ABGUMENT OF JOHN S. EWART. 1419 



consistent with the terms of the treaty, let us discuss it, a clear po- 

 sition it seems to me, to take up, and, as I think, one very easily 

 sustained. 



SIR CHARLES FITZPATRICK : Do you not think that Lord Salisbury's 

 view is very clearly expressed in the second last paragraph of the let- 

 ter of the 7th November, 1878, p. 271, with respect to subsequent 

 legislation ? Does he not there assert the absolute right to legislate 

 subject to remonstrance ? 



MR. EWART: He does, Sir. 



JUDGE GRAY: Which paragraph is that? 



SIR CHARLES FITZPATRICK : The second last paragraph, on p. 271. 



MR. EWART: I will read that paragraph for the purpose of in- 

 corporating it in the record: 



" 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 inadvertently 

 been passed whch is in any degree or respect at variance with rights 

 conferred on a foreign Power by Treaty, the correction of the mis- 

 take so committed, at the earliest period after its existence shall have 

 been ascertained and recognized, is a matter of international obli- 

 gation." 



Then he refers to Mr. Evarts possible contention that the Sunday 

 law was inconsistent and invites consideration of it. 



THE PRESIDENT: Would not the view of Lord Salisbury respect- 

 ing subsequent legislation have been very similar to the view which 

 was entertained by both Governments in framing article 2 of the 

 Agreement ? : 



" Either party may call the attention of the Tribunal to any legisla- 

 tive or executive act of the other party, specified within three months 

 of the exchange of notes enforcing this agreement, and which is 

 claimed to be inconsistent with the true interpretation of the treaty 

 of 1818;" 



MR. EWART: Yes, that is precisely the same. 



THE PRESIDENT: It seems to be almost the same idea. 



MR. EWART: Precisely the same idea; and if one wants further 

 light as to Lord Salisbury's view it is to be found in the letter which 

 preceded the two to which Senator Turner referred. It is to be seen 

 in the United States Case Appendix, at p. 650. I read the last 

 clause : 



" You will perceive that the report in question appears to demon- 

 strate conclusively that the United States fishermen on this occasion 

 had committed three distinct breaches of the law, and that no vio- 

 lence was used by the Newfoundland fishermen except in the case of 

 one vessel whose master refused to comply with the request which was 



