711.428/778
The Under Secretary of State (Phillips) to the Canadian Deputy Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Johnston)
My Dear Mr. Johnston: I have received from the Consul General at Ottawa a copy of your courteous letter of December 28, 1923,2 communicating the opinion of the Deputy Minister of Justice on certain questions in regard to the interpretation of the Northern Pacific Halibut Fishery Act passed by the Canadian Parliament in June, 1923.
The views of the Deputy Minister of Justice were communicated to Senator Lodge, Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee of the Senate, and also your statement that there is no intention on the part of Canada to relieve British vessels from seizure and forfeiture for breach of any of the provisions of the treaty and that if reasonable doubt arises in the mind of anyone that this would be possible under the Act of 1923, steps will be taken to remedy it during the next session of Parliament. I have also had a conversation with Senator Lodge in regard to the matter.
The President has referred the Halibut Fisheries Convention to the Senate for further consideration. Confidentially I may say that Senator Lodge desires to bring it up for action and it is believed that there is no disposition on the part of Senators to insist on the understanding which was made a part of the resolution of March 4, 1923, advising and consenting to ratification.3 Senator Lodge is apprehensive, however, that the provisions of Section 9 of the Act of the Canadian Parliament under which vessels of the United States would be liable to seizure and forfeiture for the causes to which that Section relates whereas vessels navigated according to the laws of the United Kingdom or of Canada would expressly not be so liable [Page 336] under that Section will make it difficult to obtain the approval of the Senate to the Convention without a reservation.
Senator Lodge said to me personally that he would be willing to endeavor to obtain the advice and consent of the Senate to the ratification of the convention without a reservation if he could first have an assurance from the Premier of Canada that the Canadian Government would construe and enforce the Act as the Deputy Minister of Justice stated in his letter to you it should in his opinion be construed. I cannot but believe, however, that as a permanent measure it would be more satisfactory to this Government if the Act of Parliament were amended so that the ambiguity which arises out of Section 9 would be removed. If I may be permitted to make a specific suggestion I should say that this might be accomplished by eliminating Section 9.
As favorable action on the Convention by the Senate seems to depend on an adjustment with reference to Section 9 of the Canadian Act, I should be appreciative of any action which you could take either in the direction of obtaining an expression of the views of the Premier or of putting the matter in course to obtain an amendment of the Act at the next session of Parliament. I should also be grateful for any information which you could furnish me as to progress in either direction.
I am [etc.]
- Ibid., p. 480.↩
- See note of Mar. 5, 1923, to the British Ambassador, ibid., p. 471.↩