The Press. MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 3, 1888.

Press, Volume XLV, Issue 7143, 3 September 1888, Page 4

The Press. MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 3, 1888.

We had pleasure the other day, while expressing our own views on the rejection of the Fisheries Treaty by the Senate of the United States, in giving insertion at the same time to the American view of the question as stated in a short paper with which we were favoured. We cannot say that we were greatly impressed with the ai-gument. The catechismal form in which it was presented has, no doubt, the advantage of enabling the advo-. cate to select his own questions and frame his own answers, and affords, therefore, every reasonable prospect of obtaining a favorable and apparently logical result. We do not propose to meet our correspondent on the same principle, but we shall endeavour as briefly as possible to state the case as the documents and historical facts j appear to us to present it. We need not enlarge upon a fact so well known as the immense value of the Canadian fisheries. What perhaps may not be well remembered is that the American fisheries to the south of the border line have not, like the Canadian, maintained their importance. It would almost appear that they have permanently decreased in value. It lias therefore become of moment to the American fishermen to avail themselves to the utmost of any rights they may have in the Canadian fisheries. These rights, down to 18S5, they clearly possessed. They were secured to them by the Washington Treaty of IS7I, which specifically granted rights to fish in Canadian waters in common witb. c subjects. This right was sacwvea-.. for a term of ten years at a cost to the American Government of £1,000,000 in cash. In 1880 these rights were extended for five years, but at the end of 1885 the Treaty was allowed to expire, and the question came to be to what rights, if any, the American fishermen were entitled in Canadian waters now that there was no longer the Washington Treaty to go upon. Upon this point the English Government have never held any other view than that matters reverted to the Treaty of 1818. The American case has not been so consistently presented. Their papers talk a good deal about international comity, which, perhaps, may have some bearing on the degree of vigor with which the Canadian Dominion has enforced its rights. In one of his earlier despatches, again, Mr. Secretary Bayard contended that it would not be right to go back to the Treaty of 1818, but that the case ought to be decided in conformity with the proclamations of both countries, based upon the Orders in Council of 1849, which, he said, although not actually a treaty, had always been regarded as having | the force of one, and had superseded ' the Treaty of 1818. This view, in- \ ge'nious enough certainly, seems, however, to have been but faintly put forward, and to have dropped out of the discussion. As far as the question of right goes, the case of the American fishermen must now be taken to rest alto- | gether upon the construction to be put upon the Treaty of 1818. It is therefore necessary to reproduce its terms. By the word3 of the Treaty the "inhabitants of the United States " shall have for ever in common with "the subjects of her Britannic " Majesty " rights of fishing in certain defined waters, which may be roughly described as surrounding the coasts of Newfoundland, but which are agreed upon all hands not to include any of ■the localities now in dispute. And then the Treaty goes on to say that " the United States renounce for ever '• any liberty heretofore enjoyed or " claimed by the inhabitants thereof " to take, dry, or cure fish ou or within " three marine miles of any of the " coasts, bays, creeks, or harbors of her " Britannic Majesty's dominions in " North America not included in the " above-mentioned limits." This would seem pretty clear, but it is made, if possible, still more so by the proviso which followed, viz., that Ame- ' rican fishermen shall be admitted to enter the bays, &c., " for the purpose of shelter aud repairing damages there- :-. r\t Tvn-nViacinor _rr_vl And rvf rvt_-.njri>

ing water, and for no other purpose! whatever." Even this is not all. In j view of the actual infringement of the ( Treaty lately complained of by the i Canadian Government, it must be borne in mind that while the Treaty was ' under discussion several amendments J were proposed in this proviso by the • American delegates. One of these amendments proposed to add the words ' " and bait" after the words " purcnas- " ing wood." This amendment was rejected, thus placing it beyond the j possibility of contention that American fishermen were not to be allowed to enter the Canadian waters for the purpose of procuring bait. The David J. Adams and, we think, also the Elk. Doughty, seized in 1860 by the Canadian Government, were clearly proved to have been purchasing bait in Canadian waters just before their seizureOne other question there undoubtedly is. The text of the treaty, as we have just seen, speaks of "three marine miles from any of the coasts, bays/ <kc, as the distance within which the American fishermen may not come. Upon the nieauiug of this expression there has been a difference of opinion. The Dominion, supported in this by the British Government, have always"held that the three miles must be counted from and to the headlands. The American Government contends that it means three miles from shore at any point. The importance of the distinction thus raised can be illustrated by an example. The Bay of Fundy, for instance, between Nova Scotia aud New Brunswick, the whole of which teams with fish, belongs, by the Canadian rule, exclusively to the fishermen of the Dominion. According to the American contention, almost the whole of it belongs equally ,to the fishermen of both countries alike. It may appear hard to insist to the extreme point of seizure and confiscation upon a right depending upon a disputed point of law. But, on the other hand, it is to be observed that in the case of the Behring Straits fishery, which belongs to the United States, that Government appears to be insisting on the construction which in the case of the Canadian fisheries they are denying. It is held by their Courts that their jurisdiction extends to the extreme limit of the Aleutian Islands lying to the south of the Straits, and our vessels are condemned, and our crews imprisoned, for fishing within that limit certainly, but far outside of the three-mile radius as measured by them in the case of the Canadian fisheries. Thus, we take it, stands the question of mere right. Its assertion on both sides created an angry feeling! which lasted all through 1886. In the spring of 1887 ncgociations were entered into, and in October of that year Mr. Chamberlain was appointed British Commissioner for the purpose of endeavoring to settle the matter amicably in concert with the Canadian and American representatives. He arrived in America on the 17th of November, and by the 17th of February of the present year the treaty was signed. This treaty has been represented by the American Secretary as giving " prac- " tically what they contended for. It " secures 99 per cent, of the Canadian " fishing water." Mr. Chamberlain, on the other hand, has always represented that he did not go into the Conference for the purpose of securing a victory, or upholding the extreme rights of the Dominion. He went there, he says, as to a discussion between friends, in which there was to be a give-and-take on both sides. It is a treaty thus described by the respective parties to it which the Senate of the United States has, in the exercise of its undoubted legal rights, thought fit to reject, aud the rejection of which has been followed by the startling message of President Cleveland. Putting aside British interests in the matter, we think we may say that the course taken by the Senate under the circumstances we have stated is matter for sincere regret. Later telegrams inform us that there is now a disposition tore-consider the matter. We trust that a result may be arrived more consistent with the mutual respect which both the parties to the dispute undoubtedly feel for each other, and, let us add, better expressing the dignity of an Assembly folding the august traditions of the Senate of the United States.