New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1880-05-19
TIE BREACH OF TIE TREATY or WASH
INGTON

HE BRE1CH OF IHE IhEdLL VI " <1DH-
INGTON.
By the message of the President of the 18th
of May, and the accompanying report of the
Secretary of State, Congress has been placed in
charge of one of the most important matters OF
business ever submitted to its care. The ques-
ton thus laid before both houses involves moth
| ing less than the continued existence OF the
Treaty of Washington. 1t Is impossible to read
the clear and admirable report of Mr.. Evarts
| without coming to the conclusion that the Gov
eminent of the United States having failed to
obtain either redress or even proper consld-
| Grafton of the grievances under which our fish
ermcn are suffering in British American waters
is forced to take into its own hands the right
ing of these evident wrongs
It is now two years aud more since the New
England fishermen, relying on the privilege
guaranteed to them by solemn treaty stipula-
| ton, and attempting to ply their vocation on
the shores of Fortune Bay, were violently
driven away with great loss and hardship. Our
| Government lost no time in protesting against
| this outrage, and demanding redress Again
and again the protest and the demand were re-
peated and the public, who knew nothing OF
these diplomatic proceedings, became more and
| more impatient at the long delay. The CORE
spOndence sent to Congress on Monday suili-
| clently explains the dilatOry conduct of the
British Government. and casts most unfavor-
able light upon the action of Lord BeacOns-
fields Cabinet Up to the time when the pre-
posterOus decision of Mr.. DelfOsse against us
was satisfied by the loyal payment of the
S., 500 900, which was due in November 1878,
the uttcrances of Lord Salisbury in regard to
the question at issue were ID the highest degree
concilatory-not to say evasive. The notes of
Mr.. Evarts were perfectly clear and distinct.
He asserted our evident rights with equal
energy and courtesy, and did not let the slight
est doubt appear either Of the justice of our
claims or of our confidence that the British
Government would do what was required in the
premises. He did not for an instant admit that
provincial or local legislation could limit or
diminish the rights which we had acquired by
treaty with the British Empire. Up to the
period we have mentioned, there was no direct
issue made by Lord Salisbury. On the con-
trary, he expressly admitted, what was in
"deed self-evident, that British sovereignty,
as regards these matters, is limited i'll its scope
Gby the engagements of the Treaty of Wash
ineton, which cannot be modified or affected
"by any municipal legislation" And i'll an
other place he said "lf law has been mad
"vcrtently passed which is in any degree or
"respect at variance with rights conferred on q
| foreign power by treaty, the correction of the
| mistake as committed, at the earliest period
"after its existence shall have been ascertalncd
and recognized, is q matter of international
| GObhgatiOn." But after the enormous sum
which the Commission of Arbitration obliged
lis TO pay in execution Of the treaty WAS safely
transferred to England, the British Foreign Office
lapsed for some months into profound silence,
| from which the most persistent efforts on the
part of our Government were Intellectual to
rouse 1t. When the answer came, 1t was clear
enough. Lord Salisbury's dispatch of the 9th
of April, written in tie last days of the DisraeI
Government fatty refuses to consider our
claim for redress on the ground of these same
local and provincial statutes, which lie asserts
our fishermen had violated.
It would certainly seem that Lord Salisbury
had signed this note without even reading the
treaty and the British case as presented at Hall
fax. The concession made to our fishermen in
the treaty was to take fish of every kind ex-
sept shell fish on the sea coasts and shores
and in the bays, harbors and creeks Of the
"provinces, etc, without being restricted to any
distance from the Shore" A further conces-
sion is made Of the privilege to use the land for
drying their nets and curing their fish. AS Mr..
Evarts clearly shDws, this concession does not
limit or define the former one. There is q pro-
viso of the treaty that our fishermen, in using
their right on shore, shall "nOt interfere with
athe rights of private property, or with British
fishermen in the peaceabe use of any part Of
q the said coasts in their occupancy for the same
Gpurpose." The resulting dilemma cannot be
better stated than in the language of the Secre-
tary u If this ploviso does not include the use
Gof the strand in taking fish, it does not qualify
the fishing concession. If it does include
Gthat use of the strand, then it CONSTITUTES such
@use as within the fishing concession, and quail
Giies 1t by the observance of private property
ION shore and nOn-interference with British