APPENDICES TO ORAL AEGUMENTS. 2361 



Ing troubled by competition within the littoral waters of the north- 

 ern and western coasts of Newfoundland, our public power is obliged 

 to assure us the exercise of this right and the suppression of any 

 interference with it; that it cannot depend in this regard upon an- 

 other sovereignty, which would thus itself become the master and the 

 dispenser of a property which does not belong to it ; and that conse- 

 quently for the protection of the liberty of French fishing, it is we, 

 and we alone, who have upon the French shore the right of deter- 

 mination and of execution in case of any violation of our right in 

 this domain. This doctrine is, in my opinion, in strict conformity 

 with the international principle of independence of States. 



It also seems to me we always could maintain and apply it. It is 



Erobable that the English Government in our place would not have 

 esitated to act in this manner. We have been more yielding. In a 

 complex and delicate situation we have felt obliged to adopt com- 

 promising measures, and we have consented to share with English 

 authority a right of police which belongs exclusively to us. 



Taking into consideration the changed conditions, would it not be 

 advisable to put ourselves upon the basis of strict law in the discus- 

 sion which will not fail to present itself in the matter of the removal 

 of the traps by Commandant Reculoux and to contest in a formal 

 manner the right of the British cruisers to take cognisance of the 

 facts which concern exclusively the exercise of our rights of fishing '? 

 On the other hand, consistent with the thesis I have just indicated, 

 I believe that we should continue to remove, as we have always done, 

 in the absence of British cruisers, the nets and English traps which 

 interfere with the fishing industry of our nationals. [Livre Jaune ; 

 1891, Affaires de Terre-Neuve, pp. 284-286.] 



No. 156. M. Barbey, Minister of Marine and Colonies, to M. Sputter, 

 Minister of Foreign Affairs. 



PARIS, December 15, 1889. 



My predecessor always claimed, and I claim as did he, that this 

 invasion upon parts of the French shore which are thus withdrawn 

 from our exploitation constitutes a spoliation of that which is our 

 legitimate and absolute property. 



I claim that we have the right to stop this act of violence, to oppose 



it, to destroy its effects, provided that it affects our sovereignty, 



which we have the incontestable right to defend. We are just as 



much masters of our right to fish, guaranteed by the treaties, 



1424 as we are of our territory. Since the English recognise, at 



least, our right not to be interfered with in the waters of the 



French shore, it belongs to us to pass upon the interference and to 



put an end to it. To maintain the contrary would be to say that we 



are the subjects of the English Government for the preservation of 



property which belongs to us. 



******* 



We have, as I have shown above, the right to ascertain the inter- 

 ference and to put an end to it. Until now, out of deference for the 

 local sovereign, we have demanded from its representative present 

 92909 VOL 1213 9 



