711.428/676
The British Ambassador (Geddes) to the Secretary of State
Sir: In your note of October 17th last2 respecting the so-called Sockeye Salmon Fishery Treaty you were good enough to point out that, since it seemed certain that the treaty in its present form could not receive the approval of the Senate and therefore could not be ratified, the only practicable course appeared to be to withdraw it. You drew my attention to the very strong opposition to this agreement which existed in the West, particularly on the part of the authorities of the State of Washington. In conclusion, you added that in the existing situation you did not feel that you were in a position to suggest any modifications, the adoption of which would make possible the ratification of the treaty.
The substance of your note I immediately communicated to the Canadian Government. On October 30th the latter informed me that the Canadian Marine and Fisheries Department were, in the circumstances, most anxious to see what could be done to save these fisheries by direct cooperation with the Fisheries Board of the State of Washington. There being no other course possible I agreed that an endeavour to save these fisheries should be made on the lines suggested.
This plan was duly adopted and Conferences between the Fisheries Board of the State of Washington and representatives of the Canadian Marine and Fisheries Department took place at Vancouver on the 12th and 13th of December. Unfortunately it was not found possible to reach any agreement. There was not, it appears, any inability on the part of the parties concerned to agree as to the immediate steps which should be taken, but the Washington State Board found itself unable to give any assurance that fishing would be adequately controlled in the future. Both sides were of opinion [Page 670] that the conditions were sufficiently serious to justify the stopping of all sockeye fishing in the Fraser River System for at least five years; but the representatives of the Marine and Fisheries Department felt that such a very drastic course should not be taken unless there was some reasonable assurance that, when fishing was resumed, purse-seines—which have proved so destructive—would be eliminated from the waters amongst the islands in the Gulf of Georgia and that trap-nets and gill-nets would be properly regulated.
The wisdom of such provisions can scarcely be doubted. It was not because of any divergence on this point that the conference failed, but because of the inability to give such an assurance as regards the future. The difficulty of so doing is about as great in Canada as in the State of Washington, seeing that Dominion fishery regulations are subject to change by Order-in-Council. Indeed the failure of this conference strongly emphasised the fact that the protection of these fisheries is a matter that can be properly dealt with only by treaty between the two countries.
The course of these negotiations shows clearly that the Provincial authorities of British Columbia are not in a position to deal with this matter by direct negotiations with the authorities of the State of Washington. The failure of a conference at which both sides were in accord as to the measures which should be taken to protect these fisheries would seem clearly to emphasise the necessity for a treaty to deal with this matter and, this being so, it would seem possible that the State of Washington would no longer be disposed to oppose the ratification of the treaty.
I venture therefore to draw your attention again to this question in the hope that you may be disposed to consider the wisdom of presenting the treaty once again to the Senate and I should be grateful if I might be furnished in due course with an expression of your views in regard to this question which, in the light of what I have stated above, appears now to have entered a new phase.
I have [etc.]