30 CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 



to resume the consideration of these differences in the same spirit, 

 and with the sar-e hopes so fully and properly expressed in the con- 

 cluding paragraph of Lord Salisbury's despatch. 



And he deprecated the ascription to him of a position different 

 from that of Lord Salisbury (App., p. 273) : 



There is another passage of Lord Salisbury's despatch to which I 

 should call your attention. Lord Salisbury says, ' I hardly believe, 

 however, that Mr. Evarts would, in discussion, adhere to the broad 

 doctrine which some portion of his language would appear to convey, 

 that no British authority has a right to pass any kind of laws bind- 

 ing Americans who are fishing in British waters; for if that conten- 

 tion be just, the same disability applies, a fortiori, to any other 

 Powers, and the waters must be delivered over to anarchy.' I cer- 

 tainly cannot recall any language of mine, in this correspondence, 

 which is capable of so extraordinary a construction. I have no- 

 where taken any position larger or broader than that which Lord 

 Salisbury says: ' Her Majesty's Government will readily admit what 

 is, indeed, self-evident, that British sovereignty as regards those 

 waters is limited in its scope by the engagements of the Treaty of 

 Washington, which cannot be affected or modified by any municipal 

 legislation.' I have never denied the full authority and jurisdiction 

 either of the Imperial or colonial Governments over their territorial 

 waters, except so far as by Treaty that authority and jurisdiction 

 have been deliberately limited by these Governments themselves. 



Lord Salisbury replied (3rd April, 1880) that Her Majesty's 

 Government (App., p. 280) 



have always admitted the incompetence of the colonial or the Im- 

 perial Legislature to limit by subsequent legislation the ad- 

 34 vantages secured by treaty to the subjects of another Power. 

 If it should be the opinion of the Government of the United 

 States that any Act of the colonial legislature subsequent in date to 

 the Treaty of Washington has trenched upon the rights enjoyed by 

 the citizens of the United States in virtue of that instrument, Her 

 Majesty's Government will consider any communication addressed to 

 them in that view with a cordial and anxious desire to remove all 

 just grounds of complaint." 



MR. EVARTS AND LORD SALISBURY. 



The two statesmen appeared, therefore, to concur in the principle 

 involved, although differing as to its application to the particular 

 facts then under discussion. 



Mr. Evarts (Ante, p. 33) 



never denied the full authority and jurisdiction either of the Im- 

 perial or colonial Governments over their territorial waters, except 

 so far as by treaty that authority and jurisdiction have been deliber- 

 ately limited by these Governments themselves. 



