711.428/1985
The Secretary of State to the Chargé in Canada (Palmer)
Sir: The receipt is acknowledged of your despatch No. 760 of June 16, 1936, enclosing a copy of a note from the Canadian Department of External Affairs dated June 15, 1936,38 suggesting certain alterations in the proposed draft for a revision of the Convention for the Preservation of the Halibut Fisheries of the northern Pacific Ocean.
1. The Department finds entirely acceptable the suggestion for the substitution of the word “Canada” for the words “the Dominion of Canada”, in the five places listed in Mr. Skelton’s39 note.
[Page 831]2. Consideration has been given to the suggestion of the Canadian Government that the phrase “on the high seas” be inserted after the word “engaged” near the beginning of Article II and that the phrases “except within the territorial waters of the other party” and “except when such violation is committed in the territorial waters of the other party”, appearing subsequently in that article be deleted. This Government understands the treaty as providing for the regulation of halibut fishing in territorial waters as well as on the high seas by agreement between the two countries and the first of the two phrases which the Canadian Government proposes to omit as making clear with respect to such regulation that the authorities of one country are not given power to make arrests in the territorial waters of the other country. In view of the provisions of Article I it seems to be important that this exception be expressed. The language of the draft now under negotiation is the same in this particular as the language of the treaties of 1923 and 1930. The object of the second of these phrases, as recently proposed by this Government, is to make clear that one country is not required to surrender the vessels, nationals or inhabitants of the other country, if taken in its own territorial waters for fishing made illegal under the treaty, a construction to which the article might be susceptible if the phrase is not included.
These objects, it is believed, are not achieved by the addition of the phrase “on the high seas” at a point in the article where it merely describes the place where the fishing is done. It must be pointed out, moreover, that the article without the phrase “on the high seas” will be broad enough to provide for the enforcement of the convention and the regulations of the commission in territorial waters, whereas the insertion of those words would remove the territorial waters entirely from the scope of the article.
It is believed that the Canadian Government, no less than this Government, desires to retain complete jurisdiction to arrest and prosecute for offenses by any persons committed within its territorial waters, notwithstanding that the laws and regulations which may be violated are established jointly by the two governments. The meaning desired, it is believed, is clearly expressed in the wording proposed by this Government.
3. The Department agrees to the deletion of the words “or areas” in the third line of Article III, second paragraph, sub-paragraph (c) and the change in the eighth line from the words “the said area” to “that area”.
Very truly yours,