658 CORRESPONDENCE, ETC. 



been guilty of breaches of the law. From this he infers an opinion 

 on my part that it is competent for a British authority to pass laws, 

 in suppersession of the treaty, binding American fishermen within the 

 three-mile limit. In pointing out that the American fishermen had 

 broken the law within the territorial limits of Her Majesty's domin- 

 ions, I had no intention of inferentially laying down 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. 



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

 adhere to the broad doctrine which some portion of his language 

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

 pass any kind of laws binding Americans who are fishing in British 

 waters; 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. On the other hand, Her Majesty's Government will 

 readily admit what is, indeed, self-evident that British sover- 

 eignty, as regards those waters, is limited in its scope by the engage- 

 ments of the treaty of Washington, which cannot be modified or 

 affected by any municipal legislation. I cannot anticipate that with 

 regard to these principles any difference will be found to exist be- 

 tween the views of the two governments. 



If, however, it be admitted that the Newfoundland legislature have 

 the right of binding Americans who fish within their waters by any 

 laws which do not contravene existing treaties, it must further be 

 conceded that the duty of determining the existence of any such con- 

 travention must be undertaken by the governments, and" cannot be 

 remitted to the discretion of each individual fisherman. For such a 

 discretion, if exercised on one side, can hardly be refused on the 

 other. If any American fisherman may violently break a law which 

 he believes to be contrary to a treaty, a Newfoundland fisherman may 

 violently maintain it if he believes it to be in accordance with treaty. 

 As the points in issue are frequently subtle, and require considerable 

 legal knowledge, nothing but confusion and disorder could result 

 from such a mode of deciding the interpretation of the treaty. 



Her Majesty's Government prefer the view that the law enacted by 

 the legislature of the country, whatever it may be, ought to be obeyed 

 by natives and foreigners alike who are sojourning within the terri- 

 torial limits of its jurisdiction; but that if a law has been inadver- 

 tently passed which is in any degree or respect at variance with rights 

 conferred on a foreign power by treaty, the correction of a mistake so 

 committed, at the earliest period after its existence shall have been 

 ascertained and recognized, is a matter of international obligation. 



It is not explicitly stated in Mr. Evarts's dispatch that he con- 

 siders any recent acts of the colonial legislature to be inconsistent 

 with the rights acquired by the United States under the treaty of 

 Washington. But if that is the case, Her Majesty's Government will 

 in a friendly spirit consider any representations he may think it right 

 to make upon the subject, with the hope of coming to a satisfactory 

 understanding. 



I have, &c., SALISBURY. 



