페이지 이미지
PDF
ePub

In faith whereof, we, the respective plenipotentiaries, have signed this treaty and have hereunto affixed our seals.

Done in duplicate at Washington,' the 11th day of January, 1897.

RICHARD OLNEY.

JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

[L. S.] [L. S.]

[UNITED STATES AND GREAT BRITAIN.]

MINUTES OF CONFERENCES 1

held at Washington the 9th, 10th, 11th and 12th of January, 1911, as to the application of the award delivered on the 7th September, 1910, in the North Atlantic Coast Fisheries Arbitration to existing regulations of Canada and Newfoundland.

The undersigned having considered in detail and with expert assistance the steps to be taken in consequence of the award in connection with the objections of the United States Government to existing regulations of the fisheries in Canadian and Newfoundland treaty waters as recorded in Protocol XXX of the proceedings before the Tribunal of Arbitration, and having conferred as to the best means of dealing with these objections, have arrived at the following conclusion:

It is unnecessary to refer any existing regulations to the Commission of Experts mentioned in the award in application of Article III of the special agreement of January 27, 1909, or to reconvene the Tribunal of Arbitration; but any difference in regard to the regulations specified in Protocol XXX, which shall not have been disposed of by diplomatic. methods, shall be referred to the Permanent Mixed Fishery Commissions to be constituted as recommended by the Hague Award, under Article IV of the special agreement in the same manner as a difference in regard to future regulations would be so referred under the recommendations in the award, unless by mutual consent some other rules and method of procedure are adopted.

January 12, 1911.

1 U. S. Treaty Series, No. 553.

PHILANDER C KNOX

JAMES BRYCE

E. A. MORRIS

CHANDLER P. ANDERSON

A B AYLESWORTH

LP BRODEUR

[UNITED STATES AND GREAT BRITAIN.]

1

MINUTES OF CONFERENCES

held at Washington the 13th and 14th of January, 1911, as to the objections of the United States to existing laws and fishery regulations of Canada as recorded in Protocol XXX of the proceedings upon the North Atlantic Coast Fisheries Arbitration.

The undersigned, having considered the best means of dealing with the objections above referred to, subject to the minute of previous conferences signed January twelfth, have arrived at the following conclusion:

Having regard to the present method of administering the Canadian laws and fishery regulations and to certain amendments which Canada is willing to make therein and to the present state of the fisheries and conditions under which they are carried on and places of fishing, the United States does not press at present any of the objections referred to in Protocol XXX which relate to Canadian laws and fishery regulations, it being understood that the right of the United States to renew such objections is not thereby in any way prejudiced should conditions change.

The amendments in regulations above referred to are: Sub-section one of section five of the Special Fishery Regulations, Province of Quebec, approved on the twelfth day of September, one thousand nine hundred and seven, is repealed and the following substituted therefor:

1. Fishing by means of cod trap-nets without a license from the Minister of Marine and Fisheries is prohibited in the waters of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, except at the distance of one thousand yards from shore or one thousand yards from any similar net set from the shore. Sub-section four of section five is repealed and the following substituted therefor:

4. If the leader of a cod trap-net extends from the shore, any fishery officer may determine in writing or orally the length of the leader that shall be used.

Sub-section (a) of section eight of the said Special Fishery Regulations is hereby repealed and the following substituted therefor:

1. (a) Fishing by means of herring trap-nets without a license from the Minister of Marine and Fisheries is prohibited in the waters of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, except at the distance of one thousand yards from shore or one thousand yards from any similar net set from the shore.

1 U. S. Treaty Series, No. 554.

Sub-section (d) of section eight is hereby repealed and the following substituted therefor:

(d) If the leader of a herring trap-net extends from the shore, any fishery officer may determine in writing or orally the length of the leader that shall be used.

Sub-section nine of section five (added):

Upon any inhabitant of the United States fishing with trap-nets in Canadian waters in the exercise of his liberties under the treaty of 1818 applying for a berth site under the licensing provisions, such a license shall be issued in the usual course for any unoccupied berth site selected by the applicant upon payment of the regular fee in consideration of the exclusive use of such site, subject to the usual rules and regulations.

