654 CORRESPONDENCE, ETC. 



treaty. I reserve this matter for a complete examination when the 

 conflicting proofs are in my possession. 



I shall assume, for my present purpose, that the manner of exerting 

 this supposed provincial authority was official, judicial, and unexcep- 

 tional. 



I will state these justifications for the disturbance of our fishing- 

 fleet in Captain Sulivan's own language, that I may not even inad- 

 vertently impute to Lord Salisbury's apparent adoption of them any 

 greater significance than their very language fairly imports. 



Captain Sulivan assigns the following violations of law by our 

 fishermen as the grounds of rightful interference with them on the 

 occasion in question : 



" 1st. That the Americans were using seines for catching herring on 

 the 6th of January, 1878, in direct violation of Title XXVII, chap- 

 ter 102, section 1, of tne consolidated statutes of Newfoundland, viz : 

 ' No person shall haul or take herring by or in a seine or other such 

 contrivance on or near any part of the coast of this colony or of its 

 dependencies, or in any or the bays, harbors, or other places therein, 

 at any time between the 20th day of October and the 25th day of 

 April.' 



" 2d. That the American captains were setting and putting out 

 seines and hauling and taking herring on Sunday, the 6th January, 

 in direct violation of section 4, chapter 7, of the act passed 26th April, 

 1876, entitled 'An act to amend the law relating to the coast fisheries,' 

 viz : ' No person shall, between the hours of twelve o'clock on Satur- 

 day night and twelve o'clock on Sunday night, haul or take any her- 

 ring, caplin, or squid, with net, seines, bunts, or any such contrivance 

 for the purpose of such hauling or taking.' 



" 3d. That they were barring fish in direct violation of the continu- 

 ance of the same act, Title XXVII, chapter 102, section 1, of the 

 consolidated statutes of Newfoundland, ' or at any time use a seine 

 or other contrivance for the catching or taking of herrings, except by 

 way of shooting and forthwith hauling the same.' 



" 4th. That contrary to the terms of the Treaty of Washington, in 

 which it is expressly provided that they do not interfere with the 

 rights of private property or with British fishermen in the peaceable 

 use of any part of the said coasts in their occupancy for the same 

 purpose (see Article XVIII, of the above-named treaty), they were 

 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, gardens, and land granted by government being situated 

 thereon." 



The facts which enter into the offenses imputed under the first, 

 second, and third heads of Captain Sulivan's statement, and such 

 offenses thus made out, would seem to be the only warrant for his 

 conclusion under his fourth head, that the United States fishermen 

 have exceeded their treaty right, and in their actual prosecution of 

 their fishing were, when interrupted by the force complained of, inter- 

 fering with the rights of private property or with British fishermen 

 in the peaceable use of that part ol the coast then being in their 

 occupancy for the same purpose, contrary to the proviso of Article 

 XVIII oJE the Treaty of Washington. 



