164 CASE OF THE UNITED STATES. 



The three breaches of the law thus reported by Captain Suhvan 

 and assumed by Lord Sahsbury as conclusively established, were: 1. 

 The use of seines and the use of them also at a time prohibited by a 

 colonial statute. 2. Fishing upon a day — Sunday — forbidden by the 

 same local law; and 3. Barring fish in violation of the same local leg- 

 islation. In addition Captain Sulivan reported that the United 

 States fishermen were, contrary to the terms of the treaty of Wash- 

 ington— 



"Fishing illegally; interfering with the rights of British fishermen 

 and their peaceable use of that part of the coast then occupied by 

 them and of which they were actually in possession — their seines and 

 boats, their huts and gardens and land granted by government being 

 situated thereon." 



Yours, containing this dispatch and the accompanying report, was 

 received on 4th September, 1878, and on the 28th of the same month 

 you were instructed that it was impossible for this government duly 

 to appreciate the value of Captain Sulivan's report, until it was per- 

 mitted to see the testimony upon which the conclusions of that report 

 professed to rest. And you were further directed to say that, putting 

 aside for after examination the variations of fact, it seemed to this 

 government that the assumption of the report was, that the United 

 States fishermen were fishing illegally, because their fishing was being 

 conducted at a time and by methods forbidden by certain colonial 

 statutes; that the language of Lord Salisbur}^, in communicating the 

 report with his approval, indicated the intention of Her Britannic 

 Majesty's Government to maintain the position, that the treaty privi- 

 leges secured to United States fishermen by the treaty of 1871 were 

 held subject to such limitations as might be imposed upon their ex- 

 ercise by colonial legislation; and "that 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 disavowal of the paramount authority 

 of provincial legislation to regulate the enjoyment by our people of 

 the inshore fishery, which seems to be intimated, if not asserted, in 

 Lord Salisbury's note." 



In reply to this communication, Lord Salisburj^, 7th November, 

 1878, transmitted to you the depositions which accompanied Captain 

 Sulivan's report, and said: 



"In pointing out that the American fishermen had broken the law 

 within the territorial hmits of Her Majesty's domains, I had no inten- 

 tion of inferentially laying dov,Ti any principles of international law, 

 and no advantage would, I think, be gained by doing so to a greater 

 extent than the facts in question absolutely require. * * * jjgj. 

 Majesty's Government will readily admit — what is, indeed, self- 

 evident — that British sovereignty, as regards those v.aters, is limited 

 in its scope by the engagements of the Treaty of Washington, which 

 can not be modified or affected by any municipal legislation." 



It is •with the greatest pleasure that the L^nited States Goverimient 

 receives this language as "the frank disavowal" which it asked "of 

 the paramount authority of provincial legislation to regulate the 

 enjoyment by our people of the inshore fishery." 



Removing, as this explicit language does, the only serious difficulty 

 which threatened to embarrass this discussion, I am now at liberty to 

 resume the consideration of these dift'erences in the same spirit and 



