2362 NORTH ATLANTIC COAST FISHERIES ARBITRATION. 



the removal of the obstacle whose existence we have established ; but 

 we took action ourselves when we were alone. This is exactly what 

 happened in the present instance. Our conduct is not in any sense 

 unprecedented or abnormal, but in the future, I believe, like my pred- 

 ecessor, that we should go further. Since the English division re- 

 fuses to remove the obstacle when we demand it, we ought to do so 

 ourselves. It is our right, as I have proved above. [Livre Jaune, 

 1891, Affaires de Terre-Neuve, pp. 292-293.] 



No. 182. M. Barbey, Minister of the Marine, to M. Ribot, Minister 



of Foreign Affairs. 



PARIS, June 25, 1890. 



I have taken note of the letter that Lord Salisbury addressed, under 

 date of the 29th May last, to our Charge d'Affaires at London, and 

 which concerns our right validly to determine, without the interven- 

 tion of the English, the obstruction to the fishing of our nationals 

 and to remove, thereupon, this obstruction especially in the absence 

 of English authority. 



Without here entering into an examination of the questions of fact, 

 upon which I could have several observations to make, I shall ex- 

 amine Lord Salisbury's doctrine. 



This doctrine seems to me unacceptable. We have, in the waters 

 of the French shore, a right (faculte) of partial sovereignty, consist- 

 ing in a right of privileged fishery exclusive of all obstruction. Now 

 I do not conceive such a right as belonging to a nation without the 

 right of maintaining order, of preserving, and of defending it. A 

 nation is not like a private individual, who is obliged to demand 

 justice from the authorities. It preserves its rights itself. If our 

 dominant right of fishing within the waters of Newfoundland can 

 only be exercised according to the sovereign judgment of the English 

 Government, it is to this Government that it belongs and not to us. 



Lord Salisbury asks " whether His Excellency is prepared to admit 

 that in cases of right secured by treaty to British subjects within 

 French territorial. jurisdiction, His Majesty's Government are to be 

 regarded as the sole judges whether such rights are infringed and 

 is entitled to direct British officers to protect them by force against 

 French citizens without any reference to French authorities? To 

 this we may reply, reversing the question, " Would the British Gov- 

 ernment admit in such a case, if the right of its subjects were of 

 a dominant character and exclusive of every obstruction to its exer- 

 cise, that the French Government should be the judge of the obstruc- 

 tion and consequently master of the exercise of the right? " 



We have admitted, in fact, that if an English cruiser were present, 

 it would remove the interruption caused by its nationals and pointed 

 out by us, and that our direct action would only be exercised when 

 our cruisers were alone present. This was the maximum of conces- 

 sion which we could make and it supposes that the English cruiser 

 present, to which we abandon the execution, will not contest our 

 judgment of the fact of interruption and will not attempt to sub- 

 stitute in this matter its judgment for ours. No question would ever 

 have arisen if the matter had rested here, which satisfies at one and 



