1418 NORTH ATLANTIC COAST FISHERIES ARBITRATION. 



and laws passed subsequently to the date of the treaty, what is the 

 extent of the discrimination which he makes? 



MR. EWAET: It is this, Sir; Lord Salisbury, I think, was putting 

 the British position with respect to prior legislation higher than his 

 successors, and higher than the British Government now care to put 

 it. Lord Salisbury's view was that, as to legislation prior to the 

 treaty, there would be no question at all. It was not a matter for 

 debate, whether such regulations were reasonable or unreasonable. 

 By the express terms of the treaty, by virtue of the words " in com- 

 mon," Lord Salisbury said that the United States took the privilege 

 subject to the laws which existed at that time. 



JUDGE GRAY: That is, that they were allowed to participate in a 

 regulated fishery, but he seems to make a distinction between partici- 

 pation in an already regulated fishery and a fishery to be regulated. 



MR. EWART: No, Sir, with submission; the distinction which he 

 makes is between laws which had existed prior to the treaty and laws 

 passed afterwards. 



JUDGE GRAY: Exactly. 



MR. EWART: As to those which existed prior, he says that the 

 United States fishermen are bound by them, no matter what their 

 character is; that the express words of the treaty are sufficient to 

 bind them. 



SIR CHARLES FITZPATRICK : Those laws prior to the treaty must be 

 read into the treaty and be considered as part of the treaty ? 



MR. EWART: That was Lord Salisbury's view. As to subsequent 

 laws he said, both in his first and second letters, if Mr. Evarts sug- 

 gests that the subsequent laws are inconsistent with the treaty, we 

 shall be glad to discuss them. Now, there was no purpose in saying 

 that, if Lord Salisbury was admitting that no subsequent laws of any 

 kind could be passed. He therefore makes a distinction, with refer- 

 ence to discussion, between prior and subsequent laws. As to prior 

 laws, we cannot discuss them ; they are read into the treaty ; they are 

 there by virtue of the treaty : while subsequent ones may be good or 

 may not be good. 



The Tribunal will see that Lord Salisbury is challenging 



857 Mr. Evarts' statement that Great Britain cannot regulate the 



fisheries. If that be so, Lord Salisbury says the fisheries are 



delivered over to anarchy, and he finishes both letters with the same 



sentence inviting discussion as to subsequent laws. 



What were the subsequent laws? There was only one the Sunday 

 law of 1876 and Lord Salisbury, therefore, if we apply his general 

 language to the only statute to which he could have been referring, 

 was speaking of the Sunday law of 1876; and what he says, in ref- 

 erence to it, is that if Mr. Evarts thinks that the Sunday law is in- 



