BRITISH, COLONIAL AND OTHER CORRESPONDENCE, ETC. 481 



conveying to American fishermen a certain right of fishing in common 

 with the subjects of His Majesty. It will hardly be disputed that 

 in point of law fundamental rights connected with the said treaty are 

 prior to and take precedence of derivative rights in other words, 

 that rights and sovereignty are superior to special rights granted 

 from them. 



It would be an inversion of this well-recognized principle to sup- 

 pose that His Majesty's Government, in granting to American fisher- 

 men a fishery " in common " with British subjects, conceded any 

 other fishery, much less an exemption from the laws governing the 

 territory in which the privileges were to be exercised. 



Even if the treaty were of doubtful meaning in respect of matters 

 in dispute, the recognized principle of international law would de- 

 mand that the doubt should be resolved in favour of the sovereign 

 power. But it is submitted that Article I of the convention expressly 

 recognizes the sovereign right of Great Britain to make and enforce 

 laws in connection with the fishery that she had granted to the citi- 

 zens of the United States of America, in common with her own 

 subjects. 



It would appear that the position now taken by the United States 

 Government is that the fishery and other laws passed by the legisla- 

 ture of this colony and enforced by its officers are not binding upon 

 American fishermen exercising in the waters of the colony their 

 treaty rights. 



This is the first time, so far as the Committee of Council is aware, 

 that the right of the Newfoundland legislature to legislate for the 

 protection of its fisheries and its revenues, and the validity of such 

 legislation as against the citizens of foreign countries, has been called 

 in question, and they feel sure that His Majesty's Government will 

 not fail to point out that such legislation, unless it is disallowed by 

 His Ma jesty ? becomes part of the law of the Empire. 



While it is the first time in the history of this colony that this 

 position has been set up, we have evidence that it was more than once 

 advanced by the United States Government in relation to Canada. 



In a report by the late Sir John Thompson, Minister of Justice of 

 Canada in 1886, it is stated as follows, namely: 



" The efforts made on the part of the Government of the United 

 States to deny and refute the validity of colonial statutes on this 

 subject (fisheries) have been continued for many years and in every 

 instance have been set at nought by the imperial authorities and by 

 the judicial tribunals." (See Enclosure 3 in despatch of Mr. Bram- 

 ston to Sir Julian Pauncefote, dated 1st December, 1886.) 



The contention of the Government of the United States that the 

 Convention of 1818 justifies no " unreasonable " interference with the 

 exercise by Americans of the fisheries on the treaty coast is so self- 

 evident that it was entirely unnecessary to advance it, unless it has 

 been made to appear to the Government of the United States that the 

 government of this colony has exercised or attempted to exercise 

 " unreasonable " interference. It would be a matter of profound 

 regret to ministers if any officer of the Newfoundland government 

 attempted any " unreasonable " interference with Americans exer- 

 cising their rights of fishery on the treaty coast. 



