456 APPENDIX TO BRITISH CASE. 



of these transactions upon the sworn statements of their own citizens 

 would be at all modified. 



Her Majesty's Government have not had the opportunity of con- 

 sidering the statements in question ; but the depositions which accom- 

 panied Captain Sulivan's Report, and which I now have the honour 

 to forward, appeared to them, in the absence of other testimony, to be 

 conclusive as regards the facts of the case. 



Apart, however, from the facts, in respect to which there appears 

 to be a material divergence between the evidence collected by the 

 United States' Government and that collected by the Colonial au- 

 thorities, Mr. Evarts takes exception to my letters of the 23rd on the 

 ground of my statement that the United States' fishermen concerned 

 have been guilty of breaches of the law. From this he infers an 

 opinion on my part that it is competent for a British authority to 

 pass laws, in supersession of the Treaty, binding American fishermen 

 within the three-mile limit. In pointing out that the American 

 fishermen had broken the law within the territorial limits of Her 

 Majesty's dominions, I had no intention of inferentially laying down 

 any principles of international law ; and no advantage would, I think, 

 be gained by doing so to a greater extent than the facts in question 

 absolutely require. 



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 sover- 

 eignty, 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 be- 

 tween 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. For such 

 a discretion, if exercised on one side can hardly be refused on the 

 other. 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 frequentlv subtle, and require considerable 

 legal knowledge, nothing but confusion and disorder could result 

 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 



