By the President: Wm. M. Evarts to Massachusetts , Essex, ss: Gloucester , November 18, 1880. Personally appeared the above John Dago and made oath to the truth of the above affidavit. AARON PARSONS, Notary Public, February 4, 1881

No. 301. Mr. Evarts to Mr. Lowell.

Sir: Inclosed herein you will receive the affidavits of the masters of two United States fishing vessels, detailing the acts of violence by which they have been prevented from exercising their rights of fishing in certain Newfoundland waters.

You will observe that in these occurrences no questions arise as to the character or force of local legislation. They exhibit simply and distinctly the determination of the inhabitants of Newfoundland that the fishermen of the United States shall not be permitted to exercise the right of fishing guaranteed them by the treaty of Washington, but shall be compelled to purchase from provincial fishermen the bait which they are clearly entitled to catch.

There is no question here of the size of the meshes of the seines, of the right of fishing at limited periods, of the use of the strand as auxiliary to legitimate fishing. It is simply the denial by force of the exercise of a right which is not disputed, but which is denied because it interferes with the profits of provincial fishermen. There is no pretense of the interference of lawful authority, general or local, but the undisguised use of mob violence to prevent the exercise of an undoubted right secured by treaty to our fishermen.

You will bring these complaints immediately to the attention of Her Britannic Majesty’s Government, and in doing so you will say that the Government of the United States sees with a dissatisfaction to which it is unwilling to give full expression this repeated and continuous invasion of the rights of its citizens; that this rude and persistent opposition to the exercise of rights guaranteed by treaty, and liberally paid for, is practically an abrogation of the very provisions which the treaty was intended to secure, and that the Government of the United States cannot permit the rights and interests of its citizens to be thus subjected to the ill-temper and unlawful violence of an excited mob.

It can make no difference that these particular proceedings did not culminate in acts of personal injury or in the destruction of property. This has only been avoided by the fact that the United States fishermen, in a spirit of forbearance which cannot be too much commended, but which cannot be always anticipated, have yielded to an exhibition of force which they had not the power to resist.

The Government of the United States cannot reject the conviction that the protracted delay of Her Majesty’s Government in the matter of the disturbances at Fortune Bay has strengthened the impression of the provincial fishermen that the course of Her Majesty’s Government had shown no severe condemnation for the violent methods which have been pursued to defeat a competition which was fairly purchased.

It is impossible that this condition of things should be looked upon with indifference by either government. The Government of the United States cannot believe that Her Majesty’s Government would prefer that the Government of the United States should by the exhibition or exercise of force in the provincial waters maintain the obligations of the treaty of Washington, rather than that by the exercise of the power of the British Government our fishermen should be secured in the use of their treaty rights; and yet, unless some prompt remedy be found, the fishermen of the United States must abandon entirely their fishing rights upon the shores of Newfoundland, or they must enforce their rights by methods which will necessarily threaten, first the local peace, and then the amicable relations of the two countries.

You will say further that the Government of the United States earnestly presses these complaints upon the immediate attention of Her Majesty’s Government for that fair and full compensation to which the United States fishermen are entitled for this violent interruption of their lawful industries, and in this connection you will impress upon Her Majesty’s Government that the immediate and direct loss of cheap bait cannot be accepted as the measure of damages in these cases. These repeated infractions of treaty obligations have disorganized the whole fishing industry which the treaty was intended to protect. No vessel can calculate with certainty whether she will be allowed to catch her own bait or forced to purchase it, and so a whole cruise may be rendered profitless by this denial of the right to procure bait. But, independent of this pecuniary damage, Her Majesty’s Government cannot surely deny that this systematic demonstration of violence against citizens of the United States pursuing a lawful industry is in itself cause of serious complaint and fair indemnity.

You will present these views in your own manner to Lord Granville, but if you find it necessary to impress upon Her Majesty’s Government the earnestness of the Government of the United States, you are at liberty to read him this dispatch confidentially, as in the exercise of your own discretion, without express instructions from your government to that effect.

I am, &c.,