DESPATCHES, REPORTS, CORRESPONDENCE, ETC. 453 



erty, or with British fishermen in the peaceable use of any part of the said 

 coasts in their occupancy for the same purpose (see Article XVIII of the 

 above-named Treaty), they were fishing illegally, interfering with the rights of 

 British fishermen and their peaceable use of that part of the coast then 

 occupied by them, and of which they were actually in possession, their seines 

 and boats, their huts, gardens, and land granted by Government, being situated 

 thereon. 



The facts which enter into the offences imputed under the first, 

 second, and third heads of Captain Sulivan's statement, and such 

 offences thus made out, would seem to be the only warrant for hi? 

 conclusion under his fourth head, that the United States' fishermen 

 have exceeded their Treaty right, and, in their actual prosecution 

 of their fishing, were, when interrupted by the force complained of, 

 interfering with the rights of private property, or with British 

 fishermen in the peaceable use of that part of the coast then being in 

 their occupancy for the same purpose, contrary to the proviso of 

 Article XVIII of the Treaty of Washington. 



It is no part of my present purpose to point out that this alleged 

 infraction of the reserved rights of the local fishermen does not justify 

 the methods of correction or redress used to drive off our fishermen 

 and break up their prosecution of the fishing. This may be reserved 

 also for discussion when both Governments have a fuller knowledge 

 of the actual circumstances of the transaction. 



In transmitting to you a copy of Captain Sulivan's Report, Lord 

 Salisbury says : " You will perceive that the Report in question ap- 

 pears to demonstrate conclusively that the United States' fishermen 

 on this occasion had committed three distinct breaches of the 

 law, &c." 



In this observation of Lord Salisbury this Government cannot fail 

 to see a necessary imputation that Her Majesty's Government con- 

 cedes that in the prosecution of the right of fishing accorded to the 

 United States by Article XVIII of the Treaty, our fishermen are 

 subject to the local regulations which govern the coast population of 

 Newfoundland in their prosecution of their fishing industry, whatever 

 those regulations may be, and whether enacted before or since the 

 Treaty of Washington. 



The three particulars in which our fishermen are supposed 

 270 to be constrained by actual legislation of the province cover 

 in principle every degree of regulation of our fishing industry 

 within the three-mile line which can well be conceived. But they 

 are in themselves so important and so serious a limitation of the 

 right secured by the Treaty as practically to exclude our fishermen 

 from any profitable pursuit of the right, which, I need not add, 

 is equivalent to annulling or cancelling, by the Provincial Govern- 

 ment, of the privilege accorded by the Treaty with the British 

 Government. 



If our fishing fleet is subject to the Sunday laws of Newfoundland, 

 made for the coast population; if it is excluded from the fishing- 

 grounds for half the year, from October to April ; if our " seines and 

 other contrivances " for catching fish are subject to the regulation of 

 the Legislature of Newfoundland, it is not easy to see what firm or 

 valuable measures for the privilege of Article XVIII as conceded to 

 the United States, this Government can promise to its citizens under 

 the guarantee of the Treaty. 



