BRITISH, COLONIAL AND OTHER CORRESPONDENCE, ETC. 519 



decided that it could not override local statutes as intended. With 

 the humiliating circumstances that attended its enforcement I shall 

 not trouble this Conference. I shall content myself by stating that 

 the concessions contained in the modus vivendi were placed there to 

 satisfy the demands of the Government of the United States of 

 America. 



The contentions of the American Government were as follows: 



1. That there should be no interference on any grounds by officers 

 of the Newfoundland Government with American fishermen. 



2. That the Convention of 1818 justifies no interference. 



3. That the fishing laws of the Colony are not binding upon the 

 United States fishermen. 



4. That American fishermen are not obliged to conform to our 

 Revenue and Custom laws. 



Now I would draw attention to the fact that the assertion of the 

 United States Government " that the Convention of 1818 justifies no 

 interference on any grounds with American citizens exercising a right 

 to a fishery in common with His Majesty's subjects," is equivalent to 

 a declaration that American citizens can do as they please and violate 

 our fishing and other laws with impunity. 



In answer to that position, I would refer to the opinion of the Law 

 Officers of the Crown, Messrs. W. Atherton and Roundell Palmer, 

 who, on the 6th January, 18C3, declared as follows : 



" That, in our opinion, inhabitants of the United States, fishing 

 within waters in the territorial jurisdiction of the Legislature of 

 Newfoundland, are bound to obey, and are legally punishable for dis- 

 regarding, the laws and regulations of the fisheries enacted by or 

 under the authority on the provincial Legislature. The plain object 

 of the Treaties above referred to was to put the inhabitants of the 

 United States as regards the ' liberty to take fish ' within the parts 

 described of the British Dominions on the same footing as ' subjects 

 of His Britannic Majesty ' ' in common with whom ' under the terms 

 of the Treaty, such liberty was to be enjoyed. The enactments subse- 

 quently passed would not confirm the Treaties and provide for the 

 suspension during the operations of those Treaties of such laws, &c., 

 as were or would be inconsistent with the terms and spirit of the 

 Treaty, which ' terms and spirit ' are, it appears to us, in no respect 

 violated by the regulations bona fide made by the Government for the 

 conduct of the fishery and applicable to British subjects so employed/' 



My contention is that the Colony (subject to the King) is the Sov- 

 ereign Power, and that the Sovereign Power has the right to enact 

 bona fide legislation for the preservation of its fisheries, and also all 

 legislation inherent in its Sovereignty, such as Customs and Munic- 

 ipal Laws, and that subjects of a foreign Power that have Treaty 

 rights in the territorial waters subject to Sovereignty are liable to 

 be governed by our fishing laws, when they are applied to British 

 subjects and are admittedly made for the preservation of the fisheries. 



I would also refer to the opinion of an American jurist, Hall, 

 which occurs in a passage on International Law. He says, in com- 

 menting on the Newfoundland fisheries question : 



" It was argued by the United States that the fishery rights con- 

 ceded by the Treaty were absolute, and were to be exercised w r holly 

 free from the regulations or statutes of Newfoundland, and from any 

 other regulations of fishing now in force, or that may be enacted by 



