Programmed Diplomacy: The Settlement of the North Atlantic Fisheries Question, 1907-12

Abstract

When The Hague Tribunal brought down its Award on 7 September 1910, almost all contemporary observers agreed that the age-old controversy had been laid to rest. Only the eulogies differed, varying with the nationality of the authors. Allen B. Aylesworth, Agent for the combined team of Canada, Great Britain and Newfoundland immediately cabled his Prime Minister, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, that they had won all the points of any consequence and that only one small feature of the Award was unsatisfactory. Two days later, the American Agent, Chandler P. Anderson, sent much the same cheerful sort of message to President William Howard Taft: the Americans had gained a substantial victory and only one point at issue, itself of slight importance, had gone against them. The confusion of those early days has been perpetuated. The "truth" of the matter still depends largely upon a man's nationality. Most Canadian historians who have lately glanced at the Award regard it as one which "favoured Canada", "broadly upheld the Canadian case" or "generally upheld the case of Canada and Newfoundland." When American historians scrutinize the Award — and not too many do — they come to very different conclusions. S. F. Bemis, after patriotically approaching the subject, reached a remarkable half-truth: the "award . . . put into effect the provisions of the unratified Bayard-Chamberlain treaty of 1888 for the definition of territorial bays . . . ." Julius W. Pratt, following the same nationalist course, concluded that the Tribunal "decided all the principal questions in favor of the United States." Thomas A. Bailey, whose historical understanding was more precise, likened the decision to a "compromise" in which Gloucestermen were protected against unreasonable local regulations while Newfoundlanders were "generally sustained in their claims to local jurisdiction."