Wood County reporter. [volume] (Grand Rapids [i.e. Wisconsin Rapids], Wis.) 1857-1923, 1878-11-21
LORD SALlSBURY'S REPLY TO SEC.
RETARY EVARTS.
He Discusses the Fishery Question in A
Calm and Dignified Manner

/
Calm and Dignified Manner.
The following is Lord Salisbury,s
reply to the dispatch of Secretary
Evarts, concerning the iniurins
sustained by American fisher
men IN Fortune Bay, and the attitude
OF the home government in regard to
colonial legislation affecting our rights
under the treaty of Washington:
FOREIGN OFFICE, Nov. Z.
SIR: Our majesty's government have
had under their consideration the dis
patch from Mr.. Evarts dated the 29th
OF September, and communicated to
me on the 18th ult. respecting COM
plants made by the government of the
United States of Injuries sustained by
Obituary 1stSU. Inns UUiSEJ55f6U Is III reply
to my letter of the 23d of August, in
which [ forwarded copy of the report
furnished by Capt. Sullivan, of her
majesty's ship Se1ino, on the occurrence
III question. Mr.. Eyarts remarks that
the I. S. government have not been
put i'll possession of dispositions which
forms the basis of that report,
and are unable to say, therefore,
whether, upon their consideration, the
view which the government of the U.
| ). takes of these transactions, upon the
sworn statement of their own citizens,
would be at all modified. Her males
ty's governme has not had an oppor-
tunity of considering the statements in
question, but dispositions which accom-
panied captain Sullivan's report, and
which [ now have the honor to forward
appeared to them in the absence of
other testimony, to be conclusive as re-
CARDS the facts in the case. Apart, how
ever, from the facts in respect to which
there appears to be q material diver
gence between the evidence by the u.
S. government and that collected by
the colonial authorities, Mr. Evarts
takes exception to my letter of the 23d
and the ground of my statement that
the u. S. fishermen concerned have
been guilty of breaches of law. From
this he infers an opinion on my part
that 1t is competent for
British authority to pass laws
superior to. the treaty and binding
American fishermen within the three
mile limit. In pointing out that the
American fishermen had broken the
law within the territorial limits of her
maesty's dominions, had no intention
of inferentially laying down any princi-
pies of international law, and no advan-
tage would, [ think, be gained by doing
so to greater extent than the facts in
question absolutely require. Ihardlv
believe, however, that Mr.. Evarts would,
IN a discussion, adhere to the broad
doctrine which some portions 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 disa-
biIity applies q tortoi1i to any other pow
ers, and the waters must be delivered
over to anarchy. On the other hand,
her majesty's government will readily
admit what is indeed self-evident, that
British sovereignty as regards these
matters is limited in its scope by the
engagements of the treaty of Washing
ton, which cannot be modified or affect
ed by a municipal election. [ cannot
anticipate that, in regard to these prin-
ciRles, any difference will be found to
exist between the views of the two gov
ernments. If. however. it should be ad-
mitted that Newfoundland legislatures
have the right of binding Americans
who fish within their waters by any
law which do not contravene existing
treaties, it must be further conceded
that the duty of determining the exist
ence of any such contravention must
be undertaken by the two governments
and cannot be remitted to the discre
ton of each individual fisherman. Fol-
such discretion if exercised on one
side can hardy be refused on the
other, and if any American fisherman
may violently break law which he
believes to be contrary to the treaty, 9
Newfoundland fisherman may violently
maintain it if he believes it to be in ac
cordance with the treaty. AS the points
in issue are frequently subtle and re
quire considerable legal knowledge
nothing but confusion and disorder
could result from such mode of de
Gliding the Interpretation of the treaty
Her majesty's government prefer the
view that the law enacted by the legis
lature of country, whatever it may
be, ought to be obeyed by the natives
and foreigners alike who are soiournins
within the territorial limits of its juris
diction; but that if q law has been in
advertently passed, which is in any de
gree or respect at variance with the
rights conferred on foreign power by 9
treaty, the correction of the mistake
and injury, if an injury is committed, al
| the earliest period, after its existence
shall have been ascertained aud recog
nlzed, is matter of international obi
cation. 1t is not explicitly stated il
Mr.. Eyarts' dispatch that he considers
any act of the colonial legislature tC
be inconsistent with the rights acquired
by the U. S. under the treaty of Wash
ington, but if that is the case her majes
ty's government will in a friendly spiri
consider any representations he may
think it right to make upon the subject
with the hope of coming to satisfac
tory understanding.
/ have the honor, ETC., ETC..
-r SALISBURY.
To JEo. WEIGH, Esq, ETC., etc.