to resume the consideration of these diferences in the same spirit, and with the same hopes so fly and properly expressed in the concluding paragraph of Lord Sal:Sury's despatch

of a position different

And he deprecated the ascription to h from that of Lord Salisbury (App, p 277

flaws bind

the warns fe if that conten

There is another passage of Lord Salisbury's despatch to which I should call your attention. Lend Så SLIT SI ·I hardly believe, however, that Mr. Evarts wo. `d, SUNSET, Fere to the broad doctrine which some portion of his language #3) pear to convey, that no British authority has a g ing Americans who are fishing tion be just, the same disab qy apples, z TUTUR TO £y other Powers, and the waters must be de avond erve to asumer. I certamly cannot recall any language of mine, in the arrespondence, which is capable of so extræord vara a conSTURTUUL. I have nowhere taken any position larger or SeandG THẤT THỊ Viis Lord Salisbury says: Her Marosqy's Goventaeng W. MOLT Pin1 what 14, indeed, self evidert, that Brush servEVOLTEA is terris those waters is limited in its sove by the engoumens zë the Treaty of Washington, which cannot be a fasad zë mat než 1 LIT muncipal legislation I have never der ved the 217 31 META EDI “Ibrion either of the Imperal or colona, Gizvremments page that teenituetal waters, except så far as by Dawg that anchCCI LIČ "EBÖrton have been deliberarely lim rod by chese Girvenments. TheseveAS,

Lord Salisbury rpboid April 1887 chat Se Majesty's Government (App. p. 980)

He claimed no jurisdiction or share of sovereignty on behalf of the United States. On the other hand, Lord Salisbury admitted as selfevident (Ante, p. 32)

that British sovereignty as regards those waters is limited in its scope by the engagements of the treaty. . . . which cannot be modified or affected by any municipal legislation.

They agreed, too, that if (Ante, p. 32)—

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 judgment of each individual fisherman.

MR. EVARTS.

Both in assertion of principle and in tone, Mr. Evarts' letters display wide divergence from the attitude always theretofore assumed by the United States, and so clearly stated by Mr. Marcy twenty-two years before (1856). Until and during the period covered by Mr. Evarts' letters, British cruisers had enforced, and were enforcing, British laws as against United States fishermen, and were regulating their actions. Some Government had to supply the police power necessary for the purpose. Without demur, for nearly a century the British Government had done it; and the United States had agreed that the British Government was but exercising its right and discharging its duty.

Mr. Evarts, in his letters, avoided reference to the unbroken practice; and Mr. Marcy's circular, he disposed of (in his report to the President, 17th May, 1880) as follows (App., p. 283) :—

In the full copy of this circular, which is appended (No. 5) to the Babson and Foster report, the fishery regulations of the provinces to which it relates are recited, and a reference to these is sufficient to displace any inference that this Government has assented to any curtailment, past or previous, by provincial legislation of the freedom of the inshore fishery as conceded to our fishermen by the terms of the Reciprocity Treaty or the Treaty of Washington. One of these regulations relates to the demarcation of "gurry grounds," and the other to reservation of spawning grounds, during the spawning season, from invasion. "Gurry," or the offal of fish, was supposed to infect the waters, and the regulation was not of the right of taking fish, but of poisoning them. The care of the spawning beds in spawning season, in like manner was a regulation of the breeding of fish, not a regulation of modes of American fishing. Both these regulations met the approval of this Government, and were required by Mr. Marcy to be respected by our fishermen, for this reason, and in

to resume the consideration of these differences in the same spirit, and with the sare hopes so fully and properly expressed in the concluding paragraph of Lord Salisbury's despatch.

And he deprecated the ascription to him of a position different from that of Lord Salisbury (App., p. 273) :-

There is another passage of Lord Salisbury's despatch to which I should call your attention. Lord Salisbury says, '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, à fortiori, to any other Powers, and the waters must be delivered over to anarchy.' I certainly cannot recall any language of mine, in this correspondence, which is capable of so extraordinary a construction. I have nowhere taken any position larger or broader than that which Lord Salisbury says: '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 affected or modified by any municipal legislation.' I have never denied the full authority and jurisdiction either of the Imperial or colonial Governments over their territorial waters, except so far as by Treaty that authority and jurisdiction have been deliberately limited by these Governments themselves.

