FISHERIES DISPUTE.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 21, 4 June 1908, Page 7

FISHERIES DISPUTE.

e NO FINALITY. ARBITRATION NOT SANCTIONED. SENATE'S OMISSION. OT TEl.EGBAttt— fit ESS ASSOCIATION—COPYRIGHT London, Juno 2. The " Morning Post" reports that tlio Amorican Senat-o has adjourned without taking steps to submit to Tlio Hague Tribunal tlio interpretation of the treaty made with Canada in 1818 regarding the fisheries question. A question has now arisen relating to the renowal of the modus vivendi with Newfoundland. The "Post." trusts that Great Britain will not coerce, but consult, tho colony. Under the general arbitration treaty with America tho only thing neccssary is being firm in tho announcement that tho fisheries during 1908 will bo conducted under the treaty of 1818, and the sending of a cruiser to enforce tho British regulations in British waters.

THE HATED VIVENDI. The' modus vivendi has been strenuously resisted by Newfoundland, whose Premier (Sir Robert Bond) has used most, extremo language concerning it. Tho proposal to send tlio dispute to the permanent court of arbitration at The Hague was hailed as a way out of the deadlock; and if that way has—through oversight or otherwise—been closed for the present, and if renewal of the modus vivendi ill its present form is tho consequence, Newfoundland is hardly likely to be more pleased than before. The cabled references to the new An-glo-American arbitration convention, as a possible means of a\oiding the effect of tho United States Senate's omission, are obsenro. Briefly, tho matter in disputo is as follows:— By tho treaty of 1818 between Great Britain and the United States, the privilege of fishing off a portion of tho coasts of Newfoundland, "in common" with ■ British subjects, was granted to "inhabitants" of tho United States. Tho construction placed upon this treaty by his Majesty's Government has been disputed, at the instance of the Gloucester Fishery, Trust, by the Amorican State Depart ment, and, as a result, a modus vivendi was concluded between tho British and American Governments without the consent of the Newfoundland Government,. which gaxa. to American fishermen rights not conceded under the treaty of 1818. In oTdor to do this, his Majesty's Government had to suspend certain enactments of-tho Newfoundland Legislature 'and to override others. This action by tho Imperial authorities was pronounced by tho Supremo Court of Newfoundland to be ultra vires; in other words, the. highest court of the land upholds tho position taken in the matter by tho Newfoundland Government, which, as an introgal, though small; part of the British Empire, insists upon the right to executo laws which have received the assent of tho Imperial Government. "The method that the Newfoundland Govornmont havo strongly urged for the solution of tho difficulties, as publicly stated by Sir Robert Bond moro than once, is (says tho " Standard") the enforcement of tho Foreign Fishing Vessels Amendment Act, 1906,. which his Majesty's Government have refused to approve. That Act makes provision for the penalisation of Americans who, by themselves, or through tlioir agents, induce British subjects to violate, the statute law of the Colony by paying them to entor .into their Fervico and perform acts that aro prohibited. Tho enforcement of this Act would also enablo tho Newfoundland authorities to enforce more efficiently tile Bait Act of 1887 against their own fishermen. If such a deterring power wero placed jn tho hands of tho Newfoundland Government, it is maintained that all trouble, or tho possibility of trouble, would bo at an end. Tho action of his Majesty's Government in refusing the consent asked for to the enforcement of the law . of IDOG, in view of tho assurances that havo boon given in the published dispatches of tho Newfoundland Government, and reiterated by the .Prime Minister of that Colony,' lus been most strongly deprecated by a joint resolution of both branches of the Newfoundland Legislature." . • !