Notes: … Liberty of opinion is a good thing, but one feels that the line ought to be drawn at the publication of abject nonsense—of such a letter as, say, Mr. Allen’s in the Standard on Thursday. This gentleman was unhappy because Mr. Pinsent, Assistant Judge of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland, having explained the bearing of the clauses in the Treaty of Utrecht which affect the present fishing dispute with France, went on to say that even if the people of Newfoundland sought annexation to the United States, the American people would not be in the least likely to undertake the “dirty work of repudiation.” Mr. Allen, in a fine state of excitement, rushes into print, abuses Mr. Pinsent, and rewinds the world that the United States repudiated her late Fishery Treaty at six months’ notice, and that France is about to do the same with her treaties of Commerce. Some one ought to have explained to this gentleman privately that in each of these cases the treaty was binding for a certain number of years, at the expiration of which it was open to either of the contracting powers to repudiate it. It is a pity that a tired or sleepy editor has allowed Mr. Allen to make such an exposure of himself, and the more so as he may even lead others, such as Lord Wolseley’s young men, to infer that Great Britain is entitled to repudiate the fishery clauses of the Treaty of Utrecht— because other powers have given notice to end treaties which were terminable by notice.
Transcribed in whole or part from scanned originals: Presented with or without modified text and punctuation. For absolute accuracy refer to the original newspapers. Source: The British Newspaper Archive.
Referenced
GRO0747 Hennock: Robert John Pinsent: 1834 – 1893