New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1890-11-05
BAIRD VERSUS WALKER.
Asu1r OF VITAL INTEREST TO NEwFoUND-
LAND.

HAS THE BRurIsH GOVERNMENT POWER TO EN-
FORCE THE TREATIES GIVING FISHING
PRIVILEGES TO THE FREScHa
,yRox AN OCCASIONAL CORRESPONDENT OF THE TRIBUNE,
St. Johns. N. f.. Oct. 2S
Next month the important case, Bard versus
Walker, will be heard in the Supreme Court.
The interests Of the colony are deeply involved
In this suit. 1t raises the whole question whetner
or not the British Government have power to
enforce the treaties which confer certain fishing
privileges on the French upon portion Of the
shores Of this island Mr.. James Baird has insti-
tued this suit for the express purpose of testing
this question. Sir Baldwin Walker. commander
Of the Fishery Protection Squadron, while en-
forcing the provisions Of the modus vvendi, took
forcibIe possession Of Mr.. Bairds lobster factory
1t Fischeps River, St. Georges Bay. lie closed
the factory and placed marines in charge OF II.
Whereupon Mr. Baird instituted legal proceedings
against Sir Baldwin, alleging that he had acted
Illegally in seizing his premises and stopping his
business, and claiming $4,000 as damages. The
ground on which the action is taken is that the
modus vivcndi b simply q temporary agreement
between the British and French Governments,
and that there 10 no legal authority for enforcing
its provisions in colony having constitution
and representative government
At first it appeared as il the British Government.
under whose instructions Sir Baldwin had acted,
were not disposed to defend this action In a.
court of law. and would pay the damages Sir
Baldwin asked for time. on the ground that ne
expected instructions regarding compcnsations that
were likely to be. granted by the Imperial au'nori-
ties This looked as If they were disposed 10
pay rather than ask trial. The factory was
y...-> v,,1xv q
on Sir Baldwin. In compliance with his request
for time, thirty days wene granted him. IL was
not however till August 81 that Sir Baldwin
screwed ND his courage to enter defence. Evl-
IDENTIFY there was considerable hesitation on the
part Of the Imperial authorities as TO the course
to be adopted Sir James Ferguson, Under Sccre-
tary for the Colonies was constantly peted with
questions. in the House of Commons. as TO the
whole matter. and he "bluffed' his questoners
as best he could with evasIve replies AT ieneen'
however, they made up their minds to defend the
case, and the plea which Sir Baldwin was IN
structed to put in was in effect. that the act oi
closing Baird's factory was justified under ohe
modus vivendi by the instructions from the
Imperial Government to give it effect and by their
approval Of his conduct
Thus matters stood until the 9TH day of Octo-
ber when Mr.. r. j. Kent, Q. c., counsel Tor OF
Baldwin. appeared before the judges. sitting IN
Chambers, and applied for liberty to amend tne
defence by the addition thereto of the following as
a first paragraph: "That the plaintiff had no
lawful right or title in to the said messuage ana
premises, and the same being fixed settlements were
wronofullv and in contraventon of the treaties
between the Governments of Great Britain ard
France relating to that part of the coast OF New
foupdand where the French enjoy rights OF fish
ing. conferred by the said treaties, and OF tne
Declaration of His Britannia Majesty. which ac-
companies the Definite Treaty OF Versailles OF
1888, between the said Governments, si'ua'eu
and erected within the said part Of the SAID coast
and the defendant being the officer ON the new
foundland station, whose duty it was to fulhi the
PURPOSES of the Definite Treaty and Declaration
aforesaid did, as such officer and to funl the pur-
poses of the said Definite Treaty and Deciaraton
and as an act of State and public poiicy, at of
about the date stated in the statement OF claim III
this action enter into and take possession Of The
said messuage, premises and factory, and OF the
aid gear materials and implements, as in the said
statement of claims is alleged, as he lawfully
might for the cause aforesaid, and which entry
into and taking possession are the grievances CON-
planned of in this action
Such is the amended defence now put forward
by Sir Baldwin as the agent and representative Oh
tho British Government. 1t will be noted that
he does not Withdraw the former plea founoed Oh
the modus vlvendi: but puts the foregoing Piea
first and places the other in the second place. ~
seems most extraordinary ground o. oetor Iio
h. assumrd By the British Government. IL alleges
that this Government was bound TO ENFORCE tlc
Treaty of Versailles Of 1888 and tne D ecAIauol
attached to it, in which His British Maes'y ha
to cause the fixed settlements which snaa De
formed there to be removed baTds iacuoly
was " fixed settlement says SIT bal9wm . ao
l. as officer on the station, ana ooTna " 81 w.
sailles Caused it to be removed. 1t was IN Illegal
establishment" This plea, if Sustained ~ our aI
preme Court, will virtually prohibit an nris Nnt
lobster factories on this part OF the coast NEo o
only so but all fixed settlements" are equany
liable to be removed; and therefore the wno ie
IL 900 people settled on the Frengh snore No
th;s INTERPRETATION of the treaty be sustained, w
ordered m reomye This virtually concedes all
that the French contend for. and gives them an
exclusive right TO the whole t SSss R,t.S Govern
w,ent t6roush Sir Baldwin, have adopted this con
tention' 1t gives them complete territorial pos
session. Sir Baldwin has no right to pounce ,s on
B Bal sSae sae s must Be removed
Il seems infatuated step, In order 70 escat PC
The consequences Of their own actlons' mus 20
sIav into the hands of the French. II Is. more
syer the incorporation Of the treaty in question
witch successive British Governments ana states-
men have all along repudiated Iney n TnS ana
c"otsended for aconou1rent rights" The colony
maintains the same view. and holds that sne
French have no exclusive rights oy tne a,,
The British Government and colonists have long
cantenaed that the fxed settlements to be re-
referred to such ssts len Sana az sh
10y c,..rat;ons Of the French and in proof OF this
tsy poinsd TO o. the fact that clearly
Contemplated the presence OF both brisSn ana
that the mode of fishing previously followed
sshouid not be deviated from by either party, y.
and that the British subjects shall not. N 1ne
absence OF the French damage their stages. NOW
the British Government stultity themselves by
taknr their stand on such Interpretation OF the
treaty comedies Dotn nshery anu erii'oii"i
rights to the French.
What will the judges Of the Supreme Court say
% such defence? What will Newfoundland
iury saw to it Evidently the defence is weak and
watering Moreover. Mr. Baird's counsel will take
the ground that there is no legal authority for the
enforcement either of the modus yiyendi or s IN
has been repealed, so that no law e9sts by which
the Treaty of Versailles can be made to take
effect One of the most eminent British lawyers
hos declared professionally that such Is the case.