ARGUMENT OF MR. ROOT 203 



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

 once invite the attention of Lord Sahsbury 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 obliga- 

 tions of this Government under the treaty, makes it necessary that the Presi- 

 dent 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 Sahsbury'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." 



And it is in answer to that demand that Lord Salisbury immedi- 

 ately responds in his letter of the 7th November, 1878. It is in 

 this answer that, after stating his view that he hardly believes Mr. 

 Evarts would consider that no British authority has any right to 

 pass any kind of laws binding upon Americans, he proceeds to say 

 on p. 658: 



"On the other hand. Her Majesty's Government will readily admit — 

 what is, indeed, self-evident — that British sovereignty, as regards those 

 waters, is limited in its scope by the engagements of the Treaty of Washing- 

 ton, which cannot be modified or affected by any municipal legislation." 



I think the world knows enough of this great statesman, one of 

 the best representatives of the English people who ever took part 

 in international affairs — a great Foreign Secretary, a great Prime 

 Minister — I think the world knows enough of him to know that 

 he would repudiate with indignation the idea that he was in that 

 answer attempting an evasion of the question of Mr. Evarts. The 

 question was: "An avowal or disavowal of the paramount authority 

 of provincial legislation to regulate the enjoyment by our people of 

 the inshore fishery," and the answer was: "That British sover- 

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

 ments of the Treaty of Washington, which caimot be modified or 

 affected by any municipal legislation." 



The answer must be read with the question to which it is an 

 answer. And upon that, the government of Great Britain stands 

 to-day, by the declaration of her counsel, including her Attorney- 

 General. 



