New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1891-02-23
THE BAIRD FISHERY CASE.

ARGUMENTS BEFORE TIE NEWTOUNDLAND
OCRT-CRITICISING SIR W. V. wIITEwAY.
Halifax, y. =. Feb. 22-Tlc fishery case Of Baird
and others against Walker, which has occupied the
attention Of the Newfoundland supreme Court for some
days. was ably argued by sir !. :. Winter and
NJ. Greene for plaintiffs, and Sir William V. Whieway
and Mr.. Kent for defendants. Sir W. V. WAtcway
said c appeared at the instance Of the Queen 20 main
tain Her Majctys position regard, her prcrogav'
right sir j. Winter objected 20 the Interference of
any party not party To the suit. If that party
Her Majesty. II Sir William appeared for de-
fcndant, well and good In reply to Judge PInc~cnt.
Sir W. V. Whitcway said he appeared in support Of
the rights OF the Crown, and necessarily acted for
defendant. lie said il argued that the sovereign
had not unlimited power To enter into treaties except
treaties Of peace The plaintiffs failed 10 classify
properly different treaties treaty made 20 prevent
q, much treaty Of peace as on" TO conclude
war The modus vivCnGi made 10 prevent war; ana
therefore the making Of it within the power Of ia;
Crown. Authorities of great weight had been cited by
plaintiffs, but no Judicial decision had been quoted 10
show that the Queens prerocativc 70 make treaties
was not absolute. To show that II was. he cltcd
several cases The individual who had suffered wrong
should have applied to Parliament, and not to the
court. lie could say that there would bc an inquiry
held a. 20 the sustained by persons on account
of the mOdus vivcndL and where los, vas shOWll
10 be sustained compensation would be given.
Sir j. : Winter. in reply, objected - the con.
s.rlction nut by defendant upon the pleading. lie
denied that the captain Of the Emerald had any au-
thortv over the Newfoundland fisheries. II j, had
any, il was only TO protect British subject, against
foreigners As to the treaty being binding as a ia"
upon British subjects. the authorities cited by dc
fcnGant only establish what not disputed by
plaintiffs. These cases do not COnrOVcrt tile broad
distinction between the sovercigns right 10 make
treaty and her right to bind her subjects TO her
elf ly that treaty. All the cited only vent %
slow that the treaty binding As between the
national parties 10 il.
sir J. = Winter cited from "Whcatoas international
defendant seemed 10 rely was that there could bc
no remedy against the Queen. II for mat very
reason That there remedy against her Officers WHO
executed unlawful command
Tho II Johns ~. F. Herald admin i-tcr~ severe
rehuke t. sir William Whitcwdy for acting for the &c
fence in The faiId-Walkcr II saws that u -lr
William WmtcWay merely a member Oi the bar
il would not only be ju-titdil' on III, part but il would
be his duty, 10 accept the retainer "hch Slr HHd"M
Walker Oiicpd him. But lo j. not merely a baril,cr,
le i, also Premier Of the GOVcuim"l; Of ~" colony,
and in that capacity i, in honor well n IN duty
defend the constitutional rglu- ana privileges
q the people of NevfCundland from all invasion even
when il j. upon the part Of tn" Crown Itself He
holds standing retainer 10 protect the bcrtin~ o the
colony and every Of It's citizens from all invasion
from abroad and vet him accepting ret incr
from the British Government 10 arguc against tn0-e
very position, which. Is Premier Of Ncwf0ludand ne
that hi, retention by the Imperial GoNcrWcn Tor rr
baldwin Walkers action lu obcdcnC" to Imperial
Instructions and his cApensc, in the suit are drirdNcd
Iy the Imperial Treasury. 10 public man ln This
c0nntry ever laid him Il open 70 such grave IcprOdch
and ccnsurc q ~r William WhiirWay h1, doflr bv
Ccptng sir Baldwin Walkers retainer IN this matter