78 THE ARGUMENT OF THE UNITED STATES. 



implication that American fishermen were to be subjected to local 

 laws limiting the time and manner of fishing, and in view, appar- 

 ently, of the near approach of the time for the payment of the 

 Halifax award, added: 



In the opinion of this Government, it is essential that we should 

 at once invite the attention of Lord Salisbury to the question of 

 provincial control over the fishermen of the United States in their 

 prosecution of the privilege secured to them by the treaty. So 

 grave a question, in its bearing upon the obligations of this Govern- 

 ment 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. 



Before the receipt of a reply from Her Majesty's Government, it 

 would be premature to consider what should be the course of this 

 Government should this limitation upon the treaty privileges of 

 the United States be insisted upon by the British Government as 

 their construction of the treaty.* 



Lord Salisbury, in reply, wrote on November 7, 1878, to Mr. Welch 

 as follows: 



Apart, however, from the facts in respect to which there appears 

 to be a material divergence between the evidence collected by the 

 United States Government and that collected by the colonial authori- 

 ties, Mr. Evarts takes exception to my letter of the 23d. on the 

 ground of my statement that the United States fishermen concerned 

 have 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 supersession of the treaty, binding American fisher- 

 men within the three mile limit. In pointing out that the American 

 fishermen had broken the law within the territorial limits of Her 

 Majesty's dominions, 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 sov- 

 ereignty as regards these 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 

 between the views of the two Governments. 6 



British Case, Appendix, 655, 656, 657. 

 6 U. S. Case, Appendix, 657, 658. 



