The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1878-10-30
fuller knowledge OF the actual circumstan,

You will perceive that the report i
question appears to demonstrate conclu
sively that the United States fishermen Of
= this occasion had committed three distinc
SIbreaches Of thelaw. NJ - ys
In this observation OF Lord Salisbur!
this Government cannot fail to see tn
necessary implication that Her Majesty
Government conceives that in the prose
cution OF the right OF fishing accorded tn
United States by the treaty our fishermen
are subject to local regulations, whicl
govern :. the coast population OF New
foundland in their prosecution OF thei
fishing industry, whatever these regula
tions may be, andlwhether enacted betor'
or since the treaty OF Washington.
The three particulars in which our fish
ermcn are supposed to be constrained BY
acutual legislation Of the Province, covel
in principle every degree OF regulation o.
our fishing industry within the three mile
line which can well be conceived, but they
are in themselves so important, aud &C
sefious,a limitation OF tho right, secured
lbya tteaty, las practically to exclude oui
fishermen from Hany profitable pursuit
The right, which need not add, Is equiva.
lent to annulling or cancelliug, by pro.
yincial Government, the privilege accorded
by the treaty with the British Govern
ment flour fishing fleet is subject TO the
Sunday laws OF Newfoundland, made for
the, coast population, ii it Is excluded
from the fishing grounds for half n
wear, from October TO April; il our
seines and other centrivances for
catching fish arc subject to tho regulations
OF this legislature Of Newfoundland, II
would not under any circumstances be ad-
niissible for one government to subject the
persons, propertyand interests OF its fish.
termen> to- the -unrcgulated regulations OF
another government upon the suggestion
that such authority will not be oppressive
" or Capriciously exercised, nor would
any government accept as an adequate
guarantee OF the proper exercise OF such
authority over its citizens by foreign
government that presumptiye regulations
would be uniform in their operation upon
the subjects of both governments in
similar case. Il there are to- be regula-
tons Of common enjoyment they must be
authenticated By common joint authority.
But most manifestly the subject OF the
regulation of the enjoyment Of the shore
fishery by the provincial population andof
in shore fishery by our fleet fishing crui-
serS does not tolerate control OF so diver
gent and competing interests by domestic
legislation OF Provinces protecting do
nestle interest ut the expense Of foreign
interest, which on ordinary motives OF
human conduct necessarily shape and an
innate local legislation. The evidence be-
fore fhe Halifax Commission makes it OBJ
yio,is that to exclude our fishermen from
catching bait and thus compel them to go
without bait or buy bait ut the will and
prices OF Provincial fishermen, is in tho in
tercst OF local fishermen, and will bercgard-
ed MS the motive of such domestic legis-
lation MS is now brought to the notice Of
this government. You will, therefore,
say 10 Lord Salisbury that this
government cannot but express its
entire dissent from the view Of
the subject that his Lordships note
seems to indicate; that this government
insists that the fishery rights of the
United States, conceded by the treaty OF
Washington, are TO be exercised wholly
free from restraints and regulation stat
utes OF New Foundland, now set up as au'
thority over our fishermen, and from any
other regulations OF fishing now in force or
that, mayihereafterb be enacted by that gov.
ernment. 1t may be said that just partici-
patton in this common fishery by two par
ties entitled thereto may, in common in
terest ofprcserving the fishery andprevent-
ing conflicts between the fishermen, re-
quirc regulation by some competent auth;
ority. This may be conceded, but should
such an occasion present itself to the COM
mon appreciation Of two governments, 1t
need not be said that such competent
authority can only be found in joint con.
vention that shall receive the approval OF
Her Majesty's Government and our own.
Until this arrangement shall be consum-
mated this government must regard the
pretension that the legislation OF New
Foundland can regulate our tishermcn's
endowment OF treaty rights as striking ut
the treaty itself. It asserts an authority
on one side and submission on the other
which has not been proposed 10 us by Her
Maiesty's Government and has not been
accented by>this government. cannot
Doubt Iord Salisbury win agree that
the insertion OF any such element in the
treaty OF Washington would never have
been accepted by this government II IL
could reasonably be thought. possible that
it could have been proposed by Her Maj
esty's Government. The insertion OF any
such proposition by'construction now, is
equally at variance with the views OF this
government. The representations made
to this government by the interests of our
citizens affected leave no room to doubt
that this assertion OF authority is as
serious and extensive in practical re-
lations rs it is in principle. The
rude application made 10 twenty vessels
In Fortune Bay OF this assorted authority
lin Jannary last drove them from a profita.
bic prosecution of their projected cruise.
By some reason the entire inshorc fishery
is held by us upon the same tenure Of de-
pendence upon the Parliament ot the DO
minion or OF the Legislatures OF the
several provinces. ! cannot but regret
that this vital question has presented
itself SO unexpectedly to this Gov
ernment and at date so near the
period at which this Government
upon comparison Of views with Her Mai
esty's Government Is to pass upon the
conformity Of the proceedings OF the Hal,
Iiiax. Commission with the requirements oi
the Treaty OF Washington. The present
question Is wholly aside from considera'
tons bearing upon the subject, which
furnishes the topic OF my recent dis
patch. In the opinion OF the Govern
ment it Is essential. that We should at
once invite the attention OF Lord
Salisbury to the question" Of provincial
control over the fishermen OF the United
States in their prosecution Of the privilege
secured them by the treaty. So grave
question in its bearing upon the obligations
Of this government undoubtedly makes i
necessary that the President should ash
from Her Mnjesty's government frank
avowal or disavowel' Of paramount au
thority Of provincial legislation to regulate
the enjoyment by our people OF inshort
| fishery which seems to be intimated II no
asserted In Lord Salisbury's note. Beiort
receipt Of reply from Her Majcsty's gov
, ernment it would be premature to con
slider what should be the course Of thi
government should this limitation upoI
the treaty privilege OF the United State
DO lpsIsted upon by the British govern
. lFtant 10 thar nanRt FflniiOn nf the treaty