Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1878-11-15
FISHERY FUSS.
SALIsBURY's REPLY 10 SECRETARY
EVARTS' WINDY EPISTLE.
a War of Words in Which Little Infor-
nation is vouchsafed tho Public at Large
Tho Mormon Question in the United
States Supreme Court-NIiscollaneOus
from the National Capital.
sAL1sBuRY's REPLY.

from the National Capital.
sALIsBURY's REPLY.
WASHINGTON, d. c., NOV. A.-The following
is Lord salisbury's reply to the dispatch O
Secretary Eyarts concerning the injuries sus
tanned by American fishermen in Fortune bay
and the attitude of the home government il
regard to colonial legislation affecting ou
rights under the treaty of Washington:
FoRE1oN OFFICE Nov. Z, 1878.
SIR-Her majesty's government have hao
under their consideration the dispatch from NJ r
Evarts dated 28th September, and commune
Gated to me on the 18th ultimo, respecting the
complaints made by the government of the
United States Of injuries sustained by Ameri-
can fishermen in Fortune bay in January last.
This dispatch is IN reply to my letter Of the
23d of August, in which forwarded a copy
of the report furnished by Captain Sui
aivan, of her majesty's ship Serius,
on the occurrence in question. Mr. Evarts now
remarks that the United States government
have not been put in possession of the deposi-
lions which forms the basis of that report, and
are unable, therefore, to say whether upon
their consideration the view which the govern
ment of the United States takes, these trans
actions, upon the sworn statement of their own
citizens, would be at all modified. Her ma
iesty's government have not had opportunity
Of considering the statements in question, but
the dispositions which accompanied Capt.
Sullivan's report, and which l now have the
honor to forward, appeared to them, in the alb
sence of other testimony, to be conclusive as
regards the facts of the case. Apart, however,
from the facts, in respect to which there APP
pears to be material divergence between the
evidence collected by the United States govern
ment and that collected by colonial authorities,
Eyes fO NV Jatt of ha
3d. on the ground Of my statement that
United States fishermen concerned have been
guilty of breaches OF law. From this he infers
an opinion on my part that it is competent for
British authority to pass laws in suppression
OF the treaty binding American fishermen
within the three mile limit. In pointing out
that American fishermen had broken the law
within the territorial limits of her majesty's
dominions, had no intention of inferentially
laying down any principles of international law,
and no advantage would, think, be gained by
doing SO to greater extent than the facts in
the question absolutely require. I hardly be-
lieve, however, that Mr.. Evarts would in dis
cussion, adhere to the broad doctrine which
somo portion of his language would appear to
convey, that no British authority has any right
to pass any kind of law binding Americans
who are fishing in British waters, for if that
contention be just, the same disability applies
fortoiri to any other powers, and waters must
be delivered over to anarchy. On the other
hand her majesty's government will readily adj
NIT what is indeed self-evident,
that British sovereignty regards these
matters is limited in it's scope by engagements
of the treaty of Washington, which cannot be
modified or affected by municipal election. l
cannot anticipate that with regard to these
principals any difference will be found to exist
between the views of the two governments.
If, however, it be admitted that New Found
Land Legislators have the right of binding
Americans who fish within their waters by any
laws, which do not contravene by existing
treaties, it must be further conceded that the
duty of determining the existence OF any such
Gontravention must be undertaken by the gov
ernments and cannot be RENTED to the discre-
ton of each individual fisherman, for such
y discretion if exercised on one
side hardly be refused on the
other. If any American fisherman may vio-
lently break a law which he believes to be con-
trary to treaty, Newfoundland fisherman may
violently MAINTAIN it if he believes it to be in
accordance with treaty. As points in issue are
frequently subtle and require considerable legal
knowledge, nothing but confusion and disorder
could result from such mode of deciding the
Interpretation of the treaty. Her majesty's
government prefer to view that law enacted by
the legislature of the country, whatever it may
be BE-, ,;n. ought hit to be ob ,:y BY
are fojourning within their territorial
limits its jurisdiction, but that it law has
been inadvertently passed which is in any
degree or respect at variance with rights con-
fcrred on foreign power by treaty, the correc-
ton of mistake as committed is, at the earliest
period after its existence shall have been ascer-
tanned and recognized, a matter of information
al obligation. 1t is not explicitly stated in MIR.
Evarts' dispatch that he considers any recent
act of colonial legislation to be inconsistent
with rights acquired by the United States un-
der the treaty of Washington, but if that is
the case her majesty's government will, in a
friendly spirit, consider any representations he
may think it right to make upon the subject.
With hope of coming to satisfactory under
standing, / have, etc. etc., SALISBURY.
To John WEIGH, Esq, etc.
TEE MORMON QUESTION.
WASHINGTON, Nov. l4.--Supremc court No.
$50 assigned George Reynolds, plaintiff in error
against the United States in error, to the SUI
preme court of the territory of Utah. This was
an Indictment in the circuit court of the terri
tory of Utah, under section 1852, revised stat
utes for contracting a polygamous marriage.
Having been convicted in the third judicial dis
trict court, he appealed to the supreme court of
the territory, and from that court, in which the
Judgment below was affirmed, sued out a writ
OF error to the supreme court. Argument was
begun. The errors in the case are very
numerous, bnt only one Of them involves a
question of general public interest, viz:
Whether the United States Congress has con-
stitutional right to prohibit polygamous mar
riages in the Territories. 1t was contended by
counsel for the prisoner that polygamy is en-
joined as a religious duty and held as an article
of faith by the sect to which the latter belongs,
and that Congress is forbidden by the first
amendment to the constitution to make any
law respecting establishment of religion, or
TO prohibit the free exercise thereof.
Atty. Gen. Devens, Of counsel for the United
States, urged i'll reply that the Interpretation
OF the constitution which would restrain Con-
sress from attaching a penalty to the crime of
polygamy on account of its being article of
religious faith, would also restrain it from at
taching penalty to any other crime which
might be sanctioned by religion. That under
this rigid Interpretation Of the constitution a
sect of East Indian Thugs who should settle in
the territories might commit murder with i'm
punity, on the ground that it was sanctioned
and enjoined by their system Of religion. he
closed with an eloquent and impressive refer.
cnoe to the well known Mountain Meadow mas
Bacre by the Norman ''avenging angels" as an
illustration of the fanatical extremes to which
men, unrestrained by law, might be carried
under q mistaken conviction of religious duty
Argument will be continued tomorrow.
Political Complication in Delaware.
WILMINGTON, Nov. 14.-At the State election