It is probable that certain departures from the text of the German treaty should be made either in the special text to be submitted to the Government of Chile or, on behalf of either party, during the course of negotiations.
It would be gratifying if, among its early treaties embodying the principle of unconditional most-favored-nation treatment, the United States could celebrate a general commercial treaty with Chile. The lack of a general commercial treaty with Chile since the Convention of Peace, Amity, Commerce and Navigation, concluded May 16, 1832, was terminated on January 20, 1850, is a matter of regret to this Government and it hopes that a comprehensive modern agreement may now be entered into. You will of course keep in mind in this connection that a most-favored-nation clause with a condition, such as that contained in the first sentence of Article II of the Treaty of 1832, would not now be acceptable to the United States.
For your confidential information, though the Department, in proposing a treaty with Chile, is influenced chiefly by its policy of concluding with other countries generally treaties containing the unconditional most-favored-nation clause, you are nevertheless desired to use especial diligence in seeking a favorable response from the Chilean Government, thus forestalling any efforts that other countries may be planning to make for the purpose of interposing in South America arrangements based upon special privilege-a policy wholly antagonistic to the policy of equality of treatment which the United States is undertaking to promote. You may recall in this connection that in 1923 this Government renounced the preferential customs treatment which certain American products had been receiving in Brazil and requested instead a pledge of equal footing with other countries in the Brazilian market.