Clause (f) of sub-section one of section eight (added):

Upon any inhabitant of the United States fishing with trap-nets in Canadian waters in the exercise of his liberties under the treaty of 1818 applying for a berth site under the licensing provisions, such a license shall be issued in the usual course for any unoccupied berth site selected by the applicant upon payment of the regular fee in consideration of the exclusive use of such site, subject to the usual rules and regulations. January 14, 1911.

PHILANDER C KNOX

JAMES BRYCE

LP BRODEUR

A B AYLESWORTH

CHANDLER P. ANDERSON

[Translation.]

ADDITIONAL PROTOCOL TO THE CONVENTION RELATIVE TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF AN INTERNATIONAL COURT OF PRIZE.

Signed at The Hague, September 19, 1910.

Germany, the United States of America, the Argentine Republic, Austria-Hungary, Chile, Denmark, Spain, France, Great Britain, Japan, Norway, the Netherlands, Sweden, Powers signatory to the Hague Convention dated October 18, 1907, for the establishment of an international court of prize,1 considering that for some of these Powers difficulties of a 1 SUPPLEMENT, 2:174.

constitutional nature prevent the acceptance of the said convention, in its present form, have deemed it expedient to agree upon an additional protocol taking into account these difficulties without jeopardizing any legitimate interest and have, to that end, appointed as their plenipotentiaries, to wit:

Germany: His Excellency F. de Müller, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary at The Hague.

The United States of America: James Brown Scott.

The Argentine Republic: His Excellency Alejandro Guesalaga, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary at The Hague.

Austria-Hungary: Baron E. de Gudenus, chargé d'affaires ad interim at The Hague.

Chile: His Excellency F. Puga Borne, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary at Paris.

Denmark: J. W. de Grevenkop Castenkkjold, minister resident at The Hague.

Spain: His Excellency Jose de la Rica y Calvo, envoy etxraordinary and minister plenipotentiary at The Hague.

France: His Excellency Marcellin Pellet, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary at The Hague.

Great Britain: His Excellency Sir George W. Buchanan, G. C. V. O., K. C. M. G., C. B., envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary at The Hague.

Japan: His Excellency Aimaro Sato, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary at The Hague.

Norway: His Excellency G. F. Hagerup, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary at The Hague.

The Netherlands: His Excellency Jonkheer R. de Marees van Swinderen, minister of foreign affairs.

Sweden: His Excellency Count J. J. A. Ehrensvärd, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary at The Hague.

Who, after depositing their full powers, found to be in good and due form, have agreed upon the following:

ARTICLE 1.

The Powers signatory or adhering to the Hague convention of October 18, 1907, relative to the establishment of an international court of prize, which are prevented by difficulties of a constitutional nature from accepting the said convention in its present form, have the right to declare in

the instrument of ratification or adherence that in prize cases, whereof their national courts have jurisdiction, recourse to the international court of prize can only be exercised against them in the form of an action in damages for the injury caused by the capture.

ARTICLE 2.

In the case of recourse to the international court of prize, in the form of an action for damages, Article 8 of the convention is not applicable; it is not for the court to pass upon the validity or the nullity of the capture, nor to reverse or affirm the decision of the national tribunals.

If the capture is considered illegal, the court determines the amount of damages to be allowed, if any, to the claimants.

ARTICLE 3.

The conditions to which recourse to the international court of prize is subject by the convention are applicable to the action in damages.

ARTICLE 4.

Under reserve of the provisions hereinafter stated the rules of procedure established by the convention for recourse to the international court of prize shall be observed in the action in damages.

ARTICLE 5.

In derogation of Article 28, paragraph 1, of the convention, the suit for damages can only be brought before the international court of prize by means of a written declaration addressed to the International Bureau of the Permanent Court of Arbitration; the case may even be brought before the bureau by telegram.

ARTICLE 6.

In derogation of Article 29 of the convention the International Bureau shall notify directly, and if possible by telegram, the government of the belligerent captor of the declaration of action brought before it.

The government of the belligerent captor, without considering whether the prescribed periods of time have been observed, shall, within seven days of the receipt of the notification, transmit to the International Bureau the case, appending thereto a certified copy of the decision, if any, rendered by the national tribunal.

« 이전계속 »