PERIOD FEOM 1871 TO 1005. 709 



T also pointed out to him that the Colonies of Newfoundland and 

 Prince Edward Island had allowed American fishermen the privilege 

 of fishing in their waters very shortly after the conclusion of the 

 Treaty of Washington, although the Act of Congress relieving fish 

 and fish-oil, the produce of Prince Edward Island, from import 

 duties in the United States, was not passed till the 1st March, 1873, 

 and Newfoundland was not admitted to the same immunity till May, 

 1874, and although United States' citizens had enjoyed the right of 

 fishing in the waters of Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland, 

 their Government had never consented to reimburse the duties which 

 had been paid on the fish and fish-oil imported from those Colonies 

 into the United States during that time. 



Mr. Evarts denied emphatically that he had wished to recommend 

 a measure which could be thought to be unfriendly towards her 

 Majesty's Government; nor did he consider that it was so, or that it 

 could be viewed in that light. He said that he had in September 

 1878 pointed out to Her Majesty's Government that the question 

 was a serious one, and that it was the opinion of the United States' 

 Government that a false construction had been given to the Treaty, 

 to the prejudice of the United States' fishermen. He had maintained 

 from the beginning of the discussion that the right of fishing given 

 by the Treaty was free from all restrictions which might have been 

 imposed upon native fishermen by local laws either anterior or subse- 

 quent to the date of the Treaty. He thought that Her Majesty's 

 Government had not sufficiently considered the gravity of the case, 

 had paid but little attention to it, and had unnecessarily delayed re- 

 plying to the representations of the United States' Government. He 

 asserted that until the season of 1878 no American fishermen had 

 visited the coasts of Newfoundland for the purpose of fishing, and 

 that when they did so, they had met with such a reception that until 

 an answer should be received from Her Majesty's Government they 

 had not ventured to repeat the visit. This answer had now arrived, 

 just as the fishermen were preparing their equipments for this sea- 

 son, and were anxious to know whether they would be allowed to fish 

 on the coasts of Newfoundland. But Lorcl Salisbury in his note of 

 the 3rd ultimo had maintained that in the affair at Fortune Bay the 

 Americans had violated both the local laws and the provisions of the 

 Treaty, and that the native fishermen were therefore justified in 

 attacking them, and preventing them from pursuing their ordinary 

 mode of fishing. It was therefore impossible that, as the natives were 

 thus encouraged to resist the rights of the Americans, the latter could 

 again expose themselves to such losses as they had suffered in Fortune 

 Bay. 



It would have been very different, Mr. Evarts argued, if the au- 

 thorities had taken the matter in hand, and if the question had been 

 settled by a Court of Justice, but that it could not be that American 

 fishermen should be exposed to the violence of a mob, and he expressed 

 his surprise that Her Majesty's Government should have justified the 

 means which were used for preventing Americans from enjoying their 

 rights under the Treaty. 



Under these circumstances, as it appeared that Her Majesty's Gov- 

 ernment had finally determined to interpret the Treaty in a manner 

 entirely at variance with the expressed opinion of the United States' 

 Government, and to justify the Newfoundland fishermen in taking 



