1934 NORTH ATLANTIC COAST FISHERIES ARBITRATION. 



appears in the United States Case Appendix at p. 652, from which I 

 read on p. 655: 



"In transmitting to you a copy of Captain Sulivan's report, Lord 

 Salisbury says: 4 \ou will perceive that the report in question appear- 

 to demonstrate conclusively that the United States fishermen on this 



occasion had committed three distinct breaches of the law.' 

 1171 " In this observation of Lord Salisbury, this government can- 

 not fail to see a necessary implication that Her Majesty's Gov- 

 ernment conceives that in the prosecution of the right of fishing ac- 

 corded to the United States by Article XVIII of the treaty our 

 fishermen are subject to the local regulations which govern the coast 

 population of Newfoundland in their prosecution of their fishing 

 industry, whatever those regulations may be, and whether enacted 

 before or since the Treaty of Washington." 



And he said, in the third paragraph below the one which I have 

 read : 



" It would not, under any circumstances, be admissible for one gov- 

 ernment to subject the persons, the property, and the interests of its 

 fishermen to the unregulated regulation of another government upon 

 the suggestion that such authority will not be oppressively or ca- 

 priciously exercised, nor would any government accept as an adequate 

 guaranty of the proper exercise of such authority over its citizens 

 by a foreign government, that, presumptively, regulations would be 

 uniform in their operation upon the subjects of both governments in 

 similar case. If there are to be regulations of a common enjoyment, 

 they must be authenticated by a common or joint authority." 



And he concluded his letter by some paragraphs which I will read 

 from p. 657 : 



" So grave a question, in its bearing upon the obligations of this 

 Government under the treaty makes it necessary that the President 

 should ask from Her Majesty's Government a frank avowal or disa- 

 vowal of the paramount authority of Provincial legislation to regu- 

 late the enjoyment by our people of the inshore fishery, which seems 

 to be intimated, if not asserted, in Lord Salisbury's note. 



" Before the receipt of a reply from Her Majesty's Government, it 

 would be premature to consider what should be the course of this 

 Government should this limitation upon the treaty privileges of the 

 United States be insisted upon by the British Government as their 

 construction of the treaty." 



In response to that plain challenge, Lord Salisbury proceeded to 

 draw the line which, as I conceive, it is to be your function to draw. 

 In his reply of the 7th November, 1878, United States Case Appendix, 

 p. 657, he said, in a paragraph which I shall read from p. 658 : 



"I hardly believe, however, that Mr. Evarts would in discussion 

 adhere to the broad doctrine which some portion of his laniruajrc 

 would appear to convey, that no British authority has a right to pass 

 any kind of laws binding Americans who are fishing in British 

 Avaters: for if that contention be just, the same disability applies a 

 fortiori to any other power, and the waters must be delivered over to 

 anarchy." 



