Watertown republican. [volume] (Watertown, Wis.) 1860-1906, 1878-11-20
LORD SALlSBURY'S REPLY TO SEC
RETARY EVARTS.
He Discusses the Fishery Question in q
Calm and Dignified Manner.


Evarts, concerning the injuries
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
American 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 Capt. Sullivan, of her
majesty's ship Serino, on the occurrence
in question. Mr.. Evarts remarks that
the U. 5. government have not been
put IN 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 y.
S. takes of these transactions, upon the
sworn statement of their own citizens,
would be at all modified. Her males
tvs gOvernm ent has not had an OppOr-
tunity of considering the statements in
question, but dispositions which accom-
panied captain Sullivan's report, and
which L 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 material diver
gence between the evidence by the L.
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 it 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
majesty's dominions, [ had no intention
of inferentially laying down any princi-
pies of international law, and no advan-
tage would, think, be gained by doinc
SO to greater extent than the facts in
question absolutely require. I hardly
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-
blllty applies tortol7i 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 selfevident, 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 municipal election. [ cannot
anticipate that, in regard to these prin-
ciples, 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 remltted to the discre-
ton Of each Individual fisherman. For
such a 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, q.
Newfoundland fisherman may violently
No aintain it if he believes it to be in &C
cordance with the treaty. As the points
in issue are frequently subtle and re-
auire 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 sojourning
within the territorial limits of it's iuris-
diction; but that if law has been in
passed, which is in any de-
gree Or respect at variance with the
rights conferred on foreign power by a
treaty, the correction of the mistake
and injury, if an injury is committed, at
the earliest period, after its existence
shall have been ascertained and recog
nlzed, is matter of international obi
CATION. 1t is not explicitly stated in
Mr.. Evarts' dispatch that he considers
any act Of the colonial legislature to
be inconsistent with the rights acquired
by the U. S. under the treaty of Wash
ington, but if that is the case her males
TVS government will in a friendly spirit
consider any representations he may
think it right to make upon the subject,
with the hope of coming to a satisfac-
tory understanding.
| have the honor, ETC., ETC..
Isl. SALISBURY.
To JNo. WEIGH, Esq, ETC., etc.
Lady Beautifiers.