1420 NORTH ATLANTIC COAST FISHERIES ARBITRATION. 



made to him that he should desist from fishing on Sunday, in viola- 

 tion of the law of the colony, and of the local custom, and who 

 threatened the Newfoundland fishermen with a revolver, as detailed 

 in paragraphs five and six of Captain Sulivan's report." 



That Sunday law was subsequent to the date of the treaty. It is 

 dated in 1876, and Lord Salisbury justified the interference with the 

 American fishermen on the ground, amongst others, that they had 

 committed a breach of a law which was passed subsequent to the date 

 of the treaty. 



Shortly after the close of that correspondence and during the cur- 

 rency of the treaty of 1871, the State of Maine showed very clearly 

 what its view was as to its powers of legislation, notwithstanding the 

 treaty of 1871, by passing a statute which may be found in the Brit- 

 ish Counter-Case Appendix, at p. 196. The State of Maine acted 

 upon Lord Salisbury's views. The statute was passed in 1883 and 

 amended in 1885. Section 17: 



" ' The taking of mackerel, herring, shad, porgies or menhaden, and 

 the fishing therefor by the use of purse and drag seines is pro- 

 hibited in all small bays, inlets, harbours or rivers, where any 

 858 entrance to the same, or any part thereof, from land to land, 

 is not more than three nautical miles in width ' under a 

 penalty ' 



and so on. 



SIR CHARLES FITZPATRICK : What is your point as to that ? 



MR. EWART : That the State of Maine acted upon the view of Lord 

 Salisbury that, notwithstanding the treaty of 1871, which was then 

 in force, they had the right to legislate and did legislate. 



SIR CHARLES FITZPATRICK: under which treaty British subjects 

 had, in American waters, the same right that American subjects had 

 in British waters under the treaty of 1818 ? 



MR. EWART: Yes, Sir, and the State of Maine did exactly what 

 Newfoundland did went on and legislated notwithstanding the 

 treaty. 



THE PRESIDENT: The treaty of 1871 lasted until 1885? 



MR. EWART : Yes, Sir. I now wish to refer to a statute which was 

 passed by the United States in 1887, sometimes referred to as the 

 retaliatory statute. Prior to the passage of this statute the Canadian 

 authorities had been preventing United States fishing-vessels from 

 obtaining supplies and exercising what are improperly (as I submit) 

 called commercial privileges, and, after very strong language as to 

 the action of Canada in that respect used in the Senate of the United 

 States, this statute was passed (British Case Appendix, p. 792). It 

 might be well to remember that previous to the passage of this stat- 

 ute the Evarts- Salisbury correspondence had taken place, and that 

 the question had been distinctly raised as to whether British Legis- 



