The Portland daily press., 1878-11-16
THE FISHERY CONTROVERSY.
Salishury's Reply to Secretary
Evarts.
The Treaty of Washington Cam
not be Modified by Municipal
Legislation.

WASHINGTON, Nov 1.-THE following ia
Lore tiisoury reply to the despatch of Secre-
tAry EVarts concerning the injuries sustained
by American fishermen in Fortune Bay, and
the attitude of The Home Government in regard
to cOloLial legislation aft. ng our rights under
the Treaty of Washington:
FOREIGN OFFICE. Nov. Z, 1875
Sir: Her Majesy's GoVeroment have b 4d n
Ger their consideration the despatch from Mr.
EVarts dated the 2Sth of Scot mber and com.
mnnicsted to me- on the IL h ult respecting
complaints made by the Government of the
Unted States of injuries sustained by Ameri.
can fishermen in Fortune Bay in J Anuary last
This despatch is in reply to my letter of the
% of August, in which forwarded copy of
the report furnished by Capt Sullivan of Her
Maiasty's ship Sirius, on the occurrence 10
question.
Mr.. Evarts now remarks that the United
States governments have not been put in posses
sion OF the dispositions, which form a basis of
that report, and are 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 considering the state
ments in question, but the depositions which
accompanied Capt. Sullivan's report, and
which | now have the honor to forward. ap-
peared to them in the absence of other testi-
mony to be conclusive as regards the facts of
bu6 Cds6 apart, HOW6V6F ltOul tu0 IaCGS, IN
respect to which there appears to be q material
divergence between the evidence collected by
the U 0ited States Government and that collect
ed by the Colonial authorities. Mr. Evarts
takes exception to my letter of the 23i. on the
ground of my statement that the Uaited States
fishermen concerned have been guilty of
breaches OF the law. From this he infers an
opinion on my part that it is competent for q
British authority to pass laws in suppression
OF the treaty binding American fishermen with
10 the three mile limit.
In pointing out that American fishermen had
broken the law within the territorial limits of
Her Majssty's dominiops, had no intention
OF inferentially laying down any principles of
International law, and no advantage would
think, he gained by doing go to a greater ex-
tent han the facts 10 the question absolutely
required hardly believe, however that Mr..
Evarts would in discussion adhere to the broad
doctrine which some portion of his language
would appear to c0nvey-thst no British
authority has any right to pass any kind of law
binding Americans who are fishing 10 British
waters, for If that contention be just the same
disability applies, a fortiori, to any other
power, and the waters must be delivered over
to anarchy. On the other hand, Her Majasty's
government will readily admit what is indeed
self-svident, that British sovereignty, as
regards these matters, is limited 10 IT'S scope By
the Engagement of the Treaty of Washington,
which cannot be modified or affected by auy
municipal legislation.
cannot anticDate that with regard to these
principles any difference will b. found to exist
bstwern the views of the two governments If,
however, it be admitted that the Newfouod.
land legislators have the right of btnding
Americans who fish within their waters by
any laws which do not contraveue existing
treaties, it must further be conceded that the
duty of determining the existence of any such
contravention must b, undertaken by the
governments, and cannot be RENTED to the
discretion Of each individual fisherman; for
such discretion, If exercised on Que side, can
hardly be refused on the other. Ii any
American fisherman may violently break q
law which he believes to be contrary to the
treaty, a Newfoundland fisherman NAV
violently maintain it if he believes it to be in
accordance with the treaty. As the points in
issue are frequently sub.e and require con-
siderable legal Knowledge, nothing bat con-
fusion and disorder could result from such a
mode of deciding the Interpretation of the
treaty.
Her Majesty's government prefers the view
that the law enacted by the Legislature Of a
country, whatever it may bs, ought to be obey
ed by natives and foreigners alike who are SC
journiDg within the territorial limits of it's
Jurisdiction, but if law has been inadvertent-
iy passed, which is, 10 any degree or respect,
at variance with the rights conferred on for
eign power by the treaty, the correction of the
mistake committed, at the earliest period after
its existence shall have been ascertained and
recognized, is matter of international obliga-
ton. 1t is not explicitly stated in Mr.. Evarts'
despatch that he considers any recent acts of
the Colonial Legislature to be Inconsistent
with the rights acquired by the United States
under the Treaty of Washington; but if that is
the case Her Majesty's governments will, in a
friendly spirit, consider any representations be
may think IL right to make upon the subject.
With the hope of coming to a satisfactory I'M
derstandiug, have, etc.,
(Signed) SALISBURY.
John Welsh, Esq, etc.