New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1878-11-15
THE FORTUNE BAY oUTRAGEs.


Overrides colonial legislation.
THE FORTUNE BAY OUTRAGES.
TREATY NOT TO BE CoNTRAvENED BY MUNICIPAL
LEGIsIATIoN-AN AGREEMENT on THIS POINT
LEGISLATIVE ENACTMEYTs CONTRARY TO
TREATY SHOULD BE oBEYED UNTIL CORRECTED
PROMPT CORRECTION AN INTERNATIONAL OBJ
LEGATION.
WASHINGTON, Nov. 14.-The following is Lord
Salisburys reply to the dispatch of Secretary
Evarts concerning the injuries sustained by Ameri-
can fishermen in Fortune Bay, and the sttitude of
the Home Government III regard 10 the colonial
legislation affecting American rights under the
Treaty of Washington:
LORD SALISBURY TO Mr.. WELSH.
FOREIGN OFFICE Nov. z. 1873. %
SIR: Her Majesty's Government have had under
their consideration the dispatch from Mr. Evarts,
dated 2sth September, and communicated to me ON
the 18th ultimo, respecting the complaints made
by the Government ofthe United States, Of the in
juries sustained by American fishermen in Fortune
Bay In January last. This dispatch is in reply to
my letter of the 23d of August, in which | for
warded a copy of the report furnished by Captain
Sullivan. of Her Majestys ship Sirius, the occur
renee in question. Mr.. Evarts now remarks that
the United States Government have not been put in
possession of the dispositions which form the basis
of that report, and unable, therefore, TO say
whether upon their consideration, the view which
the Government of the United States takes of these
transactions, upon the sworn statement Of their own
citizens would be at all modified Her Majesty's
Government have not had the opportunity of con-
sderng the statements in question: but the deposit
lions which accompanied Captain Sulivan's report,
and which now have the honor to forward. app
peared to them, in the absence of other testimony,
to be conclusive regards the facts of the case.
Apart however, from the facts III respect to
which there appears to be material divergence be-
tween the evidence collected by the United States
Government and that collected by the colonial au-
thOrties Mr. Evarts takes exception to my letter Of
the 23d, on the ground Of my statement that the
United States fishermen concerned have been guilty
Of breaches of the law. From this he infers an
opinion my part, that it is competent for Brit
ish authority to pass laws in suppression of the
treaty, binding American fishermen within the
three-mi.e limit. In pointing out that the Ameri-
can fishermen had broken the law within the terri
tOria limits of her Majestys dominions. had no iu-
tentono finferentiay laying down any principles of
international law and no advantage would, think,
be gained Dy doing 80, to greater extent than the
facts in question absolutely require. hardly be-
leve however, that Mr.. Evarts would, in dis
cusson, adhere to the broad doctrine which
some portion of his language would appear to
convey, that no British authority has any right
to pass any kind of law binding Americans,
who fishing in British waters, for If that
contention be just, the same disability applies
t0rtori to any other power and tho waters must DO
delivered over to anarchy. On the other hand, her
Majesty's Government will readily admit, what is
indeed self-evident that British sovereignty as re-
gards these matters is limited in its scope by the
engagements of the Treaty of Washington. which
cannot be modified or affected by any municipal
legislation cannot anticipate that with regard te
these principles any difference will be found to
exist between the views of the two Governments.
If, however, it be admitted that the Newfoundland
legislators have the right of binding Americans who
fish within their waters by any laws which do not
contravene existing treaties, it must further be
coded that the duty of determining the existence Of
any such cOntravention must be undertaken by the
Governments and cannot be RENTED TO the dscre-
ton OF each individual fisherman, for such dis
creton, if exercised on one side, can hardly be re-
fused on the other If any American fisherman
NAV violently break law which he believes TO 10
contrary to treaty. a Newfoundland fisherman may
violently maintain it, if he believes it to be in &C.
cordance with treaty. AS the points in issue are
frequently subtle and require considerable legal
knowledge, nothing but confusion and disorder
could result from such mode of deciding the in-
depreciation or the treaty. her MaJeSty's Govern-
rnent prefer the view thart the law enacted by the
Legislature of the country, whatever it may be,
ought to be obeyed by natives and foreigners alike
who are sojourning within the territorial limits Of
its jurisdiction, but that if a law has been mad
yertently passed. which is in any degree, respect,
at variance with rights conferred a foreign
power by treaty, the correction Of the mistake. as
committed at the earliest period after its existence
shall have been ascertaned and recognized, is .
matter of international obligation.
1t is not explicitly stated in Mr.. Evartss dispatch
that he considers any recent acts of the Colonial
Legislature to be inconsistent with the rights &C.
quired by tho United States under the Treaty OK
Washington, but if that is the case her Msjesty's
Government will, in friendly spirit, consider any
representations he may think it right to make upon
the subject with the hope of coming to satisfac-
tory understanding. / have, ETC., SALISBURY.
JOHN WELSH, Esq, ETC., etc, etc.