THE AMERICAN FISHERIES QUESTION.

Evening Star, Issue 7410, 4 January 1888, Page 1

THE AMERICAN FISHERIES QUESTION.

There exists, we are inclined to think, a very general bewilderment as to what are the points in dispute between the United States and Canada m respect to the fisheries. That grave complications have evolved is well known, as well •« the reference to an international Commission, in which England is represented by Mr Joseph Chamberlain. The case first assumed a «erie ua aspect bo long ago as June, 1886, when tbe American Minister in London was " instructed to inform " the Foreign Secretary " that the " United States will hold Her Majesty's "Government responsible for all losses " which may be sustained by American " citizens in the dispossession of their "property, growing out of the search,

"seizure, detention, or sale of their "vessels lawfully within the territorial " waters of British North America." A Blue Book presented to Parliament and a series of letters from an American correspon- - dent of 'The Times' give the complete account of the circumstances, so far as they are patent, which consummated in the diplomatic communication quoted above. The northern coasts of America are prolific in fish, and the fishing industry is consequently a matter of high importance to the inhabitants. Vast quantities of cod and mackerel are taken every year, and consumed or e-ported by Canadians and Americans. But the most profitable fishing grounds are the most northern, which lie off the Canadian shores; and the American fishermen are naturally anxious to get their full share of the advantages to be obtained from them. So far as the deep-sea fishing is concerned, there is, of course, no difficulty. The open sea with all that it contains is the property of the whole world. Canadians and Americans alike can fish in it whenever they E lease. But a margin of sea three miles road is regarded by international law as part of the territory of the State whose shore it* washes. Within this margin foreign vessels cannot fish without special permission. On this point there is no dispute now. Questions have arisen in bygone times in regard to these North American fisheries, but they were finally settled by a Treaty in 1818, which specially defined the rights of the contending parties. By this the United States are allowed to exercise the same rights of fishing as the subjects of the Queen in certain specified waters round the island of Newfoundland and off the coast of Labrador; but the United States renounce for ever "any right before enjoyed or claimed" to take, dry, or cure fish within three " marine miles " of any part of the coast of Canada. To this, moreover, a condition is added that American fishermen shall be at liberty to enter harbors anywhere on this coast "for the purpose of shelter and "of repairing damages therein, of pur- " chasing wood, of obtaining water,._fnd-£o»- " no other P"«T~ oc " ,ir,ra; '«veT:" "It is on the restriction contained in this latter clause that difficulties have arisen. American fishermen are not particular about observing the three-mile Hmit. Their lawyers have, indeed, set up a fantastic claim that this

limit only affects an anchor or loaded line that touches the bottom, since, as one of their witnesses amusingly puts it, "free- " swimming fish are worth nothing—"until they are caught." But they would hardly attempt seriously to justify encroachments on grounds such as these. What they complain of is their exclusion from Canadian ports for purposes of refitting their fishing gear, of procuring bait, disposing of their catch, laying in fresh stores and provisions, and otherwise getting ready for a new start for the neighboring deep-sea fishing waters. To be obliged to return to the New England harbors for these purposes implies a loss of several days which might be profitably employed in catching fish. This inconvenience is made more acute by the remarkable fact that there has latterly been a great falling off in the supply of fish in the United States waters, while the Canadian waters are as plentiful in their yield as ever. Some say this is due to the reckless fishing of the Americans, who regard no close time, and frighten the shoals by the use of enormous nets. The Treaty of 1818, it must be explained, was succeeded by another in 1854, in which the United States obtained fishing rights in " the bays, creeks, and harbors" from which their fishermen had been excluded by the previous treaty. This last agreement, however, came to an end in 1866, upon which the Treaty of 1818 revived, and the American fishermen found themselves, to their great astonishment as well as disgust, excluded from the use of the Canadian ports. Quarrels and seizures much like those which led to the present trouble ensued, and they were only put an end to by the Washington Treaty of 1871, which conceded to Americans the same fishing rights as British subjects, but only on consideration of an annual payment by way of rent of £IOO,OOO, or its equivalent for ten years of a'lump sum of £1,000,000 : for this treaty was only a temporary one for ten years. In 1880, however, the arrangement was extended for five years longer; but when these expired in 1885, the United States refused to renew the arrangement, which accordingly ceased to operate, and left the Treaty of 1818 irace more as the sole basis of naffohal mterconrse on this subject. .The Canadians allowed

the fishingjiason of 1885 to go by without insisting-tr on the rights they had thus acquired; and it was only in 1886, and after da&npaoe to all concerned, that they began 4o enforce them by the seizure of the David J. Adams, which had clandestinely, and under a series of subterfuges which showed that the captain knew quite well that he was engaged in a violation of the law, entered a port of Nova Scotia and bought bait. In the face of the facts-related it seems scarcely possible to maintain that fishing vessels of the United States have a right under the Treaty of 1818 to enter Canadian ports tor any fishing purposes whatever, and in truth the American Minister practically conceded'this in his despatch to the Foreign Secretary above referred to; but he urged that the question was not" what is the technical effect of " words, but what is the construction most " consonant to the dignity, the just interests, " and the friendly relations of the: sovereign "Powers," and he declaimed against, the " harsh, unfriendly, unnecessary, and irritating" construction which had been placed upon them by the Canadian Government. It must be plain, however, to all impartial persons that the express stipulation of a formal document cannot be cancelled by vague generalities of this kind. If more is required by one of the contracting parties, it must be gained by some equivalent concession. That has been the principle on which the subsidiary arrangements ! have been made from time to time, and lon which it is understood the Canadians would be quite willing to rearrange reasonable terms. But they can hardly be expected to give up legitimate advantages for nothing.