1416 NORTH ATLANTIC COAST PISHEBIES ARBITRATION. 



gards those waters, is limited in its scope by the engagements of the 

 Treaty of Washington, which cannot be modified or affected by any 

 municipal legislation." 



a statement, Sirs, with which His Majesty's Government now 

 agrees. There is no doubt that, whatever the treaty says, it cannot 

 be modified by anybody afterwards. The question is, what the treaty 

 says, and Lord Salisbury's view of what the treaty says appears from 

 what precedes that sentence. 



May I read from the commencement of the paragraph preceding 

 the paragraph in which the sentence I have read appears : 



"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 letter 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 

 ito anarchy." 



That is a very clear indication of what Lord Salisbury thought. 

 The last clause of the letter is strongly confirmatory of the interpre- 

 tation which I seek to place upon what I have read, because Lord 

 Salisbury there says: 



" It is not explicitly stated in Mr. Evart's despatch that he con- 

 siders any recent Acts "- 



The only " recent " Act was the Sunday Act of 1876 



" of the Colonial Legislature to be inconsistent with the rights ac- 

 quired by the United States under the Treaty of Washington." 



That is not alleged 



" But if that is the case, Her Majesty's Government will, in a friendly 

 spirit, consider any representations he may think it right to make 

 upon the subject, with the hope of coming to a satisfactory under- 

 standing." 



Very clearly, in Lord Salisbury's view, subsequent legislation might 

 be good or bad, according to its character. If Mr. Evarts thinks 



