CORRESPONDENCE 421 



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

 broad doctrine which some portions 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 

 d fortiori to any other Power, and the waters must be dehvered over to anarchy. 

 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 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. 



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 contravention 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 beheves to be contrary to 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 territorial limits of its jurisdiction; but that if 

 a law has inadvertently been passed which is in any degree or respect at variance with 

 rights conferred on a foreign Power by Treaty, the correction of the mistake so com- 

 mitted, at the earliest period after its existence shall have been ascertained and recog- 

 nized, is a matter of international obligation. 



It is not explicitly stated in Mr. Evarts' despatch that he considers 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 under- 

 standing. 



I have, etc. 

 (Signed) Salisbury 



INSTRUCTION, MR. EVARTS TO MR. WELSH, AUGUST 1, 18791 



Department of State, Washington, August i, i87g 

 Sir: You will readily understand that the pressure of current business, especially 

 during the regular and special sessions of Congress, has prevented so immediate 

 attention to the claims of the Fortune Bay fishermen, as definitely laid before me in 

 their proofs completed during the session, as would enable me to give in reply a full 

 consideration to the dispatch of Lord Salisbury of the date of November 7, 1878, in 

 reply to mine to you of 28th September, 1878. 



But other and stronger reasons have also induced me to postpone until now any 

 discussion of the questions, arising out of the occurrences to which those dispatches 

 referred. 



1 Appendix, U. S. Case, p. 661; Appendix, British Case, p. 272. 



