CORRESPONDENCE 417 



consideration of the facts in the matter by the two governments in the presence of 

 the same evidence of those facts for their scrutiny and judgment. 



But, a careful attention to Lord Salisbury's note discovers what must be regarded 

 as an expression of his views, at least, of the authority of Provincial legislation and 

 administrative jurisdiction over our fishermen within the three-mile line, and of the 

 restrictive limitations upon their rights in these fishing-groimds imder the Treaty of 

 Washington. Upon any aspect of the evidence, on one side and the other, as quali- 

 fying the violent acts from which our fishing fleet has suffered at the hands of the New- 

 foundland coast fishermen, the views thus intimated seem to this Government wholly 

 inadmissible, and do not permit the least delay, on our part, in frankly stating the 

 grounds of our exception to them. 



The report of Captain Sulivan presents, as a justificatory support of the action 

 of the Newfoundland shore fishermen, in breaking up the operations of our fishing 

 fleet inside the three-mile line, at the times covered by these transactions, the violation 

 of certain municipal legislation of the Newfoundland Government which, it is alleged, 

 our fishermen were in the act of committing when the violent interruption of their 

 industry occurred. I do not stop to point out the serious distinction between the 

 official and judicial execution of any such laws and the orderly enforcement of their 

 penalties after solemn trial of the right, and the rage and predominant force of a 

 volunteer multitude driving off our peaceful occupants of these fishing grounds 

 pursuing their industry under a claim of right secured to them by Treaty. I re- 

 serve 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 unexceptionable. 



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

 Sulivan's own language, that I may not even inadvertently 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: 



" ist. That the Americans were using seines for catching herring on the 6th January, 

 1878, in direct violation of Title XXVII, chapter 102 section i of the 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 of 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 12 o'clock 

 on Saturday night and 12 o'clock on Sunday night, haul or take any herring, caplin, 

 or squid with net seines, bunts, or any such contrivances for the purpose of such hauling 

 or taking.' 



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

 same act — Title XXVII, chapter 102, section i of the consolidated statutes of 

 Newfoimdland — 'or at any time use a seine or other contrivance for the catch- 

 ing or taking of herrings, except by way of shooting and forthwith hauling the 

 same.' 



