THE NEWFOUNDLAND TROUBLE.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XXV, Issue 122, 25 May 1891, Page 2

THE NEWFOUNDLAND TROUBLE.

. WHAT 1^ IB 4LL AjlpUT. .. : ;/ '' The Newfoundland jllffi ulfcy ig thtta summarised by The Titties .'-".The Treaty of Utrecht substantially' gave England the possession- of Newfoundland, till inea obstinately disputed with Frauoe ; "M. unfortunately,, there were 'reserved '. to the latter Power oertniu rights over the b runoh shore,' then of no commercial importauoe whatv.yer, which have sown the seeds of a prolonged internatioa.il conflfofc. »y the laches of our . diplomatists these right* were allowed to survive not only the treaties 1 of the eighteeuth century, bub those w hioh followed the downfall of Napoleon. , The colony of Newfoundland hns thus been crippled throughout the whole of its career by the presence of a foreign Power on a large portion of its ooast*. with' rights not of possession but of oouupauoy for fishing 1 purposes. The Frenoh olnim that from Cape flay, on the west ooasfc of the 'island going northward to Cape St. John on the east ooast, they have an exclusive right of taking and ouring fish. Tho result of their contention is that they mad? this right extend to the praotioai : ; prohlbitWu^of the use of British soil by British, subjeots either for agricultural or mining pur. poses. According to the Frenoh view, the Treaty of Utrecht and those subsequent treaties which confirmed it forbade all fixed settlement of British subjects on the coasts from Cape ttay to Cape St. John, This the Newfoundlanders most vehemently contest. At the same time they argue that the rights of oatoliing and ouring fish on the 1 so-called 'Frenoh shore,' conceded to Franco by tho Treaty of Utrecht, does not and cannot include the privilege of taking lobsters on the ooaat in question, aud setting up " ouuiiing " establishment there. Thi Newfoundland oolouista deny tu.u tbG F.unoli liHVi. ai«y itOA.y rights ol fhhing on tbo •' Frenoh .snore ;" they olaim a oououcrout right for themselves, so long OB they do not interfere with the Frenoh fi°'.i roian, and, though they admit they are prohibited from Besting up permanent fishing estab ishmems on those coasts, they do not aokLowitdgo they are preolnded from engaging in and upending money upon miniug or agriouitural operations.' The consequents of this diplomatio inoapaoity in former days has been that France and England have had a standing cauae of trouble, only prevented from coming to a head by the good sense "of statesmen at Home and of naval officers on. the Newfoundland station. The Newfoundlanders, not unnaturally, have endeavoured to make the position uncomfortable for the French by legislating against the sale of bait, and by setting up the argument that the right of fishing, enforced in tho interests of Granoe by treaty, does not cover the right to take aud •' can ' Jobsters. At the date of the Treaty of Utreoht, and even at the time of the fall of Napoleon, lobsters were commercially insignificant peoauae ."canning 1 was uuknowu. Moreover, the bounty system, recently set up by the Frenoh, had, of oourse; no existenoe at that time. The Newfoundlanders, however, reckoned upon making use of > tho prohibition. of lobsterOiitobmg to convince tho Frenoh that they were not aoting wisely in driving the colon* to the wall. This i« the sum and substance of the oolouial case, and preseuted in the papers that have now. been laidi before Parliament. It will, accordingly, be understood why tn« ooloniats are already angry because tier Majeßty's Government have agreed to go to arbitration on the lobster oatohin* auction." ° *