River Falls journal. [volume] (River Falls, Pierce County, Wis.) 1872-2019, 1878-11-28
The Fisheries.
London Telegraph


In fairness, however, we must acknowledge
that there is some reason in what has been
written ON the question in America. One
of the more respectable Journals in the
States, for example, says, eve are going 20
pay S5,000,000 for a privilege which any
local assembly can at pleasure render nuga-
tory" Another remarks, "Io accept Lord
Salisbury's construction of the fishery
privileges of the treaty of Washington wouid
be accepting the right of a British provincial
government to annul or cancel the privileges,
and. til erefore, make the treaty waste paper.
If this be fair pressntment of the case, it
would not be in accordance with British
traditions of honorable dealing to resist the
contention of our friendly opponents across
the Atlantic. OF course we could not expect
them to pay large sum of money for a
privilege which was not real privilege, and
there need to be no hesitation on our part in
recognizing that il wouid not be a real
privilege if it could be made null and void
by the caprice or obstinacy of any little local
government with craze for interfering with
imperial concerns. At the same time, we do
not quite see how there can be much solidity
in this line of argument, for we do not ex-
acty understand how Colonial Legislature
could pass law modifying or canceling
British treaty with a foseign power, which
could not be vetoed by her majesty and an
nulled by the imperial government. In fact,
it appears as if the question were one of
those difficult points relating TO a conflict of
jurisdiction, and it seems to involve the con
sideration of how far q treaty between two
countries can in IFS application be affected
or modified by local authority or municipal
law n either country. At ali events, Eng
lishmen can have but che wish, sud that is
to do what is right and lawful, and if this
case is at all lire that other dispute which
Lord Derby had with the American govern
ment. as to the administering of the extradi-
ton treaty in accordance with the local law,
we shall be as ready to abandon our conten-
ton now as we did then, after becoming CON
WINGED that the law of nations was, ON the
whole, rather against as than otherwise.
Our argument was that we could not give up
an American criminal unless, in terms of the
extradition act. we were assured he would
not be tried in the United States for any
crime save that for which he was extradited.
Unfortunately. in a tre4ty with America
which was signed before the passing of the
extradition act, no such stipulation was
made. The United States minister &C
coriinely demanded the unconditional sur
render of certain culprit whom we at first
refused to deliver. AT last, as the result Of
long discussion between the two govern
ments, il was found that when we got into
the subtleties OF international equity our
kinsmen were our masters; and frankly adj
hitting that they made cut their case against
US, we gave in and surrendered the prisoner
about whom the dispute took place. What
happened on that occasion may happen
again. But, Just as there was no need to
bully Us into doing what was fair and just
then. 50 there IS no need to attempt any
thing OF the sort now. Let the vhols facts
of the fishery dispute be put before the
public, and we are sure that the men of COM
mon sense in both countries will soon arrive
issue.