QUESTION ONE. 29 



It may be said that a just participation in this common fishery by 

 the two parties entitled thereto, may, in the common interest of pre- 

 serving the fishery and preventing conflicts between the fishermen, 

 require regulation by some competent authority. This may be con- 

 ceded. But should such occasion present itself to the common appre- 

 ciation of the two Governments, it need not be said that such compe- 

 tent authority can only be found in a Joint Convention, that shall 

 receive the approval of Her Majesty's Government and our own. 



LORD SALISBURY, 1878. 



Lord Salisbury replied (7th November, 1878) (App., p. 271) : 



I hardly believe, however, that Mr. Evarts would, in discussion, 

 adhere to the broad doctrine which some portions of his language 

 would appear to convey, that no British authority has a right to pass 

 any kind of laws binding Americans who are fishing in British 

 waters; for if that contention be just, the same disability applies 

 a fortiori to any other Power, and the waters must be delivered over 

 to anarchy. On the other hand, Her Majesty's Government will 

 readily admit what is, indeed, self-evident that British sov- 

 ereignty, as regards those waters, is limited in its scope by the engage- 

 ments of the Treaty of Washington, which cannot be modified or 

 affected by any municipal legislation. I cannot anticipate that with 

 regard to these principles any difference will be found to exist between 

 the views of the two Governments. 



If, however, it be admitted that the Newfoundland Legislature 

 have the right of binding Americans who fish within their waters by 

 any laws which do not contravene existing Treaties, it must further 

 be conceded that the duty of determining the existence of any such 

 contravention must be undertaken by the Governments, and cannot 

 be remitted to the discretion of each individual fisherman. If any 

 American fisherman may violently break a law which he believes to 

 be contrary to treaty, a Newfoundland fisherman may violently 

 maintain it if he believes it to be in accordance with treaty. As the 

 points in issue are frequently subtle, and require considerable legal 

 knowledge, nothing but confusion and disorder could result 

 33 from such a mode of deciding the interpretation of the treaty. 

 ******* 



" Her Majesty's Government prefer the view that the law enacted 

 by the legislature of the country, whatever it may be, ought to be 

 obeyed by natives and foreigners alike who are sojourning within 

 the territorial limits of its jurisdiction; but that if a law has inad- 

 vertently been passed which is in any degree or respect at variance 

 with rights conferred on a foreign Power by treaty, the correction 

 of the mistake so committed, at the earliest period after its existence 

 shall have been ascertained and recognized, is a matter of interna- 

 tional obligation." 



MR. EVARTS, 1879. 



Mr. Evarts (1st August, 1879) agreed with this view (App., p. 



273) : 



Removing, as this explicit language does, the only serious difficulty 

 which threatened to embarrass this discussion, I am now at liberty 