Lord Salisbury replied (3rd April, 1880) that Her Majesty's Government (App., p. 280)—

have always admitted the incompetence of the colonial or the Imperial Legislature to limit by subsequent legislation the ad34 vantages secured by treaty to the subjects of another Power. If it should be the opinion of the Government of the United States that any Act of the colonial legislature subsequent in date to the Treaty of Washington has trenched upon the rights enjoyed by the citizens of the United States in virtue of that instrument, Her Majesty's Government will consider any communication addressed to them in that view with a cordial and anxious desire to remove all just grounds of complaint."

MR. EVARTS AND LORD SALISBURY.

The two statesmen appeared, therefore, to concur in the principle involved, although differing as to its application to the particular facts then under discussion.

Mr. Evarts (Ante, p. 33)—

never denied the full authority and jurisdiction either of the Imperial or colonial Governments over their territorial waters, except o far as by treaty that authority and jurisdiction have been delibertely limited by these Governments themselves.

Me. Ears I is After, voided reference to the unbroken prac tice: and S. Mame - "rentar, ne snosed of on his report to the is flows (App., p. 283) : -

President, Du ular. 100

In the fallory of tus etreslar, which is

appended (No of to the

Babson and 2 ster report, the fishery recubitions of the provinces to which it plates tre spotted, and a reference to these 1- Sumclent to dispiace 1.7 [furpreethat this Government has assented to curta.lmer.t. past or presions, by provineral legislation of the live dom of the shore fishery as coneeded to our 1-hermen by the Terme of the Reciprocit: Treaty or the Treaty of Washington. One of these regulations relates to the demarcation of "gntry grounds. and the other to reservation of pawning grounds duming the spawning stik son, from invasion. “Gurry," or the offal of fish, was supposed to fish, but of poisoning them. The care of the spawning beds in spaw Inot a regulation of modes of American fishing. Both ing season, in like manner was a regulation of the breedin tions met the approval of this Government, and were

was not of the right of taking

infect the waters, and the regulation w

Mr. Marcy to be respected by

our fishermen, for this

3

to resume the consideration of these differences in the same spirit, and with the same hopes so fully and properly expressed in the concluding paragraph of Lord Salisbury's despatch.

And he deprecated the ascription to him of a position different from that of Lord Salisbury (App., p. 273) :-

There is another passage of Lord Salisbury's despatch to which I should call your attention. Lord Salisbury says, '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, à fortiori, to any other Powers, and the waters must be delivered over to anarchy." I certainly cannot recall any language of mine, in this correspondence, which is capable of so extraordinary a construction. I have nowhere taken any position larger or broader than that which Lord Salisbury says: 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 affected or modified by any municipal legislation.' I have never denied the full authority and jurisdiction either of the Imperial or colonial Governments over their territorial waters, except so far as by Treaty that authority and jurisdiction have been deliberately limited by these Governments themselves.

Lord Salisbury replied (3rd April, 1880) that Her Majesty's Government (App., p. 280)—

34

have always admitted the incompetence of the colonial or the Imperial Legislature to limit by subsequent legislation the advantages secured by treaty to the subjects of another Power. If it should be the opinion of the Government of the United States that any Act of the colonial legislature subsequent in date to the Treaty of Washington has trenched upon the rights enjoyed by the citizens of the United States in virtue of that instrument, Her Majesty's Government will consider any communication addressed to them in that view with a cordial and anxious desire to remove all just grounds of complaint."

MR. EVARTS AND LORD SALISBURY.

The two statesmen appeared, therefore, to concur in the principle involved, although differing as to its application to the particular facts then under discussion.

Mr. Evarts (Ante, p. 33)

never denied the full authority and jurisdiction either of the Imperial or colonial Governments over their territorial waters, except so far as by treaty that authority and jurisdiction have been deliberately limited by these Governments themselves.